SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM MSc. (Project ... · SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM MSc. (Project Management), BSc. (Building), Dip. (Quantity Survey) Assoc. Prof. Bambang

0

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER

PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL

DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN

MALAYSIA

SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM

MSc. (Project Management), BSc. (Building),

Dip. (Quantity Survey)

Assoc. Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah

Dr. Fiona Lamari

Dr. Johnny Wong

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment

Faculty of Science and Engineering

Queensland University of Technology

May 2013

i

Keywords

Residential Development, Detached Housing, Bungalow, Critical Success

Factors, Development Barriers, Owner Participation, Owner Satisfaction,

Quantitative, Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modelling, Qualitative, Semi-

Structured Interview, Malaysia.

ii

Abstract

The detached housing scheme is a unique and exclusive segment of the

residential property market in Malaysia. Generally, the product is expensive and for

many Malaysians who can afford them, owning a detached house is a once in a

lifetime opportunity. In spite of this, most of the owners failed to fully comprehend

the specific need of this type of housing scheme, increasing the risk of it being a

problematic undertaking. Unlike other types of pre-designed “mass housing”

schemes, the detached housing scheme may be built specifically to cater the needs

and demands of its owner. Therefore, owner participation during critical

development stages is vital to guarantee the success of the development as a whole.

In addition, due to its unique design the house would have to individually comply

with the requirements and regulations of relevant authorities. Failure by the owner to

recognise this will result in delays, penalties, disputes and ultimately cost overruns.

These circumstances highlight the need for a research to guide the owner through

participation during the critical development stages of a detached house. Therefore,

this research aims to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a

successful detached house development in Malaysia.

To achieve the aim, questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews were

employed to collect the detached house owners’ and consultants’ & contractors’

responses through their experiences in developing detached houses in Malaysia.

Stratified and random sampling were utilised to gather information from both parties

to represent Malaysian detached house participants. The questionnaire responses

were analysed through the application of quantitative analysis such as descriptive

analysis, factor analysis and structural equation modelling which were substantiated

through qualitative analysis procedure such as content analysis.

This research had identified that in order to produce a successful outcome

detached house owners are required to participate during critical stages of the

development. In the planning stage, the owner needs to provide proper specific input

to the consultant regarding his/her expectations of the cost for the entire

development, its detailed specification and general idea of the internal and external

design of the detached house and its compound. In the contracting stage, the owner

iii

must make the appropriate choice of selecting the right contractor for the job. This

decision may be taken after recommendations from the consultants or from the

owner’s personal contacts or experiences but it is not recommended for the owner to

select a contractor primarily on the basis of the lowest bid. In the completion stage,

the owner may need to attend a number of important site meetings to ensure that the

progress of the works is according to what had been planned and the completion date

is achievable. By having the owners undertake an active role during critical stages of

the development, not only the quality and delivery of the development improved but

also there is an increase in satisfaction to the owners themselves.

iv

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................iv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xiv

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xvi

Statement of Original Authorship .............................................................................. xx

Dedication ................................................................................................................ xxi

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. xxii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM ....................................................................................... 1

1.2 RESEARCH AIM ................................................................................................ 3

1.3 THESIS OUTLINE .............................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL AND MALAYSIAN DETACHED HOUSING SECTOR 6

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6

2.2 DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 6

2.2.1 Detached Housing Scheme ............................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Success Factors of Detached Housing Development Projects........................................ 12

2.2.3 Barriers in the Successful Development of Detached Housing Projects ........................ 15

2.2.4 Owner Satisfaction in Measuring Development Success ............................................... 18

2.3 CURRENT PRACTICE OF DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA .... 19

2.3.1 Overview of Residential Property Market in Malaysia ................................................... 19

2.3.2 Development Trend of Detached Housing Scheme in Malaysia .................................... 27

2.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 36

v

CHAPTER 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION AND SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS 37

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 37

3.2 THE CONCEPT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION ..................................................... 37

3.2.1 Role of Project Owners in Construction Projects ........................................................... 37

3.2.2 Owner Participation in Housing Development Projects ................................................. 41

3.2.3 Challenges of the Concept of ‘Owner Participation’ ...................................................... 46

3.3 RESEARCH VARIABLES.................................................................................... 47

3.3.1 Development Success Factors ........................................................................................ 48

3.3.2 Development Barriers .................................................................................................... 51

3.3.3 Owner Participation ....................................................................................................... 53

3.3.4 Owner Satisfaction ......................................................................................................... 55

3.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHOD 57

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 57

4.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 57

4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 59

4.4 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................ 62

4.5 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................ 63

4.5.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 63

4.5.2 Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................................................ 77

4.5.3 Ethics and Limitations .................................................................................................... 79

4.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 5: MODEL COMPONENT ANALYSIS 80

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 80

5.2 SAMPLE BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 81

5.2.1 Owner Respondents’ Background .................................................................................. 81

5.2.2 Consultant & Contractor Respondents’ Background ..................................................... 83

5.2.3 Respondents’ Detached House Development Background............................................ 85

5.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES........................................................................ 88

5.3.1 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 89

vi

5.3.2 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................ 90

5.3.3 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 90

5.4 Factor 1: Development Success Factors .......................................................... 91


5.4.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 92

5.5 Factor 2: Development Barriers ..................................................................... 96


5.5.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 97

5.6 Factor 3: Owner Participation ....................................................................... 101

5.6.1 Descriptive Analysis ...................................................................................................... 101

5.6.2 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................. 103

5.7 Factor 4: Owner Satisfaction ......................................................................... 108

5.7.1 Descriptive Analysis ...................................................................................................... 108

5.7.2 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................. 109

5.8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 113

CHAPTER 6: OWNER PARTICIPATION ANALYSIS 114

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 114

6.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING (SEM) ANALYSIS ....... 114

6.3 VALIDITY OF THE ESTIMATED MEASUREMENT MODEL .................................. 115

6.4 COMPONENT OF ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL MODEL ....................................... 118

6.4.1 Development Success Factors ...................................................................................... 118

6.4.2 Development Barriers .................................................................................................. 121

6.4.3 Owner Participation ..................................................................................................... 124

6.4.4 Owner Satisfaction ....................................................................................................... 127

6.5 MERGED STRUCTURAL MODEL ...................................................................... 129

6.6 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 136

CHAPTER 7: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS 138

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 138

7.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 138

7.2.1 Interview Guide ............................................................................................................ 138

7.2.2 Interview Analysis......................................................................................................... 139

vii

7.2.3 Interview Process ......................................................................................................... 141

7.3 PARTICIPANT AND DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND ......................................... 142

7.3.1 Participant 1: Detached House Owner (MMD) ............................................................ 142

7.3.2 Participant 2: Detached House Owner (BK) ................................................................. 143

7.3.3 Participant 3: Detached House Owner (PMS) .............................................................. 144

7.3.4 Participant 4: Detached House Owner (PMH) .............................................................. 144

7.3.5 Participant 5: Consultant & Contractor (NMH) ............................................................ 145

7.3.6 Participant 6: Consultant & Contractor (MEM) ............................................................ 145

7.3.7 Participant 7: Consultant & Contractor (NSL) ............................................................... 146

7.3.8 Participant 8: Consultant & Contractor (AAA) .............................................................. 147

7.4 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS ..................................................... 147

7.5 FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL .......................................................................... 157

7.6 INDICATORS LOADING ANALYSIS .................................................................. 159

7.7 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 162

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION 163

8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 163

8.2 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS OF DETACHED

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA ................................................................... 163

8.2.1 Critical Development Success Factors .......................................................................... 165

8.2.2 Critical Development Barriers ...................................................................................... 166

8.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL DETACHED

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 168

8.4 GUIDELINE FOR SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED HOUSES IN

MALAYSIA ............................................................................................................... 168

8.4.1 Critical Owner Participation Factors ............................................................................. 169

8.4.2 Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors .............................................................................. 170

8.4.3 Guideline for Successful Development of Detached Houses in Malaysia Visual

Representation .......................................................................................................................... 171

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION 176

9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 176

9.2 IMPROVEMENT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION .................................................. 177

9.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS .................................................................... 180

viii

9.3.1 Contributions to Theory and Methods ......................................................................... 181

9.3.2 Practical Contributions ................................................................................................. 183

9.3.3 Research Benefits ......................................................................................................... 184

9.4 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 184

9.4.1 Limitations Related to Research Scope ........................................................................ 184

9.4.2 Limitations Related to Research Design ....................................................................... 185

9.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................. 186

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL 187

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 189

B1. OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE) ........................................ 189

B2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE) ...... 201

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE (Q1, 2, 3 & 15) RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 213

APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 215

D1. SECTION 1: THE SUCCESS FACTORS / BARRIERS OF DETACHED HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 215

D2. SECTION 2: THE INVOLVEMENT OF OWNERS IN THE DETACHED HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 219

D3. SECTION 3: DETACHED HOUSE INFORMATION .................................................... 222

D3A. Ownership of Property ..................................................................................................... 222

D3B. Location of Residence ....................................................................................................... 223

D3C. Size of the Detached House Site Area ............................................................................... 225

D3D. Contract Value of Detached House before Project Commenced ..................................... 226

D3E. Actual Development Cost after Detached House Completion .......................................... 227

D3F. Development Period for Entire Detached House Development ....................................... 229

D3G. Detached House Development Completion ..................................................................... 231

D3F. Time Extension Given for Detached House Development ................................................ 233

D3G. Number of Days Given for Time Extension ....................................................................... 234

D3H. Appointed Parties for Detached House Development in Order ....................................... 236

D3I. Design of Detached House ................................................................................................. 238

D4. SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVEL OF DETACHED HOUSE OWNER ......................... 239

D5. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (OWNERS ONLY) .............................. 241

D5A. Respondent’s Age (Owners Only) ..................................................................................... 241

ix

D5B. Respondent’s Gender (Owners Only) ............................................................................... 243

D5C. Respondent’s Occupation (Owners Only) ......................................................................... 244

D5D. Number of Resident in Detached House (Owners Only) .................................................. 245

D5E. Monthly Household Income (Owners Only) ...................................................................... 246

D5F. Duration of Residence in Detached House (Since 2001) (Owners Only) ........................... 248

D6. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS ONLY)

............................................................................................................................... 250

D6A. Respondents’ Age (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................................................ 250

D6B. Respondents’ Gender (Consultants / Contractors Only)................................................... 252

D6C. Respondents’ Position in Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................ 253

D6D. Main Business of Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) .................................... 254

D6E. Contractor Class for Construction Contractor Respondents (Consultants / Contractors

Only) .......................................................................................................................................... 255

D6F. Duration of the Respondents’ Employment (Consultants / Contractors Only) ................. 256

D6G. Size of the Respondents’ Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................ 257

APPENDIX E: FACTOR ANALYSIS REPORT 259

E1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................. 259

E2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS .............................................................. 262

E3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 265

E4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION ................................................................ 269

APPENDIX F: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM 272

F1. DETACHED HOUSE OWNERS ............................................................................... 272

F2. CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS ......................................................................... 276

APPENDIX G: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE 280

G1. THEME 1: PLANNING STAGE ............................................................................... 280

G2. THEME 2: DESIGN AND CONTRACTUAL STAGE .................................................... 280

G3. THEME 3: CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION STAGE ......................................... 281

APPENDIX H: SEMI STRUCTURE INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES 283

H1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................ 283

H2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS ............................................................. 299

x

H3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 305

H4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION ................................................................ 317

APPENDIX I: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW CODING SUMMARY 326

I1. OWNER PARTICIPANT ......................................................................................... 326

I2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR PARTICIPANT ....................................................... 332

REFERENCES 336

xi

List of Figures

Figure ‎2.1: Standardisation - customisation relationship compared by housing type. Adapted from “A

`mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional housing development in Mexico” by

Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005), Habitat International, 29(2), p. 334. ....................... 8

Figure ‎2.2: The eternal triangle between cost, time and quality. Adapted from “Quest for continuous

quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong,” by Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng,

S. X., & Ho, C. S., (2000), Construction Management & Economics, 18(4), p. 438. .............................. 13

Figure ‎2.3: Project success framework for Mass-Housing Building Projects (MHBPs). Adapted from

“Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries”, by Ahadzie, D. K.,

Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O., (2008), International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 678.

.............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure ‎2.4: Building blocks of project life cycle. Adapted from “Criteria of project success: an

exploratory re-examination,” by Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z., (1999), International Journal of Project

Management, 17(4), p. 245. ................................................................................................................ 15

Figure ‎2.5: The risk management process. Adapted from “Risk assessment practices in The

Netherlands,” by Ale, B. J. M., (2002), Safety Science, 40(1-4), p. 108. ................................................ 16

Figure ‎2.6: Alternative project execution approaches. Adapted from “Which project-execution

approach is best for you?,” by Ireland, T, (2001), IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, 7(6), p. 34. .. 17

Figure ‎2.7: Risks and the development process. Adapted from “Delivering New Homes. Processes,

planners and providers,” by Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N., (2003), (1st. ed.) London, UK:

Routledge, p. 72. .................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure ‎2.8: Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price) for Year 1980

- Q1 2009. Adapted from “Construction Economic Indicator,” by CIDB, (2010), Construction Industry

Development Board Malaysia, p. 1. ..................................................................................................... 21

Figure ‎2.9: “Performance of Different Property Sectors in Malaysia (2001 – 2008),” Adapted from

“NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of

Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 19. .......................................................................................................... 22

Figure ‎2.10: Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 – 2009 (Existing Stock). Adapted

from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,

Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5. ........................................................................... 29

Figure ‎2.11: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009). Adapted from

“Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,


Figure ‎2.12: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009) (Outliers in Figure 2.12

limited to RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,”

xii

by Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.

.............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Figure ‎2.13: Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units Supply in Malaysia (2005 - 2009). Adapted from



Figure ‎2.14: Supply of Detached Houses vs. Size of States in Malaysia (Q2, 2009). Adapted from

“Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia,” by Indayati, S. (2000) and “Quarterly

Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of

Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009) , pp. 3-5. ............................................................................................ 33

Figure ‎2.15: Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (numbers). Adapted from


Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5 ............................................................................ 34

Figure ‎2.16: The Malaysian House Price Index (2000 – 2008). Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,”

by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 1. 35

Figure ‎3.1: Involvement of client (or customers / owners) in project definition and engineering.

Adapted from “Anatomy of decision making in project planning teams” by Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J

Shenhar, A., (1994),. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), p. 177. ............................ 43

Figure ‎3.2: Housing Program Entitlements. Adapted from “Building Back Better: The Large-Scale

Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction,” by Lyons, M. , (2009), World Development,

37(2), p. 388. ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure ‎4.1: Research implementation. ................................................................................................. 61

Figure ‎4.2: The states and federal territories of Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved 2011, from

www.malaysiacentral.com. .................................................................................................................. 72

Figure ‎4.3: The survey run for the door-to-door distribution of detached house owner questionnaire.

Retrieved 2011 from www.maps.google.com.my. ............................................................................... 76

Figure ‎5.1: The percentage of respondents’ house completed between 1990 to 2012. ....................... 86

Figure ‎6.1: A path diagram showing correlational relationship between constructs (CFA /

Measurement Model). ........................................................................................................................ 116

Figure ‎6.2: The structural model of development success factors produced by factor analysis (model

unfit). .................................................................................................................................................. 119

Figure ‎6.3: The structural model of development success factors (model fit). ................................... 120

Figure ‎6.4: The structural model of development barriers produced by factor analysis (model unfit).

............................................................................................................................................................ 122

Figure ‎6.5: The structural model of development barriers (model fit). .............................................. 123

Figure ‎6.6: The structural model of owner participation produced by factor analysis (model unfit). 125

Figure ‎6.7: The structural model of owner participation (model fit). ................................................. 126

Figure ‎6.8: The structural model of owner satisfaction produced by factor analysis (model unfit). .. 127

Figure ‎6.9: The structural model of owner satisfaction (model fit). ................................................... 128

xiii

Figure ‎6.10: The merged structural model (model unfit). .................................................................. 130

Figure ‎6.11: The merged structural model (model fit). ...................................................................... 133

Figure ‎7.1: The indicators that are substituted based on the analysis results of the semi-structured

interviews (coloured red). ................................................................................................................... 155

Figure ‎7.2: The final structural model (model fit). .............................................................................. 157

Figure ‎8.1: The final structural model and its relationship to the research’s objectives (objective 1:

blue, objective 2: green and objective 3: orange). ............................................................................. 164

Figure ‎8.2: The guideline for a successful detached housing development in Malaysia. ................... 172

xiv

List of Tables

Table ‎2.1: Housing stock by type of building and type of tenure in Denmark (as of 1 January 1999). .. 9

Table ‎2.2: Single-Family Detached Housing Trends by Planning Subarea, 2000 – 2040. Loudoun

County, Virginia. ................................................................................................................................... 11

Table ‎2.3 Public and private sector housing targets and achievement, 2001 – 2005. ......................... 25

Table ‎3.1: The levels of standardisation and customisation compared by housing type. .................... 44

Table ‎3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources. ........................ 49

Table ‎3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources. .................................... 51

Table ‎3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources........................................ 53

Table ‎3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources. ......................................... 55

Table ‎4.1: Indicators of Question 1 (Development Success Factors). ................................................... 65

Table ‎4.2: Indicators of Question 2 (Development Barriers). ............................................................... 66

Table ‎4.3: Indicators of Question 3 (Owner Participation). .................................................................. 67

Table ‎4.4: Indicators of Question 15 (Owner Satisfaction). .................................................................. 68

Table ‎4.5: The Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2 2009). .......... 71

Table ‎4.6: The Selected Surveyed States of Peninsular Malaysia. ........................................................ 73

Table ‎4.7: Sampling Method of Questionnaire Distribution for Detached House Owners. .................. 74

Table ‎5.1: The overall questionnaire responses. .................................................................................. 81

Table ‎5.2: CIDB Contractor Grade Classification. ................................................................................. 84

Table ‎5.3: The general design for the majority of the respondents’ house (according to the number of

response). ............................................................................................................................................. 87

Table ‎5.4: Development success factors indicators ranked based on their means and standard

deviations. ............................................................................................................................................ 92

Table ‎5.5: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Success Factors component. ......... 93

Table ‎5.6: The summary of Development Success Factors component. ............................................... 95

Table ‎5.7: Development barriers indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. . 97

Table ‎5.8: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Barriers component. ..................... 98

Table ‎5.9: The summary of Development Barriers component. ......................................................... 100

Table ‎5.10: Owner participation indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. 102

Table ‎5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component. .................... 103

Table ‎5.12: The summary of Owner Participation component. .......................................................... 107

Table ‎5.13: Owner satisfaction indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. .. 109

Table ‎5.14: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Satisfaction component. ...................... 110

Table ‎5.15: The summary of Owner Satisfaction component. ........................................................... 112

Table ‎6.1: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of development

success factors. ................................................................................................................................... 121

xv

Table ‎6.2: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of development

barriers. .............................................................................................................................................. 124

Table ‎6.3: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of owner

participation. ...................................................................................................................................... 126

Table ‎6.4: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of owner

satisfaction. ........................................................................................................................................ 129

Table ‎6.5: The comparison between the merged structural model (unfit) and merged structural model

(fit). ..................................................................................................................................................... 134

Table ‎7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural model. ........... 148

Table ‎7.2: Data extraction from the proposed replacement indicators for the merged structural

model. ................................................................................................................................................ 150

Table ‎7.3: The substitution of indicators based on the analysis results of the semi-structured

interviews. .......................................................................................................................................... 156

Table ‎7.4: The comparison of the merged structural model and the final structural model of this

research. ............................................................................................................................................. 158

xvi

List of Abbreviations

3D – Three dimension

AAA – The initial of the fourth consultant & contractor participant during the semi-

structured interview session for this research

AGFI – Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index

AMOS – A computer software that performs structural equation modelling (SEM) to

build models.

AU$ - Australian Dollar or AUD (Conversion rate on 10/11/2012, AU$1 =

RM3.1812)

BK - The initial of the second owner participant during the semi-structured interview

session for this research

CAD – Computer Aided Design

CF – Certificate of Fitness

CFA - Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI – Comparative Fit Index

CIDB - Construction Development Industry Board, Malaysia

CMIN/DF – Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom

CSF - Critical Success Factors

DAP - Donour Assisted Program

DB – Development Barrier

DED - Department of Economic Development, Loudoun County

DLP – Defect Liability Period

DoSM – Department of Statistics, Malaysia

DSF – Development Success Factor

EFA - Exploratory Factor Analysis

EPC - Engineer, Procure, Construct

xvii

EPU – Economic Planning Unit

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GFI – Goodness-of-Fit Index

GOF - Goodness-of-Fit

KPKT – Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (Ministry of Housing and

Local Government, Malaysia)

LAD – Liquidated and Ascertain Damages

MEM - The initial of the second consultant & contractor participant during the semi-


MHLG- Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia

MI – Modification Indices

ML – Maximum Likelihood

MMD - The initial of the first owner participant during the semi-structured interview


NA - Not Available / Applicable

NAPIC – National Property Information Centre, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia

NMH - The initial of the first consultant & contractor participant during the semi-


NSL - The initial of the third consultant & contractor participant during the semi-


ODP - Owner Driven Program

OP – Owner Participation

OS – Owner Satisfaction

PAM – Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (The Malaysian Architect Association)

PEPS – Association of Valuers, Property Managers, Estate Agents and Property

Consultants in the Private Sector

PKK – Pusat Khidmat Kontraktor (Contractor Services Centre, Ministry of Works,

Malaysia)

xviii

PMH - The initial of the fourth owner participant during the semi-structured

interview session for this research

PMOM – The Prime Minister's Office of Malaysia

PMS - The initial of the third owner participant during the semi-structured interview


PWD –Public Works Department (Malaysia)

Q1 – Quarter One

Q2 – Quarter Two

Q3 – Quarter Three

Q4 – Quarter Four

QS – Quantity Surveyor

QA – Quality Assurance

REDHA – The Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association of Malaysia

RFP - Request for Proposal

RM – Ringgit Malaysia or MYR (Conversion rate on 10/11/2012, RM1 =

AU$0.3144)

RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

RO – Research Objective(s)

RQ – Research Question(s)

SAAL - Serviço Ambulatório de Apoio Local (Local Support Ambulatory Service,

Portugal)

SAR - Stichting Architecten Reserch (Foundation for Architects' Research,

Netherlands)

SEM – Structural Equation Modelling

SOHO - Small Office Home Office

SPNB – Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad (The National Housing Company,

Malaysia)

SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

xix

Std. Dev. – Standard Deviation

TAFREN - Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation, Sri Lanka

TLI – Tucker Lewis Index

UAE - United Arab Emirates

VPSD - Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia

x2

– Chi-square

xx

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 10th

May 2013

xxi

Dedication

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,

Jutaan syukur kepada Allah s.w.t. yang tiada sekutu bagiNya. Atas segala

nikmat dan kurniaNya buat ku selama ini dan terutama bagi penghasilan warkah ini

yang hanya cubaan fakir ini untuk mendapatkan pencerahan ke atas setitis ilmu dari

lautan ilmu yang hanyasanya milikNya.

Buat nenda Allahyarham Syed Taj Muhammad Bin Syed Fadhil Ahmad, telah

ku sempurnakan amanatmu. Buat ayahanda Allahyarham Syed Abdul Karim Bin

Syed Taj Muhammad, telah ku abadikan pengorbananmu. Juga buat adinda

Allahyarhamah Sharifah Fatimah Binti Syed Abdul Karim. Moga roh mereka

termasuk dalam golongan orang-orang yang beriman. Al-Fatihah.

Sesungguhnya solatku, ibadatku, hidupku, matiku adalah untuk Allah s.w.t.

Tuhan sekelian alam. Selawat dan salam buat junjungan Nabi Muhammad s.a.w.

yang dikurniakan kitab mukjizat akhir zaman, serta bagi ahli keluarga Baginda s.a.w.

Wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Penulis,

(SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI BIN SYED ABDUL KARIM)

Rabiul Awal 1434 / May 2013

Note: This dedication section was prepared in indigenous Malay language (or

Bahasa Malaysia) out of respect for my mother tongue. In short, it dedicates this

thesis to my late grandfather, my late father and my late sister.

xxii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my beloved mother,

Norhayati Haron, for her encouragement and moral support. I would also like to

express my deepest indebtedness to my wife, Salawati Murni Mohd. Sohaimi for her

sacrifice and patience and my three daughters, Sharifah Nur Batrisyia, Syarifah Nur

Qaisara and Sharifah Nur Amanina for their sacrifice during the entire duration of

this research journey. Many thanks to my sister, Sharifah Nor Suhaida Syed Abdul

Karim for believing in me and dear brother Syed Ahmad Rashidi Syed Abdul Karim

and wife Azrah Abdul Rahman and other family members for their never ending

support for my family and me.

I would like to express my utmost respect and appreciation to Assoc. Prof.

Bambang Trigunarsyah for his understanding, inspirational ideas and motivation for

me to complete my research. I would also like this opportunity to acknowledge Dr.

Fiona Lamari and Dr. Johnny Wong for their contributions in this research. Special

thanks to Candra Dharmayanti and Mohd. Saifulnizam Suhaimi for their guidance

and feedbacks on my work. Many thanks to The Association of Malaysian Students

Queensland (PPMQ), Brother Mohammad Al-Humaid of Darul Uloom Islamic

Academy of Brisbane, friends and other fellow research colleagues who supported

my family and me as we go through the good and bad times during this endeavour.

A token of gratitude to my sponsors, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia

and Universiti Teknologi MARA for giving me a chance to embark on this life

changing journey.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM

The growing economic prosperity amongst developing countries such as Malaysia had

given more choices to its populace. Given that the country's economy is growing at an

average rate of 7% per annum, the purchasing power of Malaysians are expected to rise with

an anticipated increase in the level of income per capita from RM6,099 (AU$1,918) in 1990

to RM14,788 (AU$4,649) in 2000 and projected to reach RM25,000 (AU$7,860) in the year

2020. With rising income and reduced poverty conditions, the consumption pattern is

expected to change. A substantial proportion of Malaysian society has become more affluent

and able to acquire quality houses with improved physical and social facilities (MHLG,

1999a, p. 2).

In this situation, the opportunity of owning a more exclusive housing provision is

opening up to many Malaysians. One of the most exclusive housing schemes available is the

detached housing scheme. In the second quarter of 2009, the number of detached housing

supply is ranked sixth (9%) of the overall Malaysian housing supply. However, in terms of its

median price the detached housing scheme had the second highest compared to other

available housing scheme in Malaysia. The Malaysian detached housing sector continues to

experience a marginal increase of between 0.1 to 2.7% every quarter (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp.

3-5). Regardless, the detached housing market grows to be an ‘exclusive’ housing market by

having the most rapid increase of price index compared to other residential products in

Malaysia (NAPIC, 2009, p. 1).

Being one of the medium to high cost housing development schemes, it is typical that

this sector of the housing market is dominated by the private sector (EPU, 2006, p. 439).

Compared to the housing schemes that are overseen by the Government, the detached housing

scheme is lacking in terms of policy and procedure especially in encouraging owner

participation during suitable developmental stages to ensure that the development would be a

successful undertaking.

The related parties must understand that the detached housing schemes are unique and

have the element of customability that corresponds exactly to individual housing

requirements (Noguchi & Hernàndez-Velasco, 2005, p. 330). This would require the owner’s


2

input especially during the design of the house (Folaranmi, 2012, p. 730). With the owner’s

participation, a better end product, one which reflects the needs and aspirations of the

residents better than the designer could by working on his own (Johnson, 1979, p. 30). By

involving the owners in the build in a methodological manner, the related parties could

minimise the development risks of time extensions, cost overruns and sub-standard materials

and workmanship in delivering a successful development project. However, the involvement

of owners does not have to be confined in design aspect but could also be involved other

aspects of the development such as contractual procedure, construction monitoring, progress

claims and quality control.

In terms of literature, there has been extensive research done in Malaysia on the

Government funded low-cost housing with its estimated gross sales volume of RM37 billion

(AU$11.63 billion) (Quarter 2, 2009) (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, p. 4). Unfortunately, for the

detached housing scheme, the related researches on the privately developed detached housing

scheme are somewhat scarce. It is estimated for the second quarter of 2009, the estimated

gross sales volume of detached housing scheme in Malaysia is reaching RM100 billion

(AU$31.44 billion) which counts over 15% of estimated gross sales volume of residential

products in Malaysia (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5). Even with its estimated gross sales

volume that is 270% larger than the low-cost housing scheme, the resources available on the

development of detached housing scheme in Malaysia are extremely limited especially on the

topic of:

Detached housing development in Malaysia;

Success factors of detached housing development;

Importance of owner participation in detached housing development.

At present, there is no research focusing on the importance owner participation in

developing a detached housing project especially in Malaysia. This vacuum of knowledge has

left the detached housing development projects which are normally developed by private

developers vulnerable in terms of development speed, its cost and quality of the build which

would ultimately end the related parties in contractual dispute. Gillen (2004) highlights; “The

private house-building industry has been comparatively under-researched. As a consequence,

few either fully understand or appreciate the workings of this industry, its structure and its

principal agencies”.


3

In spite of being such a unique and valuable segment of the residential property market,

the fact still stands that the detached housing scheme in Malaysia is still under-researched.

Unless proper guideline for a successful detached housing development are developed,

problems in terms of design, contractual arrangements, legislation and construction are still a

problem for the owner as well other parties consequently hindering the popularity of detached

housing projects in Malaysia. At the same time the experience of getting directly involved

with the development would deliver a great deal of satisfaction to the owners themselves.

The main argument that is being addressed is that the participation of detached house

owners shall significantly reduce development risks and contributes to the success of

detached housing developments in Malaysia.

1.2 RESEARCH AIM

The aim of this research is to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a

successful detached housing development project in Malaysia.

This research shall have a significant effect on detached housing sector in Malaysia.

First of all, the detached housing scheme is the second largest housing scheme in terms of its

Gross Sales Volume (number of properties multiplied by median house price) in Malaysia

(refer Figure 2.13, Section 2.3.2). For the owners who are not familiar with this type of

development, they are left vulnerable to the decision that the professionals make in terms of

duration, cost and quality of the build. The existence of development contract would only

serve the interest of the owners once the mistake had been made and identified and by that

time, it would be a time and money consuming process to rectify the problem. Therefore, this

research is significant in providing caution for future detached house owners in Malaysia

before they embark in the journey of developing their own detached housing project. This

could be achieved by informing the future house owners on the developmental issues that

they need to be aware of at every development stage of their detached house project.

1.3 THESIS OUTLINE

To achieve the Research Aim, the thesis starts with two literature review chapters in

this thesis. Chapter 2 reviews the detached housing scheme as one of the housing options

available in the property market today. Firstly, it defines the classification of detached

housing scheme and how it differs from other types of housing scheme. Then it highlights the

development success factors and development barriers that are usually present in this type of


4

housing scheme. This chapter then goes into the Malaysian detached housing market. It gives

a general overview on the Malaysian residential property market and then focuses on the local

development trend of detached houses. Finally this chapter identified the research gaps on the

importance of owner participation and the success factors of detached housing development.

Chapter 3 focuses on the owner and how he/she affects the success of development

projects. Firstly, this chapter explores the subject of success in the development sector. Next,

it emphasises on the concept of owner participation especially in development projects. This

includes the general role of owners in construction projects, owner participation in housing

development projects and the challenges for owner participation in development projects in

the future.

Based on the literature review chapters, Chapter 4 set the conceptual framework of the

research that lead to the establishment of three research questions (RQ) that were used to

translate the research problem:

RQ1: What are the critical factors that influence the success of detached house

development?

RQ2: How would owner participation affect the development success of their

detached house?

RQ3: What is the best approach for owners to participate in developing their

detached housing project in Malaysia?

The methods for answering these research questions were then selected. The methods

comprise of a mixed method approach. A mixed method approach utilises both of the

quantitative and qualitative approaches. RQ1 and RQ2 shall be addressed using the

quantitative approach while RQ3 by utilising the qualitative approach. In the quantitative

approach, the responses of the questionnaire survey was analysed using descriptive analysis,

factor analysis and structural equation modelling. This process was made smoother through

the usage of SPSS and AMOS software. For the qualitative approach, transcribed responses

of the semi-structured interviews were analysed through content analysis. This process was

done by utilising the QSR Nvivo software. The results of the quantitative approach shall be

compared, improved and validated by the qualitative approach.

Chapter 5 firstly addresses the descriptive results of the questionnaire survey results.

Later, it groups the indicators that had been graded by the respondents. The indicators from


5

the criteria of ‘Development Success Factors’, ‘Development Barriers’, ‘Owner participation’

and ‘Owner Satisfaction’ were analysed through the means of Factor Analysis. The grouping

was then analysed further in the next chapter.

Chapter 6 reports the results of the factor analysis from the previous chapter through

“Structural Equation Modelling” or SEM. Each of the criteria was separately analysed to

ensure a good fit. After that, the four criteria were merged to create an estimated model and

analysed again for a good fit. The indicators that made it to the estimated model were

correlated to the results of the semi-structured interview in the next chapter.

Chapter 7 explains the interview process which includes the selection of the

interviewees, the interview guide and the related analysis. The results of the interview were

correlated to the indicators of the merged model in the previous chapter. Any indicators in the

model that had not been mentioned even once in the interview were replaced with another

attribute (in the same construct) that was mentioned in the interview. This process produced

the final structural model for this research.

Chapter 8 discusses the results of the research results as well as the implications from

the findings. It publishes the contributions and implications of this research.

Chapter 9 provides overall conclusions. It highlights research contributions and

implications especially for the Malaysian housing sector. Some of the limitations of this

research and recommendations for possible future research directions are also described in

this chapter.

Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector

6

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL AND MALAYSIAN

DETACHED HOUSING SECTOR

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter provided an introduction to the background of this research. This

chapter provides an overview of the current literature on detached housing development and

the current practice of detached housing scheme in the global and Malaysian contexts.

This chapter contains four main sections. After the introductory section, Section 2 of

this chapter identifies critical factors in ensuring the success of development projects. It also

includes the identification of success factors and barriers of detached housing development

projects. This is to ensure the achievement of the detached housing development’s goals set

out by the related parties. This literature review is followed by the Section 3 which will

emphasise on an exclusive housing scheme in Malaysia that is the detached housing scheme.

This includes detached housing classification, the significance of detached housing scheme in

the overall Malaysian residential real estate market and an analysis of the current

development trend of detached housing scheme in Malaysia. This chapter is closed by the

Section 4 which is the summary section.

2.2 DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

This section elaborates on the detached housing scheme as a whole, its success factors

and barriers in implementing its successful development. The identification of detached

housing scheme is important to differentiate it from other residential products available that

lead to different developmental requirements. The early identification of project success and

barriers are also crucial as a goal and parameter for the related parties to work on through the

whole duration of the development.

2.2.1 Detached Housing Scheme

There are many classifications of houses. One way of classifying houses is by the

design and quantity of the build. For example mass houses are built with a predetermined

design and built in great numbers to accommodate the housing needs of the majority.

Ahadzie, Proverns and Olomolaiye (2008, p. 676) defines Mass House Building Projects

(MHBP) as ‘‘the design and construction of speculative standardised house-units usually in


7

the same location and executed within the same project scheme’’. Typically, mass houses

include apartments, flats, condominiums, terrace houses, townhouses, row houses, cluster

houses and semi-detached houses.

In the other hand, there are the custom built houses. These types of houses are built

specifically to cater the needs and demand of its owner. They are known as bungalows or the

academic term ‘detached houses’. There are a number of detached housing classifications.

According to Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) (2009), a detached

house is a single house that is owned by 1 or more persons. The Northern California Land

Trust (NCLT) identifies them as a single family home which are considered as the most

lavish types of house available due to its high development cost. Those who purchase single

family homes which are developed by NCLT are usually those who earn between 60% to

80% more than the area’s median income (NCLT, 2009, p. 1).

The exclusiveness of detached housing is in accordance to what had been suggested by

Vastergaad (2006, p. 6) who reported that the owner-occupied single-family house is

regarded as the ideal form of housing in Denmark, the top rung of the housing ladder for

households. About 40% of the 2.4 million housing units are detached single-family houses,

and about 90% of these are owner-occupied.

Noguchi and Hernàndez-Velasco (2005, p. 334) categorised houses in terms of its

standardisation and customisation level. Normally the higher the standardisation level of a

housing scheme, the lower it would be able to be customised in accordance to the owner’s

preference. A detached house is likely to have the components of customisation which

correspond to the owner’s housing requirements. Referring to Figure 2.1, the detached houses

would fall into the category of semi-custom and custom home. Noguchi and Hernàndez-

Velasco (2005, p. 330) continued by quoting Smith (1998) who further explained that the

custom-built homes would require longer time to build combined, with lost economies of

large-volume work leads to the higher prices, typical for custom homes.


8

Figure 2.1: Standardisation - customisation relationship compared by housing type.

Adapted from “A `mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional housing

development in Mexico” by Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005), Habitat

International, 29(2), p. 334.

Detached housing is considered by many as pinnacle of housing types. The popularity is

naturally stimulated by social trends such as increasing prosperity and individualisation, it is a

response to the failure of mass housing to meet many of the needs and preferences of its

occupants (Tisma, Bijlsma & Dammers, 2007, p. 1).

Referring to Table 2.1, in the more developed countries like Denmark, the supply of

detached houses totals up to 41% of the entire housing supplied in 1999 and 90% of these

detached houses are owner-occupied. Even if the number of detached housing schemes may

not be as much as other mass housing schemes, the sheer value of this housing market and its

increasing popularity makes it a significant segment of the general housing market

(Vestergaard, 2006, p. 6).


9

Table 2.1: Housing stock by type of building and type of tenure in Denmark (as of 1

January 1999).

Source: Adapted from “Single-family detached housing - A branch of paradise or a

problem?” by Vestergaard, H., (2006), Hoersholm: Delft University Press, p. 6.

However, the popularity of detached-housing schemes is directly dependent on a

nation’s the economic prosperity and political stability. In Thailand, the political unrest and

economic slowdown have significant negative effect towards the higher-end products of its

real estate sector. In addition, the overstock of previous detached house results on the

decrease in the overall launch of new detached house in the country (Marohabutr, 2008, p.

15). Even in the capital city of Malaysia, the prices of luxury detached houses had fell by no

less than 38% after the Asian Financial Crisis between 1997 and 1999 (GPG, 2010para. ?).

This is confirmed by Agus (2002, p. 63) who reported that by housing category, there were

decreases in prices of 10.2 % for detached houses and 6.7 %for semi-detached, while terraced

houses, priced at RM 150,000 and below, experienced a drop of 5.1%.

In other instances, Denmark has a dual housing market, one for rented housing (mainly

flats) and one for owner-occupied housing (mainly single-family detached houses). The

division of work between the two markets has been as follows; when the economy is in high

gear, owner-occupied housing goes up and rented flats in social housing become vacant;

when the economy is going down the reverse situation occurs (Vestergaard, 2006, p. 13).


10

The emergence of new types of modern housing such as apartments and condominiums

also has a negative impact on the development of detached housing. Factors causing the shift

of popularity from detached houses to condominiums include higher land price, rising

inflation, increase of fuel price, traffic problems and improvement in mass transit network.

People who need more convenience tend to purchase condominiums located along mass

transit routes. Otherwise they have to bear higher cost of living and inconvenience if they opt

for buying detached houses and townhouses located in the suburbs (Marohabutr, 2008, p. 13).

The factors driving demand preferences for detached housing are constantly changing

and difficult to measure, and often deemed to be a complex bundle of attributes (Reed &

Mills, 2007, p. 225). Whatever the preferences is, detached houses continue to become a

desirable residential option. A lot more households would like to occupy such properties if

they did not have budget restrictions making it impossible. Vestergaard (2006, p. 7) quoted

Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut & Amternes og Kommunernes Forskningsinstitut (2001) on a

representative survey of housing preferences. In 2001 it showed that 46% of all tenants

wanted to move to an owner occupied house within five years. In a similar survey in 1986 the

figure was 29%. Altogether more than 70% of Danes wanted to be or become owner-

occupiers within five years of 2001.

Referring to Table 2.2, The Loudoun County Department of Economic Development

forecasts that starting from 2008 single-family detached units would still continue to grow.

By the end of 2040, it is forecasted that the development rate of these units decrease in most

subareas, with some planning subareas in the west of the county will continue to rise.


11

Table 2.2: Single-Family Detached Housing Trends by Planning Subarea, 2000 – 2040. Loudoun County, Virginia.

Source: Adapted from “Single-Family Detached Housing Unit Trends by Planning Subarea” by DED, (2000), Loudoun County

Department of Economic Development, p. 1.


12

The demand for detached houses is likely to continue to grow in liaison with the

economic prosperity of the world. Already numerous housing developers all over the world

are announcing greater allocation for the development of detached houses for many years to

come (Anonymous, 2004, line 2; Chitsomboon, 2006, line 11; Rachelle, 2006, line 4).

2.2.2 Success Factors of Detached Housing Development Projects

The relationship among the key stakeholders (project owners, designers, contractors,

and other related departments who are directly or indirectly involved) is the most important

criterion of project success (Elizabeth Collins, Curley, Clay & Lara, 2005, p. 58; Wei Tong &

Tung-Tsan, 2007, p. 479; Xiaojin & Jing, 2006, p. 258). In addition, the determination of

project success in the early stages of a project is crucial due to the fact that it provides in the

formulation of the goals of the project. Therefore, failure of the stakeholders to agree on the

priority of measures of success will be a barrier to effective client–contractor working

relationships and commonplace amongst failed projects (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 627).

In order to plan and manage a successful project, the three parameters of time, cost and

quality should be considered (Bowen, Cattel, Hall, Edwards & Pearl, 2002, p. 48). These

parameters are the most basic success criteria for any construction projects. Comprehensively,

the stakeholders must ensure that the project is steered in a way that the project would be

able:

to be completed within the allocated time;

to be managed under or at par with the proposed budget;

to maintain quality by adhering to the allocations in the contract.

The developer (owner), through a contract, stipulates that a contractor should finish the

work within a specific period of time, at an agreed price and at a certain standard of

workmanship. However, these seem to be conflicting goals running in three different

directions (Figure 2.2). In the construction industry, ‘cost’ directly burns up the profit of a

contractor, ’time’ can be converted into costs by liquidated damages and time dependent

preliminaries, while ‘quality’ alone does not, in the short term, represent cost to a contractor

if the poor quality work slips through inspections unnoticed (Tam, Deng, Zeng & Ho, 2000,

p. 438). However Westerveld (2003, p. 412) perceived that complying project success with

time, cost and quality constraints is a more ‘narrow’ view of the matter.


13

Figure 2.2: The eternal triangle between cost, time and quality. Adapted from “Quest

for continuous quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong,” by Tam,

C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ho, C. S., (2000), Construction Management &

Economics, 18(4), p. 438.

While many considered time, cost and quality as the most predominant success criteria

other measures such as safety, functionality and satisfaction are also attracting increasing

attention (Chan & Chan, 2004, p. 219).

Ahadzie, Proverbs & Olomolaiye (2008, p. 678) quoted Pinto & Slevin (1988) in

describing 15 potential success criteria for MHSPs (see Figure 2.3). This model is much more

thorough in describing the specific criteria compared to the model by Kharbanda, Stallworthy

& Williams which only focuses on the aspect of time, cost and quality. The framework in

Figure 2.3 tries to differentiate the success criteria between two major parties of a

development project that is the party that manages the project and its customer. The result is

the addition of other aspects of success factors had been included in this framework such as

technology transfer, risk, health and safety, environmental and customer satisfaction.


14

Figure 2.3: Project success framework for Mass-Housing Building Projects (MHBPs).

Adapted from “Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing

countries”, by Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O., (2008), International

Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 678.

In the local Malaysian sector, an extensive research had been done by Al-Tmeemy,

Abdul-Rahman and Harun (2010, p. 5) in defining success criteria for building projects in

Malaysia. This research compiled Project Success Models from numerous authors and had

come up with the guideline above. They tested 13 success criteria which include Cost, Time,

Quality, Safety, Achieving Scope, Customer Satisfaction, Technical Specifications,

Functional Requirements, Market Share, Competitive Advantage, Reputation, Revenue and

Profits and Benefit to Stakeholder.

Fortune & White (2006, pp. 55-56) had compiled a list of 27 critical success factors

from 397 literatures. The top ten critical success factors that were most cited according to

Fortune & White (2006, pp. 55-56) was “support from senior management”, “clear realistic

objectives”, “strong/detailed plan kept up to date”, “good communication/feedback”,

“user/client involvement”, “skilled/suitably qualified/sufficient staff/team”, “effective change

management”, “competent project manager”, “strong business case/sound basis for project”

and “sufficient/well allocated resources”. Even with this immense compilation of data, the

research’s findings highlighted that there is a lot of overlap between sets but the factors

selected for inclusion in individual lists vary to a considerable extent. This is due to the fact

that the ‘success criteria’ varies from one party to another according to their role and interest

in a particular project.


15

To put all these success factors in perspective it needs to be assigned into specific

developmental phase of a project. Figure 2.4 illustrate an attempt to connect success factors to

a particular development phase had been done by Lim & Mohamed (1999, p. 245). The figure

explains the importance of project success to project owners and stakeholders from a macro

viewpoint. In this particular case, the completion and satisfaction are the criteria (goals)

determining project success. The two criteria are influenced by sets of success factors

depending on the project phase. In other words, each of the project phases had a particular set

of success factors in achieving the project criteria (goals).

Figure 2.4: Building blocks of project life cycle. Adapted from “Criteria of project

success: an exploratory re-examination,” by Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z., (1999),

International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), p. 245.

T. Van Aken (1996) even defines project success as “The satisfaction of all

stakeholders”. Therefore, the ideal outcome of a successful project is a win-win situation for

every parties involved in it. This rarely being the case, due to risks that may result in losses.

In reality, the owner / developer and contractor would consider a project to be successful as

long as their respective objective are being achieved (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 244).

2.2.3 Barriers in the Successful Development of Detached Housing Projects

No construction project will ever be risk free (Groton & Smith, 1998, p. 69). Delivering

a project on time and under budget has always been complex and risky proposition. Owners

have to consider issues of assigning and sharing of risk, conflict of interest, bonus clauses,

designers as agents, designers as vendors, partnering and many others (Kluenker, 1996, p.

20).

Risk management in construction projects involves risk management planning, risk

identification, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response, risk monitoring and risk

communication (Baloi & Price, 2003, p. 262). The concept of risk is an uncertain event that,


16

if it occurs, has a positive (opportunities) or negative (threats) that effect on a project

objective (Del Cano & De La Cruz, 2002, p. 474).

According to Ale (2002, p. 108), risks are non-zero and cannot be made zero.

Regulation risks on the basis of this principle, creates the necessity to know the magnitude of

risks and to limit the acceptability of these risks by setting finite, non-zero standards. The

systematic dealing with risks is called risk management. He further explained that risk

management in this context is divided into four phases (Figure 2.5). In the risk management

process, the decision process is not so much a phase, but a demarcation between the more

analytical part of the process and the more managerial part of the process.

Figure 2.5: The risk management process. Adapted from “Risk assessment practices in

The Netherlands,” by Ale, B. J. M., (2002), Safety Science, 40(1-4), p. 108.

Del Cano and De La Cruz (2002, p. 484) highlights the importance for any Project Risk

Management (PRM) plan to take into account the organization’s risk maturity and the project

complexity and size, among other factors. Similar criteria must be taken into account in

relation to the risk analysis techniques used in the process.

The allocation of risks between the owner and the builder (contractor) in any

construction project can be determined by the type of procurement used. Figure 2.6 illustrates

the types of project execution (procurement) methods available and the degree of risk

exposure to the owners and contractor. In turnkey contracts, it is easy for the owner to define

liability (risks) due to the contractor’s responsibility for the whole project. Ironically, the lack


17

of owner participation is one of the most frequently highlighted disadvantages of turnkey

contracts in many citations (Ribeiro Ferreira & Rogerson, 1999, p. 405).

Figure 2.6: Alternative project execution approaches. Adapted from “Which project-

execution approach is best for you?,” by Ireland, T, (2001), IEEE Industry Applications

Magazine, 7(6), p. 34.

Any development project is a complex process. It involves a number of key stages, each

of which carries its own risks. Risk is inherent in all project undertakings, as such it can never

be fully eliminated, although can be effectively managed to mitigate the impacts to the

achievement of project’s goals (Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2010, p. 1). As any other types of

development, detached housing development projects are also vulnerable to many sorts of

development risks. These risks need to be managed by the stakeholder to avoid unnecessary

dispute in the long run.

Figure 2.7 represents a model of development stages and the associated risks involved

for a Private Housing Developer. As the build progress, the financial exposure increases thus

increasing the risk. To reduce the financial exposure, private developers tend to market their

products as early as possible, sometimes even before the build stage begins. For the private

house owners, they could leave out some of the development stage but unlike the private

developers, they could not reduce their financial exposure by selling off the build. An

alternative solution is needed so that both of the parties could share the risks thus ensuring

that both parties would work together in order to make the build a success.


18

Figure 2.7: Risks and the development process. Adapted from “Delivering New Homes.

Processes, planners and providers,” by Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N., (2003),

(1st. ed.) London, UK: Routledge, p. 72.

For example, in the design stage the development plan of the detached house must

individually comply with building regulations as well as the design guidelines set by the local

authority. Without this compliance, it is unlikely that the local authority will give their

consent (through the approval of planning permission) thus risking the development in terms

of delay.

2.2.4 Owner Satisfaction in Measuring Development Success

From the extensive arguments on the development success factors, it could be

concluded that there were many indicators that can be used to indicate project success. While

many considered that time, cost and quality as the most predominant success criteria other

measures such as safety, functionality and satisfaction are attracting increasing attention

(Chan & Chan, 2004, p. 219). More and more researches are including customer / client /

owner satisfaction in their argument of development success criteria.

In the overall scheme of things, what is truly relevant is not that the project eventually

is finalised in time and according to the budget, but that the customer is satisfied with the

overall experience of the company (Carù, Cova & Pace, 2004, p. 532). This is due to the fact

that the project owners play the most important role in determining project success (Xiaojin

& Jing, 2006, p. 253). This means addressing the importance placed on customer

requirements and on meeting their needs. Also, the level of perceived success seems to be


19

correlated to the level of the users' satisfaction level. The higher the level of user satisfaction,

the higher the level of perceived success of the project (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 246). This

is where the owner participation as the project progresses becomes vital part of the success

criterion where only through total customer satisfaction; the project can be truly considered as

successful.

In an extreme case, a landmark shopping development project in the capital city of

Malaysia had taken three extra months and an extra RM46 million (AU$11.32 million) to be

completed. The problem had become a contractual dispute between the developer and

contractor who had suffered considerable losses. However, in the terms of the stakeholders

and users point of view, the development was a success due to its remarkable popularity

amongst tenants and shoppers (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 243). Another famous example is

the Sydney Opera House. Even though the project was completed ten years late and over-

budget by more than fourteen times, it had become one of the most iconic buildings of the

20th

century (Filmer, 2006, p. 248).

Due to the significantly long lasting effect of customer / client / owner satisfaction

towards the determination of project success, the indicator shall be applied as the primary

indicator to determine a successful detached housing development.

2.3 CURRENT PRACTICE OF DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN

MALAYSIA

This section discusses the significance of residential property market with the focus on

detached housing market in Malaysia.

2.3.1 Overview of Residential Property Market in Malaysia

One of the products of the construction industry is the residential property. Residential

property (or housing) is a major concern for all people in every corner of the world as the

wellbeing of a country is reflected in its people enjoying a certain standard of living. Housing

provides shelter as well as being a major potential for expanding the construction industry,

generating jobs and contributing to capital formation.

The construction industry is complex in its nature because it comprises large numbers

of parties as owners, consultants, contractors, suppliers, financiers and regulators. Despite this

complexity, the industry plays a major role as the in the development of a country due to the

fact that it provides investment goods which is vital for the growth of other industries.


20

As a developing country, the Malaysian population continues to grow at an average of

2.22% (1998 – 2008s) (DoSM, 2010). The need for quality residential products has never

been greater as more middle-class Malaysians acquire better income due to the nation’s

economic prosperity. This scenario gives them more choices in choosing or upgrading to a

better residence. According to Tan (2008, p. 326) homeownership (in Malaysia) is strongly

correlated with income, education, stage in life cycle, the existence of children, employment

types, EPF withdrawals, liquidity constraint, and relative price of owning. The mobility of

households widens as higher income clearly widens the likelihood of moving into bigger and

better houses.

Referring to Figure 2.8, the Malaysian construction industry (including housing)

contributes between 2.9% to 4.0% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Malaysia (1998 –

2008) even when the industry is experiencing negative growth (CIDB, 2010, p. 1). This is

typical for a developing country because according to Ofori and Han (2003, p. 38) who

quoted Turin (1973) concluded that while the developed countries had stronger construction

industries which contributed 5% – 8% of GDP, in the less developed (developing) countries

the proportion was 3–5% of GDP. This indicates that the industry still plays a significance

role in sustaining the Malaysian economic growth in terms of providing necessary

infrastructure and facilities for the consumption of other industries.


21

Figure 2.8: Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price) for Year 1980 - Q1 2009. Adapted from

“Construction Economic Indicator,” by CIDB, (2010), Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, p. 1.


22

In Malaysia, residential property sector is a significant part of its property market.

According to Figure 2.9, the residential property sector had maintained a relatively high

market performance since 2001. In this context, “performance” is referring to the “value of

construction work done”. According to the Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2012, p. 36),

value of construction work done is defined as “value for construction work done includes new

work, capital repairs, restorations, conversions and current repairs and maintenances which

were carried out during the reference period for the owner or investor of the project”. Figure

2.9 shows that the residential property consistently outperforms its closest rival (the

commercial property) at an average 2.8 times to 1 (NAPIC, 2009, p. 19). This proves the

residential market’s significance in the overall property market in Malaysia.

Figure 2.9: “Performance of Different Property Sectors in Malaysia (2001 – 2008),”

Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services

Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 19.

In terms of supply, the residential property continues to display excellent growth.

According to the President of the Association of Valuers, Property Managers, Estate Agents

and Property Consultants in the Private Sector (PEPS), property transactions for 2010 were

expected to be better than 2009 with the residential sector would see the biggest growth

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Val

ue

- R

M M

illio

n

Year

Performance of Malaysian Property Sectors

Residential Commercial Industrial

Agricultural Land Development Others


23

(GPG, 2010, para. 2). With the recovery of the economy in 2010, the property market will

also experience a slow, steady recovery (Clancy, 2009, para. 4).

Being one of the most fundamental aspects of Malaysian social infrastructure, the

Malaysian Government had been dedicated and continues to provide housing infrastructure

for the masses. Reference to the housing governance has been primarily about domestic and

social policy issues (Forrest, 2008, p. 5). Housing provision in Malaysia is crucial in order to

ensure socio-economic stability and to promote national development (Idrus & Siong, 2008,

p. 1). It also provides shelter as well as being a major potential for expanding the construction

industry, generating jobs and contributing to capital formation (MHLG, 1999b, p. 1). The

rapid growth of Malaysian economy requires the Government to keep pace by establishing a

number of settlement policies. In the 9th

Malaysia Plan, Thrust Four (Providing Quality

Housing and Urban Services) emphasise that continuous effort will be undertaken to ensure

that Malaysians of all income level will have access to adequate, quality and affordable

homes, particularly the low-income group (EPU, 2006, p. 437).

The Malaysian private housing sector is unique in many ways. According to Datuk Seri

Najib Tun Razak (6th

Malaysian Prime Minister) in the 39th

Anniversary Dinner of the Real

Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (REHDA), it is about the only industry

that is not a pure economic venture but also bears the responsibility of fulfilling the nation’s

social reengineering agenda. Through its low cost, low medium cost and medium cost

housing policies, as well as Bumiputera (Indigenous Malaysians) quota and discounts, the

industry has played a very crucial part in meeting not only the Rakyat’s (Malaysian people’s)

homeownership aspirations but also playing a socio-economic role (PMOM, 2009, para. 11).

The implementation of these policies is undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and

Local Government. The ministry is responsible to ensure that the Government’s housing

policy especially regarding the low-cost and medium low-cost is fully implemented to

facilitate the low and medium-low income groups are provided with the option of affordable

housing (Mahamud & Abdul Ghani, 2004, p. 8). However there is a delicate balance in play

here. The ministry have the need to genuinely protect the interest of the house buyers but at

the same time does not want to be too “interfering” that they would end up “suffocating” the

nation’s housing market (Zamhari, 2008, p. 14). The Government also can be a key player of

“unsuffocating” the housing market in times of economic downturn. During the recent 1998

global economic turmoil, the Malaysian Government had played its role to boost the

country’s development sector by allocating RM1.2 billion (AU$0.38 billion) as a part of the


24

2009 Malaysian Economic Stimulus Package to build more low and medium-cost houses

(Anonymous, 2008, para. 7). This endeavour according to Che Ibrahim (2005, p. 1) is one of

the factors that could generate the growth of the nation’s construction industry.

Referring to Table 2.3, it can be highlighted that the Malaysian Government continues

to focus on public sector housing programmes which provide special housing for the poor as

well as low-cost houses for the low-income group that will eliminate the problem of squatters

in urban areas. Ong and Lenard (2002, p. 6) defines low-cost housing are houses that have a

ceiling price of RM25,000 (AU$7,860) per unit or less, which can only be sold to households

with monthly income of between RM500 (AU$78.60) and RM750 (AU$235.80). The types

of houses delivered under this programme may include flats, terrace or single –unit village

houses (known locally as “kampong houses”). Each low-cost house must have a minimum

built-up area of 550 – 600 square feet comprising two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and

a bathroom-cum-toilet.


25

Table 2.3 Public and private sector housing targets and achievement, 2001 – 2005.

Source: Adapted from “Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010” by EPU, (2006), Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department

Malaysia, p. 439.


26

One of the ways of the Malaysian Government’s drive to provide low-cost houses is

through the National Housing Corporation which is a subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance

(Malaysia) Incorporated with its own objective to be a leader in the development of quality

affordable homes for all Malaysians (SPNB, 2009, para. 2). In spite of everything, public

sector performance especially the low cost housing is affected by problems ranging from

planning variables to implementation, such as frequent changes in the scope and location of

projects, high development standards, delays in the issuance of loans, difficulties faced in the

retrieval of instalments from buyers, high prices of land and provision of infrastructure. As an

alternative, the Government has sought the cooperation of the private sector to address the

housing needs of the lower income groups (KPKT, 1999, p. 2).

The private sector had always been more inclined towards delivering medium and high

cost houses in view of greater margins from that market segment (MHLG, 1999a, para. 4).

Being the case, the private sector is still required by the Government to fulfil their quota in

developing low-cost houses. This state of affairs is corroborated by Ezeanya (2004, p. 11) that

affirm that it is the government resolves to supply houses for the rural population through

programs such as funding home improvement projects. The private sector construction

industry has been able to supply houses at market prices for medium income and high-income

groups (EPU, 2006, p. 439).

The formal private sector undoubtedly has a potential role in developing housing

developments for the higher income groups of the low and middle income population. It is

highly unlikely that in many developing countries the formal private sector can reach the

lowest levels of the low income population (Keivani & Werna, 2001, p. 111). Then again at

present there’s a clear amiss-match of low medium cost housing (including detached houses)

in Malaysia due to the fact that there’s no incentives to the developers by the government to

develop this kind of houses, unclear housing development plan for this house category, no

design specifications for low medium cost housing, no control over sales – price go high due

to speculators, lack of monitoring during construction and most of the projects are delayed

due to the economic downturn in 1998 (Shuid, 2004, p. 11).


27

2.3.2 Development Trend of Detached Housing Scheme in Malaysia

The aim of this literature analysis is to determine the development trend of detached

housing scheme in the Malaysian residential property market. For this research, statistical

data from relevant authority had been acquired to observe the trend. Relevant statistical

analysis had been used and the information derived from the exercise significantly highlights

the standing of detached housing in the overall Malaysian residential real estate market.

The following analysis had been prepared from the data derived from the Residential

Stock Property Report compiled by the Valuation and Property Services Department,

Ministry of Finance Malaysia (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5). The most recent report

published by this department in their website at the time of this section was being prepared is

the Residential Stock Property Report (Third Quarter of 2009). However, this data set mostly

consists of preliminary figures. To analyse the actual trend of the market, data from the

previous quarter (Second Quarter of 2009) had been utilised for the trend analysis in this

section.

There are numerous types of housing that are being offered in the Malaysian residential

market. They can be divided into four main groups namely (NAPIC, 2009, p. 1):

Terrace;

High-rise;

Detached;

Semi-Detached.

These four main housing groups can be separated into more detailed classification of

residential products. They include (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5):

Terrace house (Single storey up to 3 storeys high);

Semi-detached house (Single storey up to 3 storeys high);

Detached house;

Town house;

Cluster house;

Low cost house;

Low cost flat;


28

Flat;

Service apartment;

Condominium / Apartment;

SOHO.

The SOHO classification is a new type of housing classification in the Malaysian

property market. According to the correspondence with Mrs. Ong Chwee Hoon (2010, para.

2), Deputy Director of NAPIC (Stock Sector), SOHO stands for Small Office Home Office.

This property combines a shop/office with a residential into one building which is considered

as one unit and only has one ownership claim. However, referring to the data set there are no

available figures on SOHO to be found. Therefore, the SOHO category shall be omitted from

this analysis.

Referring Figure 2.10, in terms of residential supply, detached houses have been ranked

between fourth to sixth with about 400,000 units supplied all over Malaysia. Overall, the most

popular house built in this period was the terrace houses (rank 1 and 2) followed by the low

cost housing schemes (rank 3) as well as the growing popularity of high rise residential

schemes such as the low cost flat and condominiums / apartments. It seems that the mass

housing such as terraced, low-cost houses and flats, condominiums/apartments continues to

play a major role in providing accommodation the majority of Malaysians between 2005 and

2009. In contrast, semi-detached, detached, cluster houses and town houses generally built in

lesser numbers providing a marginal supply of accommodation for the same period (VPSD,

2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5).


29

Figure 2.10: Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 – 2009 (Existing

Stock). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and

Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.

Figure 2.11 shows how the detached houses in Malaysia have the biggest range of price

starting off at an affordable price of RM56,000 (AU$17,606) up to RM5.4 million (AU$1.70

million); the highest residential unit price in Malaysia for quarter 2 2009. This is followed by

the condominium / apartment market sector with the highest unit price at RM3.3 million

(AU$1.04 million) and the 2 – 3 Storey Semi-Detached at RM3.0 million (AU$0.94 million).

The outliers of these three high-end properties had made it impossible to observe the

distribution of others. To observe the actual distribution of price for the detached houses

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Q1

20

05

Q2

20

05

Q3

20

05

Q4

20

05

Q1

20

06

Q2

20

06

Q3

20

06

Q4

20

06

Q1

20

07

Q2

20

07

Q3

20

07

Q4

20

07

Q1

20

08

Q2

20

08

Q3

20

08

Q4

20

08

Q1

20

09

Q2

20

09

Q3

20

09

Q4

20

09

Re

sed

en

tial

Un

its

(Nu

mb

ers

)

Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 - 2009 (Existing

Stock)

Single Storey Terraced 2-3 Storey Terraced

Single Storey Semi-Detached 2-3 Storey Semi Detached

Detached Town House

Cluster Low Cost House

Low Cost Flat Flat

Service Apartment Condominium / Apartment


30

compared to other housing types, the outliers need to be omitted from the graph which is

revealed in Figure 2.12.

Legend:

SST (Single Storey Terraced)

TST (2-3 Storey Terraced)

SSSD (Single Storey Semi-Detached)

TSSD (2-3 Storey Semi-Detached)

D (Detached)

C (Cluster)

LCH (Low-Cost House)

LCF (Low-Cost Flat)

F (Flats)

CA (Condominiums / Apartments)

Figure 2.11: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009).

Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property

Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.

After discarding the outliers of 2-3 storey semi-detached, detached houses and

condominiums/apartment, the distribution of price amongst the house types can be

distinguished more clearly. Figure 2.12 shows that the median price of a detached house in

Malaysia is the second highest after 2-3 storey semi-detached houses at RM250,000

(AU$78,600) each. As a matter of fact the price of detached houses at Q1, median and Q3 are

actually lower compared to the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses. This shows that some of the

detached houses are actually cheaper than the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses in the

Malaysian market.

Refer Details in

Figure 2.12

Outliers


31

Figure 2.12: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009)

(Outliers in Figure 2.12 limited to RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400). Adapted from “Quarterly

Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,

Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.

Figure 2.13 shows that the 2-3 storey terraced houses has the larger Estimated Gross

Sales Volume (number of properties multiplied by median house price) compared to other

types of housing scheme in Malaysia. This is due to the fact that 2-3 storey terraced houses

has a relatively high median price per unit and more importantly it has the biggest supply

volume of all. Compared to the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses, the units are being supplied

in relatively small numbers. However, it has the highest median price compared to other types

of housing scheme in Malaysia thus producing a relatively high figure of gross sales

development volume. Interestingly, the two highest gross sales volume housing scheme in

Malaysia between 2005 and 2009 are 2 to 3 storey high residential buildings.

Outliers: Refer Figure 2.11


32

Figure 2.13: Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units Supply in Malaysia (2005 -

2009). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and

Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.

Referring to Figure 2.13, detached houses (bright red line) can be considered second

highest in terms of gross sales volume together with single storey terrace (dark blue line) and

condominium / apartment (black line). The 2-3 storey terrace houses was first in terms of

gross sales volume due to the fact that each unit has a relatively high price (just like detached

houses) but it was also produced in large volume (unlike the detached houses).

The supply of detached housing all over Malaysia in Quarter 2 2009 was at just under

400,000 units. Figure 2.14 illustrates its distribution all over the states of Malaysia and its

0

50

100

150

200

250

Q1

20

05

Q2

20

05

Q3

20

05

Q4

20

05

Q1

20

06

Q2

20

06

Q3

20

06

Q4

20

06

Q1

20

07

Q2

20

07

Q3

20

07

Q4

20

07

Q1

20

08

Q2

20

08

Q3

20

08

Q4

20

08

Q1

20

09

Q2

20

09

Q3

20

09

Q4

20

09

Est.

Gro

ss S

ale

s V

ol.

(R

M)

Bill

ion

s

Estimated Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005

- 2009 (Existing Stock)

Single Storey Terraced 2-3 Storey Terraced

Single Storey Semi-Detached 2-3 Storey Semi Detached

Detached Town House


Low Cost Flat Flat



33

relation with the size of those states. The states that have significant numbers of over 40,000

units of detached houses are the large states of Peninsular Malaysia namely Johor, Pahang,

Perak and Selangor. The combined supply of detached houses in these states totals up to 56%

of the detached housing supply on the second quarter of 2009 in Peninsular Malaysia.

Interestingly, the Borneo states (Sabah and Sarawak), being the largest states in

Malaysia have the lowest concentration of detached housing (detached house numbers/km2)

in Malaysia. Due to the reality that it is uneconomical to include Sabah and Sarawak into the

scope of this research, the fact that detached housing scheme does not play a significant part

in their property market justifies their exclusion.

Figure 2.14: Supply of Detached Houses vs. Size of States in Malaysia (Q2, 2009).

Adapted from “Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia,” by Indayati, S.

(2000) and “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property

Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009) , pp. 3-5.

For the future, detached housing scheme in Malaysia in terms of supply is increasing

steadily (Figure 2.15). The overall trend shows that mass housing continues on a rapid

increase in terms of supply. Fuelled by the increasing demand of a growing nation, the fact

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

WP

Ku

ala

Lum

pu

r

WP

Pu

traj

aya

WP

Lab

uan

Sela

ngo

r

Joh

or

Pu

lau

Pin

ang

Pe

rak

Neg

eri

Se

mb

ilan

Me

laka

Ke

dah

Pah

ang

Tere

ngg

anu

Ke

lan

tan

Pe

rlis

Sab

ah

Sara

wak

Stat

e S

ize

(km

2)

De

tach

ed

Ho

use

(N

um

be

rs)

Relationship between the numbers of detached houses and state size in Malaysia

(Q2 2009)


34

that mass housing can be developed relatively fast due to its design standardisation makes it

popular amongst developer. On the other hand, with its customised design the detached

housing scheme would normally take longer to be built. It shows when there is just a marginal

increase in terms of supply of detached houses from 369,000 units in 2005 to 397,000 units

by the end of 2009.

Figure 2.15: Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (numbers).

Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property

Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Q1

20

05

Q2

20

05

Q3

20

05

Q4

20

05

Q1

20

06

Q2

20

06

Q3

20

06

Q4

20

06

Q1

20

07

Q2

20

07

Q3

20

07

Q4

20

07

Q1

20

08

Q2

20

08

Q3

20

08

Q4

20

08

Q1

20

09

Q2

20

09

Q3

20

09

(un

its)

Tho

usa

nd

s

Summary of Supply of Residential Units By Type in Malaysia

Single Storey Terraced 2 - 3 Storey Terraced

Single Storey Semi-Detached 2 - 3 Storey Semi-Detached

Detached Town House


Low Cost Flat Flat



35

In terms of price the detached housing scheme will continue to be higher than other

types of housing scheme. Figure 2.16 indicated that most of the time the index price of

detached houses had always been higher than other housing scheme due to its nature of being

the most exclusive housing types of all. This trend is only going to pick up faster and by the

year 2008 the price index of detached housing scheme had reached its 145 mark.

Figure 2.16: The Malaysian House Price Index (2000 – 2008). Adapted from “NAPIC

Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of

Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 1.

As a conclusion, the detached housing scheme remains one of the more ‘exclusive’

housing markets in Malaysia. This is since the supply of detached houses is regularly less

than what are being offered as other ‘mass housing’ schemes such as the terraced houses,

high rise residential units and low cost housing. It is more popular in the bigger states of

Peninsular Malaysia due to the nature of detached houses that needs a bigger land plot than

other housing schemes. In fact, the top three states that provide more than 56% of the nation’s

detached housing supply are the bigger states of Peninsular Malaysia (Indayati, 2000, p. 1).

In terms of the price, the median price of detached houses is relatively high and its

maximum price is normally the highest in the Malaysian residential property market. Even

though in terms of market share the detached housing scheme continues to experience a slight

decrease, this is due to the fact that other housing schemes are being developed at a frantic

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

(2

00

0=1

00

)

Year

Malaysian House Price Index by House Type

Terrace High-Rise Detach Semi-Detach


36

rate to cope with its ever-increasing demand. In fact, in terms of numbers the development of

detached houses continues to grow at a more steadily pace between 0.1 – 2.7 % every quarter

(VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5).

2.4 SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed the literature related to detached housing scheme, development

success factors and development barriers as well as the application of owner satisfaction as a

key indicator of development success. The first section of the review identifies the

characteristics of detached housing scheme which makes it a unique segment of the housing

market. It also discusses the issues of determining development success and the typical

barriers that must be faced in any development scheme. Ultimately, this section highlighted

the importance of owner satisfaction as a decisive measure in determining project success.

Another focus of this chapter is on the current practice of detached housing

development in Malaysia. Grounded on genuine primary data provided by relevant Malaysian

authorities, this section peeks into the development trend of the Malaysian property sectors

especially in topic of detached housing scheme. Through an extensive array of charts and

graphs, this section is able to pinpoint the supply, price, gross sales volume and even the price

index of detached houses compared to other housing schemes in Malaysia. This enables this

research to establish the significance of the detached housing scheme in the Malaysian

property market.

Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects

37

CHAPTER 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION

AND SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter had introduced the detached housing scheme and its development trend

particularly in Malaysia. This chapter describes on the role of project owners in general which

than focuses on housing projects. In essence, this section highlights the role of project owners

in many types of projects which will then focus on owner participation in housing project

especially detached housing projects. The argument in this section would suggest that due to

the unique development nature of detached housing schemes, there are distinctive challenges

that need to be addressed through the owner as its development phase progresses.

3.2 THE CONCEPT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION

This section elaborates on the importance of owner participation in development

projects. By having the ‘participation’ that reflects the needs and aspirations of the residents,

a better end product could be produced that is better than could the designer working on his

own (Johnson, 1979, p. 30). This requirement is much more needed in the detached housing

scheme which every product may be tailored to the exact requirements of the owner.

However there are challenges in the successful application of having more owner

participation during the development as it also may hinder the progress of the project.

3.2.1 Role of Project Owners in Construction Projects

Traditionally, the role of owners is to assist the architect during the design process of a

project. According to Redström (2006, p. 127), the knowledge about use and users (namely

customers, client and owners) can play such a role in design is no longer a controversial idea

but something being taken into consideration in many areas of design. It is usually applied by

expert decision makers (such as the architect) as a method by which the user's knowledge is

collected and added to the design process, to the extent that it is considered to be relevant and

of interest. Most often this decision is made by the architect (Wulz, 1986, p. 162).

Nowadays, the owners play a more crucial role for a successful implementation of a

project. Even in the most complicated construction projects (where most of the technical


38

knowledge comes from the contractors or even suppliers), the owner still plays a critical role

in the success of the project. Stauffer, Grimm & White (1977, p. 284) highlights that while

the contractors and manufacturers play an important role in Quality Assurance (QA),

experience has shown that it is to the owner's advantage to participate (if necessary with the

cooperation of a consultant) actively in the QA process. According to Trigunarsyah (2004a, p.

861), in any type of construction projects, the owners always lie on top of the project

organisation hierarchy. This provides the owners with the most authority in enforcing the

implementation of constructability and the owners' awareness of the benefit of improved

constructability.

One of the most important decisions that owner’s would have to make is the selection

of suitable procurement system for their project. As the current construction industry model

evolves from a ‘low-bid’ to the ‘all the same’ industry into a ‘value added’ performance

based industry (Kashiwagi, 1999, p. 417), the owners’ are realising that a price-only-based

selection strategy is not conducive to project delivery (Rahman & Kumaraswamy, 2004, p.

188). It is expected that owners will increasingly select other team members by using more

relational factors and bringing them into earlier stages of projects. For example, for the

development of multi-billion school facilities in Washington State, many contractors, school

districts, and designers have advocated the use of alternate delivery methods to improve the

process of project delivery. The traditional ways of awarding construction contracts for

school projects to the lowest responsible bidder through an open public bidding process may

not result in successful projects. Contractor expertise may be a better predictor of success

than the lowest bid (Schaufelberger, 2000a, p. 609). Owners are looking for contractors,

engineers, and suppliers to play a bigger role in implementation of the project and being more

accountable for overall results. This has resulted in non-traditional roles for all parties. One

extreme example is supplier led Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC) contractors where

contractors and engineers are subcontracting to suppliers (Soper, Davis, Jackson, Vraspir &

Goan, 1992, p. 220).

The type of procurement method chosen by the owner would also affect the success of

the project in terms of investment cost, time of execution, and technical performance. It will

also determine the interrelationships, responsibilities, and risks of the parties involved in the

project, namely the owner, the engineer, the suppliers, and the contractors (Ireland, 2001, p.

33). However, the type of procurement approach does not dictate the level of participation of

owners in the project. Although the design-build approach may place much of the


39

responsibility in the design-builder's hands, owners still have an important role to play for

construction projects to succeed (Sweeney, 2000, p. 67). For example, in Singapore when the

decision is made to procure a project using the Design and Build route, owners and their

project managers need to prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) document that describes

owners’ needs. The RFP should contain a well-defined and comprehensive scope of work as

well a detailed aesthetic and performance criteria such as technical, functional and

workmanship quality (Ling & Poh, 2008, p. 165).

Generally, design-build process saves time as well as reduces the need for coordination

and management by the owner (Ribeiro Ferreira & Rogerson, 1999). Also, as buildings

become more technically complex, the technology rests more and more with the suppliers and

specialty contractors. Design-build also offers less owner involvement and requires less

management. Some owners agree with this theory, while others state that design-build

requires vigorous management by the owner or its construction manager. What is certain is

the extra effort is required in the early phases of the project during project definition and

design-build contract procurement (Kluenker, 1996, p. 19). In UAE, preparation and approval

of drawings, slowness of the owner’s decision-making process and inadequate early planning

of the project (by the owner and their consultants) are the major causes of delay of

construction projects (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175). Sweeney (2000, p. 68) emphasises

that although design-builders (in design and build contracts) take on much of the design

responsibility, they cannot design or construct a project without some critical owner

participation. Iyer and Jha (2005, p. 291) quoted Chan, Ho and Tam (2001) who stressed that

the owner’s competence has been recognised as the most important factor for design and

build projects.

Whatever the procurement type is used, what is expected from contractors is seen to be

higher than from other project partners. However, such increased responsibilities have to be

entrusted to the contractors by the owners and any such initiative must come from the owners

as they effectively control the project organization, team selection, and contract conditions

(Rahman & Kumaraswamy, 2004, p. 188). A competent owner would have his scope of work

well outlined and presented to the contractor and he would closely monitor his project

regarding its progress, budget, quality, and other aspects (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 291).

Owner participation is also vital in preventing delays of the contractor. One critical role

of the project owners have over the contractors is ensuring that all payments that need to be

made to the contractors are paid in time. Project owners must work collaboratively with


40

contractors and facilitate regular payments in order to overcome delays, disputes and claims

(Enshassi, Mohamed & Abushaban, 2009, p. 269). A number of literatures has also identified

that delays in contractor’s payment by owner and partial payments during construction as

some of the contributing factors in delays of building construction projects (Abd El-Razek,

Bassioni & Mobarak, 2008, p. 838; Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356). The owners also need to

improve their integrity and develop trust with the contractors, as trust between owners and

contractors has a positive affect project performance (Pinto, Slevin & English, 2009, p. 645;

Schaufelberger, 2000b, p. 470).

Project owners must be aware that the decisions that are made in the initial stages of

planning and design are difficult and costly to change once construction begins

(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 861). Any late design changes by owner or his agent during

construction worsens the delay problem (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838). This is in

accordance to the findings of Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006, p. 356) which recommend that the

owners should give special attention to minimize change orders during construction to avoid

delays. However, Ibbs, Nguyen and Lee (2007, p. 51) argued that even when disruptions are

initially caused by owner-directed changes, the contractor can potentially reduce or escalate

the disruptions and inefficiency during the course of work. Rarely the loss of productivity is a

result from a single causing factor but multiple and concurrent ones for which both parties

can be responsible. To overcome this issue, Serpell (1999, p. 321) recommends that the

contractors to be introduced at early stages of the project in order that they can better

understand owner's requirements consequently minimising design changes during the

implementation of the project.

The success of a project does not only have to be limited in terms of time, cost and

quality but also in terms of safety. The owner has the responsibility to provide adequate

attention into safety issues to ensure the real success of the project. Many researchers agree

that owners have a positive and significant impact on project construction safety (Gambatese,

2000, p. 668; Huang & Hinze, 2006a, p. 172). Typically, owners and organisations of larger

projects and petrochemical projects are more actively promoting safety culture in their

operation (Filho, Andrade & Marinho, 2010, p. 619). However, this does not mean that

owners of small-scaled projects can be exempted from carrying out construction safety

measures in their project. As a matter of fact, Huang and Hinze (2006b, p. 181) recommends

that all owners, regardless of the type and size of their projects, should recognize that they

have a responsibility for construction safety.


41

3.2.2 Owner Participation in Housing Development Projects

Due to its nature of being more customisable than other types of housing, the

development of detached houses demand more inputs from its stakeholder. Even though some

of the schemes have a predetermined design, the owner has a choice to modify its layout for

example to suit their lifestyle. Jergeas, Williamson, Skulmoski & Thomas (2000, p. 12.1)

quoted a number of sources on the definition of project stakeholders. They include:

“people or groups that have, or believe they have, legitimate claims against the

substantive aspects of a project” (Cleland, 1998);

individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project, or whose

interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or

successful project completion (PMI, 1996);

an individual, individuals, team or teams affected by a project (Juliano, 1995);

someone who is “positively or negatively affected by the activities or final results of

the project” (Dinsmore, 1995).

In terms of detached housing development, stakeholders are usually consists of owners /

developers, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, financiers and local

authorities. However, this research only focuses on the owners as the prime stakeholder in

this type of projects because what is truly relevant is not that the project eventually is

finalized in time and according to the budget, but that the customer is satisfied with the

overall experience (Carù et al., 2004, p. 532).

The concept of having the owner participate in the development of its own housing

project is not new. In the 1960s, the SAR (Foundation for Architects' Research) Netherlands

had introduced the ‘support-infill’ concept of housing design as a means of improving

building performance and enabling user participation. The idea was that in housing, as well as

in other areas of building, it would be meaningful to distinguish between the decisions that

could be made by the larger community of users and those that could be made by the

individual user (Carp, 1986, p. 125).

In the 1970s, the concern with user (namely customer / client / owner) participation and

housing customization found favourable ground in Portugal. To cope with an increasing

housing shortage the government launched a program named SAAL which foresaw that

teams of architects and engineers would work with households (namely customer / client /

owner) in the design and construction of their houses (Benros & Duarte, 2009, p. 311).


42

The most passive form of participation is achieved by the architect's consideration for

the wishes and personal needs of the client / user. This is the positive side of the architect's

role as the interpreter of the explicit and implicit expressed desires, ambitions, dreams and

self-esteem of the personally known client. The client's influence on the architectural process

and its result takes place because of the architect's capability of putting himself in his client's

place (Wulz, 1986, p. 155).

The level of owner participation varies from one development stage to another. Even in

the planning stage, the participation of owner differs from one phase to another. A portion of

a research by Shapira, Laufer & J Shenhar (1994, p. 177) is represented in Figure 3.1. It

shows the mean degree of involvement of client observed in project definition and

engineering. The decision-making phases were grouped into two parts:

The earlier part of the decision-making process, which comprises information

gathering and the development of alternatives (Part I);

The later part, which includes the evaluation of alternatives and choice making (Part

II).

The short line segments that run between adjacent bars show the trend of involvement

within each planning stage, while the long segments connecting all the pairs of bars show the

overall evolution of involvement.

Therefore based on Figure 3.1, Shapira et al (1994, p. 177) identified that the client is

the party that is most involved at the programme stage and his/her involvement then linearly

decreases as planning become more and more focused and detailed. Within each planning

stage, the client shows a behaviour that is very similar to the project managers.


43

Figure 3.1: Involvement of client (or customers / owners) in project definition and

engineering. Adapted from “Anatomy of decision making in project planning teams” by

Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J Shenhar, A., (1994),. International Journal of Project

Management, 12(3), p. 177.

The level of participation of house owners in developing their house would also depend

to the type of house they are building. Referring to Table 3.1 by Noguchi and Hernàndez-

Velasco (2005, p. 330), an owner of a readily-built home would have far less chance of

customising their home in the design phase than an owner of a fully custom home. This is

done to keep the standardisation level high because the benefit of an identical designed

housing scheme will keep its selling price low and its production level high. In simple terms,

customisation of houses tends to make its development cost higher and takes longer time to

be completed.


44

Table 3.1: The levels of standardisation and customisation compared by housing type.

Source: Adapted from “A `mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional

housing development in Mexico,” by Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005),

Habitat International, 29(2), p. 330.

The drive of house owner is even more critical especially for redevelopment projects of

displaced societies due to natural disaster. According to Lyons (2009, p. 391), in a post

December 2004 tsunami the Sri Lankan Government had launched TAFREN (Task Force for

Rebuilding the Nation) with its aim to redevelop the affected areas. Agreed by the World

Bank and major supporting donors in March 2005, there were two major programs executed

for this redevelopment scheme. Figure 3.2 represents the work flow of the proposed Owner

Driven Program (ODP) and Donor Assisted Program (DAP). The differences in organisation

and constraints had significant impact on the productivity of the two programs:

In quantitative terms, the Owner Driven Program (ODP) has been more productive

than the Donor Assisted Program (DAP);

The ODP had started much earlier than its counterpart;

The ODP had better completion rating than the DAP (at the time of the survey);

The ODP-built houses can be occupied earlier than the DAP-built houses;

The DAP is less effective tool for redevelopment in sensitive conflict areas of

Eastern Sri Lanka;

The smaller-scaled ODP development programs are able to achieve more than the

larger-scale DAP development programs.


45

Figure 3.2: Housing Program Entitlements. Adapted from “Building Back Better: The

Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction,” by Lyons, M. , (2009),

World Development, 37(2), p. 388.

The findings clearly demonstrate that with the owner playing a key role in a project, the

Owner Driven Program in Sri Lanka (ODP) performed better than the Donor Assisted

Program (DAP) on both quantitative and qualitative criteria (Karunasena & Raufdeen, 2010,

p. 184; Lyons, 2009, p. 395). This findings is in line with a study by Ogu and Ogbuozobe

(2001, p. 474) which highlights that provider-oriented approaches (especially in developing

countries) have failed to meet the housing need of the vulnerable low-income households who

require accommodation the most.

Thabrew, Wiek and Ries (2009, p. 75) had proposed an entire life cycle assessment

system based on the stakeholders’ input. The Stakeholder-Based Life Cycle Assessment

(SBLCA) provides decision support and can be used to structure and analyse stakeholder

associations and map those potentially affected by the various economic, social, and

environmental aspects of the proposed development. This proves the importance of owner

participation as one of the key stakeholder is not only required during the construction stage

but during the entire life-cycle of the development.


46

3.2.3 Challenges of the Concept of ‘Owner Participation’

The understanding of the owner’s/user’s needs in any housing development project is

important for its overall success. A major problem in terms to designs is failing to gain

approval and acceptance has been to consider it to be a matter of insufficient knowledge

about people, their capacities, needs and desires and that design therefore needs to be based

on the improvement of such knowledge (Redström, 2006, p. 123). Systems without a

participatory component run the risk of becoming out of date and irrelevant to the ultimate

stakeholders, plus the end result is simply inadequately informed (Barton, Plume & Parolin,

2005, p. 649). As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that architectural design is reduced to

the lowest common denominator just because the residents have been involved in the design

process (Lawrence, 1982, p. 99).

Lampel, Miller and Floricel (1996, p. 563) highlights that for a complex engineering

projects, the owners occupy a central position at the hub of the information system which

links members of the project. From this position they exert influence on the analysis of

problems and the type of solutions that are proposed as remedies. However, their role in

providing remedies is constrained by two factors, their ability and at times their willingness to

exert such influence. In the absence of internal expertise, owners are forced to rely on other

organisations to develop solutions, and they must also rely on other organizations to evaluate

the merit of such solutions. Furthermore, this reliance does not end with development and

evaluation of solutions, but extends to implementation as well. This was also highlighted by

Halil Shevket & Aysal (2004, p. 103) who recommends that owner has to perform important

duties and responsibilities at the right times in correct ways during the implementation of a

construction project.

Wulz (1986, p. 162) stressed that even having the participation of owners seems to be

the best approach at times, it is not being free from conflicts. This is not the case in reality

because even users can have different opinions when they have to come to a common

decision. The best way is for the project owner to understand the contexts and practices of

other parties involved in the project, such as the construction and design contractors, so as to

achieve effective communication and cooperation with each other (Chen, Qiang & Wang,

2009, p. 1025).

Gamper and Turcanu (2009, p. 527) underlined that what remains to be done in future

research is to provide detailed analysis of the quality of participation. Specifically, there is a

need for in depth analyses of the effect of participation on the actual decision making. Unless


47

these analyses are carried out there is the risk of making public participation yet another

decorative planning element to justify final decision makers’ decisions.

Bubshait (1994, p. 117) had clearly concluded the importance of owner involvement.

“Owner involvement is essential to project quality. Success or failure is, in many cases,

related directly to the level of owner involvement. Owners who exercise close involvement

are usually satisfied with the final project quality.” Therefore, the owner cannot be seen as

just an investor but also a significant contributing party from the concept till completing stage

of a project (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 97).

3.3 RESEARCH VARIABLES

There are numerous models put forward on ensuring successful developments or

construction projects. Numerous attempts had been made that would suit these projects, a

generalisation of project success according to some practical classification should be

identified (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 243). However, the generalisation of the model will not

satisfy every branch of the construction industry due to the fact that each branch has different

requirements. This is due to the fact that every development and construction projects and

each have its own criteria in defining its project success.

Previously, the degree of participation was associated in accordance to the development

stages of a project (Wulz, 1986, p. 162). The interests of those involved in participation are

related to different time periods in the participation process. He had divided the participation

time factor into three periods: during the design phase; during the construction phase and

participation in administration and maintenance after the completion of the project.

One popular approach in identifying the success factors is by the Critical Success

Factors (CSF) Models. Fortune and White (2006, p. 54) highlights two main criticisms of

CSF approach:

The inter-relationships between factors are at least as important as the individual

factors but the CSF approach does not provide a mechanism for taking account of

these inter-relationships;

The factor approach tends to view implementation as a static process instead of a

dynamic phenomenon, and ignores the potential for a factor to have varying levels

of importance at different stages of the implementation process.


48

This can simply be said that current CSF approach does not take into account the

relationship between the factors during different development stages of the project. To

overcome this problem, the proposed Detached Housing Development Guideline would have

to include the element of time to highlight the interaction between factors during different

developmental stages of a detached housing project.

To overcome this issue, this research had identified four main factors. These factors are

extracted from literatures as well as dialogues with industry players. This research analyses

the importance of these factors in its group during different development stages as well as the

interaction between these factors. The factors are development success factors, development

barriers, owner participation and owner satisfaction.

3.3.1 Development Success Factors

There are many literatures on the subject matter on success factors. Most of them are

referring from the medium to big to gigantic scale of construction products. This is because,

success criteria will differ from project to project depending on a number of issues, for

example, size, uniqueness and complexity (Wateridge, 1998, p. 59). Therefore, more effort

must be made to identify the success factors of the smaller scaled construction market such

the detached housing scheme.

There are 21 indicators that the researcher could extract that are viable for development

success factors. Table 3.2 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted

from. The first indicator in the development success factors is “to complete the work within

the time period”. Literally it means that all related parties must do their best to ensure that the

development could be completed within the allocated period. From the researcher’s

observation, it is normal for detached houses in Malaysia to provide one to two years for the

contractor to complete their job.


49

Table 3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources.

Indicators Sources

1. To complete the work

within the time period

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274), (Frödell, Josephson & Lindahl,

2008, p. 24), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu,

2004, p. 1271),(Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)


within the budget

(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47),(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274),

(Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 285),

(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p.

1272), (Nguyen, Ogunlana & Do Thi Xuan, 2004, p. 406),

(Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)


with the pre-

determined quality

(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275),

(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 27), (Metri, 2005, p. 61), (Ling & Liu,

2004, p. 1264), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)

4. Solid measures to

control risks

(Jusoff, Adnan & Nazli, 2008, p. 95), (Zou, Zhang & Wang,

2007, p. 612), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Westerveld,

2003, p. 415), (Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997, p. 36), (Cooper,

MacDonald & Chapman, 1985, p. 142),

5. Measures for health

and safety on site

(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Kines et al., 2010, p. 399), (Enshassi

et al., 2009, p. 277), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 124), (Mohamed,

2002, p. 381), (Gambatese, 2000, p. 662), (Kallman, 1998, p.

668),

6. To manage the

project’s impact

towards the

environment

(Tan, Shen & Yao, 2011, p. 225), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p.

277), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442), (Fortune &

White, 2006, p. 56)

7. To focus on customer’s

/ client’s / owner’s

satisfaction

(Ubani, 2011, p. 182), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 276), (Pinto et

al., 2009, p. 644), (Ahmad, Aziz & Jaafar, 2009, p. 13),

(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 25), (Metri, 2005, p. 68), (Bryde &

Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p. 1272), (Chan

& Chan, 2004, p. 214), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)

8. To achieve the scope or

project’s objectives

(Daniel, Albert, Patrick & James, 2010, p. 197), (Ahmad et

al., 2009, p. 12), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 55),

(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 4),

(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)

9. To fulfil the technical

specifications in the

contract

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p.

626), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

10. To fulfil the real

functional requirement

of the project

(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 13),(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 25),

(Shapira et al., 1994, p. 181)

11. To reflect the

reputation of parties

involved

(Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim, 2011, p. 153), (Ahmad et al.,

2009, p. 13), (Permentier, Bolt & van Ham, 2011, p. 993)

12. To produce the revenue

and profit that was

planned

(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 13), (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 29),

(Hanna, 2007, p. 99), (Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997, p. 33)

13. To provide reward for

all stakeholders

(Clark et al., 2010, p. 48), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 7), (Bryde

& Robinson, 2005, p. 627), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 414),

(Eduljee, 2000, p. 18), (de Wit, 1988, p. 167)


50

Table 3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources

(continued).

Indicators Sources

14. The stability of local

political climate

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Schattan P. Coelho &

Favareto, 2008, p. 2950), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56),

(Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 289)

15. To have a solid,

detailed and latest

project plan

(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 161), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.

55), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356), (Alkhathami, 2004, p.

124)

16. To apply a good

communication and

response system

(Fan, Lin & Sheu, 2008, p. 710), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.

55), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 410)

17. To value the

involvement of project

owner

(Andersen, 2012, p. 77), , (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 161),

(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 30), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 55),

(Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 293), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 409),

(Westerveld, 2003, p. 417), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

18. To acquire a competent

project manager or

superintending officer

(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 270),

(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 158), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.

55), (Derus & Aziz, 2006, p. 1), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288),

(Alkhathami, 2004, p. 32), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)

19. To have a realistic

project schedule (Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p.

21), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Fortune & White, 2006,

p. 55), (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Assaf & Al-

Hejji, 2006, p. 349), (Isidore & Back, 2002, p. 218),

(Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

20. To apply an effective

monitoring and control

system

(Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 290),

(Alkhathami, 2004, p. 32), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 411),

(Westerveld, 2003, p. 414), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

21. To achieve high

performance from the

consultants and

contractors

(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer

& Jha, 2005, p. 283), (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 363), (Xiao &

Proverbs, 2003, p. 330), (Yasamis, Arditi & Mohammadi,

2002, p. 221), (Meng, 2002, p. 237)


51

3.3.2 Development Barriers

There are 22 indicators that are extracted that are viable for development barriers. Table

3.3 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted from.

Table 3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources.

Indicators Sources

1. The prediction of the

property market

(Forrest, 2008, p. 12), (Zety Fazilah, 2000, para. 28), (Carter,

1990, p. 170)

2. The competition

amongst consultant or

contractor

(Tan et al., 2011, p. 229), (Kim & Reinschmidt, 2011, p. 282),

(Nissen, 2007, p. 36), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 291)

3. The financial

projection of the

project

(Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 19), (Assaf & Al-Hejji,

2006, p. 356), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 17), (Nguyen et al.,

2004, p. 405), (Carp, 1986, p. 131)

4. The condition of the

construction site

(Kines et al., 2010, p. 401), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 607),

(Acharya, Lee & Im, 2006, p. 564), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288),

(Anonymous, 2002, p. 53), (Toole, 2002, p. 210), (Mohamed,

2002, p. 381)

5. The revenue of

consultants and

contractors

(Natarelli & Mercado, 2007, p. 39), (Hanna, 2007, p. 99),

(Anonymous, 2007, p. 65), (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 362),

(Lundy & Padgitt, 2003, p. 5)

6. The uncertainty of

payment (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 19), (Abd El-Razek et al.,

2008, p. 838), (Munaaim, 2006, p. 71), (Acharya et al., 2006,

p. 564), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 116)

7. The instability of the

interest rate

(GPG, 2010, para. 11), (Natividade-Jesus, Coutinho-

Rodrigues & Antunes, 2007, p. 779), , (Marohabutr, 2008, p.

16)

8. The verbal consent of

design

(Emmitt & Gorse, 2009, p. 22), (Emmitt & Gorse, 2006),

(Carmona, 2003, p. 72)

9. The compliance

towards construction

rules and regulations

(NRE, 2010b, p. 21), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 154),

(Wong, 2008, p. 4), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood &

Hussin, 2004, p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Carp, 1986, p.

127)

10. The application of

planning approval

(Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim, 2011, p. 156), (NRE, 2010b, p.

19),(Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 154), (Wong, 2008, p. 8),

(Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 607), (Faridi & El-

Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)

11. The delay of project

design (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 21), (Faridi & El-Sayegh,

2006, p. 1175), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 355), (Sweeney,

2000, p. 68)

12. The validation of

quantity and

specification

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p.

626), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

13. The process of

contractor selection

(Walraven & de Vries, 2009, p. 603), (Padhi & Mohapatra,

2009, p. 222), (Zavadskas, Turskis & Tamošaitiene, 2008, p.

185), (Singh & Tiong, 2006, p. 1007), (Holt, 1998, p. 161),

(Hatush & Skitmore, 1997, p. 35), (Holt, Olomolaiye &

Harris, 1994, p. 442)


52

Table 3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources

(continued).

Indicators Sources

14. The delays on-site (Mohammed & Isah, 2012, p. 792), (Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer &

Rentala, 2012, p. 488), (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838),

(Alaghbari, Mohd. Razali, Salim & Ernawati, 2007, p. 204),

(Othman, Torrance & Hamid, 2006, p. 498)

15. The delays of the

contractor (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 20), (Stiegler, 2000, p. 74),

(Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175)

16. The health and safety

obligations

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 277), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 612),

(Mohamed, 2002, p. 381), (Gambatese, 2000, p. 668),

(Kallman, 1998, p. 441), (Ringen, Seegal & England, 1995, p.

179)

17. The failure of design or

design changes

(Chohan, Memon, Agro, Che-Ani & Ishak, 2011, p. 478),

(Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006,

p. 350), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 19), (Ulichkin, 1981, p. 95)

18. The impact towards the

environment

(Tan et al., 2011, p. 229), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12),

(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442), (Fortune & White,

2006, p. 56)

19. The shortage of

manpower and

construction material

(Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 20), (Abd El-Razek et al.,

2008, p. 833), (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Assaf &

Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356), , (Gorke, 1999, p. 11)

20. The overall failure of

the construction

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 478), (Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim,

2011, p. 155), (Natarelli & Mercado, 2007, p. 37), (Carmona,

2003, p. 72)

21. The absence of

assurance or warranty

(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12), (Coln, 2009, p. 18), (McGreevey,

2005, p. 42), (Abdulaziz, 2000, p. 1), (MacKie III, 1985, p.

152), (Gloskowski, 1975, p. 1)

22. The liability under the

provision of law

(IKPO, 2005, p. 20), (Mahmood & Hussin, 2004, p. 2),

(Carmona, 2003, p. 72), (MacKie III, 1985, p. 153)


53

3.3.3 Owner Participation

There are 29 indicators that are extracted that are viable for owner participation. Table


Table 3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources.

Indicators Sources

1. To appoint the

consultants

(Wroblaski, 2011, p. 24), (Karlsen, 2010, p. 656), (Kalina,

2006, p. 44), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 98), (Frable,

1997, p. 42)

2. To plan the project

objective

(Andersen, 2012, p. 75), (Karlsen, 2010, p. 644), (Moore,

2008, p. 8), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 99),

(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 862), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)

3. To prepare the

organisational structure

(Al-Dosary, Assaf & Aldakhil, 2009, p. 398), (Moore, 2008,

p. 107), (Salgado, 2005, p. 100), (Cheng, Su & You, 2003, p.

79), (Shirazi, Langford & Rowlinson, 1996, p. 210),

4. To plan the project

schedule

(Abdul-Rahman, Wang, Takim & Wong, 2011, p. 206),

(Emond & Steins, 2011, p. 63), (Jaśkowski & Biruk, 2011, p.

440), (Twomey, 2006, p. 103), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004,

p. 99), (Francis, 2003, p. 6)

5. To estimate the cost of

the project

(Karlsen, 2010, p. 653), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 97),

(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68),

6. To acquire the source

of funding

(Anonymous, 2011, para. 13), (Forrest, 2008, p. 12), (Turpin,

2008, p. 1), (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838), (Nielsen,

2006, p. 64)

7. To acquire the project

site

(Tarakson, 2005, p. 90), (Keivani & Werna, 2001, p. 70),

(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Harris, 1998, p. 184)

8. To plan the design of

the structure

(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Wulz,

1986, p. 162), (Lawrence, 1982, p. 102)

9. To plan the internal and

external design

(Folaranmi, 2012, p. 730), (Chohan et al., 2011, p. 481),

(Black, 1997),(Frable, 1997, p. 43), (Carp, 1986, p. 132)

10. To ensure the

compliance towards the

rules and regulations of

the local authority

(NRE, 2010b, p. 8), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 141), (Wong,

2008, p. 4), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood & Hussin, 2004,

p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 69)

11. To determine the

project specifications

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Acharya et al., 2006, p. 562),

(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68),

(Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

12. To acquire the approval

of the local authority to

carry out the project

(NRE, 2010b, p. 19), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 146),

(Wong, 2008, p. 2), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood &

Hussin, 2004, p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)

13. To prepare the quantity

and specifications

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Acharya et al., 2006, p. 562),

(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p.

404), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

14. To prepare tender

documents or contract

(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 409), (Eyster, 1988, p. 50), (PWD,

1983a, p. 6), (PWD, 1983b, p. 1)

15. To manage the process

of tender bid

(Kim & Reinschmidt, 2011, p. 275), (Aibinu & Al-Lawati,

2010, p. 723), (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 149), (Nissen,

2007, p. 32)


54

Table 3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources (continued).

Indicators Sources

16. To appoint the

contractor

(Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 351), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p.

408), (Yasamis et al., 2002),(Holt, 1998, p. 221), (Hatush &

Skitmore, 1997, p. 35), (Holt et al., 1994, p. 442)

17. To negotiate with the

contractor

(Foster-Bobroff, 2011, para. 1), (Stephens, 2010, para. 1),

(Pinto et al., 2009, p. 638), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 116)

18. To hand over the site to

the contractor

(Anonymous, 2010a, p. 1), (Engineers, 1999, p. 1), (PWD,

1983a, p. 17)

19. To attend the site

meetings

(Emmitt & Gorse, 2009, p. 158), (Emmitt & Gorse, 2006),

(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)

20. To monitor the

progress of work

(Rojanamon, Chaisomphob & Bureekul, 2012, p. 332), (Brun

& Jolley, 2011, p. 215), , (Palaneeswaran, Ng &

Kumaraswamy, 2006, p. 1559), (Simpson, Henke, Beamer &

Bennett, 2004, p. 7)

21. To monitor the health

and safety procedure on

site

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 277), (Huang & Hinze, 2006a, p.

172), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 124), (Mohamed, 2002, p. 381),

(Gambatese, 2000, p. 662), (Kallman, 1998, p. 668), (Ringen

et al., 1995, p. 166)

22. To monitor the process

of progress payment

(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p.

356), (Munaaim, 2006, p. 71), (Meng, 2002, p. 237)

23. To monitor variation

orders

, (Ibbs et al., 2007, p. 46), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356),

(Acharya et al., 2006, p. 559), (Schaufelberger, 2000a, p. 610)

24. To provide the

certificate of practical

completion

(Chow & Chan, 2009, p. 109), (Mohd Nor, 2008, p. 129),

(Palaneeswaran et al., 2006, p. 1561), (Thompson, 2004, p.

11)

25. To monitor extension

of time claims

(Lester & Mackay, 2011, p. 99), (Boukendour, 2009, p. 1266),

(O'Leary, 1998, p. 44), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 177)

26. To monitor liquidated

and ascertain damages

claims

(Coldwell, Burchett-Williams & Celeste, 2010, para. 1),

(Danuri, Munaaim & Yen, 2009, p. 10), (Caplicki & Guidry,

2006, p. 22), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 177)

27. To monitor the repair

works during defects

liability period

(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 14), (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 27),

(Palaneeswaran et al., 2006, p. 1566), (IKPO, 2005, p. 20),

(Carù et al., 2004, p. 539)

28. To monitor the

preparation of final

account and final

certificate

(Chow, 2008, p. 245), (LAM, 2008, p. 1), (Ismail, 2007, p. 9),

(Brewer, 2005, p. 38)

29. To hand over the site to

the owner

(Anonymous, 2010a, p. 1), (Engineers, 1999, p. 1), (PWD,

1983a, p. 17)


55

3.3.4 Owner Satisfaction

There are 17 indicators that are extracted that are viable for owner satisfaction. Table


Table 3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources.

Indicators Sources

1. The overall design of

the house

(Rand, Hirano & Kelman, 2011, p. 200), (Chohan et al., 2011,

p. 481), (Redström, 2006, p. 124), (Kowaltowski et al., 2005,

p. 108), (Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Sweeney, 2000, p.

68), (MHLG, 1999a, para. 9), (Chakrabarty, 1987, p. 289),

2. The internal space of

the house

(Reuschke, 2012, p. 27), (Dekker, de Vos, Musterd & van

Kempen, 2011, p. 494), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 151)

3. The area of house’s

space

(Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 56), (Chohan et al., 2011, p.

464), (NCLT, 2009, para. 6)

4. The numbers of

bedroom

(Reuschke, 2012, p. 24), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162),

(Amole, 2009, p. 84), (Diaz-Serrano, 2009, p. 749), (OCASI,

2009, para. 6), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)

5. The size of the master

bedroom

(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162), (Amole, 2009, p. 84),

(OCASI, 2009, para.6), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p.

3437)

6. The size of the master

bathroom

(Reuschke, 2012, p. 19), (Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 57),

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 474), (Amole, 2009, p. 82), (Diaz-

Serrano, 2009, p. 749), (OCASI, 2009, para. 6), (Mendonça &

Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)

7. The size of the living

room

(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 151), (OCASI, 2009, para. 1),

(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)

8. The size of the kitchen (Reuschke, 2012, p. 27), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162),

(Amole, 2009, p. 82), (OCASI, 2009, para. 1), (NCLT, 2009,

para. 2), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3438)

9. The quality of

construction materials

that were used

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 473), (Cannalire, 2011, p. 49), (Tam

et al., 2000, p. 444), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Bubshait,

1994, p. 117)

10. The aspect of water

supply

(Rand et al., 2011, p. 201), (Diaz-Serrano, 2009, p. 749),

(Berkoz, Turk & Kellekci, 2008, p. 168), (Schattan P. Coelho

& Favareto, 2008, p. 2945), (Simpson et al., 2004, p. 2)

11. The aspect of electrical

supply

(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 160), (Berkoz et al., 2008, p.

168), (Ireland, 2001, p. 38), (Kashiwagi, 1999, p. 424)

12. The aspect of

ventilation in the house

(Etheridge, 2012, p. 7), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 158),

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 474), (Melikov, 2004, p. 164)

13. The exterior compound

area outside the house

(Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 64), (Venhaus, 2012, p. 32),

(Ile, 2011, p. 21), , (Smith, Dunnett & Clayden, 2008, p. 4)

14. The area of entrance

road and drainage

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 473), (Yang & Li, 2010, p. 1649),

(Othman et al., 2006, p. 493)

15. The duration to

complete the house

(Dursun & Stoy, 2012, p. 465), (Rand et al., 2011, p. 202),

(Theresa Keoughan, Pegg & Martin, 2006, p. 15.2), (Tan,

2006, p. 50), (Proverbs, Holt & Olomolaiye, 1998, p. 203),

(Kumaraswamy & Chan, 1995, p. 217)


56

Table 3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources (continued).

Indicators Sources

16. The overall quality of

the house compared to

the specifications

(Dekker et al., 2011, p. 494), (Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Frödell

et al., 2008, p. 27), (Metri, 2005, p. 61), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p.

1264), (Yasamis et al., 2002, p. 221), (Westerveld, 2003, p.

412), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)

17. The ability of the house

to execute its functions

(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 481), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 14),

(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442)

3.4 SUMMARY

Chapter 3 had continued on the previous chapter’s literature review as it had

highlighted the relevant literatures on owner participation as well as the sources for the

variables for this research. This chapter is an initial step for this research’s second objective

in determining the significance of owner participation for a successful detached housing

development project. The role of owner may differ depending on the nature of the

development or at which stage that development is in.

Chapter 2 and 3 had enabled this research to identify relevant research variables or

indicators. From the literature, there are 21 indicators that were identified for development

success factors, 22 indicators for development barriers, 29 indicators for owner participation

and 17 indicators for owner satisfaction. However, these indicators are not directly related to

the detached housing scenario. Therefore, a method had to be indentified in order to identify

which indicator is critical for the success of detached housing development in Malaysia. The

next chapter elaborates on the research method that had been utilised for this research.

Chapter 4: Research Method

57

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHOD

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter presented review of the extent literatures covering the research

problem. The review concluded that there was an apparent gap in terms of owner

participation in the successful development of detached housing in Malaysia. This chapter

explains on approach that shall be carried out for this research.

This chapter contained six main sections. After the introductory section, the second

section of this chapter identified the research framework based on the literature in previous

chapters. This section included the development of research questions based on the research

gaps identified in the literature review chapters. This was followed by the third section for the

formulation of the investigative questions which was used as the basis for the development of

the research instrument. This section was followed by the fourth section which focused on the

selection of the research method utilised to answer the research questions, namely

questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. It highlighted the reasons of the selection of

such methods as well as their advantages and disadvantages and their suitability for this

research. The fifth section emphasized on describing the methods itself. The methods’

structure sampling and distribution were discussed in detail in this section. This chapter will

be closed by the fourth section which is the summary section.

4.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

In the previous chapters, a review of the extent literature covering the research problem

was presented. Chapter 2 of the literature review explained about the detached housing as a

housing scheme in general. It also highlighted the success factors and barriers in developing

such a housing scheme. The review continued with the detached housing market in Malaysia.

It started off with a general overview of the residential property market in Malaysia which

then focuses to the trend of Malaysian detached housing market. With a relatively large

number of literatures discussing on success factors and barriers in construction in various

sectors, there were very limited sources discussing them in the residential sector. Even more

so for the detached housing sector, virtually the discussion of development success factors

and development barriers in this sector was non-existent. This tremendous literature gap on

detached houses was one of the reasons that justified the execution of this research.


58

The literature review continues to Chapter 3 with its focus on owner participation. It

began with the role of owner participation in construction projects in general. The review

continued on highlighting owner participation especially in housing development projects and

the challenges that must be faced in order for this concept to be implemented successfully.

However, the owner participation in the literature only mentioned about other types of

housing such as ready-built homes, customisable homes, homes for natural disaster victims

and such. By focusing in the housing development sector, it was discovered that the

literatures concerning the association owner participation and detached houses were very

limited. This had become more obvious in the Malaysian context. This obvious gap

rationalised a study to discover the significance of owner participation in detached housing

development projects.

Previous literatures in Section 2.2.2 had also discovered different ways to measure

development success. Such massive amount of indicators made it impossible for this research

to relate its findings to the “success” of detached housing development. From the literatures

in Section 2.2.4 it was discovered that the ultimate indicator for project success was the

owner’s satisfaction of the development. Even when all other indicators such as the budget,

duration and quality had not met its intended target, the owner’s satisfaction was the most

significant and everlasting success indicator of any development project.

From these extensive arguments, the review continued to a new section which listed all

the indicators that were extracted from the related literatures in their respective groups or

factors for this research. There were four themes or main factors involved namely

development success factors, development barriers, owner participation and owner

satisfaction. “Development success factors” were the success factors that positively

contributed to the development of detached houses. In the other hand, “development barriers”

were the negative factors that obstructed the smooth development of detached houses.

“Owner participation” was the involvement of detached house owners in developmental

stages of detached house project while ‘owner satisfaction” was the level of satisfaction of

detached house owners in certain aspect of the development. Based on the relevant literature,

this research was able to extract 21 indicators for development success factors, 22 indicators

for development barriers, 29 indicators for owner participation and 17 indicators for owner

satisfaction resulting in relatively large number of 89 operable indicators.


59

This section concluded that there was an apparent gap in terms of owner participation in

the successful development of detached housing in Malaysia. The investigation of Malaysian

owners’ participation in developing their detached house and how successful the development

in their perspective was not so far been researched to any degree at this point in time.

Therefore it was essential for this research to explore the relationship between owner’s role

and development success factors especially in the Malaysian scenario.

4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The literature review from the previous chapters, and summarised in previous section,

had identified the gaps in the topic of owner participation and detached houses. This research

aims to address the gaps by developing develop a guideline to improve owner participation

for a successful detached housing development project in Malaysia. To achieve this aim, the

following research questions need to be answered. This research aims to address the gaps by

developing develop a guideline concerning owner participation for a successful detached

housing development project in Malaysia. To achieve this aim, the following research

questions need to be answered:

Question 1: What are the factors that would positively and negatively influence the

development of detached house?

This question was developed to identify the development success factors and

development barriers of detached house development that was identified by the first research

gap.

Question 2: How would owner participation affect the different developmental stages of

a detached house development?

Every development project had different sequential implementation stages. This

question explored the requirement of owner involvement in each detached house

developmental stages.

Question 3: What is the best approach in developing a successful detached housing

project in Malaysia?

From the result of the earlier questions, a guideline for a successful detached housing

development was prepared. It had served to guide future detached house owners in effectively

participating in the development of their detached house project. This will ensure their utmost

satisfaction as well as the overall success of the development.


60

Therefore, the research objectives (RO) that were derived from these research questions

are:

RO1: To identify critical development success factors and development barriers of

detached housing developments in Malaysia;

RO2: To determine the significance of owner participation for a successful detached

housing development;

RO3: To propose a guideline for owner participation for detached housing

development in Malaysia.

This research utilised a mixed methodology using quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Both of the methods were employed to achieve the first, second and third

research objective. The qualitative approach was used to validate and improve the model that

was created through the quantitative method that produced a more relevant guideline for a

successful detached housing development in Malaysia (Figure 4.1).

The following sections discussed the reasons for selecting the methods and how the

methods were implemented.


61

Figure 4.1: Research implementation.

VALIDATE

The Detached

Housing

Development

The Current

Practice of

Detached Housing

Development in

Malaysia

The Concept of

Owner

Participation and

Owner Satisfaction

Stage 1

Questionnaire Survey

via

By-hand, mail and

online

Stage 2

Semi-Structured

Interviews

Targeted Respondents:

1. Detached House Owners

2. Consultants and Contractors

Quantitative Data

(Descriptive, Factor

Analysis and

Structural Equation

Modelling using IBM

SPSS and AMOS)

Qualitative Data

(Content Analysis

using QSR NVivo 9)

Research Model

GUIDELINE

FORMULATION

LIT

ER

AT

UR

E

RE

VIE

W

RE

SE

AR

CH

ME

TH

OD

DA

TA

AN

AL

YS

IS

RE

SU

LT


62

4.4 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD

The questionnaire survey was the first research method that was utilised. This method

was selected because it was designed to answer the exploratory questions like ‘what’, ‘who’

and ‘where’ (Yin, 2009) which was suitable for exploratory researches. Specifically, the

research instrument consisted of consolidated questionnaires that captured the profile of the

respondent, the participation of the owner in the development of their detached house and

their perception of the success of their detached housing development process.

Due to the fact that there were no previous questionnaires developed for on the topic of

detached houses, a new questionnaire was created to address the matter. However, the

contents of the questionnaire were based on the findings of previous researches to maintain its

reliability and consistency. The results of the questionnaire were analysed using quantitative

method including descriptive statistics, factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The

developed model was correlated to the results of the qualitative analysis for validation and

improvements.

The second research method that was the semi-structured interview. This method was

selected because semi-structured interview allows all participants to be asked the same

questions within a flexible framework (Dearnley, 2005, p. 22). During the semi-structured

interview sessions, the interview participants were asked with the same questions from an

interview guide prepared by the researcher. This maintained the reliability of their responses.

Even though the participants tend to elaborate more about their experiences and provide lots

of examples, the interview guide was necessary to ensure that the interview session did not

get too far-off the subject-matter of this research.

The data from the interviews was extracted and correlated to the results of the

quantitative analysis. Improvements were made to the model based from the information

derived from the qualitative methods. By integrating the findings of the qualitative analysis to

the quantitative analysis, the validity of this research was increased by the collection of data

that were rich in their explanation and analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 65).


63

4.5 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHOD

4.5.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire survey was designed to highlight certain issues pertaining detached

housing development such as development success factors, development barriers, owner

participation, owner satisfaction and demographics. There were two variants of questionnaire

prepared for this survey. One version was for the detached house owners and the other was

for the consultants / contractors. Even though they were intended for different parties, the

questionnaire asked similar questions to the respondents. The only difference was on the way

the questions were being structured and a number of demographics questions that may apply

to house owner but not to the consultants/contractors or vice versa. This was to ensure that

both of the parties’ opinion could be integrated into this research.

Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire was developed based on the research variables identified from

literature review in Chapter 3, Section 3.3. It was originally developed in English language,

deriving its content from related literatures. After it was approved by the ethical committee,

the questionnaire had undergone translation process to Bahasa Malaysia. This was because

the level of English that was used in the questionnaire was too complex for the targeted

respondents. This deterred most of the targeted respondents from answering the questionnaire

or made them answer the questionnaire half-hearted. Due to the fact that the researcher had

reasonable command of both languages, the researcher had translated the questionnaire

himself. This was to ensure that not only the language was properly translated but more

importantly the context of the questionnaire was not distorted in the process. The translation

was then examined by a number of Malaysian PhD candidates.

The translated questionnaire was pre-tested by the academic staff of the Department of

Quantity Survey, Universiti Teknologi MARA in Perak, Malaysia. Being academician

themselves, they were quite familiar with the process of questionnaire development and were

quick to highlight further improvements that could be made to the questionnaire. This process

improve the reliability of the questionnaire. Only after their suggestions were taken into

account that the questionnaire could be administered to the targeted population.


64

Questionnaire Structure

The questionnaires that were implemented for this research can be referred in Appendix

B. The questionnaire was divided into 5 different sections:

Section 1: Success Factors for the Development of Detached House;

Section 2: Owner Participation in the Development of Detached House;

Section 3: Information of the Property;

Section 4: Satisfaction Level of the Detached House Owner;

Section 5: Information of the Respondents.

Section 1 was crucial for the first objective of this research. It identified the significant

development success factors and development barriers that affected the success of a detached

housing development. It explored the issue of development success factors and development

barriers through the identification of suitable indicators. These indicators generally provided

positive of negative effect to the development process as a whole.

Section 1 was divided into 2 questions. Question 1 was about the development success

factors itself. The development success factors generally provided positive effect to the

development process. Question 1 (of Section 1) required the respondents’ to tap on their past

experience on the factors that led to the successful development of their detached house. 21

indicators were extracted from literature to be graded by the respondents. On a Likert Scale of

1 (Important) to 4 (Not Important), the respondents had to determine which development

success factors were more important or significant in the successful development of their

detached houses. By referring to Section 3.3.1, the indicators in question 1 are listed in Table

4.1:


65

Table 4.1: Indicators of Question 1 (Development Success Factors).

Number Indicator Code

1 To complete the work within the time period time_1a

2 To complete the work within the budget budget_1b

3 To complete the work with the pre-determined

quality quality1_1c

4 Solid measures to control risks risk_1d

5 Measures for health and safety on site hns1_1e

6 To manage the project's impact towards the

environment enviro1_1f

7 To focus on customer's / client's / owner's satisfaction satisfy_1g

8 To achieve the scope or project's objectives scope_1h

9 To fulfil the technical specifications in the contract spec1_1i

10 To fulfil the real functional requirement of the

project function1_1j

11 To reflect the reputation of parties involved reputation_1k

12 To produce the revenue and profit that was planned profit_1l

13 To provide reward for all stakeholders benefit_1m

14 The stability of local political climate politic_1n

15 To have a solid, detailed and latest project plan plan_1o

16 To apply a good communication and response system communicate_1p

17 To value the involvement of project owner involve_1q

18 To acquire a competent project manager or

superintending officer projmngr_1r

19 To have a realistic project schedule schedule1_1s

20 To apply an effective monitoring and control system monitor1_1t

21 To achieve high performance from the consultants

and contractors perform_1u

The same process goes with Question 2 where the respondents had to determine which

of the 22 development barriers indicators that was more significant in giving a negative

impact towards the development of their detached house. By referring to Section 3.3.2, the

indicators in question 2 are listed in Table 4.2:


66

Table 4.2: Indicators of Question 2 (Development Barriers).


1 The prediction of the property market prediction_2a

2 The competition amongst consultant or contractor competitor_2b

3 The financial projection of the project financial_2c

4 The condition of the construction site site1_2d

5 The revenue of consultants and contractors revenue_2e

6 The uncertainty of payment uncertainty_2f

7 The instability of the interest rate interest_2g

8 The verbal consent of design consent_2h

9

The compliance towards construction rules and

regulations regulation_2i

10 The application of planning approval permission_2j

11 The delay of project design designdelay_2k

12 The validation of quantity and specification quantity1_2l

13 The process of contractor selection selection_2m

14 The delays on-site sitedelay_2n

15 The delays of the contractor contrdelay_2o

16 The health and safety obligations hns2_2p

17 The failure of design or design changes designfail_2q

18 The impact towards the environment enviro2_2r

19 The shortage of manpower and construction material shortage_2s

20 The overall failure of the construction bldgfail_2t

21 The absence of assurance or warranty warranty_2u

22 The liability under the provision of law liability_2v

Section 2 of the questionnaire explored the level of owner participation in the

development of a detached house. Question 3 listed 29 development activities that were

usually executed in any development project. The respondents’ needed to specify the degree

of their involvement during each activity on a Likert Scale of 1 (Involved) to 4 (Not

Involved). Section 2 was important for objective 2 that it determined the significance of

owner participation for a successful detached housing development. By referring to Section

3.3.3, the indicators in question 3 are listed in Table 4.3:


67

Table 4.3: Indicators of Question 3 (Owner Participation).


1 To appoint the consultants devteam_3a

2 To plan the project objective objective_3b

3 To prepare the organisational structure structure_3c

4 To plan the project schedule schedule2_3d

5 To estimate the cost of the project cost_3e

6 To acquire the source of funding finance_3f

7 To acquire the project site site2_3g

8 To plan the design of the structure strdesign_3h

9 To plan the internal and external design intextdesign_3i

10

To ensure the compliance towards the rules and

regulations of the local authority legalreq_3j

11 To determine the project specifications spec2_3k

12

To acquire the approval of the local authority to carry

out the project approval_3l

13 To prepare the quantity and specifications quantity2_3m

14 To prepare tender documents or contract document_3n

15 To manage the process of tender bid bidding_3o

16 To appoint the contractor selection_3p

17 To negotiate with the contractor negotiate_3q

18 To hand over the site to the contractor handover1_3r

19 To attend the site meetings sitemeet_3s

20 To monitor the progress of work monitor2_3t

21 To monitor the health and safety procedure on site hns3_3u

22 To monitor the process of progress payment payment_3v

23 To monitor variation orders variation_3w

24 To provide the certificate of practical completion completion_3x

25 To monitor extension of time claims eot_3y

26 To monitor liquidated and ascertain damages claims lad_3z

27

To monitor the repair works during defects liability

period dlp_3aa

28

To monitor the preparation of final account and final

certificate cf_3ab

29 To hand over the site to the owner handover2_3ac

Section 3 of the questionnaire gathered more information about the detached house

itself. It included ownership of house, location, size of house, development cost of the house,

actual market value of house, development duration, completion date, time extension, parties

appointed in the development process and the general design of the house. This section

provided extra information for further analysis on the respondents.


68

Section 4 of the questionnaire highlighted the respondents’ level of satisfaction in terms

of the overall development process and its product. Respondents needed to determine their

level of satisfaction on 17 criteria through a Likert Scale. Section 4 was the key to tie up

Section 1 and 2 in terms of how the available development success factors, development

barriers and owner participation generated a successful (and satisfying) detached housing

development for the respondents. By referring to Section 3.3.4, the indicators in question 15

are listed in Table 4.4:

Table 4.4: Indicators of Question 15 (Owner Satisfaction).


1 The overall design of the house design_15a

2 The internal space of the house internal_15b

3 The area of house's space buildarea_15c

4 The numbers of bedroom bed_15d

5 The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e

6 The size of the master bathroom masterbath_15f

7 The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g

8 The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h

9 The quality of construction materials that were used quality2_15i

10 The aspect of water supply water_15j

11 The aspect of electrical supply electric_15k

12 The aspect of ventilation in the house ventilation_15l

13 The exterior compound area outside the house compound_15m

14 The area of entrance road and drainage accessdrains_15n

15 The duration to complete the house delivery_15o

16

The overall quality of the house compared to the

specifications quality3_15p

17 The ability of the house to execute its functions function2_15q

Section 5 of the questionnaire captured profile and demographic information such as the

respondents’ age, gender, occupation, number of resident, household income and duration

they have lived in the house. For the owner version, it determined the characteristics of the

detached house resident as what was established in the literature such as income level,

education level and size of family. For the consultant & contractor version, it established the

type, the size and how long the business (that the respondents work with) was in operation.

This section was intended to be the last section the questionnaire so that the respondents’

were more comfortable revealing their more “sensitive” information now that they felt that

they were a part of this research.


69

Question 1, 2, 3 and 15 were analysed through factor analysis, structural equation

modelling (SEM) and semi-structured interview while the rest were analysed with descriptive

analysis.

Questionnaire Reliability and Validity

The questionnaire was tested to determine its reliability and validity. Reliability was

defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, test, observation or any measurement

procedure produces the same results on repeated trials. Validity was defined as the extent to

which the instrument measures what it purports to measure (Miller, NA, p. 3). The important

sections of the questionnaire namely section 1, 2 and 4 were designed to be analysed with

factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Therefore, it was vital to ensure the

reliability and validity of its questions.

Firstly, the questionnaire’s reliability was pretested by showing them to relevant experts

in the construction sector for comments. In this process, the experts reviewed the wording of

each questions and ensure that their meanings are clearly understood (Hernon & Schwartz,

2009, p. 73).

Next, the reliability of questions 1, 2, 3 and 15 were assessed by using inter-item

correlations or internal consistency. Internal consistency concerns the extent to which items

on the test or instrument are measuring the same thing. If the individual items are highly

correlated with each other you can be highly confident in the reliability of the entire scale.

(Miller, NA, p. 2). To do this, Cronbach’s Alpha was utilised because during scale

development with items that have several response options (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree) (Miller, NA, p. 2). Chapman (2003, p. 18) quoted Nunnally & Bernstein

(1994) who stated emphatically for the importance of internal consistency estimate

calculation for new measures or new uses of existing measures. From the analysis, it was

identified that all of the Cronbach’s alpha for the questions were above 0.7 (refer Appendix

C). This meant that the reliability of the related questions were considered “good” because the

general convention in research has been prescribed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) who

state that one should strive for reliability values of .70 or higher was achieved (Miller, NA, p.

2).

The face and content validity were the main aspects in terms of validity, during the

development of this questionnaire. Face validity, which represented the researchers' appraisal

that the content reflects what they were measuring whereas content validity was concerned


70

with the representativeness of the measuring instrument in describing the content which it

was intended to measure (Hernon & Schwartz, 2009, p. 73). The content of the questionnaire

was created by referring to relevant theories and literatures. The measurement for

discriminant validity was discussed further in Chapter 6.

Questionnaire Respondents and Sampling

There were generally two types of respondents for the questionnaire survey:

Malaysian detached house owners;

Malaysian construction consultants and/or contractors.

The detached house owners had answered the questionnaire based on their past

experience of developing their own detached house. In the other hand, the consultants and/or

contractors had answered the questionnaire by referring to a particular detached house project

that they were involved with.

The first target population of this research were the Malaysian detached house owners.

According to the Preliminary Analysis conducted from data provided in the Quarterly

Residential Property Stock Report, there were about 400,000 units (396,918 units) of

detached housing in supply in Malaysia in the second quarter of 2009 alone (refer Table 4.5).

With the units being sold were within the margin of 46% to 55% (VPSD, 2010), it was

estimated that there were about 200,000 (or 50%) occupied detached housing units all over

Malaysia. Due to the limitations of this research, this entire population of about 200,000 was

quite improbable to be surveyed.


71

Table 4.5: The Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2 2009).

Source: Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance

Malaysia, (2005 - 2009), p. 4.


72

A sample is a subset of a population of interest that is defined by the researcher

(Konold, Fan, Penelope, Eva & Barry, 2010, p. 217). Rather than surveying the entire

population of about 200,000, sampling was the more practical approach in conducting this

research. It was expected that the sample needed was a fraction of the populace. Fraenkel and

Wallen (2007) suggested for correlational studies, a sample of at least 50 was deemed

necessary to establish the existence of a relationship. However, Israel (2003, p. 3)

recommended that for a population of over 100,000, a sample of 100 should suffice for a 10%

precision level where confidence level was 95% and p=.5. Therefore, it was established that a

target of minimum valid sample of 100 were expected to be obtained for the analysis of this

research.

The questionnaires were distributed to all of the states in Peninsular Malaysia with the

exception of the state of Perlis and Federal Territory of Putrajaya (refer Figure 4.2). This

resulted in the representation of the majority of detached housing supply in Peninsular

Malaysia.

Figure 4.2: The states and federal territories of Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved 2011,

from www.malaysiacentral.com.

http://www.malaysiacentral.com/


73

For the owner questionnaire, the sampling method for this research was derived through

the stratified sampling method. The first stage was to select the states of Peninsular Malaysia

that would be involved in this research. The second stage was to randomly select two districts

in the particular state and the third stage was to randomly select the respondents in the chosen

district.

As what was mentioned, the first stage of this sampling was to select the states for the

door-to-door distribution of the owner questionnaires. The researcher had identified the states

of ‘central’ and ‘northern’ region of Peninsular Malaysia for the door-to-door distribution of

the owner questionnaire. This was due to the fact that they were near to the researcher’s base

of operation which was in the state of Perak. The owner questionnaires for the ‘southern’

region of the peninsular were distributed by selected volunteers. The financial, time and

manpower limitations of this research had contributed to the researcher’s decision on this

matter. Therefore, the owner questionnaire distributions to the selected states were as

described in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: The Selected Surveyed States of Peninsular Malaysia.

Peninsular Malaysia States Detached House Supply

(Quarter 2 2009)

Percentage of Supply in

Peninsular Malaysia

Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 7,928 units 2.13%

The State of Selangor 42,776 units 11.53%

The State of Perak 59,472 units 16.03%

The State of Pulau Pinang 6,168 units 1.66%

The State of Kedah 34,726 units 9.36%

The State of Kelantan 15,883 units 4.28%

The State of Terengganu 9,958 units 2.68%

The State of Pahang 66,118 units 17.82%

The State of Johor 84,622 units 22.81%

The State of Melaka 12,163 units 3.28%

The State of Negeri Sembilan 30,616 units 8.25%

Source: Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property

Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2005 - 2009), p. 4.

The combination of the selected 11 states resulted in a majority (96.86%) of the total

area for detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia (2nd Quarter 2009) (VPSD, 2005 -

2009). Based on that justification, these 11 states were selected for this research. One rather

small remote northern state of Perlis and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya were excluded

from this research due to the following considerations:


74

It was exceptionally financially uneconomical for this research to collect data from

this state;

The limitation of manpower and amenities made it inopportune to survey the

mentioned state;

It was a time consuming exercise considering the location of this state was far from

the researcher’s point of operation;

The state of Perlis and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya had the lowest number of

detached houses in Peninsular Malaysia during the second quarter 2009 (VPSD,

2005 - 2009, p. 4).

The second stage was to select two districts of the selected states. Two districts of each

state were chosen where the sampling was extracted. Next, the researcher had randomly select

detached house owners from the chosen district to be given with the detached house owner

questionnaire. The questionnaire was either given personally to the owner or through the

house’s tenants or inserted in their letter box. Depending on the density of detached houses in

a particular district, the amount of the distributed questionnaire for each district varied

between 10 to 100 pieces per district. The sampling process for detached house owners was

described in detail in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Sampling Method of Questionnaire Distribution for Detached House

Owners.

ST

RA

TIF

IED

SA

MP

LIN

G Stage 1

Select State

Stage 2

Select District

Stage 3

Select Respondents

Federal Territory of Kuala

Lumpur

Damansara and

Setiawangsa

Ran

dom

Det

ached

House

Ow

ner

s

(100

< x

< 1

0)

per

dis

tric

t

The State of Selangor Klang and Kuala

Selangor

The State of Perak Perak Tengah and Kinta

The State of Pulau Pinang Bukit Mertajam and

Kepala Batas

The State of Kedah Kuala Muda and Kulim

The State of Kelantan Kota Bharu and Bachok

The State of Terengganu Kuala Terengganu and

Besut

The State of Pahang Kuantan and Maran

The State of Johor Muar and Batu Pahat

The State of Melaka Melaka Tengah and Jasin

The State of Negeri

Sembilan

Seremban and Rembau


75

For the consultants / contractors questionnaires, the sampling was made through simple

random sampling. This was because most of the consultant & contractor companies

congregated in major cities throughout Malaysia and advertised their company through all

types of public media. Therefore, any company that had listed their particulars in any

publications such as yellow pages, newspaper, magazines as well as publishing them online

via company websites, business websites and such had an equal chance to receive a copy of

the consultant & contractor questionnaire. Those who did not prefer to answer the

questionnaire physically, an online questionnaire form was also available for them. Besides

that, any previous consultant & contractor companies that the researcher had contact with as

well as referrals from other individuals were also taken into consideration to be a respondent

in this research. These more familiar consultants / contractors were most likely to be handed

the questionnaire by hand to improve on the response rate of the survey.

Questionnaire Distribution

The questionnaire distribution was executed physically and online between January and

May 2011. The questionnaire pamphlets were distributed via mail, by hand and through

online methods throughout the states of Peninsular Malaysia. For the questionnaires that were

given to the detached house owners, they could only be distributed on a door-to-door basis as

currently there were no available database that specified the locations and addresses of

detached housing locations throughout Malaysia. There were several ways identify the

general locations of these types of houses:

Asking the local population of the particular area;

Through search on printed and online media;

Enquiring the Local Authorities.

Due to the limitation of this research, only 8 out of 12 states in Peninsular Malaysia

were explored personally for door-to-door distribution of the owner questionnaire. This

resulted in the questionnaire distribution (by the researcher) of 65.49% of the total area for

detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia. The blue line in Figure 4.3 indicates the route

(thus the states) that the researcher took for the door-to-door distribution of the detached

house owner questionnaire. For the states of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor, the

researcher had appointed volunteers to assist in distributing questionnaires (by hand) to the

detached house owners in the particular states (indicated by red arrows in Figure 4.3). The


76

combination of the questionnaire distribution by the researcher and the volunteers resulted in

to coverage of 96.86% of the total area for detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia.

Legend:

Code

Survey Area

District State

A Klang, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya Selangor

K Damansara and Setiawangsa Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur

C Seri Iskandar, Batu Gajah Perak

D Bukit Mertajam, Kepala Batas Pulau Pinang (Penang)

E Kulim, Sungai Petani Kedah

F Besut Terengganu

G Bachok Pengkalan Chepa Kelantan

H Kuala Terengganu Terengganu

I Kuantan Pahang

J Jengka Pahang

L Seremban dan Rembau Negeri Sembilan

M Bandar Melaka and Jasin Melaka

N Muar and Batu Pahat Johor

Figure 4.3: The survey run for the door-to-door distribution of detached house owner

questionnaire. Retrieved 2011 from www.maps.google.com.my.

http://www.maps.google.com.my/


77

Besides the door-to-door type of distribution, questionnaires were also mailed to the

respondents especially for the consultant & contractor questionnaires. These questionnaires

were distributed via mail due to the fact that their locations and addresses could be

established by means of printed and online databases, company websites, yellow pages as

well as personal contacts. Therefore, the consultant & contractor questionnaires were

relatively easier to be distributed all over Peninsular Malaysia. However, the response rate via

mail was relatively lower than the door-to-door method and its distribution costs were

relatively higher.

Online methods such as email, questionnaire website services and social network

websites were utilised to assist to improve the questionnaire response rate. However, the

amount of questionnaires that were sent out via these methods was limited. The responses

were sometimes unreliable and needed to be checked thoroughly before being accepted into

this research.

Questionnaire Data Management

The data that the researcher had received came from a number of sources namely via

by-hand, post, email, online questionnaire survey or even internet social websites. When the

response came in, the researcher made a record of the response such as its register number,

the date it was received, its format and such. The response was keyed in straight into the

SPSS program. This was to minimise the workload of keying it in all in one time. It also gave

the researcher a glimpse of the preliminary data trend. The saved SPSS file had three backup

copies just in case the original file malfunctioned. After the researcher was satisfied that the

requirement for minimum response were achieved (refer page 68, (Israel, 2003, p. 3)), the

data was cleaned and proofread.

4.5.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

Through semi-structured interviews, the more in-depth explanatory questions were

reviewed. The result of the semi-structured interviews assisted in the improvement and

validation of the model which had established objective three (which was the development of

a successful detached housing development guideline in Malaysia). Selected participants from

the questionnaire sessions were invited to be further interviewed in a semi-structured

interview session. An appointment with the participant was arranged to conduct the interview.

Their responses were written down onto the interview sheet as well as being recorded through

a digital voice recorder. Based on the interview, qualitative analyses were carried out to


78

improve and validate the findings of the model that was previously solely based on the

questionnaire responses. The utilisation of qualitative analysis software such as QSR Nvivo

assisted in speeding up the process.

There were two types of participants required for the semi-structured interviews. They

were the detached house owners and (construction) consultant professionals or contractors.

For the first party, they were selected from detached house owners who had extensive

professional experience in construction industry as well as vast academic knowledge in their

area of expertise. Most of the participants had a number of years practicing in the

construction industry as well as being involved in delivering their industrial knowledge to the

education world whether as academicians, practical training mentor, guest speakers and such.

This was to ensure that the selected detached house owners attempted to answer the questions

based on their knowledge and experience rather than blunt perception and feelings.

For the second party, they were selected from consultant professionals who had

practiced in their field for a number of years. They needed to be involved in at least one

detached house development project in order to be selected in this interview. This was

because they were required to recall relevant information about the particular project during

the course of the interview. An involvement with the academia was a plus so that they were

able to balance between the theory and what was being practiced in the real world. Besides

from personal contacts, the researcher obtained suitable candidates from previous

participants. This was to ensure that only the cream of the practitioners was included in the

interview sessions.

In terms of translating, two out of the eight participants spoke English while the rest

were more comfortable speaking Bahasa Melayu (Malay Language). It was inappropriate for

the interviewer to compel the participants to speak English. Furthermore, the Malay language

that they were using was more of a “common language” version rather than the proper

academic version of the language. Therefore, initiating a translator to translate the responses

from this kind of Malay slang to English was not the best solution. This was due to the fact

that not only the translation might not be accurately translated but the context of the responses

may become distorted. According to Dearnley (2005, p. 27), researcher should transcribe the

data to become totally immersed with it. This would reflect sound research practice and

negates the problem of confidentiality and/or ethical issues.


79

4.5.3 Ethics and Limitations

The execution of this survey was conducted to strict ethical guideline that was required

by the university’s human ethics research committee (refer Appendix A). However, it did not

cover other ethical issues that were related to the respondent’s culture or way of life.

Therefore, the researcher had used his/her own discretion in dealing with ethics and the

limitations of the respondents. This was exceptionally crucial in the interview process. Due to

the fact that most of the participants were busy people, the time that was available to conduct

the interview was very limited and there were number interruptions during the conduct of the

interview. In addition, some of the information of a particular project that the participants

were referring to was confidential and cannot be disclosed by the participant. The participant

revealed extra information to the researcher but only after the voice recorder was switched

off. However, the researcher had to make sure that any information that the participants did

not wish to be incorporated into this research was not included. These were some of the

limitations that the researcher had to work with in order to obtain first-hand information from

the professionals on the field.

4.6 SUMMARY

This chapter explained about the research framework, research questions and the choice

of research method of this research. The research framework as the backbone of this research

were carefully formulated bearing in mind its objectives and limitations. From the gaps

identified in the literature review, research questions were formulated. The reasons and

suitability of selecting any particular method were explained in detail. The execution of the

selected method was described step-by-step to ensure the practicability of the method. Next,

Chapter 5 explored the initial step of analysis for the results that were obtained from the

survey run.

Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis

80

CHAPTER 5: MODEL COMPONENT

ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter presented about the research framework, research questions and

the research method. This chapter describes the quantitative approach namely the descriptive

analysis and factor analysis. It is the first step in addressing the first and second objectives of

this research. This chapter starts with the description of the sample background, followed by

the explanation on data analysis procedures. This chapter then focuses on the descriptive and

factor analysis itself being implemented on the four main factors of this research namely the

Development Success Factors, Development Barriers, Owner Participation and Owner

Satisfaction.

The Northern and Central States of Peninsular Malaysia were chosen as this research’s

area of study. This was due to the time and cost limitations of this research. The states that

were involved in this research include the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the state of

Selangor, Perak, Pulau Pinang, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Johor, Melaka, and

Negeri Sembilan. According to the literature, these eleven states represent the majority

96.86% of the available stock of detached houses in Malaysia for the second quarter of 2009

(VPSD, 2005 - 2009).

There were two versions of the questionnaire with almost similar questions being put

forward. One version was for the detached house owners while the other one was for the

development consultants and contractors who had previous experiences in detached housing

development. The questions between the two versions were mostly the same but some of

them need to be rephrased to reflect to the respondents whether they were the owners or the

consultants / contractors. The analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Version 19 and can

be referred upon in Appendix D and E.


81

5.2 SAMPLE BACKGROUND

Table 5.1 indicates from which state the questionnaire originates from. This provides an

overall view of the respondents’ distribution all across Malaysia. In addition, it establishes the

number of responses that were utilised for the quantitative analysis part of this research

(n=219).

Over one thousand two hundred and forty eight (1248) hand-distributed, mail and

online questionnaires were distributed with two hundred and nineteen (219) usable responses

were received representing 17.55% in terms of response rate. Out of the two hundred and

nineteen responses, 53% were detached house owners, 28% development consultants, 9%

construction contractors, 3% from other construction disciplines and 7% respondents of

unstated background.

Table 5.1: The overall questionnaire responses.

state_5b

States Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Kedah 2 .9 1.4 1.4

Pulau Pinang 25 11.4 16.9 18.2

Perak 50 22.8 33.8 52.0

Selangor 38 17.4 25.7 77.7

WP Kuala Lumpur 8 3.7 5.4 83.1

Negeri Sembilan 2 .9 1.4 84.5

Melaka 2 .9 1.4 85.8

Johor 2 .9 1.4 87.2

Kelantan 8 3.7 5.4 92.6

Terengganu 5 2.3 3.4 95.9

Pahang 6 2.7 4.1 100.0

Total 148 67.6 100.0

Not Stated 71 32.4

Total 219 100.0

5.2.1 Owner Respondents’ Background

The following information was exclusively referring to the detached house owners of

this research. There were one hundred and seventeen (117) respondents of this category. In

terms of age, it seemed that the age of the owner respondents were normally distributed. The

normal curve started at 30 years old, reached its peak at 50 years old and resided back at 68


82

years old. This may be the case because only those with higher than average income were

able to own detached houses. This usually meant that only those who had climbed the carrier

ladder who could afford houses of this stature. The highest numbers of detached house

owners were aged between 48 to 51 years old, followed by the 40 to 60 years old and the 30

to 70 years old. The owners who were at 23 and 73 years old could be considered as outliers.

Out of the one hundred and seventeen respondents, three respondents did not provide any

answer for this question.

Interestingly 70% of the detached house owner respondents were males and 30% were

females. It needs to be highlighted that the questionnaire itself was prepared so that only the

owners would be able to answer it. One respondent did not provide any answer for this

question. Majority of the detached house owners who participated in this research were staff

of fully-government agencies. This may because that they were the only group of detached

house owners who were available or interested enough to participate in this research. One

respondent did not provide any answer for this question.

The next information was about the size of the owner’s household. It was discovered

that 61% of the owner had a household of 4 to 6 persons. This was followed by 7 to 9 persons

(24%), 1 to 3 persons (14%) and 9 persons (1%). One respondent did not provide any answer

for this question.

In terms of household income, a strong 42% of the owner had a monthly household

income of between RM5,000 to RM9,999 (AU$1,572 to AU$3,143). This was followed by

RM2,000 to RM4,999 (AU$629 to AU$1,572) (27%), RM10,000 to RM14,999 (AU$3,144 to

AU$4,716) (20%), RM15,000 (AU$4,716) and above (6%) and less than RM2,000 (AU$629)

(5%). This information confirmed the earlier notion that only those with higher than average

income were able to own detached houses. One respondent did not answer this question.

In terms of duration of stay, the respondents were requested to state for how long the

owners had reside in the house since the year of 2001. Majority of the owners (47%) had

reside in their property for more than 7 years, 20% had lived there between 5 to 7 years, 17%

had lived between 1 to 3 years, 12% had lived between 3 to 5 years and 4% had lived in their

house for a year or less. One respondent did not answer this question.


83

5.2.2 Consultant & Contractor Respondents’ Background

The following information was exclusively referring to the representative of consultants

or contractors companies who were involved in the development of detached houses. There

were one hundred and two (102) respondents in this category. In terms of age, most of the

respondents were in their mid-20s (8% - 17%). This was because most of the staffs who were

directly involved with detached house developments were the young professionals who were

required to be involved hands-on regarding the project. Interestingly, senior staffs were also

keen on sharing their experience (4% - 6%) followed by the mid-aged staffs at 2% - 5%. Out

of the one hundred and two respondents, sixteen respondents did not provide any answer for

this question.

70% of the consultant & contractor respondents were males while 30% were females.

15 respondents did not provide any answer for this question. A good majority of them were

professionals (73%) while others were technical, management and administration staffs. 15

respondents did not provide any answer for this question. 71% of the respondents were

construction consultants. These may include architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and

others. 21% were construction contractors while the rest were construction developers,

construction sub-contractors and others. 15 respondents did not provide any answer for this

question.

For the respondents who work for construction contractors, an extra question was

prepared for them. They were required to specify the class of their organisation based on the

classification of Construction Development Industry Board of Malaysia (CIDB). G7 was the

highest contractor classification while G1 was the lowest (refer Table 5.2). 90% of the

contractor respondents were in G7 contractor class while others were G2 and G1 classes.


84

Table 5.2: CIDB Contractor Grade Classification.

Grade Tendering Capacity Paid Up Capital* /

Net Capital Worth**

Personnel Technical

Requirement#

G7 No Limit RM750,000.00

(AU$235,800.00)

1 Group A & 1 Group B (Both

minimum 5 years experience )

or 2 Group A (One of them

must minimum 5 years

experience)

G6 Not Exceeding

RM10 Million

(AU$3.14 Million)

RM500,000.00

(AU$157,200.00)

1 Group A & 1 Group B (One

of them must minimum 3 years

experience)

G5 Not Exceeding

RM5 Million

(AU$1.57 Million)

RM250,000.00

(AU$78,600.00)

1 Group A or 1 Group B

(Minimum 5 years experience)

G4 Not Exceeding

RM3 Million

(AU$0.94 Million)

RM150,000.00

(AU$47,160.00)

1 Group B

G3 Not Exceeding

RM1 Million

(AU$0.31 Million)

RM50,000.00

(AU$15,720.00)

Course Certificate In

Construction Related Fields /

Experience

G2 Not Exceeding

RM500,000.00

(AU$157,200.00)

RM25,000.00

(AU$7,850.00)



Experience

G1 Not Exceeding

RM200,000.00

(AU$62,880.00)

RM5,000.00

(AU$1,572.00)



Experience

Source: Adapted from “CIDB Contractor Grade Classification,” by CIDB, (NA),

Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, Table. 1.

In terms of how long their organisation was in business, 57% of the respondents

indicated that the organisation that employed them was in operation between 10 to 25 years.

This was followed by organisations that was in business for more than 25 years (27%) and

organisations that was in business for more than 5 years up to 10 years (8%). 17 respondents

did not answer this question. Next, the respondents were required to indicate the size of the

respondents’ organisation in terms of the numbers of permanent staffs. 39% of the consultant

& contractor respondents indicated that the organisation that employed them had between 10

to 24 permanent staffs in their organisation. This was followed by less than 10 persons (19%),

25 to 49 persons and 50 to 99 persons (both at 16.7%) and more than 100 persons (8.3%).


85

5.2.3 Respondents’ Detached House Development Background

This section was prepared to describe about the detached houses that was owned by a

detached house owner or worked upon by a consultants / contractors respondent. There were

two hundred and nineteen (219) respondents in this category. The first question for this

section was about the ownership of the house. The respondents were required to specify

whether the current owner of the house was the first owner. 82% of the respondents indicated

that the house that they were referring to was owned by its first owner.

In terms of the location of the respondents’ house, 33.8% was located in the state of

Perak. This was followed by the state of Selangor (25.7%), Pulau Pinang (16.9%), Kuala

Lumpur (5.4%), Kelantan (5.4%), Pahang (4.1%) and Terengganu (3.4%). The states of

Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Johor and Kedah were below the 2% mark.

In terms of the size of the respondents’ housing plot, 20.1% of the respondents had land

plot between 5001 to 6000 square feet. This was followed by 2001 to 3000 square feet

(17.7%) and 1001 to 2000 square feet (16.5%). Other land plots up to 12,000 square feet were

below the 10% response mark. There were 8 cases (4.8%) of outliers where the size of the

land plots have exceeded 14,001 square feet and above.

Based on the comparison of the respondents’ estimated contract value and actual

development cost there were evidences suggesting that there was a slight chance (21%) that

the cost of developing detached houses may increase as the project commences. From 174

owners’ detached houses observed, 36 detached house projects had experienced an increment

of development cost over the term of its development.


86

In terms of the duration of respondents’ detached houses development period, 30.6%

were completed between 1 ½ year and 2 years. This was followed by the period of between 6

months up to 1 year (25.4%) and 1 year up to 1 ½ year (19.1%). 15% of the detached houses

need more than 2 years to be completed. In the contrary, 9.8% of the detached houses only

need less than or up to 6 months to be completed.

Next, the respondents’ detached houses completion year was surveyed. The houses

must be completed between the year 1990 and 2012. It was discovered that the trend of

owning detached houses continued to surge. By referring to Figure 5.2, it could be observed

that the number respondents that had their house completed up to the year 1999 were around

1% to 2% a year. This trend was steadily climbing to about 5% to 8% per year after the year

2000 and spiked up to 12% to 16% by the year 2010. This survey was carried out between the

month of January and May 2011 so most likely the data for 2011 and 2012 was incomplete as

the houses were still in their construction stage. From this bar chart it could be seen as far as

the surveyed respondents in this research were concerned, the trend of owning detached

houses was on the rise.

Figure 5.1: The percentage of respondents’ house completed between 1990 to 2012.

1.3 0.6

0.0 0.6

1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

1.3

5.1 5.7 5.7

6.3

4.4

6.3

8.2

5.1

7.6

12.7

15.8

3.8

0.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Val

id %

Completion Year (n = 219)


87

However, not all of the respondents’ detached house developments were able to meet its

completion date on time. From the analysis, 39% of the respondents have given time

extensions to the contractors for the completion of their project. Majority of them (55%) gave

between 2 weeks up to 2 months for the contractor to complete the job. This was followed by

those who gave contractors 3 months and 6 months to complete their task. There were 5

extreme cases where it took a year or more for the contractor to complete the development.

In terms of the parties that were appointed for the respondents’ detached housing

development project, the architect who was usually being appointed first (78%, n=131). This

was followed by the engineer (38%, n=56), the quantity surveyor (30%, n=34), the contractor

(71%, n=58) and other professionals such as interior designer, landscape architects or even

lawyers (83%, n=19).

In terms of design, the interior partitions of a detached house amongst the 219

respondents were described in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: The general design for the majority of the respondents’ house (according to

the number of response).

Room Quantity n

Wet Kitchen 1 165

Living Room (Family) 1 133

Dry Kitchen 1 133

Living Room (Guest) 1 130

Open Parking Lot 1 112

Bedroom 4 79

Study Room 1 76

Bathroom + Toilet 3 71

Guest Bedroom 1 60

Laundry Room 1 57

Toilet Only 1 46

Prayer Room 1 46

Garage 1 35

Others 1 35

Powder Room 1 27

Swimming Pool 1 27


88

5.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

This research utilised a number of analysis processes for the data obtained from the

completed questionnaires. Section 3 and 5 of the questionnaire contained 17 to 18 questions.

They were analysed using descriptive analysis since they only contained background

information of the respondents and their property. This included the usage of mean and

standard deviation.

Section 1, 2 and 4 of the questionnaire consists of 4 main factors. The indicators were

extracted into relevant factors depending to which questions it was related to 21 indicators

were loaded into question 1, 22 indicators in question 2, 29 indicators in question 3 and 17

indicators in question 15 which totals up to 89 indicators (details of indicators are stated in

Section 4.5.1). These indicators were extracted from relevant literatures. Only indicators that

were mentioned for three times or more by different literatures were extracted for this

research. No other ‘pre-analysis’ were conducted for the selection of these indicators. This

was decided so that the indicators will not be prematurely ejected from this research thus

providing them an equal chance to be selected into the proposed model.

These indicators (in their relevant main factors) were weighted by the respondents

through the implementation of questionnaire survey. Due to the numerous amounts of

indicators, it was quite difficult to incorporate all of them into the proposed model. Therefore,

the first stage of the quantitative analysis employed was the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

which the Cronbach’s alpha was utilised for preliminary reliability and validity of the primary

measurements. The indicators (in their relevant main factors) were grouped into constructs (or

components) using EFA based on the weightage provided by the respondents.

The second stage of the quantitative analysis was implementation of the structural

equation modelling (SEM) to the results of the EFA. SEM was used to confirm the

measurements as well as accessing the relationship of its indicators. There were two steps in

the SEM analysis. In the first step, the four main factors (with its constructs and indicators)

were separately analysed using SEM. Irrelevant indicators were removed to make the factor

as fit as possible. This step was important because had not only it had reduced the number of

indicators but also had assisted in the process of making the proposed model to fit a bit more

uncomplicated. In the second step, the four main factors (with its constructs and indicators)

were combined as a proposed model based on the research’s theoretical framework and

objectives. This model was analysed again using SEM and made to fit.


89

The proposed model was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis and

updated and validated accordingly based on the response of the interview participant.

Irrelevant indicators were replaced with more suitable indicators of the same component and

the entire updated model was analysed again (using SEM) and made to fit. This step was

crucial because as a model gets more complicated, there were many alternatives for the model

to fit (or competitive fit) (Hair, Balck, Babin & Anderson, 2006, p. 756). Therefore, by

validating the model produced by SEM and the responses of the interview participants, the

findings in the model was more reflective to the situation of the real world.

5.3.1 Data Preparation

Normality is of the assumptions required to carry out structural equation modelling

analysis (Byrne, 2010, p. 102). Mutum (2011, para. 3) recommended that normally the

skewness should be within the range ±1 for normal distribution while for kurtosis, the value

should be within range ±3 for normal distribution. However, Kline (1998) had indicated that

skewness values in excess of ±3 and Kurtosis values in excess of ±10 represent significant

non-normal distributions. Therefore, the data for this research were inspected for normality

by using skewness and kurtosis and it was discovered that the data had not violate the

limitations of non-normal distributions as mentioned above. In addition, normality would

usually have serious effects in small samples (fewer than 50 cases), but the impact effectively

diminishes when sample sizes reach 200 cases or more (Hair et al., 2006, p. 86) (n=219).

Even if the distributions of the sample variables are not wildly non-normal the

application of “Maximum Likelihood” (ML) would produce results are probably trustworthy

for most purposes (Malthouse, 2001, p. 80). This is due to the fact that the ML estimation that

was frequently employed in SEM analyses, has demonstrated robustness with respect to

violation of the conditions of normality, and possesses reasonable sample size requirements

(Bentler & Chou, 1987, p. 89). If the technique has a robustness to departures from normality,

then the original variables may be preferred for the comparability in the interpretation phase

(Hair et al., 2006, p. 89).

The missing values were replaced by using series mean method due to the fact that the

number of missing data was below 10%. According to Hair (2006, p. 744), at this low level

any imputation method can be applied. Series mean method replaces missing values with the

mean for the entire series. In terms of outliers, it was highly unlikely the respondents will

produce any outliers as they were only required to produce responses between 1 to 4 for

question 1, 2, 3 and 15.


90

5.3.2 Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics are numbers that summarize the data with the purpose of

describing what occurred in the sample (Thompson, 2009, p. 57). It was the most basic

method of analysis. It is commonly used to summarise or ‘describe’ a certain sample and

presented graphically in forms of bar charts, pie charts, graphs and others. Frequency

distribution, mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation are the most commonly used

statistics for accomplishing the task of descriptive data analysis (Thompson, 2009, p. 59). In

survey analysis, descriptive analysis is utilised for a number of purposes. It is used to describe

demographic features of the surveyed population for generalisation purpose. In addition, the

descriptive analysis is also used indicate the detached house development process and

characteristics as well as in identifying the general design and its process during the course of

the development. However useful it seems to be, the use of descriptive analysis as a sole

means of ascribing function to behaviour is not recommended (Sloman, 2010, p. 20).

5.3.3 Factor Analysis

Introduction

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical tool that was widely used to

orderly simplify interrelated measures (Suhr, 2006, p. 1). It is unique among multivariate

statistical procedures in that it was developed mainly by psychologists in order to test

hypotheses about the correspondence between scores on observed (manifest) variables, or

indicators, and hypothetical constructs (latent variables), or factors, presumed to affect those

scores (Kline, In press, p. 2). In other words, the primary purpose of EFA is to define the

underlying structure among the variables in an analysis (Hair et al., 2006, p. 104).

The selection of EFA was made after careful consideration of the available literatures in

this matter. Since this research utilised the usage of research questions instead of hypothesis,

it was more of an exploratory study where the application of EFA is appropriate. Specifically,

EFA was implemented on research question one, two and three of this research. (Hurleyl et

al., 1997, p. 668) confirms this by citing (Kelloway, 1995) that EFA is often considered to be

more appropriate than Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) in the early stages of scale

development because CFA does not show how well your items load on the non-hypothesized

factors.


91

In simpler terms the objectives of EFA are to determine the number of common factors

influencing a set of measures and to establish the strength of the relationship between each

factor and each observed measure. While the primary objective of a CFA is to determine the

ability of a predefined factor model to fit an observed set of data (DeCoster, 1998, p. 5).

Factor Loadings

The factor loading method that was selected to determine factor loading was the

‘principal component method’. Being of one of the most widely used method, principal

component method seeks values of the loadings that bring the estimate of the total

communality as close as possible to the total of the observed variances (Tryfos, 1997, p. 16) .

For the factor rotation, the ‘varimax’ method was used to maximise the dispersion of loadings

within factors resulting in more interpretable clusters of factors (Field, 2005, p. 644). It

discourages the detection of factors influencing all variables (Tryfos, 1997, p. 13).

In terms of the actual factor loading, the loading of 0.40 was utilised due to the sample

size of this research that exceeded 200 (n = 219). Stevens (2002, p. 322) recommends that for

a sample size of 200 a loading greater than 0.364 can be considered significant. In simple

terms, for very large samples small loadings can be considered statistically meaningful (Field,

2005, p. 644). After the EFA was executed with the intended loadings, the researcher would

need to identify the variables with the greatest contribution to a factor and assigns a “name”

to represent the factor’s conceptual meaning (Hair et al., 2006, p. 164).

5.4 Factor 1: Development Success Factors

The following were the results of the descriptive and factor analysis on the respondents’

response about development success factors.


Question 1 consisted of 21 development success factors that the respondents had

determined its importance for the success of their detached housing development. The

development success factors indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard

deviation values. The detailed result of factor analysis on Development Success Factors

indicators was described in Table 5.4.


92

Table 5.4: Development success factors indicators ranked based on their means and

standard deviations.

Rank Indicator Code Mean

Std.

Dev.

1 Quality according to contract quality1_1c 1.12 .343

2 Customer / client / owner satisfaction satisfy_1g 1.16 .384

3 Cost according to budget budget_1b 1.17 .425

4 Complete within time time_1a 1.20 .455

5 Technical specifications spec1_1i 1.24 .447

6 Achieving scope / objective scope_1h 1.28 .498

7 Good performance by suppliers / contractors

/ consultants

perform_1u 1.28 .490

8 Health and safety measures hns1_1e 1.31 .562

9 Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t 1.36 .534

10 Functional requirements function1_1j 1.36 .535

11 Risk containment risk_1d 1.40 .535

12 Competent project manager projmngr_1r 1.40 .568

13 Realistic schedule schedule1_1s 1.45 .559

14 Strong / detailed plan kept up to date plan_1o 1.48 .638

15 Good communication / feedback communicate_1p 1.50 .645

16 Environmental impact enviro1_1f 1.54 .600

17 Reputation reputation_1k 1.58 .689

18 Revenue and profits profit_1l 1.60 .685

19 User / client involvement involve_1q 1.61 .743

20 Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m 1.79 .792

21 Political stability politic_1n 2.32 .938

Scale: 1 (Important), 2 (Quite Important), 3 (Less Important), 4 (Not Important)


All of the 21 indicators associated of the Development Success Factors were analysed

using factor analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than

one were extracted.

All of the 21 indicators were able to make the 0.40 cut-off factor loading. They were

extracted into five components which accounted for 62.89% of the total variance. For the

indicator with loading present in two or more components, only the higher loading were

considered for factor extraction. Interestingly, the quality factor (quality1_1c) had almost

made it to component four which included cost (budget_1b) and time (time_1a) which was

the three main parameters in the construction industry (Bowen et al., 2002, p. 48). The

detailed result of factor analysis on Development Success Factors component was described

in Table 5.5. Only the shortened descriptions of the indicators were used from this stage

onwards. Full descriptions of the indicators may be reviewed in Section 4.5.1.


93

Table 5.5: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Success Factors

component.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Indicator Code Component

1 2 3 4 5

Achieving scope / objective scope_1h .772

Technical specifications spec1_1i .738

Functional requirements function1_1j .684

Customer / client / owner

satisfaction

satisfy_1g .617

User / client involvement involve_1q .587

Quality according to contract quality1_1c .537 .432

Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t .790

Realistic schedule schedule1_1s .788

Good performance by

suppliers / contractors /

consultants

perform_1u .726

Competent project manager projmngr_1r .668

Strong / detailed plan kept up

to date

plan_1o .480 .417

Revenue and profits profit_1l .766

Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m .737

Reputation reputation_1k .414 .633

Political stability politic_1n .631

Good communication communicate_1p .462 .541

Cost according to budget budget_1b .823

Complete within time time_1a .734

Health and safety measures hns1_1e .761

Environmental impact enviro1_1f .685

Risk containment risk_1d .568

Eigenvalues 7.595 1.598 2.449 1.413 1.151

% of variance 36.164 7.611 6.901 6.729 5.483

Cumulative variance explained 36.164 43.776 50.677 57.406 62.888

Cronbach’s alpha 0.792 0.824 0.807 0.650 0.669

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

As can be seen in Table 5.5, the first component that the factor analysis produced was

interpretable and significant which explained 36.16% of the variance with an eigenvalue of

7.60. The indicators for this factor were “Achieving scope / objective”, “Technical

Specifications”, “Functional requirements”, “Customer / client / owner satisfaction”, “User /

client involvement” and “Quality according to contract” with strong positive loading of .77,

.74, .68, .62, .59 and .54 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a


94

Cronbach’s alpha of .79 for this factor. These six separate indicators were merged as one

factor labeled as “Communication Factor”.

The second component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and

significant which explained 43.78% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.60. The

indicators for this factor were “Effective monitoring / control”, “Realistic schedule”, “Good

performance by suppliers / contractors / consultants”, “Competent project manager” and

“Strong / detailed plan kept up to date” with strong positive loading of .79, .79, .73, .67 and

.48 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 for this factor.

From these five separate indicators shall be merged as “Planning and Monitoring Factor”.

The third component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant

which explained 50.68% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 2.45. The indicators for this

factor were “Revenue and profits”, “Benefit to stakeholder”, “Reputation”, “Political

stability” and “Good communication” with strong positive loading of .77, .74, .63, .63 and .54

respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 for this factor.

These five separate indicators were merged as “Reputation Factor”.

The fourth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and


indicators for this factor were “Cost according to budget” and “Complete within time” with

positive loading of .82 and .73 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a

Cronbach’s alpha of .65 for this factor. These two separate indicators were merged as

“Parameter Factor”.

The fifth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant

which explained 62.89% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.15. The indicator for this

factor were “Health and safety measures”, “Environmental impact” and “Risk containment”

with positive loading of .76, .69 and .57 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated

by a Cronbach’s alpha of .67 for this factor. These three separate indicators were merged as

“Health, Safety and Environment Factor”.


95

“Development Success Factors” Factor Extraction Result

The result from the factor analysis on the 21 indicators of development success factors

was successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “communication

factor”, “planning and monitoring factor”, “reputation factor”, “parameter factor” and

“health, safety and environment factor”. Table 5.6 summarised the findings of the

development success factors through factor analysis.

Table 5.6: The summary of Development Success Factors component.

Factor Component Indicators Code

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T S

UC

CE

SS

FA

CT

OR

S

COMPONENT 1:

COMMUNICATION

FACTOR

Achieving scope / objective scope_1h

Technical specifications spec1_1i

Functional requirements function1_1j

Customer / client / owner

satisfaction

satisfy_1g

User / client involvement involve_1q

Quality according to contract quality1_1c

COMPONENT 2:

PLANNING AND

MONITORING

FACTOR

Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t

Realistic schedule schedule1_1s

Good performance by suppliers /

contractors / consultants

perform_1u

Competent project manager projmngr_1r

COMPONENT 3:

REPUTATION

FACTOR

Strong / detailed plan kept up to

date

plan_1o

Revenue and profits profit_1l

Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m

Reputation reputation_1k

Political stability politic_1n

Good communication communicate_1p

COMPONENT 4:

PARAMETER

FACTOR

Cost according to budget budget_1b

Complete within time time_1a

COMPONENT 5:

HEALTH, SAFETY

AND

ENVIRONMENT

FACTOR

Health and safety measures hns1_1e

Environmental impact enviro1_1f

Risk containment risk_1d

The first component was the communication factor. This was because all the indicators

point towards effective communication in order to achieve success in the development.

Communication was required to achieve scope / objective of the development, to determine

functional requirements of the house, to determine the specification required by the client, to


96

achieve client satisfaction, to involve the owner in the development and to determine the

quality required in the contract.

The next component was the planning and monitoring factor. There were four

indicators in this category namely effective monitoring or control, good performance by the

suppliers, contractors or consultants, realistic schedule and competent project manager. All

this indicators contributed towards the completion of the development on time.

The next component was the reputation factor. This was because the main indicators in

this component point to things that provided good impression towards all the parties involved

in the development. The indicators include revenue and profits, benefit to stakeholder,

political stability, reputation of parties involved, good communication and strong or detailed

plan kept up to date.

The next component was the parameter factor. Only two indicators were loaded in this

category. They were cost according to budget and complete within time. These two indicators

related to the main parameters of any construction projects namely cost and time.

Unfortunately the third parameter, ‘quality according to contract’ (quality) was loaded into

the ‘communication factor’. It had almost successfully loaded into the parameter factor but its

loading to the communication factor was a bit larger.

The final component was the health, safety and environment factor. There were only

three indicators loaded in this factor. They were health and safety measures, environmental

impact and risk containment. All these indicators contributed towards a safer, healthier and

more environmentally friendly development project.

5.5 Factor 2: Development Barriers


response on development barriers.


Question 2 consists of 22 development barriers that the respondents had to determine

the severity of its negative effect on their detached housing development. The development

barriers indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard deviation values. The detailed

result of factor analysis on Development Barriers indicators was described in Table 5.7.


97

Table 5.7: Development barriers indicators ranked based on their means and standard

deviations.


Std.

Dev.

1 Building failure bldgfail_2t 1.55 .724

2 Contractor delays contrdelay_2o 1.58 .714

3 Legal liability liability_2v 1.63 .570

4 Site delays sitedelay_2n 1.64 .679

5 Contractor selection selection_2m 1.65 .566

6 Quantity and specification determination quantity1_2l 1.65 .590

7 Warranty warranty_2u 1.66 .758

8 Building regulations regulation_2i 1.69 .609

9 Design failures / changes designfail_2q 1.70 .703

10 Manpower / material shortage shortage_2s 1.71 .708

11 Site condition site1_2d 1.74 .540

12 Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f 1.75 .625

13 Planning permission permission_2j 1.75 .652

14 Financial projection financial_2c 1.76 .543

15 Design team delay designdelay_2k 1.82 .693

16 Market prediction prediction_2a 1.83 .570

17 Health and safety hns2_2p 1.84 .498

18 Environment enviro2_2r 1.84 .513

19 Conversation consents consent_2h 1.92 .806

20 Consultant's revenue revenue_2e 1.96 .532

21 Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g 2.00 .674

22 Competitor's interest competitor_2b 2.06 .584

Scale: 1 (Very Agreed), 2 (Agreed), 3 (Less Agreed), 4 (Not Agreed)


22 indicators were associated to the Development Barriers were analysed using factor

analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than one were

extracted.


then extracted into five components which accounted for 60.46% of the total variance. For the


considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Development

Barriers component was described in Table 5.8.


98

Table 5.8: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Barriers component.



1 2 3 4 5

Building failure bldgfail_2t .834

No warranty warranty_2u .817

Site delays sitedelay_2n .789

Contractor delays contrdelay_2o .782

Manpower / material

shortage

shortage_2s .724

Design failures / changes designfail_2q .633

Environment enviro2_2r .541

Consultant's revenue revenue_2e .783

Competitor's interest competitor_2b .770

Financial projection financial_2c .641

Market prediction prediction_2a .605

Site condition site1_2d .561 .439

Health and safety hns2_2p .413

Building regulations regulation_2i .793

Planning permission permission_2j .748

Contractor selection selection_2m .648

Legal liability liability_2v .458 .495

Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f .709

Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g .665

Conversation consents consent_2h .572

Quantity and specification

determination

quantity1_2l .736

Design team delay designdelay_2k .451 .425 .516

Eigenvalues 6.207 3.283 1.429 1.362 1.020

% of variance 28.213 14.922 6.496 6.189 4.638


Cronbach’s alpha 0.887 0.771 0.662 0.643 0.473






6.21. The indicators for this factor were “Building failure”, “Warranty”, “Site delays”,

“Contractor delays”, “Manpower / material shortage”, “Design failures / changes” and

“Environment” with strong positive loading of .83, .82, .79, .78, .72, .63 and .54 respectively.

Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for this factor. These seven

separate indicators were merged as “Design and Site Barrier”.


99


significant which explained 43.14% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 3.28. Indicator

content for this factor were “Consultant's revenue”, “Competitor's interest”, “Financial

projection”, “Market prediction”, “Site condition” and “Health and safety” with strong

positive loading of .78, .77, .64, .61, .56 and .41 respectively. Reliability was maintained as

indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for this factor. These six separate indicators were

merged as “Market and Safety Barrier”.


which explained 49.63% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.43. The indicator content for

this factor were “Building regulations”, “Planning permission”, “Contractor selection” and

“Legal liability” with strong positive loading of .79, .75, .65 and .50 respectively. Reliability

was maintained as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .66 for this factor. These four separate

indicators were merged as “Regulation and Procurement Barrier”.


significant which explained 55.82% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.36. Item content

for this factor were “Grant uncertainty”, “Interest rate vulnerability” and “Conversation

consents” with strong positive loading of .71, .67 and .57 respectively. Reliability was

maintained as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .64 for this factor. These three separate

indicators were merged as “Financial Barriers”.


which explained 60.46% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.02. The indicators content

for this factor were “Quantity and specification determination” and “Design team delay” with

strong positive loading of .74 and .52. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a

Cronbach’s alpha of .47 for this factor. These indicators were interpreted as “Planning

Barrier”.

“Development Barriers” Factor Extraction Result

The result from the factor analysis on the 22 indicators of development barriers was

successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “design and site barrier”,

“market and safety barrier”, “regulation and procurement barrier”, “financial barrier” and

“planning barrier”. Table 5.9 summarised the findings of the development barriers through

factor analysis.


100

Table 5.9: The summary of Development Barriers component.

Factor Component Indicators Code D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

BA

RR

IER

S

COMPONENT 1:

DESIGN AND SITE

BARRIER

Building failure bldgfail_2t

No Warranty warranty_2u

Site delays sitedelay_2n

Contractor delays contrdelay_2o

Manpower / material shortage shortage_2s

Design failures / changes designfail_2q

Environment enviro2_2r

COMPONENT 2:

MARKET AND

SAFETY BARRIER

Consultant's revenue revenue_2e

Competitor's interest competitor_2b

Financial projection financial_2c

Market prediction prediction_2a

Site condition site1_2d

Health and safety hns2_2p

COMPONENT 3:

REGULATION AND

PROCUREMENT

BARRIER

Building regulations regulation_2i

Planning permission permission_2j

Contractor selection selection_2m

Legal liability liability_2v

COMPONENT 4:

FINANCIAL

BARRIER

Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f

Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g

Conversation consents consent_2h

COMPONENT 5:

PLANNING

BARRIER

Quantity and specification

determination

quantity1_2l

Design team delay designdelay_2k

The design and site barrier was always a major concern for small scale projects

especially detached house developments. It related to the performance of the consultants to

provide an acceptable level of house design for the owner and the capability of the contractors

to build the house in accordance to what it was designed. Based on the indicators loaded on

component one, there were two main themes that it had covered namely on design and site

issues. The design problems included building failure and failure of design or design changes.

The site issues were site delays, contractor delays, manpower or material shortage, no

warranty and consideration for the environment.

The next component was the market and safety barrier. Issues of market prediction,

competition, profitability and financial projection were always in the mind of the consultants

and contractors. They had to make sure that every project that they were involved in will

bring back a considerable amount of profit. In terms of safety, the site was the primary

concern of every party. Without proper safety precautions, an accident will cost every party


101

not only in terms of time but more importantly in terms of money. The consultant had to take

adequate measures to enforce the safety of everyone on site.

Component three was named “Regulation and Procurement Barrier”. The construction

industry was always tied up to many kinds of rules and regulations. Even the small scaled

detached house development cannot escape from this requirement. Usually the main concerns

for detached house developments were the building regulations and by-laws and planning

permissions that needed to be obtained from the local authority. There were also the issue of

contractor selection where depending from the method used for the selection, it could be a

tedious or simple selection process.

Detached house developments were also tied up to the economic condition where

usually the demand of detached houses raised as the economic condition gets into high gear.

Therefore, the next component was the “Financial Barrier” where it involves in the issue of

obtaining funding for the development and the vulnerability of the owners to the changes of

the interest rates.

Finally there was the “Planning Barrier” where many of the detached houses owners

have overlooked. In this component, the importance of preparing a ‘proper’ design could not

be highlighted enough. Time had to be provided for this process to run its course so that the

owner will be satisfied with the outcome of the development. Ample time should also be

given to the preparation of quantity and specifications so that the owners knew exactly what

they’re getting in their development and how much of it. Failure to do so would leave the

development to manipulations and tremendous amount of changes that will lead to the

increase of development cost.

5.6 Factor 3: Owner Participation


response on owner participation.


This section contained question 3 which required the owner to determine the degree of

their involvement in the development of their detached house according to the 29 listed

indicators. The owner participation indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard

deviation values. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Participation indicators was

described in Table 5.10.


102

Table 5.10: Owner participation indicators ranked based on their means and standard

deviations.


Std.

Dev.

1 Securing financing commitments finance_3f 1.31 .718

2 Acquiring project site site2_3g 1.35 .784

3 Planning the internal and external design intextdesign_3i 1.62 .783

4 Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q 1.72 1.000

5 Selection of contractor selection_3p 1.74 .974

6 Estimating the project’s cost cost_3e 1.74 .914

7 Assembling development team devteam_3a 1.75 1.061

8 Formulising the project’s objective objective_3b 1.77 .926

9 Handing over site to the owner handover2_3ac 1.78 .977

10 Monitoring the progress of works monitor2_3t 1.83 .880

11 Handing over possession of site to the

contractor

handover1_3r 1.83 1.029

12 Overseeing progress payment payment_3v 1.84 1.003

13 Planning the structural design of building strdesign_3h 1.87 1.001

14 Determining the project’s specifications spec2_3k 1.93 .926

15 Overseeing making good of defects during

Defects Liability Period

dlp_3aa 2.03 1.020

16 Design compliance with legal requirements legalreq_3j 2.09 1.054

17 Obtaining project approval from authorities approval_3l 2.14 1.088

18 Issuing variation of works variation_3w 2.18 1.054

19 Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s 2.25 1.007

20 Developing the project’s schedule schedule2_3d 2.40 1.033

21 Overseeing final account and final certificate

preparation

cf_3ab 2.42 1.098

22 Preparation of project quantities and

specifications

quantity2_3m 2.42 1.022

23 Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages

claims

lad_3z 2.47 1.147

24 Monitoring extension of time claims eot_3y 2.61 1.122

25 Setting up the project’s organisational

structure

structure_3c 2.63 1.030

26 Management of tender bidding process bidding_3o 2.72 1.068

27 Monitoring health and safety procedures hns3_3u 2.72 1.049

28 Preparation of tender / contract document document_3n 2.76 1.091

29 Practical completion completion_3x 2.99 1.081

Scale: 1 (Involved), 2 (Quite Involved), 3 (Less Involved), 4 (Not Involved)


103


29 indicators were associated to the Owner Participation were analysed using factor


extracted.


then extracted into five components which accounted for 65.84% of the total variance. For the


considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Participation

component was described in Table 5.11.

Table 5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component.



1 2 3 4 5

Preparation of tender /

contract document

document_3n .784

Preparation of project

quantities and specifications

quantity2_3m .705 .419

Management of tender

bidding process

bidding_3o .673

Setting up the project's

organisational structure

structure_3c .622

Monitoring health and safety

procedures

hns3_3u .575 .451

Developing the project's

schedule

schedule2_3d .574 .401

Obtaining project approval

from local authorities

approval_3l .567

Monitoring liquidated and

ascertain damages claim

lad_3z .819

Monitoring extension of time

claims

eot_3y .794

Overseeing making good of

defects during Defects

Liability Period

dlp_3aa .693

Overseeing final account and

final certificate preparation

cf_3ab .665

Practical completion completion_3x .482 .622

Overseeing progress payment payment_3v .552

Issuing variation of works variation_3w .522


104

Table 5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component

(continued).


1 2 3 4 5

Handing over site to the

owner

handover2_3ac .458

Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s .444

Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q .809

Handing over possession of

site to the contractor

handover1_3r .782

Contractor selection selection_3p .780

Monitoring the progress of

works

monitor2_3t .532 .439

Estimating the project's cost cost_3e .729

Planning the internal and

external design

intextdesign_3i .419 .722

Planning the structural design

of building

strdesign_3h .675

Determining the project's

specifications

spec2_3k .465 .627

Design compliance with

regulation

legalreq_3j .490 .568

Assembling development

team

devteam_3a .718

Securing financing

commitments

finance_3f .676

Acquiring project site site2_3g .403 .651

Formulising the project's

objective

objective_3b .406 .592

Eigenvalues 12.044 2.556 1.816 1.471 1.207

% of variance 41.531 8.815 6.261 5.073 4.162


Cronbach’s alpha 0.891 0.880 0.905 0.867 0.768





105



12.04. Indicator content for this factor were “Preparation of tender / contract document”,

“Preparation of project quantities and specifications”, “Management of tender bidding

process”, “Setting up the project’s organisational structure”, “Monitoring health and safety

procedures”, “Developing the project’s schedule” and “Obtaining project approval from

authorities” with strong positive loading of .78, .71, .67, .62, .58, .57 and .57 respectively.

Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for this factor. These seven

separate indicators were merged as “Project Procurement”.



indicators for this factor were “Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages claim”,

“Monitoring extension of time claims”, “Overseeing making good of defects during Defects

Liability Period”, “Overseeing final account and final certificate preparation”, “Practical

completion”, “Overseeing progress payment”, “Issuing variation of works”, “Handing over

site to the owner” and “Attending site meetings” with strong positive loading of .82, .79, .69,

.67, .62, .55, .52, .46 and .44 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s

alpha of .88 for this factor. These nine separate indicators were merged as “Project

Completion”.



this factor were “Negotiation with contractor”, “Handing over possession of site to the

contractor”, “Selection of contractor”, and “Monitoring the progress of works” with strong

positive loading of .81, .78, .53 and .42 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a

Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for this factor. These four separate indicators were merged as

“Project Contracting”.


significant which explained 61.68% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.47. Item content

for this factor were “Estimating the project’s cost”, “Planning the internal and external

design”, “Planning the structural design of building”, “Determining the project’s

specifications” and “Design compliance with legal requirements” with strong positive loading

of .73, .72, .68, .63 and .57 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s

alpha of .87 for this factor. These five separate indicators were merged as “Project Planning”.


106


which explained 65.84% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.21. Item content for this

factor were “Assembling development team”, “Securing financing commitments”,

“Acquiring project site” and “Formulising the project’s objective” with strong positive

loading of .72, .68, .65 and .59 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a

Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for this factor. These four separate indicators were merged as

“Project Initiation”.


The result from the factor analysis on the 29 indicators of development barriers was

successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “project procurement”,

“project completion”, “project contracting”, “project planning” and “project initiation”. Table

5.12 summarised that findings of owner participation through factor analysis.


107

Table 5.12: The summary of Owner Participation component.

Factor Component Indicators Code O

WN

ER

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ION

COMPONENT 1:

PROJECT

PROCUREMENT

Preparation of tender / contract

document document_3n

Preparation of project quantities and

specifications quantity2_3m

Management of tender bidding

process bidding_3o

Setting up the project’s organisational

structure structure_3c

Monitoring health and safety

procedures hns3_3u

Developing the project’s schedule schedule2_3d

Obtaining project approval from local

authorities approval_3l

COMPONENT 2:

PROJECT

COMPLETION

Monitoring liquidated and ascertain

damages claim lad_3z

Monitoring extension of time claims eot_3y

Overseeing making good of defects

during Defects Liability Period dlp_3aa

Overseeing final account and final

certificate preparation cf_3ab

Practical completion completion_3x

Overseeing progress payment payment_3v

Issuing variation of works variation_3w

Handing over site to the owner handover2_3ac

Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s

COMPONENT 3:

PROJECT

CONTRACTING

Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q

Handing over possession of site to the

contractor handover1_3r

Contractor selection selection_3p

Monitoring the progress of works monitor2_3t

COMPONENT 4:

PROJECT

PLANNING

Estimating the project’s cost cost_3e

Planning the internal and external

design intextdesign_3i

Planning the structural design of

building strdesign_3h

Determining the project’s

specifications spec2_3k

Design compliance with legal

requirement legalreq_3j

COMPONENT 5:

PROJECT

INITIATION

Assembling development team devteam_3a

Securing financing commitments finance_3f

Acquiring project site site2_3g

Formulising the project’s objective objective_3b


108

The first component was the “Project Procurement”. An owner may or may not be

involved in these activities depending on the scale of the development itself. This component

included issues such as tender or contract documents, quantities and specifications, bidding

process, project schedule and such. This stage was quite important so that the development

could be properly controlled and monitored as it progresses.

The next component was the “Project Completion”. Some of the issues in this

component included the issue of liquidated and ascertain damages, extension of time, defects

liability period, final account, practical completion, progress payment, variation order and site

meetings. The activities mentioned were crucial in order for the development to be completed

in a proper manner. Some of these activities may even require the direct involvement of the

owners themselves.

“Project Contracting” was the next component in “Development Barriers”. It involves

contractor selection, negotiating with the contractor, handing over site to the contractor and

monitoring progress of works. Keen owners may involve themselves in this process as they

wanted to get the best contractor for their development with the advice from the consultants.

The final component was the “Project Initiation”. This includes assembling the

development team, securing financial commitments, acquire project site and formulising

project objective. This was one of the most important stages of a development where

maximum owner participation was required.

The detailed result from the factor analysis to the 29 indicators of Owner Participation

was summarised as follows:

5.7 Factor 4: Owner Satisfaction


response on owner satisfaction.


This section contained question 15 which required the owner to determine their

satisfaction level on their completed detached house according to the 17 listed indicators. The

owner satisfaction indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard deviation values.

The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Satisfaction indicators was described in Table

5.13.


109

Table 5.13: Owner satisfaction indicators ranked based on their means and standard

deviations.


Std.

Dev.

1 The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e 1.67 .469

2 The numbers of bedroom bed_15d 1.75 .435

3 The size of the master bedroom's bathroom masterbath_15f 1.75 .465

4 The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g 1.75 .442

5 The build area of the house buildarea_15c 1.77 .445

6 The area of the house compound compound_15m 1.79 .464

7 The overall design of the house design_15a 1.80 .424

8 The capability of the house to perform its

functions

function2_15q 1.80 .398

9 The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h 1.80 .442

10 The internal space of the house internal_15b 1.81 .428

11 Air ventilation ventilation_15l 1.82 .410

12 Water supply water_15j 1.83 .391

13 Electrical supply electric_15k 1.83 .403

14 The condition of access road and drains accessdrains_15n 1.85 .379

15 The quality of the construction materials

used

quality2_15i 1.85 .425

16 The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o 1.89 .500

17 The overall quality of the house compared

to its specifications

quality3_15p 1.90 .377

Scale: 1 (Very Satisfied), 2 (Satisfied), 3 (Less Satisfied), 4 (Not Satisfied)


17 indicators were associated to the Owner Satisfaction were analysed using factor


extracted.


then extracted into 3 components which accounted for 66.93% of the total variance. For the


considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Satisfaction

component was described in Table 5.14.


110

Table 5.14: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Satisfaction component.



1 2 3

The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e .841

The numbers of bedroom bed_15d .814

The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g .793

The size of the master bedroom's

bathroom

masterbath_15f .784

The build area of the house buildarea_15c .737

The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h .704

The overall design of the house design_15a .541

The area of the house compound compound_15m .402

The overall quality of the house

compared to its specifications

quality3_15p .845

The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o .780

The internal space of the house internal_15b .577 .600

The capability of the house to

perform its functions

function2_15q .590 .411

The quality of the construction

materials used

quality2_15i .560

Electrical supply electric_15k .884

Water supply water_15j .853

Air ventilation ventilation_15l .414 .609

The condition of access road and

drains

accessdrains_15n .590

Eigenvalues 8.777 1.522 1.079

% of variance 51.630 8.955 6.345

Cumulative variance explained 51.630 60.585 66.929

Cronbach’s alpha 0.913 0.839 0.866






8.78. The indicators for this factor were “The size of the master bedroom”, “The numbers of

bedroom”, “The size of the living room”, “The size of the master bedroom's bathroom”, “The

build area of the house”, “The size of the kitchen”, “The overall design of the house” and

“The area of the house compound”with strong positive loading of .81, .81, .79, .78, .74, .70,

.54 and .40 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for

this factor. These 6 separate indicators were merged as “Spatial Design”.


111


significant which explained 60.59% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.52. Indicator

content for this factor were “The overall quality of the house compared to its specifications”,

“The delivery of the project (time)”, “The internal space of the house”, “The capability of the

house to perform its functions” and “The quality of the construction materials used”, with

strong positive loading of .85, .78, .60, .59 and .56 respectively. Reliability was high as

indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 for this factor. These 5 separate indicators were

merged as “Project Implementation”.



this factor were “Electrical supply”, “Water supply”, “Air ventilation” and “The condition of

access road and drains” with strong positive loading of .88, .85, .61 and .59 respectively.

Reliability was strong as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 for this factor. These 4

separate indicators were merged as “Building Services”.


The result from the factor analysis on the 17 indicators of owner satisfaction was

successful. The indicators were loaded into three components namely “spatial design”,

“project implementation” and “building services”. Table 5.15 summarised the findings of

owner satisfaction through factor analysis.


112

Table 5.15: The summary of Owner Satisfaction component.

Factor Components Indicators Code O

WN

ER

SA

TIS

FA

CT

ION

COMPONENT 1:

SPATIAL DESIGN

The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e

The numbers of bedroom bed_15d

The size of the living room livingfamily2_15

g

The size of the master bedroom's

bathroom

masterbath_15f

The build area of the house buildarea_15c

The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h

The overall design of the house design_15a

The area of the house compound compound_15m

COMPONENT 2:

PROJECT

IMPLEMENTA-

TION

The overall quality of the house

compared to its specifications

quality3_15p

The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o

The internal space of the house internal_15b

The capability of the house to perform

its functions

function2_15q

The quality of the construction

materials used

quality2_15i

COMPONENT 3:

BUILDING

SERVICES

Electrical supply electric_15k

Water supply water_15j

Air ventilation ventilation_15l

The condition of access road and

drains

accessdrains_15n

The first component that had contributed towards owner satisfaction was the spatial

design of the detached house. This included areas such as the master bedroom, other

bedrooms, living room, kitchen, the house’s compound and the overall design of the house.

The consultant played the leading role as he/she grabs the idea of the client and transformed it

onto paper. The stature of the owner was represented by the excellent design of the house as

well as brought tremendous satisfaction to the owner.

The second component that provided owners with satisfaction was the project

implementation. Not only the design of the house on paper must be good but the

implementation of making it to a physical reality must also be properly orchestrated. This

included issues such as the duration of the build, quality of materials, the house’s

functionality, internal space and the overall quality of the development. In this stage, the

contractor played a key role in building a quality product for their client.

The final component of owner satisfaction was in terms of building services. A house

without proper services was practically useless. Therefore, important aspects of building


113

services such as electricity, water, air ventilation, roads and drains must be considered by the

consultants in order to make the building as comfortable to the owner as possible.

5.8 SUMMARY

This chapter has explained on the process of data analysis for this research using

descriptive and factor analysis. The first factor was the “Development Success Factors”

which were identified with 21 indicators. These indicators were ranked through descriptive

analysis and loaded into five components through the implementation of factor analysis.

These components were identified as “Communication Factor”, “Planning and Monitoring

Factor”, “Reputation Factor”, “Parameter Factor” and “Health, Safety and Environment

Factor”.

The second factor was the “Development Barriers” which were identified with 22

indicators. These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into five

components through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified

as “Design and Site Barrier”, “Market and Safety Barrier”, “Regulation and Procurement

Barrier”, “Financial Barrier” and “Planning Barrier”.

The third factor was the “Owner Participation” which was identified with 29 indicators.

These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into five components

through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified as “Project

Procurement”, “Project Completion”, “Project Contracting”, “Project Planning” and “Project

Initiation”.

The fourth factor was the “Owner Satisfaction” which was identified with 17 indicators.

These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into three components

through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified as “Spatial

Design”, “Project Implementation” and “Building Services”.

The results that were produced by the factor analysis in this chapter were further

analysed using structural equation modelling which will be further discussed in the next

chapter.

Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis

114

CHAPTER 6: OWNER PARTICIPATION

ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter had highlighted the descriptive and factor analysis. This was more

of a preparatory analysis in order to organise the data to be merged into a model. This chapter

will explain the process that was taken in order to arrive to a working model for this research.

This model shall be the basis for the development of a guideline for future detached housing

owners on how to effectively assist in the development process of their home.

This chapter consists of six sections. The second section described about the structural

equation modelling (SEM) and the justifications it was implemented in this research. It was

followed with the third section which describes the validity of the estimated measurement

model through the usage of measurement model. The thesis continues with the fourth section

which explains the structural equation modelling analysis on each individual factor as well as

the result of the merged structural model in section five. This chapter ended with the final

section which is a summary of the results that was derived out of the SEM analysis.

6.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING (SEM)

ANALYSIS

Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a family of statistical models that seek to

explain the relationship among multiple variables by examining the structure of

interrelationships expressed in a series of equations (Hair et al., 2006, p. 711). SEM has

highly desirable characteristics such as it is a confirmatory rather than an exploratory

approach to the data analysis, it provides explicit estimates of measurement error parameters

and its procedures incorporate both unobserved and observed variables (Byrne, 2010, p. 4).

There were four main reasons why SEM was becoming popular and chosen for this

research. The need to use multiple observed variables to better understand the area of

scientific enquiry, greater recognition given to the validity and the reliability of observed

scores from measurement instruments, the maturity of SEM especially its ability to analyse

more advanced theoretical SEM models and SEM software programs have become

increasingly user friendly (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004, p. 5).


115

Due to its confirmatory nature, the application of SEM enabled the results of the EFA to

be confirmed in more meaningful visual relationships that assisted in the conceptualisation

the proposed theory. With a relatively large sample of 219 respondents, the respondents of

this research had sufficed for the implementation of SEM for this research. This is because a

according to Barrett (2007, p. 820), SEM analyses based upon samples of less than 200

should simply be rejected outright for publication unless the population from which a sample

is hypothesised to be drawn is itself small or restricted in size.

The model analysis in SEM requires it to fulfil the requirements of goodness-of-fit

(GOF). In making the model to be fit, there had to be some indicators that had to be removed.

However, there is a limitation for how many indicators that can be removed for each

construct or component. Iacobucci (2010a, p. 95) recommends that the most ideal construct

would be measured by at least three indicator variables. Ainsworth (2006, Slide 15) confirms

this by indicating that in order for a single factor to be estimated using SEM it must have at

least three indicators with non-zero loadings. It also most have no correlated errors and its

factor variance or one of the factor loadings must be fixed to one. Therefore for each factor,

there must be at least three indicators attached to it.

Barrett (2007, p. 823) had pointed up that the acceptance of a particular value of

“approximate fit” is not a matter for abstract “thresholds” but ideally the empirical calculation

of the actual consequences of using that value as indicative of “useful or approximate fit”.

However, Iacobucci (2010a, p. 95) and Markland (2007, p. 854) quoted Marsh, Hau & Wen

(2004) who cautioned researchers on being too rigid about GOF indices of the model. The

model should not be overly critically compared to the GOF but should also logically and

comprehensively support its theoretical story (Iacobucci, 2010a, p. 95). Markland (2007, p.

858) supports this notion by indicating that the assessment of model adequacy should be a

multifaceted enterprise comprising consideration of model fit, empirical adequacy and

substantive meaningfulness.

6.3 VALIDITY OF THE ESTIMATED MEASUREMENT MODEL

The path diagram in Figure 6.1 describes the relationship between the components in

the proposed measurement model. Component “Parameter Factor” of the Development

Success Factors (Table 5.6) and “Planning Barrier” (Table 5.9) of the Development Barrier

had to be removed prior to this analysis because the components had less than three indicators

attached to them.


116

Figure 6.1: A path diagram showing correlational relationship between constructs (CFA

/ Measurement Model).

Qu

estion

2: D

evelop

men

t

Barriers

Qu

estion

3: O

wn

er

Particip

ation

Qu

estion

15

: Ow

ner

Satisfaction

Qu

estion

1:

Develo

pm

ent

Succe

ss

Factors


117

Figure 6.1 is a full measurement model, where there were no structural relationships

among the constructs. All constructs were considered exogenous and correlated. This is also

known as a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model (Hair et al., 2006, p. 754). Generally,

almost all of the components had low correlation with each other except for the components

that were in the same factor. This model shows good discriminant validity where the

components that were in different main factor have a low correlations compared to the

components in the same main factor which had high correlations.

One of the important estimates in the measurement model is the loading estimates.

Loading estimate is the estimate for each arrow linking a construct (or component, indicated

by an oval shape) to a measured variable (or indicator, indicated by a rectangular shape). This

is an estimate of a variable's loading which is the degree to which that item is related to the

construct. The loading value is between zero and one with a loading nearing zero indicating

that there is less relation between the construct and the variable and a loading which is

nearing the value of one indicating otherwise. It can be observed from Figure 6.1 that

majority of the loading estimates are high indicating good loadings on each indicators by the

factor analysis exercise from Chapter 5.

The other important estimate is the one-between construct correlation estimate or

correlation estimate for short. The correlation estimate is the estimate for each double-headed

arrow linking a construct (or component, indicated by an oval shape) to another construct.

This is an estimate of a construct’s loading which is the degree to which that a construct is

related to another construct. The loading value is between zero and one with a loading

nearing zero indicating that there is less relation between the constructs and a loading which

is nearing the value of one indicating otherwise. To aid observation for Figure 6.1, low

correlation estimate loadings that is below the value of 0.5 is coloured red while high

correlation estimate loadings that have the value of 0.5 and above is coloured green.

It can be observed that majority of the correlation estimate loadings of the constructs

within the same question are high indicating that the constructs that were grouped in the

particular question have strong relationship with each other. In the other hand, there are no

indications of high correlation estimate loadings of constructs between different questions at

all. This shows that the variables (or indicators) that were grouped in each set of questions

were highly correlated to each other and not to variables from other questions. This result

could only be achieved through meticulous review of literature and identification of research

variables in the literature review chapters of 2 and 3.


118

6.4 COMPONENT OF ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL MODEL

The four components that were analysed using factor analysis include:

Development Success Factors;

Development Barriers;

Owner Participation;

Owner Satisfaction.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) from the previous chapter were

reanalysed using SEM. SEM was used to confirm the measurements as well as accessing the

relationship of its indicators. There were two steps in the SEM analysis. In the first step, the

main factors (with its components and indicators) were separately analysed using SEM.

Irrelevant indicators were removed to make the factor to fit. This step was important because

had not only it had reduced the number of indicators but also had assisted in the process of

making the proposed model to fit a bit more uncomplicated. In the second step, the main

factors (with its components and indicators) were merged as a proposed model based on the

research’s theoretical framework and objectives. This model was analysed again using SEM

and made to fit. The proposed model was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis

and updated accordingly based on the response of the interview participant (more information

in Chapter 7).

6.4.1 Development Success Factors

The unmeasured factor of “Development Success Factors” was estimated by five

observed components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. From the result

of factor analysis, the fourth component (parameter factor) only had two indicators loaded

into it. Therefore, it cannot be included into the development success factors model to be

analysed using SEM and was removed during the development of the measurement model.

The factor and indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for

goodness of fit.

The measurement indicated that the model (Figure 6.2) was not quite fit because the

limitations of the main indicators were exceeded. Therefore, this model needs to be modified

in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” (MI) in the AMOS output, the

researcher could identify the indicators that had excessively large MI values and remove

them.


119

Figure 6.2: The structural model of development success factors produced by factor

analysis (model unfit).


120

The result of removing the excessive values of the MI was repeated until the model was

able to reach the limit of a model fit or GOF (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3: The structural model of development success factors (model fit).

Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 1.769, GFI = 0.903, TLI = 0.923,

CFI = 0.934, RMSEA = 0.059, AGFI = 0.874 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is

better than its original model (Table 6.1). In addition, the high loading between the four

components and the main factor indicates a good convergence validity of this model.

Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Development Success Factors” could be

used for further analysis.


121

Table 6.1: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of

development success factors.

DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Structural Model

(Unfit)

Structural Model

(Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 2.186 1.769 < 2.00

GFI 0.879 0.903 > 0.9

TLI 0.880 0.923 > 0.9

CFI 0.896 0.934 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.074 0.059 <0.06

AGFI 0.845 0.874 > 0.9

6.4.2 Development Barriers

The unmeasured factor of “Development Barriers” was estimated by five observed

components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. The components and

indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for goodness of fit.

From the factor analysis result, one of the components (planning barrier) had only two

indicators associated to it. In order to run the SEM, each variable must at least have three

indicators to it. Therefore, the “Planning Barrier” was removed during the development of the

measurement model.



in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” in the AMOS output, the


them.


122

Figure 6.4: The structural model of development barriers produced by factor analysis

(model unfit).


123



Figure 6.5: The structural model of development barriers (model fit).



better than its original model (Table 6.2). In addition, the high loading between the four


Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Development Barriers” could be used for

further analysis.


124


development barriers.

DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Structural Model

(Unfit)

Structural Model

(Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 2.879 1.772 < 2.00

GFI 0.818 0.923 > 0.9

TLI 0.797 0.902 > 0.9

CFI 0.823 0.921 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.093 0.059 <0.06

AGFI 0.770 0.889 > 0.9

6.4.3 Owner Participation

The unmeasured factor of “Owner Participation” was estimated by five observed



It could be identified that all of the components could be analysed in SEM. From the

factor analysis, all of the components had 3 or more indicators to them.





them.


125

Figure 6.6: The structural model of owner participation produced by factor analysis

(model unfit).


126



Figure 6.7: The structural model of owner participation (model fit).



better than its original model (Table 6.3). In addition, the high loading between the three


Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Owner Participation” could be used for

further analysis.


owner participation.

OWNER PARTICIPATION

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Structural Model

(Unfit)

Structural Model

(Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 3.053 1.923 < 2.00

GFI 0.736 0.947 > 0.9

TLI 0.791 0.962 > 0.9

CFI 0.809 0.973 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.097 0.065 <0.06

AGFI 0.692 0.908 > 0.9


127

6.4.4 Owner Satisfaction

The unmeasured factor of “Owner Satisfaction” was estimated by three observed



It could be identified that all of the components could be analysed in SEM. From the

factor analysis, all of the components had 3 or more indicators to them.

This measurement indicated that this model (Figure 6.8) was not quite fit because the




them.

Figure 6.8: The structural model of owner satisfaction produced by factor analysis

(model unfit).


128



Figure 6.9: The structural model of owner satisfaction (model fit).



better than its original model (Table 6.4). In addition, the high loading between the three


Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Owner Participation” could be used for

further analysis.


129


owner satisfaction.

OWNER SATISFACTION

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Structural Model

(Unfit)

Structural Model

(Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 3.730 2.450 < 2.00

GFI 0.818 0.907 > 0.9

TLI 0.855 0.936 > 0.9

CFI 0.877 0.950 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.112 0.082 <0.06

AGFI 0.760 0.861 > 0.9

6.5 MERGED STRUCTURAL MODEL

All of the previous four main factors (development success factors, development

barriers, owner participation and owner satisfaction) that were fitted in Section 6.4 were

merged based on the research framework discussed in Chapter 4. The result was a merged

structural model which was not entirely fit according to Figure 6.10. This merged structural

model needed to put through another goodness-of-fit (GOF) process.


130

Figure 6.10: The merged structural model (model unfit).


131

The merged structural model (fit) (Figure 6.11) provides an overview of the relation

between the components in this research. In terms of fitness, this model had improved on the

merged structural model (unfit) and fulfilled the characteristics of a model that fits (Table

6.5).

In terms of the absolute measures it was used to singularly indicate goodness of fit as it

was affected by sample size and number of observed variables. According to Hair et al.(2006,

p. 749) as both of the sample size and observed variables increases, the value of x2

(chi-

square) would inflate. As models gets more complicated, it was more difficult to use chi-

square to access model fit. For this reason, the resulting p-value was less meaningful and chi-

square test was not used to singularly to measure goodness of fit.

In addition, the result was that of typical models today were more complex and has

sample sizes that make the x2 significance test less useful as a GOF measure that always

separates good from poor models. This was concurred by Byrne (2010, p. 76) who reported

that it should be noted that a known limitation of this test is that the x2 is quite sensitive to

sample size and assumes perfect model fit, frequently resulting in rejected models. However,

no matter what the x2 result, the researcher should always complement it with other GOF

indices, but, just as important, the x2 value itself and the model degrees of freedom should

always be reported (Hair et al., 2006, p. 751).

Hair et al. (2006, p. 758) also recommended that multiple fit indices should be used to

assess a model’s goodness-of-fit. These indices were from two different classes of goodness-

of-fit measure namely the incremental measures and parsimony fit measures. This multiple fit

indices should include the x2 value and the associated df, one absolute fit index (GFI, RMSEA

or SRMR), one incremental fit index (CFI or TLI), one goodness-of-fit index (GFI, CFI, TLI,

etc.) and one badness-of-fit index (RMSEA, SRMR, etc.).

Therefore based on the said requirements, this measurement model had achieved the

goodness-of-fit indicators. The x2 value and the associated df had a value of 1.395 where the

required value was below 2.000. For the absolute fit index, RMSEA was used with a value of

0.043 where the required value was below 0.06. CFI was used for incremental fit index where

it had a value of 0.923. The required value for this incremental fit index was below 0.900.

TLI was utilised for goodness-of-fit index where it had a value of 0.917. The required value

was below 0.900. Finally, RMSEA was used for badness-of-fit index and it had a value of

0.043. The required value was below 0.06.


132

The unfit merged structural model (Figure 6.10) was fitted as much as possible to

produce a fit merged structural model (Figure 6.11). Even though the GFI and AGFI had not

reached its targeted value that should exceeded 0.9, it was concluded that this merged

structural model (fit) had reached its point for fitness. Hair et al. (2006, p. 747) explained that

the GFI was an early attempt to produce a fit statistic that was less sensitive to sample size

but it was still sensitive to sample size due to the effect of N on sampling distributions. The

same goes to the AGFI as it was also affected by sample size and model complexity. Recent

development of other fit indices had led to their decline of usage.

Hair (2006, p. 758) highlighted that the quality of fit depends heavily on model

characteristics, including sample size and model complexity. More complex models with

larger samples should not be held to the same strict standards as simple models with small

samples. In conclusion, no single “magic” value for the fit indices separates good from poor

models, and it is not practical to apply a single set of cut-off rules to all measurement models

and, for that matter, to all SEM models of any type. The fact stands that postulated models

(no matter how good) can only fit real-world data approximately and never exactly (Byrne,

2010, p. 76).


133

Figure 6.11: The merged structural model (model fit).


134



better than its original model (Table 6.5). Therefore, the merged structural model could be

used for further qualitative analysis approach in the next chapter.

Table 6.5: The comparison between the merged structural model (unfit) and merged

structural model (fit).

FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Merged Structural

Model (Unfit)

Merged Structural

Model (Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 1.512 1.395 < 2.00

GFI 0.750 0.815 > 0.9

TLI 0.864 0.917 > 0.9

CFI 0.871 0.923 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.048 0.043 <0.06

AGFI 0.727 0.791 > 0.9

There were two conditions that could be derived from the merged structural model:

Condition 1

Condition 1 involves 3 main factors namely owner participation, development success

factors and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the normal development stages of

the detached house development (development success factors). The final structural model

had provided the equation for this condition:

Owner Satisfaction = 0.37 (Owner Participation) + 0.03 (Development Success Factors)

OS = 0.37 OP + 0.03 DSF

Say, OP & DF = 1

OS = 0.37 (1) + 0.03 (1)

OS = 0.40

Condition 2

Condition 2 involves 3 main factors namely owner participation, development barriers and

owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the problematic development stages of the

detached house development (development barriers). The final structural model had provided

the equation for this condition:


135

Owner Satisfaction = 0.42 (Owner Participation) + 0.42 (Development Barriers)

OS = 0.42 OP + 0.42 DB

Say, OP & DB = 1

OS = 0.42 (1) + 0.42 (1)

OS = 0.84

Owner participation was critical at three important stages of a detached house

development namely during the project initiation, project contracting and project completion

stage. In the project initiation stage, owner participation was most required during selection of

the development team or consultants, preparation of the development objectives and

acquiring the appropriate source to finance the development. In the project contracting stage,

owner participation was crucial during the selection of the contractor who will carry out the

construction works, contributing in the negotiation process with the contractor as well as the

process of handing over the site to the contractor. Finally, in the project completion phase the

owner also needs to provide instructions for variation order (if any), provide consent on

extension of time claims and assisting in determining faults and repair works during the

defect liability period.

The most important of the development success factors for detached houses falls under

three main components namely communication factor, planning and monitoring factor and

health and reputation factor. The indicators in the communication factor, includes the

necessity of development needs to achieve its intended scope or objective, the obligation of

the development to fulfill its functional requirement and most importantly the development

needs to fully satisfy the expectation if its customer, client and/or owner. In planning and

monitoring factor, the main indicators were the development must have an effective

monitoring and control system, exceptionally high performance from the consultants and

contractors and a realistic project schedule for all stakeholders. Reputation factor revolves

around the issue of the development bearing the output and profit as initially planned,

provides benefit to various stakeholders in the development and having a solid

communication and response system for the development.

The most significant development barriers for detached house were included in three

main categories. They were design and site barrier, market and safety barrier and regulation

and procurement barrier. In design and site barrier, the failure of the detached house design or

design changes was one of the most significant barriers for detached houses. This was


136

followed by the shortage of manpower and construction materials and the delays of design

drawings by the consultants that could impede construction progress. In the market and safety

barrier, the consultant’s revenue was the main concern followed by competition from other

consultants and contractors, the prediction of the current and future property market’s

momentum, the financial projection and cash flow of the development and the overall

condition of the development site. Lastly in the regulation and procurement barrier, the

planning permission or approval from the local authority was the main concern of the

consultants. This was followed by the selection of suitable contractor for the development and

the consultants’ liability of the development under the rule of law.

In terms of owner satisfaction, there were seven indicators that were significantly

related to it. They include the size of the kitchen, a timely manner of the project delivery, the

ability of the house to carry out its intended function, the quality of the materials used in the

development, the aspect of water supply of the house, the attractiveness of the overall design

of the house and the aspect of ventilation of the house.

Even though, it seems that the development success factors and owner participation had

a low loading of 0.37. Between the development barriers and owner participation, it had a

slightly higher loading of 0.42. It could be initially assumed that owner participation have a

more important role when the development was facing problems (barriers) rather than when it

was running its normal course (factor). The same goes between development success factors

and barriers with owner satisfaction. When the development was going on normally (factor),

it had a minimal contribution to the satisfaction of the owner with its factor loading of 0.03.

However, resolving development barriers of the development had a bigger impact towards

owner satisfaction with a loading of 0.42.

6.6 SUMMARY

This chapter had highlighted the usage of structural equation modelling as a method to

produce a model that is purely based on the results of the quantitative approach. It takes the

results provided by the factor analysis in Chapter 5 and combined it as a measurement model

to test its validity. Once it had been confirmed, each of the four main factors was analysed for

goodness-of-fit (GOF). Once each of the main factors was made to fit, they are combined into

one merged structural model based on the literature. This merged structural model was again

analysed for GOF and the result was taken to the next chapter to be analysed qualitatively.


137

In many case SEM could only assist in developing a measurement model that followed

the goodness-of-fit indicators. It was not the absolute measurement model that the researcher

had to take in blindly. This is because as model become more complex, the likelihood of

alternative models with equivalent fit increases (or competitive fit) (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756).

Therefore, the researcher needs another method to further analyse the model output. This was

to ensure that the model output reflects the condition of the real world.

This quantitative method could only take this research so far. In terms of utilising SEM,

simply modifying the indicators to make the model fit does not necessarily make the model

more applicable in the real world. For instance, in the financial world where policy makers

apply models to predict and control the capital market, it was far from perfection.

Kocherlakota and Ohanian (2007, p. 359) highlighted that “by simply adding shocks to

models in order to make them fit the data better should not improve our confidence in those

models’ predictions for the impact of policy changes. Instead, we need to find ways to

improve our information about the models’ key parameters. Auxiliary data sources will serve

as our best source of reliable information about the key parameters in monetary models”.

In this case, this research needs to refer to another outside source to identify the

implication of the key parameters suggested by the SEM model in the real world. By utilising

the second method of this research (qualitative method), it was easier to improve and validate

the findings of the quantitative method. The semi-structured analysis was employed to further

analyse this model output which will be elaborated in the next chapter.

Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis

138

CHAPTER 7: SEMI-STRUCTURED

INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will elaborate on the semi-structured interview that was conducted as a

part of the quantitative and qualitative analysis for this research. The results of this interview

was utilised to fine tune the indicators of the model that was discovered in the previous

chapter. This chapter consists of seven sections. After the introduction, the second section

explained about the execution of the semi-structured interviews. It continued with the third

section which describes the background summary of the participant and their development. In

Section 3, the responses of the participants were analysed using content analysis with the

assistance of QSR Nvivo software. In Section 4, the findings of the content analysis were

validated against the merged structural model of the Chapter 6 and a final structural model

was produced based on the findings of the quantitative and qualitative findings of this

research were presented in Section 5. Section 6 provided the indicators loading analysis

which was utilised to determine the degree of impact an indicator has on its main factor. This

chapter ended with a summary in Section 7.

7.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Semi-structured interview was well suited for this exploratory research. This is because

interviewing can be a very useful tool, especially in unexplored areas or very sensitive topics

(Adams, 2010, p. 21). It does not only provide the researcher with the response that he/she

requires for the study but also probes into the deeper more often complex issue of the subject

that was being discussed. According to Louise Barriball, K. and A. While (1994, p. 330),

semi-structured interviews are well suited for the exploration of the perceptions and opinions

of respondents regarding complex and sometimes sensitive issues and enable probing for

more information and clarification of answers.

7.2.1 Interview Guide

Even though the interview is a semi-structured, the interview participant was given the

freedom to explain beyond what was prepared by the researcher. The conversation, however,

was carefully steered in order to prevent it from going off-topic. For this purpose, an


139

interview guide was prepared. The purpose of the interview guide was to probe into the

experience of interview participants in developing a particular detached house development

from inception to completion. The guide had three major themes (for detailed guide please

refer to Appendix G):

Theme 1: Planning Stage;

Theme 2: Design and Contractual Stage;

Theme 3: Construction and Completion Stage.

By extracting the activities or issues from the interview participants, it could be

correlated to the merged structural model and the qualitative significance of the indicators in

the model could be determined. It was not the intention of this semi-structured interview to

represent the opinion of the entire detached house owners or consultant & contractors in

Malaysia. Rather, the interview process was more of a validation process to ensure the final

structural model proposed by the quantitative and qualitative method reflected the conditions

of the real world.

7.2.2 Interview Analysis

The proposed model that was derived from the structural equation modelling (SEM)

was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis to improve its findings. From the

recommendations of this research’s panellist, eight panels of experts were chosen to be

interviewed using semi-structured interview. An interview guide was prepared based on the

research’s theoretical framework and objectives as well as the requirements of the

university’s human ethics research committee. The interviews was conducted in Malaysia and

recorded using a voice recorder. The recording was reproduced as transcripts and translations

of the interviews in English were prepared. The relevant indicators were manually extracted

from the interviews. This was done to keep the translation and context of the conversation

intact as it goes through the analysis process.

The interview results were then correlated to the findings of the quantitative analysis

and improved accordingly based on the response of the interview participant. Most of the

indicators in the model were retained except for a few indicators that were not mentioned

even by one interview participant or were superseded in terms of relevance by other

indicators. These irrelevant indicators were subjected for replacement by other indicators (in

the same component) that were mentioned by the participants. The entire updated model that


140

had the input of the quantitative and qualitative analysis was analysed again (using SEM) and

made to fit.

This process was crucial because as a model gets more complicated, there were many

alternatives for the model to fit (or competitive fit) (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756). Reise,

Widaman and Pugh (1993, p. 565) had gone even further by indicating that many experts (on

CFA modelling) consider modification indices dangerous, enabling mere "data fitting" or the

post hoc modification of models without a priori, theoretical justification. Therefore, this

research overcomes this issue by correlating the model produced by SEM and the responses

of the interview participants. In addition, recommendations from the participants were also

noted for future studies regarding the issues of detached houses.

Validity and Reliability

Qualitative research is defined by Strauss & Corbin (1990, p. 17) as “any kind of

research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other

means of quantification”.

Due to the different nature of the qualitative analysis, there were issues pertaining

validity and reliability in the field of qualitative research. The concepts were viewed

differently by qualitative researchers who strongly consider these concepts defined in

quantitative terms as inadequate. Corbin & Strauss (2008, p. 301) stated that the terms

“validity” and “reliability” carry with them too many quantitative implications. In other

words, these terms as defined in quantitative terms may not apply to the qualitative research

paradigm (Golafshani, 2003, p. 600). Stewin (1988, p. 61) quoted LeCompte & Goetz (1982)

that reliability is difficult to measure in qualitative research because of the nature of the

narrative data and the involvement of the researcher in a change process; yet, they proceeded

to force qualitative methods to fit criteria for external and internal reliability.

Therefore, in terms of reliability there were numerous instances in the interview where

the questions were repeated in many forms. This was to ensure the reliability of the

participant’s response when they stick to their initial response no matter how the same

questions were presented to them. Through the use of repeated observations during the

interview as well as building in the use of “alternate form” questions, the reliability of the

informant’s report can be ascertained (Brink, 1987, p. 158). In terms of the translation of the

data, the fact that there was only one translator working methodologically translating and

extracting all the data maximises the reliability of data itself (Twinn, 1997, p. 423).


141

LeCompte & Goetz (1982, p. 43) had stressed that the high internal validity of

ethnography (qualitative method) was derived from the data collection and analysis

techniques. This was confirmed by Goodwin & Goodwin (1984, p. 418) who narrated that in

qualitative measurement, content validity is the extent to which the data collection strategy

provides for a representative sampling of times, events, persons or settings. In addition, the

content validity must be achieved in terms of data analysis and interpretation techniques

employed. In general, the validity of the research was increased by the collection of

qualitative data that were rich in their explanation and analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p.

65).

7.2.3 Interview Process

This semi-structured interview was conducted in Malaysia between April to May 2011.

It was conducted simultaneously with the distribution of the questionnaire. It serves the

purpose to validate the findings of the questionnaire survey and was not intended to represent

the population of this research.

Eight participants were chosen to be interviewed in this interview. Four of them were

detached house owners and another four were from the construction consultant companies.

All of them had a professional background in the construction sector and had working

experience and academic knowledge of the sector. None of the participants were related to

each other in terms of their detached houses development projects. All participants were

native Bahasa Malaysia as well as English speaking Malaysians. The interview adhered to the

Queensland University of Technology ethical guidance and obtained ethical approval and

participation informed consent (refer Appendix A and Appendix G).

The interviews were designed to gather information on the participants’ experience

developing their own or their clients’ detached house. The interview covers the typical

themes of a construction process namely planning stage, design and contractual stage and

construction and completion stage. All interviews were conducted at the participants’ office

and were recorded using an audio voice recorder. The actual recorded time for the interviews

ranges from 13 minutes up to 26 minutes. The interview responses and coding summary can

be reviewed in Appendix H and Appendix I.

The respondents were selected based on their previous experience in practicing their

discipline in the construction industry as well as the academic knowledge in related fields.


142

This was to ensure that their response shall not likely be on what they feel or perceive but

more importantly their responses connection to the academic knowledge as well.

7.3 PARTICIPANT AND DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND

The following were the background summary of the interview that was conducted on

four detached house owners and four detached house consultants / contractors. The indicators

that were mentioned in the interview by the participants’ were utilised to validate the merged

structural model explained in Chapter 6. The detailed breakdown of the participants’

responses can be referred in Appendix H and Appendix I of this thesis.

7.3.1 Participant 1: Detached House Owner (MMD)

The interview with Dr. MMD was conducted on the 7th

April 2011. Dr. MMD was a

detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000

(AU$78,600). The owner works as a senior quantity surveying lecturer in a local university

for the past 18 years. In terms of the house’s design, the owner had specified the design of the

house in general terms and left the detailed design process to the architect. This development

had faced problems and experienced delays.

The owner faced a number of issues in developing his detached house. First of all, he

was not that impressed with the design of the house after it was completed. This may be the

result of him being unable to participate during the design stage due to time constrain. In

addition, the owner also had no formal knowledge in house design. The absence of a proper

contracting and tendering process led the development into deeper trouble. Due to its ‘low’

development value (compared to other detached houses), this development was not able to

implement proper contractual procedure into the development. Instead, it had only utilised a

standard agreement put forward by a general lawyer. This was the current requirement for

government staffs those who took government loans to build houses

(Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia, 2011). Due to the lack of information, the selection of the

contractor was made based on contractors’ previous projects and assumptions. This leaves the

development in a dangerous state even before it began.

The implementation of an agreement form instead of a proper contractual form resulted

in the absence of a proper schedule and detailed specification. Even if the agreement monitors

the progress by percentages and had a rudimentary form of specification, they were not

specific enough which leaves the owner exposed to a number of exploitations. As a result, the

development was delayed and the relevant parties had disputed amongst themselves.


143

Ultimately, this case was brought to the Court for arbitration. The owner claimed that the

contractor was not diligent enough to carry out the development and did not fully comply

with the specification. The contractor in the other hand claimed that the owner had taken his

time to make important decisions regarding the development. In the end, the related parties

had settled their differences out of court.

There was a deeper issue to be seen in this case. Firstly, it was the utilisation of a

general lawyer to oversee the contractual issues in construction projects. Next, the application

of an agreement form for the development. Lastly, it was the lack of information about

contractor performance to the general public.

7.3.2 Participant 2: Detached House Owner (BK)

The interview with Sr. BK was conducted on the 17th

April 2011. Sr. BK was a

detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000

(AU$78,600). The owner used to be a senior quantity surveying lecturer in a local university

before working as a Contract Administrator in the oil and gas industry at the Middle East. In

terms of the house’s design, Sr. BK was involved hands-on with the design of the house with

the architect. He had also changed the structural design of the house from non-load bearing to

a load bearing wall. These two factors had immense implication to the implementation of the

development.

There were a number of unique issues regarding this particular development. Due to his

previous experiences in the construction industry, the owner had in a way ‘taken over’ the

project from all the parties. The hands-on involvement of the owner in terms of design had

resulted in the design of the house somewhat ‘unproportionate’. This was due to the owner’s

lack of knowledge in building design. The situation was made worse with the architect’s

attitude of accepting every opinion of the owner without incorporating his own

recommendations to the design.

The absence of a proper contracting and tendering process plunges the development

into deeper trouble as it proceeded into the implementation stage. Again, the use of general

lawyer had resulted in the absence control documents such as the building quantities, project

schedule and specification. The owner’s decision to select the contractor that he had known

complicates matters.

The earthwork issues on site did not help in speeding up the development. A unique

issue in this development was when the owner decides to make a major change by replacing


144

the structural design of the house from non-load bearing to a load bearing wall using concrete

masonry units. It was expected to reduce the temperature inside the house while speeding up

the construction process. However, the absence of skilled worker to handle the concrete

masonry units did not provided any effect to speed up the construction process.

7.3.3 Participant 3: Detached House Owner (PMS)

The interview with Assc. Prof. PMS was conducted on the 27th

April 2011. Assc. Prof.

PMS was a detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000

(AU$78,600). The owner was a senior interior design lecturer in a local university. In terms

of the house’s design, the owner was involved hands-on with the design of the house with the

architect. He took a year to prepare the design of the house and had even gone all the way to

prepare a mock-up model of it. With his background and through design of the house, the

project had very minimal problems during its early stages of development. However, this

development had still faced obstacles along its way.

The appointment of a general lawyer resulted in the absence of control documents such

as contract documents (only an agreement form), detailed project specification and project

schedule. The contractor themselves were selected by the owner out of the lowest quotation

price and assumptions of their previous projects. Extensive negotiation on the development

cost with the contractor had resulted in the contractor using the lowest quality of materials in

the project. This was made worse as the specification and drawings did not specify the

materials that were required. The owner had responded by ordering a number of material

changes due to the general specifications of the project which had bumped the development

cost back to its original figure. The failure of the contractor to identify minute design in the

project drawing had made the owner to come to site as often as possible to check the works of

the contractor.

There was a deeper issue here when there were claims by the owner that there was a

“teaming up” between the contractor and the lawyer resulting in works that were below the

“normal” standard. The inability of the lawyer to produce a precise control documents in the

agreement had opened up an enormous opportunity for the contractor to manipulation the

situation in his favour.

7.3.4 Participant 4: Detached House Owner (PMH)

The interview with Assc. Prof. PMH was conducted on the 12th

May 2011. Assc. Prof.

PMH was a detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below

RM250,000.00 (AU$78,600). The owner was a senior town planning lecturer in a local


145

university. In terms of the house’s design, the owner had specified the design of the house in

general terms and left the detailed design process to the architect. This development had faced

problems and experienced delays.

The selection of contractor was made out of the lowest quotation price and assumptions

of their previous projects. There were instances where the contractor was unable to follow the

design in the drawings because the contractor had relied on their past experiences rather than

following the architect’s designs. Because this development was financed using a government

loan, a lawyer had to be appointed. The lawyer had implemented the usage of a general

agreement form which had led to the absence of control documents such as contract

documents (only an agreement form), detailed project specification and project schedule.

There were also issues of designs as there were a number of overdesigns of a house’s

feature. This was clear in terms of the house’s number of windows. The owner had to remove

some of the windows as it was constructed to avoid glaring in the interior of the house. In

addition, there were material changes by the owner due to the general specifications of the

project.

7.3.5 Participant 5: Consultant & Contractor (NMH)

This interview with Mrs. NMH was conducted on the 10th

May 2011. Mrs. NMH was a

quantity surveyor (QS) for two years before becoming a lecturer for six years. She had

experience in developing a particular detached house in Kuala Lumpur. The development cost

of the house was about RM3 million (AU$0.94 million). However, she was mostly involved

in the pre-contract stage namely in preparing estimates.

Due to the high development value, this development had followed the proper

development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. The

duration for preparing general design and estimation took up to six months to complete. This

was because of the client kept changing the design, finishes and fittings due to his preference.

7.3.6 Participant 6: Consultant & Contractor (MEM)

This interview with Mr. MEM was conducted on the 10th

May 2011. Mr. MEM was a

quantity surveyor (QS) for seven years before becoming a lecturer in a local university. He

had experience in developing detached house especially in Kelana Jaya. The development

cost of the house was about RM2 million (AU$0.63 million) and had a slight delay of three

months.


146


development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. The client

kept changing the design, finishes and fittings due to his preference. Even though this

development did not utilise a proper project schedule, it uses the PAM 98 contract form. This

was a standard contract form produced by the Malaysian Architect Association suitable to be

used for private developments in Malaysia.

There were slight issues of flooding on the development site but it was something that

was unavoidable. During the implementation stage of the development, the client had mostly

leave it to the consultant team that he had appointed to handle it. Even the development had a

slight delay of 3 months, the client was satisfied with the outcome of the development.

7.3.7 Participant 7: Consultant & Contractor (NSL)

This interview with Mrs. NSL was conducted on the 11th

May 2011. Mrs. NSL was a

quantity surveyor (QS) for six years before becoming a lecturer in a local university. She had

experience in developing detached house especially in Petaling Jaya. This development

involved four detached houses with a development value of about RM12 million (AU$3.77

million). Therefore this interview only specified on a house in that particular development. It

had a slight delay of four months.


development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. Due to the

sheer size and value of this development, the planning stage alone took six months to be

finalised. Even with that, the client did not finalise the specification of the house. As the

development went forward, the client (and wife) kept changing the design, features, finishes

and fittings due to their preference. This had resulted in numerous amounts of variation orders

in the development.

The site of the development had also contributed to the delay of the development.

During the soil test, the engineer had failed to identify the rocky condition of the sub-soil of

the site. There were tremendous amount of earthwork and rock excavation due to the location

of site on hilly and rocky area. This meant that retaining walls have to be erected in some

areas of the site. This had led to the loss of time for site preparation works and a super-

expensive price tag for it.

In the end, the consultants had completed the development by balancing the need to

fully complying with the owner and what was obliged on them in the contract. The owner was


147

not that satisfied as his (and his wife’s) demands were not fully fulfilled. The participant

claimed that this was due to the inability of client to comprehend the obligation to follow

contract.

7.3.8 Participant 8: Consultant & Contractor (AAA)

This interview with Ar. AA was conducted on the 22nd

May 2011. Ar. AA was an

architect for twenty five years and his own practice. He had experience in developing

detached house in Shah Alam. This particular development has a development value of about

RM1 million (AU$0.31 million). It had a slight delay of six to eight months.


development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. Typical for

this kind of development, there were changes by the client during design and construction

stage of the development.

In terms of the construction stage, there was delay when the first contractor was not

able to finish the job. A second contractor had to be engaged to continue on with the works

until it was completed. In the end, there were no major problems with the development.

While the architect was not impressed with the quality of the workmanship but the client was

‘happy enough’ with it.

7.4 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

The responses of the participants in the semi-structured interviews were then correlated

to the 42 indicators in the merged structural model in Chapter 6. In order for the indicators to

be included in the finalised model, it had to be mentioned by the participants in the interview

session. Other indicators that were mentioned in the interviews but were not listed in the

merged structural model were considered for replacement as long as it was in the same

construct as the original indicator.

Table 7.1 summarises the findings from the data extraction process from the interview

transcripts. The numbers represent how many times an indicator was mentioned whether in a

positive or negative manner by a participant during the interview session. Table 7.2 represents

the indicators that were mentioned in the interviews but was not present in the merged

structural model.


148

Table 7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural

model.

Indicators

(proposed by

quantitative method) Code

Number of positive or negative responses by interview

participant

Total MMD BK PMS PMH NMH MEM NSL AAA

Technical

specifications 1i 2 1 3

1

7

Functional

requirements 1j 1 1

1 1

1 5

Customer / client /

owner satisfaction 1g 5 3 7

2 4 5 5 31

Quality according to

contract 1c 6 1 5 2

2 1 1 18

Effective monitoring /

control 1t 6 6 7 8 1 3 4 2 37

Realistic schedule 1s 3 2 2

1 1 1 1 11

Good performance by

suppliers / contractors

/ consultants 1u 2 14 7 4

2 1

30

Competent project

manager 1r

1 1

Benefit to stakeholder 1m

1

1

2

Reputation 1k 1

1

1 1 2 1 7

Political stability 1n

0

Good communication 1p

1 3 1 2 7 3 17

Contractor delays 2o 3 2

1 6

Manpower / material

shortage 2s 2 2

4

Design failures /

changes 2q 1 5

1 2

9

Financial projection 2c 1

1 2

4

Market prediction 2a

0

Health and safety 2p

0

Planning permission 2j

3 2

1

6

Contractor selection 2m 1 2 2 2

1 1 2 11

Legal Liability 2v

0

Monitoring liquidated

and ascertain

damages claim 3z

0

Overseeing progress

payment 3v 3 1 3 1

1 3 1 13

Attending site

meetings 3s

1 1 1

1 1 2 7

Negotiation with

contractor 3q 4 1 4

9


149

Table 7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural

model (continued).

Indicators

(proposed by

quantitative method) Code

Number of positive or negative responses by interview

participant

Total MMD BK PMS PMH NMH MEM NSL AAA

Handing over

possession of site to

the contractor 3r

0

Contractor selection 3p

2 2 2

1 1 2 10

Estimating the

project’s cost 3e 3

6

3 1 13

Determining the

project’s specification 3k 4 1 1 2

1

9

Design compliance

with legal

requirement 3j

1 2 2

2

2 9

The numbers of

bedroom 15d 2 1

3

The size of the living

room 15g

1

1

2

The size of the master

bedroom's bathroom 15f

1

1

The build area of the

house 15c

1 3 1 2 1 1

9

The size of the

kitchen 15h

2

1

3

The overall design of

the house 15a 3 4 2 2 4 1 2 1 19

The overall quality of

the house compared

to its specifications 15p 6 1 5 2

2

1 17

The delivery of the

project (time) 15o 2 3 2

1 2 1 11

The quality of the

construction materials

used 15i 3 1 7 2 1 4 7 1 26

Electrical supply 15k

2

1 3

Water supply 15j

4

4

Air ventilation 15l 2 1

3


150

Table 7.2: Data extraction from the proposed replacement indicators for the merged

structural model.

Indicators to be

incorporated into

the merged model

Number of positive or negative comments

by interview participant on indicators to be

incorporated into the model

Total

Indicator to be

removed from

the merged

model MM

D

BK

PM

S

PM

H

NM

H

ME

M

NS

L

AA

A

Political stability

(1n)

Revenue and

profits (1l)

3 2

5

Health and

safety (2p)

Competitor’s

interest (2b)

2 1 2

1 1 1 8

Market

prediction (2a)

Site condition

(2d)

1

1 5

7

Legal Liability

(2v)

Building

regulations (2i)

1 3 1

1

1 7

Monitoring

liquidated and

ascertain

damages claim

(3z)

Overseeing

making good of

defects during

Defects Liability

Period (3aa)

3

3

Handing over

possession of

site to the

contractor (3r)

Monitoring

progress of works

(3t) 2

2 4

2 1 3 14

Design

compliance with

legal

requirement (3j)

Planning internal

and external

design (3i) 9 9 10 3 4 2 8 10 55

The size of the

master

bedroom's

bathroom (15f)

Size of master

bedroom (15e)

1

1

2

The recorded interviews were meticulously transcribed and translated. This was done

by the researcher himself to avoid any improper translation or worse misinterpretation where

the translation went out of context. The data extraction from the translated transcription was

done manually and catalogued digitally with the assistance of the QSR NVivo software.

Indicators from each interview were extracted and correlated to the merged structural

model that was acquired in the previous chapter. There were three indicator conditions from

this data extraction. Firstly, a particular indicator was maintained because it was mentioned in

the interviews. Secondly, a particular indicator was replaced because it was not mentioned in


151

the interviews (coloured red in Table 7.1). Thirdly, a particular indicator was replaced

because its replacement was a more relevant solution and was mentioned as the same or even

more times than the original indicator (coloured orange in Table 7.1).

Condition two and three provide a chance for the researcher to improve the model. This

is because as the model becomes more complex, the likelihood of alternative (and more

relevant) models with equivalent fit increases (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756). However, careful

consideration must be taken in changing of the model indicators. Those considerations

include the replacement of an indicator had to be made by an indicator in the same

component. For example, if the original indicator was in the ‘Spatial Design’ it must be

replaced by the indicator in the same group. After the new replaced indicators were loaded

the improvised model with its new indicators must be reanalysed and to be made to fit as

possible. This need to be done so that the placement of the new indicators does not sacrifice

the overall fit of the model. With this, the model had successfully integrated the results of the

quantitative and the qualitative analysis of this research.

With that particular goal, some changes made to the related indicators after considering

the input from the semi-structured interviews. There were six indicators that were not

mentioned by any of the interview participants. They include “political stability (1n)”,

“market prediction (2a)”, “health and safety (2p)”, “legal liability (2v)”, “monitoring

liquidated and ascertain damages claim (3z)” and “handing over possession of site to the

contractor (3r)”. There were also 2 indicators that were mentioned by the interview

participants but had to be replaced. This was because replaced as their replacements had

better response from the interview participants and made more sense in terms of their

meaning when compared to the real-world condition. The two indicators were “handing over

possession of site to the contractor (3r)” and “design compliance with legal requirement (3j)”.

Justifications of Indicator Replacements

The indicator “political stability (1n)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned

by either of the interview participants. Therefore, this indicator was replaced by another

indicator of the same component namely the “revenue and profits (1l)” indicator. The

possibility of generating considerable amounts of revenue and profits was the main drive of

the construction industry. The “revenue and profits” indicator was also mentioned by

participant PMS and PMH. For that reason, “revenue and profits” indicator was more suited

to replace the political stability indicator.


152

The indicator “market prediction (2a)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned

by either of the interview participants. This was due to the nature of the detached houses

market segment itself. Typically, detached houses were bought or built as a family home

where the owner (and his/her family) will reside in the house. Rarely people bought detached

houses as an investment to be rented out. This situation made the detached houses market

more resilient against speculative pressure. Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by

another indicator of the same component namely the “competitor’s interest (2b)” indicator.

“Competitor’s interest” indicator describes on how normally the detached houses were

contracted out to the contractor (and consultants) in a more competitive manner. For the

contractors, they were usually required to submit their quotations to be selected or they were

required bid in an open or selective tender. This benefited the owner as he/she had a choice to

choose whichever contractor that suited them the most. The “competitor’s interest” indicator

was also mentioned by participant BK, PMS, PMH, MEM, NSL and AAA. For that reason,

competitor’s interest was more suited to replace the “market prediction” indicator.

The indicator “health and safety (2p)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned

by either of the interview participants. Due to the small size of detached house development,

this factor was not as relevant compared to other larger types of mass housing development.

This was not to say that the aspect of health and safety were not being given any attention in

detached housing developments rather it was not the main focus of the development as the

number of workers and hazards in detached housing construction sites were limited.

Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by another indicator of the same component namely

the “site condition (2d)” indicator. The condition of site was an important factor for any

development especially for the small scaled detached housing development. Any disturbances

on the site such as flooding or the existence of rocks in the subsoil (as what was described by

participant MEM and NSL), caused disturbances to the schedule and ultimately the budget of

the development. The “site condition” indicator was also mentioned by participant BK, MEM

and NSL. For that reason, site condition was more suited to replace the “health and safety”

indicator.

The indicator “legal liability (2v)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned by

either of the interview participants. The term “legal liability” refers to the liability that the

consultant & contractor will bear when the development was completed, for the contractor,

their liability only stand during the defects liability period. For the consultants (namely the

architect), their liability on the design of the house lasted for longer duration. However, this


153

indicator does not seem to be the main concern of the interview participants of this research.

Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by another indicator of the same component namely

the “building regulations (2i)” indicator. The design of any building must comply with the

related regulations set out by the local authorities. Without the approval of the local authority

on the detached house’s design, it was impossible to proceed to the next step of the

development. This was mentioned by several participants namely BK, PMS, PMH, MEM and

AAA. For that reason, “building regulations” indicator was more suited to replace the “legal

liability” indicator.

The indicator “monitoring liquidates and ascertain damages (LAD) claim (3z)” had to

be replaced because it was not mentioned by either of the interview participants. In a contract,

owners usually have the right to claim damages from the contractor who were late in

completing their job. However, this action usually cause dispute and would halt the progress

of the development even further. Due to the small scale and value of detached house

development, this was not a popular choice to be taken by owners. Instead the interview

participants preferred to negotiate and in some extreme cases may even assist the contractor

in completing the development of their detached house. Therefore, this indicator will be

replaced with another indicator of the same component namely the “overseeing making good

defects during defects liability period (DLP) (3aa)”. DLP was usually included in the contract

to make sure that the contractor made repairs to the detached house that they had completed

without charge to the owner for a certain period of time. This instance was thoroughly

described by participant PMS as he directed the contractor to make repairs to his house after a

couple of days it was completed. For that reason, “overseeing making good defects during

defects liability period” indicator was more suited to replace “monitoring liquidates and

ascertain damages claim” indicator.

The indicator “handing over possession of site to the contractor (3r)” had to be replaced

because it was not mentioned by either of the interview participants. This step was usually

done unofficially for detached housing development and considered insignificant as the

development itself was small in its nature. In most cases, even as the site was ‘handed over’

to the contractor the owners were free to roam the site as he/she pleases. Therefore, this

indicator will be replaced with another indicator of the same component namely the

“monitoring progress of works (3t)”. Monitoring the site by the owner was important by most

of the owners to enable them to evaluate the progress of works, material quality as well as

making changes and improvements to the development. This was mentioned by several


154

participants namely MMD, PMS, PMH, MEM, NSL and AAA. For that reason, “monitoring

progress of works” indicator was more suited to replace “handing over possession of site to

the contractor” indicator.

The indicator “design compliance with legal requirement (3j)” was mentioned nine

times by five interview participants of this research. By right, it was supposed to be included

in the final structural model. However, the compliance of house design to the legal

requirement was not the primary concern of the owners. It was the main task of the consultant

(namely architect) to ensure that the design was able to comply with related regulations and

by-laws. There was another indicator in the same component that demands more attention

than the “design compliance with legal requirement” indicator. The indicator was named

“planning internal and external design (3i)”. A detached house is a very customised building

and requires the input of the owners to enable the architect to produce a design that would

satisfy the owner’s requirements. This was approved by all of the interview participants. All

of them had mentioned about the planning internal and external design indicator resulting of

it being mentioned fifty five times in the transcript. Due to the commanding presence,

“planning internal and external design” indicator was more suited to replace “design

compliance with legal requirement” indicator.

Finally, the indicator “the size of the master bedroom's bathroom (15f)” was mentioned

one time by participant BK in this interview. However, it was replaced by the researcher with

the indicator “the size of master bedroom (15e)”. Besides being mentioned two times by two

different participant (BK and NSL), the size of master bedroom indicator made more sense as

a detached house owner would positively wish for the best bedroom for himself instead of

having the best bathroom for himself. In addition, the loading of these two indicators was

somewhat similar and does not produce a significant effect towards the fitness of the model.

Therefore, the “size of the master bedroom's bathroom” indicator was replaced with “size of

the master bedroom” indicator. The indicators that will be substituted are highlighted red in

Figure 7.1 and its justifications are summarised in Table 7.3.


155

Figure 7.1: The indicators that are substituted based on the analysis results of the semi-

structured interviews (coloured red).


156

Table 7.3: The substitution of indicators based on the analysis results of the semi-

structured interviews.

Indicators to be removed Indicators to be inserted Replacement

justification Indicator Code Number

of times

mentioned

Indicator Code Number

of times

mentioned

Political

stability 1n 0

Revenue and

profits 1l 5

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Market

prediction 2a 0

Competitor’s

interest 2b 8

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Health and

safety 2p 0 Site condition 2d 7

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Legal Liability 2v 0

Building

regulations 2i 7

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Monitoring

liquidated and

ascertain

damages claim 3z 0

Overseeing

making good of

defects during

Defects

Liability Period 3aa 3

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Handing over

possession of

site to the

contractor 3r 0

Monitoring

progress of

works 3t 14

Original

indicator was

not mentioned

by participant

Design

compliance with

legal

requirement 3j 9

Planning

internal and

external design 3i 55

Replacement

indicator was

more relevant

The size of the

master

bedroom's

bathroom 15f 1

Size of master

bedroom 15e 2

Replacement

indicator was

more relevant


157

7.5 FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL

The merged structural model was correlated to the inputs of the semi-structured

interviews and improvements were made to the model. From the analysis done to the revised

model, it was clearly shown that no GOF adjustments need to be made to the final structural

model (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.2: The final structural model (model fit).


158

There were no GOF adjustments need to be made on the final structural model due to

the fact that the final structural model had relatively maintained the values of its previous

version which was within the boundaries of a model fit (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4: The comparison of the merged structural model and the final structural

model of this research.

FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL

Goodness of Fit

Indices

Merged Structural

Model (Fit)

Final structural

model (Fit)

Desired Levels

CMIN/DF 1.334 1.491 < 2.00

GFI 0.850 0.804 > 0.9

TLI 0.932 0.903 > 0.9

CFI 0.938 0.909 > 0.9

RMSEA 0.039 0.047 <0.06

AGFI 0.828 0.779 > 0.9

Revised Model Estimation

There were two conditions that could be derived from the final structural model.

Condition 1 involves three main factors namely owner participation, development success

factors and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the normal development stages of

the detached house development (development success factors). The final structural model

had provided the equation for this condition:

Owner Satisfaction = 0.29 (Owner Participation) + 0.02 (Development Success Factors)

OS = 0.29 OP + 0.02 DSF

Say, OP & DF = 1

OS = 0.29 (1) + 0.02 (1)

OS = 0.31

Condition 2 involves three main factors namely owner participation, development

barriers and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the problematic development stages

of the detached house development (development barriers). The final structural model had

provided the equation for this condition:


159

Owner Satisfaction = 0.38 (Owner Participation) + 0.46 (Development Barriers)

OS = 0.38 OP + 0.46 DB

Say, OP & DB = 1

OS = 0.38 (1) + 0.46 (1)

OS = 0.84

From both of the equations, it could be observed that the owner participation had a

bigger loading on development barriers (0.38) than development success factors (0.29).

Therefore, it could be considered that owner participation had bigger impact on development

barriers than development success factors. In terms of owner satisfaction, it was more

affected by development barrier (0.46) than development success factors (0.02). As a result, it

could be concluded that both of the development barrier and development success factors

provided a certain degree of satisfaction to the owner when they were involved in their

detached house development process. However, owner participation was more required when

the development was facing problems or issues rather than when the development was

running through its normal course. The owner’s participation during these difficult stages

provided them with more satisfaction than them being directly involved compared to when

the development runs its normal course.

7.6 INDICATORS LOADING ANALYSIS

This research could have proposed the guideline for a successful detached house

development in Malaysia based on the final structural model itself. However, this research

went a step further by identifying which indicator in the model had more impact on its main

factor than others. This way, the indicators could be ranked based on their influence towards

the main factors. This made further interpretation more meaningful.

To achieve this, the researcher relied on the factor loadings of the indicator itself and its

related construct. The “loading” or “coefficients” represent the degree of impact an indicator

in a particular construct on another (Hair et al., 2006, p. 725). Every main factor in the model

had two construct linked to it namely the components and its indicators. The researcher could

use this connection to identify the total loading that was related to an indicator and use it in

the form of percentage. In this case, the indicators’ loading in the first construct was added to

its second construct, averaged and multiplied by 100 to acquire their “averaged loading

percentages”. The equation was as follows:


160

[(1st construct loading + 2

nd construct loading) / 2] 100 = averaged loading percentage

Next, the indicators (or activities) that were likely to require the detached house owner

to participate were ranked according to their average loading percentages. It indicates how

much of an indicator was loaded in a particular factor. This implied the impact of an indicator

(or activity) in a particular factor. The degrees of impact of the four main factors were listed

and discussed in the following chapter.

The degrees of impact of the activities in the owner participation factor were as follows:

To negotiate terms with the contractor (91%);

To decide on the selection of contractor (91%);

To monitor the progress of works (85%);

To provide input for internal and external design (81%);

To oversee the process of progress payment (78%);

To assist in determining development specification (76%);

To attend the site meetings (74%);

To assist in the development cost estimation (74%);

To monitor the repair works during defects liability period (65%).

The degrees of impact of the activities in the development barrier were as follows:

The compliance towards construction regulations and by-laws (84%);

The selection process of the contractor (78%);

The approval for planning permission by local authorities (77%);

The financial projection of the development (73%);

The condition of the construction site (70%);

The interest of competition amongst consultants or contractor (67%);

The construction delay initiated by the contractor (52%);

The failure of the detached house’s design or design changes (49%);


161

The shortage of manpower or building materials (41%).

The degrees of impact of the activities in the development success factor were as

follows:

The development had determined its technical specifications (82%);

The development fulfills its intended functional requirements (80%);

The development created revenue and profits as been planned (80%);

The development generated good reputation for stakeholders (79%);

The development utilises an effective monitoring or control system (78%);

The development utilises a realistic project schedule (75%);

The development provides benefits to all stakeholders (73%);

The development focuses on the customers’ / clients’ / owners’ satisfaction (73%);

The exceptional performance of the consultant or contractor in the development

(73%);

The development practiced good communication culture (73%);

The development maintains its build quality according to contract (72%);

The development utilises a good project manager or superintending officer (66%).

The degrees of impact of the activities in the owner satisfaction factor were as follows:

Adequate space for air ventilation (88%);

Good water supply and fixings (86%);

Good electrical supply and installation (85%);

Quantity of bedrooms according to owner’s requirement (83%);

Adequate build area for the house (82%);

Adequate size of the family living room (82%);

Adequate size of the master bedroom (82%);


162

Overall quality of house compared to its specification (81%);

Adequate size of the kitchen (77%);

Quality of construction materials for the development (75%);

Acceptable deliverance of development in terms of time (72%);

The overall design of the detached house (71%).

7.7 SUMMARY

This chapter had revealed the execution process of the semi-structured interview for this

research. The results of this semi-structured interview were utilised to improve the results of

the SEM model. Firstly, the indicators that were in the merged structural model that was not

mentioned in the final structural model were replaced with another indicator (in the same

construct) that was mentioned by the participants of the interview. This meant that “political

stability”, “market prediction”, “health and safety”, “legal liability”, “monitoring liquidated

and ascertain damages claim” and “handing over possession of site to the contractor”

indicators were all replaced by “revenue and profits”, “competitor’s interest”, “site

condition”, “building regulations”, “overseeing making good of defects during defects

liability period” and “monitoring progress of works” respectively. Even though “design

compliance with legal requirement” were mentioned during the interviews, it was replaced

with the “planning internal and external design” due to the overwhelming responses of the

participants on the latter indicator. The same happened with “The size of the master

bedroom’s bathroom” where it was changed to “size of the master bedroom” due to the latter

being mentioned twice as much as the former and this switch made a lot more sense. Even

with these eight indicator changes, the model had maintained its GOF. It needs to be

highlighted that these changes were made solely to ensure that the improved model has a

more, according to Markland (2007, p. 858) substantive meaningfulness. The next chapter

will discuss more on the findings of this research.

Chapter 8: Discussion

163

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This research had utilised a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative approaches to

explore the complex nature of detached housing scheme and owner participations. The

research framework in Chapter 4 scoped and guided the process of data collection and

analysis.

In the previous chapter, the proposed model was formulated through the analytical

process of structural equation modelling and the descriptive process of semi-structured

interviews. In this chapter, the output is discussed and its relevance in answering the original

research objectives is highlighted based on the model in Figure 8.1.

The aim of this research is to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a

successful detached housing development project in Malaysia. The objectives are:

1. To identify critical development success factors and development barriers of

detached housing developments in Malaysia;

2. To determine the significance of owner participation for a successful detached

housing development;

3. To propose a guideline for owner participation for detached housing development in

Malaysia.

8.2 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS OF

DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA

Figure 8.1 illustrates the achievement of the objectives. A blue dashed line represents

objective 1. It highlights the critical development success factors and development barriers

for detached housing development in Malaysia. A green dashed line represents objective 2

where it highlights the impact of owner participation to the success of detached housing

development (in terms of owner satisfaction). This association was put through the conditions

of development success factors or development barriers. An orange dashed line represents

objective 3 where the entire model itself is the actual guideline for owner participation for

detached housing development in Malaysia.


164

Figure 8.1: The final structural model and its relationship to the research’s objectives

(objective 1: blue, objective 2: green and objective 3: orange).

From the quantitative and qualitative analysis done to the four main factors

(development success factors, development barriers, owner participation and owner

satisfaction), it had now become the critical factors for detached housing development in

Malaysia. The first objective of the research is to identify critical development success factors

and critical development barriers of detached housing development. This is indicated by the

blue line in Figure 8.1.


165

8.2.1 Critical Development Success Factors

This thesis had revealed that the critical development success factors for detached

houses in Malaysia are represented by three components that contain twelve indicators

(Figure 8.1). The first component in the development success factors is the “Communication

Factor”. There are four indicators in this component namely the “Technical Specifications”,

“Functional Requirements”, “Customer / Client / Owner Satisfaction” and “Quality

According to Contract”. In order for a development to fulfil the technical, functional and

quality requirements that leads to client’s satisfaction, it is vital for the owner to convey all

his requirements to the consultant during the initial stage of the development. A number of

literatures had even gone further by proposing to involve the contractor during the inception

stage (Andre, 2012, p. 1; Song, Mohamed & AbouRizk, 2006, PM.S06.1; Trigunarsyah,

2004a, p. 862; West, 2012, p. 71). In the bigger scheme of things, communication is

considered as the “bonding agent” that will connect the fragmented parties in the construction

industry thus enables them to work together in harmony. Without proper communication, it

will be difficult for each party to work together to achieve the development’s target. Only

through communication each party knows which information the other party requires for

taking care of their operations according to the contract and what is required of the operations

of the other party (Kärnä, Juha-Matti & Veli-Matti, 2009, p. 123). Furthermore, by

communicating the related parties would develop a collaborative, respectful and trusting

relationship between the parties (Karlsen, 2010, p. 642) and this would benefit the

development tremendously.

The second component for development success factors is the “Planning and

Monitoring Factor”. There are four indicators related to this component namely “Effective

Monitoring / Control”, “Realistic Schedule”, “Good Performance by Suppliers / Contractors /

Consultants” and “Competent Project Manager”. Shapira at al. (1994, p. 181) describes in

reality, the project planning process is extremely complex, interconnected and dynamic, it is

possible, and indeed useful. A good plan and an effective implementation of that plan are

crucial in order for the development to achieve its intended target whether in terms of time,

cost or quality. This statement is corroborated by Twomey (2006, p. 103) who recommends

one to understand what causes delays and then to properly plan and manage schedule issues

before they become a problem are the key factors in keeping a project on track. As a matter of

fact, results in a study by Toor & Ogunlana (2009, p. 163) reveal that most of the high-rated

Critical Success Factors are related to project planning and control, personnel, and

involvement of client.


166

The third component for development success factors is the “Reputation Factor”. There

are also four indicators related with this component. They are “Benefit to Stakeholder”,

“Reputation”, “Revenue and Profits” and “Good Communication”. An important issue for a

project management team is to identify those stakeholders who can affect the project, and

then manage their differing demands through good communication in the early stages of a

project (Olander & Landin, 2005, p. 327). By involving the stakeholders of a particular

development, a greater benefit will be reaped by all parties in many ways (Brun & Jolley,

2011, p. 218).This is because all the parties involved in a development are in a way putting

their reputation on the line in the outcome of the development. A study by Permentier, Bolt &

van Ham (2011, p. 993), discovers that housing choice turned out to have a positive effect on

both neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of reputation. Therefore, it is important for

the consultant & contractor to produce the best outcome for their client’s detached house

development because not only it reflects on the client’s reputation but theirs as well. This will

impact the consultant’s and contractor’s job opportunities in the area in the long run. It is also

essential to engage contractors who are profitable (and reputable) because they are less likely

to have cash flow problems or run into financial difficulties, which will invariably delay the

project (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 363).

8.2.2 Critical Development Barriers

This thesis had discovered that the critical development barriers for detached houses in

Malaysia are represented by three components that contain nine indicators (Figure 8.1). The

first component in the development barrier is the “Design and Site Barrier”. There are three

indicators in this component namely the “Contractor Delays”, “Manpower or Material

Shortage” and “Design Failure or Failure of Design Changes”. This is the most critical

obstacle that plagues the detached housing development in Malaysia. It is obvious through the

acknowledgement of the semi-structured interview participants of this research. This barrier

involves the consultants for poor designs and contractors for poor delivery. The participation

of owner, identification of user’s requirements and the establishment of the design criteria

must be conducted in the planning phase in order to produce a quality project Bubshait (1994,

p. 117). However, having the consultants to follow blindly what the owner wants in terms of

design is not the answer. Redström (2006, p. 136) recommends that fundamental problems

associated with design as not only centred on the user but also increasingly about designing

what use and user should be like. Designers must take care on how they use the notions of use

and users in their design. One of the most difficult decisions taken by the client is selection of


167

the contractor, because the inappropriateness of the selected contractor leads to substandard

work, delays, disputes, or even bankruptcy Hatush & Skitmore (1997, p. 36). A study on the

causes of delays in the Malaysia by Alaghbari et al. (2007, p. 204) determines that the first

out of four major factors causing delay in construction projects are factors due to the

contractor. This is concurred by a similar study by Assaf & Al-Hejji (2006, p. 355) in Saudi

Arabia where the owners specified that causes of delay are related to contractor and labours.

To overcome this issue, owners must resist the temptation of selecting builders (contractors)

solely based on price (Twomey, 2006, p. 105).

The second component for development barrier is the “Market and Safety Barrier”.

There are three indicators related to this component namely “Financial Projection”, “Site

Condition” and “Competitor’s Interest”. The site condition especially in terms of safety

aspects is important because it affects the progress of the development. Findings of Abdul-

Rahman et al.’s (2011, p. 211) study indicate that poor cash flow management, followed by

late payment, insufficient financial resources and financial market instability are the root

causes of financial-related delays. These conditions would provide an adverse effect to the

financial projection of any development project. In terms of safety, it is more suitable for the

owners to take a more small-scaled customised safety approach for their development.

Gambatese (2000, p. 665) proposed an owner safety program that could be developed for

each project undertaken, tailored to effectively address safety based on specific project

features. It can be concluded that the owner’s participation in project safety can significantly

influence project safety performance (Huang & Hinze, 2006b, p. 180).

The third component for development barrier is the “Regulation and Procurement

Barrier”. There are also three indicators related with this component. They are “Planning

Permission”, “Contractor Selection” and “Building Regulations”. Particularly, the housing

regulations that govern housing developments imposed by the Local Authorities must be

satisfied in order for the development to progress. This is (in theory) would ensure the quality

of the development by upholding the related rules and regulations. Nevertheless how far these

powers are practically enforced by the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments (MHLG)

still remains in doubt. All the authorities, in particular the local authorities, the MHLG and

the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) should properly enforce the powers

vested in them and take necessary steps to prevent non-committed developers and contractors

from entering into the business of housing development and construction industry (Sufian &

Rahman, 2008, p. 155).


168

8.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL

DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

The second objective of the research is to identify the significance of owner

participation for a successful detached housing development in terms of owner satisfaction

indicated by the green line in Figure 8.1. Through the result of the final structural equation

model in Chapter 7, this thesis has determined the significance of owner participation for a

successful detached housing development. There are two conditions where owner

participation is needed are being tested. Owner participation is tested as the development is

going well through development success factors as well as when the development is facing

difficulties through development barriers. It is established that owner participation will

provide more significant impact when the development is facing development barriers than

when the development is experiencing success factors. This proves that owner participation is

more needed when the development is facing problems rather than when the development is

running its typical course.

In terms of owner satisfaction, it is identified that by assisting in resolving development

barrier the owner will have greater sense of satisfaction than nudging in to assist as the

development is experiencing success factors. This shows that a deeper sense of owner

satisfaction comes from the involvement of the owners in helping to resolve issues regarding

the development.

In terms of connecting the relationship of owner participation and owner satisfaction, it

is without a doubt that owner participation is crucial when the development is facing issues.

As the issues subside, it will bring a tremendously deeper sense of satisfaction to the owners

because of their assistance when they are needed the most. However, the involvement of

owner as the development is progressing as planned is also important but it is not as critical as

when the development is facing issues. The owner satisfaction in assisting during the smooth

run of the development is also a whole lot less and can almost be disregarded.

8.4 GUIDELINE FOR SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED HOUSES IN

MALAYSIA

The third objective of the research is to develop a guideline for a successful detached

housing development in Malaysia indicated by the orange line in Figure 8.1. The findings of

this thesis generated a guideline for the successful detached housing development in

Malaysia, all of the four main factors are included in the guideline. From the quantitative and


169

qualitative analysis done to the main factors, the entire model had become a guideline for

detached housing development in Malaysia.

Section 8.2 had elaborated two of the four critical factors that are needed to be carried

out when developing a detached house in Malaysia namely the “Critical Development

Success Factors” and “Critical Development Barriers”. This section has no intention to repeat

the argument but it will add to the argument of Section 8.2 with two other critical factors for a

successful detached housing development in Malaysia namely the “Critical Owner

Participation Factors” and “Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors”.

8.4.1 Critical Owner Participation Factors

This thesis had revealed that the owner participation for detached houses in Malaysia is

represented by three components that contain nine indicators (Figure 8.1). The first

component in the owner participation is the “Project Planning”. There are three indicators in

this component namely the “Estimating the Project’s Cost”, “Determining the Project’s

Specifications” and “Planning the Internal and External Design”. This are the most crucial

activities that the owner need to participate in any development projects. The findings of

Shapira et al. (1994, p. 179) identified three parties, the project manager, design engineers,

and client, are all involved, albeit with changing intensities, in all the planning stages. By

improving the planning aspect especially at very early stages of project implementation the

delivery of projects can be improved (Othman et al., 2006, p. 498).

The second component for owner participation is the “Project Contracting”. There are

three indicators related to this component namely “Negotiation with the Contractor”,

“Monitoring the Progress of Works” and “Contractor Selection”. This is an important stage

where the owner needs to select the best contractor for his development. The practice of

selecting contractor had evolved from a selection typically based on bid price alone which is

deficient in many respects Padhi & Mohapatra (2009, p. 222) which could lead to

inefficiencies in projects and poor project performance Zavadskas et al. (2008, p. 185), to

considering many other aspects as well as utilising latest algorithms and models Walraven &

de Vries (2009, p. 603). However, due to the small scaled nature of detached houses it was

inappropriate to apply such sophisticated measures just for the selection of contractor.

Therefore, besides considering the traditional approach of choosing the contractor with the

lower bids, owners should also consider the past performance of a contractor and his

competitiveness in terms of the quoted time of completion and the quoted warranty period

Padhi & Mohapatra (2009, p. 222).


170

The third component for owner participation is the “Project Completion”. There are

also three indicators related with this component. They are “Overseeing Making Good of

Defects during Defects Liability Period”, “Overseeing Progress Payment” and “Attending

Site Meetings”.

The completion of works comprised within a contract is important as not only it has a

direct bearing on the question of whether the employer can levy liquidated damages on the

contractor, but it also usually marks the transfer of certain risks or the crystallization of

certain rights between the contractor and the employer inter-se (Kheng, 2003). A study by

Yu, Yu and Jinghua (2006, para. 1) explained that one of the most important steps in the

administration of a construction project is the granting of formal acceptance upon the project's

completion. It defines “project owner’s acceptance” as the project owner's acceptance is

granted if all parties are satisfied with the work carried out by the contractor(s), subject to

regulatory supervision by the state and local government. The inability of contractor to

deliver a satisfactory product would have financial (and reputational) consequences to them

especially when strictly enforceable liquidated damages need to be written into the

construction contract. An example of the “liquidated damages” enforcement is in Clause 22

of the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (The Malaysian Architect Association) PAM Standard

Form of Contract (Pertubuhan_Akitek_Malaysia, 1998). Rebecca Thatcher (2001, p. 30)

highlighted that the owner cannot be expected to keep an open check book project alive for

the contractors' convenience. The contractors need to take some risk, especially for something

they have control over and the owner does not.

8.4.2 Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors

This thesis had revealed that the owner satisfaction for detached houses in Malaysia is

represented by three components that contain twelve indicators (Figure 8.1). The first

component in the owner satisfaction is in terms of “Spatial Design”. There are six indicators

in this component namely “The Numbers of Bedroom”, “The Size of the Living Room”, “The

Size of the Master Bedroom”, “The Build Area of the House”, “The Size of the Kitchen” and

“The Overall Design of the House”. These are the most crucial aspects of the design of

detached houses that has a direct effect on the owner’s satisfaction on the development. The

intricate designs of its internal space are typical as owner-occupied housing tends to be of

higher quality. These design requirements would likely satisfy residents with higher income

as they could afford to live in better dwellings (Dekker et al., 2011, p. 494).


171

The second component for owner satisfaction is the “Project Implementation”. There

are three indicators related to this component namely “The Overall Quality of the House

Compared to its Specifications”, “The Delivery of the Project (Time)” and “The Quality of

the Construction Materials Used”. It is clear that time and quality are being given the utmost

priority for the implementation of detached housing developments while the cost of the

development is not. This is because of the nature of detached houses which is considered as

the peak of housing ladder and usually built by those who earn above the median income of

its surrounding communities (NCLT, 2009, p. 2). Therefore, an owner who decides to build a

detached house is most likely would have the funding to build it.

The third component for owner satisfaction is the “Building Services”. There are also

three indicators related with this component. They are “Electrical Supply”, “Water Supply”

and “Air Ventilation”. In Figure 8.1, the “Electrical Supply” and “Water Supply” indicators

were correlated due to their similarity. This is true as their correlation produced a high value

of 0.71. A building without proper services is an unliveable building. Therefore, a detached

house needs to be equipped with at least the basic of amenities namely the electrical and

water supply as the public “mass housing” would have them (Berkoz et al., 2008, p. 168;

Mohit, Ibrahim & Rashid, 2009, p. 5). The design of the house must also take into

consideration the natural airflow going through the building. Proper design of window and

other openings must be well thought of to avoid glaring, design and security issues.

8.4.3 Guideline for Successful Development of Detached Houses in Malaysia Visual

Representation

From the findings from this thesis in the final structural model (Figure 8.1) and the

extensive explanations of its components (Section 8.2, Section 8.4.1 and Section 8.4.2), a

guideline for successful detached housing development in Malaysia is justified. The guideline

is represented in a simpler terms to make it easier for common people to understand the

findings of this research (Figure 8.2).


172

Figure 8.2: The guideline for a successful detached housing development in Malaysia.

Master bedroom,

bedroom, living

room, kitchen, build

area, design, quality,

time, materials,

electric, water,

ventilation

Functional

requirements

Revenue and

profits

Competent

project

manager

Quality

according

contract

Good

performance of

cons. & cont.

Realistic

schedule

Technical

specifications

Owner

satisfaction

Effective

monitoring or

control

Failure of design or

design changes Manpower or

material shortage

Contractor

delays

Financial

projection

Planning

permissions

Building

regulations

Site

condition

Contractor

selection

Competitor’s

interest

Oversee

progress

payment

Monitor

making

good

defects

during

Defects

Liability

Period

Monitor

progress

of works

Negotiate with

contractor Select

contractor

Attend site

meetings

Determine project

specifications

Assist in

project

cost

estimation

Planning internal and

external design

CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT

SUCCESS FACTORS

CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT

BARRIERS

CRITICAL OWNER

PARTICIPATION FACTORS

CRITICAL OWNER

SATISFACTION FACTORS

Good

communication

Reputation


173

The following guidelines were ranked in accordance to the impact they would have on a

detached housing development. They were derived based on the findings of this research

(refer Figure 8.1) which is then represented in Figure 8.2. In developing a detached house, the

owner needs to participate during project planning stage, project contracting stage and project

completion stage. Specifically, the owner needs to be involved in these following activities:

1. To negotiate terms with the contractor;

2. To decide on the selection of contractor;

3. To monitor the progress of works;

4. To provide input for internal and external design;

5. To oversee the process of progress payment;

6. To assist in determining development specification;

7. To attend the site meetings;

8. To assist in the development cost estimation;

9. To monitor the repair works during defects liability period.

The owner, consultant and contractor need to be aware of the design & site barrier,

market & safety barrier and regulation and procurement barrier. Specifically, the parties need

to acknowledge and overcome the following issues to avoid problems that will impede the

progress of their detached housing development:

1. The compliance towards construction regulations and by-laws;

2. The selection process of the contractor;

3. The approval for planning permission by local authorities;

4. The financial projection of the development;

5. The condition of the construction site;

6. The interest of competition amongst consultants or contractor;

7. The construction delay initiated by the contractor;

8. The failure of the detached house’s design or design changes;

9. The shortage of manpower or building materials.


174

In order to steer the development to success, the owner, consultant and contractor also

need to work in their communication factor, planning & monitoring factors as well as their

reputation factors. In detail, they need to ensure that the following matters were executed

properly in order to promote a successful development of their detached housing:

1. The development had determined its technical specifications;

2. The development fulfills its intended functional requirements;

3. The development created revenue and profits as been planned;

4. The development generated good reputation for stakeholders;

5. The development utilises an effective monitoring or control system;

6. The development utilises a realistic project schedule;

7. The development provides benefits to all stakeholders;

8. The development focuses on the customers’ / clients’ / owners’ satisfaction;

9. The exceptional performance of the consultant or contractor in the development;

10. The development practiced good communication culture;

11. The development maintains its build quality according to contract;

12. The development utilises a good project manager or superintending officer.

The consultant and contractor need to work on diligently on proper spatial design,

timely project implementation and installation of building services for the owner to be

satisfied with the development. They must realise the importance of executing the following

tasks in an approved manner for maximum owner satisfaction thus realising the project’s

success.

1. Adequate space for air ventilation;

2. Good water supply and fixings;

3. Good electrical supply and installation;

4. Quantity of bedrooms according to owner’s requirement;

5. Adequate build area for the house;

6. Adequate size of the family living room;


175

7. Adequate size of the master bedroom;

8. Overall quality of house compared to its specification;

9. Adequate size of the kitchen;

10. Quality of construction materials for the development;

11. Acceptable deliverance of development in terms of time;

12. The overall design of the detached house.

Chapter 9: Conclusion

176

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 identified the need to investigate the nature of detached housing development

in Malaysia, its success factors as well as the importance of owner participation in such

housing scheme. This initial review led to Chapter 2 which explores the global and Malaysian

detached housing sector particularly in identifying the characteristics of detached housing

development all over the world and how it was implemented in Malaysia. This chapter

formulised the first objective of this research namely to identify critical development success

factors and development barriers of detached housing developments in Malaysia.

Accordingly, Chapter 3 continued the literature review with explaining about the concept of

owner participation and introducing the research variables that was used in this research that

was derived from the literature reviews. This chapter brings to surface the second research

objective namely to determine the significance of owner participation for a successful

detached housing development. The research method is presented in Chapter 4, where a

mixed-method approach was implemented by utilising both the quantitative and qualitative

approaches. This method guides the empirical investigation and analysis of Chapter 5 with

descriptive and factor analysis as well as Chapter 6 with structural equation modelling. Based

on these quantitative analyses, a model was produced. In order to validate and ensure its

reflectiveness, the model was evaluated against the findings of the qualitative approach of

Chapter 7. Through content analysis, the responses of the semi-structured participants were

correlated against the model and improvements were made. The overall findings of this thesis

are discussed in Chapter 8, demonstrating the effect between owner participation towards

development success factors and barriers and how it affects owner satisfaction. This fulfills

the requirement of the third objective of this research which is to propose a guideline for

owner participation for detached housing development in Malaysia. The realisation of how

owner participation affects the success of detached housing development will pave the way

towards further advancements in improving the contractual procedures of detached housing

especially in Malaysia. Accordingly, this research offers a number of contributions to the

body of knowledge and improving the practice of detached housing development.


177

This concluding chapter presents the contributions and implications of this research as

well as its limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

9.2 IMPROVEMENT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION

This research had identified the significance of owner participation in detached housing

development in Malaysia. In general, detached house owners are required to participate

during critical developmental stages of the development in order to produce a satisfying

outcome. In accordance to Research Objective 2, this research had discovered three critical

detached house development stages that require the attention and participation of detached

house owner namely during project planning, project contracting and project completion.

The first critical stage of owner participation is the project planning stage. The owner

needs to provide proper specific input to the consultant (especially the architect) regarding his

expectation of the cost for the entire development, its detailed specification and general idea

of the internal and external design of the detached house and its compound. The owner must

state clearly about his budget for the development. This will enable the consultant to prepare

a development plan that would suit the owner’s budget. The owner and consultant also need

to work out a detailed specification based on that budget. This aspect is typically overseen by

many detached house owners which leaves them vulnerable to manipulations and

dissatisfaction. Another important aspect that is unique to detached houses is the ability of its

owner to apply customised design for the house. This is validated by the model itself when

the design themed indicators appear in both owner participation and owner satisfaction

factors. The consultant (especially the architect) needs to collaborate with the owner to come

up with a design that suits the needs and demands of the owner and his budget. This project

planning stage may take a long time to be completed properly but if it’s done properly, it will

pave a “less problematic” way for the development to progress forward.

The second critical stage is the project contracting stage. In this stage, the owner must

make the right choice of selecting the right contractor for the job. This decision may be taken

after recommendations from the consultants or from the owner’s personal contacts or

experiences but it is not recommended for the owner to select a contractor primarily on the

basis of the lowest bid. After the selection, the owner may need to negotiate terms with the

contractor in order to get the best value out of the contractual arrangement. From the

interviews, the negotiations are usually in terms of improving the material specification. In

addition, the owner might have to monitor the progress of the works from time to time. This


178

can be done based on the consultant’s monthly progress report or by the owner observing the

progress of the works himself.

The third critical stage is the project completion stage. In this stage, the owner may

need to attend a number of important site meetings to ensure that the progress of the works is

according to what had been planned and the completion date is achievable. The owner also

needs to make sure that the payment is according to what have been agreed in the contract

and there are no obstacles for the contractor to receive the full amount of the payment that he

is entitled to. Any delays on the payment to the contractor will definitely affect the progress

and quality of the development. Finally, after the development had been handed over to the

owner, the owner needs to inspect the house for defects or substandard works that may have

been overseen by the contractor. If the defects liability period clause is included in the

contract, the contractor would have to remedy the problems at his own expense until the

owner (and the contract) is satisfied.

Understanding Critical Success Factor (Research Objective 1)

In fulfilling a part of the requirements of Research Objective 1, this research has

identified three aspects in implementing critical success factors for detached housing

development in Malaysia. The first critical success factor is the communication factor.

Communication is the bonding agent that keeps all the parties working together to achieve a

common goal. Every stakeholder must be able to communicate effectively during the entire

course of the development. This includes in the process of specification determination,

functional requirements, determining owner’s satisfaction and overall quality of the

development.

The second critical success factor is the planning and monitoring factor. Every

development project needs to be properly planned and executed. In terms of detached house

developments, it needs effective monitoring and control, realistic schedule, good performance

by suppliers, contractors and consultants as well as a competent project manager or

superintending officer.

The third critical success factor is the reputation factor. The development itself will

reflect the reputation of each and every stakeholder whether the owners, consultants or

contractors. Therefore, this factor again highlights the need for every stakeholder to

communicate effectively in order to make the development a success. This will contribute in

making the development successful and beneficial to every stakeholder in their own way. For


179

the consultants and contractors, a successful development will generate significant revenue or

profits for them.

Understanding the Barrier

For the second part of Research Objective 1, this research has classified three critical

development barriers that the stakeholders of detached housing development need to be aware

of. The first critical barrier is the design and site barrier. Consultants need to be careful in the

preparation of the house’s design because a failed design or failed design changes (in the

view of the owner) will have tremendous negative consequences to the development. The

delay of the contractor is also a common issue for detached house developments in Malaysia.

One of the main excuses is the shortage of materials where depending on the location of the

development, type or quality of material required, material shortages will directly affect the

overall progress of the development.

The second critical barrier is the market and safety barrier. The economic downturn as

well as issues with the payments and cash flow of the project will have profoundly negative

effect on the progress of the development. Too much competition amongst the contractors for

the project will also affect the development negatively when the bidders will go for the lowest

possible bid just to win the tender or in some cases the bidders will team up to “fix” the price

of the tender. In terms of safety, the construction site is the primary concern where any

mishaps that happen within the site will trigger an investigation which will delay the progress

of the development.

The third critical barrier is the regulation and procurement barrier. The importance to

select the right contractor is highlighted in this development barrier factor which validates the

similar indicator found in the owner participation factor. It is the responsibility of the

consultants to ensure that the development itself comply with state and local authority’s rules

and regulations regarding residential development as well as obtaining planning permission

from the local authority.

Understanding Owner Satisfaction

Deriving from the literature reviews, this research has determined the owner satisfaction

as the primary indicator for the success of detached housing development. Three critical

aspects was identified that will affect the satisfaction of detached housing owners towards the

outcome of the development. The first aspect of owner satisfaction is in terms of spatial

design. Owners are concerned with the overall design of house, the area of house’s space and


180

the aspect of size, quantity and location of the rooms of the house. These include the master

bedroom, bedrooms, living room and the kitchen area. It is the responsibility of the

consultants (especially the architect) to deliver the best detached house design in accordance

to the owner’s requirements and budget.

The second aspect of owner satisfaction is in terms of project implementation. In

detached housing development, owners are more concerned about the quality and duration of

the development rather than its cost. Therefore, the overall quality of the house needs to

comply or exceed the development’s specification. Specifically, the construction materials

that are used must be in accordance or better than what is specified in the specifications. In

terms of project delivery, owners are specifically concern about the progress of the

development and the achievement of the completion date by the contractor. Therefore, it is

the responsibility of the contractors to deliver the development in accordance to the quality

and time frame specified in the contract.

The third aspect of owner satisfaction is the building services. Detached houses are like

every residential building need at least the basic necessities to make the building livable

namely electrical supply, water supply and adequate ventilation. In the more lavish types of

detached houses, they are also equipped advances services such as wired local area network,

central air conditioning, communication and security system, firefighting systems and others.

Therefore, this aspect requires collaboration of the consultants to provide a proper design of

the services’ specification and the contractor (or specialist sub-contractor) to install them in

accordance to what was designed. A fully functioning services in a detached house will

definitely contribute to the owner’s satisfaction thus indicates a successful detached housing

development.

9.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

The application of indicators of construction industry development is not simply a data

gathering exercise. It is an integral part of strategic policy development and implementation

towards the improvement of the performance of the industry (Ofori, 2001, p. 48). The

findings drawn from this research provided a number of contributions to the body of

knowledge and practice particularly in the field of detached houses. This section reports on

each of the contributions and how they refer to the findings of existing theories and research

as proposed by Research Objective 3 of this research.


181

9.3.1 Contributions to Theory and Methods

Development success factors for detached houses

There were numerous literatures establishing critical success factors (CSF) for many

types of construction projects. Sanvido Grobler, Parfitt, Guvenis & Coyle (1992, p. 110)

highlight that there are four CSFs for construction projects namely a well-organised team, a

series of contracts, experience and optimisation of information. Tabish & Jha (2011, p. 809)

had identified ‘awareness of and compliance with rules and regulations’, ‘effective partnering

among project participants’, ‘pre-project planning and clarity in scope’ and ‘external

monitoring and control’ as the CSFs for public construction projects. Kog & Loh (2012, p.

527) lists four CSFs that affects overall performance of construction projects namely in terms

of constructability, adequacy of plans and specifications, project manager competency and

realistic obligations / clear objectives. In the local Malaysian scenario, Yong & Mustaffa

(2012, p. 553) identifies financial capability of the clients, project stakeholders’ factors and

external factors played crucial role in contributing to the success of a construction project.

The multitude of CSF recommendations for the construction industry is not at all surprising.

This is because Toor & Ogunlana (2009, p. 151) had highlighted that the specific implications

of studies on success factors are limited to the countries and cultures where these studies have

been conducted. In addition, the opinions of success differ among the various groups of

clients (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 29). This is one of the major reasons of the limited resources

regarding on the success factors for detached housing developments. This thesis has

contributed in the knowledge of CSF for residential development projects especially in the

terms of detached houses in Malaysia which are the “communication factor”, “planning and

monitoring factor” and the “reputation factor”.

Development barriers for detached houses

In terms of development barriers, numerous literatures mentioned different

development barriers for different types of projects. Generally, attitudinal barriers and

industrial barriers are critical obstacles that limit the client’s influence on the end result of the

construction process (Vennström & Eriksson, 2010, p. 126) Specifically, Hoonakker, Carayon

& Loushine (2010, p. 962) identify four major barriers in the construction industry especially

when it comes to the issue of quality. They are the “nature” of the of the construction process,

the various parties involved in the construction process, the non-standardisation of the

construction products and the bidding process. In terms of detached houses, this research had

identified that “design and site barrier”, “market and safety barrier” and “regulation and


182

procurement barrier” as the critical development barriers that are directly impacts the

development progress of detached houses especially in Malaysia.

Owner participation for detached housing developments

The main purposes of participation are to get a better end product and to produce a

scheme that would reflect the people’s (or owner’s) wishes (Johnson, 1979, p. 30).

Specifically, the application of inclusion and participation promotes those involved to design

engagement to suit different parameters, to reduce conflict over divergent expectations and to

enhance the benefits of engagement (Quick & Feldman, 2011, p. 286). Even in the more

modern procurement approaches like the design and build where the design-builders take on

much of the design responsibility, they cannot design or construct a project without some

critical owner participation (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68). In a traditionalist approach, owner

participation was constrained during the planning stage where the owner would explain his

expectance from the particular project. However, recent developments have identified that

owner participation is required during the entire stage of the development at a varying degree

depending on the stage of the development (Shapira et al., 1994, p. 177). In conjunction, this

thesis confirms that critical owner participation is required during each development of a

detached house development project critically during “project planning”, “project

contracting” and “project completion” stages.

Detached houses owner satisfaction

Until recently, customer satisfaction is part of the parameters used in measuring the

performance in almost every construction project. It may be stated that customer satisfaction

in a construction project is a multi-dimensional entity (Kärnä et al., 2009, p. 123). Overall, the

effects of house type and neighbourhood condition are important predictors of housing

satisfaction (Baiden, Arku, Luginaah & Asiedu, 2011, p. 36). In terms of design and

execution of residential project, Chohan et al. (2011, p. 477) confirms that the factors do

affect the satisfaction of its residents. In particular, homeowners are being more satisfied than

tenants (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005, p. 422). This finding is supported by Diaz-Serrano (2009,

p. 754) who concluded that homeownership is as important as improving the residential

context in determining housing satisfaction. Due to the fact that normally detached house are

resided by its owners, it would provide the owner with the most satisfaction level compared

to all other types of housing scheme. This research had identified the critical aspects that


183

would affect detached house owner’s satisfaction are in terms of “spatial design”, “project

implementation” and “building services”.

9.3.2 Practical Contributions

This thesis offers a range of practical contributions especially for future detached house

owners, consultants as well as contractors based on the guideline that was formulated in

Section 8.4.3. For detached house owners, they should be aware of the activities that they

must be involved in order to make the development successful and satisfying for them. The

owners must take an active role in project planning where this is the stage the owners must

ensure that the consultants aware of the owner’s allocation for development cost,

specification requirements and house design internally as well as externally. The next critical

stage is the project contracting stage where the owner must select a suitable contractor for the

development as well as negotiating terms with the contractor. The owner must also monitor

the work that is being carried out by the contractor from time to time to ensure that the

standard that had been set are followed by the contractor. The project completion stage is also

crucial where the owner must make an effort to attend the site meetings whenever possible.

The payment for the works must be paid in time and in full. This is to ensure that the progress

is not be hindered by the lack of funds. Lastly the owners must review the repair works by the

contractor (especially during Defects Liability Period) if there are any defects that was found

in the contractor’s workmanship.

The guideline is also useful for the consultants or contractors of detached houses. They

must be aware of the importance of communicating with every stakeholder of the

development, providing proper planning and monitoring methods and maintaining good

reputation during the course of the development. Consultants and contractors must also be

aware of the design and site barriers that may hinder the progress of the development before

they happen. The market and safety barrier must also be monitored and the regulation and

procurement barrier must be properly followed to ensure a smooth progress for the

development.

The development must place the owner satisfaction as its utmost priority. Therefore,

consultants and contractors (even the owners) may need to think carefully in terms of the

house’s spatial design, the project implementation and availability of building services to

provide the owners (even the consultants and contractors) with a great deal of satisfaction

towards the realisation of the owner’s dream detached house.


184

By having the owners undertaking an active role during critical stages of the

development, not only the quality and delivery of the development improves but also

increases satisfaction to the owners themselves.

9.3.3 Research Benefits

This research is the initial exploratory step in realising a “specialised contractual

arrangement” for detached housing in Malaysia which focuses in maximising owner

participation. Current contractual arrangement in Malaysia either applies typical “Agreement

Form” or PAM (Malaysian Architect Association) Form of Contract. While the usage of the

“Agreement Form” is considered by some interview participant as a generalist approach, the

implementation of PAM Form of Contract was considered by other interview participant as

being “too superfluous” for detached housing projects. It is anticipated that the results of this

research would pave the way in developing a specialised contractual arrangement to cater the

specific need of detached housing development projects in Malaysia.

9.4 LIMITATIONS

Although this research delivered valid conclusions and findings, there are several

limitations that are associated with data collection and analysis.

9.4.1 Limitations Related to Research Scope

Even though this research had provided a holistic view of detached housing

development, it is acknowledge that there could be other factors contributing towards the

success of detached housing development that are not included. There is still a chance that

additional factors exists that merit consideration. Due to the limitation set to the questionnaire

document as well as the limitation of the AMOS program, only 89 related indicators are

included for this research.

This research only includes the development stage of detached housing namely from

inception to completion. It is quite improbable to include the entire life-cycle of the detached

housing development due to the broadness of the topic.

The main focus of this research is on the detached housing scheme. Even though in the

literature reviews there will be mentioning of other types of housing in Malaysia, it is for

comparative purposes.


185

This survey of this research is prepared for detached houses in Peninsular Malaysia

only (with the exception of Perlis and Putrajaya). It does not include the Borneo states of

Sabah and Sarawak.

Some of the information of a particular project that the interviewees are referring to

may be confidential and cannot be disclosed. Therefore, there could be vital information that

the interviewees does not wish to be included has not been included in this research.

This research is not ethnically driven. Therefore, it had no intention to identify racial

distribution and their purchasing power in terms of acquiring detached houses. This research

views at the issues of detached houses in Malaysia on a much broader scope which includes

detached house development success factors, barriers, critical owner participation

requirements and overall owner satisfaction.

This research also has no intention in identifying the segregation of detached house

ownership between the local Malaysians and foreigners. However, it should be noted that

under the “Malaysia My Second Home” scheme, foreigners are allowed to purchase any type

of residential properties (which may include detached houses) in Malaysia that are priced

RM500,000 (AU$157,173) or above (in most Malaysian states) (MoTM, 2009, para. 3).

Further research is required to identify the ownership pattern of detached houses by

foreigners in the Malaysian residential property sector.

9.4.2 Limitations Related to Research Design

There were a number of limitations related to the questionnaire design and semi-

structured interview guides. This research had followed the research design with purposeful

logic but to an extent. The identification of respondents as well as interview participants was

based on proper sampling methods but it was also based on availability and local proximity.

Therefore, all of the feedbacks were typical Malaysian responses that came from people from

a wide range of backgrounds. However, it needs to be highlighted that majority of the

detached house owners respondents in this research are civil servants and majority of the

detached house contractor/consultant respondents were construction consultants which is well

beyond the control of this research design.

The data was analysed by a single researcher which may introduce researcher bias.

However, the application of computer aided analysis software such as SPSS, AMOS and QSR

NVivo as well as the usage of a standardised interview guide on all the interview participants

minimised the potential biasness.


186

The reliability of the model provided by this research was established through

theoretical and real-world approaches as the results of the quantitative technique was

validated by the findings of the qualitative reasoning. In addition, this research is more of an

exploratory study towards having a better understanding about the detached housing schemes

in Malaysia. It is recommended that this exploratory study is followed by a separate

confirmatory study which focuses more on hypothesis testing and such.

9.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This research has explored on one of the most elusive housing market in Malaysia. It

has provided both academic and practical recommendations to relevant parties involved in the

construction industry regarding the matter. It is recommended that this research focuses to

specific issues regarding the detached housing development.

An issue that was highlighted by many interview participants is the inappropriateness of

general lawyers to handle detached housing developments that was funded by Government

loans. Therefore, a micro research could be implemented to investigate the suitability of

general lawyers as paymasters for detached housing projects developed using Government

loans.

Another issue was the lack of information on small contractor performances in

completing detached housing developments is a serious issue highlighted by the interview

participants. Therefore, a study to propose an evaluation website to enable detached house

owners to grade the contractors after a detached housing project have been completed through

the database of Contractor Services Centre (PKK), Ministry of Works, Malaysia is feasible.

A separate study in determining the ownership of detached houses amongst the

Malaysian working class may be feasible in the future. This may establish the actual trend of

detached house ownership especially between government servants (top rank officials and

employees) and the private sector (corporate businesspersons and workers).

It would be a great opportunity to conduct a comparative study between countries

where detached houses is typically not the norm with a country that had already established

its detached housing sector. A comparative research could be initiated on the practice of

detached housing development in Malaysia and other developed countries which are used to

this type of residential development, such as Australia.

Appendix

187

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH ETHICS

APPROVAL

Appendix

188

Appendix

189

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

B1. OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE)

Appendix

190

Appendix

191

Appendix

192

Appendix

193

Appendix

194

Appendix

195

Appendix

196

Appendix

197

Appendix

198

Appendix

199

Appendix

200

Appendix

201

B2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY

LANGUAGE)

Appendix

202

Appendix

203

Appendix

204

Appendix

205

Appendix

206

Appendix

207

Appendix

208

Appendix

209

Appendix

210

Appendix

211

Appendix

212

Appendix

213

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE (Q1, 2, 3 &

15) RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Question 1 consists of 21 items / indicators that represent the development success

factors. From the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.902.

Appendix Table 1: SPSS reliability analysis result on question 1

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.902 21

Question 2 consists of 22 items / indicators that represent the development barriers.

From the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of

0.872.



Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.872 22

Question 3 consists of 29 items / indicators that represent the owner participation. From

the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.948.



Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.948 29

Appendix

214

Question 15 consists of 17 items / indicators that represent the owner satisfaction. From

the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.940.



Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.940 17

Appendix

215

APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Over one thousand two hundred and fourty eight (1248) hand-distributed, mail and online

questionnaires were distributed with two hundred and nineteen usable responses were

received representing 17.55% in terms of response rate.

D1. SECTION 1: THE SUCCESS FACTORS / BARRIERS OF DETACHED

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Question 1 consists of 21 development success factors that the respondents need to determine

whether the mentioned development success factor is very important, important, less

important or not important to them for the success of their detached housing development.

The results are shown in Appendix Table 1.

Appendix

216

Valid % Descriptive Number Responded

1. The significance of development success factors to the owners for the success of their detached housing project.

Important (1)

Quite Important

(2)

Less Important

(3)

Not Important

(4) Mean Std. Dev. Total Missing n

a) Complete within time 82.2 15.5 2.3 0.0 1.20 .455 219 0 219

b) Cost according to budget 84.5 13.7 1.8 0.0 1.17 .425 219 0 219

c) Quality according to contract 88.1 11.4 0.5 0.0 1.12 .343 219 0 219

d) Risk containment 62.6 35.2 2.3 0.0 1.40 .535 219 0 219

e) Health and safety measures 74.0 21.0 5.0 0.0 1.31 .562 219 0 219

f) Environmental impact 51.6 42.9 5.5 0.0 1.54 .600 219 0 219

g) Customer / client / owner satisfaction 84.0 15.5 0.5 0.0 1.16 .384 219 0 219

h) Achieving scope / objective 74.4 23.3 2.3 0.0 1.28 .498 219 0 219

i) Technical specifications 77.2 21.9 0.9 0.0 1.24 .447 219 0 219

j) Functional requirements 66.7 30.6 2.7 0.0 1.36 .535 219 0 219

k) Reputation 52.1 39.3 7.3 1.4 1.58 .689 219 0 219

l) Revenue and profits 49.8 41.6 7.3 1.4 1.60 .685 219 0 219

m) Benefit to stakeholder 40.2 45.2 10.5 4.1 1.79 .792 219 0 219

n) Political stability 21.5 36.1 31.1 11.4 2.32 .938 219 0 219

o) Strong / detailed plan kept up to date 59.4 32.9 7.8 0.0 1.48 .638 219 0 219

p) Good communication / feedback 58.0 34.7 6.8 0.5 1.50 .645 219 0 219

q) User / client involvement 52.5 36.5 8.7 2.3 1.61 .743 219 0 219

r) Competant project manager 64.4 31.5 4.1 0.0 1.40 .568 219 0 219

s) Realistic schedule 58.4 38.4 3.2 0.0 1.45 .559 219 0 219

t) Effective monitoring / control 67.1 30.1 2.7 0.0 1.36 .534 219 0 219

u) Good performance by suppliers / contractors / consultants 73.5 24.7 1.8 0.0 1.28 .490 219 0 219

Appendix Table 5: Frequency distribution table for the perception of owners towards the significance of development success factors to the

success of their detached housing development.

Appendix

217

Question 2 consists of 22 development barriers that the respondents need to determine

whether he/she agrees or not on how the mentioned development barrier negatively affecting

their detached housing development. The results are shown in Appendix Table 2

Appendix

218


2. The significance of barriers in negatively affecting the success of detached housing project.

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2)

Disagree (3)

Strongly Disagree


a) Market prediction 24.7 68.9 5.0 1.4 1.83 .570 219 0 219

b) Competitor's interest 10.5 76.7 9.1 3.7 2.06 .584 219 0 219

c) Financial projection 29.7 66.2 4.1 0.5 1.76 .543 219 0 219

d) Site condition 30.1 65.8 3.7 0.5 1.74 .540 219 0 219

e) Consultant's revenue 14.2 77.2 6.8 1.8 1.96 .532 219 0 219

f) Grant uncertainty 33.3 60.3 4.6 1.8 1.75 .625 219 0 219

g) Interest rate vulnerability 18.3 68.5 8.7 4.6 2.00 .674 219 0 219

h) Conversation consents 30.1 53.9 9.6 6.4 1.92 .806 219 0 219

i) Building regulations 37.9 56.2 5.0 0.9 1.69 .609 219 0 219

j) Planning permission 33.8 59.8 3.7 2.7 1.75 .652 219 0 219

k) Design team delay 31.1 59.8 5.5 3.7 1.82 .693 219 0 219

l) Quantity and specification determination 39.7 57.1 1.8 1.4 1.65 .590 219 0 219

m) Contractor selection 39.3 57.1 3.2 0.5 1.65 .566 219 0 219

n) Site delays 44.3 50.7 1.8 3.2 1.64 .679 219 0 219

o) Contractor delays 51.1 42.9 2.3 3.7 1.58 .714 219 0 219

p) Health and safety 21.5 74.0 4.1 0.5 1.84 .498 219 0 219

q) Design failures / changes 39.7 54.3 1.8 4.1 1.70 .703 219 0 219

r) Environment 21.0 75.3 2.3 1.4 1.84 .513 219 0 219

s) Manpower / material shortage 40.2 52.5 3.7 3.7 1.71 .708 219 0 219

t) Building failure 54.8 39.7 1.4 4.1 1.55 .724 219 0 219

u) Warranty 47.0 44.7 3.7 4.6 1.66 .758 219 0 219

v) Legal liability 40.2 57.1 1.8 0.9 1.63 .570 219 0 219

Appendix Table 6: Frequency distribution table for the perception of owners towards the significance of development barriers in negatively

affecting the success of detached housing project.

Appendix

219

D2. SECTION 2: THE INVOLVEMENT OF OWNERS IN THE DETACHED

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

This section contains question 3 which requires the owner to determine the degree of their

involvement according to the 29 listed development activities. The results are shown in

Appendix Table 7.

Appendix

220


3. Owner's degree of participation in detached housing development

Involved (1)

Quite Involved

(2)

Less Involved

(3)

Not Involved


a) Assembling development team 59.8 18.7 9.6 12.3 1.75 1.061 219 0 219

b) Formulising the project’s objective 50.2 29.7 13.2 6.8 1.77 .926 219 0 219

c) Setting up the project’s organisational structure 18.7 22.4 36.5 22.4 2.63 1.030 219 0 219

d) Developing the project’s schedule 22.4 33.8 25.1 18.7 2.40 1.033 219 0 219

e) Estimating the project’s cost 50.7 32.0 10.0 7.3 1.74 .914 219 0 219

f) Securing financing commitments 81.3 10.0 5.5 3.2 1.31 .718 219 0 219

g) Acquiring project site 78.1 14.6 1.4 5.9 1.35 .784 219 0 219

h) Planning the structural design of building 46.6 30.1 12.8 10.5 1.87 1.001 219 0 219

i) Planning the internal and external design 52.5 37.0 6.4 4.1 1.62 .783 219 0 219

j) Design compliance with legal requirements 37.4 29.7 19.2 13.7 2.09 1.054 219 0 219

k) Determining the project’s specifications 39.3 36.1 17.4 7.3 1.93 .926 219 0 219

l) Obtaining project approval from authorities 35.6 32.4 14.6 17.4 2.14 1.088 219 0 219

m) Preparation of project quantities and specifications 20.5 35.6 24.7 19.2 2.42 1.022 219 0 219

n) Preparation of tender / contract document 17.4 21.9 27.9 32.9 2.76 1.091 219 0 219

o) Management of tender bidding process 17.8 21.5 32.0 28.8 2.72 1.068 219 0 219

p) Selection of contractor 54.8 26.0 10.0 9.1 1.74 .974 219 0 219

q) Negotiation with contractor 57.1 24.2 8.2 10.5 1.72 1.000 219 0 219

r) Handing over possession of site to the contractor 51.6 24.7 12.8 11.0 1.83 1.029 219 0 219

s) Attending site meetings 26.5 36.5 22.4 14.6 2.25 1.007 219 0 219

t) Monitoring the progress of works 41.1 42.0 9.6 7.3 1.83 .880 219 0 219

u) Monitoring health and safety procedures 17.8 19.2 36.1 26.9 2.72 1.049 219 0 219

v) Overseeing progress payment 48.9 28.8 11.8 10.5 1.84 1.003 219 0 219

w) Issuing variation of works 31.1 37.0 15.1 16.9 2.18 1.054 219 0 219

Appendix

221

x) Practical completion 14.6 15.1 27.4 42.9 2.99 1.081 219 0 219

y) Monitoring extension of time claims 21.9 24.2 25.1 28.8 2.61 1.122 219 0 219

z) Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages claims 25.6 29.2 17.8 27.4 2.47 1.147 219 0 219

aa) Overseeing making good of defects during Defects Liability Period 37.0 36.1 13.7 13.2 2.03 1.020 219 0 219

ab) Overseeing final account and final certificate preparation 25.6 29.7 22.4 22.4 2.42 1.098 219 0 219

ac) Handing over site to the owner 51.6 28.8 10.0 9.6 1.78 .977 219 0 219

Appendix Table 7: Frequency distribution table for the degree of owner involvement during the development process of their detached

house.

Appendix

222

D3. SECTION 3: DETACHED HOUSE INFORMATION

Section 3 consists of 11 questions that were design to gather detailed information about the

respondents’ detached house.

D3A. Ownership of Property

The first question of Section 3 provided data on the ownership of the surveyed detached

house namely whether the current owner is the first owner of the house or otherwise.

Appendix Figure 1 and Appendix Table 8 illustrates whether the current owner of the

detached house is the first owner or not.

Appendix Figure 1: Valid percentage distribution diagram of the detached house

ownership of the respondents.

Appendix

223

Appendix Table 8: Detail of valid percentage distribution table of the detached house

ownership of the respondents.

ownership_4

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Yes 169 77.2 82.4 82.4

No 36 16.4 17.6 100.0

Total 205 93.6 100.0

Missing System 14 6.4

Total 219 100.0

82.4% of the respondents indicated that the house that they are referring to are owner by the

first owners. This accounted for a strong majority of the participants. The other 17.6% of the

respondents are not the actual first owner of the detached house. The reasons for this are not

available but they are likely to have purchased the detached house from the previous owners.

D3B. Location of Residence

Appendix

224

Appendix Figure 2: Location of residence in percentages

Appendix Table 9: Detail on the location of residence

state_5b


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Kedah 2 .9 1.4 1.4

Pulau Pinang 25 11.4 16.9 18.2

Perak 50 22.8 33.8 52.0

Selangor 38 17.4 25.7 77.7

WP Kuala Lumpur 8 3.7 5.4 83.1

Negeri Sembilan 2 .9 1.4 84.5

Melaka 2 .9 1.4 85.8

Johor 2 .9 1.4 87.2

Kelantan 8 3.7 5.4 92.6

Terengganu 5 2.3 3.4 95.9

Pahang 6 2.7 4.1 100.0

Total 148 67.6 100.0


Total 219 100.0

The second question of Section 3 probes into the location of the respondent’s residence.

33.8% of the respondents are located from the state of Perak. This is followed by Selangor

(25.7%) Pulau Pinang (16.9%), Kelantan and Kuala Lumpur (5.4%), Pahang (4.1%),

Terengganu (3.2%), and lastly Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor (1.4%).

Appendix

225

D3C. Size of the Detached House Site Area

Appendix Figure 3: The distribution of size of the detached house site area

Appendix Table 10: Detail on the distribution of size of the detached house site area

Area (Sq. Ft.) Freq. Valid % Number Responded

Under 1000 7 4.3 Total Missing n

1001-2000 27 16.5 219 55 164

2001-3000 29 17.7 3001-4000 15 9.1 4001-5000 11 6.7 5001-6000 33 20.1 6001-7000 7 4.3 7001-8000 10 6.1 8001-9000 7 4.3 9001-10000 6 3.7 10001-11000 3 1.8 11001-12000 1 0.6 12001-13000 0 0.0 13001-14000 0 0.0 14001-15000 3 1.8 15001 and

above 5 3.0

4.3

16.5 17.7

9.1

6.7

20.1

4.3

6.1

4.3 3.7

1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0

1.8 3.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Val

id %

Area (Sq. Ft.)

Appendix

226

Typically the housing site of a detached house is larger than the house itself. By determining

the size of the housing site, the researcher could assume the size and cost of the development.

3 of the most popular land area for detached houses in this questionnaire are the 5001 to 6000

square feet (20.1%), 2001 to 3000 square feet (17.7%) and 1001 to 2000 square feet (16.5%)

area. There are detached houses land areas which are more than 10,000 square feet which can

be considered as outliers.

D3D. Contract Value of Detached House before Project Commenced

Appendix Figure 4: The distribution of contract value of detached house before the

project commenced

Appendix

227

Appendix Table 11: Detail on the distribution of contract value of detached house

before the project commenced

valuebeforenew_7


Cumulative

Percent

Valid RM1,000,000 and above 28 12.8 16.1 16.1

RM500,000 - RM999,999 17 7.8 9.8 25.9

RM250,000 - RM499,999 28 12.8 16.1 42.0

RM100,000 - RM249,999 92 42.0 52.9 94.8

Less than RM100,000 9 4.1 5.2 100.0

Total 174 79.5 100.0


Total 219 100.0

Majority of the detached house development projects in this survey was contracted out

between RM100,000 to RM249,999 (AU$31,440 to AU$78,559) (52.9%). This is followed

by contract values of between RM250,000 to RM499,999 (AU$78,600 to AU$157,199) and

RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400) and above (16.1%), RM500,000 – RM999,999 (AU$ 157,200

to 314,399) (9.8%) and less than RM100,000 (AU$ 314,400) (4.1%).

D3E. Actual Development Cost after Detached House Completion

Appendix

228

Appendix Figure 5: The distribution of actual development cost after detached house

completion

Appendix Table 12: Detail of the distribution of contract value of detached house

before the project commenced

valueafternew_8


Cumulative

Percent

Valid RM1,000,000 and above 35 16.0 20.1 20.1

RM500,000 - RM999,999 13 5.9 7.5 27.6

RM250,000 - RM499,999 53 24.2 30.5 58.0

RM100,000 - RM249,999 64 29.2 36.8 94.8

Less than RM100,000 9 4.1 5.2 100.0

Total 174 79.5 100.0


Total 219 100.0

Majority of the actual development cost for the surveyed detached houses falls in the range of

between RM100,000 to RM249,999 (AU$31,440 to AU$78,559) (36.8%). This is followed

by RM250,000 to RM499,999 (AU$78,600 to AU$157,199) (30.5%), RM1,000,000

(AU$314,400) and above (20.1%), RM500,000 to RM999,999 (AU$157,200 to 314,399)

(7.5%) and less than RM100,000 (AU$314,400) (5.2%).

Appendix

229

D3F. Development Period for Entire Detached House Development

Appendix Figure 6: Distribution of development period for entire detached house

development

Appendix

230

Appendix Table 13: Detail of development period for entire detached house

development

devperiod_9


Cumulative

Percent

Valid More than 2 years 26 11.9 15.0 15.0

More than 1 1/2 years up to

2 years

53 24.2 30.6 45.7

More than 1 year up to 1 1/2

years

33 15.1 19.1 64.7

More than 6 months up to 1

year

44 20.1 25.4 90.2

Less than or up to 6 months 17 7.8 9.8 100.0

Total 173 79.0 100.0


Total 219 100.0

In terms of the duration of detached houses’ development period, 30.6% were completed

between 1 ½ year and 2 years. This was followed by the period of between 6 months up to 1

year (25.4%) and 1 year up to 1 ½ year (19.1%). 15% of the detached houses need more than

2 years to be completed. In the contrary, 9.8% of the detached houses only need less than or

up to 6 months to be completed.

Appendix

231

D3G. Detached House Development Completion

Appendix Figure 7: Distribution of detached house development completion

1.3 0.6

0.0 0.6

1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

1.3

5.1 5.7 5.7

6.3

4.4

6.3

8.2

5.1

7.6

12.7

15.8

3.8

0.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.01

99

0

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Val

id %

Year Completed (n = 219)

Appendix

232

Appendix Table 14: Detail of detached house development completion

Number Responded

Year Frequency Valid % Total Missing n

1990 2 1.3 219 61 158

1991 1 0.6

1992 0 0.0

1993 1 0.6

1994 2 1.3

1995 3 1.9

1996 3 1.9

1997 3 1.9

1998 3 1.9

1999 2 1.3

2000 8 5.1

2001 9 5.7

2002 9 5.7

2003 10 6.3

2004 7 4.4

2005 10 6.3

2006 13 8.2

2007 8 5.1

2008 12 7.6

2009 20 12.7

2010 25 15.8

2011 6 3.8

2012 1 0.6

Referring to the results of the survey, there seems to be an upscale trend in terms of the

numbers of detached houses that were completed every year. There were more detached

houses that were completed after year 2000 than before it.

Appendix

233

D3F. Time Extension Given for Detached House Development

Appendix Figure 8: Responses for time extension given for detached house

development

Appendix

234

Appendix Table 15: Detail of time extension given for detached house development

extension_11


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Yes 65 29.7 39.2 39.2

No 101 46.1 60.8 100.0

Total 166 75.8 100.0


Total 219 100.0

There were only 39.2% of the detached housing owners who provides the contractor with

time extensions.

D3G. Number of Days Given for Time Extension

Appendix Figure 9: Distribution of number of days given for time extension

25.0

30.0

13.3

5.0 5.0

11.7

1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.0 3.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

30 orless

31 - 60 61- 90 91 -120

121 -150

151-180

180 -210

211 -240

241 -270

271 -300

301 -330

331 -365

Over365

Val

id %

Days for Extension (n = 219)

Appendix

235

Appendix Table 16: Detail of number of days given for time extension

Number Responded

No of Days Freq. Valid % Total Missing n

30 or less 15 25.0 219 159 60

31 - 60 18 30.0 61- 90 8 13.3 91 - 120 3 5.0 121 - 150 3 5.0 151- 180 7 11.7 180 - 210 1 1.7 211 - 240 0 0.0 241 - 270 0 0.0 271 - 300 0 0.0 301 - 330 0 0.0 331 - 365 3 5.0 Over 365 2 3.3

Out of the detached house development that provided time extensions, 25% of them provide

an extra 30 days or less for the contractor to complete their work. Other projects provided

even more time extensions such as 60 days (30%), 180 days (11.7%) and 90 days (8%). There

were 2 respondents who provide the contractor with over a year time extension.

Appendix

236

D3H. Appointed Parties for Detached House Development in Order

Appendix Figure 10: Distribution of appointed parties for detached house development

in order

Appendix Table 17: Detail of appointed parties for detached house development in

order

Parties Appointed (in order)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Freq.

Valid % Freq.

Valid % Freq.

Valid % Freq.

Valid % Freq.

Valid %

Architect 131 78.0 11 7.4 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Quantity Surveyor 8 4.8 32 21.5 34 30.4 6 7.3 1 4.3

Engineer 0 0.0 56 37.6 35 31.3 9 11.0 0 0.0

Contractor 26 15.5 44 29.5 33 29.5 58 70.7 3 13.0

Others 3 1.8 6 4.0 8 7.1 9 11.0 19 82.6

n 168

149

112

82

23

This question gives an overall view of the professionals that were involved in a detached

housing development project and more importantly at what stage they’re being employed.

Obviously, the architect is the first party to be employed for this kind of project. The quantity

surveyor is more likely to be the second or third party to be employed. This is followed by the

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Val

id %

Party Appointed (in order)

Architect

QS

Engineer

Contractor

Others

Appendix

237

engineer and contractor who are generally employed after the design and budget of the

project had been finalised by the architect and quantity surveyor. Other parties that were

employed such as interior designer and landscape architects play an important role at the end

of a detached housing development.

Appendix

238

D3I. Design of Detached House

Appendix Table 18: Detail of design of detached house

Numbers Numbers Responded

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Missing (no response) n

Living Room (Guest) 130 42 4 3 6

219 34 185

Living Room (Family) 133 34 2 2 5

219 43 176

Wet Kitchen 165 2 2 5 2

219 43 176

Dry Kitchen 133 1 3 3 2

219 77 142

Bedroom

34 79 48 15 8 1

219 34 185

Bathroom + Toilet 11 31 71 34 21 9 5

1 1 219 35 184

Toilet Only 46 19 10 6 6

1 219 131 88

Study Room 76 4 3 3 3

219 130 89

Powder Room 27 2 3 1 5 1

219 180 39

Prayer Room 46 3 4 1 3

219 162 57

Guest Bedroom 60 3 2 4 4

219 146 73

Laundry Room 57 1 2 1 3

219 155 64

Open Parking Lot 112 33 9 2 4 1

1

219 57 162

Garage 35 5 6 1 1

219 171 48

Swimming Pool 27

3

1

219 188 31

Others 35 6 1

219 177 42

Appendix

239

This question highlights the overall design of the surveyed detached houses in terms of the

numbers of rooms built into them. A typical detached house in Malaysia would have a living

room to receive guest, another living room for the family, a wet kitchen, a dry kitchen,

between 3 to 5 bedrooms and about the same numbers of washroom that is usually attached to

the bedroom and an open parking lot. Extra uncommon features to the detached house would

be study room, prayer room, guest bedroom, laundry room, garage, swimming pool and

storage room (others).

D4. SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVEL OF DETACHED HOUSE OWNER

This section contains question 15 which requires the owner to determine their satisfaction

level towards their completed detached house according to the 17 listed criteria. The results

are shown in Appendix Table 19.

Appendix

240

Appendix Table 19: The level of satisfaction towards the detached house


15. The level of satisfaction towards the detached house.

Very Satisfied

(1) Satisfied

(2) Unsatisfied

(3)

Very Unsatisfied


a) The overall design of the house 21.0 78.1 0.9 0.0 1.80 .424 219 0 219

b) The internal space of the house 20.5 78.1 1.4 0.0 1.81 .428 219 0 219

c) The build area of the house 24.2 74.9 0.9 0.0 1.77 .445 219 0 219

d) The numbers of bedroom 25.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 1.75 .435 219 0 219

e) The size of the master bedroom 32.4 67.6 0.0 0.0 1.68 .469 219 0 219

f) The size of the master bedroom's bathroom 26.0 73.5 0.0 0.5 1.75 .465 219 0 219

g) The size of the living room 25.1 74.4 0.5 0.0 1.75 .442 219 0 219

h) The size of the kitchen 21.5 76.7 1.8 0.0 1.80 .442 219 0 219

i) The quality of the construction materials used 16.9 81.3 1.4 0.5 1.85 .425 219 0 219

j) Water supply 17.8 81.7 0.5 0.0 1.83 .391 219 0 219

k) Electrical supply 18.3 80.8 0.9 0.0 1.83 .403 219 0 219

l) Air ventilation 19.2 79.9 0.9 0.0 1.82 .410 219 0 219

m) The area of the house compound 23.7 74.0 2.3 0.0 1.79 .464 219 0 219

n) The condition of access road and drains 15.5 83.6 0.9 0.0 1.85 .379 219 0 219

o) The delivery of the project (time) 17.4 76.7 5.0 0.9 1.89 .500 219 0 219

p) The overall quality of the house compared to it's specifications 11.9 86.3 1.4 0.5 1.90 .377 219 0 219

q) The capability of the house to perform its functions 19.6 80.4 0.0 0.0 1.80 .398 219 0 219

Appendix

241

D5. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (OWNERS ONLY)

Section 5 consists of 6 questions that were design to gather background information about the

owner (respondent) of this survey.

D5A. Respondent’s Age (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 11: Distribution of respondents’ age (owners only)

Appendix Table 20: Detail of respondents’ age (owners only)

age_16


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 23 1 .9 .9 .9

30 1 .9 .9 1.8

32 2 1.7 1.8 3.5

33 1 .9 .9 4.4

34 1 .9 .9 5.3

Appendix

242

Appendix Table 20: Detail of respondents’ age (owners only) (continued)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

35 3 2.6 2.6 7.9

37 5 4.3 4.4 12.3

38 2 1.7 1.8 14.0

39 3 2.6 2.6 16.7

40 3 2.6 2.6 19.3

41 3 2.6 2.6 21.9

42 5 4.3 4.4 26.3

43 2 1.7 1.8 28.1

44 2 1.7 1.8 29.8

45 6 5.1 5.3 35.1

46 4 3.4 3.5 38.6

47 3 2.6 2.6 41.2

48 7 6.0 6.1 47.4

49 5 4.3 4.4 51.8

50 9 7.7 7.9 59.6

51 8 6.8 7.0 66.7

52 4 3.4 3.5 70.2

53 5 4.3 4.4 74.6

54 3 2.6 2.6 77.2

55 4 3.4 3.5 80.7

56 1 .9 .9 81.6

57 2 1.7 1.8 83.3

58 4 3.4 3.5 86.8

59 1 .9 .9 87.7

60 5 4.3 4.4 92.1

61 1 .9 .9 93.0

62 1 .9 .9 93.9

63 1 .9 .9 94.7

64 2 1.7 1.8 96.5

65 2 1.7 1.8 98.2

68 1 .9 .9 99.1

73 1 .9 .9 100.0

Total 114 97.4 100.0


Total 117 100.0

Appendix

243

D5B. Respondent’s Gender (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 12: The respondents’ gender (owners only)

Appendix Table 21: Detail of the respondents’ gender (owners only)

gender_17


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Male 82 70.1 70.7 70.7

Female 34 29.1 29.3 100.0

Total 116 99.1 100.0

Missing System 1 .9

Total 117 100.0

Appendix

244

D5C. Respondent’s Occupation (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 13: Distribution of respondents’ occupation (owners only)

Appendix Table 22: Detail of the respondents’ occupation (owners only)

occupation_18


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Others 11 9.4 9.5 9.5

Unemployed 3 2.6 2.6 12.1

Own employment 11 9.4 9.5 21.6

Staff of private agency 17 14.5 14.7 36.2

Staff of semi-government

agency

10 8.5 8.6 44.8

Staff of fully-government

agency

64 54.7 55.2 100.0

Total 116 99.1 100.0

Missing System 1 .9

Total 117 100.0

Appendix

245

D5D. Number of Resident in Detached House (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 14: Distribution of numbers of resident in the detached house (owners

only)

Appendix Table 23: Detail of numbers of resident in the detached house (owners only)

resident_19


Cumulative

Percent

Valid More than 9 persons 1 .9 .9 .9

7 to 9 persons 28 23.9 24.1 25.0

4 to 6 persons 71 60.7 61.2 86.2

1 to 3 persons 16 13.7 13.8 100.0

Total 116 99.1 100.0

Missing System 1 .9

Total 117 100.0

Appendix

246

Most of the household of the surveyed detached houses consists of 4 to 6 persons (71%). This

is followed by households of 7 to 9 persons (23.9%), 1 to 3 persons (13.7%) and more than 9

persons (0.9%).

D5E. Monthly Household Income (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 15: Distribution of monthly household income (owners only)

Appendix

247

Appendix Table 24: Detail of monthly household income (owners only)

income_20


Cumulative

Percent

Valid RM15,000 and above 7 6.0 6.0 6.0

RM10,000 to RM14,999 23 19.7 19.8 25.9

RM5,000 to RM9,999 49 41.9 42.2 68.1

RM2,000 to RM4,999 31 26.5 26.7 94.8

Less than RM2,000 6 5.1 5.2 100.0

Total 116 99.1 100.0

Missing System 1 .9

Total 117 100.0

Household income of a typical detached house residents normally are between RM5,000 to

RM9,999 (AU$1,572 to AU$3,144) a month (42.2%). This is followed by households of

monthly income of between RM2,000 to RM4,999 (AU$629 to AU$1,572) (26.7%) and

RM10,000 to RM14,999 (AU$3,144 to AU$4,715) (19.8%). There are only 5% to 6% of

households who earn an income of less than RM2,000 (AU$629) a month and RM15,000

(AU$4,715) and above a month who lives in a detached house in this survey.

Appendix

248

D5F. Duration of Residence in Detached House (Since 2001) (Owners Only)

Appendix Figure 16: Distribution of the duration of residence in detached house since

2001 (owners only)

Appendix

249

Appendix Table 25: Detail of the duration of residence in detached house since 2001

(owners only)

duration_21


Cumulative

Percent

Valid More than 7 years 54 46.2 46.6 46.6

More than 5 years up to 7

years

23 19.7 19.8 66.4


years

14 12.0 12.1 78.4

More than 1 year up to 3

years

20 17.1 17.2 95.7

1 year or less 5 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 116 99.1 100.0

Missing System 1 .9

Total 117 100.0

Based on the year of 2001, 46.6% of the respondents had been living in their detached house

for over than 7 years. This is followed by more than 5 years up to 7 years (19.8%), more than

1 year up to 3 years (17.2%) and more than 3 years up to 5 years (12.1%). Only 4.3% of the

respondents had been living in their relatively new detached houses for one year or less.

Appendix

250

D6. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (CONSULTANTS /

CONTRACTORS ONLY)

D6A. Respondents’ Age (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 17: Distribution of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)

Appendix Table 26: Detail of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)

age_16


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 21 3 2.9 3.5 3.5

22 1 1.0 1.2 4.7

23 2 2.0 2.3 7.0

24 3 2.9 3.5 10.5

25 7 6.9 8.1 18.6

26 15 14.7 17.4 36.0

27 3 2.9 3.5 39.5

29 3 2.9 3.5 43.0

30 4 3.9 4.7 47.7

Appendix

251

Appendix Table 26: Detail of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)

(continued)


Cumulative

Percent

31 1 1.0 1.2 48.8

32 1 1.0 1.2 50.0

33 1 1.0 1.2 51.2

34 1 1.0 1.2 52.3

35 3 2.9 3.5 55.8

36 2 2.0 2.3 58.1

37 2 2.0 2.3 60.5

38 4 3.9 4.7 65.1

39 1 1.0 1.2 66.3

42 1 1.0 1.2 67.4

43 2 2.0 2.3 69.8

44 1 1.0 1.2 70.9

45 5 4.9 5.8 76.7

47 1 1.0 1.2 77.9

48 4 3.9 4.7 82.6

49 3 2.9 3.5 86.0

50 5 4.9 5.8 91.9

51 1 1.0 1.2 93.0

52 1 1.0 1.2 94.2

53 1 1.0 1.2 95.3

55 2 2.0 2.3 97.7

58 1 1.0 1.2 98.8

61 1 1.0 1.2 100.0

Total 86 84.3 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

252

D6B. Respondents’ Gender (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 18: Respondents’ gender (consultants / contractor only)

Appendix Table 27: Detail of respondents’ gender (consultants / contractor only)

gender_17


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Male 61 59.8 70.1 70.1

Female 26 25.5 29.9 100.0

Total 87 85.3 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

253

D6C. Respondents’ Position in Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 19: Distribution of respondents’ position in organisation (consultant

& contractor)

Appendix Table 28: Detail of respondents’ position in organisation (consultant &

contractor)

occupation_18


Cumulative

Percent


Marketing 1 1.0 1.1 2.3

Technical 14 13.7 16.1 18.4

Management 6 5.9 6.9 25.3

Administration 1 1.0 1.1 26.4

Professional 64 62.7 73.6 100.0

Total 87 85.3 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

254

D6D. Main Business of Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 20: Distribution of the main business of organisation (consultants /

contractors only)

Appendix Table 29: Detail of the main business of organisation (consultants /

contractors only)

business_19


Cumulative

Percent


Construction Sub-Contractor 1 1.0 1.1 3.4

Construction Developer 4 3.9 4.6 8.0

Construction Contractor 18 17.6 20.7 28.7

Construction Consultant 62 60.8 71.3 100.0

Total 87 85.3 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

255

D6E. Contractor Class for Construction Contractor Respondents (Consultants /

Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 21: Contractor class for construction contractor respondents

(consultants / contractors only)

Appendix Table 30: Detail of contractor class for construction contractor respondents

(consultants / contractors only)

class_20


Cumulative

Percent

Valid G1 1 1.0 5.0 5.0

G2 1 1.0 5.0 10.0

G7 18 17.6 90.0 100.0

Total 20 19.6 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

256

D6F. Duration of the Respondents’ Employment (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 22: The distribution of duration of the consultants/contractors

respondents’ employment.

Appendix Table 31: Detail of the duration of the consultants/contractors respondents’

employment.

operation_21


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 2 years or less 3 2.9 3.5 3.5


years

3 2.9 3.5 7.1


years

7 6.9 8.2 15.3


years

49 48.0 57.6 72.9

More than 25 years 23 22.5 27.1 100.0

Total 85 83.3 100.0


Total 102 100.0

Appendix

257

There were 102 consultant & contractor respondents in this survey. 57% of them indicated

that the organisation that employed them had been in operation between 10 to 25 years. This

is followed by organisations that had been in business for more than 10 years (27%). 17

respondents did not answer this question.

D6G. Size of the Respondents’ Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)

Appendix Figure 23: Distribution of the size of the consultants/contractors respondents’

organisation.

Appendix

258

Appendix Table 32: Detail of the size of the consultants/contractors respondents’

organisation.

employees_22


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Less than 10 persons 16 15.7 19.0 19.0

10 up to 24 persons 33 32.4 39.3 58.3

25 up to 49 persons 14 13.7 16.7 75.0

50 up to 99 persons 14 13.7 16.7 91.7

100 persons or more 7 6.9 8.3 100.0

Total 84 82.4 100.0


Total 102 100.0

39% of the consultant & contractor respondents indicated that the organisation that employed

them had between 10 to 24 permanent staffs in their organisation. This is followed by less

than 10 persons (19%), 25 to 49 persons and 50 to 99 persons (both at 16.7%) and more than

100 persons (8.3%).

Appendix

259

APPENDIX E: FACTOR ANALYSIS REPORT

E1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS

The significance of development success factors to the success of detached housing project

can be described as follows:

1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthagonal rotation (varimax) was

conducted on 21 items of Question 1.

2. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis.

KMO=.88 (‘great’ according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999).

3. All KMO values for individual items were >.70, which is well above the acceptable

limit of .5 (Field, 2009).

4. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 (210) = 2017.567, p < .001, indicated that correlation

between items were sufficiently large for PCA.

5. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. 5

components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination

explained 62.888% of the variance.

6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexion that would justify

retaining component 4.

7. Given a sample of more than 100 (n=219), and the convergence of the scree plot and

Kaiser’s criterion on 5 components, this is the number of components that will be

retained in the final analysis.

8. Appendix Table 33 shows the loading factors after rotation.

Appendix

260

Appendix Table 33: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS

Respondent Questionnaire (Question 1) (N=219)


Component

1 2 3 4 5

scope_1h .772

spec1_1i .738

function1_1j .684

satisfy_1g .617

involve_1q .587

quality1_1c .537 .432

monitor1_1t .790

schedule1_1s .788

perform_1u .726

projmngr_1r .668

plan_1o .480 .417

profit_1l .766

benefit_1m .737

reputation_1k .414 .633

politic_1n .631

communicate_1p .462 .541

budget_1b .823

time_1a .734

hns1_1e .761

enviro1_1f .685

risk_1d .568

Eigenvalues 7.595 1.598 2.449 1.413 1.151

% of variance 36.164 7.611 6.901 6.729 5.483

Cumulative

variance explained

36.164 43.776 50.677 57.406 62.888

Cronbach’s alpha 0.792 0.824 0.807 0.650 0.669




Appendix

261

Therefore, the items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components

are as follows:

Appendix Table 34: The factor analysis result on development success factors and its

proposed interpretation.

Component Indicators Interpretation

1 h) Achieving scope / objective, i)

Technical specifications, j) Functional

requirements, g) Customer / client / owner

satisfaction, q) User / client involvement,

c) Quality according to contract

COMMUNICATION

FACTORS

2 t) Effective monitoring / control, s)

Realistic schedule, u) Good performance

by suppliers / contractors / consultants, r)

Competent project manager, o) Strong /

detailed plan kept up to date

PLANNING &

MONITORING

FACTORS

3 l) Revenue and profits, m) Benefit to

stakeholder, k) Reputation, n) Political

stability , p) Good communication /

feedback,

REPUTATION

FACTORS

4 b) Cost according to budget, a) Complete

within time

PARAMETER

FACTORS

5 e) Health and safety measures, f)

Environmental impact, d) Risk

containment

HEALTH, SAFETY

& ENVIRONMENT

FACTORS

Communication Factors had high reliability of Cronbach’s alpha=.79 where Planning &

Monitoring Factors had higher reliability Cronbach’s alpha= .82. Risk & Safety Factors and

Reputation Factors had lower reliability Cronbach’s alpha of .81 and .67. Parameter Factors

had the lowest reliability Cronbach’s alpha of .65.

Appendix

262

E2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS

The significance of barriers in negatively affecting the success of detached housing project.


















Appendix

263




Component

1 2 3 4 5

bldgfail_2t .834

warranty_2u .817

sitedelay_2n .789

contrdelay_2o .782

shortage_2s .724

designfail_2q .633

enviro2_2r .541

revenue_2e .783

competitor_2b .770

financial_2c .641

prediction_2a .605

site1_2d .561 .439

hns2_2p .413

regulation_2i .793

permission_2j .748

selection_2m .648

liability_2v .458 .495

uncertainty_2f .709

interest_2g .665

consent_2h .572

quantity1_2l .736

designdelay_2k .451 .425 .516

Eigenvalues 6.207 3.283 1.429 1.362 1.020

% of variance 28.213 14.922 6.496 6.189 4.638

Cumulative

variance

explained

28.213 43.136 49.632 55.821 60.459

Cronbach’s alpha 0.887 0.771 0.662 0.643 0.473




Appendix

264

The items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components are as

follows:

Appendix Table 36: The factor analysis result on development barriers and its proposed

interpretation.


1 t) Building failure, u) Warranty, n) Site

delays, o) Contractor delays, s) Manpower /

material shortage, q) Design failures /

changes, r) Environment

DESIGN & SITE

BARRIERS

2 e) Consultant's revenue, b) Competitor's

interest, c) Financial projection, a) Market

prediction, d) Site condition, p) Health and

safety

MARKET &

SAFETY

BARRIERS

3 i) Building regulations, j) Planning

permission, m) Contractor selection, v) Legal

liability

REGULATION

&

PROCUREMENT

BARRIERS

4 f) Grant uncertainty, g) Interest rate

vulnerability, h) Conversation consents

FINANCIAL

BARRIERS

5 l) Quantity and specification determination k)

Design team delay

PLANNING

BARRIERS

Design & Site Barriers had high reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .88. Regulation &

Procurement Barriers, Market Barriers and Financial Barriers had lower Cronbach’s alpha of

.77, .66 and .64 respectively. Planning Barriers had the lowest reliability of .47.

Appendix

265

E3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION

Respondent's degree of participation in detached housing development












6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and does not seem to show noticeable

inflexions.

7. Given a sample of more than 100, and the convergence of the scree plot and Kaiser’s

criterion on 5 components, this is the number of components that will be retained in

the final analysis.


Appendix

266




Component

1 2 3 4 5

document_3n .784

quantity2_3m .705 .419

bidding_3o .673

structure_3c .622

hns3_3u .575 .451

schedule2_3d .574 .401

approval_3l .567

lad_3z .819

eot_3y .794

dlp_3aa .693

cf_3ab .665

completion_3x .482 .622

payment_3v .552

variation_3w .522

handover2_3ac .458

sitemeet_3s .444

negotiate_3q .809

handover1_3r .782

selection_3p .780

monitor2_3t .532 .439

cost_3e .729

intextdesign_3i .419 .722

strdesign_3h .675

spec2_3k .465 .627

legalreq_3j .490 .568

devteam_3a .718

finance_3f .676

site2_3g .403 .651

objective_3b .406 .592

Eigenvalues 12.044 2.556 1.816 1.471 1.207

% of variance 41.531 8.815 6.261 5.073 4.162

Cumulative

variance explained

41.531 50.346 56.607 61.680 65.842

Cronbach’s alpha 0.891 0.880 0.905 0.867 0.768

Appendix

267


Respondent Questionnaire (Question 3) (N=219) (continued)





are as follows:

Appendix Table 38: The factor analysis result on owner participation and its proposed

interpretation


1 n) Preparation of tender / contract document,

m) Preparation of project quantities and

specifications, o) Management of tender

bidding process, c) Setting up the project’s

organisational structure, u) Monitoring health

and safety procedures, d) Developing the

project’s schedule, l) Obtaining project

approval from authorities

PROJECT

PROCUREMENT

2 z) Monitoring liquidated and ascertain

damages claims, y) Monitoring extension of

time claims, aa) Overseeing making good of

defects during Defects Liability Period, ab)

Overseeing final account and final certificate

preparation, x) Practical completion, v)

Overseeing progress payment, w) Issuing

variation of works

PROJECT

COMPLETION

3 q) Negotiation with contractor, r) Handing

over possession of site to the contractor, p)

Selection of contractor, t) Monitoring the

progress of works

PROJECT

CONTRACTING

Appendix

268

Appendix Table 38: The factor analysis result on owner participation and its proposed

interpretation (continued)


4 e) Estimating the project’s cost, i) Planning

the internal and external design, h) Planning

the structural design of building, k)

Determining the project’s specifications, j)

Design compliance with legal requirements

PROJECT

PLANNING

5 a) Assembling development team, f) Securing

financing commitments, g) Acquiring project

site, b) Formulising the project’s objective

PROJECT

INITIATION

Project Procurement, Project Completion, Project Contracting, Project Planning and

Project Initiateion had relatively high reliability, Cronbach’s alpha of .89, .88, .91, .87 and

.77 respectively.

Appendix

269

E4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION

Respondent's satisfaction level towards the completed detached house.


















Appendix

270




Component

1 2 3

masterbed_15e .841

bed_15d .814

livingfamily2_15g .793

masterbath_15f .784

buildarea_15c .737

kitchen_15h .704

design_15a .541

compound_15m .402

quality3_15p .845

delivery_15o .780

internal_15b .577 .600

function2_15q .590 .411

quality2_15i .560

electric_15k .884

water_15j .853

ventilation_15l .414 .609

accessdrains_15n .590

Eigenvalues 8.777 1.522 1.079

% of variance 51.630 8.955 6.345

Cumulative variance

explained

51.630 60.585 66.929

Cronbach’s alpha 0.913 0.839 0.866




Appendix

271


are as follows:

Appendix Table 40: The factor analysis result on owner satisfaction and its proposed

interpretation.


1 e) The size of the master bedroom, d) The

numbers of bedroom, g) The size of the

living room, f) The size of the master

bedroom's bathroom, c) The build area of

the house h) The size of the kitchen, a)

The overall design of the house, m) The

area of the house compound

SPATIAL DESIGN

2 p) The overall quality of the house

compared to its specifications, o) The

delivery of the project (time), b) The

internal space of the house, q) The

capability of the house to perform its

functions, i) The quality of the

construction materials used

PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION

3 k) Electrical supply j) Water supply, l) Air

ventilation n) The condition of access road

and drains,

BUILDING

SERVICES

Spatial Design and Project Implementation had high reliability, Cronbach’s alpha of

.91. Project implementation had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and building services had .87.

Appendix

272

APPENDIX F: SEMI-STRUCTURED

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

F1. DETACHED HOUSE OWNERS

Appendix

273

Appendix

274

Appendix

275

Appendix

276

F2. CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS

Appendix

277

Appendix

278

Appendix

279

Appendix

280

APPENDIX G: SEMI-STRUCTURED

INTERVIEW GUIDE

G1. THEME 1: PLANNING STAGE

Question 1a

Did you work closely with the consultant & contractor during the project planning

stage? Can you explain some of the activities that you were involved in?

Question 1b

Were you informed on the project perimeter during this planning stage? Example:

Project objective, gross floor area, original contract sum, original contract period, project

commencement date and project completion date?

Question 1c

Have you been presented with a project schedule? Did you modify it according to your

requirements?

Question 1d

Were you informed that the project duration, project cost and project quality may

change due to some particular reasons?

G2. THEME 2: DESIGN AND CONTRACTUAL STAGE

Question 2a

Were you involved during the design stage of the house? Did you made modifications

towards the design of the house? Why?

Question 2b

How was the response of the consultant & contractor towards your views / suggestions

about the project? Were all of your suggestions had been considered by them? Can you tell

which of your suggestions was denied?

Appendix

281

Question 2c

Did the consultants / contractor advise you on the effect of design change towards the

compliance of rules and regulations enforced by the local council?

Question 2d

Were you involved in the selection of a suitable contractor? Did you have the final say

in the selection of contractor or did you leave it all to the discretion of the consultant?

Question 2e

Were you informed of the contractual form that shall be utilised for this project? Did

you examine the mentioned form?

G3. THEME 3: CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION STAGE

Question 3a

Was there any site meetings conducted for this project? Were you involved? Did you

express your opinion in the meeting? Can you explain some of the views you’ve stated?

Question 3b

Were you involved in any form of supervision during the course of the project? What

was the purpose of your visit? What were you observing?

Question 3c

Were you aware of the progress of the construction works on site? Did you compare

them with what was planned in the project schedule? If the project is having delay, in your

opinion what was the main cause? What was your action to overcome this delay?

Question 3d

Were you involved in giving authorisation for progress payment? Did you go out and

observe the actual progress on site or depend on the reports by the consultant & contractor?

Question 3e

Were you informed about any problems that are happening on site? Would you

elaborate on some of them? Did you need to take some action or leave it to the consultant &

contractor to solve them?

Appendix

282

Question 3f

Did you found any construction materials or workmanship that were below the standard

that had been determined? What was your action to rectify the problem?

Question 3g

Were you satisfied with the execution of the project as a whole? What should detached

house owners do in order to improve the performance of their project in the future?

Appendix

283

APPENDIX H: SEMI STRUCTURE

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES

H1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS

Appendix Table 41: Semi-Structured Interview Participants’ Responses Related to

Question 1 Indicators

Code (Node) Response

Technical

Specifications

(1i)

Node Count: 7

<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

In the specification we insisted ‘Fast Tec’, a high quality roof insulation. Reference 2 - 0.43% Coverage

We have the specification. Its just in terms of testing we don’t have them. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage

As far as the specification part, most of the detailed part was not by me. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.89% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage

the specification didn’t mention the brand and all. It had just said homogeneous tile only. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage

in the specificatios he only provided sanitary fittings Reference 3 - 0.38% Coverage

So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

No, no. These technical aspects the client was not familiar with.

Functional

Requirements

<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.19% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage

Appendix

284

(1j)

Node Count: 5

All I know is that I want space. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.48% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.48% Coverage

the original brickwall was probably little bit hot for Malaysian environment. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage

If he had designed it this way but then he wanted access from somewhere else. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.64% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.64% Coverage

He wanted the sensor type, that had made the (development) cost quite expensive. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.95% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.95% Coverage

We designed for 20, so it had to be made bigger so that it can have 40 people in the meeting room.

Customer,

Client or

Owner

Satisfaction

(1g)

Node Count: 31


But at the end I was not satisfied with the layout of the house, in terms of space. Reference 2 - 0.35% Coverage

So, we demanded on the spot for the contractor to take it off. Reference 3 - 0.16% Coverage

So we insisted he change it. Reference 4 - 0.40% Coverage

I feel there’s something that was not right, I will not be satisfied. Reference 5 - 0.22% Coverage

in terms of design I was not satisfied. <Internals\\02BK> - § 3 references coded [0.81% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

I was not quite happy with the overall design Reference 2 - 0.27% Coverage

Appendix

285

but the final quality I was still not happy. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage

There were many of the work substandard <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [1.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

Even the sanitary fittings I was quite upset because he provided the low standard. Reference 2 - 0.38% Coverage

So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage

Even the sanitary fittings for the main bathroom, I changed them. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage

So when he had downgraded the materials to a lower quality we were not satisfied so we changed it back to the original. Reference 5 - 0.23% Coverage

The thing is that we felt that in some aspect we were victimised. Reference 6 - 0.07% Coverage

that I’m satisfied. Reference 7 - 0.21% Coverage

But to me it’s good enough. With that price it’s good enough. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 2 references coded [1.09% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage

No it’s more to his preference. Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage

Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 4 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.99% Coverage

And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels.

Appendix

286

Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage

So most likely the changes to the design of the house was made to his own taste? MEM16: His taste. Reference 3 - 0.39% Coverage

But he know which material that he wanted to use. Reference 4 - 0.54% Coverage

At the end the client was satisfied with the outcome of the project. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 5 references coded [1.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

Normally for this house he would add up bit by bit based on his requirements. Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage

Okay, a lot of comment on the cabinets. Reference 3 - 0.25% Coverage

She was not happy with the interior designer. Reference 4 - 0.19% Coverage

Because he really had high taste. Reference 5 - 0.43% Coverage

We could see that he was not that satisfied because his demands were plenty. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 5 references coded [3.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.72% Coverage

he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials. Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage

Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage

which first and foremost satisfy the client Reference 4 - 0.53% Coverage

So I do incorporate whatever the client’s requirements. Reference 5 - 0.92% Coverage

Appendix

287

Personally I wasn’t happy with the quality of the workmanship. But the client was happy enough.

Quality

According to

Contract (1c)

Node Count: 18



the contractor had installed a low quality insulation. Reference 3 - 0.60% Coverage

but when we showed them (the specification), when we force to cut-off their payment then they changed it. Reference 4 - 0.48% Coverage

Another thing was the fabric reinforcement. The contractor ordered the cheapest type. Reference 5 - 0.46% Coverage

So far, as long as I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. Reference 6 - 0.43% Coverage

A- in terms of material quality. In terms of design B+. So, overall it’s A-. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.27% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage

but the final quality I was still not happy. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 5 references coded [1.61% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage



When he had installed them then we saw it was a lower standard type. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage

Appendix

288


So when its exposed of course I need a good timber. I had to make sure that it’s finish looks good. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.74% Coverage

This kind of things happens. Usually happens. Especially in terms of finishing materials. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage

So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage

so a lot of the finishes he wanted them to be high class. Reference 2 - 0.99% Coverage

And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

It was clear he was not satisfied because we followed contract, consultants follow contract. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage

he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials.

Effective

Monitoring and

Control (1t)

Node Count: 37


When we appoint this lawyer, he have this standardised form like a standard agreement between the owner and the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.34% Coverage

If the contractor is late, he would have to pay the penalty. Reference 3 - 0.17% Coverage

Appendix

289

The spec was not prepared yet. Reference 4 - 0.71% Coverage

There was no contractual form, just the agreement (form) that was prepared by the lawyer between the contractor and the owner. Reference 5 - 0.60% Coverage


I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. <Internals\\02BK> - § 6 references coded [2.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage

basically lack of control on the contractor’s side. Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage

there was no clear control on the architect’s side. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage

There was no specific contractual form. Reference 4 - 0.49% Coverage

That agreement doesn’t cover the owner to come in as part of the project team. Reference 5 - 0.75% Coverage

Basically if the architect has played their role well, they have taken the control of the design and construction fully. Reference 6 - 0.26% Coverage

Because I have taken control of everybody. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [2.32% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage

But in this context the BQ provided by the architect and lawyer was not that detailed. Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage

in terms of the progress of the construction I personally recorded it because we almost every day went to the site and took photos Reference 3 - 0.49% Coverage

Appendix

290

The BQ did not state in detail about the materials and what not. Even the working drawing was very... quite general about the specification. Reference 4 - 0.29% Coverage

For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification Reference 5 - 0.18% Coverage

So when I’m free I went to see his progress and all. Reference 6 - 0.35% Coverage

Another thing is that we want to see the method of construction. Whether he follows procedure or not. Reference 7 - 0.25% Coverage

So I think that if I don’t monitor these kinds of mistakes will happen. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 8 references coded [4.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.51% Coverage

Because these things sometimes I had to monitor his progress. Reference 2 - 0.12% Coverage

None. No form. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage

We have to check whether he followed specification. Reference 4 - 0.66% Coverage

Based on whether what was done followed the predetermined specification or not. Reference 5 - 0.59% Coverage

But if he still argues with us, sometimes we have to ask the architect. Reference 6 - 0.71% Coverage

Only that when he (contractor) did not followed the specification, that’s the problem. Reference 7 - 0.62% Coverage

But as I said, its weakness is in the detail. Detail up the specification. Reference 8 - 0.62% Coverage

So it was a mistake on the client’s side too. Because it was not detailed.

Appendix

291

<Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.73% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.73% Coverage

Even when we had completed the bill of quantities (BQ) there were changes. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 3 references coded [1.37% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

We don’t want the budget to burst if the atchitect over designed. Reference 2 - 0.67% Coverage

The architect utilised a contract form, if I’m not mistaken at that time we used PAM. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage

Enter the site? No, no. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 4 references coded [0.89% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.07% Coverage

He used PAM. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage

If there’s a meeting, she (owner's wife) will come. Reference 3 - 0.36% Coverage

he did cared about it and we had to report to him twice a month. Reference 4 - 0.18% Coverage

No. He will go and have a look. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [0.92% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage

It is the PAM form. Reference 2 - 0.74% Coverage

I mean we’d made it clear that the architect is the superintending officer.

Realistic

Schedule (1s)

Node Count: 11


And we knew that the standard for house completion is 8 months. Reference 2 - 0.13% Coverage

Nope. We knew by heart.

Appendix

292


Oh, there was none. There was only in terms of the progress percentage of the works. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.62% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.17% Coverage

There was no clear schedule Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage

I was trying to impose on the schedule so that they will comply on time. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.12% Coverage

None, there’s no project schedule Reference 2 - 0.13% Coverage

Because there was no working schedule <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage

It (the project) will go along with the client. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.66% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.66% Coverage

Did they just put dates of used something like the gantt chart? MEM14: Just dates. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

The architect presented a proper gantt chart. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.39% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.39% Coverage

There was a schedule for implementation.

Good

Performance by

suppliers,

contractors or


So, in my case the contractor was late. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage

Appendix

293

consultants (1u)

Node Count: 30

This contractor was not diligent. <Internals\\02BK> - § 14 references coded [6.85% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.37% Coverage

Because they have taken long time just to prepare the plan. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage

the proper architect input was not there. Reference 3 - 0.65% Coverage

But then after it was completed I realised there’s a lot (of) technical... not properly designed aspect. Reference 4 - 0.20% Coverage

they didn’t highlight it to me. Reference 5 - 0.62% Coverage

Because if the architect has taken some effort to criticise my design, it would have been different. Reference 6 - 0.61% Coverage

if the architect has taken the initiative to highlight it, I would have given some thought to it. Reference 7 - 0.98% Coverage

it is because of the assumptions probably by the architect that as a quantity surveyor maybe the design aspect is not important for them to highlight to me. Reference 8 - 0.32% Coverage

there was no clear control on the architect’s side. Reference 9 - 0.38% Coverage

but when it was implemented they couldn’t find skilled worker Reference 10 - 0.47% Coverage

Basically this architect was not actually putting on any of their own ideas. Reference 11 - 0.38% Coverage

unfortunately in my case the architect was not fully involved Reference 12 - 0.32% Coverage

but in my case the architect was not fully involved. Reference 13 - 0.58% Coverage

Appendix

294

But in my case because a lot of the decision I know, so the architect have taken easy way out Reference 14 - 0.71% Coverage

Lawyers is not looking into the interest of the owner as such but probably more to the interest of the financier. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [2.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage

he only have to add a little bit make-up here and there and then proceed to the working drawing Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage

roof design he modified a bit because architecturally he said the angle was not right. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage

He had added some allocation, and there’s overhang here and there. Reference 4 - 0.24% Coverage

Until the time to choose the finishing I wanted him to do it himself Reference 5 - 0.43% Coverage

But there we plans that we provided and he still made mistakes because he had the wrong idea about the design of the house Reference 6 - 0.27% Coverage

It was all his... his good will when he responds to those kinds of questions. Reference 7 - 0.33% Coverage

Because he will come in and check the house right? So there was a need for the architect there. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 4 references coded [1.91% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.48% Coverage

but even though if we need advice from him, he would help. Reference 2 - 0.48% Coverage

He didn’t follow the drawings, just follow his experience. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage

He didn’t follow the design.

Appendix

295


Only that when he (contractor) did not followed the specification, that’s the problem. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.85% Coverage

The planning stage took 3 months only. Because the architect had concentrated well for the bungalow design. Reference 2 - 0.59% Coverage

So he really did hand it all over, we had to do it the best that we could. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.21% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.21% Coverage

Because it took 6 months for 4 houses.

Competent

Project

Manager (1r)

Node Count: 1

<Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [1.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.11% Coverage

the architect is the superintending officer. So all discussions which affect the design must always be through us.

Benefit to

Stakeholder

(1m)

Node Count:2

<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage

the contractor and the architect is probably a bigger player, the owner is put aside like (they’re) not important <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

those mistakes will cost the owner.

Reputation (1k)

Node Count: 7


In my case, some of my colleagues recommended me too. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.33% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage

Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.32% Coverage]

Appendix

296


Because this client is very rich. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage

From what I understand, this client was rich. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [1.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage

The biggest (development) was a bungalow (development) of 12 million. That’s 4 bungalows in one land lot. Reference 2 - 0.64% Coverage

Okay, actually the owner was a CEO of (specifics removed). Before that he was the director of (specifics removed). <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

I’m an architect, in practice for more than 25 years.

Revenue and

Profits (1l)

Node Count: 5

<Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.81% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.15% Coverage

There were certain things that he omitted. Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage

Because initially I wanted to use this item and this item. But he said that its not possible with the price of RM180,000 (AU$56,592). Reference 3 - 0.25% Coverage

The contractor’s request. Because he wanted to reduce the price right? <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.87% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

So it doesn’t mean that I’ll take the lowest price. Reference 2 - 0.44% Coverage

No, he tried to reduce the cost. To gain more profit.

Good

Communication

(1p)

<Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.24% Coverage

So stuffs that I could take in, I would use his (architect’s) opinion

Appendix

297

Node Count: 17

<Internals\\04PMH> - § 3 references coded [2.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage

Sometimes when I feel the design was not suitable, I discussed it with the architect. Reference 2 - 0.83% Coverage

Because he have a good relation, mutual relationship between the contractor and the lawyer and such. Reference 3 - 0.59% Coverage

But I had only engaged him based on a good relation with the architect. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.18% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage

A lot of comments. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.21% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.44% Coverage

We will inform the client the floor area for the project Reference 2 - 0.77% Coverage

We did mentioned it to him. We informed the client and the reasons why the project delayed a bit. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 7 references coded [2.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage

There was no contact (for quantity surveyor) with the owner during design stage. But during costing yes. Reference 2 - 0.21% Coverage

He knows. Because he will ask for them Reference 3 - 0.79% Coverage

So these 4 short listed (contractors), A, B, C, D we explained their advantages and disadvantages of each one of them and then he’ll choose. Reference 4 - 0.34% Coverage

Input from the client. Normally on the things he didn’t want. Reference 5 - 0.22% Coverage

Okay, a lot of comment on the cabinets.

Appendix

298


When they knew it, we will inform the client. Sometimes the client would know about it first. Reference 7 - 0.22% Coverage

So we informed the client on the issue. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 3 references coded [2.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.60% Coverage

I love to interact with the client in terms of what they want. Reference 2 - 1.19% Coverage

Yeah, I mean there’s always been dialogue at every stage of the design and then at during every stage of the construction. Reference 3 - 1.07% Coverage

Whatever he can see there were problems or whatever issues was always been discussed during the site meetings.

Appendix

299

H2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS



Node (code) Responses

Contractor

Delays (2o)

Node Count: 6


So, in my case the contractor was late. Reference 2 - 0.17% Coverage

There was at one time a delay. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage

In terms of the execution, it was delayed. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

at the end it’s not really shortening the time. Reference 2 - 0.54% Coverage

But then I was not able to meet the schedule because they have given a lot of excuses. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

first one appointed couldn’t finish the job.

Manpower or

Material

Shortage (2s)

Node Count: 4


He said he can’t get the materials. Reference 2 - 0.49% Coverage

From what I heard he had a lot of project in the area. So he went out, and he rotates. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.67% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

they couldn’t find skilled worker to deliver it Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage

Appendix

300

I just asked them to increase the manpower things like that.

Failure of

Design or

Design Changes

(2q)

Node Count: 9


in terms of design I was not satisfied. <Internals\\02BK> - § 5 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage

That was a failure on my part also because I didn’t gave them the freedom. Reference 2 - 0.65% Coverage


Say for example kitchen area was quite small, master bedroom area was very big, master bedroom bathroom also was very big. Reference 4 - 0.32% Coverage

The proportion of the room sizes was inappropriate. Reference 5 - 0.52% Coverage

the kitchen location is not proper because it was quite close to the bathroom area. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.61% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.61% Coverage

Not because of the shortcomings of the architect’s design? MEM17: Oh no, no. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.40% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage

3 times we poured, the formwork failed. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage

No. I think the design was right

Financial

Projection (2c)

Node Count: 4


So, all the payments must go through this lawyer. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

Appendix

301

We don’t want the budget to burst if the atchitect over designed. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.51% Coverage

Okay, that’s for the preparation of the preliminary estimate? NSL10: Preliminary estimate. Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage

Okay that would incur cost. He didn’t mind. It costs quite a lot actually.

Site Condition

(2d)

Node Count: 7


Some of the problems on site, yes but not much. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.49% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.49% Coverage

So when it flooded the contractor can’t make site preparation. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 5 references coded [1.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.39% Coverage

infrastructure was very difficult. Because the area was full of rock. Reference 2 - 0.36% Coverage

Everything was off because there were too many problems on site. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage

So it took a long time to break the rock. Reference 4 - 0.25% Coverage

The earthwork was the main cause (of delay). Reference 5 - 0.36% Coverage

we had lots of these retaining wall because it was on a hillside

Competitor’s

Interest (2b)

Node Count: 8

<Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage

I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage

Not very open. Only selective. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.33% Coverage]

Appendix

302


So both of them I asked for quotation. I submit the drawing and then they submit the quotation. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.47% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage

Yes. I chose based on their quotation. Reference 2 - 0.15% Coverage

Selective (tender) <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.83% Coverage

So we selected 7 contractors, 7 contractor bid for the tender and we select (the successful contractor). <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage

Open tender. We made the evaluation and we have the short list. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.93% Coverage

So all the necessary documentation for approval, for tender was all carried out and implemented.

Planning

Permission (2j)

Node Count: 6


I only need his additional idea and to process the design to get the (planning) permission right? Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage

For the submission proses we have to have an architect. Reference 3 - 0.36% Coverage

actually I paid the architect mainly to settle the task of submission process (to the local authority). <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.58% Coverage

The architect will send it to the local authority for their approval. Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage

Appendix

303

So he is more on the approval of plans <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.57% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage

Our scope as quantity surveyor does not involve with the local authority

Contractor

Selection (2m)

Node Count: 11


we chose the contractor based on the houses that were completed. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [1.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage

Again that was the part that I was fully involved because I have collected the contractors. Reference 2 - 0.56% Coverage

I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage

Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage

We choose the contractor. Firstly we chose them based on their workmanship. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

Then we choose the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.63% Coverage

So we choose him based on his previous projects, the offered price and such. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.87% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.87% Coverage

That part the client left it to the consultants, to the architect. Quantity surveyor selected the contractors. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.28% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.28% Coverage

We made the evaluation and we have the short list.

Appendix

304

<Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.20% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.75% Coverage

The selection of the first contractor was selected by… AAA26: by the client. Reference 2 - 0.45% Coverage

So ultimately we have to get a 2nd contractor.

Building

Regulations (2i)

Node Count: 7


There’s no specific mention on the authority requirements <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage

So, some of the by-law, some of the regulations those kinds of things were always at the back of my mind Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage

It did comply. But basically we’re aware of the simpler by-law. Reference 3 - 0.31% Coverage

In the context of my house of course when we need to get the certificate of fitness (CF). <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.55% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.55% Coverage

The requirement of the rooms we had to comply with the regulation. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage

Besides the requirement of the local authority <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [1.00% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.00% Coverage

It wasn’t difficult to ensure that you know… the design incorporates all the authorities requirements.

Appendix

305

H3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION




Overseeing

Making Good

Defects during

Defects

Liability Period

(3aa)

Node Count: 3


there were minor defects Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage

I think there were 3 to 4 minor defects. 1 crack near the stairs, second one in the kitchen. Reference 3 - 0.22% Coverage

So the next day he (contractor) came in to do the repair works.

Overseeing

Progress

Payment (3v)

Node Count: 13


Site progress, the Government will pay to the lawyer. Reference 2 - 0.23% Coverage

In that aspect I was not involved at all. Reference 3 - 0.50% Coverage

So the lawyer will pay based on the architect’s instruction and pay it to the contractor. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.45% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage

Were you involved in the progress payment to the contractor? BK39: Yes. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage

So the architect assisted in the process. In terms when to claim, when to pay Reference 2 - 0.36% Coverage

Its just during the final payment I could have hold off 10% of the payment, but I didn’t practiced that. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage

Appendix

306

Involved in giving the green light to the architect. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.88% Coverage

Ha, we were involved in the payment. Because he (contractor) needed the architect to confirm his progress. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.62% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.62% Coverage

Passed it to the architect and quantity surveyor. We determine (those things). <Internals\\07NSL> - § 3 references coded [1.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage

So he agreed. And the payment he made by issuing cheque on that day. Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage

But he would check (the claims). He was very thorough. Reference 3 - 0.44% Coverage

We told him if its like this its about 50%. Okay. He will check it one by one. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.54% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.54% Coverage

Our certification for payment is submitted to the client

Attending Site

Meetings (3s)

Node Count: 7


In fact all the site meetings were handled by the owner. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.19% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage

But it was a site meeting. It was just not formalised. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.14% Coverage

No, not involved. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.18% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage

The client did join in.

Appendix

307

<Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

Okay the site meeting involves the contractor and sometimes the client came. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

Did the client involved in this meeting? AAA29: Yes. Reference 2 - 1.07% Coverage

Whatever he can see there were problems or whatever issues was always been discussed during the site meetings.

Negotiation

with Contractor

(3q)

Node Count: 9


The house’s estimate with its completed design I negotiated with the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.24% Coverage

Ah, ‘Direct Negotiate’ with the contractor. Reference 3 - 0.27% Coverage

When we agreed with the contractor we will sign. Reference 4 - 0.60% Coverage

Initially I wanted to negotiate with him. Since you were late maybe you have to add on the specification. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.32% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage

Did you negotiated with the contractor? BK36: Yes. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 4 references coded [0.95% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.23% Coverage

So we tried to negotiate and at the end of the day we got RM180,000 (AU$56,592). Reference 2 - 0.17% Coverage

I insisted I wanted weatherbond. Okay he agreed. Reference 3 - 0.28% Coverage

Appendix

308

So I’m asking about a discount of RM20,000 (AU$6,288), he quickly gave a discount of RM20,000 (AU$6,288). Reference 4 - 0.26% Coverage

After that we negotiated the price with him and he was quite negotiatable.

Monitor

Progress of

Works (3t)

Node Count: 14


Sometimes when there is progress (on site) we visited it regularly. Sometimes there was no progress at all. Reference 2 - 0.12% Coverage

Yes, I do monitor it. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.26% Coverage

Yes, in terms of the progress of the construction I personally recorded it Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage

So when I’m free I went to see his progress and all. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 4 references coded [2.45% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage

sometimes I had to monitor his progress. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage

So we look at his progress, if it had reached 30% so we have to confirm with him (contractor), was it reached or not? Reference 3 - 0.72% Coverage

So sometimes, even the progress haven’t reached its target he (contractor) had claimed. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage

Usually we want to see one thing, progress of work. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [0.66% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage

Work progress? He was aware. Reference 2 - 0.44% Coverage

Appendix

309

he asked the architect. Like “So how is the progress?” <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage

Yes he did cared about it and we had to report to him twice a month. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 3 references coded [1.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.65% Coverage

Maybe he came to the site and have an overlook… AAA35: He did some Reference 2 - 0.59% Coverage

Was the client aware of the project’s progress? AAA38: Yes. Reference 3 - 0.57% Coverage

As I said before, he had been to site fairly and regularly.

Contractor

Selection (3p)

Node Count: 10


Again that was the part that I was fully involved because I have collected the contractors. Reference 2 - 0.56% Coverage

I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage

Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage

We choose the contractor. Firstly we chose them based on their workmanship. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

Then we choose the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.63% Coverage

So we choose him based on his previous projects, the offered price and such. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.88% Coverage]

Appendix

310


The architect only proposed. He proposed which contractor was suitable, at the end the client needed to decide. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.79% Coverage

So these 4 short listed (contractors), A, B, C, D we explained their advantages and disadvantages of each one of them and then he’ll choose. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.75% Coverage

The selection of the first contractor was selected by… AAA26: by the client. Reference 2 - 0.39% Coverage

ultimately it was decided by the client.

Estimating

Project’s Cost

(3e)

Node Count: 13


I appointed an architect to design the house and estimate the cost. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage

The estimate I negotiated with the contractor. Reference 3 - 0.45% Coverage

The house’s estimate with its completed design I negotiated with the contractor. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 6 references coded [4.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.14% Coverage

When the architect had defined the area and what not only then we would start to be involved to estimate the project Reference 2 - 0.49% Coverage

Its just as the design goes along and we estimated Reference 3 - 0.50% Coverage

we had to estimate (again) when there were changes. Reference 4 - 1.06% Coverage

The estimate at that time was for all the stages and everytime there were changes we will inform the client.

Appendix

311


When we estimated, the price was 3 million. Reference 6 - 0.49% Coverage

Estimate, quite a long time. Around 4 to 6 months. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 3 references coded [0.85% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.55% Coverage

Quantity surveyor will only provide the cost, cost... the estimate, estimate of the initial cost. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage

We need to update our estimates. Reference 3 - 0.12% Coverage

Preliminary estimate. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.86% Coverage

the costing and the estimates were done accordingly as well as the tender documentation.

Determining

Project’s

Specification

(3k)

Node Count: 9


The works had no specification, (the specification are) only with me. Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage

The only thing that changes if we can change is the specification. Reference 3 - 0.43% Coverage


We have the specification. Its just in terms of testing we don’t have them. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage

As far as the specification part, most of the detailed part was not by me. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

Appendix

312

For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.41% Coverage

in the form we just gave general (specification). Reference 2 - 0.70% Coverage

Yes, yes. But as I said, its weakness is in the detail. Detail up the specification. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

The design didn’t fulfill her specification.

Planning

Internal and

External Design

(3i)

Node Count: 55


My house I designed it on my own. Reference 2 - 0.25% Coverage

I appointed an architect to design the house Reference 3 - 0.44% Coverage

so he made the design and then he would instruct his designed to complete it. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage

I did spoke with the architect. I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. Reference 5 - 0.36% Coverage

I got the design, when it was completed the architect showed me Reference 6 - 0.37% Coverage

I had no comments because I don’t understand about design myself. Reference 7 - 0.22% Coverage

in terms of design I was not satisfied. Reference 8 - 0.32% Coverage

being busy that I didn’t have time to check (the design) Reference 9 - 0.12% Coverage

In terms of design B+. <Internals\\02BK> - § 9 references coded [4.01% Coverage]

Appendix

313


at the start the design was done by an architect but input of the design was from me Reference 2 - 0.54% Coverage

Some brief given to the architect and the he has actually developed the design further. Reference 3 - 0.47% Coverage

The design stage was quite fast because I didn’t change much on the design. Reference 4 - 0.14% Coverage

I think about 3 months. Reference 5 - 0.28% Coverage



But the perimeter like design objective and client’s needs probably was vague. Reference 8 - 0.43% Coverage

maybe the design aspect is not important for them to highlight to me. Reference 9 - 0.47% Coverage

Basically this architect was not actually putting on any of their own ideas. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 10 references coded [2.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage

Actually I worked on the design of the house on my own because I am a designer myself. Reference 2 - 0.23% Coverage

It took me about nearly a year to get the whole idea to complete. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage

I prepared it until to the level of mock-up model. Reference 4 - 0.26% Coverage

Appendix

314

because architect I only need his additional idea and to process the design Reference 5 - 0.40% Coverage

the architect received this project with proper design and he only have to add a little bit make-up here and there Reference 6 - 0.22% Coverage

The design process I did it slowly bit by bit for about a year. Reference 7 - 0.30% Coverage

roof design he modified a bit because architecturally he said the angle was not right. Reference 8 - 0.23% Coverage

But in terms of the design I would say maybe 80 to 90% was my idea Reference 9 - 0.18% Coverage

A little bit, minor. The character is still there. Reference 10 - 0.28% Coverage

the design was quite complicated and in terms of workmanship I was quite worried <Internals\\04PMH> - § 3 references coded [2.69% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage

The design actually I provided to him (contractor). I had consulted with my own architect. Reference 2 - 1.22% Coverage

In the initial design stage, the input was from me. But technically, in terms of practicability I think the input from architect was important too. Reference 3 - 0.71% Coverage

Sometimes when I feel the design was not suitable, I discussed it with the architect. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 4 references coded [3.09% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.68% Coverage

And then he would look what... design, especially in terms of design. Reference 2 - 0.81% Coverage

He want to see how the design process was carried out, whather he liked it or not.

Appendix

315


Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. Reference 4 - 0.82% Coverage

But he (owner) knows, these type of clients knew the effect if he change the design <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage

We did work closely with the client especially during design stage Reference 2 - 0.76% Coverage

During the planning there were many changes. Because we wanted to meet the client’s requirement. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 8 references coded [2.92% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

The design was between the architect and the owner. Reference 2 - 0.03% Coverage

He was Reference 3 - 0.48% Coverage

A lot of additional works like there was no swimming pool, he wanted a swimming pool. Reference 4 - 0.46% Coverage

The basics was there in the design stage but the additions was more for aesthetic Reference 5 - 0.56% Coverage

In the beginning theres no landscape, just grass. Then he wanted water fountain, he wanted a stream. Reference 6 - 0.41% Coverage

but in terms of her design she didn’t want this, she wanted it like that. Reference 7 - 0.25% Coverage

She was not happy with the interior designer. Reference 8 - 0.43% Coverage

Was it because during the design process he didn’t...

Appendix

316

NSL63: Didn’t cared... <Internals\\08AAA> - § 10 references coded [9.97% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage

Okay, most of the design… it’s a family house for 7 people. Reference 2 - 1.92% Coverage

So, this (owner requirements) had been incorporated into the house. The client who is also an engineer, so wanted to have specific things in his house. So this was also considered and designed for. Reference 3 - 0.53% Coverage

Yes, family members as well. The wife and the children. Reference 4 - 0.41% Coverage

So this, the design took that into account Reference 5 - 1.35% Coverage

During our discussions, there were amendments. Even during construction, there were (changes) which is normal for this kind of development. Reference 6 - 1.34% Coverage

So we’ve incorporated some of his specific requirements. Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style. Reference 7 - 0.95% Coverage

We designed for 20, so it had to be made bigger so that it can have 40 people in the meeting room. Reference 8 - 1.27% Coverage

And I do sometimes advice the advantages and disadvantage of aspect (of) the design to come up with the solution or design solution Reference 9 - 0.55% Coverage

the design incorporates all the authorities requirements. Reference 10 - 1.06% Coverage

there’s always been dialogue at every stage of the design and then at during every stage of the construction.

Appendix

317

H4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION




Numbers of

Bedroom (15d)

Node Count: 3


I had only requested I want how many rooms and other things the architect did it on his own. Reference 2 - 0.24% Coverage

I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.84% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.84% Coverage

the house actually gross floor area is about 2500 square feet, double-storey, 5 bedrooms, 3 toilets, 1 parking lot / garage with 2 cars

Size of Living

Room (15g)

Node Count: 2


The rest living room and 1 store room. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.17% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.17% Coverage

living room also had cabinets.

Size of Master

Bedroom (15e)

Node Count: 2


master bedroom area was very big <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

if let’s say it was his room he will ask for the dimension that he requires.

Build Area of

House (15c)

Node Count: 9


the house actually gross floor area is about 2500 square feet <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

Appendix

318

So, we picked a vote and I got the standard lot. Its 60 feet by 80 feet. Reference 2 - 0.33% Coverage

Quite aware because we are in the building industry and I’m an interior designer by prefession. Reference 3 - 0.34% Coverage

I’m satisfied because of the costing … comparing the cost to the size of the house that was built <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.58% Coverage

The area I was aware, but in terms of contract sum and such I was not. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 2 references coded [1.51% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.14% Coverage

When the architect had defined the area and what not only then we would start to be involved to estimate the project Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage

The GFA was provided by the architect. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.94% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.94% Coverage

We will inform the client the floor area for the project and the available areas including the finishes to the client. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

if let’s say it was his room he will ask for the dimension that he requires.

Size of Kitchen

(15h)

Node Count: 3


1 kitchen (where) the size is quite small I think 10 x 12 (feet) I think. Reference 2 - 0.27% Coverage

Say for example kitchen area was quite small <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.28% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.28% Coverage

And the kitchen were not small, it was quite big.

Overall Design <Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [1.09% Coverage]

Appendix

319

of House (15a)

Node Count: 19


My house I designed it on my own. Reference 2 - 0.48% Coverage

Of course, I did spoke with the architect. I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage

All I knew when it was finished, oh my goodness! That’s how it looks like. <Internals\\02BK> - § 4 references coded [0.91% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.20% Coverage

input of the design was from me Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage


The original design was from me Reference 4 - 0.22% Coverage

Most of my recommendations was taken <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.47% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage

And then this design I prepared it until to the level of mock-up model. Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage

The design process I did it slowly bit by bit for about a year. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage

The design actually I provided to him (contractor). Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage

In the initial design stage, the input was from me. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 4 references coded [2.02% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage

After that he would change the design. Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage

Appendix

320

No it’s more to his preference. Reference 3 - 0.79% Coverage

Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. Reference 4 - 0.55% Coverage

Sometimes from square he wanted it to be a bit circular. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage

During the planning there were many changes. Because we wanted to meet the client’s requirement. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage

The design was between the architect and the owner. Reference 2 - 0.50% Coverage

For this project, did the owner involved during the design of the house? NSL28: He was. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.79% Coverage

Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style.

Overall Quality

Compared to

Specification

(15p)

Node Count: 17





Appendix

321


So far, as long as I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. Reference 6 - 0.43% Coverage









So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage]

Appendix

322



And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage


Delivery of

Project (Time)

(15o)

Node Count: 12


In terms of the execution, it was delayed. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage

In terms of execution, from what I saw it was slow. <Internals\\02BK> - § 3 references coded [1.12% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.31% Coverage

A lot of things you have to compromise on the time Reference 2 - 0.67% Coverage

theoretically it should also reduce the construction time because the masonry units is bigger, larger size. Reference 3 - 0.14% Coverage

No. It was not on time. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.57% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage

its construction period was 1 year, solid 12 months. Reference 2 - 0.39% Coverage

So when he (contractor) had been able to finish the job by the 27th Ramadhan I believed he had met the target. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage

Yes there were, but it was not long. Its about 3 months I think, 3 months.

Appendix

323

<Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.34% Coverage

Delayed because of that. A lot of things that they requested. Reference 2 - 0.25% Coverage

The earthwork was the main cause (of delay). <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [0.98% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.69% Coverage

there was a delay because of the non-performance of the 1st contractor. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage

So, about 6 to 8 months delay.

Quality of

Construction

Material Used

(15i)

Node Count: 19








in the specificatios he only provided sanitary fittings

Appendix

324


So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. Reference 5 - 0.24% Coverage





So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.54% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.54% Coverage

A lot of the changes in terms of cost was the finishes. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 4 references coded [2.08% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage


And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. Reference 3 - 0.39% Coverage

But he know which material that he wanted to use. Reference 4 - 0.25% Coverage

Sub-standard. I don’t think so.

Appendix

325

<Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.72% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.72% Coverage


Electrical

Supply (15k)

Node Count: 3


wiring for example. Even the wiring above the ceiling, concealed wiring Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage

So, if that was under IEEE regulation supposedly the wiring they would know which one was exposed and which one should be concealed. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.82% Coverage

So he made a lot of comments on the M&E for this project? AAA33: Mainly on the M&E.

Water Supply

(15j)

Node Count: 4


For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage

for example the plumbing, I guess we had overlooked. Reference 3 - 0.26% Coverage

After 2 years there will be leakage everywhere. Those kind of pipes right? Reference 4 - 0.12% Coverage

For example the underground piping

Air Ventilation

(15l)

Node Count: 3


The space is quite small. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage

All I know is that I want space. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage

But overall space requirement I think if the architect had done it it would have been different

Appendix

326

APPENDIX I: SEMI-STRUCTURED

INTERVIEW CODING SUMMARY

I1. OWNER PARTICIPANT

Appendix Table 45: Coding Summary Report of Participant 1 (MMD)

Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of

Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Document Internals\\01MMD

Node

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2c) Financial projection No 0.27 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.36 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2o) Contractor delays No 0.62 % 3 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2q) Failure of design or design

changes

No 0.22 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2s) Manpower or material shortage No 0.68 % 2 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 2.70 % 6 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner

satisfaction

No 1.59 % 5 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1i) Technical specifications No 0.85 % 2 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.18 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.30 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.96 % 3 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 2.86 % 6 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or

contractors or consultants

No 0.40 % 2 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3e) Estimating project's cost No 1.09 % 3 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external

design

No 2.68 % 9 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's

specification

No 1.62 % 4 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3q) Negotiation with contractor No 1.56 % 4 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 0.73 % 2 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 1.03 % 3 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 1.08 % 3 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15d) Numbers of bedroom No 0.76 % 2 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material

used

No 1.21 % 3 1

Appendix

327

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15l) Air ventilation No 0.32 % 2 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.52 % 2 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to

specification

No 2.70 % 6 1

Appendix

328

Appendix Table 46: Coding Summary Report of Participant 2 (BK)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\02BK

Node

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.75 % 2 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2d) Site condition No 0.29 % 1 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 0.35 % 1 1




changes

No 2.71 % 5 1

Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2s) Manpower or material shortage No 0.66 % 2 1



satisfaction

No 0.80 % 3 1



Nodes\\Development Factors\(1m) Benefit to stakeholder No 0.70 % 1 1





No 6.85 % 14 1


design

No 4.01 % 9 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal

requirement

No 0.78 % 1 1


specification

No 0.46 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 1.13 % 2 1


Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.34 % 1 1



Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.38 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15d) Numbers of bedroom No 0.84 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15e) Size of master bedroom No 0.19 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15f) Size of master bathroom No 0.25 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15g) Size of living room No 0.23 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15h) Size of kitchen No 0.73 % 2 1


used

No 0.27 % 1 1

Appendix

329

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15l) Air ventilation No 0.59 % 1 1



specification

No 0.27 % 1 1

Appendix

330

Appendix Table 47: Coding Summary Report of Participant 3 (PMS)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\03PMS

Node



Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2j) Planning permission No 0.89 % 3 1




satisfaction

No 1.82 % 7 1



Nodes\\Development Factors\(1l) Revenue and profits No 0.81 % 3 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 0.24 % 1 1





No 2.13 % 7 1

Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3aa) Overseeing making good of

defects during defects liability period

No 0.62 % 3 1


design

No 2.57 % 10 1


requirement

No 0.56 % 2 1


specification

No 0.28 % 1 1









used

No 2.18 % 7 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15j) Water supply No 0.84 % 4 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15k) Electrical supply No 0.71 % 2 1



specification

No 1.60 % 5 1

Appendix

331

Appendix Table 48: Coding Summary Report of Participant 4 (PMH)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\04PMH

Node






Nodes\\Development Factors\(1l) Revenue and profits No 0.87 % 2 1

Nodes\\Development Factors\(1m) Benefit to stakeholder No 0.29 % 1 1





No 1.91 % 4 1


design

No 2.68 % 3 1


requirement

No 1.09 % 2 1


specification

No 1.10 % 2 1








used

No 1.71 % 2 1


specification

No 1.71 % 2 1

Appendix

332

I2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR PARTICIPANT

Appendix Table 49: Coding Summary Report of Participant 5 (NMH)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\05NMH

Node


satisfaction

No 1.09 % 2 1








design

No 3.08 % 4 1



Appendix

333

Appendix Table 50: Coding Summary Report of Participant 6 (MEM)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\06MEM

Node








changes

No 0.61 % 1 1



satisfaction

No 2.70 % 4 1









No 1.43 % 2 1


design

No 1.28 % 2 1


requirement

No 1.20 % 2 1








used

No 2.07 % 4 1



specification

No 1.44 % 2 1

Appendix

334

Appendix Table 51: Coding Summary Report of Participant 7 (NSL)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\07NSL

Node






changes

No 0.40 % 2 1



satisfaction

No 1.52 % 5 1







No 0.21 % 1 1



design

No 2.92 % 8 1


specification

No 0.24 % 1 1







Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15e) Size of master bedroom No 0.42 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15g) Size of living room No 0.16 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15h) Size of kitchen No 0.27 % 1 1


Appendix

335

Appendix Table 52: Coding Summary Report of Participant 8 (AAA)


Coding

References

Number Of

Users Coding

Internals\\08AAA

Node







satisfaction

No 3.38 % 5 1




Nodes\\Development Factors\(1r) Competent project manager No 1.10 % 1 1





design

No 9.96 % 10 1


requirement

No 2.00 % 2 1







used

No 0.71 % 1 1

Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15k) Electrical supply No 0.81 % 1 1



specification

No 0.70 % 1 1

Appendix

336

REFERENCES

Abd El-Razek, M. E., Bassioni, H. A., & Mobarak, A. M. (2008). Causes of delay in building

construction projects in Egypt. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 134(11), 831-841. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village

database.

Abdul-Aziz, A. R., & Jahn Kassim, P. S. (2011). Objectives, success and failure factors of

housing public-private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat International, 35(1), 150-

157. Retrieved 10 October 2010, from ScienceDirect database.

Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., Takim, R., & Wong, S. (2011). Project schedule influenced by

financial issues: Evidence in construction industry. Scientific research and essays,

6(1), 205 - 212.

Abdulaziz, S. K. (2000). Using a limited warranty to stop construction defects. Reeves

Journal, 80(3), 17-17. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;

ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.

Acharya, N. K., Lee, Y. D., & Im, H. M. (2006). Conflicting factors in construction projects:

Korean perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,

13(6), 543 - 666. Retrieved 5 October 2012

Adams, E. (2010). The joys and challenges of semi-structured interviewing. Community

Practitioner, 83(7), 18-21. Retrieved 9/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Agus, M. R. (2002). The role of state and market in the Malaysian housing sector. Journal of

Housing and the Built Environment(17), 49-67. Retrieved 4 January 2010, from

SpringerLink database.

Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008). Critical success criteria for

mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project

Management, 26(6), 675-687.

Ahmad, H., Aziz, A. R. A., & Jaafar, M. (2009). Success Criteria for Public Hospital

Construction Project in Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework based on pilot survey.

Paper presented at the Online Publication Management Seminar. Seri Iskandar, Perak.

Retrieved 5 May 2010, from http://www.box.net/shared/57ubq08m2l

Aibinu, A. A., & Al-Lawati, A. M. (2010). Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction

organizations' willingness to participate in e-bidding. Automation in Construction,

19(6), 714-724. Retrieved 7/10/2012

Ainsworth, A. (2006). "Ghost Chasing”: Demystifying Latent Variables and SEM (pp. 32):

University of California.

http://www.box.net/shared/57ubq08m2l

Appendix

337

Aken, T. V. (1996). De weg naar project succes: Eerder via werkstijl dan instrumenten: De

Tijdstroom.

Akintoye, A. S., & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction.

International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.

Al-Dosary, A. S., Assaf, S. A., & Aldakhil, A. S. (2009). Effectiveness of the organisational

structure of construction firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Learning and

Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 380-401.

Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H. M., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Harun, Z. (2010). Future criteria for success

of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, In

Press, Corrected Proof

Al‐Kharashi, A., & Skitmore, M. (2009). Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector

construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 3-23.

Retrieved 2012/10/04

Alaghbari, W. e., Mohd. Razali, A. K., Salim, A., & Ernawati (2007). The significant factors

causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management, 14(2), 192-206. from ABI/INFORM

Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central

database.

Ale, B. J. M. (2002). Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Science, 40(1-4),

105-126. Retrieved 13 October 2009

Alkhathami, M. M. (2004). Examination of the correlation of critical success and delay

factors in construction projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unpublished

3158743, University of Pittsburgh, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database. Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/30514

5849?accountid=13380

Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students' housing. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 29(1), 76-85. Retrieved 4 October 2012

Andersen, E. S. (2012). Illuminating the role of the project owner. International Journal of

Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 67 - 85. Retrieved 5/10/2012

Andre, G. R. (2012). Design-Assist: Getting Contractors Involved Early. Legal Insight, 6,

from http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/055ae3ba-ecb7-43d0-be9b-

412fb235407b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e4e0432e-8ae0-4656-824e-

48d6a7619d36/Design-Assist-Getting-Contractors-Involved-Early_091912.pdf

Anonymous (2002). Construction Site Safety. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and

Construction, 7(2), 53-54. Retrieved 5 October 2012

Anonymous (2004). Property Development Firm Expands in Thailand, Bangkok Post

(Thailand).

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305145849?accountid=13380


http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/055ae3ba-ecb7-43d0-be9b-412fb235407b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e4e0432e-8ae0-4656-824e-48d6a7619d36/Design-Assist-Getting-Contractors-Involved-Early_091912.pdf



Appendix

338

Anonymous (2007). Contractors to learn finance [Proceeding]. Contractor, 54(9), 65-65.

from bsh database.

Anonymous (2008, 4 November 2008). Economic Package Unveiled The Star Online.

Retrieved 3 September 2009, from

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/11/4/nation/20081104174045&sec=n

ation

Anonymous (2010a). Millennium Challenge-Account-Tanzania Hands Over Laela-

Sumbawanga Road Site to Contractor. US Fed News Service, Including US State

News, from


2367?accountid=13380, from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;


Anonymous (2011). An Introduction to the Development Process. Retrieved 26 October

2009, from http://www.ct-housing.org/development_process.html

Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects.

International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 349-357. Retrieved 7 July 2010,

from Engineering Village database.

Baiden, P., Arku, G., Luginaah, I., & Asiedu, A. B. (2011). An assessment of residents'

housing satisfaction and coping in Accra, Ghana. Zeitschrift für

Gesundheitswissenschaften, 19(1), 29-37. Retrieved 5/12/2012, from ProQuest

Central database.

Baloi, D., & Price, A. D. F. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost

performance. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 261-269.

Retrieved 10 July 2010

Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and

Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. Retrieved 7/10/2012

Barton, J., Plume, J., & Parolin, B. (2005). Public participation in a spatial decision support

system for public housing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(6), 630-

652. Retrieved 1 October 2009

Benros, D., & Duarte, J. P. (2009). An integrated system for providing mass customized

housing. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 310-320.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical Issues in Structural Modeling. Sociological

Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117. Retrieved 20/10/2012

Berkoz, L., Turk, Ş. Ş., & Kellekci, Ö. L. (2008). Environmental Quality and User

Satisfaction in Mass Housing Areas: The Case of Istanbul. European Planning

Studies, 17(1), 161-174. Retrieved 2012/10/04

Black, J. (1997). Quality in Development, by Design or Process? London, UK: RTPI.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/11/4/nation/20081104174045&sec=nation

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/11/4/nation/20081104174045&sec=nation



http://www.ct-housing.org/development_process.html

Appendix

339

Boukendour, S. (2009). Construction Delays: Extensions of Time and Prolongation Claims.

Construction Management and Economics, 27(12), 1266-1267. Retrieved 2012/11/10

Bowen, P. A., Cattel, K. S., Hall, K. A., Edwards, P. J., & Pearl, R. G. (2002). Perceptions of

Time, Cost and Quality Management on Building Projects. The Australian Journal of

Construction Economics and Building, 2(2), 9.

Brewer, G. (2005). Final certificates and adjudication. Contract Journal, 429(6533), 38-38.

from ProQuest Central database.

Brink, P. J. (1987). Editorial: On Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Western

Journal of Nursing Research, 9(2), 157-159.

Brun, L. C., & Jolley, G. J. (2011). Increasing Stakeholder Participation in Industry Cluster

Identification. Economic Development Quarterly, 25(3), 211-220.

Bryde, D. J., & Robinson, L. (2005). Client versus contractor perspectives on project success

criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622-629.

Bubshait, A. A. (1994). Owner involvement in project quality. International Journal of

Project Management, 12(2), 115-117.

Byggeforskningsinstitut, S., & Forskningsinstitut, A. o. K. (2001). The Danish Housing

Market – Trends in Housing Supply and Housing Preferences (Det danske

boligmarked - udvikling i boligforsyning og boligønsker). from

http://www.sbi.dk/download/pdf/det_danske_boligmarked.pdf

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS. Basic Concepts,

Applications and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Cannalire, C. (2011). Owners and Contractors: Key Metrics Improve Performance. Chemical

Engineering, 118(2), 46-49. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Caplicki, E. V., III, & Guidry, R. A. (2006). Liquidated Damages for Delay in Construction

Contracts. Construction Accounting & Taxation, 16(5), 14-14. from ABI/INFORM


database.

Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N. (2003). Delivering New Homes. Processes,

planners and providers. (1st. ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Carp, J. C. (1986). Design participation: new roles, new tools. Design Studies, 7(3), 125-132.

Carter, N. (1990). Housing development in Australia: The implications of production and

approval processes for availability and choice. Journal of Property Research, 7(3),

153-172.

Carù, A., Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2004). Project Success:: Lessons from the Andria Case.

European Management Journal, 22(5), 532-545.

http://www.sbi.dk/download/pdf/det_danske_boligmarked.pdf

Appendix

340

Chakrabarty, B. K. (1987). Affordable dwelling-layout system design--A model for

optimization. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 21(5), 283-289.

Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring

construction success. Benchmarking, 11(2), 203-221. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from

ProQuest Central database.

Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., & Tam, C. M. (2001). Design and build project success factors:

multivariate analysys. Journal of Construction Engineering Management(127), 2.

Retrieved 10 July 2010

Chapman, J. E. (2003). Reliability and Validity of the Progress Questionnaire: An Adaptation

of the Outcome Questionnaire. Drexel University, Philadelphia. Retrieved from

http://144.118.25.24/bitstream/1860/193/8/chapman_thesis.pdf

Che Ibrahim, N. A. (2005). Kajian Terhadap Projek Perumahan di Kelantan. Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved from

http://eprints.utm.my/4445/1/NorAdilahCheIbrahimKPFKA2005TTT.pdf

Chen, P., Qiang, M., & Wang, J. N. (2009). Project management in the chinese construction

industry: Six-case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

135(10), 1016-1026. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.

Cheng, M., Su, C., & You, H. (2003). Optimal Project Organizational Structure for

Construction Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

129(1), 70-79.

Chitsomboon, P. (2006). Everland first to exit Rehabco with SET comeback next week,

Bangkok Post (Thailand): Bangkok Post (Thailand).

Chohan, A. H., Memon, A. W., Agro, N., Che-Ani, A. I., & Ishak, N. H. (2011). Developing

a User's Feedback Index to Improve the Design and Construction Phase of Private

Housing in Developing Metropolitan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary

Research In Business, 2(9), 463-483. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from ProQuest Central

database.

Chow, K. F. (2008). The Final Payment in a Construction Contract: Pressures on Account

Finalisation: Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd.

Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 20(1), 245 - 250.

Chow, K. F., & Chan, P. C. F. (2009). Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of

Singapore Cases. Building and Construction Law, Annual Review 2009(2009), 107 -

122.

CIDB (2010). Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price)

for Year 1980 - Q1 2009. Retrieved 29 June 2010, from

http://www.cidb.gov.my/v6/files/pub/ConstructionSectorGrowth&MalaysianEconomi

cTrend.pdf

http://144.118.25.24/bitstream/1860/193/8/chapman_thesis.pdf

http://eprints.utm.my/4445/1/NorAdilahCheIbrahimKPFKA2005TTT.pdf

http://www.cidb.gov.my/v6/files/pub/ConstructionSectorGrowth&MalaysianEconomicTrend.pdf

http://www.cidb.gov.my/v6/files/pub/ConstructionSectorGrowth&MalaysianEconomicTrend.pdf

Appendix

341

CIDB (NA). CIDB Specialisation. Retrieved 29/10/2012, from http://www.daftar-

ssm.com/index_files/cidb.htm

Clancy, R. (2009). Over supply concerns for Malaysia real estate market in 2010. Retrieved

30 April 2010, from http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-malaysia/499-

over-supply-malaysia-real-estate-market-2010.html

Clark, M. I., Berry, T. R., Spence, J. C., Nykiforuk, C., Carlson, M., Blanchard, C. (2010).

Key stakeholder perspectives on the development of walkable neighbourhoods.

Health & Place, 16(1), 43-50.

Cleland, D. I. (1998). Stakeholder Management. Project Management Handbook, 55-72.

Coldwell, D. S., Burchett-Williams, A. Q., & Celeste, M. L. (2010). Liquidated Damages.

Franchise Law Journal, 29(4), 211-230. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM

Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and

postgraduate students (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Coln, L. B. (2009). Deconstructing warranties in the construction industry, Florida Bar

Journal (Vol. 83, pp. 8+).

Cooper, D. F., MacDonald, D. H., & Chapman, C. B. (1985). Risk analysis of a construction

cost estimate. International Journal of Project Management, 3(3), 141-149.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures

for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Daniel, W. M. C., Albert, P. C. C., Patrick, T. I. L., & James, M. W. W. (2010). Identifying

the critical success factors for target cost contracts in the construction industry.

Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), 179-201. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from


Danuri, M. S. M., Munaaim, M. E. C., & Yen, L. C. (2009). Liquidated damages in the

Malaysian standard forms of construction contract: the law and the practice.

Construction law journal, 25(2), 103.

de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project

Management, 6(3), 164-170. Retrieved 19 October 2010, from ScienceDirect

database.

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher,

13(1), 19-28. Retrieved 9/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.

DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. 10, from http://www.stat-

help.com/factor.pdf

http://www.daftar-ssm.com/index_files/cidb.htm

http://www.daftar-ssm.com/index_files/cidb.htm

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-malaysia/499-over-supply-malaysia-real-estate-market-2010.html

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-malaysia/499-over-supply-malaysia-real-estate-market-2010.html

http://www.stat-help.com/factor.pdf

http://www.stat-help.com/factor.pdf

Appendix

342

DED (2000). Single-Family Detached Housing Unit Trends by Planning Subarea. Retrieved

22 September 2009, from

http://biz.loudoun.gov/Portals/0/PDF/growth/growth_summary_2008/a4b.pdf

Dekker, K., de Vos, S., Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Residential Satisfaction in

Housing Estates in European Cities: A Multi-level Research Approach. Housing

Studies, 26(04), 479-499. Retrieved 2012/10/04

Del Cano, A., & De La Cruz, M. P. (2002). Integrated methodology for project risk

management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), 473-

485. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village database.

Derus, M. M., & Aziz, A. R. A. (2006). Kompetensi Pengurus Projek Sektor Awam Yang

Unggul: Kerangka Kerja Konseptual dan Metodologi Kajian. Paper presented at the

Management in Construction Researchers Association (MICRA 2006). Kuala

Lumpur: MICRA & Kulliyah of Architecture and Environmental Design,

International Islamic University Malaysia, UIAM,. Retrieved 4 October 2012, from

https://www.box.com/shared/oh2grqn2y4

Diaz-Serrano, L. (2009). Disentangling the housing satisfaction puzzle: Does homeownership

really matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 745-755. Retrieved 5/10/2012

Dinsmore, P. C. (1995). Will the Real Stakeholders Please Stand Up? PM Network, 9-10.

Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K. C., & Rentala, S. (2012). Analysing factors affecting delays

in Indian construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4),

479-489.

DoSM (2010). Population Statistics, Malaysia. Retrieved 29 June 2010, from

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/LatestReleases/population/ms

ia_broadage_1963-2008.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/ArchiveTimeSeries/Perangkaan_Pen

duduk.pdf

DoSM (2012). Economic Census 2011 Construction, Economic Census (pp. 100). Putrajaya:

Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

Dursun, O., & Stoy, C. (2012). Determinants of construction duration for building projects in

Germany. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 444 -

468.

Eduljee, G. H. (2000). Trends in risk assessment and risk management. The Science of The

Total Environment, 249(1-3), 13-23.

Elizabeth Collins, M., Curley, A. M., Clay, C., & Lara, R. (2005). Evaluation of social

services in a HOPE VI housing development: resident and staff perceptions of

successes and barriers. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 47-59.

http://biz.loudoun.gov/Portals/0/PDF/growth/growth_summary_2008/a4b.pdf

http://www.box.com/shared/oh2grqn2y4

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/LatestReleases/population/msia_broadage_1963-2008.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/LatestReleases/population/msia_broadage_1963-2008.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/ArchiveTimeSeries/Perangkaan_Penduduk.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/ArchiveTimeSeries/Perangkaan_Penduduk.pdf

Appendix

343

Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of

Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 401-401. Retrieved 4 October 2012, from


Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. (2009). Construction Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Ltd.

Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. A. (2006). Communication in Construction Teams. New York,

London: Taylor & Francis.

Emond, J., & Steins, C. (2011). Project Schedule and Budgeting. In Pro Web Project

Management (pp. 59-77): Apress.

Engineers, I. F. o. C. (1999). FIDIC 1999, 2.1 Right of Access to the Site (Vol. 2.1). Geneva:

FIDIC.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., & Abushaban, S. (2009). Factors affecting the performance of

Construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Journal of Civil Engineering and

Management, 15(3), 269-280. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village

database.

EPU (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. In P. M. s. D. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp. 559).

Putrajaya: EPU.

Etheridge, D. (2012). Natural Ventilation of Buildings: Theory, Measurement and Design:

John Wiley & Sons.

Eyster, J. J. (1988). Sharing risks and decision making: Recent trends in the negotiation of

management contracts. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

29(1), 42-55. Retrieved 23 September 2009

Ezeanya, A. C. (2004). Malaysian housing policy: Prospects and obstacles of National Vision

2020. Paper presented at the International Conference on Adequate & Affordable

Housing for All. Toronto, Canada: Centre for Urban and Community Studies,

University of Toronto. Retrieved 7 September 2009, from

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/housingconference/Ezeanya_Malaysian_Ho

using_P.pdf

Fan, M., Lin, N.-P., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An

analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.

Faridi, A. S., & El-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the UAE

construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167-1176.

Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.

Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Filho, A. P. G., Andrade, J. C. S., & Marinho, M. M. d. O. (2010). A safety culture maturity

model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Safety Science, 48(5), 615-624.

Retrieved 2 August 2010, from ScienceDirect database.

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/housingconference/Ezeanya_Malaysian_Housing_P.pdf

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/housingconference/Ezeanya_Malaysian_Housing_P.pdf

Appendix

344

Filmer, A. R. (2006). Backstage Space: The Place of the Performer. The University of

Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/1415/8/08chapter7.pdf

Folaranmi, A. O. (2012). User Participation in Housing Unit Provision in Kwara State

Nigeria: A Basis for Sustainable Design in Mass Housing Design. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(2), 723-732. from ABI/INFORM


database.

Forrest, R. (2008). Risk, Governance and the Housing Market. Housing Finance

International, 23(1), 11. Retrieved 14 September 2009

Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems

model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65.

Foster-Bobroff, L. (2011). How to negotiate with a contractor. The Courier, from




Frable, F. (1997). How to select the best architect, designer or consultant. Nation's Restaurant

News, 31(28), 42-43. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;


Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education

(6th. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International.

Francis, C. D. (2003). Managing the project schedule. Cost Engineering, 45(5), 6-6. from

ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;


Frödell, M., Josephson, P.-E., & Lindahl, G. (2008). Swedish construction clients' views on

project success and measuring performance. Journal of Engineering, Design and

Technology, 6(1), 21-32. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Gambatese, J. A. (2000). Owner involvement in construction site safety (pp. 661-670).

Orlando, FL, United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 12 July

2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)71

Gamper, C. D., & Turcanu, C. (2009). Can public participation help managing risks from

natural hazards? Safety Science, 47(4), 522-528.

Gillen, M., & Golland, A. (2004). Housing Development. Theory, process and practice (1st.

ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Gloskowski, W. (1975). House warranties. Changing Times (pre-1986), 29(2), 56-56. from



http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/1415/8/08chapter7.pdf



http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)71

Appendix

345

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597 - 607. Retrieved 31/10/2012

Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1984). Are Validity and Reliability "Relevant" in

Qualitative Evaluation Research? Evaluation & the Health Professions, 7(4), 413-

426.

Gorke, T. (1999). Fail safe: Surety for construction projects. Risk Management, 46(6), 10-16.

from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &

Industry; ProQuest Central database.

GPG (2010). Rapid Recovery Expected For Malaysia's Real Estate Market. Retrieved 30

April 2010, from http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rapid-recovery-expected-

for-malaysias-real-estate-market-54652.aspx

Groton, J. P., & Smith, G. A. (1998). Weighing the options. Journal of Management in

Engineering, 14(6), 69-72. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.

Hair, J. F., Balck, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis

(6th ed.): Pearson Prentice Hall.

Halil Shevket, N., & Aysal, S. (2004). Owner's Factor in Value-Based Project Management

in Construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 97-103. Retrieved 5 October 2012,


Hanna, A. S. (2007). Achieve Greater Project Success and Profitability with Pre-Construction

Planning. Contracting Business, 64(6), 98-100. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from


Harris, R. (1998). The silence of the experts: "Aided self-help housing", 1939-1954. Habitat

International, 22(2), 165-189.

Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. (1997). Criteria for contractor selection [Article]. Construction

Management & Economics, 15(1), 19-38. from bsh database.

Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2009). Reliability and validity. Library & Information

Science Research, 31(2), 73-74.

Holt, G. D. (1998). Which contractor selection methodology? International Journal of

Project Management, 16(3), 153-164.

Holt, G. D., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Harris, F. C. (1994). Evaluating prequalification criteria in

contractor selection. Building and Environment, 29(4), 437-448.

Hoon, O. C. (2010). Small Office Home Office (SOHO). In N. P. I. P. (NAPIC) (Ed.).

Putrajaya: National Property Information Programme (NAPIC)

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rapid-recovery-expected-for-malaysias-real-estate-market-54652.aspx

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rapid-recovery-expected-for-malaysias-real-estate-market-54652.aspx

Appendix

346

Hoonakker, P., Carayon, P., & Loushine, T. (2010). Barriers and benefits of quality

management in the construction industry: An empirical study. Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence, 21(9), 953-969. Retrieved 2012/11/21

Huang, X., & Hinze, J. (2006a). Owner's role in construction safety. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, 132(2), 164-173. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from

Engineering Village database.

Huang, X., & Hinze, J. (2006b). Owner's role in construction safety: Guidance model.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2), 174-181. Retrieved 7

July 2010, from Engineering Village database.

Hurleyl, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg,

R. J., et al. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues,

and alternatives. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 18, 667 - 683. Retrieved

8/10/2012

Iacobucci, D. (2010a). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced

topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98. Retrieved 9/10/2012

Ibbs, W., Nguyen, L. D., & Lee, S. (2007). Quantified impacts of project change. Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1), 45-52. Retrieved

12 July 2010, from Compendex database.

Idrus, N., & Siong, H. C. (2008). Affordable and Quality Housing Through The Low Cost

Housing Provision in Malaysia. University Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved

from

http://eprints.utm.my/6624/1/NoraliahIdrus_HCSiong2008_AffordableAndQualityHo

usingThrough.pdf

IKPO, J. I. (2005). The Builder's Liability Beyond The Defects Liability. Civil Engineering

Dimension, 7(1), 16 - 21.

Ile, U. (2011). Landscape Composition Development Stages In Multi-Storey Residential

Areas Of The Baltic Sea Region. Mokslas : Lietuvos Ateitis, 3(3), 16-n/a. from



Indayati, S. (2000). Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia. Retrieved 17

July 2010, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3832580/Jadual-1-Jumlah-Penduduk-

dan-Keluasan-setiap-Negeri-di-Malaysia

Ireland, T. (2001). Which project-execution approach is best for you? IEEE Industry

Applications Magazine, 7(6), 33-40. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village

database.

Isidore, L., & Back, W. (2002). Multiple Simulation Analysis for Probabilistic Cost and

Schedule Integration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3),

211-219. Retrieved 5 October 2012

http://eprints.utm.my/6624/1/NoraliahIdrus_HCSiong2008_AffordableAndQualityHousingThrough.pdf

http://eprints.utm.my/6624/1/NoraliahIdrus_HCSiong2008_AffordableAndQualityHousingThrough.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3832580/Jadual-1-Jumlah-Penduduk-dan-Keluasan-setiap-Negeri-di-Malaysia

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3832580/Jadual-1-Jumlah-Penduduk-dan-Keluasan-setiap-Negeri-di-Malaysia

Appendix

347

Ismail, A. F. (2007). Perlaksanaan Kaedah Pengeluaran Perakuan Siap Dan Pematuhan

(CCC) oleh Para Profesional. Paper presented at the Persidangan Mempertingkatkan

Sistem Pemyampaian Perkhidmatan Kerajaan. Retrieved 17 September 2009, from

http://jpbd.pahang.gov.my/pdf/CCC.pdf

Israel, G. D. (2003). Determining Sample Size. from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PD006

Iyer, K. C., & Jha, K. N. (2005). Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian

construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 283-295.

Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Science Direct database.

Jaśkowski, P., & Biruk, S. (2011). The method for improving stability of construction project

schedules through buffer allocation. Technological and Economic Development of

Economy, 17(3), 429-444. Retrieved 2012/11/10

Jergeas, G. F., Williamson, E., Skulmoski, G. J., & Thomas, J. L. (2000). Stakeholder

management on construction projects. AACE International Transactions, P12.11-

P12.16. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &


Johnson, J. (1979). A plain man's guide to participation. Design Studies, 1(1), 27-30.

Juliano, W. J. (1995). External Communication as an Integral Part of Project Planning. PM

Network, 18-20.

Jusoff, K., Adnan, H., & Nazli, N. F. (2008). Partnering project success criteria in Malaysia.

Canadian Centre of Science and Education Journal, 1(4), 94-99. Retrieved 5 May

2010

Kalina, D. (2006). How to . . . Select a Planning and Design Consultant. Techniques, 81(8),

44-46. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &


Kallman, J. W. (1998). Loss control project decision models for the construction industry.

The University of Wisconsin, Madison. Retrieved from Proquest database. Retrieved

from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.

edu.au/pqdweb?did=732853631&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=14394&RQT=309&VNam

e=PQD

Karlsen, J. T. (2010). Project owner involvement for information and knowledge sharing in

uncertainty management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,

3(4), 642 - 660. Retrieved 5 October 2012

Kärnä, S., Juha-Matti, J., & Veli-Matti, S. (2009). Modelling structure of customer

satisfaction with construction. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(2), 111-127.

Retrieved 4 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Karunasena, G., & Raufdeen, R. (2010). Post-disaster housing reconstruction: Comparative

study of donor vs owner-driven approaches. International Journal of Disaster

http://jpbd.pahang.gov.my/pdf/CCC.pdf

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PD006

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?did=732853631&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=14394&RQT=309&VName=PQD



Appendix

348

Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(2), 173-191. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from


Kashiwagi, D. T. (1999). The construction delivery system of the information age.

Automation in Construction, 8(4), 417-425. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Inspec

database.

Keivani, R., & Werna, E. (2001). Modes of housing provision in developing countries.

Progress in Planning, 55(2), 65-118.

Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural Equation Modelling in Perspective. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 215-224. Retrieved 8/10/2012

Kheng, O. C. (2003). Extension of Time and Liquidated Damages in Construction Contracts.

Paper presented at the Construction Contracts and Arbitration. Ipoh, Malaysia. from

http://ckoon-

law.com/Paper/EXTENSION%20OF%20TIME%20AND%20LIQUIDATED%20DA

MAGES.pdf

Kim, H., & Reinschmidt, K. (2011). Effects of Contractors’ Risk Attitude on Competition in

Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4), 275-


Kines, P., Andersen, L. P. S., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K. L., Dyreborg, J., Zohar, D.

(2010). Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety

communication. Journal of Safety Research, 41(5), 399-406. Retrieved 5 October

2012

Kline, R. B. (In press). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Applied

quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 73). New York: Routledge. Retrieved

8/10/2012

Kluenker, C. H. (1996). Construction manager as project integrator. Journal of Management

in Engineering, 12(2), 17-20. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village

database.

Kocherlakota, N. R., & Ohanian, L. E. (2007). Model Fit and Model Selection/Commentary.

Review - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 89(4), 349-369. from ProQuest Central

database.

Kog, Y., & Loh, P. (2012). Critical Success Factors for Different Components of

Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(4),

520-528.

Konold, T. R., Fan, X., Penelope, P., Eva, B., & Barry, M. (2010). Hypothesis Testing and

Confidence Intervals. In International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 216-222).

Oxford: Elsevier. Retrieved 21 July 2010, from ScienceDirect.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., Ruschel, R. C., Labaki, L. C., Bertolli, S. R.,

Filho, F. B., et al. (2005). A house design assistance program for the self-building

http://ckoon-law.com/Paper/EXTENSION%20OF%20TIME%20AND%20LIQUIDATED%20DAMAGES.pdf



Appendix

349

process of the region of Campinas, Brazil: Evaluation through a case study. Habitat

International, 29(1), 95-111.

KPKT (1999). Housing in the New Millennium - Malaysian Perspective. Retrieved 27

September 2009, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/ehomebi/profil/artikel3.cfm

Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Chan, D. W. M. (1995). Determinants of construction duration.


LAM (2008). Certificate of Completion and Compliance. In T. B. o. A. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp.

3). Kuala Lumpur: LAM.

Lampel, J., Miller, R., & Floricel, S. (1996). Impact of owner involvement on innovation in

large projects: Lessons from power plants construction. International Business

Review, 5(6), 561-578.

Lawrence, R. J. (1982). Trends in architectural design methods--the liability' of public

participation. Design Studies, 3(2), 97-103.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in

Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.

Leguizamon, S. J., & Ross, J. M. (2012). Revealed preference for relative status: Evidence

from the housing market. Journal of Housing Economics, 21(1), 55-65. Retrieved

5/10/2012

Lester, A., & Mackay, I. (2011). Discussion: Extension of time claimsManagement,

Procurement and Law (pp. 99 - 101). Institution of Civil Engineers. from

http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/article/10.1680/mp

al.2011.164.2.99

Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-

examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.

Ling, F. Y. Y., & Liu, M. (2004). Using neural network to predict performance of design-

build projects in Singapore. Building and Environment, 39(10), 1263-1274.

Ling, F. Y. Y., & Peh, S. (2005). Key Performance Indicators For Measuring Contractors'

Performance. Architectural Science Review, 48(4), 357-365. Retrieved 2012/10/04

Ling, F. Y. Y., & Poh, B. H. M. (2008). Problems encountered by owners of design-build

projects in Singapore. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 164-173.

Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a

discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328-335. Retrieved 1 October

2012

Lundy, J. C., Jr., & Padgitt, K. (2003). Revenue Tests for Contractors: Small Contractor or

Small Contract? Construction Accounting & Taxation, 13(6), 5-12. Retrieved 5

October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/ehomebi/profil/artikel3.cfm

http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/article/10.1680/mpal.2011.164.2.99

http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/article/10.1680/mpal.2011.164.2.99

Appendix

350

Lyons, M. (2009). Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches

to Reconstruction. World Development, 37(2), 385-398. Retrieved 1 October 2009

MacKie III, J. G. (1985). Liability of construction professionals under the implied warranty

of habitability. Mississippi College law review, 5(2), 135.

Mahamud, R., & Abdul Ghani, S. (2004). Pengaruh Insentif Keatas Pasaran Harta Tanah

Perumahan. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang. Retrieved from Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia ePrints database. Retrieved from

http://eprints.utm.my/1090/1/Rosadah_Mahamud.pdf

Mahmood, A., & Hussin, A. A. (2004). Pembangunan Harta Tanah: Perundangan dan

Prosedur Pengurusan (1st. ed.). Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Malthouse, E. (2001). Checking assumptions of normality before conducting factor analyses.

Journal of consumer psychology, 10(1-2), 8. Retrieved 20/10/2012

Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on

Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation

modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851-858. Retrieved

9/10/2012

Marohabutr, T. (2008). Bangkok’s Housing Market and Its Trend: A Slowdown from

Recovery since 1997 Economic Crisis. Housing Express(September 2008), 9.

Retrieved 22 September 2009

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on

Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers

in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings. Structural Equation Modeling:

A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320-341. Retrieved 2012/10/08

McGreevey, S. L. (2005). The myth of the one-year warranty and other construction warranty

issues. Probate and property, 19(4), 41.

Melikov, A. K. (2004). Personalized ventilation. Indoor Air, 14, 157-167.

Mendonça, P., & Bragança, L. (2007). Sustainable housing with mixedweight strategy--A

case study. Building and Environment, 42(9), 3432-3443. Retrieved 23 July 2010,

from ScienceDirect database.

Meng, X. (2002). Guarantees for Contractor’s Performance and Owner’s Payment in China.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3), 232-237. Retrieved 5

October 2012

Metri, B. A. (2005). TQM Critical Success Factors for Construction Firms. Management :

Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 10(2), 61-72. Retrieved 2 October

2012, from ProQuest Central database.

http://eprints.utm.my/1090/1/Rosadah_Mahamud.pdf

Appendix

351

MHLG (1999a). Housing in the New Millennium - Malaysian Perspective. Retrieved 10

March 2010, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel3.cfm

MHLG (1999b). Towards Successful Housing Development in Malaysia. Retrieved 10 March

2010, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel4.cfm

Miller, M. J. (NA). Reliability and Validity, RES 600: Graduate Research Methods (pp. 3).

Phoenix, Arizona: Western International University.

Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia (2011). Pekeliling Perbendaharaan Bil. 5 Tahun 2011. In

Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia (Ed.) (pp. 86). Putrajaya: Ministry of Finance

Malaysia.

Mohamed, S. (2002). Safety Climate in Construction Site Environments. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 128(5), 375-384. Retrieved 5 October

2012

Mohammed, K. A., & Isah, A. D. (2012). Causes of Delay in Nigeria Construction Industry.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(2), 785-794. from



Mohd Nor, K. (2008). Self-certification versus private certification doctrines on the issuance

of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance for buildings in Malaysia. Journal of

Building Appraisal, 4(2), 125-131. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM


Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2009). Assessment of residential satisfaction in

newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat

International, In Press, Corrected Proof

Mohit, M. A., & Nazyddah, N. (2011). Social housing programme of Selangor Zakat Board

of Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,

26(2), 143-164. Retrieved 5/10/2012

Moore, D. R. (2008). Project Management : Designing Effective Organizational Structures in

Construction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

MoTM (2009). Malaysia My Second Home Programme: House

Purchase.http://www.mm2h.gov.my/incentive1.php

Munaaim, M. E. C. (2006). Payment woes among Malaysian contractors. Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved from

http://eprints.utm.my/4983/1/MuhammadEhsanCheMunaamKPFKA2006TTT.pdf

Mutum, D. S. (2011). Non-normal data and SEM. Retrieved 19/10/2012, from

http://www.dilipmutum.com/2011/07/normality-issues-in-sem.html

http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel3.cfm

http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel4.cfm

http://www.mm2h.gov.my/incentive1.php

http://eprints.utm.my/4983/1/MuhammadEhsanCheMunaamKPFKA2006TTT.pdf

http://www.dilipmutum.com/2011/07/normality-issues-in-sem.html

Appendix

352

NAPIC (2009). NAPIC Overall Statistics. In V. a. P. S. D. NAPIC, Ministry of Finance,

Malaysia (Ed.). Putrajaya: Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of

Finance, Malaysia.

Natarelli, J., & Mercado, R. S. C. P. A. C. (2007). Why construction contractors fail.

Construction Accounting & Taxation, 17(6), 37-42. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from


Natividade-Jesus, E., Coutinho-Rodrigues, J., & Antunes, C. H. (2007). A multicriteria

decision support system for housing evaluation. Decision Support Systems, 43(3),

779-790.

NCLT (2009). Housing Ladder: Types of Properties Retrieved 6 September 2009, from

http://www.nclt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43

Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., & Do Thi Xuan, L. (2004). A study on project success

factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 11(6), 404-413. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest

Central database.

Nielsen, K. R. (2006). Risk management: lessons from six continents. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 22(2), 61-67. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Inspec

database.

Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2010). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk

assessment. International Journal of Project Management, In Press, Corrected Proof

Nissen, S. (2007). Standing tall in the competition for contractors. American Agent & Broker,

79(7), 32-34,36. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R. (2005). A `mass custom design' approach to

upgrading conventional housing development in Mexico. Habitat International,

29(2), 325-336.

NRE (2010b). National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations. Petaling Jaya:

International Law Book Services.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Leary, A. F. (1998). Construction delay and time extensions. Design Cost Data, 42(6), 44-

44. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &


OCASI (2009). What are the different types of housing available? Retrieved 6 September

2009, from http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4000328

Ofori, G. (2001). Indicators for measuring construction industry development in developing

countries. Building Research & Information, 29(1), 40-50. Retrieved 2012/11/20

http://www.nclt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43

http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4000328

Appendix

353

Ofori, G., & Han, S. S. (2003). Testing hypotheses on construction and development using

data on China's provinces, 1990-2000. Habitat International, 27(1), 37-62. Retrieved

21 July 2010, from ScienceDirect database.

Ogu, V. I., & Ogbuozobe, J. E. (2001). Housing policy in Nigeria: towards enablement of

private housing development. Habitat International, 25(4), 473-492.

Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation

of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321-

328.

Ong, H. C., & Lenard, D. (2002). Partnerships between Stakeholders in the Provision of and

Access to Affordable Housing in Malaysia. Paper presented at the FIG 2002

International Congress. Washington D.C. U.S.A. Retrieved 10 November 2009, from

http://www.fig.net/pub/fig_2002/TS10-2/TS10_2_ong_lenard.pdf

Othman, A. A., Torrance, J. V., & Hamid, M. A. (2006). Factors influencing the construction

time of civil engineering projects in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 13(5), 481-501. Retrieved 12 December 2011

Padhi, S. S., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2009). Centralized construction contractor selection

considering past performance of contractors: a case of India. Operational Research,

9(2), 199-224. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM

Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.

Palaneeswaran, E., Ng, T., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2006). Client satisfaction and quality

management systems in contractor organizations. Building and Environment, 41(11),

1557-1570.

Permentier, M., Bolt, G., & van Ham, M. (2011). Determinants of Neighbourhood

Satisfaction and Perception of Neighbourhood Reputation. Urban Studies, 48(5), 977-

996.

Pertubuhan_Akitek_Malaysia (1998). PAM Form of Contract. In P. A. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp.

20). Kuala Lumpur.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success and definition and measurement

techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-71.

Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & English, B. (2009). Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of

owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6),

638-648. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.

PMI (1996). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA: Newton Square.

PMOM (2009). REHDA Malaysia 39th Aniversary Dinner. Retrieved 7 September 2009,

from

http://www.pmo.gov.my/?menu=speech&page=1676&news_id=157&speech_cat=2

http://www.fig.net/pub/fig_2002/TS10-2/TS10_2_ong_lenard.pdf

http://www.pmo.gov.my/?menu=speech&page=1676&news_id=157&speech_cat=2

Appendix

354

Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (1998). Factors impacting construction

project duration: a comparison between France, Germany and the u.k. Building and

Environment, 34(2), 197-204.

PWD (1983a). Standard Form of Contract to be used for Contract Based on Drawings and

Specifications: PWD Form 203 (Rev. 10/83). In P. W. Department (Ed.) (pp. 32).

Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Percetakan Negara.

PWD (1983b). Standard Form of Contract to be used where Bills of Quantities form part of

the Contract: PWD Form 203A (Rev. 10/83) Contract. In P. W. Department (Ed.) (pp.

2). Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Negara.

Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion. Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272-290.

Rachelle, C. (2006). Steaming on ahead Thuringowa developments surge, Townsville

Bulletin.

Rahman, M. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). Potential for implementing relational

contracting and joint risk management. Journal of Management in Engineering,

20(4), 178-189. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village database.

Rand, E. C., Hirano, S., & Kelman, I. (2011). Post-tsunami housing resident satisfaction in

Aceh. International Development Planning Review, 33(2), 187-211. Retrieved 4

October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Rebecca Thatcher, E. (2001). The ins and outs of functional completion. Engineered Systems,

18(10), 30-30. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM

Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.

Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of

design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123-139.

Reed, R., & Mills, A. (2007). Identifying the drivers behind housing preferences of first-time

owners. Property Management, 25(3), 225-241.

Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item

response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.

Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552-566. Retrieved 8/10/2012, from pdh database.

Reuschke, D. (2012). Dwelling conditions and preferences in a multilocational way of life for

job reasons. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(1), 11-30. Retrieved

5/10/2012

Ribeiro Ferreira, M. L., & Rogerson, J. H. (1999). The quality management role of the owner

in different types of construction contract for process plant. Total Quality

Management, 10(3), 401-411. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;


Appendix

355

Ringen, K., Seegal, J., & England, A. (1995). Safety and Health in the Construction Industry.

Annual Review of Public Health, 16(1), 165-188.

Rojanamon, P., Chaisomphob, T., & Bureekul, T. (2012). Public participation in development

of small infrastructure projects. Sustainable Development, 20(5), 320-334.

Salgado, C. A. (2005). Construction project organizational structuring. Unpublished

3178730, University of Maryland, College Park, United States -- Maryland. Retrieved


Industry; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.

Retrieved from


2383?accountid=13380

Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Critical Success

Factors for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 118(1), 94-111.

Schattan P. Coelho, V., & Favareto, A. (2008). Questioning the Relationship between

Participation and Development: A case study of the Vale do Ribeira, Brazil. World

Development, 36(12), 2937-2952.

Schaufelberger, J. E. (2000a). Delivering quality school projects (pp. 603-610). Orlando, FL,

United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)65

Schaufelberger, J. E. (2000b). Strategies for successful partnering relationships (pp. 463-

470). Orlando, FL, United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7

July 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)50

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation

modelling (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Serpell, A. (1999). Integrating quality systems in construction projects: the Chilean case.

International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 317-322.

Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J Shenhar, A. (1994). Anatomy of decision making in project

planning teams. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 172-182.

Shirazi, B., Langford, D. A., & Rowlinson, S. M. (1996). Organizational structures in the

construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 14(3), 199-212.

Retrieved 2012/11/10

Shuid, S. (2004). Low Medium Cost Housing in Malaysia: Issues and Challanges. Paper

presented at the APNHR Conference. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

from http://www.iut.nu/Malaysia_low%20cost%20housing.pdf

Simpson, G. W., Henke, M., Beamer, A., & Bennett, R. (2004). Public involvement - A

critical success factor for urban pipeline design and construction San Diego, CA,



http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)65

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)50

http://www.iut.nu/Malaysia_low%20cost%20housing.pdf

Appendix

356

United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40574(2001)67

Singh, D., & Tiong, R. (2006). Contractor Selection Criteria: Investigation of Opinions of

Singapore Construction Practitioners. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 132(9), 998-1008.

Sloman, K. N. (2010). Research trends in descriptive analysis [Report]. The Behavior Analyst

Today, 11(1), 20+. Retrieved 2012/10/8, from Health Reference Center Academic

database.

Smith, C. (1998). Building your home: An insider’s guide. Washington, DC: Home Builder

Press.

Smith, C., Dunnett, N., & Clayden, A. (2008). Residential Landscape Sustainability : A

Checklist Tool. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell

Song, L., Mohamed, Y., & AbouRizk, S. M. (2006). Evaluating Contractor's Early

Involvement in Design. AACE International Transactions, PMS61-PMS68. from



Soper, R. J., Davis, T., Jackson, P., Vraspir, A. L., & Goan, R. (1992). Panel discussion:

construction contract trends for the 90s (pp. 219-220). New York, NY, USA: IEEE.

Retrieved 7 July 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PAPCON.1992.186302

SPNB (2009). Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad: Mission & Vision. Retrieved 7

September 2009, from http://www.spnb.com.my/eng/corporate/about_mission.htm

Stauffer, M., Grimm, P., & White, D. (1977). Owner's quality assurance as a tool for

technology transfer. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 4(6-8), 283-287.

Stephens, K. (2010). Sterling not ready to settle on low bid: School board plans to instead

negotiate with contractor for best deal. McClatchy - Tribune Business News, from




Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (4th ed.).

Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Stewin, O. Y. L. (1988). Reliability and Validity: Misnomers for qualitative research.

Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 20(2), 61 - 67.

Stiegler, M. H. (2000). Contractor's delay prejudices owners. Civil Engineering, 70(6), 74-74.



Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40574(2001)67

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PAPCON.1992.186302

http://www.spnb.com.my/eng/corporate/about_mission.htm



Appendix

357

Sufian, A., & Rahman, R. A. (2008). Quality Housing: Regulatory and Administrative

Framework in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2(1),

141-156. Retrieved 4 January 2010, from UPM eprints database.

Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis? Paper presented at the

SUGI 31. San Francisco. Retrieved 8/10/2012, from

http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200-31.pdf

Sweeney, N. J. (2000). Owner participation required. Water Environment & Technology,

12(9), 66. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from ProQuest database.

Tabish, S. Z. S., & Jha, K. N. (2011). Identification and evaluation of success factors for

public construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 29(8), 809-

823. Retrieved 2012/11/21

Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ho, C. S. (2000). Quest for continuous quality

improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong. Construction

Management & Economics, 18(4), 437-446. Retrieved 5 October 2009

Tan, T.-H. (2008). Determinants of homeownership in Malaysia. Habitat International,

32(3), 318-335.

Tan, Y., Shen, L., & Yao, H. (2011). Sustainable construction practice and contractors’

competitiveness: A preliminary study. Habitat International, 35(2), 225-230.

Retrieved 5 October 2012

Tan, Y. C. (2006). Improving Real Estate Project Delivery in Malaysia: Analysis,

Comparison and Selecting the Best Method. Unpublished Monograph, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Massachusetts. Retrieved from

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37446/123446723.pdf?sequence=1

Tarakson, S. (2005). Building a new home. Australian Parents, 90-90. Retrieved 23

September 2009

Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., & Ries, R. (2009). Environmental decision making in multi-

stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and

implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), 67-76.

Theresa Keoughan, B., Pegg, I., & Martin, J. L. N. (2006). Predicting Construction Duration

of Building Projects. AACE International Transactions, PS151-PS157. from



Thompson, C. B. (2009). Descriptive Data Analysis. Air Medical Journal, 28(2), 56-59.

Retrieved 8/10/2012

Thompson, T. (2004). Practical completion in building contracts: a legal definition?

Construction law journal, 20(6), 301.

http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200-31.pdf

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37446/123446723.pdf?sequence=1

Appendix

358

Tisma, A., Bijlsma, L., & Dammers, E. (2007). Private initiatives in housing developments in

The Netherlands and the role of directed urban design43rd ISOCARP Congress 2007

(p. 7). Antwerp, Belgium. from http://www.china-

up.com/international/case/case/1008.pdf

Toole, T. (2002). Construction Site Safety Roles. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 128(3), 203-210. Retrieved 5 October 2012

Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). Construction professionals' perception of critical

success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction Innovation, 9(2),

149-167. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Trigunarsyah, B. (2004a). Project owners' role in improving constructability of construction

projects: an example analysis for Indonesia. Construction Management & Economics,

22(8), 861-876. Retrieved 9 July 2010, from Business Source Elite database.

Tryfos, P. (1997). Chapter 14 Factor Analysis. 22. Retrieved 29 December 2010, from

http://www.yorku.ca/ptryfos/f1400.pdf

Turin, D. A. (1973). The construction industry: Its economic significance and its role in

development (2nd. ed.). London: University College Environmental Research Group.

Turpin, J. R. (2008). Credit Crunch Worries Contractors. Air Conditioning, Heating &

Refrigeration News, 233(13), 1-25. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from ProQuest Central

database.

Twinn, S. (1997). An exploratory study examining the influence of translation on the validity

and reliability of qualitative data in nursing research [Article]. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 26(2), 418-423. from afh database.

Twomey, M. (2006). Keeping Construction Projects on Schedule. Area Development Site and

Facility Planning, 41(3), 103-105. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM


Ubani, E. C. (2011). Empirical Analysis of Success Factors in the Implementation of Total

Quality Management in Construction Industries in Nigeria. Interdisciplinary Journal

of Contemporary Research In Business, 2(12), 182-192. Retrieved 2 October 2012,


Ulichkin, G. M. (1981). Building failure due to erroneous design solutions. Soil Mechanics

and Foundation Engineering, 18(3), 92-96.

Venhaus, H. L. (2012). Designing the Sustainable Site : Integrated Design Strategies for

Small Scale Sites and Residential Landscapes. Hoboken: Wiley

Vennström, A., & Eriksson, P. E. (2010). Client perceived barriers to change of the

construction process. Construction Innovation, 10(2), 126-137. from ABI/INFORM


database.

http://www.china-up.com/international/case/case/1008.pdf

http://www.china-up.com/international/case/case/1008.pdf

http://www.yorku.ca/ptryfos/f1400.pdf

Appendix

359

Vestergaard, H. (2006). Single-family detached housing - A branch of paradise or a problem?

In J. Doling & E. Elsinga (Eds.), Home ownership. Getting in, getting from, getting

out. Part II. (pp. 30). Hoersholm: Delft University Press. Retrieved 22 September

2009

VPSD (2005 - 2009). Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report. In M. o. F. M. Valuation

and Property Services Department (Ed.). Putrajaya: Valuation and Property Services

Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.

VPSD (2010). Siaran Media: Pasaran Harta Tanah Malaysia 2009. Putrajaya: Valuation and

Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.

Walraven, A., & de Vries, B. (2009). From demand driven contractor selection towards value

driven contractor selection. Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 597-

604. Retrieved 2012/11/10

Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International Journal

of Project Management, 16(1), 59-63.

Wei Tong, C., & Tung-Tsan, C. (2007). Critical success factors for construction partnering in

Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 475-484. Retrieved 7

July 2010, from Engineering Village database.

West, N. J. N. (2012). Evaluating the value of contractor involvement in the design phase.

Iowa State University, Iowa. Retrieved from

http://publications.cce.iastate.edu/bitstream/123456789/162/1/Nicola%20West%20M

aster%27s%20Thesis.pdf

Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical

success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411-418.

Wong, A. (2008). Significant Changes to Housing Act, REDHA Bulletin (March 2008 ed., pp.

12). Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Real Estate & Housing Developers' Association

Malaysia.

Wroblaski, K. (2011). Are Consultants Worth the Cost? Buildings, 105(2), 24-24. from



Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7(3), 153-162.

Xiao, H., & Proverbs, D. (2003). Factors influencing contractor performance: an international

investigation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), 322-


Xiaojin, W., & Jing, H. (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders' project

performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising

engineers. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 253-260. Retrieved

12 July 2010, from Inspec database.

http://publications.cce.iastate.edu/bitstream/123456789/162/1/Nicola%20West%20Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf

http://publications.cce.iastate.edu/bitstream/123456789/162/1/Nicola%20West%20Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf

Appendix

360

Yang, B., & Li, M.-H. (2010). Ecological engineering in a new town development: Drainage

design in The Woodlands, Texas. Ecological Engineering, 36(12), 1639-1650.

Yasamis, F., Arditi, D., & Mohammadi, J. (2002). Assessing contractor quality performance.


Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Designs and Methods (4th. ed.). California: SAGE

Publications Inc.

Yong, Y. C., & Mustaffa, N. E. (2012). Analysis of factors critical to construction project

success in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,

19(5), 534-556.

Yu, Q., Yu, X., & Jinghua, W. (2006). Regulation of Construction Completion Acceptance.

China Law & Practice, 1-1. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;


Zamhari, A. (2008, April - August 2008). Dasar Baru Perumahan Negara. Housing

Development Corporation Buletin, p. 28. from

http://www.hdc.sarawak.gov.my/hdc%20bulletin/apr-aug%202008.pdf

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2008). Contractor selection of construction

in a competitive environment. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(3),

181-187. Retrieved 2012/11/10

Zety Fazilah, B. (2000). Residential property market growth slows. Business Times, pp. 04-

04. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from


2863?accountid=13380, from ProQuest Central database.

Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction

projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601-614.

http://www.hdc.sarawak.gov.my/hdc%20bulletin/apr-aug%202008.pdf



SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM MSc. (Project ... · SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM MSc. (Project Management), BSc. (Building), Dip. (Quantity Survey) Assoc. Prof. Bambang

Documents