This study is aiming to identify the major causes of delays in construction projects in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. It investigates the opinions of different stakeholders separately to ensure partiality and objectivity. The study concentrates on the reasons for regional delays rather than nationwide or globally. This would help draw a clearer picture of the delay problem facing construction projects and assist decision-makers in the building industry to draw an appropriate strategy to deal with the problem.

Saudi Arabia's construction industry is experiencing rapid expansion, with no shortage of contracts in any sector, either from housing or utilities to transport infrastructure. Public spending is driving the contracting industry forward [4]. The construction industry contributed between 30% to 40% of the non-oil productive sectors at the end of each National Development Plan from 1980 to 2000 [5]. Makkah is the most populous city in Saudi Arabia, with an area of 1200 km² and a population of 1,675,000 people. Muslims from across the globe travel to Makkah to perform the annual Hajj. Makkah receives around two million pilgrims during the annual Hajj and more than 20 million visitors for performing Umrah [6].

Substantial public funds have been spent on construction projects to develop Makkah during recent years. Real estate, infrastructure, hospitals, and retail sectors are among those most likely to benefit. Most of these projects suffered from delays and their consequences. The Saudi Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) and the Ministry of Transportation acknowledged public construction project delays. They reported that approximately 75% of them exceeded their scheduled time. This is one of the main reasons to conduct this study. Delays often resulted in time overrun, cost overrun, disputes, litigation, and sometimes complete abandonment of projects [2]. Delays have a direct impact on the expected output and revenues as the contractors are relying on a limited number of projects.

Ahmed et al. [7] concluded in their study in the USA that the main reasons for the delay are; building permits approval, change of orders, changes in drawings, incomplete documents, inspections, changes in specifications, decisions during the development stage, shop drawing approval, design development and change in-laws, and regulations. Faridi and El-Sayegh [8] also conducted a study in the USA, and they concluded that the approval of drawings is the main causer of delay along with slowness of the owners, shortage of workforce, skill shortages, material shortages, building permits approval, financing by the contractor during construction and the productivity of labor.

Bromilow [9] observed that only one-eighth of the building projects in Australia were completed on time, and the averages time overrun on the projects exceeded 40%. Bordoli and Baldwin [10] found that the average time overrun of government construction projects in the UK during 1993-1994 was 23.2%. Eliis and Thomas [11], in their study on root causes of delays in highway projects in the USA, observed that time overrun in 150 projects averaged 272 days or 25% of contract duration.

Doloi et al. [12] studied the cases of delay in India. They concluded that unrealistic schedule imposed, slow decisions from the owner, unforeseen ground conditions, and delay in shop drawings approval. Low labor productivity, delay in material procurement by the contractor as the leading causes of delay.

Sambasivan and Soon [2] in Malaysia investigated ten significant causes of delays; and concluded that the most significant delays are poor management and inadequate planning. Sepasgozar et al. [13] argued that outdated construction technologies are the main factors causing the delay in construction projects.

Elinwa and Joshua [14] found that the degree of time overrun in Nigeria is between 80% and 90%. This means that only 10 to 20% of construction projects finish on schedule time. Koushki et al. [15] conducted a study of 450 private residential housing projects in Kuwait. They found that more than 56% of the projects did not complete on scheduled time, and about 44% of the projects were delayed by four months or more; one-third of the projects were delayed by more than six months.

Aibinu and Odeyinka [16] investigated the causes of delay in Nigeria. They summarized the leading causes of delay as the contractor's financial difficulties, the delay of the cash flow by the owner, incomplete drawings by the designer, slow mobilization, equipment breakdown and maintenance problems, late delivery of ordered material, and incomplete structural drawings. Mohammed and Isah [17] concluded in their study in Nigeria that improper planning, lack of effective communication, shortage of supply like steel, concrete, design factors, slow decision-making, financial issues, lack of information on design drawings, cash flow problems during construction and shortage of material are the main factors of delay.

Frimpong and Olywoye [18] studied the causes of delay in Ghana. They identified the leading causes of delay as monthly payment delays, inadequate contract management, financial difficulties by the contractors, planning and scheduling difficulties, cash flow during construction, and Inflation.

In Egypt, Abd El-Razek et al. [1] investigated the leading causes of delay in various kinds of construction projects from the point of view of different stakeholders. The overall findings indicated that the most leading causes of delay are financing the projects during construction, delays in reimbursement by the owner, the change of the initial design by owners during construction, and lack of professional management protocols. The contractor and owner were found to have conflicting views, holding each other responsible for delays, while the consultant had a more objective view. The outcome of the study indicated that teamwork is needed to minimize delays occurrence in construction projects. Furthermore, the project size is one of the parameters considered in evaluating delay analysis.

Tumi et al. [19] found that inadequate planning, financial issues, design errors, slow decision making, lack of effective communication, and supply shortage ranked the highest causer of delay in Libya.

Assaf et al. [20] conducted a study of the delay in construction projects in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia through a questionnaire survey of contractors’ and consultants’ feedback. In their study, 76% of the contractors and 56% of the consultants specified a delay ranging between 10% to 30%, and about 25% of the consultants specified a delay of 30% to 50% of the original contract duration.

The objective of this study is to conduct a detailed survey of all possible delay factors. The total number of these factors is seventy, classified into eight significant categories: The owner, consultant designer, supervisor, contractor, material, labor, and site. The surveys include a questionnaire on the opinions of three main stakeholders: the owners, the contractors, and the consultants. These questionnaires are to be conducted separately for each stakeholder group to ensure impartiality and objectivity. The questionnaires are to be organized in the form of an importance scale from one to five. Respondents are to indicate their responses by ticking a column of the impact and frequency of each of the causes of construction delay. The results are then processed using the Relative Importance Index. The highest-ranking factors in impact and frequency are to be identified and evaluated.

Table 15 shows the top ten delay RII impact factors globally found from the owner’s response. All the ten RII for the impact are high. This indicates the high effect of these factors. None of the ten delay factors are related to the owner. This may cast doubt on this evaluation. Therefore, these findings need to be verified by considering the responses of other stakeholders. The top three factors in their impacts are found to be (1) low productivity of labor (RII = 0.92), (2) lack of evaluation in increase and decrease in the schedule periodically (RII = 0.88), (3) late start and early finish (RII = 0.88). The first and second are related to the labor group, and the third is related to the contractor group.

Table 16 shows the highest ten delay RII factors related to frequencies out of seventy delay factors from the owner perspective. Only one out of ten is attributed to the owners. The highest three in frequency RII are (1) Late start and early finish (RII = 0.83), (2) Late salary and compensation (RII = 0.82), (3) Size of work is more than the resources owned by the contractor (RII = 0.8). Although it is common in project delays that blame is put on the sub-contractors, the ultimate responsibility is on the main contractor according to the regulations of Saudi contracts.

Fig. (1) shows the average RII for the impact and frequency of the eight categories. The contractor is the main influential factor in project delays from the owner's point of view, both in impact and frequency.

Labor comes second with relatively close values to the contactor values. Materials come third in impact but low in frequency, indicating low occurrence and thus fewer delay occurrences. In the overall average of the impact index of all groups, the highest was the delays caused by the contractor group, followed by delays caused by labor, and finally delays related to consultant supervisor groups. The overall average of the frequency index of all groups seems to be relatively low. However, the highest rank of frequency index is related to delays caused by the contractors, followed by labor, and thirdly by the consultant supervisor. The objectivity of these results needs to be compared and verified with the results obtained from the rest of the stakeholders who participated in the surveys.

Table 17 shows the top ten delay RII impact factors globally found from the contractor response. All the ten RII for the impact are high. This indicates the high effect of these factors. None of the ten delay factors are related to the contractor. This may cast doubt on this evaluation. Therefore, these findings need to be verified by considering the responses of other stakeholders. The top three factors in their impacts are found to be (1) delay in decision-making commensurate with the agreement of the parties to the project (RII = 0.89), (2) unqualified and unskilled workforce (RII = 0.87), (3) low productivity of labor (RII = 0.87). The first is related to the owner group, second and third are related to the labor group. It is evident from Table 11 that all the top ten delay factors RII values are very close to each other and range between 0.86 and 0.89.

Fig. (1). Average RII for the impact and frequency of the eight categories from the owner perspective.

Table 18 shows the highest ten delay RII factors related to frequencies out of seventy delay factors from the contractor’s perspective. Five out of ten are attributed to the contractor, including the top two. These findings seem to be reliable because they contain self-admission by the contractors. The highest three in frequency RII are (1) delays related to subcontractors' works (RII = 0.84), (2) poor management of the site and lack of distribution of tasks (RII = 0.82), (3) workers used for more extended hours (RII = 0.81). Although it is common in project delays that blame is put on the sub-contractors, the ultimate responsibility is on the main contractor according to the regulation of Saudi contracts (Fig. 2).

Fig. (2). Average RII for the impact and frequency of the eight categories from the contractor perspective.

Table 19 shows the top ten delay factors globally found from the responses from the consultant supervisors. All the ten RII for the impact are high. This indicates the high effect of these factors. Eight out of ten of them are related to the contractor. This may cast doubt on this evaluation. Therefore, these findings need to be verified by considering the responses of other stakeholders. The top three factors in their impacts are found to be (1) difficulties in financing the projects (RII = 0.91), (2) poor site management, and lack of distribution of tasks (RII = 0.89), (3) low productivity of labor (RII = 0.86). The first two are delay factors related to the contractor group, and the third is related to the labor group.

Table 20 shows the highest ten delay RII factors related to frequencies out of seventy delay factors from the consultant supervisor perspective. Nine out of ten are attributed to the contractor. The highest three in frequency RII are (1) delays related to sub-contractor work (RII = 0.74), (2) Poor estimate of task duration and scheduling (RII = 0.72), (3) Lack of risk evaluation (RII = 0.72). These findings need to be compared with the responses of other stakeholders to evaluate the validity of one opinion.

Fig. (3) shows the overall average impact and frequency of the eight categories, namely, owner, consultant supervisor, designer, contractor, labor, material, site, and external factors. In the overall average impact index, the highest was the delays due to the contractor group, followed by delays due to labor, and thirdly, delays related to the designer category.

The overall average of the frequency index of most groups seems relatively low. The highest was attributed to the contractor, the second to the labor, and the third to the owner. The outcome of this analysis is based on the consultant's opinion; therefore, the objectivity of these findings needs to be compared and verified with the results obtained from the survey of other stakeholders.

Fig. (3). Average RII for the impact and frequency of the eight categories from consultant supervisor perspective.

The evaluation of the three separate surveys conducted on the owner, the contractors, and the consultant supervisor shows that the contractor is mainly responsible for the delay. Around 47% of the top ten delay factors fall in the contractor delay factors followed by laborers and owners. Fig. (4) summarizes the percentage of the delay categories. Three categories have not been mentioned in the top ten as delay category, including supervisors, materials, and external factors. Only one delay factor was found to be shared among the three-survey group, which is related to the labor category, that is, low productivity of labor.

Also, in frequency, the contractor category occupied the highest percentage with 70% of the total contributors. This and the rest of the delay contribution in the frequency of each category are presented in Fig. (5). Only one delay factor was found to be shared among the three survey groups, which are related to the contractor category, that is, the lack of risk evaluation by the contractor.

Fig. (4). The percentage of the delay contribution in the impact of each category.

Fig. (5). The percentage of the delay contribution in the frequency of each category.