







































  American International Journal of Business and Management Studies  

Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

ISSN 2641-4937     E-ISSN 2641-4953 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

52 
 

Analyzing the Performance of Mega Construction Projects in 

Oman: A Study of Selected Projects from Oil & Gas Sector 
 

 

Ahmed Salim Al Saeedi  

PhD Research Fellow 

Binary University of Management and Entrepreneurship, Malaysia   

 

 

Asif Mahbub Karim PhD 

Dean and Associate Professor  

Binary University of Management and Entrepreneurship, Malaysia   

 

 

Abstract 

This study investigates Omani O&G project’s performance and analyzes the most common time and cost overrun 

causes. In addition, the effects of delays are examined further along with the key enablers for efficient project delivery. 

This study adopts a mix method of research to improve the level of credibility of the study. A sample of 160 

respondents is employed following both quantitative and qualitative method where a well-structured questionnaire 

was used for interviews with the concerned personnel. Following the quantitative method, this study revealed that 8% 

of the respondents, says the projects have completed ON time where the response rate was 80%. Besides, the 

qualitative part backed up this data as most of them have experienced delay of 3 months to 2 years of delay. For cost, 

3% of the respondents have experienced projects finishing ON budget and the interviewees have expressed that the 

average cost overrun is between 10%-30%. In terms of time overrun group factors, the top group time-overrun factors 

among all the three parties are management factors, where it is ranked first by all stakeholders. The sub-group factor 

that affects more is the project planning and control. Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering factor is 

ranked first with main contractor and second with both the client and engineering firms. This factor is most factors 

that has similar ranking between all. As matter of fact is the only factor that exists between in the top 10 among all 

stakeholders. This study claimed that understanding the scope of work of the project properly and giving its time to 

be grasped by the contractors is one of the key solutions to tackle the top factor of this research. Also, the SOW must 

be detailed as possible to avoid any conflict between the parties, one of the recommended details to have WBS 

included.  

 

Keywords: Mega Construction Projects, Oil & Gas Sector, Delay, Management Factors, Overrun Group Factors, 

Oman. 

 

1. Introduction 

Since Oman is a developing country like any other neighboring country, many projects are in progress and many of 

them are yet to go underway. It also struggles with same phenomenon of overruns. Mega Construction Projects in 

Oman of public and private sectors suffer from time & cost Overrun. Oyegoke et al. (2017) listed five important 

projects that didn’t complete on the agreed date. One of them has a delay as many as over six years. In a case study 

conducted by (Alnuaimi & Almohsin, 2013)in Construction Projects, the delay was around 59% in 2007-2008 period 

and 42 % in 2009-2010.And for the years after 2011 till 2014, in 40 construction public projects, 38% of them suffered 

an over run in schedule (Ruqaishi & Bashir, 2014). For the oil and gas projects in Oman, there is no formal record 

found indicating the performance of such projects, however, based on the following, the researcher is safe to say that 

there is significant time and budget overrun in O&G projects as well. 

Furthermore, there are four levels of project being successful according to: level one is achieving the basic 

triangle of Project management (Time, Budget, Quality and Scope) asking the question: Has the project met these 

targets. Second level has to do with aftermath of the project, has it been a bad experience for stakeholders (project 

team, client and others)? Has there been many conflicts within, and has project resources been utilized properly? If 

the answer is no, according to the author even if the project met its level one targets, this might not be considered as 

successful one. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

53 
 

End user satisfaction is the third level. The project has to solve the original problem to per customer needs otherwise 

it would be a failure, the following question must be answered: was the completed product is really the one the end 

user want? The last and not the least level is the organizational improvement according to the author. Have the lessons 

learnt been captured and maintained properly in order to be used for future projects? Will the same mistakes be 

repeated? 

 

1.1 Research Objectives 

▪ To identify the factors contributing to delay in mega construction projects in O&G sector. 

▪ To identify consequences of delay in mega construction projects in O&G sector. 

▪ To investigate the Factors causing delay in mega construction projects in O&G sector. 

▪ To assess consequences of delay in mega construction projects in O&G sector. 

▪ To develop the practical frameworks of improving project performance in construction industries in Oman. 

 

2. Literature Review 

2.1 Project Success and Performance   

Scholars and experts in project management have not reached on one agreement on what a project success is (Chan et 

al., 2004; Lientz and Rea, 1995). A.Ika (2009) and Lientz & Rea (1995) have pointed out the concept of project success 

a quite ambiguous and vague. McCoy (1996) claimed that it is important that to identify the “criteria” on which to 

consider a project is successful or not. De Wit (1988) also claimed that “success criteria” has to do with Project success 

while “success factors” is dealt with the project management success. Cook-Davies (2002) defined Success criteria 

are those “measures” that the success of a project is “judged” against whereas success factors as “those inputs to the 

management system that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the project or business”. 

In one of project management Journals, by (A.IKa, 2009), where he reviewed articles between 1986-2004, 

one of the findings had been that the term "Project Success" has been used to mean more than just "iron triangle" . 

Project success has involved many other factors like the client satisfaction with other stakeholders (just like what Gary 

(R.Heerkens, 2002)said. In addition, the author argued that it is not necessary if a project failed in terms of time and 

cost, to be considered as failure. He mentioned an example of Sydney Opera house where it miserably failed its basic 

targets of time and cost. However, this project has turned out to be one of the best projects in Australia and attracts 

many tourists every year. IKA (2009) has drawn distinction between Project Management Success and Project 

Success, where he considered PMS is all about the Iron triangle while PS as the more comprehensive meaning which 

covers more than the iron triangle.  

 

2.2 Overall time and cost factors for Oil and Gas  

The average delay in oil and gas projects ranges from 5-20% (Salama, et al., 2008), however it is been found that the 

average of delay in some Iranian petrochemical plants were around 63% of the planned (Naimi, et al., 2008) and only 

four projects have been completed on time out of thirty four projects, and that is huge. In terms of budget, it has been 

found that average of cost overrun is 18% among 200 projects studied in oil and gas business (Rui, et al., 2016). 

Although it has been mentioned construction projects are all similar, the assumption is that the main causes 

of time overrun in oil and gas projects are different from the rest (Salama, et al., 2008). Moreover, It has been found 

that in Execution phase, the time slippage occurs more than other phase of the project (Salama, et al., 2008)and the 

construction phase out of the execution phase is the main concern in a project cycle (Pham & Hadikusumo, 2014).Also, 

according Independent project analysis (IPA) 2011 78% of Oil and Gas projects especially the upstream one suffered 

either from time or cost overrun (EY report in 2014, EYGM limited) and in the same report, it reveals that Middle 

east region has a more delay percentage than the mentioned above percentage. There is a real necessity to analyze the 

oil and gas project performance, one for the cliché that says time means money, second there has been limited studies. 

64% of O&G Mega projects facing cost overrun and 73% in schedule in the world, where Middle East is the worst 

region in that department: 87% proportion of projects suffers from time overrun and 89% in cost (EY report in 2014).  

 

2.3 Features of Mega projects in Oil and Gas  

Oil and Gas Mega projects have similar features to other type of industries with perhaps additional uniqueness. O&G 

mega projects sites are more likely to be constructed on harsh extreme conditions and isolated areas and often there is 

more lack of competent resources for project delivery. Also, construction phase in these projects starts even before 

the design is completed (Chanmeka et al., 2012). In addition, interfaces in Mega O&G projects are huge and cannot 

be underestimated. The risks are even greater in those projects and must be sometimes managed by a higher level of 

authority than the project team (Jergeas, 2008). There is a high tendency that the O&G project will go over a few 

changes at early stage of its cycle till it settles down at later stage like execution phase. These changes may very well 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

54 
 

affect the initial planned completion date and budget (Olniran et al., 2015; Loch, 2006; Love et al., 2014).Last feature 

but not the least in Mega O&G projects is the technology. It has reached a high level of advancement and sometimes 

such technology has not been tested yet. (Merrow, 2011). 

 

2.4 Major factors of Budget performance 

As the author is going through literature review, have found that most of the past researchers that analyzing the causes 

of time overrun associate cost overrun in the same context, and giving the results as an overall factor of both. It is no 

coincidence, as it is known that time and cost overruns are correlated as shown in the triangle of project management: 

Time, Cost, and Quality. Based on books and literature reviews, cost overrun, and time overrun are correlated. Studies 

by Flyvbjerg, Holm and Buhl (2004) done on large projects revealed that when an execution phase of project delayed 

by one year the cost overrun increases by approximate 4.64 %. 

Moreover, studies like (Sambasivan & Soon, 2006), (Motaleb & kishk, 2010)and (Memon, et al., 2011) where 

they studied effects of delays, they found that the top two effects are: time overrun and cost overrun. This suggests 

highly of correlation between time and cost overrun. In other words, the moment a project is delayed, the budget of 

the projects increases. 

  

2.5 Cost overrun in Oil and gas Projects 

It has been found that average of cost overrun is 18% among 200 projects studied in oil and gas business (Rui, et al., 

2016). In developing countries like Iran, in gas projects, (Vafaiee, et al., 2010) found that the cost overrun reached up 

to 20%.A more scary stats, Earlier report cited in paper of(Olaniran, et al., 2015)from Mackenzie, 2011 the average 

cost over in Mega oil and gas project in Europe around 91% and in Asia 92%. These projects has an average of 2000 

M USD a project in Europe and 1400 11000 MUSD in Asia. 

Things have not improved much over the years, EY report in 2014 revealed that 64% of O&G Mega projects 

faced cost overrun in the world, where middle east is the worst region in that department: 89% proportion of projects 

suffer from cost overrun. This also backs up the claim by (Zadjali, et al., 2014) that cost overrun in developing 

countries is more severe and worse. 

 

2.6 Success factors or key enablers details 

Sambasivan and Soon (2006) have classified the success factors as per the stakeholder, client, owner, main contractor 

and consultant in Malaysian construction sector. For the client, the authors recommend avoiding the contract to the 

lowest bidder, but rather, the contractor who could show “sufficient experience, technical capability, financial 

capability, and sufficient manpower to execute the project”. The second recommendation for the client is reduce the 

major changes in design especially during construction. Such action leads usually to put the progress of work on hold 

till the new change is implemented. The third recommendation is that client should have enough fund and cash flow 

in order to make the progress payments to contractors on time, so that the contractor is able to procure the needed 

material and equipment to finish the construction project.  

As for the main contractor, (Sambasivan & Soon, 2006)have recommended the contractor not to take the 

construction contract from the beginning if they don’t have enough experience teams to execute the project. One of 

those professionals that an experience is a must to have is the construction managers. The last not the last 

recommendation for the main contractor, is the same of the client’s one: enough funding. The main construction 

contractor shall have enough cash flow during the all cycles of the project to make sure, not to delay progress because 

of money. Sambasivan and Soon (2006) urged the consultant to approve the necessary drawings and documents on 

timely manner and they should have close supervision on the work done to ensure consistency with drawings and 

standards.  

 

2.7 Engineering Factors    

Engineering factors has been part of the major factors of time and budget overrun in many of the past studies; it 

includes the specification, drawings, design etc. These articles are, not limited to: A. Assaf and Al-Hejji (2005) found 

“Late in reviewing and approving design documents by owner” as the top 2 factor causing time overrun.  Doloi et al. 

(2011) found 2nd top factor “non-availability of drawing/design on time”. Le-Hoai et al. (2008) found “design changes” 

one of the top five ranked. Hwang et al. (2012) found third top factor contributing a delay is “design changes by 

owners”. Alnuaimi and Almohsin (2013) “change in initial design” is third important factor in commercial buildings 

in Oman. Some more recent papers are (Jarkas & Younes, 2014) found “frequent change/variation orders issued by 

the employer and lack of coordination among design disciplines” are the top third and fourth respectively (Elawi et 

al., 2015).“Redesigning-line services” is the second top factor in Mecca construction projects. Kalkkani and Malek 

(2016) found 2nd top factor in Indian projects are “Drawing revision and clearances from consultant/client/PMC”. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

55 
 

Thus, as it is seen design issues are one of the main factors contributing to an expansion of the completion date of a 

project and could cause a cost overrun. The researcher suggested to reclassify the heading of all related to design and 

technical issues to be an Engineering Factor. 

  

The following a framework of Design errors effects based on the discussed literature review above:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Framework of Design Errors  

 

2.8 Finance Factors  

In transition from engineering factors to Finance ones, the first topic can be discussed further are the claims. As seen 

from last section in the literature review, change or variation order is mainly causes by changes in design, and although 

most of these changes are not desired to be at that time of the project cycle, owners is obligated to implement them 

for sake of completing the project in quality and timely manner. Moreover, typically these changes are agreed by all 

parties especially between the owner and the main construction contractor afterwards, officially. Also, it is seen from 

the past section that one of the effects of Variation order is claims. Explicitly found in (Ali S. Alnuaimi, et al., 

2010)finding when they collected their data, claims were the second top effect of change order after the effect of time 

overrun of the project. Also, in (DESAI, et al., 2015), it has been mentioned that claims is mainly originated from 

variation orders, and it is one their main outcome. Moreover, Claims has been found as one of the main factors of 

projects delays and cost overrun, these articles are, not limited to (Alnuaimi & Almohsin, 2013; Memon et al., 2011). 

There are many types of claims, which will be discussed shortly, however it is needed to highlight that in oil and gas 

industry, the word “claims” which is often by the main contractor, is often known as those requested payments that 

were not originally fully agreed by the owner.   

 

2.9 External Factors 

External factors have been listed in the past studies, among the potential causes that could affect the project 

performance in terms of time and cost. A comprehensive agreement among all scholars and researchers that the 

external factors are unfamiliarity & changes with local laws, construction permits, social & cultural and weather 

conditions. Those studies are, not limited to, (A.Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2005),(Doloi, et al., 2011), (Jarkas et al, 2014), 

(Sambasivan & Soon, 2006)and (Frimpong, et al., 2002). In more particular articles, the external factors has been 

ranked first in the overall top causes of time overrun for example (Alnuaimi & Almohsin, 2013)when they have done 

their study on the first period2007-08, weather conditions was ranked first factor contributing to delays of the 

Rework 

Accidents 

Low quality 

Cost overrun 

Time overrun 

Design Errors 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

56 
 

commercial buildings. A more recent paper By (Alamri & Amoudi, 2017) where they have studies the DAMs Projects 

in Oman, their finding revealed that “severe weather conditions” is also the top causes of time overrun for those 

projects. Another external factor which has to do with the laws and permits, (Elawi, et al., 2015) found “Land 

acquisition” is the first ranked cause that contributes to delay the completion date of project in Mecca-Saudi Arabia.  

 
Figure 2. The Framework of the Study 

 

3. Methodology 

This study adopts a mix method of research to improve the level of credibility of the study. A sample of 160 

respondents is employed following both quantitative and qualitative method where a well-structured questionnaire 

was used for interviews with the concerned personnel. The questionnaires were a normal word document paper given 

to respondents by hands, while some others by emails. The target population includes high experience key personnel 

in the project delivery like construction manager, project manager procurement manager, and engineering managers. 

Convenience sampling technique was applied in this study. Pilot study was completed before conducting the main 

survey among 15 samples that were excluded from the final survey then. The English version of questionnaire was 

translated from English to local language by a native language expert. 

 

3.1 Instrumentation 

For collecting the qualitative data, we used some interview questions which are “What is the current performance of 

mega projects in O&G sector”, “What are the major causes of mega projects failing to meets its target of schedule 

and budget?”, “What are the consequences of construction Delays in Mega Projects in O&G sector?”, “What are 

the major causes of mega projects failing to meets its target of schedule and budget?”, and “What are the key enablers 

of successful performance in Mega projects? Semi-Structured Interviews have been conducted as second method for 

this study. For collecting the quantitative data, five Likert Scale was employed which range from “Not important 

to=1” to “Very important=5” and “Never=1” to “always=5” which was administered by the researchers. The SPSS 

Version 23 was used to analyze the quantitative data. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

57 
 

4. Findings 

4.1 Respondents’ characteristics 

Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics 

 

  Population Percentage Required 

Sample 

Size 

Responses 

collected 

Percentage 

Client 214 52% 103 75 73% 

Engineering 102 25% 50 44 88% 

Main Construction 

Contractor 

94 23% 46 41 89% 

Total 410 100% 199 160 80% 

 

The total respondents were 177, but there are invalid number surveys were 17. Therefore, the complete 

questionnaires were 160 which represents 80% response rate.   

 

4.2 Respondents profiles 

Table 2. Gender 

 

  Frequency Percent 

Male 154 96.3 

Female 6 3.7 

Total 160 100 

 
Table 3. Education 

 

  Frequency Percent 

Diploma 13 8.1 

Bachelor 111 69.4 

Master 34 21.3 

Doctorate (PhD) 2 1.2 

Total 160 100 

 

Table 4. Work Experience 

  
Frequency Percent 

Less than 5 Years 18 11.3 

between 5 and 10 Years 31 19.3 

between 10 and 15 Years 39 24.3 

between 15 and 20 Years 28 17.5 

between 20 and 25 Years 26 16.3 

between 25 and 30 Years 10 6.3 

More than 30 Years 8 5 

Total 160 100 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

58 
 

As seen from the above tables 4.4 around 70% perctange of the repsondets are having more than 10 years of 

experince. This gives a good wieght to the found resutls. In addtions, repsondets who posses projects experince for 

more than 20 years, they resrpesnt aorund 28 % which is almost thrid. 

 

Table 5. Frequency Distribution of respondents 

 

 
 

 

In iterms of positions, 25 of the respsondets are project managers who are the focal point of the project itself. 

They look into it as holistic veiw which gives the advantage of seeing everyhting, meaning, isssues and key enablers. 

The higher percentage of the respondents were discipline engineers, that Electrical, Instrument, Mehcnical, 

commissioning, operation and others from all stackholders.  

 

4.3 Project Performance 

Table 6. Project Performance 

 

 
 

Table 7. Project variation  

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

59 
 

4.4 Completed  

Table 8. Project completion  

 

 
 

The following section will answer the first question of research:  

 

▪ What is the current performance of mega projects in O&G sector? 

 

The tables above show the performance of projects in terms of time and were derived from the responses of the 

questionnaires. The question was in the project profile section: “how much time overruns this project suffers”. The 

possible answers were in months, years or in percentage.  

 

4.5 Months and years 

As shown in the table, there is 42 project respondents suffered delay from 6 months and below and 2 projects within 

8 months. The delay affected 17 respondents within 12 months behind the overall project schedule that is almost 11% 

of the sample. There are 14 projects couldn’t complete on time, and instead, they were delayed by 2-3 years. In other 

words, 9% of Mega oil and gas projects participants in Oman suffer a time overrun of 2 to 3 years. Even worse, there 

were two projects that experienced a delay of 4 and 5 years respectively. Although one seems to be a low number, 

however it is absurd to think that a project can exceed its planned target of schedule by 4 or 5 years.   

 

4.6 Completed on time 

A total of 13 projects have been indicated to be completed within agreed schedule. So, only 8% participants in O&G 

projects in Oman have been successfully completed on time. In other words, there are 92% of participants have 

experienced project delay of different periods. As mentioned earlier in this study, there was a report from EY Reports 

that indicated that Middle East has an average of delay in O&G projects of 87%.This study revealed that is somewhat 

aligned with worlds reports, and it is proven by the data collected from the questionnaires.  

 

4.7 Cost 

The performance of projects in terms of cost, which were derived from the responses of the questionnaires. The 

question was in the project profile section. “How much cost overrun this project suffered”? The possible answers were 

in percentage or USD. 38 of project respondents experienced a cost overrun of 10% or less and 15 of them experienced 

between 11– 20 %. 19% of participants have found an average of cost overrun to be 21%-30% while 10.5 % of them 

have seen an average cost overrun of 31-50%. 2 projects have suffered cost overrun of 51% - 60% and 71% - 80% 

respectively. There is one project that suffered from an over budget of 100%, and that is huge. In terms of million US 

dollars, there are 4 projects have different values of cost overrun, it ranges from 100-200, and these values of runs is 

worth almost a new project at its own. There was one project where it was indicated to have saving when it is 

completed. 

 

4.8 Ranking of time only for different stakeholder (top 10) 

The following table answers part of the research question of  

▪ What are the major causes of mega projects failing to meet its target of schedule and budget? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

60 
 

Table 9. Ranking of time overrun 

 

 
 

The above tables show the ranking of time overrun factors from the point of view of the main stakeholders 

who involved in project delivery. In attempt to analyze if there are similarities of these delay factors among the three 

parties, one could see that “Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering (contractor)”is the most factor that 

is most agreed upon. It is ranked first with main construction contractor and ranked second for both the client and the 

engineering. It is astonishing that this delay factor has been agreed by the client and engineering firm and it is ranked 

it second. The above factor which has to do with full understanding of the project scope mainly from the main 

contractor point of view shows it high importance to deal with in order to reduce the risk of time overrun. 

“Delay in start purchasing long lead items” is ranked second with main construction contractor and Fifth or 

sixth with client, since they have the same Mean number. “Contractor poor procurement managements” is ranked 

fifth from the client point of view, and seventh or eighth from the main construction contractor. “Ineffective planning 

and scheduling by the main contractor” is ranked first with client and the main construction contractor ranked it 

ninth.” Poor monitoring and control” delay factor is ranked tenth with main construction contractor and seventh 

with client.” Poor management of contractor’s schedule” is ranked ninth with the client and tenth with engineering 

firm. “Poor site management and supervision (contractor)” is viewed a third most delay factor with engineering firm 

and viewed tenth from the client perspective.  

 

4.9 Correlation between the stakeholders and the ranking of the top 10 delay Factors 

50% of the highest 10 ranked time overrun factors exist between these two stakeholders. Only10% of the top 10 has 

been agreed upon. There is 30% agreement between these two in ranking the top 10 delay causes. 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

61 
 

4.10 Correlations between the stakeholders and the ranking of all possible delay factors 

The results showed the following: 

 

Table 10. Ranking of delay factors 

 

Stakeholder Spearman's rank Sig. level 

Main Construction Contractor and Client /Owner 0.72 0.95 

Main Construction Contractor and Engineering 0.68 0.95 

Client /Owner and Engineering 0.74 0.95 

The results showed that there is a HIGH agreement between all stakeholders in ranking the time over factors 

where highest agreement is between Client and Engineering firm (0.74).Despite the Correlation between Main 

Construction Contractor and Engineering being high; it is still relatively lower than the two associations (0.68). The 

table shows also that the client interfaces stakeholder has the higher agreement than non-client stakeholder. It can be 

safely concluded that there is huge agreement in the ranking of time overrun factors among the involved stakeholders 

which make the results of the research more reliable. 

 

4.11 Kruskal Wallis Test and Chi-Square Tests  

Table11. At a glance performance of stakeholder’s perception  

 

Factors Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square 

Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering (contractor ) 0.045 3.4 

Ineffective planning and scheduling by the main contractor 0.01 13.6 

Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items 0.02 11.8 

Contractor poor procurement managements 0.01 13.2 

Poor site management and supervision(contractor) 0.181 3.4 

Poor management of contractor’s schedule 0.025 7.4 

major changes in design during construction 0.02 12.7 

Delay in manufacturing long lead items 0.04 11.8 

poor monitoring and control 0.02 12.1 

Shortage in material & equipment 0.795 0.45 

Slow decision making by owners 0.018 8.6 

Contractor's poor cash flow management 0.024 7.4 

 

From the above table, it can be implied that there is NO significance difference in the perception of the 

stakeholders (Client, Main CC, Engineering) on the top 12 causes of time overrun (except for 2, Poor site management 

and supervision (contractor), and Shortage in material & equipment) since Asymp Sig is less than 0.05. 

 

4.12 Correlation among the top 12 times overrun causes 

Table 12.  Relationship among overrun cause  

 

  Slow 

decision 

making 

by 

owners 

Poor 

site 

manage

ment 

and 

supervis

ion(cont

ractor) 

Poor 

understa

nding of 

scope of 

work 

during 

tendering 

(contract

or) 

Ineffectiv

e planning 

and 

schedulin

g by the 

main 

contractor 

Poor 

mana

geme

nt of 

contra

ctor’s 

sched

ule 

poor 

monitor

ing and 

control 

major 

change

s in 

design 

during 

constru

ction 

Contrac

tor's 

poor 

cash 

flow 

manage

ment 

Delay 

in 

start 

of 

purch

asing 

long-

lead 

items 

Contr

actor 

poor 

procu

remen

t 

mana

geme

nts 

Delay in 

manufa

cturing 

long 

lead 

items 

Shorta

ge in 

materi

al & 

equip

ment 

1 .311** 0.2 .255* .349** .358** .286* 0.18 .299** .349** .263* 0.14 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

62 
 

Slow decision 

making by 

owners 

  0.01 0.1 0.03 0 0 0.013 0.12 0.01 0 0 0.22 

Poor site 

management 

and 

supervision(c

ontractor) 

.311** 1 0.2 0.11 .332** .317** 0.222 .247* 0.18 0.11 0.1 0.03 

0.006   0.2 0.36 0 0 0.055 0.03 0.11 0.35 0.2 0.79 

Poor 

understanding 

of scope of 

work during 

tendering 

(contractor) 

0.205 0.16 1 .237* .373** .465** .300** .315** .356** .313** .268* 0.19 

0.073 0.16   0.04 0 0 0.009 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.1 

Ineffective 

planning and 

scheduling by 

the main 

contractor   

.255* 0.11 .237* 1 .729** .670** .387** .399** .353** .505** .420** 0.23 

0.028 0.36 0   0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.05 

Poor 

management 

of 

contractor’s 

schedule  

.349** .332** .373** .729** 1 .807** .407** .449** .376** .449** .399** .278* 

0.002 0 0 0   0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 

poor 

monitoring 

and control 

.358** .317** .465** .670** .807** 1 .470** .457** .334** .485** .381** .278* 

0.002 0.01 0 0 0   0 0 0 0 0 0.02 

major 

changes in 

design during 

construction 

.286* 0.22 .300** .387** .407** .470** 1 .412** .463** .427** .433** .237* 

0.013 0.06 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 0 0.04 

Contractor's 

poor cash 

flow 

management 

0.181 .247* .315** .399** .449** .457** .412** 1 .446** .461** .365** .246* 

0.117 0.03 0 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 0.03 

Delay in start 

of purchasing 

long-lead 

items 

.299** 0.18 .356** .353** .376** .334** .463** .446** 1 .563** .625** .382** 

0.009 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 

Contractor 

poor 

procurement 

managements 

.349** 0.11 .313** .505** .449** .485** .427** .461** .563** 1 .692** .528** 

0.002 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   0 0 

Delay in 

manufacturin

g long lead 

items 

.263* 0.14 .268* .420** .399** .381** .433** .365** .625** .692** 1 .495** 

0.023 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   0 

Shortage in 

material & 

equipment 

0.142 0.03 0.2 0.23 .278* .278* .237* .246* .382** .528** .495** 1 

0.221 0.79 0.1 0.05 0.02 0 0.041 0.03 0 0 0   

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

63 
 

4.13 Overall Group Factors combining all three stakeholders Ranking by Group factors: 

Table 13. Highest ranked factors for time overrun  

 

 
 

The listed above table are the highest Ranked Group factors that causes time overrun in oil and gas Mega 

Projects in Oman. These results were done by merging all responses from the client, main construction contractor and 

the engineering parties that are involved in the study. The first and two group delay factors are from Management 

factors while the third one is from Resources Factors. The first subgroup factor in this study that causes O&G projects 

failing to meet its time target is the “Project Planning & Control” which has the details in the below table:  

 

Table 14. Integrated means of stakeholders with ineffective planning  

 

Project Planning & Control Mean SD 

Ineffective planning and scheduling by the main contractor 4.28 0.820 

Poor management of contractor’s schedule  4.15 0.833 

poor monitoring and control 4.13 0.905 

Inadequate Quality assurance control 3.95 0.837 

 

Again, this is the integrated Means of all responses from all stakeholders which starts off with “ineffective 

Planning “of the main construction contractor. It is clearly that is in the burden of the stakeholder of Main construction 

contractor. The second delay factor under the group is the management of this plan which is the roles and 

accountability of Client, in this research. In most past studies, such factor is under the responsibility of the consultant 

like Mohammed (Ruqaishi & Bashir, 2014). 

 

Table 15. Integrated means of stakeholders with management issues  

 

Management     

General  Mean SD 

Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering (contractor) 4.39 0.83 

Poor site management and supervision (contractor) 4.15 0.74 

Slow decision making by owners 4.12 1.019 

Management of Subcontractor 3.92 0.855 

Inappropriate construction methods implemented 3.88 0.868 

Conflicts among joint owners of the project (for joint-venture projects) 3.83 1.063 

 

The second top delay group after the integration of all stakeholders’ responses is the general management 

factors shown in the above table. Ruqaishi and Bashir (2014) who wrote their article in Oman, listed “poor understand 

of scope during tendering” under the roles of main construction contractor, and this research follow this same thing. 

Such factor is ranked first in the time overrun Management group factor of this study. As matter of fact, failure to 

understand the scope of the project especially from the main construction contractor is ranked first in overall delay 

factor among the 77 possible factors, which has a mean of 4.39.In addition, it is ranked first from the point of view of 

Main construction contractor, and second from both Engineering and the client perspective as mentioned earlier. In 

the second overall delay group, another delay factor is that is under the burden of the main construction contractor, 

which is “Poor site management and supervision” that comes second in the ranking. This delay Factor has been 

adopted yet again from (Ruqaishi & Bashir, 2014) and is ranked fifth in overall delay factor of this research.  



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

64 
 

The third factor in this delay group factor is the “Slow decision making by owners” which is obviously of 

the roles of the client. This factor is ranked 11th in the overall combined ranking and listed in the following articles 

of: Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Salama et al. (2008), Ruqaishi and Bashir (2014) and Oyegoke and Kiyumi (2017). 

 

Table 16. Resource Factors 

 

Materials &Equipments Mean SD 

Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items 4.25 0.881 

Contractor poor procurement managements 4.17 0.812 

Delay in manufacturing long lead items 4.15 0.954 

Shortage in material & equipment 4.13 0.869 

Slow delivery of materials 4.03 0.979 

Non-adherence of material specifications – provided by client –to drawings 3.95 0.951 

Quality and productivity of materials 3.95 0.884 

Low ability of contractor to provide imported material 3.83 0.999 

Construction plant and equipment breakdowns 3.83 0.978 

Poor inspection and testing of equipment and material at supplier site 3.78 0.974 

 

The top third delay group factor found in this study is the resources factors, where the Materials & 

Equipment’s is ahead in ranking than the human resources. “Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items” is the top 

factor in this group as shown in the above table and is ranked third in the integrated delay factor list that is heaving a 

mean of 4.25. This delay factor has been mentioned in (Salama, et al., 2008) article that was done in O&G sector as 

well and It was not classified under which stakeholder it goes to. Similarly for this research,  Procuring long lead items 

depend on what contract strategy and type  it is, if it is EPC, this goes to the contractor, if it is EP+C and reimbursement 

type, this responsibility is under the shoulder of  the owners.  

“Contractor poor procurement managements” comes next in this delay group and it is listed in (Fallahnejad, 

2012) article where he investigated O&G projects issues in IRAN. This factor is ranked fourth in the overall delay 

list, which has a mean of 4.17. “Delay in manufacturing long lead items” is ranked third in this delay group and eighth 

in overall list that combines all stakeholder perceptions. This is factor has been listed in (Pham & Hadikusumo, 

2014)article where they studied the O&G projects inVitenam.“Shortage in material & equipment” has been ranked 

important in the following articles: Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Fallahnejad (2002), Salama et al. (2008) and Ruqaishi 

and Bashir (2014).This delay factor is ranked tenth in the overall delay causes and has a mean of 4.13. 

 

Table 17. Integrated means of stakeholders with communication issues  

 

Communication Mean SD 

Lack of communication between client and project team 4.03 1.039 

Poor interaction with vendors in the engineering and procurement stages 4.00 0.973 

Poor communication and coordination by contractor with other Parties   3.97 1.013 

Lack of communication between designers and contractors 3.96 0.992 

Poor communication between site management and labor force  3.93 1.031 

Inadequate coordination among designers from different disciplines 3.87 1.018 

 

As it was discussed in the literature review thoroughly, an evidence of that, in this study, Communication 

Subgroup delay factors appears Second in the list from the client point of view. Despite that it is ranked 21st (with a 

mean of 4 anyway) in overall delay factors, the client ranked it 13th with a mean of 4.14, which has “high” importance. 

In the same table such communication comes third in the communication factor subgroup.  

 

4.14 Overall delay factors 

Table 18. Overall delay factors  

 

Question Mean Std. Deviation order 

Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering (contractor) 4.39 0.83 1 

Ineffective planning and scheduling by the main contractor   4.28 0.82 2 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

65 
 

Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items 4.25 0.881 3 

Contractor poor procurement managements 4.17 0.812 4 

Poor site management and supervision(contractor) 4.15 0.74 5 

Poor management of contractor’s schedule  4.15 0.833 6 

major changes in design during construction 4.15 1.062 7 

Delay in manufacturing long lead items 4.15 0.954 8 

poor monitoring and control 4.13 0.905 9 

Shortage in material & equipment 4.13 0.869 10 

Slow decision making by owners 4.12 1.019 11 

Contractor's poor cash flow management 4.08 1.004 12 

Poorly defined or vague scope of work (contracts) 4.08 0.937 13 

Insufficient data collection and survey before design 4.07 0.97 14 

 

4.15  The least ranked delay groups 

Table 19. Least delay factors  

 

 
As shown the above table, the least ranked delay groups Finance, Contract Management and External Factors, 

respectively. This is compared to the other delay groups which some has been discussed earlier. It is listed at the end, 

because of they have lower Mean values compared, and these values are still considered “high” important factors 

according to the classification in statistics. Moreover, some factors that belong to those just mentioned delay groups, 

are still ranked top 15thoverall, like “Contractor's poor cash flow management” and “Poorly defined or vague scope 

of work (contracts)”, they are ranked 12th and 13th respectively. Therefore, such issues should not neglect, but rather 

focused at.  

 

4.16 Time overrun Group Correlations 

Table 20. Time overrun group co relation at a glance  

 

  Management Technical_Design Finance Resources External 

Management 1 .809** .697** .764** .511** 

    0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Technical_Design .809** 1 .701** .774** .516** 

  0.000   0.000 0.000 0.000 

Finance .697** .701** 1 .790** .595** 

  0.000 0.000   0.000 0.000 

Resources .764** .774** .790** 1 .685** 

  0.000 0.000 0.000   0.000 

External .511** .516** .595** .685** 1 

  0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000   

 

As shown in the above table, all the five independent group variables are highly correlated to each other. 

Such strong relationship signifies its great relevance to the subject of schedule performance in Mega O&G projects. 

Management, Technical & design, Finance, Resources and External Factors are highly correlated to each other, with 

the first four time-overrun factor groups having a higher correlation coefficient. This is in line with the descriptive 

raking results that shows External Factors are the bottom of the list. 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

66 
 

4.17 Cost  

Table 21. The integrated overall list of cost overrun factors 

 

Question Mean Std. Deviation Order 

Major changes in design during construction 4.13 0.793 1 

Poor management of contractor’s schedule 3.98 0.852 2 

Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering  3.97 1.014 3 

Variations and claims 3.97 0.829 4 

Inadequate main contractor experience 3.97 0.882 5 

Poorly defined or vague scope of work (contracts) 3.94 0.801 6 

Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items 3.93 0.936 7 

Clients' change orders — large quantities of extra work 3.9 0.817 8 

Poor communication and coordination within all stakeholders: 3.89 0.857 9 

Shortage in material & equipment 3.89 0.858 10 

Slow decision making by owners 3.88 1.03 11 

 

The above table shows the integrated overall list of cost overrun factors in O&G Mega projects in Oman. 

Failure to grasp the complete scope of the project at early stage comes third highest factor that causes an over run in 

the budget of the project. Variations and lack of the experience of the contractors are ranked 4th and 5th respectively. 

 

Table 22.  Consequences of delays  

 

Question Mean Std. Deviation Order 

Dispute 3.65 0.818 1 

Reduced profit 3.23 0.988 2 

Penalties 3.22 0.87 3 

Reduction in project Quality 3.2 0.91 4 

Loss of reputation of main construction contractor: 3.16 1.027 5 

Arbitration:  2.95 1.075 6 

Litigation:   2.8 1.072 7 

Total Abandonment 2.67 1.142 8 

 

The research question that discusses the above topic was:  

▪ What are the consequences of construction Delays in Mega Projects in O&G sector? 

Comparing the outcomes of the consequences or effects of time and cost overrun in projects between the three main 

stakeholders participated, Dispute occurs more frequent that any other listed effects. Dispute that takes place between 

the client and contractors that is seen the most frequent, comes first from the point of view of each stakeholder as 

shown in the table. “Loss of reputation for the main construction contractor” is ranked second and fifth for both the 

client and engineering firms in the frequency list.  

Engineering and Owners have agreed that a “reduction in project quality” is one of effects of time and cost 

overrun in O&G projects in Oman, and it is listed third from their point of view. This is a reminder of the Iron triangle 

of project management that is quality is part of, and it is one of the projects drivers. “Penalties” comes fourth in the 

list for the main construction contractor and the engineering firms and there is “reduced profit” in case of missing the 

project targets from the point of view of the client.   

When disputes cannot be resolved internally, that is within the stakeholder boundaries, arbitration process takes place, 

which is more frequent than going to the courts according to the main construction contractor and the client. “Total 

Abandonment” of projects is the least frequent as an effect of time and cost overrun in O&G projects in Oman.  

 

4.18 Kruskal Wallis Test and Chi-Square Tests  

Table 23. Factors of disputes and reputation  

 

Factor Asymp. Sig. Chi-Square 

Dispute  0.012 8.8 

Reduced profit 0.111 4.4 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

67 
 

Penalties 0.102 4.5 

Reduction in project Quality 0.219 13.2 

Loss of reputation of main construction contractor 0.007 9.8 

Arbitration 0.055 5.8 

Litigation 0.118 4.2 

Total Abandonment 0.113 4.3 

 

4.19 Spearman's rho Correlation: Between the effect variables  

Table 24.  At a glance the Spearman’s rho correlation of factors  

 

 

From the above table, disputes and Loss of reputation are the only ones that are less than 0.05, who could 

suggest that there is NO significance difference at ranking from the point of view of the stakeholders. While there is 

minor difference with rest of effects, this could imply that Disputes and loss of reputation of the main construction 

contractor are the great consequences that take place when projects are delayed and suffer from cost overrun, which 

have been concurred by all different stakeholders.  

 

4.20 Correlations between the stakeholders and the ranking of all possible Effects  

The results showed the following: 

Table 25.  Correlation between stakeholders  

 

Stakeholder Spearman's rank Sig. level 

Main Construction Contractor and Client /Owner 0.508 0.95 

Main Construction Contractor and Engineering 0.346 0.95 

Client /Owner and Engineering 0.391 0.95 

 

The results showed that there is a moderate agreement between all stakeholders in ranking the consequences 

where highest agreement is between Client and Main Construction Contractor firm (0.508). Despite the 

Correlation between Main Construction Contractor and Engineering being moderate, it is still relatively lower than 

the two associations (0.346), and this is the same with the correlation delay factors & Stakeholders. The table shows 

  Dispute Arbitration Litigation Total 

Aband 

Reduced 

profit 

Penalties Loss of 

reputation 

of main 

construction 

contractor 

Reduction in  

project Quality 

Dispute:  1 .536** .385** 0.194 .373** .399** .583** .366** 

  0.000 0.002 0.124 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.004 

Arbitration:   .536** 1 .560** .443** .337** 0.177 .516** .415** 

0   0.000 0.000 0.006 0.166 0.000 0.001 

Litigation:   .385** .560** 1 .640** .383** .292* .541** .509** 

0.002 0.000   0.000 0.002 0.02 0.000 0.000 

Total Aband 0.194 .443** .640** 1 .311* 0.118 .434** .603** 

0.124 0.000 0.000   0.012 0.357 0.000 0.000 

Reduced profit .373** .337** .383** .311* 1 .565** .529** .508** 

0.002 0.006 0.002 0.012   0.000 0.000 0.000 

Penalties .399** 0.177 .292* 0.118 .565** 1 .430** .341** 

0.001 0.166 0.02 0.357 0.000   0.000 0.008 

Loss of reputation of main 

construction contractor: 

.583** .516** .541** .434** .529** .430** 1 .566** 

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000   0.000 

Reduction in project 

Quality 

.366** .415** .509** .603** .508** .341** .566** 1 

0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000   

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

68 
 

also that the client interfaces stakeholder has the higher agreement than non-client stakeholder, which is again like 

time overrun factors and stakeholder’s correlation. 

 

5. Discussion 

5.1 Ineffective planning and scheduling by the main contractor  

Based on the interviews, this is so related to understanding the scope of the project, if the contractor has grasped the 

SOW fully and completely, the chances of have the scope planned properly is higher. Ineffective planning might be 

derived from the fact some contractors focus on “commodities” not the critical path and that is dangerous, as found in 

one of the interviews. The risk is that when there is no priorities set in the plan of the project, there is a high chance 

that the project plan is slipped, since there is neither focus nor effectiveness. An example has been given is that; small 

foundation is very important piping completion and the latter is vital for instrumentation works and etc., so 

“sequential” activities are always there in O&G Mega projects in Oman, and such sequence is vital no matter how 

small the job is, in order to complete one work package and eventually the whole project. Such issue has been agreed 

more than 5 interviewees, contractor discipline engineers are among them as well.  

 

5.2 Contractor poor procurement managements  

There is unmatched agreement among all interviewees (from different stakeholder) on this factor that there is a large 

room for improvement in the contractor procurement processes. Procurement department in companies especially 

main construction contractors can be the decider and difference maker whether a project is meeting its targets or not. 

So, there is good number of contractors in Oman that in order to procure anything even a shelve item, this process is 

taken too much time. Negotiation before making the purchase order takes more than what it should be excessive 

period. This seems to find the cheapest buyer available in the market by the contractor, in order to save money and 

increase profit. Most of the construction consumables materials in Oman are imported so having those delivered to 

site is going to take time. Plus, there is limited vendors for those items to be ordered from, a sometimes they will 

dictate the terms of delivery duration.  

 

5.3 Poor site management and supervision (contractor) 

The construction contractor sometimes doesn’t have enough number of supervisors who could cover all the activities 

in parallel at the same time. Lack number of supervisors is an issue that has been agreed by most of the interviewees 

from different stakeholder. The competency and the skill of those supervisors sometimes are not up to the desired 

level. Role of s supervisors is also forecasting the plan ahead, understand priorities and be proactive in order to 

anticipate any constraints that might come up that hinders the progress. Some projects in Oman, getting the right 

Manpower needed is hindered by the Labor Local Law where it limits number of Expat in one contract.  

 

5.4 Major changes in design during construction 

Even if the construction contractor could absorb some changes while construction, it will come a point where the 

contractor cannot take it anymore and those changes will affect the progress of the project. Because, the contractor is 

supposed to spend the Man-hours on the original plan of the project, instead, here is some change needs to be executed, 

so the original plan is put on hold. The probability of the changes in design during engineering phase is high, and that 

could be rooted from the fact that there are many interfaces involved in this stage. There are different vendors inputs 

are needed and client input and intervention as well. Therefore, changes could not only come from the design company 

only, it could come from the vendors themselves, or the owner could make change after some particular document has 

been finalized.  

 

5.5 Shortage in material & equipment 

As seen before in the delay factor of “Delay in start of purchasing long-lead items” and “Contractor poor procurement 

managements” materials and equipment in Oman are mostly ordered from abroad and most of the items for Mega Oil 

and gas projects are imported materials. So, this is one of issues and constraints in regard to “Shortage in material 

& equipment” as being one of top time over factors found in this study. Although the bigger the problem is that 

materials don’t reach site on time is due to the longer procurement processes especially from the contractor side, 

shortage of material in Oman should not be neglected. Most of contractor interviewees expressed their concern that 

even small, less complicated consumables items like electrical Lugs and wooden plates, they have to import it from 

outside of Oman. 

 

 

 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

69 
 

5.6 Slow decision making by owners 

Although this delay factor is ranked 11th overall and 7thfrom the point of view of the Main construction contractor, 

this factor has been mentioned by the interviews a lot. The owners in Oil and gas Projects in Oman play a vital role in 

delaying some business decision in projects which lead to cause projects to exceed the planned finish date. Some of 

the issues in the factor as expressed in interviews.  

 

5.7 Contractor's poor cash flow management  

This factor is ranked 11th overall and 1st in the Finance Delay factor group. Most of cash flow issues take place with 

main construction contractors, not much with engineering contracts. The main construction contractor bids low in his 

quotation in order to win the contractor, then after winning the bidding contract to install and construct the project and 

after some time, they found themselves have cash issues.  

 

5.8 Time and cost factors correlation  

Most of interviews showed and confirmed that every time a project is exceeding its plan and schedule, the budget of 

the project is exceedingly as well. For the factors that affect both time and cost, most of the conducted interviewees 

have agreed that the top factors that cause project to delay, these same factors are causing cost overrun to the project 

as well. Some of them have cited examples like the poor understanding of SOW and major changes in design during 

construction.  

 

5.9 How much of time and cost overrun 

Most interviewees have revealed that the average delay of projects they have experienced along their career is between 

6 months – 2 year. Only one Project manager have gone through two projects and stated that those two projects were 

on time. When the data of this research revealed to the interviewees, that only 8% of Questionnaires participants have 

experienced on time completed projects, they have expressed that this is the hard truth of projects in Oman; such low 

percentage is no surprise to them.  

 

5.10 Contract strategy and time and cost overrun 

From the interviews, it has been concluded that theoretically, EP+C contract strategy is faster to be executed for the 

following reason: a fast track project execution philosophy. In other words, the engineering phase starts, and before it 

ends, procurement process already got started, and before EP finishes all its deliverables, main construction contractor 

has been appointed and the construction activities can commence. There is overlap between all main phases of the 

execution of the project, Engineering, Procurement and Construction.  

 

5.11 Research Questions with findings  

This study has answered the Research Questions proposed at the beginning and below is the summary:  

▪ What is the current performance of mega projects in O&G sector? 

147 out of 160 respondents have experienced and reported Time overrun in projects they were involved in. Only 13 

responses have showed there were some Mega projects have completed on time that is 8%. For the budget, 70% of 

the respondents have experienced cost overrun in their projects up to 30%, and only 3% of the participants have seen 

the project budget in line with planned one.  

 

The second Research Question is:  

▪ What are the major causes of mega projects failing to meet its target of schedule and budget? 

There is some agreement in the ranking of top 10-time overrun factors between the three main stakeholders and the 

agreement between the client and main construction contractor in those factors are more, compared to any other 

combination of parties. “Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering” factor is ranked first with main 

contractor and second with both the client and engineering firms. This Factor is most factors that has similar ranking 

between all. As matter of Fact is the only Factor that exists between in the 10 among all stakeholders.  This signifies 

its importance and its frequent occur in Mega O&G projects in Oman. Also, the main construction contractor is not 

shy away from admitting that this factor is vital, although it is under responsibilities, they could have easily said it is 

not our problem and start the blame game. 

For overall results combining the responses of all stakeholders in time overrun Factors, the most ranked 

groups are of this study are, The Management group followed by resources Group.  

The above table shows the integrated overall list of cost overrun factors in O&G Mega projects in Oman. Major 

Changes in the engineering during the construction phase of a project tops this list followed by the management of the 

contractor’s schedule. Failure to grasp the complete scope of the project at early stage comes third highest factor that 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

70 
 

causes an over run in the budget of the project. Variations and lack of the experience of the contractors are ranked 4th 

and 5th respectively.  

Changes during construction has been ranked 7th in time overrun overall factors and 1st in the cost overrun. 

Management of contractor’s schedule is second in the cost overrun and 6th in the time overrun factors. Understanding 

the scope stg tendering is ranked first in time overrun and it is 3rd in the cost overrun factors. It is safe to conclude 

that, top factors that affect time, it also affects cost in the O&G projects in Oman.  

 

For the Third Research Question:  

▪ What are the consequences of construction Delays in Mega Projects in O&G sector? 

Comparing the outcomes of the consequences or effects of time and cost overrun in projects between the three main 

stakeholders participated, Dispute occurs more frequent that any other listed effects. Dispute that takes place between 

the client and contractors that is seen the most frequent, comes first from the point of view of each stakeholder as 

shown in the table. The relationship between time versus contractor strategy, this thesis showed that EP+C contracts 

have more tendency to cause time overrun although in theory it should not as the client is present always of the 

execution phase (client interface engineers). 

 

5.12 Contribution of This Research  

This study has revealed the key causes that contribute to time and cost overrun in Mega Projects of Oil and gas sector 

in Oman which have not been done before. Ranking those causes brings more focus and attention by the main 

stakeholders running the project. Elaboration in investigating the root causes of the time and cost overrun factor will 

help mitigates the risks involved in project delivery. A conceptual framework got generated by the researcher in the 

classification of Factors that causes time and cost. This Framework represents the holistic view of all causes which is 

unique among the literature on project management. Shedding the light on the consequences of failing delivering the 

Mega O&G project targets, is an eye opening for the project teams to be knowledgeable of how severe sometimes the 

consequences.  

 

5.13  Limitations and Future studies 

Forming the questionnaires was time consuming which took around 5 months. That is due to the large number of time 

and cost Factors in the literature review. Data collection period also was long. The results of this study did not 

differentiate contract strategies, contractor classification or type of organizations; rather it included all types of those. 

This research is first of its kind in exploring project performance key barriers and their Key enablers in depth In Oman. 

Therefore, this study could be considered as foundation and a reference for more local studies to come in Oil and gas 

projects which are highly recommended. Comparatives studies could be done on time & cost Factors with different 

type of Oil and gas project categories: upstream, downstream, pipelines etc. Future studies can take one or two major 

Delay and cost overrun Factor and look in depth its root causes and effect of mediocre project performance In Oman 

Oil and gas projects. Examples are: Design changes Change order, Construction claims, Construction permits and 

ranking of cost overrun factors. 

 

References 

Alnuaimi, A.S., & Mohsin, M. (2013). December.Causes of delay in completion of construction projects in 

Oman.In International Conference on Innovations in Engineering and Technology, 267-270. 

Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects. International journal of project 

management, 24(4), 349-357. 

Alamri, N., Amoudi, O., & Njie, G. (2017). Analysis of construction delay causes in dams projects in 

Oman. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 6(2), 19-42. 

Alnuaimi, A.S. & Mohsin, M. (2013). December.Causes of delay in completion of construction projects in 

Oman.In International Conference on Innovations in Engineering and Technology, 267-270. 

Alnuaimi, A.S., Taha, R.A., Al Mohsin, M., & Al-Harthi, A.S. (2010). Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of 

change orders on public construction projects in Oman. Journal of Construction Engineering and 

Management, 136(5), 615-622. 

Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project. Journal 

of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(1), 153-155. 

Chanmeka, A., Thomas, S. R., Caldas, C. H., & Mulva, S. P. (2012). Arpamart Chanmeka, Assessing Key factors 

impacting the performance and productivity of oil and gas projects in Alberta. Can.J. Civ.Eng. 39,259-270. 

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International journal of project management, 20(3), 

185-190. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

71 
 

De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International journal of project management, 6(3), 164-170. 

Desai, N., Pitroda, J.A.Y.E.S.H.K.U.M.A.R., & Bhavsar, J. (2015). A review of change order and assessing causes 

affecting change order in construction. International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary, 2(12), 152-

162. 

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. 

Elawi, G.S.A., Algahtany, M., Kashiwagi, D., & Sullivan, K. (2015). Major factors causing construction delays in 

Mecca. Journal for the Advancement of Performance Information and Value, 7(1), 75-75. 

Fallahnejad, M. H. (2013). Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects. International Journal of project 

management, 31(1), 136-146. 

Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Project Management 

Journal, 45(2), 6–19. 

Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., & Crawford, L. (2003). Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater 

projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. International Journal of project 

management, 21(5), 321-326. 

Heerkens, G. R. (2002). Gestión de proyectos (No. 658.404 H459g). Madrid, ES: McGraw-Hill Interamericana. 

Hwang, B. G., Zhao, X., & Ng, S. Y. (2013). Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule performance of public 

housing projects. Habitat International, 38, 214-221. 

Ika, L.A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project management journal, 40(4), 6-

19. 

Jarkas, A.M., & Younes, J. H. (2014). Principle factors contributing to construction delays in the State of 

Qatar. International Journal of Construction Project Management, 6(1), 39. 

Jergeas, G. (2008). Analysis of the front-end loading of Alberta mega oil sand projects.. Project Management Journal, 

39(4),95-104. 

Kalkani, K., & Malek, S. (2016). Analyzing causes of delay in construction projects. International Journal for 

Innovative Research in Science and Technology, 2(12), 136-41. 

Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y. D., & Lee, J. Y. (2008). Delay and cost Overrun in Vietnam large construction projects: A 

comparison with other selected countries. KSCE Journal Of civil Engineering,12(6), 367-377. 

Lientz, B.P., & Rea, K. P. (1995).  San Diego, Academic. Project management for the 21st century. 

Loch, C.H., DeMeyer, A., & Pich, M. (2011). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty 

and risk in projects.John Wiley & Sons. 

Love, P.E., Sing, C.P., Wang, X., Irani, Z., & Thwala, D.W. (2014). Overruns in transportation infrastructure 

projects. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(2), 141-159. 

McCoy, F. (1996). Measuring success: Establishing and maintaining a baseline. s.l., PMI Annual 

Seminar/Symposium, Montreal. 

Memon, A. H., Abdul Rahman, I., & Aziz, A.A.A. (2011). Time overrun in construction projects from the perspective 

of project management consultant (PMC). Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, 2(1). 

Merrow, E.W. (2011). Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success John Wiley & 

Sons. Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 

Naimi, M., Elhag, T., & Fenn, P. (2008). Delay and its consequences in construction of Iranian petrochemical 

plants.In International Conference on Multi-National Construction Projects. 

Memon, A.H., Rahman, I.A., &Azis, A.A.A. (2011). Preliminary study on causative factors leading to construction 

cost overrun. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 2(1). 

Motaleb, O., & Kishk, M. (2010). An investigation into causes and effects of construction delays in UAE. In Procs 

26th Annual ARCOM Conference (pp. 6-8). 

Odeh, A. M., & Battaineh, H. T. (2002). Causes of construction delays: Traditional contracts. International Journal 

of Project Management 20,67-73. 

Olaniran, O. J., Love, P. E., Edwards, D., Olatunji, O. A., & Matthews, J. (2015). Cost overruns in hydrocarbon 

megaprojects: A critical review and implications for research. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 126-

138. 

Oyegoke, A. S., & Kiyumi, N. A. (2017). The causes, impacts and mitigations of delay in megaprojects in the 

Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 22(3), 286-302. 

Pham, L. H., & Hadikusumo, H. (2014). Schedule Delays in engineering, procurement , and construction 

petrochemical projects in Vietnam: a qualitative research study. International Journal of energy sector 

management, 8(1), 3-26.. 



www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijbms           American International Journal of Business and Management Studies          Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020 

 

72 
 

Rui, Z., Peng, F., Ling, K., Chang, H., Chen, G., & Zhou, X. (2017). Investigation into the performance of oil and 

gas projects. Journal of natural gas science and engineering, 38, 12-20. 

Ruqaishi, M., & Bashir, H. A. (2015). Causes of delay in construction projects in the oil and gas industry in the gulf 

cooperation council countries: a case study. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(3), 05014017. 

Salama, M., El Hamid, M. A., & Keogh, B. (2008, September). Investigating the causes of delay within oil and gas 

projects in the UAE. In 24th annual ARCOM conference (pp. 1-3). 

Sambasivan, M., & Soon, Y. W. (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry. 

International Journal of project management, 25(5), 517-526. 

Vafaiee, M., Owlia, M. S., Vahdat, M. A., & Vafaiee, M. (2010, January). Procurement management challenges in 

gas projects of Iran. In Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations 

Management (pp. 9-10). 

Zadjali, Z. A. A., Bashir, H. A., & Maqrashi, A. A. (2014). Factors Causing Project Cost Overrun in the 

Telecommunications Industry in Oman. International Journal of Information Technology Project 

Management, 5(3), 84-95. 

 

 

 

Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an 

open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 
 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

