An Assessment Of The Role Of Estate Surveyors And Valuers In Project Management

Project and Seminar Material for Estate Management

An Assessment Of The Role Of Estate Surveyors And Valuers In Project Management


Abstract


Performance of building projects is affected by several factors. The focus here is on the relationship between Project Management Practices carried out by Estate surveyor and Valuer and project performance. Estate surveyor and Valuer involved in the management of projects were thus selected as estate surveyor and Valuer for the study. Three criteria for measuring project performance were identified for their widespread application in project management definition and general understanding amongst practitioners. These include: time, cost and quality criteria.Semi-structured personal interviews have been carried out within the selected organizations for identification of practices undertaken in the management of building projects. Other significant project management practices were also captured in relevant literature. A structured questionnaire was developed to gather information for measurement of the project performance and determination of project management practices significantly relating to project performance.

Performance indices were developed for measurement of the time, cost and quality performance. To test for significant differences between the performance of the categories of projects, each belonging to one organization, a pair-wise analysis, using independent t-tests, was used. Multiple Regression Analysis has been used to determine the relationship between the significant project management practices and project performance. Considerably, significant difference between the time performance of the categories of projects was observed.

There was significant cost performance difference of the categories of projects across all the organizations whilst there was no significant difference in quality performance across all the three pairs of categories of projects analyzed. It was realized that as significant difference exists between the performance of a given pair of categories of projects from organization to organization the corresponding significant project management practices also vary from organization to organization and vice versa.


Chapter One


Introduction

1.1 Background Of The Study

Execution of building projects is undertaken through management practices carried out by various project managers daily. Specific project objectives are set to be achieved at the end of the project. The objectives may vary from one project to the other. Time, cost and quality objectives are however basic and common to almost all projects; they are discussed in the success subject matter of most projects. [Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Walker, 1995, 1996].

In order to achieve set project objectives, specific Project Management (PM) practices are carried out daily by project managers. It has been argued that the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer may vary from organization to organization. Other project managers however argue that since professional practice within the construction industry is required to follow set down guidelines and ethics, PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer may not necessarily vary from organization to organization; the purpose of adopting a particular practice may therefore be due to peculiar environmental and social demands of the project at hand. Highly satisfactory performance cannot be compromised on and so is the need for optimum practices. As asserted by [Ramabadron et al., 1997], the high performance achieved by a project is what makes a practice adopted optimum.

The factors that affect the individual set project objectives are the ones that confront or promote the project success, outcome or performance. Although project performance is

influenced by several factors [Blismas et al., 2004], this study focuses on the relationship that exists between PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer and project performance. Performance of a project therefore needs to be measured to pave way for knowing the optimum practices among the lot.

Estate surveyor and Valuer in Nigeria have therefore been selected for the study. They are regarded as PM organizations in the direction of their having a set of personnel involved in the management of construction projects. Each organization is distinguished from each other by the kind of funding sourced for their development programmes and certain peculiar organizational goals. However, the mission of executing building projects is common amongst them. They specifically include:

  1. Nigeria Education Trust Fund (‘TETFund’) organization
  2. District Assemblies’ Common Fund (‘Common Fund’) organization: and
  3. Social Investment Fund (‘SIF’) organization.

There are certain main organizational goals that are peculiar; Whilst the ‘TETFund’ organization has the sole objective of supplementing the provision of education at all levels in Nigeria, the ‘common fund’ organization, is set to improve housing schemes, sanitation management and primary health care in addition to improving Nigeria’s educational facilities. The ‘SIF’ organization also has the main object of reducing rural and urban poverty. Annually, building projects are undertaken to facilitate achievement of these and other objectives.

In-spite of slight disparity in the specific organizational goals, supplementing and improving educational facilities is common amongst the organizations. This common feature is capitalized upon to pursue the research objectives. The focus is therefore not in the distinguishing features.


1.2 Statement of Problem

  1. Within the sphere of a given project there are several project management activities. Several ways of carrying out these activities emerge and become accepted as day to day practices. The need to meet certain environmental and social challenges, as may be faced by a particular organization, may cause the adoption of certain PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer. Personnel involved in project management may also adopt certain PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer and stick to them for purposes which may however not relate to the project success. Several practices are therefore carried out in the management of projects but not recognized as PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer.
  2. The need to obtain successful projects calls for the need to also undertake optimum practices. Knowing the success, or outcome or performance of a project has a great deal of relevance to knowing the optimum practices. The effort put into the measurement of project performance in the country has portrayed little or no help in this direction. The possible, simple and most understanding way of measuring project performance with hard data is therefore needed in this regard.
  3. Performance of group of projects managed by an organization may differ from performance of another group of projects with similar characteristics but managed by another organization. The kind of PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer carried out by the different organizations for achieving project success may also influence variation in the performance of the projects. The significance of such differences in performance of the groups of projects is therefore necessary for determination of the characteristics of influential PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer.
  4. There is a relationship between PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer and project performance [Ramabadron et al., 1997]. Certain PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer adopted do not necessarily have a significant satisfactory influence on projects performance whilst some have. There would therefore be the need to promote optimum practices and a second look taken at others that confront the success of building projects.

1.3 Aim and Objective

Aim

The principal aim of this research is to find out the project management practices carried out within the PM organizations that affect building projects performance.

Objectives

The specific objectives of this research are:

  1. To identify the project management practices carried out by estate surveyor and Valuer for management of the selected building projects
  2. To measure the time, cost and quality performances of the building projects executed by estate surveyor and Valuer
  3. To determine if the performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer differs significantly from the performance of building projects managed by another organization
  4. To determine the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer that significantly influence the performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer

1.4 Hypothesis

The performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer differs significantly from the performance of building projects managed by another organization.


1.5 Research Methods

Objective # 1

To identify the project management practices carried out by estate surveyor and Valuer for management of the selected building projects

Objective # 2

To measure the time, cost and quality performances of the building projects executed by estate surveyor and Valuer

Objective # 3

To determine if the performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer differs significantly from the performance of building projects managed by another organization

Objective # 4

To determine the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer that significantly influence the performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer


1.6 Justification of Research

As several practices emerge for carrying out the management of building projects the need to have knowledge of them and their probable effect on project success also becomes increasingly important. By this knowledge, project managers, client’s team members and end users become more aware of both the negative and positive influencing tendencies of daily practices engaged in. Thus, there would be an efficient way of going about controlling and redirecting management efforts so as to achieve higher project success.

A comprehensive assessment of factors that affect construction time, cost and quality objectives of a project is highly necessary in the management process of every project.
Having knowledge of a relationship between project performance and PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer would greatly enhance such an assessment.

Most construction projects are often said to exceed time schedule and cost budgets. Highlighting the need to continually measure time and cost performance is a step towards increasing awareness amongst project management personnel and project client of the huge loss made through sacrificing project time and cost objectives for other objectives not related to project success.


1.7 Scope

Numerous are the factors that affect project performance. The focus here is on the effect emanating from engaging in certain PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer. Project performance is considered in the context of achievement of a project’s Time, Quality and Cost objectives; it does not include other emerging performance metrics used in the measurement of project performance.

Of the two main sub-sectors in the Nigeria construction industry (road and building) the concentration is on the building sub-sector. Of the building projects, too, the focus is on those executed under the ‘TETFund’ (tertiary school projects), ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ “organizations”.


1.8 Limitations to Study

Apart from limited time available for completing the study, respondents were reluctant in providing data required. Both the interviewing and the questionnaire distribution stages

are characterized by initial unwillingness on the part of interviewees and respondents. This was lately overcome through persistence and giving assurance that confidentiality of the projects’ time and cost information would be maintained.


1.9 Significance of Study

The study is will be significant to the development of Project Management in the Country according to the following expected outcomes:

  1. The study aims at finding out the relationship between PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer and Project Performance; by having this knowledge Project team members would accordingly extricate themselves from PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer that have negative relationship with Performance while engaging more in those that exhibit positive relationship. This would contribute to realizing improved performance of building projects in the country.
  2. Furthermore, with the information that projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer differs significantly from similar ones managed by another organization, and that this is influenced by variation in the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer carried out, one organization would be prompted to benchmark relevant practices that would improve the performance of the projects it manages. In the long run, organizations involved in project management in the country would have enhanced quality of PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer.

1.10 Definition of terms

Project management

Ways of carrying out the day to day project practices management and administrative activities and decisions from the “cradle” to the “grave” of a project

Project Performance

The totality of time, cost and quality performance of a given project

Time Performance

The degree to which a project’s time objective is achieved, measured on the basis of a before-and- after effect

Construction Time

The number of days from the commencement of work on site to the practical completion point.

Cost Performance

The degree to which a project’s cost objective is achieved measured as the “unit cost”

Quality performance

The degree to which a project’s quality objective is attained which is subjectively measured on a ranking scale.


Chapter Five


Conclusions And Recommendations

Introduction

The principal aim of this research is to find out the project management practices carried out within the PM organizations that affect building projects performance. Four objectives were thus set out in order to achieve this aim:

  1. To identify the project management practices carried out for management of the selected building projects within the organizations
  2. To measure the time, cost and quality performances of the building projects executed within the organizations
  3. To determine if the performance of building projects managed by estate surveyor and Valuer differs significantly from the performance of building projects managed by another organization
  4. To determine the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer that significantly influence the performance of building projects within the organizations
Identified PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer

Table 4.1 indicates the identified project management practices prevailing amongst the organizations. Whilst some of the practices are peculiar to one organization others are common to two or all the organizations. PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer such as: Contractor pre-financing works with money either than advance mobilizations provided by the client; obtaining

project funds quarterly; and monitoring progress of works jointly between project consultant and local clients in conformance with specially developed project monitoring progress reporting format were peculiar to the ‘TETFund’, ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF” organizations respectively. The practice of bearing entire project cost with support from local clients too is identified to be peculiar to the ‘SIF’ organization. Other PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer: “selecting project consultants competitively”, “selecting contractors through open competitive tendering” etc. are common amongst all the estate surveyor and Valuer.

From the interview, all the practices possessed some amount of potential effect on project time, cost and quality objectives.

Measured project performance

A trend of project performance was obtained from computation of time, cost and quality performance of the projects within each organization. With regards to time performance 87.9%, out of the 66 projects obtained from the organizations, was below trend; these projects completed behind schedule. Also, 50.1% of the projects was completed above budget; performed below trend. With regards to quality performance only 15.2% of the projects performed below trend. Satisfaction with the general quality of the projects was found to be high.

Comparison of Performance of the Projects between the Organizations
The observation of existence or no-existence of significant differences between the projects studied within the estate surveyor and Valuer has been done pair-wise using the

independent t-test. Where significant difference is found it was also observed that the respective significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer also varied and vice versa.

Difference in Time Performance of the Projects

From table 4.4, the test for equality of means with time performance as the test variable indicate that the time performance of the projects within the ‘TETFund’ organization does not differ significantly from those within the ‘Common Fund’ organization. The time performance of the projects obtained from the ‘SIF’ organizations is significant different from all the other organizations. The difference occurring have been observed to emanate from differences in practices regarding: release of project funds, entire financing of project and the honoring of payment certificates

Difference in Cost Performance of the Projects

The independent t-test in table 4.5 indicates that there is significant difference in the cost performance of projects across all the estate surveyor and Valuer. The significant difference observed have been found to emanate from differences in practices concerning: varying of original scope of works, consultant selection, determination of winning bid and the interim valuation of works.

Difference in Quality Performance of the Projects

The Quality performance of the projects studied under the ‘TETFund’ organization is not significantly different from the projects within the ‘SIF’ organization. This is similar with the projects studied under the ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations. The Quality performance of the projects within the ‘TETFund’ organization studied significantly differed from the projects managed by the ‘Common Fund’ organization as shown in Table 4.6. This significant difference is observed to mostly stem from the practice relating to pre-finacing of the construction works, the honouring of payment certificates, and execution of site instruction.

  • Significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer affecting Project Performance
  • Significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to Time Performance of the Projects

The regression analysis in table 4.7 (a) revealed that the model indicating significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to time performance can explain 84.7%, 76.4% and 89.3% of variation in the time performance of the projects studied under the ‘TETFund’, ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations respectively.

Not all the significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer have positive relationship with the time performance of the projects within the ‘TETFund’ organization. However all the significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to time performance of the projects within the ‘Common Fund’ organization were found to exhibit positive relationship whilst those within occurring within the ‘SIF’ organization exhibited negative relationship.

A common PM practice of selecting contractors through pre-qualification largely based on previous working experience with client was observed to have significant effect on the time performance of the projects studied under both the ‘TETFund’ and ‘Common Fund’ organizations. However, between the ‘TETFund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations as well as between the ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations, all the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer significantly relating to time performance of their respective projects varied from organization to organization.

Significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to Cost Performance of the Projects
The regression analysis in table 4.7 (b) revealed that the model indicating significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to cost performance can explain 58.5%, 80.5% and 97.0% of variation in the quality performance of the projects studied under the ‘TETFund’, ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations respectively.

Not all the significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer have positive relationship with the cost performance of the projects within the ‘TETFund’ organization. However all the significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to cost performance of the projects within the ‘Common Fund’ organization were found to exhibit positive relationship whilst the single significant PM practice occurring within the ‘SIF’ organization related negatively to cost performance of the respective projects.

All the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer significantly relating to cost performance of the respective projects varied from organization to organization.

Significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to Quality Performance of the Projects
The regression analysis in table 4.7 (c) revealed that the model indicating significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer relating to time performance can explain 84.7%, 76.4% and 89.3% of variation

in the time performance of the projects studied under the ‘TETFund’, ‘Common Fund’ and ‘SIF’ organizations respectively.

Not all the significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer have positive relationship with the quality performance projects within the ‘TETFund’ and the ‘SIF’ organizations. However the significant PM practice relating to time performance of the projects within the ‘Common Fund’ organization exhibited positive relationship with quality performance of the respective projects.

The involvement of client in the process of management of the projects is observed as a common characteristic dominating the PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer affecting quality performance of the projects within all the organizations.


Summary

As the objectively measured performance of the projects exhibit significant difference from organization to organization, it is observed that the corresponding significant PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer affecting the corresponding performance also vary from organization to organization and vice versa.


Recommendations

Specific Recommendations
  1. The function of identifying projects through systematic procedures should be encouraged on every individual project. This should not be left in the hands of only the end users of a project. This should be organized into an integrated function where project financiers and end users as well as project consultants are involved.
  2. In the competitive selection of consultants for a contract or group of contracts, previous working experience with client should always be among factors given high attention.
  3. Giving advance mobilization to contractors is said to motivate them to execute satisfactory work and this should therefore be possibly practiced on every project.
  4. In order to minimize delay in the honoring of payment certificates after they have been issued, the number of persons involved in the process of checking and endorsing them should be reduced; only those who would be held responsible in the event of wrong payment should be involved.
  5. Contractors should always confirm verbal instructions, whether given by the consultant or client’s team members, before the execution.
  6. A linkage between organizations’ regional/district/local client’s offices and national head offices should be emphasized and always made to function in order to facilitate effective monitoring of projects.
  7. The practice of valuation of works for payment at defined stages of the project should be, as much as possible, carried out by project managers and this, is believed, will always urge contractors to work at an increased pace.

Recommendation for Further Studies

For further studies, it is recommended that more performance metrics recently developed in other research works (like: benefit to end users, benefit to national infrastructure etc.) be included for measurement. With this, the projects should not necessarily be organization-based. This should lead to the development of a predictive model for determining PM Practices by estate surveyor and Valuer that promote increased project performance as well as those that contribute to poor project performance.


Get Complete Project Material

5,000 5000

The Complete Material Will Be Sent to You in Just 2 Steps

Quick & Simple…


Step One Purchase

Make Payment (Through Transfer) of ₦5,000 to the Account Below

Zenith BankAcc No: 1225513212
Samphina Academy
Current Account

Or CLICK HERE To Pay With Debit Card


FOR STUDENTS OUTSIDE NIGERIA
CLICK HERE To Purchase Material ($15)

Step Two Purchase

Send the Following Details on WhatsApp ( 08143831497) After Payment

  1. Payment Details

  2. TOPIC: An Assessment Of The Role Of Estate Surveyors And Valuers In Project Management

The Complete Material Will Be Sent To You On WhatsApp After Receiving Your Details
T & C Apply


  Contact Our Help Desk


Need a Different Topic? Perform a Quick Search



List of Related Works

Click on Any Topic to Preview the Content

samphina.academy

Samphina Academy

Samphina Academy is an Online Educational Resource Center that is aimed at providing students with quality information and materials to aid them in succeeding in their academic pursuit.