The study evaluates the factors confronting the present-day construction practices in South-East Nigeria. Being a survey research, questionnaires containing information relating to factors/challenges affecting construction practices were randomly administered to selected construction practitioners in South-Eastern States of Nigeria. Accordingly, a total of 240 questionnaires were administered to the selected respondents while 160 copies were completed, returned and found useful. Thus, giving a response rate of 66.67%. Data collected were analysed and presented using percentages, mean scores, principal and factor analysis, z-test and tables. The study found that the core factors that constrain present-day construction in the study area are issues related to inadequate/dearth of technical and managerial expertise, corruption and poor project planning and control; which significantly affect operational effectiveness of the construction industry in the study area. Therefore, the study concluded by recommending that thorough capacity building through training or retraining programme which should centre on areas of the issues identified should be religiously pursued in the study area.
Construction industry in both developed and developing countries is a great contributor and/or a critical component to economic growth and development. As such, it serves as an indicator/litmus-paper for testing the economy of any nation. When there is upsurge in construction, one can easily infer that the economy is booming and vice versa when construction work dwindles. Consequently, construction works are employed by government as a tool for regulating economy. Also, construction industry is a great employer of labour and contributes immensely to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. Also, physical construction activities alone provide between 2% and 6% of the employment demands of the nation and the subsidiary activities provide an additional 2% to 4% in developing countries, while in the developed countries the figure rises to between 6% to 10% and 4% to 6% [
Construction industry in Nigeria has achieved a great feat not only in the provision of labour and GDP but as well as the ripple effect that emanates from setting up a construction site a particular location, such as market to building/construction materials vendors, work to both skilled/unskilled/casual labourers, and market to local food sellers, to name but a few. For the past few decades, the industry continuously has witnessed tremendous change in design and construction of buildings and other civil works. As ICT accentuates the progress in the industry becomes more noticeable. The building and construction sector in Nigeria registered strong growth, standing at 12.09% in 2010, compared to 11.97% in 2009, reflecting greater investments in both residential and non-residential buildings and other construction activities. Growth in construction related activities rose by 12.24% in 2010 as against 11.97% in 2009 [
In spite of this, the construction industry in Nigeria is marred with lot of irregularities. These irregularities to [
Nigeria being a developing country is confronted with a lot of problems and her construction industry is still struggling with a lot of intrinsic challenges, ranging from inadequate technical and managerial know-how to insufficient financial, material and equipment capital base [
Balouga [
To [
On the other hand, [
Similarly, [
Furthermore, [
Consequently, the mediocre track record attributed to various internal and external challenges in Nigerian Construction Industry coupled with the persistent fragmentation of the industry; inadequate collaboration between the players; the sector’s difficulty in adopting and adapting to new technologies; the difficulties in recruiting a talented and future-ready workforce have continuously shown that the future of the Nigerian construction industry will be dominated or controlled by foreigners if nothing is done to reverse the trend [
This study was carried out in south east, Nigeria. South East Nigeria is made of 5 states, namely: Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo. Basically, data for this study were sourced from construction stakeholders from the major cities within the south east geopolitical zone of Nigeria. The population of this study consist of all duly registered construction professionals residing and practicing within the study area. These professionals include Architects, Builders, Civil Engineers, Quantity surveyors and Estate surveyor and valuers. Also, the study adopted purposive and multi-stage sampling techniques for the choice of individual selected for the interview and questionnaires distribution respectively. Questionnaire, direct observation, interviews, focus group discussion and review of existing literature on construction industry recommended by previous researchers were used as data collection instruments. Accordingly, a total of 240 questionnaires were distributed. From each state, the questionnaires were administered to eight (8) of these listed professionals, totally 48 each. However, 160 questionnaires were duly filled and returned. These correspond to response rate of 66.67% (see
In the descriptive statistics result in
To further reduce the number of factors affecting construction practices in Nigeria and at the same time recruit any essential unrecruited ones, the research employed inferential statistical technique, the principal component method of factor analysis. Before the principal component analysis, proper, test of interdependence (correlation) was performed. The result of the analysis was presented in
The rest of test of interdependence among the factors revealed that they are highly correlated (with about 60% of partial correlation coefficient (ri) ≥ 0.50), which indicates interdependence and explicitly, the presence of autocorrelation
Questionnaires | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Number of questionnaires returned | 160 | 66.67 |
Number of questionnaires not returned | 80 | 33.33 |
TOTAL | 240 | 100 |
Factors affecting construction practices | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | W i X i | ∑ f | Mean ( X ¯ ) | Remark |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inadequate/dearth of technical or managerial expertise | 40 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 560 | 160 | 3.50 | Agree |
Project finance/capital supply constraints | 80 | 40 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 680 | 160 | 4.25 | Agree |
Corruption issues | 120 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 720 | 160 | 4.50 | Agree |
Fragmented nature of the industry | 60 | 40 | 60 | 20 | 0 | 680 | 180 | 3.78 | Agree |
Incapable of packaging or attracting loans | 40 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 620 | 160 | 3.88 | Agree |
Disconnection of policy formulation and policy implementation | 80 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 660 | 160 | 4.13 | Agree |
Low profit margins | 0 | 0 | 100 | 20 | 40 | 380 | 160 | 2.38 | Disagree |
High operating costs/constant rising of project costs | 0 | 80 | 60 | 20 | 0 | 540 | 160 | 3.38 | Agree |
Scope creep | 20 | 20 | 80 | 40 | 0 | 500 | 160 | 3.13 | Agree |
Inadequate funding | 40 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 620 | 160 | 3.88 | Agree |
Poor project planning & quality control | 0 | 40 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 460 | 160 | 2.88 | Disagree |
Lack of skilled labour | 0 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 60 | 400 | 160 | 2.50 | Disagree |
Abandoned projects | 20 | 40 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 540 | 160 | 3.38 | Agree |
Safety on site | 40 | 20 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 540 | 160 | 3.38 | Agree |
Inflation in prices of construction resources | 60 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 680 | 160 | 4.25 | Agree |
Slow pace of technological development/difficulty in adopting and adapting to new technologies | 60 | 40 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 640 | 160 | 4.00 | Agree |
Economic recession | 40 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 620 | 160 | 3.88 | Agree |
Inadequate collaboration between the players | 40 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 620 | 160 | 3.88 | Agree |
Cluster mean | 3.61 | Agree |
Note: 5 = SA = Strongly Agree; 4 = A = Agree; 3 = Undecided; 2 = D = Disagree; 1 = SD = Strongly Disagree.
problem. This confirms appropriateness of reduction statistics (factor analysis) to sieve out the nuisance and retain the latent factors affecting construction practices in Nigeria. The factor analysis result (Principal component method) was presented in
From the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) result in
x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x5 | x6 | x7 | x8 | x9 | x10 | x11 | x12 | x13 | x14 | x15 | x16 | x17 | x18 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
x1 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||
x2 | 0.535 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||
x3 | 0.129 | 0.871 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||
x4 | 0.343 | 0.871 | 0.706 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||
x5 | 0.590 | 0.709 | 0.329 | 0.834 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||
x6 | 0.185 | 0.921 | 0.908 | 0.908 | 0.653 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
x7 | −0.647 | −0.202 | −0.129 | 0.148 | 0.175 | 0.146 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
x8 | 0.492 | 0.099 | −0.359 | 0.380 | 0.744 | 0.015 | 0.212 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
x9 | −0.332 | 0.118 | 0.076 | 0.582 | 0.457 | 0.381 | 0.731 | 0.472 | 1.00 | |||||||||
x10 | 0.590 | 0.709 | 0.329 | 0.834 | 1.00 | 0.653 | 0.175 | 0.744 | 0.457 | 1.00 | ||||||||
x11 | −0.147 | −0.079 | −0.303 | 0.329 | 0.565 | 0.109 | 0.811 | 0.744 | 0.783 | 0.565 | 1.00 | |||||||
x12 | 0.250 | −0.535 | −0.772 | −0.629 | −0.098 | −0.698 | −0.072 | 0.328 | −0.467 | −0.098 | 0.147 | 1.00 | ||||||
x13 | 0.037 | 0.315 | 0.076 | 0.708 | 0.783 | 0.472 | 0.652 | 0.744 | 0.891 | 0.783 | 0.891 | −0.221 | 1.00 | |||||
x14 | −0.196 | 0.419 | 0.437 | 0.774 | 0.463 | 0.628 | 0.444 | 0.266 | 0.896 | 0.463 | 0.463 | −0.784 | 0.752 | 1.00 | ||||
x15 | 0.954 | 0.757 | 0.380 | 0.591 | 0.744 | 0.470 | −0.518 | 0.470 | −0.163 | 0.744 | −0.073 | 0.021 | 0.200 | 0.024 | 1.00 | |||
x16 | 0.405 | 0.906 | 0.708 | 0.961 | 0.891 | 0.926 | 0.175 | 0.381 | 0.457 | 0.891 | 0.348 | −0.467 | 0.674 | 0.607 | 0.653 | 1.00 | ||
x17 | 0.958 | 0.512 | 0.076 | 0.455 | 0.674 | 0.200 | −0.541 | 0.653 | −0.087 | 0.674 | 0.022 | 0.147 | 0.239 | 0.029 | 0.926 | 0.457 | 1.00 | |
x18 | 0.590 | 0.709 | 0.329 | 0.834 | 1.00 | 0.653 | 0.175 | 0.744 | 0.457 | 1.00 | 0.565 | −0.098 | 0.783 | 0.463 | 0.744 | 0.891 | 0.674 | 1.00 |
a. This matrix is not positive definite. where, X1 = Inadequate/dearth of technical or managerial expertise; X2 = Project finance/Capital supply constraints; X3 = Corruption issues; X4 = Fragmented nature of the industry; X5 = Incapable of packaging or attracting loans; X6 = Disconnection of policy formulation and policy implementation; X7 = Low profit margins; X8 = High operating costs/constant rising of project costs; X9 = Scope creep; X10 = Inadequate funding; X11 = Poor Project planning & quality control; X12 = Lack of skilled labour; X13 = Abandoned projects; X14 = Safety on site; X15 = Inflation in prices of construction resources; X16 = Slow pace of technological development/difficulty in adopting and adapting to new technologies; X17 = Economic recession; X18 = Inadequate collaboration between the players.
Factors | Component | % age extracted | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||
Inadequate/dearth of technical or managerial expertise | 0.956 | −0.005 | −0.282 | 0.992 |
Project finance/Capital supply constraints | 0.563 | 0.815 | −0.044 | 0.983 |
Corruption issues | 0.099 | 0.965 | −0.187 | 0.976 |
Fragmented nature of the industry | 0.477 | 0.774 | 0.409 | 0.994 |
Incapable of packaging or attracting loans | 0.781 | 0.340 | 0.510 | 0.985 |
Disconnection of policy formulation and policy implementation | 0.276 | 0.918 | 0.199 | 0.959 |
Low profit margins | −0.394 | 0.017 | 0.853 | 0.884 |
High operating costs/constant rising of project costs | 0.687 | −0.290 | 0.643 | 0.969 |
Scope creep, | −0.102 | 0.307 | 0.909 | 0.930 |
Inadequate funding | 0.781 | 0.340 | 0.510 | 0.985 |
Poor project planning & quality control | 0.142 | −0.162 | 0.968 | 0.984 |
Lack of skilled labour | 0.264 | −0.897 | −0.081 | 0.881 |
Abandoned projects | 0.307 | 0.234 | 0.921 | 0.997 |
Safety on site | −0.048 | 0.647 | 0.646 | 0.837 |
Inflation in prices of construction resources | 0.949 | 0.266 | −0.167 | 10.000 |
Slow pace of technological development/difficulty in adopting and adapting to new technologies | 0.555 | 0.720 | 0.374 | 0.967 |
Economic recession | 0.954 | 0.012 | −0.077 | 0.916 |
Inadequate collaboration between the players | 0.781 | 0.340 | 0.510 | 0.985 |
Eigenvalue | 9.367 | 4.338 | 3.521 | |
% age of variance | 52.041 | 24.101 | 19.561 | |
Cumulative % age | 52.041 | 76.142 | 95.702 |
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Hypothetical statement | Test statistic | Result |
---|---|---|
The challenges to Nigerian construction practices do not significantly decide the operational effectiveness of construction projects in Nigeria | z-test | 4.336; p = 0.000 < 0.05 |
Source: Author’s SPSS 25.0 computation. Inferentially, the identified challenges to construction practices in Nigeria significantly determine operational effectiveness of the construction industry (4.336; p = 0.000 < 0.05).
planning and control.
Conversely, in order to confirm if these outlisted factors in Tables 2-4 affect operational effectiveness of the construction industry in study. Therefore, a hypothetical statement was proposed and tested using z-test. The result of the analysis is presented in
To successfully complete a project, the product has to meet the expected level of quality and contract terms. The project environment and system of work have to be integrated and aligned so as to enable the people to perform their work efficiently, effectively, and safely. Unfortunately, lots of factors constrain effective performances of construction projects in present-day Nigeria. Also, it is of no doubt that unethical practices have found their way to the construction industry and they have significantly not improved the industry both in the area of service and project delivery. On this note the study was conceived and the study revealed lots of factors that constrain present-day construction in the study area. However, the core factors are issues related to inadequate/dearth of technical and managerial expertise, corruption and poor project planning and control; which significantly affect operational effectiveness of the construction industry in the study area. Therefore, efforts should be made to address the identified core problems in the study area. Government, various construction professional bodies, schools/universities and construction firms in the study area should embark on thorough capacity building through training or retraining programme which should center on areas of the issues identified and the danger it poses to the future of the industry in Nigeria.
The authors wish to express their most sincere gratitude to the duly registered construction professionals residing and practicing within the study area (these professionals include Architects, Builders, Civil Engineers, Quantity surveyors and Estate surveyors and valuers) for finding time to respond to the questionnaire, despite their busy schedule.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Ezeokoli, F.O., Bert-Okonkwor, C.B.N., Okongwu, M.I., Fadumo, D.O., Ohaedeghasi, C.I. and Okoye, N.M. (2021) Factors Confronting the Present-Day Construction Practices in South-East, Nigeria: The Professionals’ View. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 9, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbcpr.2021.92011