International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Cause and Effect of Delay on Shoring
Construction Project in the case of Addis
Ababa
Eng. Tobista zenebe
Abstract: - Delay in construction project are a global phenomenon, causing a multitude of negative effects on the key project participant’s client,
consultants, and contractor. There are fifty-four possible cause of delay were identified the delay cause were further classified in to nine major groups and
also this study Identify seven major Effect of Delay on shoring construction project. The data were analyzed using relative important index and SPSS. The
result suggested the client related factors, contractor related factors, consultant related factor, material related cause, Equipment Related cause, Labor
related cause, external factor, Geotechnical investigation and Design factor is the most significant cause of the project delay in this study.
Key words:
- Cause, Effect, Relative important Index, Delay on shoring
1. INTRODUCTION
In Addis Ababa city know days there are several high-rising
buildings are being constructed that need a deep excavation
for structural and functional purposes. It is important to
practice shoring technology to protect the adjacent building
from possible collapse. Shoring is the construction of a
temporary structure to support temporarily an unsafe
structure. These support walls laterally. Shoring uses for
when walls bulge out, when walls crack due to unequal
settlement of foundation and repairs are to be carried out to
the cracked wall, when an adjacent structure needs pulling
Generally, in Ethiopia, shoring work is perform with a small
number of specialized firms in foundation work. Advance
technology, techniques, cost, and higher
down when openings are to be newly made or enlarged in a
wall. This study mainly focused on the cause and effects of
delays on shoring construction projects. In Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia 15 shoring contractors are specialized in shoring
pile foundation in know days shoring technology are utilize
because high-rise buildings are available in the city based on
this, which is use for delay causes and examines the
corresponding effects identified and provide a
recommendation. Based on the findings to improve project
performance and to avoid project delay on shoring
construction projects in the further.
demand come from the case of shoring work it may suffer
capacity problems and make the project delay and fail.
Page 1
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
2. Objective of the study
The specific objectives of the study were:



To find out the causes of delay in shoring
Construction project.
To assess the effects of delay in shoring
Construction project.
To examine the extent causes, and effects of delay in
shoring construction projects.
3. Literature Review
Yahya et al. (2013) explored that the factors related to
contractor, client, consultant, material, and equipment have
a significant impact on delay in construction project whereas
labor and general environment factors found to have no
effects on a delay of the construction project in Pakistan.
Sambasivan et al. (2007) surveyed the causes and effects of
delays in the Malaysian construction industry. The study
identified the 10 most important causes of a delay from a list
of 28 different causes and 6 different effects of delay. The ten
most important causes were Contractor’s improper
planning,
Project and the discovered causes categorized under the
following nine primary category:
Consultant, Contractor, Design, Equipment, External, Labor,
Material, Owner and Project related factors of delay. Aziz,
Remon Fayek (2013) also analysis and identifies high-impact
value of delay causes in Egypt as follows. The major cause of
Delay at Egypt Construction project
is Shortage of
Contractor’s poor site Management, inadequate Contractor
experience, inadequate Client’s finance and payments for
completed work, problems with Subcontractors, and
shortage of material, labor supply, equipment availability
and failure, lack of communication between parties, and
mistakes during the construction stage.
Mansfield et al (1994) studied the causes of delay and cost
overrun in construction projects in Nigeria. The results
showed that the most important factors are financing and
payments, poor contract management, changes in site
conditions, shortage of material, and improper planning.
Aziz, Remon Fayek (2013) made an investigation of
significant causes of delay in the Egypt construction
industry. They explored ninety-nine (99) factors of delay in
construction
equipment, Ineffective project planning and scheduling,
Poor site management and investigation, Poor monetary
control on site, Rework, Selecting non-skilled contractors,
Sudden Accidents ,poor planning, low-skilled working
team, Inadequate contractor experience, Frequent
equipment breakdowns, Global financial crisis, Complexity
of the work (project type, project scale, etc. Project Legal
arguments between projects
Stakeholders, disagreement between joint-ownership
variations, poor construction method, non-skilled labor,
Conflicts.
Shakeel et al. (2006) made an investigation of significant
causes of delay in the UAE construction industry. In the
study, they indicated that the effects of construction delays
are not only confined to the construction industry but
influence the overall economy of a country like UAE, where
construction plays a major role in its development and
contributes 14% to the GDP. Thus, it is essential to define
the most significant causes of delay to avoid or
Page 2
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
minimize their impact on construction projects. The
research disclosed that 50% of the construction projects in
UAE encounter delays and are not complete on time.
4. Research Methodology
Literature collecion about cause and
effect of project Delay
Questionnaire Destribution
Population of this study consist of shoring pile contractor,
clients and consultant on Addis Ababa. The sample size was
determined using statistical formula put here under If the
population is less than 1000, a sample size of 30% can be a
representative of the population (Gay and Airasian 2003).
Formula: -
Analysis in SPSS
Where
n= N*0.3-------------------- Equation 1
Relative Important Index (RII)


Results and Discussions

Conclustion and
Recommendation
n = the sample size of the study.
N = is the population size and team members who
were working as consultant, contractor and client in
shoring
Project construction 0.3 represent 30% of population
size.
Based on the formula: n = 200 * 0.3
For this Research, I prefer to collect the required information
by using questionnaire. The questionnaire divided into three
parts. In addition, unstructured one-to-one interview will
conducted with selected individuals represented
n= 6
5. Data Analysis
The data analysis is determined to establish the relative
importance of various factors that contribute to causes and
effects of construction delays. Analysis of data consists of
calculating the Relative Importance Index (RII) and ranking
of factors in each category based on the Relative Importance
Index (RII) and by using SPSS Software.
Where
RII= Σn --------Equation 2
A*N

RII = Relative Importance Index,

= Number of respondents
answer each factor
Page 3
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = weight given for each factor (ranging
from 1 to 5),
Finally, the results of the questionnaires were analyzed
using descriptive analysis on SPSS Software and the results
used to form the basis for recommendations as well as areas


A = highest weight (i.e. 5 in our case),
N = total number of respondent
for further research. The methods Analysis used in
analyzing the data were Descriptive Analysis this was
follow by thorough discussions in order to draw a
conclusion and to forward recommendations based on the
findings of the study.
6. RESULT AND FINDIN
Cause and Effect of Delay in Shoring Construction
Project Analysis by using SPSS Software
Delays in construction projects happen because of various
factors and causes 54 delay-causing factors were identify and
classify in to nine factor groups: client related factors,
contractor related Factors, consultant related factors,
material related factor, labor related factors, and equipment
related factors, external related factors, Geotechnical Factors
and Design Related Factor. Likert scale items are created by
calculating a composite score (sum or mean) from four or
more type Likert type items; therefore, the composite score
for Likert scales should be analyzed at the interval
measurement scale. Furthermore, for Likert scale data from
1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
6.1 Cause of Delay in Shoring Construction
Project
6.1.1
Client Related Cause (CLRC)
Lack of on time finance and payment
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 20% of respondents were select Disagree, 21.7% of
respondents select Slightly Disagree, 50% of respondents
were select Agree and also 6.7% of respondents were select
Strongly Agree. The mean of respondents to lack of on time
Finance and payment were 3.40 with standard deviation of
0.94. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Interference on execution of work
The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select Disagree, 45.0 %
of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 21.7% of
respondents were select Agree and also 0% of respondents
were select Strongly Agree. On the Missing System 3.3%, are
missing value Mean of respondents to Interference on
execution of work were 2.88 with standard deviation of
0.796. The minimum and maximum of work were 1 and 4,
respectively.
Slowness in Decision-making
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 18.3% of respondents were select Disagree, 41.7%
of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 35 % of respondents
were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select
Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Slowness in
were 3.20 with standard deviation of 0.84. The minimum and
maximum Slowness in Decision-making were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Let in site delivery for construction work Design
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 36.7 % of respondents were select Disagree, 35.0 %
of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 25% of respondents
were select Agree and also 1.7% of respondents were select
Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to let in site
delivery for construction work design is 2.88 with standard
deviation of 0.86. The minimum and maximum design were
1 and 5, respectively.
Page 4
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Poor Communication and Coordination
According to Table 8 the result Show that 1.7% of
respondents are select strongly disagree, 43.3% of
respondents were select Disagree, 23.3% of respondents
select Slightly Disagree, 23.3% of respondent Were select
Agree and also 8.3% of respondents were select Strongly
Agree.
The Mean of respondents is 2.93 to Poor
Communication and Coordination with standard deviation
of 1.039. The minimum and maximum for were 1 and 5,
respectively
6.1.2
Contractor Related Cause (CONRC)
Subcontractors related Problems
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 15% of respondents were select Disagree, 45% of
respondents select Slightly Disagree, 36.7% of respondents
were select Agree and also 3.3% of respondents were select
Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to let in site
delivery for construction work design is 3.28 with standard
deviation of 0.761. The minimum and maximum work
design were 2 and 5, respectively.
Poor Site Management and Performance
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 18.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 20% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
56.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Poor site management and performance
were 3.39 with standard deviation of 0.871 and when we
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum Poor site management and
performance were 1 and 5, respectively.
Ineffective Project Planning and Scheduling The
result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select strongly
disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select Disagree,
21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree, 61.7 % of
respondents were select Agree and also 6.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
of consultant were 2.64 with standard deviation of 1.003
and when we see on the missing of
respondents to ineffective project planning and
scheduling were 3.63 with standard deviation of 0.802.
The minimum and maximum Poor site management and
performance were 1 and 5, respectively.
Inappropriate Construction Methods
The result Show that 5% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 46.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
35% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.24 with standard deviation of 0.858 and when
We see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value.
The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively
those value are on the Statistics table in the Annex II.
7. Consultant Related Cause (CURC)
Inadequate Experience of consultant
The result Show that 5% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 53.4% of respondents were select
Disagree, 19% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
17.2% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.2%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The of
consultant were 2.64 with standard deviation of 1.003
and when we see on the missing of Mean of respondents
to Inadequate Experience
Delay in Site Mobilization
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 30.% of respondents were select
Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
43.3% of responses were select Agree and also 3.3% of
Value Respondents were select Strongly Agree. The
Mean of respondents to inappropriate construction
methods were 3.17 with standard deviation of 0.960. The
minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively.
Page 5
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
And maximum were 1 and 5, respectively
Frequent change and variation orders
Poor Communication and coordination
The result Show that 8.3% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 43.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 16.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
2.75 with standard deviation of 1.068. The minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 40% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
30% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
2.93 with standard deviation of 0.954 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 25% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
46.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.28 with standard deviation of 0.783 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively.
Poor contract management
The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 20.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 47.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
Inaccurate Site Investigation
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 13.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 40.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
39.0% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.8%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to frequent change and variation orders were
3.39 with standard deviation of 0.810 and when we see
on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively.
respondents to frequent change and variation orders were
3.02 with standard deviation of 0.799 and when we see
on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum were 1 and 4, respectively
Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 30.5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 30.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in
drawings were 3.05 with standard deviation of 0.899 and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Slow response and inspection
The result Show that 5.1% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 37.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
23.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.5%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in
drawings were 2.93 with standard deviation of 1.081 and
Page 6
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5,
respectively.
8. Material Related Cause (MRC)
Shortage of construction materials
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select
Disagree, 23.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
60% of respondents were select Agree and also 15% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.87 with standard deviation of 0.724 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Change in material type during construction
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 13.6% of respondents were select
Disagree, 30.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
49.2% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 3.42 with standard deviation of 0.855 and when we
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively.
Rise in material prices
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 11.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
36.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 46.7%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
4.25 with standard deviation of 0.856 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively.
Inadequate material
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 8.5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 15.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
Delay in material delivery
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
53.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 18.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.78 with standard deviation of 0.904 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Late procurement of materials
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 15% of respondents were select
Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
56.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 10% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.62 with standard deviation of 0.865 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively.
Quality of material
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 16.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
28.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 46.7%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
4.13 with standard deviation of 0.982he minimum and
maximum were 2 and 5, respectively.
38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 36.7%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 4.05 with standard deviation of 0.936 and when we
Page 7
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively.
9. Equipment Related Cause (ERC)
Shortage of equipment
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 28.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.28 with standard deviation of 0.976 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Equipment breakdown
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 6.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
60% of respondents were select Agree and also 8.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.70 with standard deviation of 0.720 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively.
Low level of maintainers
Low level of skilled operator's
The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 25% of respondents were select
Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.07 with standard deviation of 0.899 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Low productivity and efficiency of equipment
The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 13.6% of respondents were select
Disagree, 42.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
35.6% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 3.25 with standard deviation of 0.883 and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Shortage of equipment spare parts
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 3.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 13.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
73.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 10% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 21.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
35% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.07 with standard deviation of 0.899 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.90 with standard deviation of 0.602 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively
10. Labor Related Cause (LRC)
Shortage of Labors
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
58.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 5% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.38with standard deviation of 0.993 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Personal conflict among labors
Page 8
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 30.5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
40.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
Low labor productivity
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 15.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 37.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
42.4% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.4% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 3.31 with standard deviation of 0.836 and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Labor injuries
The result Show that 8.3% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 45% of respondents were select
Disagree, 23.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
20% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of
7. External Factors
Delay in obtaining permit
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 16.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
51.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 3.07 with standard deviation of 0.888and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 4,
respectively.
Non attendance
The result Show that 6.8% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 44.1% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
20.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.4% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 2.69 with standard deviation of 0.987 and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5,
respectively.
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Weather Condition
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select
Disagree, 6.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
41.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 50% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
2.65 with standard deviation of 1.005 the minimum and
maximum Value were 1 and 5, respectively.
Natural Disasters
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 15% of respondents were select
Disagree, 35% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
46% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to inappropriate construction methods were
3.38 with standard deviation of 0.783 the minimum and
maximum Value were 2 and 5, respectively.
Regulatory changes
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 32.2% of respondents were select
Page 9
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Disagree, 47.5% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
18.6% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 2.83 with standard deviation of 0.746 and
when we see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing
Value. The minimum and maximum of were 1 and 4,
respectively.
Unforeseen site conditions
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 26.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 40% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
31.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 3.08 with standard deviation of 0.809.
The minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5,
respectively.
Delay in providing services from utilities (Such as
water, electricity, etc.)
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 41.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 28.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
23.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 5% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.958.
The minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively.
Government Policy
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 52.5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
13.6% of respondents were
Select Agree and also 5.1% of respondents were select
Strongly Agree. The Mean of respondents to Low
productivity and efficiency of equipment were 2.68 with
standard deviation of 0.918 and when we see on the
missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum
and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively
8. Geotechnical Factors
The varying nature of soil stratum
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
70% of respondents were select Agree and also 16.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 3.98 with standard deviation of 0.676.
The minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively.
Ground water level
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 26.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
60% of respondents were select Agree and also 11.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents 3.82 with standard deviation of 0.651 the
minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively .
Effects on nearby utility
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 11.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
38.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 48.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 4.33 with standard deviation of 0.752
the minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively.
Lack of well-trained geotechnical investigator
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 5% of respondents were select
Disagree, 18.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
45% of respondents were select Agree and also 31.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to 4.03 with standard deviation of 0.843 the
minimum and maximum were 2 and 5, respectively.
Page 10
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Small samples taken to deduct the whole soil
Nature.
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select
Disagree, 8.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
Lack of study about the background of the site
surface Area based on the surface is military or
historical
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select
Diameter of anchor pile
The result Show that 5.1% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 16.9% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25.4% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
45.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 6.8% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 3.32 with standard deviation of 1.008 and when we
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively.
Height of anchor pile
The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 36.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
33.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 3.3% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Height of anchor pile were 3.10 with
51.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 40% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondent’s 4.32 with standard deviation of 0.624 the
minimum and maximum of were 3 and 5, respectively.
Disagree, 21.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
46.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 30% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment were 4.05 with standard deviation of 0.769 the
minimum and maximum of were 2 and 5, respectively.
standard deviation of 0.915 the minimum and maximum
of were 1 and 5, respectively.
Spacing between consecutive anchor pile
The result Show that 3.4% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 22% of respondents were select
Disagree, 44.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
28.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 1.7% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents
to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings were 3.03
with standard deviation of 0.850 and when we see on the
missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The minimum
and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively.
Angle of inclination of tie–back anchorage
The result Show that 3.3% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 30% of respondents were select
Disagree, 43.3% of respondents select Slightly
Disagree, 23.3% of respondents were select Agree
and also 0%of respondents were select Strongly
Agree. The Mean of respondents to Height of anchor
pile were 2.87 with standard deviation of 0.812 the
minimum and maximum of Height of anchor pile
were 1 and 4, respectively
Page 11
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Percentage of stressing
The result Show that 5% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 50% of respondents were select
Disagree, 31.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
13.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 0% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Height of anchor pile were 2.53 with
standard deviation of 0.791 the minimum and maximum
were 1 and 4, respectively.
Effect of delay in shoring Construction project
Delay in shoring Construction project occurs in some of the factors that Identify in previous those Factors affect the project
in various way. This study try to observe 7 major Effects of project Delays on shoring Construction Project those are Time
Overrun, Coast Overrun, Quality, Dispute between Parties involved Arbitration, Abonnement of Construction project and
also Litigation and Court Case.
Time Overrun
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 1.7% of respondents were select
Disagree, 0% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
36.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 60% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Time Overrun were 4.52 with standard
deviation of 0.748 the minimum and maximum were 1
and 5 respectively.
Cost Overrun
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 3.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 3.3% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
30% of respondents were select Agree and also 63% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Cost Overrun were 4.53 with standard
deviation of 0.721 the minimum and maximum of were 2
and 5 respectively.
Quality
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 0% of respondents were select
Disagree, 10% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
31.7% of respondents were select Agree and also 56.7%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Quality were 4.42 with standard deviation
of 0.809 the minimum and maximum were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Dispute between parties
The result Show that 0% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 8.3% of respondents were select
Disagree, 25% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
53.3% of respondents were select Agree and also 13.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Height of anchor pile were 3.72 with
standard deviation of 0.804 the minimum and maximum
were 2 and 5 respectively.
Arbitration
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 5.1% of respondents were select
Disagree, 40.7% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
47.5% of respondents were select Agree and also 5.1% of
respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 3.49 with standard deviation of 0.751 and when we
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum of Arbitration were 1 and 5,
respectively.
Abandonment of Construction Project
The result Show that 1.7% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 16.9% of respondents were select
Disagree, 32.2% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
33.9% of respondents were select Agree and also 15.3%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 3.44 with standard deviation of 1.005 and when we
Page 12
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum of were 1 and 5, respectively.
Litigation and court case
The result Show that 5% of respondents are select
strongly disagree, 28.8% of respondents were select
Disagree, 27.1% of respondents select Slightly Disagree,
28.8% of respondents were select Agree and also 10.2%
of respondents were select Strongly Agree. The Mean of
respondents to Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
were 3.10 with standard deviation of 1.094 and when we
see on the missing system, 1.7% are missing Value. The
minimum and maximum were 1 and 5, respectively
The Relative Important Index (RII) Techniques
The RII value had a range from 1 to 5 (1 is Strongly Disagree and 5 is Strongly Agree). One of the objective of this study
was to find out assess, evaluate and examine the cause and Effect of delay on shoring Construction Project by using
Relative Important Index. The following Equation is to show the relative important Index:
Top Delay Causing Factors on Shoring
Construction Project
In this research, we have seen 54 Causing Factors
those Factors ranked by respondents, 10 most:Important factors causing delay in shoring construction
project. Top 10 delay Causing factors are list as follow10
Important factors causing delay in construction project
are summarized and presented Ground water level with
RII= 1.17, Weather condition with RII= 0.87, effect on
nearby utility RII= 0.86. Rise in material price
with RII= 0.85, Quality of material with the RII= 0.82
Lack of study and background of the site Surface area
based on the site is military or historical surface Area with
RII value= 0.81, lack of geotechnical investigator with
RII = 0.80.
Top 10 Delay Causing Factors
Delay cause
RII
Ground water level
Weather Condition
Effects on nearby utility’s
Small sample deduct the
whole soil nature
Rise in Material Price
Quality of material
Lack of study and
background of the site
surface Area.
Lack of geotechnical
investigator
Varity nature of soil stratum
Inadequate material
Rank
0.99
0.87
0.86
0.86
1
2
3
4
0.85
0.82
0.81
5
6
7
0.80
8
0.79
0.79
9
10
Table 1 TOP 10 Delay Cause
Varity natural of soil stratum with RII =0.79 and
Inadequate materials with RII value = 0.79 Suggested as
the most important delay causing Factors on shoring
construction project.
Page 13
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Top Effects of Delay on Shoring Construction
Project
In this research, we have seen seven Effects ranked by
respondents, 7most important factors that affect delay in
shoring construction project. The First one is Time
overrun the RII value is
0.90, Cost overrun 0.90 RII value, Quality RII value is
0.88. Dispute between parties RII value is 0.74
Arbitration RII value is 0.68, Abonnement
Of construction project RII value is 0.67 and finally
Litigation and court case RII Value is 0.61 those factors
are that affect shoring construction project in Know days.
Factors that Affect project Delay
Delay Effects
RII
Rank
Time overrun
Cost overrun
Quality
Dispute between
Parties
Arbitration
Abonnement of
construction project
Litigation and
court case
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.74
1
2
3
4
0.68
0.67
5
6
0.61
7
Table 2 Top Delay Effects on shoring Construction
project
Conclusion



The major finding of the analysis part of this
research is identify the major cause of delay in
shoring construction project in the case of Addis
Ababa. The findings of the research showed that
the frequency distribution and relative important
index of that the research trend.
The research show that low experience of using
variety of construction controlling tools and
techniques by shoring contractors, clients and
consultant. Factors and effects that respondents
rank must improve by using different controlling
tools and technical system to involve the gap
between them.
Geotechnical investigation is the most influential
and major factor on shoring construction project,
which result Background of the site surface area,
Lack of well-trained Geotechnical investigators
and small sample, deduct the whole soil nature

are the major factors that cause delay on shoring
construction project.
Material rise in price, Quality of material and
inadequate materials are also one of the most
important factors that cause project delay and
effect the project time and coast.
References

Adam, A. J.-E.-H. (n.d.). Aggregation of factors
causing cost overruns and time delays in large public
construction projects. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Man trends and implications”

Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006, P. e. (n.d.).

Durdyev, M. H. (Comprehensive list in 2018 ).
Cause of Delay on Construction Project:. School
of Architecture and built Environment Deakin
University, Geelong Australia.
Kuhil, A. M. ( Volume 9/Issue 3/Article No-2/10-1April
2019/9). International Journal of Management Res

earch & Review ISSN: 2249-7196 IJMRR.
Page 14
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research
Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2022 Edition - IJSER Journal Publication
ISSN 2229-55 18
Acknowledgment
First, I would like to thank God for his priceless gift
making this possible to guide and protect me in every
step toward any achievement
Finally thanks to all my family and friends for their
uncountable advice, encouragements and
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr.
Zerayhu Eshete for his continuous guidance throughout
the whole research pray for the success of my journey I
would like to say stay blessed!
Page 15