HOW TO WRITE LONG PAPER

INTRODUCTION The report should be written in academic style. An acceptable Long Paper should conform to the following minimum requirements: 1. Length - Not less than 60 thesis size double space typed pages (A-4 size). 2. Presentation - The Long Paper should be bound in a cover and material should be presented in an academic style. RESEARCH PROPOSAL A Long Paper should start with an outline. Spend more time on working out the outline, think out all conceptual and practical details and plot out the approach, strategy and procedure in details.

STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY1
1. RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY Why? 2. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY - What?

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY How? SCOPE & LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY CHAPTERISATION BIBLIOGRAPHY

Items 1 to 6 are required for Chapter 1 of the Long Paper also.

Matyas, R. M., A. A., Mathews, R. J. Smith, and P. E. Perry: Construction Dispute Review Board Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.

1.

FORMAT The format of the Assignment is written in the indicated sequence: i.

ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

ix.
1

Title-page Acknowledgements Declaration Certificate Contents Detailed Contents List of Tables (if any) List of Figures (if any) Main Text

i ii iii iv v vi vii 1

x. xi.

Appendices Bibliography

viii ix

DATA COLLECTION Data collection is a very laborious task and unless done meticulously, may lead to serious faults in results. In general, there are three types of data with the students, namely. Quantitative/ Qualitative (facts, figures, etc.) Quotations, etc. The quantitative data is generally the bulkiest. This is done by presenting it in the form of Tables. If the student has done his blue print well, he will know what to do with the data, most often he will make DUMMY TABLES in advance to be filled in. Dummy Tables should be made before processing the data. Increasingly, data processing is being done on computers for which the right software package should be selected. 2. GENERAL DEVELOP YOUR REPORT FIRST IN OUTLINE. This procedure will save much time and labour in the following ways: When the working outline is completed you can get a bird's eye view of the job in advance, and see pretty much how it will shape up in final form. This enables you to ask yourself honestly, and to answer concretely the great and ultimate question that should command the mind of every writer: Exactly what am I telling my reader? 3. STYLE Write simply and directly. The report need not be longer than is strictly necessary for clearly presenting what is significant for your study. Avoid unnecessary repetition.

Reports filled with numbers may be very confusing unless the writer adheres strictly to the rules regarding their use:
i.

Numbers less than one hundred, and round numbers, are usually spelled out. Numbers larger than one hundred, except round number, are usually given in figures. No sentence should begin with figures. Numbers with four or more digits, except dates and page number, must have commas inserted to point off thousands from millions, or lakhs and crores. Do not use both and spell out the words at first to establish which terms you are using. Numbers indicating PERCENTAGES are usually given in figures although these may be smaller than one hundred. The words "per" and "cent" are not linked together.

ii. iii.

iv.

Abbreviations In case of repeated reference mention the full name first and indicate the nature of abbreviations. Smith, Adam et al. 4. FORMAT The format of the Assignment is written in the indicated sequence: xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. xxi. xxii. Title-page Acknowledgements Declaration Certificate Contents Detailed Contents List of Tables (if any) List of Figures (if any). Main Text Appendices Bibliography

HOW TO WRITE BIBLIOGRAPHY/FOOTNOTES The natural order of surname following the given name may be used in the footnotes. Bibliographical entries as illustrated below: Lundberg, George A.: Social Research, Longman, New York, 1994. TABLES Each Table should have a number and a title at the top. Table 1.1 PPP Projects in Infrastructure Sector as on 20.05.2006
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Infrastructure Sector Roads Ports Airports Railways Power Urban Infrastructure State Sector 7945.65 39507.00 2341.79 499.00 16409.11 9414.80 Central Sector 22752.00 6461.00 21204.00 -

Total 76117.35 50417.00 Source: Planning Commission, Govt. of India.

Table 2.1 Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan and Projected for the Eleventh Plan
Sectors Electricity (incl. NCE) Roads and Bridges Telecommunication Railways (incl. MRTS) Irrigation (incl. Watershed) Water Supply and Sanitation Ports Airports Storage Gas Total (Rs crore) Rs. Crore 666525 314152 258439 261808 253301 143730 87995 30968 22378 16855 2056150 Shares % 32.42 15.28 12.57 12.73 12.32 6.99 4.28 1.51 1.09 0.82 100.00

Source: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v1/11v1_ch12.pdf

Fig. 2.1: Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan and Projected for the Eleventh Plan Source: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v1/11v1_ch12.pdf

FIGURES A figure may be a chart, diagram, drawing, graph, photograph, map, blueprint or any type of illustration.

Fig. 3.1: Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan and Projected for the Eleventh Plan.

Placement of Tables and Figures Since a Table or a Figure is supposed to contain material that will be discussed in the text, or that is essential to a clear understanding of interpretation of what has been written, the Table should be placed as near as possible to the discussion in the manuscript that relates to it. TYPING RULES
i. ii. iii. iv.

Pages must be of uniform colour and size. Pages should be numbered on right hand corner one inch from top of page and one inch from right edge. There should be a margin of 1.5" on left hand side - 1" from top - 1" from right hand edge. Double-spacing should be retained through out except in quotations which are centred in the page, or in the foot -notes. One side of page is to be typed only. Footnotes are to be set off from the page content by a line extending 1/3rd of the way across the page from the left margin.

v.

The total investment amounts to Rs 2056150 crore. This level of investment amounts to an average of 7.6% of GDP during the Eleventh Plan as a whole2.

Govt. of India: Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-11), Planning Commission, New Delhi, 2007, p. 3. 9

INDICATIVE TITLES

Construction Project Management A study with special reference to Narmada Bridge Construction Quality Management A study with special reference a Project Construction Safety Management A study with special reference a Project Equipment Management in Construction A study with special reference a Project Contracts Management in Construction A study with special reference a Project Productivity in Construction A study with special reference a Project Use of Solar and Wind Power for Engineering Construction Projects Role of Corporate Planning and Strategic Management in Construction Industry A Study on the Application of ERP for An Infrastructure Company Developing Tailor-Made Supply Chain Model for Infrastructure Construction Firm Study, Analysis and Design of Information System With a Special Emphasis on Estate Construction Industry A Study of Management Information System and Design of An Integrated System Model for Materials Management Information System Resource Management in Construction Projects Using ERP Modelling of Computer Integrated Construction Site Management Techno-Commercial Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects Real Estate in India: Competing for Foreign Direct Investment Financial Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects Under Public Private Partnership (PPP) - Identify Various Risk Study Relating To Financial Appraisal of Large Scale EPC Project A Study on Structuring A Joint Venture for FDI in Real Estate Development Market Potential of Foreign Direct Investment in the Real Estate Sector of India An Appraisal of Concession Project Investments (CPIS) in Construction Firms
10

 Raising Finance for Development of Urban Infrastructure : Need for Generating More Avenues Integrated Township Development -Concept To Implementation Real Estate Valuation Model : Reflecting Reality Risk Management in Real Estate Projects in India A Study of International Construction Markets and Assessment of Where Indian Construction Industry Can Go Looking for Opportunities Project Appraisal of Slum Redevelopment Scheme Issues and Finding Alternatives / Suggesting New Policies for Faster Development of Slum in Pune Study of Project Export Opportunities for Indian Construction Industry in African Market Comparison of International Construction Business With Indian Construction Business With Special Attention to a Developed Country - USA A Study of International Construction Market and an Assessment of Where Indian Construction Industry Can Go Looking for Opportunities (CIS Countries) Slum Rehabilitation : Strategies for Urban Centres in Developed Countries Vis-a-Vis Mumbai To Carry Out Study of International Construction Market and Make An Assessment of Where Indian Construction Industry Can Go Looking for Opportunities Built To Suit Commercial Projects in India : A Comprehensive Study To Propose Innovative and Programmatic Strategies for Slum Rehabilitation in Mumbai City Building Services, Utilities and Facilities Management of Corporate Buildings - Building Services, Utilities and Maintenance Building Services, Utilities and Facilities Management of Corporate Buildings - Facilities Management Study of Important Construction Materials and Technologies for Long Service Life of Building in India Management of Construction Resources, Its Core Features and the Integration Approach Risk Management : A Comparative Study of Power Generating Resources and Technology

11

 Analysing Urban Development and Traffic Management With Bus Rapid Transit System and Transit Oriented Development Perspective for Pune City Sustainable Construction : The Future of Indian Construction Resource Productivity Analysis of Highway Projects Facilities and Services Management : Business Review and Analysis of Malls Building Services and Facility Management in High Rise Residential Buildings Application of Multi Work Package Contracts in Infrastructure Project Study of Strategies and Constraints in Development of Mass Rapid Transportation System for Urban Cities Issues Pertaining To EPC Turnkey Projects With Special Reference to the Power Sector EPC Turnkey Projects: Study of Issues Impacting Oil and Gas Pipelines Dispute Settlement in Construction Industry Role of Arbitration Law Comparative Study of Indian Conditions of Contract With FIDIC Conditions of Contract Comprehensive Study of FIDIC Guidelines for Engineering Project Safety in Real Estate During Planning, Designing, Execution and Operation EPC / Turnkey Contracts in Oil and Gas Sector Performance Based Contracting To Study All the Aspects That Are Significant in Design and Construction of Energy Efficient Buildings Optimization of Life Cycle Energy and Cost of A Residential Building Quality Manual for Building Services for Consultant Analytical Study on Pune's Road Condition Lean Construction Quality Function Deployment in Construction Projects Business Opportunities in Sea Port and Airport Sectors of India Economic Analysis of the Indian Infrastructure Sector With Special Reference To the Power, Roads and Oil and Gas Sector Power Sector of India Technology Update and Economic Analysis
12

 Tendering and Budding International Construction Projects Engineering Construction and Financing Through Public-Private Participation With Emphasis on Risk Management Studies in Hydropower Projects Variation and Deviation in Civil Engineering Contract Advance Construction Methodology : A Case Study on Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Assessing Indoor Air Quality for A Platinum Rated Building Analyzing the Environmental Parameters At Construction Site Legal Aspects and their Compliances in Construction Project Quality Assurance in Construction Industry for Integrated Township Project A Study on Design and Procurement of Construction Material Planning and Analysis of Construction Operations A Study of Embodied Energy in A Commercial Complex Design Change Management in Building Project Safe Guarding the Buildings Against Environmental Conditions: Water Proofing and Heating Design Build Contract Innovative Hr Practices and Their Applicability in Construction Industry Study of Sub-Contracting Practices in Construction Industry Implementation of ISO 9001:2000 in Construction Industry Analysis of Constraints Faced By Constructors in Executing NHAI Project With Special Reference To Land Acquisition in Infrastructure Projects Human Resource Development in the Construction Industries Total Quality Management: A Study Planning and Selection of Equipments for Major Infrastructure Project Study of Emerging Real Estate Market Strategies for Environmental Pollution Control in Metro Cities I.E. in Kolkatta Feasibility and Constrains Related To Privatisation of Ports in India Supply Chain Management in Indian Construction Industry Role of A Project Manager in Construction Project Execution

13

 Risk Assessment and Trends in Infrastructure Project on BOT Basis Study the Infrastructure Construction Market and Evolve Key Strategies for Project Marketing, Based on Marketing Theories Future Trends of Project Management To Study the Conflict Management Style of Techno-Managers in Construction Industry Trends in Retrofitting of Buildings Some Realistic Approaches Comparative Study of Safety Practices in Different Types of Construction Projects Value Engineering in Construction

14

FACTORS CAUSING CONSTRUCTION DELAYS: A SURVEY OF LARGE HOUSING PROJECTS IN INDIA

.

INTRODUCTION Housing construction is an important growth engine in India. In 2001, out of the 9.6% of the GDP contributed by the construction industry, housing construction contributed to 4.5%, indicating its importance in nation building3. In this context, owing to the increasing housing investments, triggered by Governments enabling approaches (allowing FDI in housing, easy finance to demand and supply sides, to mention a few), the need of the hour is for an efficient and timely completion of the housing projects. In addition to this, with the start of public-private partnerships in housing construction, with no escalation clause and compensation payable for delayed possession of completed dwelling units to the end users, the need to complete the projects in planned and promised time and budget, further increases. However, while bringing up such large projects, a number of unexpected problems and changes from the original design arise during the construction phase of such projects, resulting in construction delays4. Since cost escalation is a derived effect of these delays, exploring the reasons for such delays is one of the prerequisites of keeping the cost within the initial budget and ensuring the scheduled completion time. Starting with the pioneering work by Bromilow5 in Australia on building projects, a review of literature presents an array of systematic studies on construction delays, from various parts of the world. To mention a few, Baldwin and Manthai6 in USA, Kumaraswamy and Chan7 in Hong Kong, Mezhar and Tawil8 in Lebanon, Al-Homani9 in 2000 and Odeh and Battaineh10 in
3 4

10

Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India. Chan D.W.M., Kumaraswamy M.M., An Evaluation of Construction Time Performance in the Building Industry, Building and Environment, Vol.31-6 (1996) pp. 569 578. Bromilow, F.J., Contract Time Performance Expectations and Reality, Building Forum, 1-3 (1969) pp.7 - 80. Baldwin J.R., Manthai J.M. Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Division. ASCE 97 (1971) 177-87. Kumaraswamy M.M., Chan D.C.W. Contributors to Construction Delays. Construction Management and Economics. 16 (1998) 16-29. Mezhar TM, Tawil W. Causes of Delays in the Construction Industry in Lebanon. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management Journal. 5-3 (1998) 251260. Al-Homani A.H. Construction Delay: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Project Management. 18 (2000) 51-59. Odeh A.M., Battaineh H.T. Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional contracts. International Journal of Project Management. 20 (2002) 67 73.

15

2002 in Jordan studied the causes of delay in construction industry. Ogulana et al. 11 found out such causes in a fast-growing economy like Thailand in 1996 and compared them with similar other economies. Arditi et al.12 in 1985, probed the reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey. Okpala and Aniekwu13 in 1988 studied the causes of high costs of construction in Nigeria. Delays in large construction projects were studied by Sullivan and Harris14 in UK, Assaf et al.15 in Saudi Arabia and by Long et al.16 in Vietnam. OBJECTIVES The authors had not come across such a systematic study on construction delays, conducted on housing projects in India. In this context, the present study aims to address this gap with the following objectives: To identify the principal factors causing construction delays in large housing projects in India. - To derive the relative significance of these factors as perceived by the key stakeholders of such housing projects. - To test for agreement between the respondent groups in ranking the construction delay factors. - To draw logical inferences from the survey responses and propose relevant recommendations to minimize the effect of some of these construction delay factors. A questionnaire survey conducted during March and April 2005, among two key stakeholders (consultants and contractors) involved in large housing projects in Kolkata, formed the basis for this study. Housing projects with more than 100 dwelling units or project costs in excess of Rs. 100 million are considered as large. The factors considered as causing delays were limited to the construction phase of such housing projects. The developer of such housing projects is referred to as client in this study. It is expected that the results from this study would provide an improved understanding of participants views about principal factors causing construction delays. And, would help in generating strategies to alleviate the root causes of some of these problems and result in
11

12

13

14

15

16

Ogulana S.O., Promkuntong K., JearKJirm V. Construction Delays in a Fast-growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with other economies. International Journal of Project Management. 14-1 (1996) 37-45. Arditi R.D., Akan G.T., Gurdamar S. Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey. Construction Management and Economics. 3. (1985) 171-181. Okpala D.C., Aniekwu AN. Causes of High Costs of Construction in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE 114 (1988) 233-44. Sullivan A, Harris F.C. Delays on Large Construction Projects. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 6-1 (1986) 25-33. Assaf S.A., Al-Khalil, Al-Hazmi. Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE 11-2 (1995) 45-50. Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC. Large Construction Projects in Developing Countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management. 22 (2004) 553-561.

16

significant improvements in time and derived cost performance of future housing projects in India. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Simister17 ascertained that questionnaire surveys are the currently favoured methodology in construction management related studies. Such surveys, according to him, collect data in standardized questionnaires from random samples of a population and enable the researcher to derive statistical inferences from the collected data. Hence, designing a wellstructured survey questionnaire becomes the first step in conducting a successful study. Design of survey questionnaire The questionnaire used for the present survey was designed based on literature review on similar surveys and observations by the researcher. A comparison of the factors considered for the present survey, with some similar studies is presented in Table 1. While designing the questionnaire used in the present study, preliminary design by the researcher was fine tuned employing Delphi approach among research colleagues, professors at the Departments of Architecture and Regional Planning, Civil Engineering and Industrial Engineering and Management at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur and the senior vice president of an established public-private partnership housing development company at Kolkata. A pilot survey was conducted and few questions were added and modified before freezing the questionnaire. Finally, a total of 50 factors that could cause construction delays were identified and grouped under 10 gross factor categories. These gross factors represent the key players / resources / policies that might induce the detailed factors such as late release of interim payments by the developer, resulting delays in the progress of construction. Table 2 presents the complete list of these gross factors and detailed factors, in the same order of the questionnaire. Respondents characteristics Target group of the respondents consisted of consultants and contractors, involved with large group housing projects in Kolkata. The consultants group primarily consisted of architects. Others belonging to this group included structural and related consultants. The contractors group in this survey consisted of professionally qualified civil engineers employed with professional construction companies. The others included in this group are the owners of traditional construction companies involved in housing projects of the scale
17

Simister S. Case Study Methodology for Construction Management Research. th Proceedings of the 11 Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management. York, U. K., 18-20 Sept 1995, pp.21-32.

17

mentioned earlier. Probable list of the respondents was prepared by referring to the Directory of Council of Architecture (8), Kolkata Real-estate Directory (17), a special magazine on housing projects in Kolkata (9) and by means of personal networking. From this gross list, organizations and consultancy firms confirming to the scope of the questionnaire survey were short-listed after consulting with construction professionals at Kolkata. Method adopted for conducting the survey Systematic research work and questionnaire surveys related to construction industry are very rare in India. Considering the urgency for immediate problems in the building industry and the general reluctance to questionnaire surveys, a direct face-to-face interview-cumquestionnaire survey was chosen as an appropriate alternative to a postal questionnaire survey. Very low response rates of postal questionnaire surveys reported by other researchers (7, 11) further strengthened the appropriateness of this survey method. Introductory letters from the researchers doctoral supervisors provided the initial icebreaking in conducting the survey. Since the target group belonged to senior management of the respective organizations, initially getting an appointment was found to be very difficult. However, once the communication was established and purpose of the survey was understood, the respondents willingly shared the best of their experiences. 42% of the respondents were comfortable sharing information in discussion mode, prompting the researcher to fill in the questionnaire. At an average, it took about one and half hours to furnish sufficient details to complete a questionnaire. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS Weighted score method was used in some studies (1, 10) to reduce the bias of respondents opinion. A multiplying factor was used, usually determined by the researcher, to convert the respondents choice into a weighted score. Alternatively, to preserve the qualitative perception of the respondents, their opinion was requested at two levels in this study, one at the gross factors level and second at the corresponding detailed factors level. In Figure 1, level 1 represents the gross factor level consisting of 10 questions and level 2 represents the detailed factor level consisting of 5 sub-questions corresponding to each of the level 1 questions. Further, to strengthen the respondents ability to choose, a 9-point scale was adopted in rating the gross factors and a 5-point scale in rating the detailed factors. Higher number meant higher significance of the factor in causing construction delays. Absolute score of each delay causing factor was calculated by multiplying the scores given to a gross

18

factor and to each of its detailed factors. Mean score for each of the detailed factors was derived by averaging their absolute scores across all the questionnaires. Long et al. (11) adopted Mean Score (MS) method to analyze the questionnaire response data in ranking the relative significance of common problems experienced in large construction projects in Vietnam. A higher MS indicates a higher significance of the factor in causing construction delays. In this study, MS for each of the delay factors was calculated as follows: ;; MSj = jth factors mean score = jth factors gross factor score = jth factors detailed factor score N = number of respondents. In order to quantitatively measure the agreement in ranking between any two groups of participants, Okpala (15) used Rank Agreement Factor (RAF) analysis. A higher RAF value suggests a lesser agreement between the two groups. RAF of zero indicates perfect agreement. RAF is defined as: RAF = rank agreement factor = consultants rank to ith factor = contractors rank to ith factor N = number of factors in questionnaire Odeh and Battaineh (14) used Spearmens Rank Correlation (SRC) analysis to test the agreement between contractors and consultants in ranking all the construction delay causing factors. The SRC coefficient is defined as: rs = SRC coefficient di = difference in ith factors ranking N = number of factors. The SRC coefficient takes a value between 0 and 1. A higher value indicates a stronger agreement and vice versa, between any two participant groups.

19

ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE DATA Results from the questionnaire response data analysis are presented in this section. This is followed by a comparison of results with leading researchers from different parts of the globe to validate the results found in this study. A total of 24 completed questionnaires were considered for the final analysis, consisting of 12 each from consultants and contractors groups. In this survey, respondents from the consultants group averaged 21.5 years of experience with a range of 4 to 40 years. Similarly, the contractors group had an average experience of 23.2 years ranging from 3 to 44 years. Considering the high construction work experience of the respondents, their ability to choose the significance of the factors in causing delays was regarded as reliable. In addition, stratified random sampling of the respondents ensured that their responses represented the opinion of the housing construction industry in general. Mean score method was adopted in computing the rankings of the delay factors. A higher mean score denoted a higher significance of that factor in causing construction delays. The factor rankings based on the mean score, ranged from 1 to 50. Rank 1 represented highest significance whereas rank 50, least. Questionnaire responses from the consultants and contractors groups were analyzed and ranked separately. Factor mean scores ranged from 8.67 to 25.92 and 9.00 to 24.33, for consultants and contractors groups respectively. The ranks of the factors with equal mean score were prioritized according to lesser standard deviation. The top 20 construction delay causing factors, ranked in the order of their significance as perceived by the respondent groups, are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The five most significant delay factors, according to the consultants group were: (i) slow decision making by the developer (ii) late release of interim payments by the developer (iii) low overall productivity by contractor (iv) subcontractors delays and (v) insufficient working capital. Similarly, according to the contractors group, the five most significant delay factors were: (i) late interim payments by the developer (ii) late release of drawings / details by architects (iii) low overall productivity by contractor (iv) insufficient working capital and (v) poor resource allocation. Selection of factors based on agreement in rankings Criteria for the selection of the factors, highly and least agreed upon in rankings, is presented in this section, followed by a listing of the factors that qualified this criteria. Rankdifferences for each factor between the two participant groups were computed for this purpose. The series consisting of rank-differences of all the 50 factors had a mean of 8.26

20

and a standard deviation of 6.72, with individual values ranging from 0 to 24.

The large

standard deviation observed is probably due to the small sample size, and is expected to get normalized with a larger sample size. Considering the high experience levels of the respondent groups, it is expected that, rank-differences within 65% confidence level itself could provide a highly reliable first hand information about the degree of agreement between the participant groups in ranking the factors. Hence, the factors with rank-differences less than or 1.54 2 are considered as highly agreed upon whereas more than or 14.98 15 are considered as least agreed upon. According to the results obtained, rankings of 11 delay factors were highly agreed upon whereas of 9 factors were least agreed upon. The list of factors that qualified as highly and least agreed upon are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Mean score and relative rank of each of these factors by both the participant groups along with the factor rank differences are presented in these tables. The factors whose rankings were highly agreed upon included: late release of interim payments, low overall productivity, sub contractors delays, insufficient working capital, poor resource allocation, rework due to mistakes / insufficient quality, low profit margins due to competition, insufficient construction planning, slow decision making, inadequate communication between client & contractor and low / no work due to festivals etc. The factors with least agreed upon rankings included: inefficient project control methods, constructability of design details, religious / other commitments, inaccurate estimation of material requirements, ineffective communication between contractor & sub contractors, shortage of material in the market, high waiting time for availability of work teams, ineffective communication within contractors team and shortage of unskilled manpower. Selection of most significant delay factors In the process of selecting the most significant delay factors, a further refinement of the factors qualified as highly agreed upon in section 4.1 is proposed in this section. For this purpose, the distribution of mean scores of delay factors by both the participant groups needs to be considered. Consultants mean scores ranged from 8.67 to 25.92, with a mean of 15.92 and a standard deviation of 4.35. The contractors mean scores ranged from 9.00 to 24.33, with a mean of 16.84 and a standard deviation of 3.74. Considering that the values within gives a 95 % confidence level, the area between these boundary values was divided into 5 parts. Thus, the delay factors with mean scores more than were considered as the most significant in causing construction delays. This threshold value was computed to be 21.03 for the consultants group and 21.24 for the contractors group. Thus, from Table 5, the factors that satisfied both these criteria were considered as the most significant factors

21

that could cause construction delays during the construction phase of large housing projects in India. Seven factors were found to qualify the above criteria. These included: late release of interim payments, low overall productivity, sub contractors delays, insufficient working capital, poor resource allocation, rework due to mistakes / low quality and low profit margins due to competition. Selection of least significant delay factors As per Table Nos. 6, 7 the threshold mean-score values were computed to be 10.80 and 12.44 for consultants and contractors groups respectively. A total 8 factors, 3 from consultants rankings and 6 from contractors rankings qualified this criterion, with one factor as common in both. Since there was only one factor that was common in both these rankings, the rank difference criteria could not be applied in selecting the least significant delay factors. Thus, the factors qualified as least significant in causing construction delays included: small/ inaccessible site area, high waiting time for the availability of equipment, shortage of unskilled manpower, shortage of proper equipment, religious / other commitments, wrong selection of equipment type / capacity, low efficiency of equipment use / high downtime and low productivity of equipment operators. It is to be noted that all the five factors under the equipment related factors qualified as least significant in causing construction delays. Testing for agreement in rankings between the participant groups Rank agreement factor analysis is used to quantitatively measure the degree of agreement between any two participant groups in ranking the same set of factors. For this purpose, Rank Agreement Factors (RAF) within each of the factor categories are computed as mentioned in section 3 and are presented in Table 7. The average RAF value computed (8.26 out of maximum possible 25) indicated a definite agreement between the two groups in ranking the significance of the construction delay factors. In a similar study conducted in Hong Kong, Chan and Kumaraswamy (7) reported a RAF value of 4. Considering that a higher value means lesser agreement, it can be verified from the table that, contractor related factors had highest agreement and material related factors were least agreed upon. The results obtained in RAF analysis is further verified by computing the Spearmans rank correlation coefficient, as mentioned in section 3. The Spearmans rank correlation coefficient, between the rankings by the two groups was calculated to be 0.736. A higher value means a strong agreement and hence this value further confirms a high degree of

22

agreement between the two participant groups. Odeh & Battaineh (14) considered a rank correlation coefficient value of 0.789, obtained in their study, as an indication of a strong agreement in ranking of delay factors between contractors and consultants. Comparison of rankings between the participant groups A critical analysis of the rankings by both participant groups within each of the factor category is presented in this section. A comparison of factor mean scores and the value of RAF for each factor category are considered for this analysis. The analysis is graphically presented in Figure 2. Client related factors [Figure 2 (i)]: A slightly higher than the average RAF (10.00 / 8.26) indicated some degree of disagreement between the two groups. Consultants opined that client related factors often delay construction progress. The factor late release of interim payments was highly agreed upon whereas religious / other commitments was least agreed upon, as causing delay in construction. Consultant related factors [Figure 2 (ii)]: A RAF value less than the average (6.40 / 8.26), exhibited a better agreement between the two groups. Total agreement was observed for the factor, slow decision making by architects whereas strong disagreement was seen in constructability of design details, as causing delay in construction. The factor late release of drawings / details received the highest mean score by both groups within this factor category. Contractor related factors [Figure 2 (iii)]: Highest agreement (1.00 / 8.26) was found in this factor category. Though consultants had ranked these factors slightly higher than the contractors, all the factors were highly agreed upon as significant in causing delays in construction. It can also be noted that all the five factors received a mean score of more than 20 by both the groups. Material related factors [Figure 2(iv)]: Strongest disagreement (14.80 / 8.26) was observed between the two groups in ranking these factors. Contractors ranked them significantly higher than the consultants. Closest agreement was seen for material changes during project execution whereas the factor inaccurate estimation of material requirements was vehemently disagreed. However, only one factor (poor material procurement planning) in this factor category received a mean score close to 20, indicating a lower level of significance of these factors in general, in causing construction delays. Labour related factors [Figure 2 (v)]: Rankings indicated a higher disagreement (11.80 / 8.26) in this category. Contractors felt that these factors are more significant in causing

23

construction delays. The factor shortage of unskilled manpower was highly disagreed upon whereas the factor low labour productivity levels was least disagreed upon, as causing construction delays. Equipment related factors [Figure 2(vi)]: An average agreement was found (7.40 / 8.26) between the two groups in ranking these factors. Consultants ranked these factors slightly higher than the contractors. The factors in this category received the least mean scores in the survey. It indicates that, both the key stakeholders felt that these are the least significant factors in causing construction delays. Natural / external factors [Figure 2(vii)]: Strong agreement (4.00 / 8.26) in ranking these factors can be seen between the two groups, with rank differences of 7 or less. Contractors ranked these factors slightly higher than the consultants. A perfect agreement was seen for the factor low / no work due to festivals etc. Further it can be noted that high waiting for approvals from authorities was the only factor receiving a mean score more than 20. Project specific factors [Figure 2(viii)]: Average agreement (7.60 / 8.26) was found in ranking these factors. The factors, disruptions in site supplies (power/water etc) and unforeseen ground conditions were highly agreed upon whereas unrealistic construction schedules was least agreed upon in causing delays in construction. It can be further noted that, all the factors received mean scores ranging from 15 to 20, indicating a medium level significance of these factors in causing construction delays. Communication related factors [Figure 2 (ix)]: A high disagreement (11.20 / 8.26) was observed as contractors ranked these factors higher than the consultants. Inadequate communication between client and contractor was highly agreed upon whereas within contractors team was strongly disagreed upon as responsible for delays in construction progress. Management related factors [Figure 2 (x)]: Good agreement was found between both the two groups (8.40 / 8.26). The factors insufficient working capital and insufficient construction planning were highly agreed upon whereas inefficient project control methods was least agreed upon, as responsible for delays in construction. Both the highly agreed upon factors received a mean score more than 20, indicating their strong significance in causing delays in construction. COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS WITH OTHER SIMILAR STUDIES Results of five similar studies were compared with the present study. It can be seen from the comparative analysis presented in Table 8 that the results obtained in this study were largely

24

in agreement with the results obtained in similar studies from different parts of the globe by leading researchers. Al-Homani (1), Arditi et al. (2) and Mansfield et al (12) also found that late release of payments by owners as one of the most significant factors resulting in construction delays. Arditi et. al. (2), Chan and Kumaraswamy (6), Long et. al. (11) and Mansfield et al. (12) reported that low overall productivity was a resultant of prime contractors incompetence. Thus, this study strengthens the fact that despite the geographical differences, building construction projects face similar kind of obstacles during their construction phase. Further, within the present study, a strong agreement was found in ranking the significance of the delay causing factors by consultants and contractors in this study. It can be verified from Figures 3 & 4 that, out of the top 20 significant delay factors, 15 factors were chosen by both the consultants and contractors. INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS The main survey central to this study was conducted among consultants and contractors involved in large housing projects in Kolkata, with the focus to identify the relative significance of the factors that could cause construction delays. An attempt has been made to bring together the views as perceived and agreed upon by both these key stakeholders. It is hoped that, this improved understanding could be used to formulate strategies to alleviate at least some of the root causes of these problems, and better the time and cost performance of future housing and other similar projects in India. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of 50 previously identified delay causing factors, categorized into ten major groups. Respondents were asked to rank these factors according to their significance in causing construction delays. Mean score method together with Rank agreement factor and Spearmans correlation coefficient was adopted for the analysis of the data collected from the survey. The main inferences of the survey are as follows: (1) Factors that both groups have agreed upon as most significant in causing construction delays are: late release of interim payments, owner initiated change orders, rework due to mistakes / low quality, sub contractors delays, poor resource allocation, low overall productivity, low profit margins due to competition, insufficient construction planning and insufficient working capital. (2) Both groups viewed equipment related factors as least significant in causing delays; however, the underlying fact could be the low level of equipment usage itself in housing construction rather than their efficient use. (3) Contractor related factors were highly agreed upon. It may be surprising that the contractors ranked the factors related to them, as among the most significant in causing construction delays. However, it is to be noted that they have ranked late release of interim payments by the developer and drawings / details by architects as the

25

triggering events for their delays. (4) Least agreement was seen in material related factors. Consultants viewed these factors with much lesser significance than contractors. This study finds that architects are expected to take a lead role in integrating the design and construction technology, and facilitate phasing of construction by efficient construction planning together with matching material procurement schedules. (5) The factor late release of interim payments by the developer was highly ranked (rank 1 by contractors and rank 2 by consultants) and hence this study identifies this as the single most significant delay causing factor. (6) The RAF could be used to analyze the factors within each category and among all the categories for agreement between the two groups where as Spearmans correlation analysis, due to the second order terms in the equation, could be used only to analyze the overall agreement. It can be concluded from this study that late release of interim payments by the clients and late release of drawings / details by architects could be the triggering causes for a series of interconnected delays. Because of insufficient construction planning, financial planning becomes erroneous, resulting in working capital bottlenecks and affecting the smooth progress of construction. In addition to these, slower decision making process by both, the client and the architects, further delays the progress. This study brings out the recommendations that, integrating the practicality of construction planning right from the architectural design stage of the housing projects can ensure that the developed facility would achieve the planned time, cost and quality performances. The purpose of this study was to test the relative agreement between two key stakeholders in housing construction about a predetermined set of construction delay factors. A definite trend of agreement was observed related to several factors. An attempt to analyze reasons for the agreement or disagreement between the two groups on the identified factors was also presented. It is hoped that the results found in this study can help in identifying suitable measures to improve the cost and time performance of future housing projects in India.

26

Table 1.1 Comparison of Factor Categories Used In Various Studies Chan & [6] Kumaraswamy Odeh & [14] Battanineh [11]Long et al. Present study 50 x x x

Number of delay causal factors Factor categories Client-related Communication / coordination related Consultant related Contract factors Contractor related Contractual relations External factors Financier related Labour related Management related Material related Plant / equipment related Project related

83

28

62

x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x

27

Table 1.2 Gross Factors and Detailed Factors Used For the Design of the Questionnaire
I. Developer related factors
(a) Late release of interim payments (b) Slow decision making (c) Developer initiated change order (d) Religious / other commitments (e) Low decision power with project manager

VI. Equipment related factors

(a) Shortage of proper equipment (b) Low efficiency of use / high downtime (c) Wrong selection of type / capacity (d) High waiting time for availability of equipment (e) Low productivity of equipment operators

II. Architect related factors

(a) Late release of drawings / details (b) Discrepancies in drawings / details (c) Constructability of design details (d) Slow decision making (e) Delays due to other consultants

VII. Nature / External factors

(a) Rain / other natural disruptions (b) Waiting time for approvals from authorities (c) High waiting time for test samples / inspections (d) Anticipated material price fluctuations (e) Low / no work due to festivals

III. Contractor related factors

(a) Rework due to mistakes / low quality (b) Subcontractors delays (c) Poor resource allocation (d) Low overall productivity (e) Low profit margins due to competition

VIII. Project specific factors

(a) Unforeseen ground conditions (b) Unrealistic construction schedules (c) Small / inaccessible site area (d) Disruption in site supplies (power / water etc) (e) Lack of coordination among projectteams

IV. Construction material related factors

(a) Poor material procurement planning (b) Shortage of material in the market (c) Changes in materials during project execution (d) Inaccurate estimation of material requirements (e) Non-reliability of material delivery

IX. Inadequate communication between (a) Client & Contractor (b) Client & Designer (c) Designer & Contractor (d) Contractor & Sub-contractor (e) Within Contractors team

V. Labour related factors

(a) Shortage of skilled manpower (b) Shortage of unskilled manpower (c) Shortage of managerial / supervisory personnel (d) Low labour productivity (e) High waiting time for availability of work teams

X. Management related factors

(a) Insufficient working capital (b) Insufficient construction planning (c) Strict labour policies (d) Strict inventory policies (e) Ineffective project-control methods

28

Table 1.3 Ranking of Delay Factors by Consultants

Hypnotized Factor Slow decision making (developer) Late release of interim payments Low overall productivity Sub contractor's delays Insufficient working capital Poor resource allocation Developer initiated change orders Rework due to mistakes/low quality Low profit margins due to competition Low decision power with project manager Insufficient construction planning Inefficient project control methods Late release of drawings / details Waiting time for approvals from authorities Slow decision making (architect) Discrepancies in drawings / details Delays due to other consultants Rain / other natural disruptions Strict labour policies Constructability of design details
(SD).

SD 13.46 15.59 13.28 13.50 13.59 12.45 11.39 14.57 14.67 13.99 13.15 12.36 15.22 13.62 14.05 16.79 14.27 13.99 12.53 14.44

Mean Score 25.92 24.17 23.92 23.17 22.75 22.33 22.25 22.25 22.00 21.17 20.33 19.17 19.17 18.83 18.58 18.42 18.00 16.58 15.75 15.50

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10 11 12 13* 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

* Equal mean scores of individual factors were ranked according to lesser standard deviation

29

Table 1.4 Ranking of Delay Factors by Contractors

Hypnotized delay factors Late release of interim payments Late release of drawings / details Low overall productivity Insufficient working capital Poor resource allocation Sub contractor's delays Rework due to mistakes/low quality Low profit margins due to competition Insufficient construction planning Developer initiated change orders Slow decision making (developer) High waiting time for approvals by authorities Poor material procurement planning Delays due to other consultants Slow decision making (architect) Non-reliability of material delivery Inaccurate estimation of material Shortage of skilled manpower Discrepancies in drawings / details Changes in materials during project execution

SD 14.45 12.13 13.79 14.01 12.84 14.75 11.89 13.92 15.29 10.50 14.20 11.74 14.17 10.48 10.87 9.77 14.15 14.65 9.66 10.17

Mean Score 24.33 22.67 22.67 21.75 21.67 21.58 21.50 21.42 21.25 20.83 20.33 20.33 19.75 19.25 18.83 18.42 18.42 18.25 18.17 18.17

Rank 1 2 3* 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12* 13 14 15 16 17* 18 19 20*

* Equal mean scores of individual factors were ranked according to lesser standard deviation (SD).

30

Table 1.5 Highly Agreed Upon Factors in Participants Ranking Consultants Hypnotized delay factors Late release of interim payments Low overall productivity Sub contractor's delays Insufficient working capital Poor resource allocation Rework due to mistakes / insufficient quality Low profit margins due to competition Insufficient construction planning Slow decision making Client & contractor Low / no work due to festivals etc.
Mean score (Rank)

Contractors
Mean score (Rank)

Rank Differenc e 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0

24.17 (2) 23.92 (3) 23.17 (4) 22.75 (5) 22.33 (6) 22.25 (7) 22.00 (9) 20.33 (11) 18.58 (15) 12.83 (37) 12.75 (38)

24.33 (1) 22.67 (2) 21.58 (6) 21.75 (4) 21.67 (5) 21.50 (7) 21.42 (8) 21.25 (9) 18.83 (15) 14.58 (36) 14.42 (38)

31

Table 1.6 Least Agreed Upon Factors in Participants Ranking Consultants Hypnotized delay factors Inefficient project control methods Constructability of design details Religious / other commitments Inaccurate estimation of material requirements Contractor & sub contractors Shortage of material in the market High waiting time for availability of work teams Within contractor's team Shortage of unskilled manpower
Mean score (Rank)

Contractors
Mean score (Rank) Rank Difference

19.17 (12) 15.50 (20) 14.50 (23) 12.67 (40) 12.50 (41) 11.50 (45) 10.83 (46) 10.83 (47) 8.67 (50)

16.08 (30) 14.58 (36) 10.42 (46) 18.42 (16) 16.83 (26) 17.67 (22) 16.25 (29) 16.92 (24) 15.92 (31)

18 16 23 24 15 23 17 22 19

32

Table 1.7 Rank Agreement Factors

Factor Category Developer related Architect related Contractor related Material related Labour related Equipment related Natural / External factors Project specific factors Communication related Management related Average

Rank Agreement Factor 10.00 6.40 1.00 14.80 11.80 7.40 4.00 7.60 11.20 8.40 8.26

33

Table 1.8 Comparison of Results with Similar Studies Author Al-Homani [1]: Arditi et al [2]: Most significant delay factors Poor design, change orders, weather, site conditions, late delivery of payments, economic conditions and increase in quantity. Preparation and approval of shop drawings, delays in contractors progress, payment and slow decision making by owners, design Chan and Kumaraswamy [6]: Long et al [11]: changes and errors, labour shortages and inadequate skills. Poor site management and supervision, unforeseen ground conditions, low speed of decision making involving all project teams, client-initiated variations and necessary variations of works. Incompetent designers and contractors, poor estimation and change management, social and technological issues, site related issues, and Mansfield et improper techniques and tools. al Financing of and payment for completed works, poor contract management, changes in site condition and material shortages. Late release of interim payments, low overall productivity, sub contractor's delays, insufficient working capital, poor resource allocation, rework due to mistakes / insufficient quality and low profit margins due to competition.

[12]: Present study:

34

Figure 1. Two level decision tree adopted in questionnaire data analysis

35

Figure 2. Comparison of rankings for each factor category

36

Figure 3. Ranking of delay factors by Consultants

37

Figure 4. Ranking of delay factors by Contractors

38

Bibliography
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Al-Homani A.H. Construction Delay: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Project Management. 18 (2000) 51-59. Arditi R.D., Akan G.T., Gurdamar S. Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey. Construction Management and Economics. 3. (1985) 171-181. Assaf S.A., Al-Khalil, Al-Hazmi. Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE 11-2 (1995) 45-50. Baldwin J.R., Manthai J.M. Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Division. ASCE 97 (1971) 177-87. Bromilow, F.J. Contract Time Performance Expectations and Reality. Building. Forum, 1-3 (1969) 7 & 80. Chan D.W.M., Kumaraswamy M.M. An Evaluation of Construction Time Performance in the Building Industry. Building and Environment. 31-6 (1996) 569 578. Chan DWM, Kumaraswamy MM. A Comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns in Hong Kong Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management. 15-1 (1997) 55-63. Directory of Architects, Council of Architecture. Home-sweet home: A Comprehensive Guide to Kolkatas Real Estate Scenario, The Telegraph (2005). Kumaraswamy M.M., Chan D.C.W. Contributors to Construction Delays. Construction Management and Economics. 16 (1998) 16-29. Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC. Large Construction Projects in Developing Countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management. 22 (2004) 553-561. Mansfield NR, Ogwu O.O., Doran T. Causes of Delay And Cost Overruns in Nigerian Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management. 12-4 (1994) 254260. Mezhar TM, Tawil W. Causes of Delays in the Construction Industry in Lebanon. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management Journal. 5-3 (1998) 251-260. Odeh A.M., Battaineh H.T. Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional contracts. International Journal of Project Management. 20 (2002) 67 73. Okpala D.C., Aniekwu AN. Causes of High Costs of Construction in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE 114 (1988) 233-44. Ogulana S.O., Promkuntong K., JearKJirm V. Construction Delays in a Fast-growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with other economies. International Journal of Project Management. 14-1 (1996) 37-45. Real Estate Directory of Kolkata, 2002. Simister S. Case Study Methodology for Construction Management Research. Proc. of th the 11 Annual ARCOM Conf., Assoc. of Researchers in Construction Management. York, U. K., 18-20 Sept 1995, 21-32.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

39

19. 20.

Sullivan A, Harris F.C. Delays on Large Construction Projects. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 6-1 (1986) 25-33. Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India.

40

Assignment Writing
The following is designed to assist students with the process of researching and writing up an assignment for the first time. Several steps in the process of assignment writing can be identified. Steps in writing an assignment The main steps in writing an assignment are:

1. Analysing the question or defining the topic

2. Identifying and locating resources 3. Reading and evaluating the information found 4. Planning your assignment 5. Writing the first draft 6. Asking someone else to read it and suggesting areas for improvement 7. Checking spelling and grammar 8. Writing the final draft 9. Documenting your research 1. Don't leave the assignment to the last minute Plan your workload so that you have plenty of time to complete your work. Leaving your assignment till the last minute may result in resources held by the Information Commons not being available as they may be out on loan to someone else. This may result in insufficient time to complete the assignment and will increase your stress levels. It may also result in lower marks than you otherwise deserve. 2. Analysing the question/defining the topic Always analyse the topic to be presented and ensure that you understand what is required. Break it down into key terms and define them using a specific subject dictionary if possible. 3. Gathering resources Sources of information can be gathered from Catalogue searches Reference books are good as a starting point and often have lists of valuable further references to look up CD-ROM and Web based electronic resources Internet searches Lecture notes Subject guides from the Holmesglen Information Commons Homepage Bibliographies and lists of references in the books and articles which you read Interviewing people and conducting surveys Personal research

4. Evaluating the information found Review the introductions, abstracts or summaries of articles to confirm their relevance to your topic. Reject inappropriate or unrelated references to avoid wasted time in reading. Select a few general references and read them carefully to obtain an overview of the information available.

41

Keep track of your sources of information. Store any photocopies of papers and keep citations for all materials used.

5. Planning your assignment Write an outline which includes main headings and subheadings. Many word processing applications allow you to write an outline and then expand it into a full document. Later, the outline can form the basis for the table of contents. You should learn to use a word processing application like Microsoft Word and learn to use the features available for preparing large documents. 6. Writing the first draft Once you have an outline, write a first draft. Don't worry too much about getting every point exactly correct. There will be time when you revise the draft to check the accuracy of the detail. When you have a complete draft, use the word count facility to check the length. If the draft is too short, you can expand main points, add more background information or introduce more information from further research. If the draft is too long, you can cut out repetitive information and try to replace long winded sentences with more concise wording.

7. Document your sources of information Make sure that you have documented all your sources of information. Where you are quoting from a particular source or referring to a particular author's works you must reference these sources properly and include them in a Reference list.

Checklist
Once you have written the first draft, included the references, and fixed up the detail, you should run through the following checklist. Does the essay answer the question or deal with the topic that was set? Does it cover all the main aspects in sufficient depth? Is the content accurate and relevant? Is the material logically arranged? Is each main point well supported by examples and argument? Do you acknowledge all sources and references? Have you kept to the required length? Have you checked grammar, punctuation and spelling?

Structure of Assignments
An assignment will usually include the following components Title Page Table of Contents- (can be generated automatically by many word processing applications such as Microsoft Word.) Introduction - should introduce the assignment topic and outline the purpose of the assignment, including the issues which will be addressed. Body - the main part of the assignment Conclusion - summarises the main points raised in the body of the assignment. The conclusion should be based on the arguments presented in, or the content of, the body of the

42

assignment. Draw conclusions based on the information reviewed, refer to the purpose outlined in the introduction and demonstrate that the purpose has been achieved. References or Bibliography. Appendices (if any)

References
References must be provided for content which originates elsewhere whether the content is quoted directly or indirectly. A direct quote, table, list, figure or diagram used from another text must also include the specific page from which the item or quotation is taken. There is a subtle difference between a bibliography and a reference list. A reference list includes only those references which have been cited in the assignment. A bibliography may include additional related material which has not been specifically cited in the assignment. Do not rely too heavily on a single source of information. Use texts, journals, videos, databases, the Internet and other sources where appropriate. The Internet can provide up-to-date information, but it can also provide misinformation.

43