Rework in Civil Infrastructure Projects: Determination of Cost Predictors Peter E. D. Love 1 ; David J. Edwards 2 ; Hunna Watson 3 ; and Peter Davis 4 Abstract: Within Australia, civil engineering works continue to meet the insatiable demand for new infrastructure despite project complexity and cost and schedule overruns. A significant factor that can contribute to such overruns is rework; yet to date research into the root causes and consequential costs of rework in civil infrastructure projects has been limited. Using a questionnaire survey, rework costs and probable causes were obtained from 115 civil infrastructure projects. Stepwise multiple regression was then used to determine the significant variables that contributed to rework. The regression model revealed that the following five significant predictors accounted for 25% of the variance in total rework cost: 1 ineffective use of information technologies; 2 excessive client involvement in the project; 3 lack of clearly defined working procedures; 4 changes made at the request of the client; and 5 insufficient changes initiated by the contractor to improve quality. The findings also revealed that mean total rework costs were 10% of the contract value for the sample. Interestingly, the extent of rework experienced was significantly correlated with project cost and schedule growth  p  0.01. It is suggested that future work is required to determine the underlying factors that contribute to rework in civil infrastructure projects before effective preventive strategies can be identified. DOI: 10.1061/ASCECO.1943-7862.0000136 CE Database subject headings: Infrastructure; Construction costs; Australia. Author keywords: Civil infrastructure; Rework; Stepwise regression; Cost predictors. Introduction Rework is a major contributor to cost and schedule growth in building construction projects Love 2002. The direct costs of rework are considerable and have been reported to be in excess of 15% of the contract value Construction Industry Development Agency CIDA 1995; Barber et al. 2000. Historically, research conducted has predominantly focused on rework in building con- struction projects e.g., Josephson and Hammarlund 1999; Love and Li 2000; Love and Edwards 2005 with only limited studies examining its incidence in civil infrastructure projects e.g., Bu- rati et al. 1992; Abdul-Rahman 1993; Nylén 1996; Barber et al. 2000; Robinson-Fayek et al. 2004. Past studies that have exam- ined rework on civil infrastructure projects have been based on limited data sets which eschew generalizations being made. Moreover, the varying interpretations and definitions of rework have led to a lack of uniformity in rework data collation Love and Smith 2003. A comprehensive methodology to determine rework costs developed by Robinson-Fayek et al. 2004 is note- worthy; while this is encouraging, the technique is tedious to use in practice and cannot yield significant findings with regard to rework cost predictors. To gain an insight into the causal predic- tors of rework for civil infrastructure projects, the views and per- ceptions of industry practitioners were collected using data obtained from recently completed projects. Questions posed to practitioners were referenced to, and initially based upon, the causes of rework on building construction projects; a detailed review of these can be found in Love et al. 2004, Robinson- Fayek 2004, and Love and Edwards 2005. Research Approach The research approach undertaken by Love 2002 to examine rework in building construction projects is adopted for the study reported in this paper. Rework is defined in this research work as “the unnecessary effort of redoing a process or activity that was incorrectly implemented the first time” Love 2002. Rather than simply developing a questionnaire survey that sought respon- dents’ general opinions about rework, respondents were asked to select a recently completed project most familiar to them. The questionnaire then sought to elicit information about the inter- viewees’ perceived causes or rework, associated costs, and project management practices implemented. This had the effect of enrich- ing the data so that a more meaningful analysis could be com- pleted. Questionnaire Survey Stratified random sampling was used to select the study sample from the telephone directory, Yellow Pages, for the various re- 1 Chair Professor of Construction Management, Dept. of Construction Management, School of Built Environment, Curtin Univ. of Technology, GPO Box 1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia. E-mail: p.love@curtin.edu.au 2 Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough Univ., Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, U.K. corresponding author. E-mail: d.j.edwards@lboro.ac.uk 3 Research Assistant, Dept. of Construction Management, School of Built Environment, Curtin Univ. of Technology, GPO Box 1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia. E-mail: h.watson@curtin.edu.au 4 Head of School, Professor of Construction Procurement, School of Built Environment, Curtin Univ. of Technology, GPO Box 1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia. E-mail: p.davis@curtin.edu.au Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 10, 2008; approved on August 17, 2009; published online on February 12, 2010. Discussion period open until August 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, No. 3, March 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2010/3-275–282/$25.00. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2010 / 275 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2010.136:275-282. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Curtin Univ of Technology 2009 on 04/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.