CAUSES OF VARIATION ORDERS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE GAZA STRIP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maximum project performance would be achieved if the work invariably flows smoothly within time limits and anticipated budget. Variation orders result in time delay, cost overrun, quality defects, and other negative impacts. This is common in construction projects in Gaza Strip. The main objective of this study was to analyze the causes of variation orders in construction projects in Gaza Strip. The causes of variation orders in construction process in Gaza Strip were investigated through questionnaire survey of 36 classified construction companies, 25 consultants and 15 owners. 64 causes of variation orders were identified from literature review. The study results identified the top ten most important factors that include lack of materials and equipment spare parts due to closure, change in design by consultant, lack of consultant's knowledge of available materials, errors and omission in design, conflicts between contract documents, owner's financial problems, lack of coordination among project parties, using inadequate specification for local markets by international consultant, internal politics, and change is specification by owners. In general, the study shows an agreement among owners, consultants and contractors regarding the ranking of the 64 factors causing variation orders. The results al‐so reveal that factors related to consultant are the most important causes of variation orders followed by the factors related to owner. An understanding of the causes of variation orders would be helpful for building professionals in assessing variation orders. Furthermore, the study would also assist professionals in taking proactive measures for reducing variation orders in construction projects. The findings from this study would also be valuable for all construction professionals in general. Santrauka Projektas bus efektyviausias, jei darbai vyks nuolatos ir sklandžiai, neviršijant terminu ir numatyto biudžeto. Del pake‐itimu nurodymu projektas užtrunka, viršijamos sanaudos, atsiranda kokybes trūkumu ir patiriamas kitoks neigiamas poveikis. Tai būdinga Gazos ruože vykstantiems statybu projektams. Pagrindinis šio tyrimo tikslas – išanalizuoti, kokios priežastys Gazos ruožo statybu projektuose lemia pakeitimu nurodymus. Priežastys, lemiančios pakeitimu nurodymus Gazos ruožo statybu procese, buvo tiriamos atlikus 36 tam tikros kategorijos statybos imoniu, 25 konsultantu ir 15 savininku apklausa. Apžvelgus literatūra nustatytos 64 pakeitimu nurodymus lemiančios priežastys. Atlikus tyrima, buvo nustatyti dešimt svarbiausiu veiksniu, iskaitant medžiagu ir atsarginiu irangos daliu trūkuma del uždarymo, projekto konsultanto pakeitimus, nepakankamas konsultanto žinias apie galimas medžiagas, projekto klaidas ir trūkumus, vienas kitam prieštaraujančius sutarties dokumentus, finansines savininko problemas, veiksmu koordinavimo trūkuma tarp projekto dalyviu, tarptautinio konsultanto naudojamas vietiniu rinku neatitinkančias specifikacijas, vidaus politika ir savininku pakeitimus specifikacijoje. Apskritai tyrimas rodo, kad savininkai, konsultantai ir rangovai sutaria del to, kaip pagal svarba išsidesto 64 veiksniai, lemiantys pakeitimu nurodymus. Be to, rezultatai rodo, kad su konsultantu susije veiksniai yra svarbiausios pakeitimu nurodymu priežastys, o antroje vietoje – su savininku susije veiksniai. Statybu specialistams suprantant, kokios priežastys lemia pakeitimu nurodymus, tokius nurodymus jiems vertinti būtu lengviau. Be to, tyrimas padetu specialistams imtis aktyviu priemoniu, kad statybu projektuose pakeitimu nurodymu būtu mažiau. Šio tyrimo išvados taip pat būtu naudingos visiems statybu specialistams apskritai.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".