Open Access

Assessment of interorganisational conflict in building refurbishment projects using EFA and PLS-SEM

Adel Noori
Adel Noori
   | Nov 25, 2023
Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Paper
Published Online: Nov 25, 2023
Page range: 178 - 191
Received: Jan 28, 2022
Accepted: Jul 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0013
Keywords
© 2023 Adel Noori, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1:

SEM-PLS results for the theoretical framework describing the relation between UNC in refurbishment projects andIOC. IOC, interorganisational conflict; PLS, partial least squares; SEM, structural equation modelling; UNC, uncertainty DF= Documentation Factor; PCF= Physical Constraints Factor; HF= Human Factor.
SEM-PLS results for the theoretical framework describing the relation between UNC in refurbishment projects andIOC. IOC, interorganisational conflict; PLS, partial least squares; SEM, structural equation modelling; UNC, uncertainty DF= Documentation Factor; PCF= Physical Constraints Factor; HF= Human Factor.

Summary of EFA.

Variables Extracted variables Number of items Eigenvalues Variance explained Factor loadinga Communalitiesa CA KMO
Uncertainty Documentation factor 7 9.105 24.98% 0.574→0.789 0.563→0.776 0.901 0.899
Physical constraints factors 4 1.160 22.24% 0.635→0.798 0.653→0.717 0.850
Human factors 7 1.207 18.95% 0.552→0.814 0.597→0.793 0.881
IOC Interorganisational conflict 13 9.687 74.51 0.784→0.912 0.746→0.828 0.971 0.953

Analysis of the level of IOC in building refurbishment projects.

No. Variable Indicator Mean (N=188) Result Overall mean Overall result
A Conflict factors Basic responsibilities 3.13 Moderately conflicting 2.80 Moderately conflicting
Project’s goals 3.04 Moderately conflicting
Task expectations 3.03 Moderately conflicting
Interference 2.96 Moderately conflicting
Standards of behaviours 3.14 Moderately conflicting
Final cost 2.02 Highly conflicting
Final duration 2.13 Highly conflicting
Final quality 3.37 Moderately conflicting
Conflict between the client and the contractor 2.28 Highly conflicting
Conflict between the client and the consultant 3.12 Moderately conflicting
Conflict between the contractor and the consultant 3.22 Moderately conflicting
Conflict during the design stage 3.51 Moderately conflicting
Conflict during the construction stage 2.28 Highly conflicting
Interorganisational conflict (IOC) 2.80 Moderately conflicting

To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements relating to the refurbishment project that you have selected?

Item Statement
1 Archived document of the existing building (as-built drawings & reports) was available. 1 2 3 4 5
2 Utility information of the existing building was complete. 1 2 3 4 5
3 Non-destructive testing (e.g. ultrasonic testing) results were available 1 2 3 4 5
4 Building inspection results were available. 1 2 3 4 5
5 Building site survey results were available. 1 2 3 4 5
6 The design information during the design stage was fully available. 1 2 3 4 5
7 The design information during the constructing stage was fully available. 1 2 3 4 5
8 Access to the site was easy. 1 2 3 4 5
9 The space available for working on the refurbishment site was adequate. 1 2 3 4 5
10 The space available for storing material was adequate. 1 2 3 4 5
11 The site conditions (e.g. piping, electrical and structural) were foreseen 1 2 3 4 5
12 The scope of work was clear. 1 2 3 4 5
13 The contractual obligations were clear. 1 2 3 4 5
14 Matching new materials with the existing materials was easy. 1 2 3 4 5
15 The construction materials were easy to be obtained. 1 2 3 4 5
16 The client’s skills and knowledge related to the refurbishment project were high. 1 2 3 4 5
17 The client’s needs were certain. 1 2 3 4 5
18 The changes to the design made by the client were few. 1 2 3 4 5

Uncertainty factors in building refurbishment projects.

Uncertainty factors Reference
Lack of archived documents of the existing building Bernstein et al. (2014), Ali (2010) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Incomplete utility information of the existing building Bernstein et al. (2014), Volk et al. (2014) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Unavailability of non-destructive testing results Ali (2010) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Unavailability of building inspection results Doran et al. (2009), Bulleit (2008) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Unavailability of building site survey results Bernstein et al. (2014) and Zolkafli et al. (2012)
Lack of design information during the design stage Zolkafli et al. (2012) and Ali (2008)
Lack of design information during the construction stage Ali (2014), Rahmat (2008) and Mokariantabari et al. (2019)
Difficulty in access to the construction site Tzortzopoulos et al. (2020) and Mokariantabari et al. (2019)
Inadequate space available for working on the building refurbishment site Mokariantabari et al. (2019), Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b) and Sezer (2017)
Inadequate space available for storage of material Sheth et al. (2010) and Chong and Zin (2010)
Unforeseen site conditions Kim et al. (2020) and Bernstein et al. (2014)
Unclear scope of work Mokariantabari et al. (2019)
Unclear contractual obligations Manuel et al. (2016), Rahmat (2008) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Uncertain client needs Akintan and Morledge (2013), Mustafa (2007) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019a)
Design changes made by the client Bernstein et al. (2014) and Ofori (2013)
Lack of client’s skill and knowledge related to the building refurbishment project Vaux and Kirk (2014) and Ali and Au-Yong (2021)
Difficulty in matching new materials with existing materials Vaysburd et al. (2014) and Noori and Mokariantabari (2019b)
Difficulty in obtaining construction materials Aziz and Abdel-Hakam (2016) and Diab and Mehany (2021)

Initial assumptions of EFA.

Variables KMO BTS
Approx. chi-square df Significance
Uncertainty 0.899 2,490.606 153 0.000
IOC 0.953 2,874.404 78 0.000

Analysis of the level of uncertainty in refurbishment projects.

No. Variable Indicator Mean (N=188) Result Overall mean Rank Overall result
A Documentation factor Archived document 2.62 Moderately uncertain 2.50 2 Moderately uncertain
Utility information 2.56 Moderately uncertain
Non-destructive testing 1.73 Highly uncertain
Building inspection 2.64 Moderately uncertain
Building site survey 2.76 Moderately uncertain
Design information during the design stage 2.58 Moderately uncertain
Design information during the constructing stage 2.65 Moderately uncertain
B Physical constraints factor Access to the site 2.20 Highly uncertain 2.31 1 Highly uncertain
Space for working 2.48 Moderately uncertain
Space for storage of material 2.23 Highly uncertain
Unforeseen site conditions 2.34 Moderately uncertain
C Human factor Scope of work 2.27 Highly uncertain
Contractual obligations 2.27 Highly uncertain 2.62 3 Moderately uncertain
Matching of new materials 3.03 Moderately uncertain
Obtaining construction materials 2.53 Moderately uncertain
Client’s skill and knowledge 2.84 Moderately uncertain
Client’s needs 2.45 Moderately uncertain
Design changes made by client 2.97 Moderately uncertain
Uncertainty in refurbishment projects 2.48 Moderately uncertain

Path coefficient of the relationship between uncertainty and IOC in refurbishment projects.

Path B t-value R2 Q2 P-value
UNC → IOC 0.435 4.985** 0.281 0.271 P < 0.01

Interorganisational conflict factors in building refurbishment projects.

Interorganisational conflict factors References
Disagreement over basic responsibilities Noori et al. (2021) and Narh et al. (2015)
Disagreement on how to achieve the project’s goals Ali et al. (2014), Kerzner (2013) and Harmon (2003a, 2003b)
Disagreement over task expectations You et al. (2018) and Vaux and Kirk (2014)
Disagreement over the interference of other project members in their works Cao et al. (2020), Bekele (2015) and Moura and Teixeira (2010)
Disagreement over ethical standards of behaviour Noori et al. (2021), Lumineau et al. (2015) and Kang (2004)
Disagreement over the final cost, duration and quality Ansari et al. (2022), Khahro and Ali (2014) and Noori et al. (2021)

To what extent did the following interorganisational conflicts occur in the refurbishment project?

Item Interorganisational conflicts
1 The organisations involved in the refurbishment project agreed on their basic responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5
2 The organisations involved in the refurbishment project agreed on achieving the project’s goals. 1 2 3 4 5
3 The organisations involved in the refurbishment project agreed on task expectations. 1 2 3 4 5
4 The organisations involved in the refurbishment project agreed on the interference of other project members in their works. 1 2 3 4 5
5 The organisations involved in the refurbishment project agreed on standards of behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5
6 The client and the contractor agreed on the final cost of the refurbishment project. 1 2 3 4 5
7 The client and the contractor agreed on the final duration of the refurbishment project. 1 2 3 4 5
8 The client and the contractor agreed on the final quality of the refurbishment project. 1 2 3 4 5
9 The level of organisational conflict between the client and the contractor in the refurbishment project was low. 1 2 3 4 5
10 The level of organisational conflict between the client and the consultants in the refurbishment project was low. 1 2 3 4 5
11 The level of organisational conflict between the contractor and the consultants in the refurbishment project was low. 1 2 3 4 5
12 The level of interorganisational conflict during the design stage of the refurbishment project was low. 1 2 3 4 5
13 The level of interorganisational conflict during the construction stage of the refurbishment project was low. 1 2 3 4 5
eISSN:
1847-6228
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other
Journal RSS Feed