CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis, findings and interpretation of data collected from various
respondents from the administered questionnaire and the result were used to answer the
objectives of the research and to draw conclusions.
4.2 Data Presentation
A total of Seventy-Nine (79) questionnaire were distributed to respondents out of which
Seventy (70) were retrieved representing 88.61% response rate as stated in the table 4.1 and
this was considered adequate for analysis. The area of coverage of the distribution is Osun
State.
Table 4.1: Response Rate
Questionnaire Frequency Percentage (%)
Questionnaires administered 79 100
Questionnaires returned 70 88.61
Questionnaires not returned 9 11.39
Souce: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
Interpretation: Table 4.1 Revealed that the questionnaires returned from a total of
79 questionnaires distributed to respondents. Seventy (70) questionnaires were
returned representing 88.61 while Nine were not returned representing 11.39%.
4.2 Data Presentation and Discussion
Table 4.2 Sex of Respondents
Sex Frequency Percentage (%)
Make 48 68.2
Female 22 31.8
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.2, it was observed that 48 respondents are Male while 22 respondents are Female.
Table 4.3 Respondent’s Age
Age range Frequency Percentage (%)
18 – 30 years 0 0
31 – 45 years 56 79.5
46 – 59 years 14 20.5
60 above 0 0
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.3, it was observed that 56 respondents representing 79.5% are in the age range of
31 – 45 years and 14 respondents representing 20.5% are in the age range of 46 – 59 years.
Table 4.4 Respondent’s Marital Status
Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)
Single 56 79.5
Married 12 18.2
Widow 2 3.3
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.4, it was observed that 56 respondents representing 79.5% are single, 12
respondents representing 18.2% are Married and 2 respondents representing 3.3% are widow.
Table 4.5 Respondents Profession
Profession Frequency Percentage (%)
Quantity Surveyor 6 9.0
Architect 15 20.5
Builder 6 9.1
Civil Engineer 43 61.4
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.5, it was observed that 43 respondents are Civil engineers, 15 are Architect, 6
respondents are Builders and 6 respondents are Quantity surveyor.
Table 4.6 Respondents Educational Qualification
Educational Frequency Percentage (%)
Qualification
OND 11 15.9
HND 32 45.5
[Link]/[Link] 25 36.4
PhD 2 2.2
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.6, it was observed that 11 respondents had Ordinary National Diploma (OND)
which covers 15.9%, 32 of the respondents representing 45.5% had Higher National Diploma
(HND), 25 of the respondents representing 36.4% had [Link]/[Link] while 2 of the
respondents representing 2.2% had PhD.
Table 4..7 Respondents Professional Year of Experience
Year of Experience Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 5 years 38 54.5
6 – 10 years 19 27.3
11 – 15 years 10 13.6
Above 15 years 3 4.6
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.7, it was observed that 38 respondents representing 54.5% has less than 5 years of
experience, 19 respondents representing 27.3% has an experience range of 6 – 10 years, 10
respondents representing 13.6% has an experience range of 11 – 15 years, 3 respondents
representing 4.6% has more than 15 years of experience.
Table 4.8 Position/Rank of respondents in the organization
Position/Rank Frequency Percentage (%)
Top management level 13 18.2
Middle management level 30 43.2
Low management level 27 38.6
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.8, it was observed that 13 respondents representing 18.2% belongs to Top
management level in their organization, 30 respondents representing 43.2% belongs to the
Middle Management level in their organization and 27 respondents representing 38.6%
belongs to the Low Management level in their organization.
Table 4.9 Respondent’s Type of Organization
Type of Frequency Percentage (%)
Organization
Consulting Organization 22 31.8
Contracting Organization 14 20.5
Government Agency 5 6.8
Private Development 29 40.9
Total 70 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
In table 4.9, it was observed that 22 respondents which represent 31.8% are from consulting
organizations, 14 respondents which represent 20.5% are from contracting organizations, 5
respondents are from Government Agencies organization and 29 respondents representing
40.9% are Private firms.
Table 4.10 Effects of variations on civil engineering project In Nigeria.
S/N Effect PROBABILITY OF TOTA L RII RANKIN
OCCURRENCE G
4 3 2 1
A Cost impact
1 Increased costs 40 25 4 1 70 0.871 1st
2 Cost savings 45 16 6 3 70 0.868 2nd
3 Claims and disputes 40 18 11 1 70 0.846 3rd
B Time Delays
4 Extended project duration 34 27 8 1 70 0.836 4th
5 Re-sequencing of work 35 25 5 5 70 0.821 5th
C Quality and safety concerns
6 Quality control issues 27 35 8 0 70 0.818 6th
7 Safety risks 30 29 10 1 70 0.814 7th
D Contractual and legal issues
8 Changes in scope 29 30 10 1 70 0.811 8th
9 Dispute Resolution 24 38 7 1 70 0.804 9th
10 Unforeseen events 32 24 11 3 70 0.803 10th
E Project management and
coordination
11 Additional planning and 27 29 13 1 70 0.793 11th
coordination
12 Resource allocation 24 38 3 4 70 0.786 12th
F Environmental Impact
13 Unforeseen environmental 27 27 13 3 70 0.779 13th
effects
14 Sustainability considerations 22 35 10 3 70 0.771 14th
G Stakeholders Communication
15 Client expectations 19 26 18 7 70 0.760 15th
16 Supplier and subcontractor 18 35 13 4 70 0.739 16th
adjustments
H Design and engineering
adjustments
17 Revised design 18 22 21 9 70 0.737 17th
18 Compliance with standards 14 25 23 8 70 0.729 18th
Reputation of stakeholders
19 Contractor reputation 21 13 16 20 70 0.697 19th
20 Client satisfaction 19 15 15 21 70 0.686 20th
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
Table 4.11 Factors Of Value Management Practices In Nigeria
S/N FACTORS PROBABILITY OF TOTA RII RAN
OCCURRENCE L KIN G
5 4 3 2 1
Design Changes
1 Client Request 21 30 13 3 3 70 0.780 3rd
th
2 Errors or omission in Design 22 30 8 8 2 70 0.777 4
11th
3 Improved Design solutions 21 20 16 10 3 70 0.731
Site Conditions
1st
4 Unforeseen Ground Conditions 30 19 13 5 3 70 0.794
5 Changes in Topography 24 16 20 8 2 70 0.749 7th
th
6 Discovery of Archaeology or 28 21 10 6 5 70 0.774 5
th
7 Environmental findings 14 27 24 4 1 70 0.740 8
Regulatory and Legal
Requirements
10th
8 Changes in Local Laws or 18 21 22 8 1 70 0.734
Building Codes
th
9 Permitting Issues 21 18 16 14 1 70 0.726 13
Material and supply chain
issues
10 70 14th
Unavailability of Materials 21 13 16 19 1 0.697
6th
11 Price Fluctuations 19 26 18 6 1 70 0.760
9th
12 Logistical Problems 18 22 21 8 1 70 0.737
Technology and construction
Techniques
th
13 Advancement in construction 14 25 23 8 0 70 0.729 12
techniques
2nd
14 Innovation in materials 18 35 11 6 0 70 0.786
Scope Creep
3rd
15 Expanded project requirements 21 30 13 3 3 70 0.780
4th
16 Poor initial project definition 22 30 8 8 2 70 0.777
Environmental and External
Factors
11th
17 Weather and natural events 21 20 16 10 3 70 0.731
1st
18 Environmental concerns 30 19 13 5 3 70 0.794
7th
19 Public health safe 24 16 20 8 2 70 0.749
Construction challenges
5th
20 Labor availability and skills 28 21 10 6 5 70 0.774
8th
21 Workmanship errors 14 27 24 4 1 70 0.740
Cost and budget management
10th
22 Underestimated costs 18 21 22 8 1 70 0.734
13th
23 Value engineering 21 18 16 14 1 70 0.726
Project management and
communication issues
14th
24 Poor coordination 21 13 16 19 1 70 0.697 6th
25 Changes in stakeholder interest 19 26 18 6 1 70 0.760
9th
26 Inaccurate or incomplete 18 22 21 8 1 70 0.737
documentation
Force majeure events
14 25 23 8 0 70 12th
27 Unpredictable events 0.729
Geopolitical and economic
factors 2nd
28 Inflation 18 35 11 6 0 70 0.786 1st
29 Political instability 21 30 13 3 3 70 0.780
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
Table 4.12 Techniques for the valuation of Variation in Civil Engineering works.
S/N Techniques FREQUENCY FREQUENCY TOT AL
AGREED DISAGREED
1 Measurement of work done 40 30 70
(Quantities and Unit Rate)
2 Lump sum pricing 46 24 70
3 Cost plus (time and materials) 38 32 70
4 Rate analysis method 49 21 70
5 Market rate method 60 10 70
6 Provisional sums 38 32 70
7 Contingency allowance 37 33 70
8 Negotiated pricing 46 24 70
9 Expert determination or arbitration 47 23 70
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2024
Table 4.12 shows the number of respondents who Agrred and the Disageed with Techniques for
the valuation of Variation in Civil Engineering works.