1IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE MOST MERCIFUL
ANALYSIS OF CAUSES OF SUCCESS AND FAILUREOF POST DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTSIN EARTHQUAKE AFFECTED AREAS OF PAKISTAN ...
PART – I    • Introduction, Problem Statement and Objectives                        PART – IIS   •   Natural Disaster and ...
INTRODUCTION• A significant part of development assistance is spent on the  construction of infrastructure in Pakistan but...
Cont’d• There are some factors responsible for success or  failure of multidisciplinary reconstruction projects and  these...
PROBLEM STATEMENT• The ERRA post-disaster reconstruction programme in  earthquake affected areas of Pakistan is not meetin...
OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH WORK• To analyze the post disaster reconstruction projects• To identify success and failure factors...
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY• Main source of data is ERM database of ERRA & MIS  database of PPAF(Pakistan Poverty Elevation Fund)...
LITERATURE REVIEW
EARTHQUAK    E
WORLDWIDE EARTHQUAKE MORTALITY               Top 10 Earthquakes Globally by Mortality (1970-2009)                         ...
ECONOMIC   DAMAGES                                         &        NUMBER           OF EARTHQUAKE •      Earthquakes were...
SEISMIC ZONES OF    PAKISTAN
7.7 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE IN QUETTA – 1935Lytton                         RailwayRoad                           Station     ...
WORLDWIDE NATURAL DISASTER TRENDS   A particularly high number of disasters occurred recently. Fact is that   almost 270 l...
TOP TEN NATURAL DISASTER BY ECONOMIC DAMAGES   The disasters with the highest economic impact occur primarily in   highly ...
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA             Criteria used for judging Project                              Ranking               ...
CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS       A project is considered failed if it falls short in achieving       the planned objectives,...
PART – IIICASE STUDY OF THE OCTOBER 2005 EARTHQUAKE RECONSTRUCTION          PROJECTS
POPULATION AFFECTED: 3.5 M                                                                      Gilgit                    ...
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 2005 EARTHQUAKE  • Overall cost associated with the earthquake is estimated at    approximately US$5.1...
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES• After the earthquake Government quickly established the Federal Relief  Commission (FRC)...
ERRA RECONSTRUCTION & REHABILATION                         PROGRAMME   ERRA programme is divided into two parts:   1.Owner...
PHYSICAL PROGRESS ANALYSIS OF ERRA PROJECTS• Monthly progress reports of ERM database was collected from all  District Rec...
PHYSICAL PROGRESS ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS IN               TERM OF FUNDING SOURCE •    In term of funding sources, all projec...
CURRENT STATUS OF ALL ERRA’s PROJECTS7343 projects are completed before August 10, 2011, total under constructionprojects ...
RECONSTRUCTION PROGRESS AS ON 10 August, 2O11               Reconstruction Project Progress Yearly-wise                   ...
ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND     DISCUSSION
DATA COLLECTION• Main source of data is ERM database of ERRA and MIS  database of Pakistan Poverty Elevation Fund• Data is...
Cont’d• 185 questionnaires were send to construction professionals  of Pakistan, selected randomly from across the quake-h...
DATA EVALUTION• A four-point Likert scale was used to measure the factor influence  on overall performance of reconstructi...
Analysis of Success Criteria from Questionnaire’s                     FeedbackDiscussion− Ranking of all success criterion...
SOLICITATION OF RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT          SUCCESS & FAILURE FACTORS• Depending upon mean scores of responses for var...
Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Success                  Factors
Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Failure                  Factors
Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Success                  Factors  S. No Critical project success factors (µ≥ 3.0)    ...
Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Failure                  FactorsS.No   Critical Failure Factors for Construction Proj...
SOLICITATION OF ERRA’S RECONSTRUCTIONPROGRAM FOR MONITORING & MANAGING PURPOSE    The "normal" pace of project implementat...
HALTED PRJECTS• A project becomes halted if more than 3 months  have passed and no physical progress is received.  Halted ...
Cont’d    Detail of Sector wise Halted Projects as on 10 August, 2011          Sector             Under      Total Halted ...
DELAYED PROJECTS• When a project fails to achieve the planned progress  and lags behind the schedule, it is declared delay...
Cont’d        2944 number of projects is declared Delayed at 10 August, 2011                                              ...
SNAILING PROGRESS (TIME OVERRUN PROJECTS)Construction pace of Snailing Progress Projects is very slow. They can notbe call...
AWAITING PROGRESS• A project is considered member of this group if more than 49 days  have passed and no progress is recei...
PROPOSED FRAMEWORKRECOMMENDATIONS AND    CONCLUTION
Comprehensive Framework for Reconstruction             Project Success
Framework for Effective Post-disaster Recovery Process in                       Pakistan
Organizational Models for Recovery Projects in Pakistan1) Create new dedicated organization or task force−   Seriously con...
RECOMMENDATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL•   All stages of a disaster response should be handled by the same    dedicated permanent...
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS− Comprehensive analysis of the causes of success and failure at the end of  reconstruction proj...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Causes of success and failure in post disaster reconstruction projects – a case study of post 2005 earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction in Northern Pakistan

2,862 views

Published on

Muhammad Abbas CHOUDHARY1, Kashif MEHMOOD2

1University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan, Pakistan, Islamic Republic of; 2College of E&ME, National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,862
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Causes of success and failure in post disaster reconstruction projects – a case study of post 2005 earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction in Northern Pakistan

  1. 1. 1IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE MOST MERCIFUL
  2. 2. ANALYSIS OF CAUSES OF SUCCESS AND FAILUREOF POST DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTSIN EARTHQUAKE AFFECTED AREAS OF PAKISTAN BY Muhammad Abbas Choudhary & Kashif Mehmood August 27, 2012 International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2012, DAVOS, Switzerland.
  3. 3. PART – I • Introduction, Problem Statement and Objectives PART – IIS • Natural Disaster and its Impacts • Project Success Criteria and KPIsE • Critical Success and Failure FactorsQ • Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction PART – IIIU • Case Study of the Earthquake October, 2005E PART – IV • Project Data Collection and AnalysisN • Questionnaire Surveys and Statistical AnalysisC • KPIs of ERRA Building Projects, Earned Value Analysis of Under Construction ProjectsE PART – V • Proposed Framework • Recommendations and Conclusions
  4. 4. INTRODUCTION• A significant part of development assistance is spent on the construction of infrastructure in Pakistan but these investments can be lost in seconds in the event of a natural hazard• Post-disaster reconstruction in Pakistan rely either on external assistance or by reallocation of resources from existing developmental projects to meet reconstruction needs• After the destruction of 2005 Earthquake in North Pakistan, government has assigned the task of reconstruction and rehabilitation of quake-hit areas to newly formed Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)• ERRA is the central body for reconstruction of 13,312 projects & for 600,000 private housing units in quake affected areas of Pakistan Source: ERRA,2011, Annual review 2010-11
  5. 5. Cont’d• There are some factors responsible for success or failure of multidisciplinary reconstruction projects and these factors, if not handled properly may be detrimental for the success of the project• Failure will affect – Unmet development goals – loss to economy – loss of donor confidence – loss of funding for disaster relief – loss to rehabilitation of victims – loss to construction related organizations
  6. 6. PROBLEM STATEMENT• The ERRA post-disaster reconstruction programme in earthquake affected areas of Pakistan is not meeting the success criteria because of many factors. Roads, hospitals & schools planned with money given by foreign governments & international aid groups remain unbuilt almost five years after the earthquake• The initial relief operation is successful in its aim. However, despite the extensive resources, the subsequent reconstruction is not meeting its objectives• In disaster prone countries like Pakistan success of reconstruction & rehabilitation projects are very important for normalization of life in disaster affected areas
  7. 7. OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH WORK• To analyze the post disaster reconstruction projects• To identify success and failure factors in construction process and to identify their relative importance• To establish success criteria for measuring the performance of post disaster construction projects• To analyze the key performance indicators for cost and time of different building projects• To carry out earned value analysis of the ongoing projects• To analyze the causes of success of post disaster housing reconstruction and rehabilitation project, with respect to the World Bank funded projects
  8. 8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY• Main source of data is ERM database of ERRA & MIS database of PPAF(Pakistan Poverty Elevation Fund)• Literature review - exhaustive list of critical success and failure• From studies mention above 68 project success/failure factors for ERRA reconstruction programme was concluded• A 68 factors survey questionnaire was used where the respondents were asked to assess the critical success and failure factors, both on their perceived importance and on the extent of their presence in the reconstruction project.• A total of 74 completed responses were received, giving a response rate of 40%.• Framework & strategy for reconstruction projects success is proposed• Recommendations for improvement and conclusion
  9. 9. LITERATURE REVIEW
  10. 10. EARTHQUAK E
  11. 11. WORLDWIDE EARTHQUAKE MORTALITY Top 10 Earthquakes Globally by Mortality (1970-2009) Persons Persons Date Country Richter killed affected July 27th, 1976 China 7.8 242,000 164,000 Indian Ocean Dec 26th, 2004 9 226,000 2,432,000 tsunami May 12th, 2008 China 7.9 88,000 45,977,000 Pakistan &October 8th, 2005 7.6 75,000 5,285,000 India,May 31st, 1970 Peru 7.8 67,000 3,216,000June 21st, 1990 Iran 7.3 40,000 710,000 Dec 26th, 2003 Iran 6.6 27,000 268,000 Dec 7th, 1988 Armenia 6.9 25,000 1,642,000 Sept 16th, 1978 Iran 7.7 25,000 40,000 Feb 4th, 1976 Guatemala 7.5 23,000 4,993,000 Source: Data extracted from CRED (2010 ) EM-DAT International Disaster Database
  12. 12. ECONOMIC DAMAGES & NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKE • Earthquakes were responsible for 29% of natural disaster-related deaths in the last 30 years but accounted for 58% of fatalities in the last decade • 56% of all earthquakes happened in Asia, causing 90% of global earthquake fatalities Economic DamageCountry Date Magnitude (Billion US $)Japan Jan 17, 1995 7.2 140.4China May 12, 2008 7.9 84.4United State Jan 17, 1994 6.6 43.3Japan Oct 23,2004 6.6 31.7Turkey Aug 17,1999 7.4 25.7Italy Nov 23, 1980 7.2 51.9Taiwan Sep 21, 199 7.6 18.1Russia Dec 7, 1988 6.9 25.3Japan Jul 16, 2007 6.8 12.9Iran Jun 21, 1990 7.3 13.1 Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
  13. 13. SEISMIC ZONES OF PAKISTAN
  14. 14. 7.7 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE IN QUETTA – 1935Lytton RailwayRoad Station 35,000 deaths Bruce Street, Quetta, before & after the earthquake
  15. 15. WORLDWIDE NATURAL DISASTER TRENDS A particularly high number of disasters occurred recently. Fact is that almost 270 large natural disasters have appeared since 1955Source: EM-DAT - International Disaster Database www.emdat.be University catholique de Louvain Brussels –Belgium
  16. 16. TOP TEN NATURAL DISASTER BY ECONOMIC DAMAGES The disasters with the highest economic impact occur primarily in highly developed countries Total damages Year Country or Region Event Rank (mill. US $) 2005 USA Hurricane Katrina 125,000 1 1995 Japan/Kobe Earthquake 100,000 2 1994 USA/Northridge Earthquake 44,000 3 1998 China/Yangtze region Flooding 30,700 4 2004 Japan Earthquake 28,000 5 1992 USA/Florida Hurricane Andrew 26,500 6 1996 China/Yangtze region Flooding 24,000 7 2004 USA/Caribbean Hurricane Ivan 23,000 8 1993 USA/Mississippi Flooding 21,000 9 2004 USA/Caribbean Hurricane Charley 18,000 10Source: Schenker-Wicki et al. (2010) ‘Unmastered risks: From crisis to catastrophe, An economic andmanagement insight ‘,Journal of Business Research, 63, 337–346.
  17. 17. PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA Criteria used for judging Project Ranking Success Meets client’s requirements 1 Completed within schedule 2 Completed within budget 3 Meets organizational objectives 4 Yield business & other benefits 5 Causes minimal business disruption 6 Meets quality/safely standards 7 Other criteria 8Source: Data extracted from White, D. & Fortune J. (2002) ‘Current practice in project management anempirical study’, International Journal of Project Management, pp.1-11
  18. 18. CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS A project is considered failed if it falls short in achieving the planned objectives, goals or is unable to achieve stated & agreed tasks within given constraints Critical failure factors extracted from literature are; conflict among project participants lack of knowledge hostile socio economic and climatic condition reluctance in timely decision short bid preparation time bad political influence bribes etc The construction industry is the worse affected by corruptionsSource: K.C. Iyer and K.N. Jha (2005), ‘Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction projects’,International Journal of Project Management, 23; 283–295
  19. 19. PART – IIICASE STUDY OF THE OCTOBER 2005 EARTHQUAKE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
  20. 20. POPULATION AFFECTED: 3.5 M Gilgit Kalam M-7.6Fault Line 100 KM Long Pattan Mingora Batgram Kaghan •Human Loss - 73,338 Balakot •Injured - 1,28,309 GHB •Families Affected - 500,000 Muzaffarabad Mardan Mansehra Peshawar Abbotabad Bagh Arja Rwkt Islamabad Rawalpindi AREA AFFECTED - 30,000 SQ KM 20
  21. 21. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 2005 EARTHQUAKE • Overall cost associated with the earthquake is estimated at approximately US$5.198 billion • Direct total damage sustained due to the earthquake was Rs. 135.1 billion (US$2.3 billion) • The largest component of this damage is private housing, which amounts to Rs. 61.2 billion (US$1.03 billion), followed by damage to the transport sector totaling Rs. 20.2 billion (US$340 million) • Cost of reconstruction of lost assets and of the restoration of public services is estimated to be Rs. 208 billion (US$3.5 billion)Source: The Asian Development Bank and World Bank (2005) Pakistan 2005 Earthquake: Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment, Islamabad
  22. 22. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES• After the earthquake Government quickly established the Federal Relief Commission (FRC) on October 10, 2005, to supervise and coordinate relief efforts• Later stages of recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation were left to the ERRA which was formed in January 2006. The key actors in the new organizational structure for reconstruction of quake-hit areas include:− ERRA as a central agency responsible for coordinating, macro planning, financing, project approval and monitoring− Secretariats servicing governments in KPK & in AJK is responsible for provincial/state strategy formulation; the secretariats are known as the Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (PERRA) in the province & the State Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (SERRA) in AJK. The basic mandate of implementation of all reconstruction projects rest with these forums− District reconstruction units in each district to execute all reconstruction and rehabilitation projects Source: ERRA, Annual review 2006-2007
  23. 23. ERRA RECONSTRUCTION & REHABILATION PROGRAMME ERRA programme is divided into two parts: 1.Owner-driven housing programme, which was for 600,000 homes 2.The other part of the programme consists of about 13,312 projects in 11 different sectors and three cross- cutting programmes at a cost of over US$ 5 billion Projects construction summery of all ProjectsOwner-driven Housing as on 10 Aug, 2011Programme Source: Developed from data provided by ERRA
  24. 24. PHYSICAL PROGRESS ANALYSIS OF ERRA PROJECTS• Monthly progress reports of ERM database was collected from all District Reconstruction Units for last one year Number of Projects Percentage Total Projects: 13,312 Allocated: 13,312 100.00 % Unallocated 0 0.00 % Stages Completed 7357 55.27 % Under Construction 3868 29.06 % Tendering 1677 12.60 % Designing 393 2.95 % Planning 17 0.05 % Source: Developed from data provided by ERRA
  25. 25. PHYSICAL PROGRESS ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS IN TERM OF FUNDING SOURCE • In term of funding sources, all projects can be divided into 3 separate groups, GOP funded projects, donor funded projects and sponsor funded projects • Physical progress of Sponsor funded projects is highest and GOP funding projects are lowest • Combination of fielding inexperienced staff or incompetent contractors to manage very complex projects in a shifting policy and cost escalation environment is leading to significant failure in term of delivery timing and cost drift Designing & Completed Under construction Tendering Planning Funding Total Total Number of Projects Source Projects No. % No. % No. % No % 76-95% 51-75% 26-50% 0-25%GOP 8,713 3,290 37.76 3,505 40.23 547 738 911 1,309 1,575 18.08 330 3.79Donors 1,130 881 77.96 197 17.43 30 62 68 37 33 2.92 19 1.68Sponsors 3,469 3,186 91.84 166 4.79 49 40 31 46 69 1.99 44 1.27All 13,312 7,357 55.27 3,868 29.06 626 840 1,010 1,392 1,677 12.60 393 2.95 Source: Developed from data provided by ERRA
  26. 26. CURRENT STATUS OF ALL ERRA’s PROJECTS7343 projects are completed before August 10, 2011, total under constructionprojects are 3868 while 1877 projects are still at designing and tendering stages.The physical progress of Social Sector projects is the lowest (13.33%) andLivelihood Sector projects are the second lowest (18.96%). These projects aregovernment funded and inadequate availability of resources and lack of moneyis the main reason for slow progress in above two sector buildings. Total Designing & Completed Under Construction Tendering District Projects Planning No. No. % No. % No. % No. % Grand Total 13312 7357 55.27% 3,868 29.06% 1,677 12.60% 410 3.08% Education 5,751 2,055 35.73% 2,151 37.40% 1,334 23.20 212 3.67% Environment 466 160 34.33% 293 62.88% 13 2.79 0 0.00% Governance 697 392 56.24% 258 37.02% 47 6.74 0 0.00% Health 306 162 52.94% 97 31.70% 41 13.40 6 1.96% Livelihood 1,076 204 18.96% 489 45.45% 205 19.05 178 16.54% Medical 6 6 100.0% 0 0.00% 0 0.00 0 0.00% Rehabilitation Power 15 10 66.67% 2 13.33% 0 0.00 3 20.00% Social Protection 15 2 13.33% 7 46.67% 6 40.00 0 0.00% Telecommunicatio 1 1 100.0% 0 0.00% 0 0.00 0 0.00% n Transport 233 137 58.80% 84 36.05% 11 4.72 1 0.43% WatSan 4,746 4,228 89.09% 487 10.26% 20 0.42 11 0.23%
  27. 27. RECONSTRUCTION PROGRESS AS ON 10 August, 2O11 Reconstruction Project Progress Yearly-wise Reconstruction Summary
  28. 28. ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  29. 29. DATA COLLECTION• Main source of data is ERM database of ERRA and MIS database of Pakistan Poverty Elevation Fund• Data is also collected from different NGOs, United Nation agencies, NESPAK, contractors, C&W Mansehra, PWD Neelum, District Reconstruction Units etc.• Different nature of reconstruction projects in earthquake affected areas of Pakistan are selected, which have been executed in the last five years with at least Rs. 1 Millions worth• The financial and scheduling data of all the ERRA 13,312 small and large projects have been collected and it has been analyzed by using the some performance indicators, earn value analysis and in light of executers opinions• Project success & failure factors are extracted from this process
  30. 30. Cont’d• 185 questionnaires were send to construction professionals of Pakistan, selected randomly from across the quake-hit areas• A total of 74 completed responses were received Project Classification of Respondents’Nature of OrganizationRespondents
  31. 31. DATA EVALUTION• A four-point Likert scale was used to measure the factor influence on overall performance of reconstruction projects• The individual numerical ratings of each of the identified factors were transformed to relative importance indices to assess the relative ranking of factor by using the following formula• RII= ∑X/(A*N) , (O < RII < 1) Where− RII = relative importance index.− X = rating given to each factor by the respondent; ranging from 1 to 4 where 1’ is not effective at all and 4 is extremely effective− A = highest rating (i.e. 4 in this case)− N = total number of respondents responding to that factor• The biggest value of RII of a factors indicates the most important success factors with rank one and the smallest value of RII indicates the most critical failure factors with rank one & so on• Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to find correlation in ranking among different responding groups Source: Daniel W.M. Chan , Mohan M. Kurnaraswarny (2002) International Journal of Project Management, vol.20, pp. 23-35
  32. 32. Analysis of Success Criteria from Questionnaire’s FeedbackDiscussion− Ranking of all success criterions was obtained by computing RII for overall sample as well as separately for all responding groups− Respondents are conscious about the popular ‘Iron Triangle’ of construction industry, that is “completion on time, under budget & according to specifications”Result:• Top ranked success criteria are completion ‘within schedule’, ‘within budget’, ‘stakeholders satisfaction’, ‘meet specifications’ and ‘high quality of workmanship’ Cont’d
  33. 33. SOLICITATION OF RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT SUCCESS & FAILURE FACTORS• Depending upon mean scores of responses for various factors, the factors were segregated in three groups: the first group (with µ≥ 3.0) that showed positive contribution; the second group (with 3.0 < µ < 2.35) which was neutral, having no significant impact on the project success and the third group (with µ≤ 2.35) indicating negative impacts• Factors of first group (µ≥ 3.0) were arranged on their descending order of RII values and ranked• Factors of the third group (with µ≤ 2.35) were arranged in ascending order of the RII and ranked. The lowest RII indicates the most critical failure factor with rank 1 and so on Ranges of mean values Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 µ≥ 3.0 3.0 < µ < 2.35 µ≤ 2.35 14 factors 24 factors 17 factors Success Neither positively contributing nor Adversely factors adversely affecting affecting
  34. 34. Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Success Factors
  35. 35. Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Failure Factors
  36. 36. Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Success Factors S. No Critical project success factors (µ≥ 3.0) RII Mean Rank 1 Clarity of goals and directions of the project 0.889 3.554 1 2 Detailed planning of project 0.855 3.419 2 3 A full-time and experienced project manager 0.834 3.338 3 4 Clear & detailed written contracts 0.814 3.257 4 5 Effective monitoring and feedback 0.801 3.203 5 6 Projects management skills 0.794 3.176 6 7 Frequent meetings among various stakeholders 0.780 3.122 7 Project team members possess adequate capabilities & 8 0.774 3.095 8 experience 9 Extent of rewarding high performing staff and motivation 0.767 3.068 9 10 Sufficient capacity of contractors 0.764 3.054 10 11 PM ability to handle contingencies & deviations from plan 0.760 3.041 11 12 Adequate communication among related parties 0.756 3.021 12 13 Training human resources in the skill demanded by the project 0.752 3.011 13 14 Client’s clear and precise definition of project scope & objectives 0.750 3.000 14
  37. 37. Post-disaster Reconstruction Project Failure FactorsS.No Critical Failure Factors for Construction Projects (µ≤ 2.35) RII Mean Rank 1 Inadequate availability of resources (funds, material etc.) 0.443 1.77 1 2 Finance problems and payments of completed work 0.449 1.797 2 3 Lengthy decision taking process & reluctance in timely decision by stakeholders 0.483 1.932 3 4 Excessive subletting 0.517 2.068 4 5 Centralized system by ERRA 0.531 2.123 5 6 Inappropriate cost and time estimation 0.530 2.122 6 7 Shortages of skilled man-power, experienced professionals 0.536 2.148 7 8 Increasing energy, material, labor prices & their shortages 0.537 2.149 8 9 Vulnerability of roads and difficult access to site 0.540 2.161 9 10 Political support 0.541 2.162 10 11 Mistakes/ delays in producing design documents & drawings 0.551 2.203 11 12 Complexity and large size of reconstruction project 0.554 2.216 12 13 Work suspensions owing to conflicts 0.557 2.23 13 14 X-Factor (fraudulent practices, corruption, favoritism etc.) 0.574 2.297 14 15 High cost of skilled labor & high transportation costs 0.578 2.311 15 16 Capacity of line departments 0.5810 2.323 16 17 Harsh climatic condition 0.5811 2.324 17
  38. 38. SOLICITATION OF ERRA’S RECONSTRUCTIONPROGRAM FOR MONITORING & MANAGING PURPOSE The "normal" pace of project implementation is simply not good enough to address the urgent needs of the people affected by the earthquakes ICT tools (wireless communication, webmail, database bank) are keys to identify the gaps in reconstruction delivery The online database may provide a tool to track the physical progress of implementing agencies ERRA need to classifying delayed projects into 4 categories, based on the partner’s frequency of updating their data on the online databank. Concepts related to managing and monitoring of the reconstruction programme of ERRA− Halted Projects− Delayed Projects− Snailing Progress (Time Overrun Projects)− Awaiting Progress
  39. 39. HALTED PRJECTS• A project becomes halted if more than 3 months have passed and no physical progress is received. Halted Projects are further categorized into the following categories:− Halted - No Work Started: Commencement order is issued but work has not started since 3 months or more. The project should have zero % physical progress− Halted - Sick Projects: Construction is stopped between 1% and 80% since 3 months or more− Halted - Stuck Projects: Construction is stopped between 81% and 95% since 3 months or more
  40. 40. Cont’d Detail of Sector wise Halted Projects as on 10 August, 2011 Sector Under Total Halted No Work Started Sick Stuck Construction NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % Grand Total: 3868 2322 60.03 194 5.02 1950 50.41 178 4.60 Education 2,151 1,301 60.48 117 5.44 1,101 51.19 83 3.86 Environment 293 163 55.63 8 2.73 138 47.10 17 5.80 Governance 258 172 66.67 6 2.33 149 57.75 17 6.59 Health 97 4 4.12 0 0.00 2 2.06 2 2.06 Livelihood 489 243 49.69 29 5.93 206 42.13 8 1.64 Power 100.0 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 2 0 0.00 0 Social Protection 7 5 71.43 0 0.00 5 71.43 0 0.00 Transport 84 28 33.33 1 1.19 22 26.19 5 5.95 WatSan 487 404 82.96 33 6.78 325 66.74 46 9.45Result• Lack of funding, increase in taxes because of August 2010 flood, remote hilly areas, location of some sites directly below the high voltage power line and shortage of technical persons is the main reasons for stopping of work at these projects
  41. 41. DELAYED PROJECTS• When a project fails to achieve the planned progress and lags behind the schedule, it is declared delayed whether the time is over run or not. Difference between planned & actual progress should be 30% or more for delayed projects. The delayed projects are further categorized into the following categories− Delayed - Slow Progress: Difference between planned and actual progress is between 30% and 49%− Delayed - Sick Projects: Difference between planned and actual progress is between 50% and 74%− Delayed - Critical Projects: Difference between planned and actual progress is equal to or greater than 75%
  42. 42. Cont’d 2944 number of projects is declared Delayed at 10 August, 2011 Delayed Projects Under Slow Total construction Total Progress Sick Critical Sector Projects No % No % No % No % No % Grand Total: 13312 3868 29.06 2746 70.99 641 16.57 962 24.87 1143 29.55 Education 5,751 2,151 37.40 1,692 78.66 388 18.04 541 25.15 763 35.47 Environment 466 293 62.88 200 68.26 49 16.72 50 17.06 101 34.47 Governance 697 258 37.02 175 67.83 44 17.05 61 23.64 70 27.13 Health 306 97 31.70 24 24.74 12 12.37 10 10.31 2 2.06 Livelihood 1,076 489 45.45 275 56.24 52 10.63 106 21.68 117 23.93 MR & Telecom 6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Power 15 2 13.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Social Protection 15 7 46.67 7 100.00 6 85.71 1 14.29 0 0.00 Transport 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 WatSan 233 84 36.05 42 50.00 17 20.24 17 20.24 8 9.52Result• Generally government of Pakistan faces shortage of funds in financial allocation to ERRA’s projects and projects more than the available finances are started which later on causing delay in payment to contractors. When the contractors do not receive their payments then they also stop paying to their supplier and labour. These scarcities of cash flow cause the project delay
  43. 43. SNAILING PROGRESS (TIME OVERRUN PROJECTS)Construction pace of Snailing Progress Projects is very slow. They can notbe called “Halted (Sick/Stuck)” because they do some progress in 90 days.They do not fall under the category of delayed projects because thedifference between planned and actual progress is less than 30%−Non imposition of penalty/liquidity damage by the consultant, subletting ofcontracts, critical technical observations, poor condition of road, price hikein construction material and procedural delays by clients are the somereasons of time overrun project Detail of Snailing Progress Projects at 10 August, 2011 Number of Projects Under Time Over Run Sector Construction Total Up to 3 10-12 > 12 4-6 Months 7-9 months Months Months Months Grand Total: 3,868 296 5 20 37 20 214 Education 2,151 155 4 12 28 13 98 Environment 293 63 0 8 5 2 48 Governance 258 33 0 0 0 1 32 Health 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livelihood 489 19 0 0 0 0 19 Transport 84 15 0 0 3 1 11 WatSan 487 11 1 0 1 3 6
  44. 44. AWAITING PROGRESS• A project is considered member of this group if more than 49 days have passed and no progress is received• If there is no improvement in progress on a project of this group than after 90 days the project will automatically become “Halted (No Work Started/Sick/Stuck)” and disappear from awaiting progress report group• Result:− This awaiting progress report will give an early warning to managers that the progress of project is not received since long− Sector wise detail of Awaiting Projects (Waiting since 50 to 89 days) Awaiting No Work Total Awaiting Sick Awaiting Stuck District Started No. No. % No. % No. % Grand Total 527 16 3.04 374 70.97 137 26.00 Education 199 0 0.00 174 87.44 25 12.56 Environment 45 0 0.00 32 71.11 13 28.89 Governance 27 0 0.00 23 85.19 4 14.81 Health 31 1 3.23 24 77.42 6 19.35 Livelihood 189 15 7.94 90 47.62 84 44.44 Transport 19 0 0.00 17 89.47 2 10.53 WatSan 17 0 0.00 14 82.35 3 17.65 Transport 19 0 0.00 17 89.47 2 10.53
  45. 45. PROPOSED FRAMEWORKRECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUTION
  46. 46. Comprehensive Framework for Reconstruction Project Success
  47. 47. Framework for Effective Post-disaster Recovery Process in Pakistan
  48. 48. Organizational Models for Recovery Projects in Pakistan1) Create new dedicated organization or task force− Seriously consider this option for large-scale disasters− Formulate the exit strategy to avoid agency surviving beyond its mission2) Dedicated organization drawn from existing line ministries− It may undermine ongoing non-disaster programs− International agencies may not finance backfilling of normal ministry functions3) Existing Governmental Agencies Manage Recovery under National Disaster Plan− This model needs detailed pre-disaster planning, staff training & national disaster plan− It requires existing line ministries to be strengthened with experienced staff
  49. 49. RECOMMENDATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL• All stages of a disaster response should be handled by the same dedicated permanent institution• Development of human resource to cater for global disasters from rescue to reconstruction• Establish worldwide linkage between government and NGOs and share experience with disaster-hit countries• Government should specify rates periodically based on requirement and price escalation• Approach for housing reconstruction after mega disaster should be owner driven• Time and cost schedule for site in remote areas should be flexible along with special incentives to attract NGOs and contractors to far flung areas• Progress analysis of projects should be carried out by client, consultant and contractor to know whether the project is successful• Project success criteria and KPIs should be developed at the initial stages of project before implementation• As there are different requirements and special targets of any given project, success measurement should also be tailored for each project• The earned value analysis of the projects should be carried out during execution of projects to control/monitor the project to see whether the project is on schedule and within budget or not
  50. 50. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS− Comprehensive analysis of the causes of success and failure at the end of reconstruction projects in disaster affected areas of Pakistan− Project success criteria and key performance indicators for construction projects in Pakistan− Assessment of critical success and failure factors in other industries in Pakistan− Establishment of a comprehensive benchmarking system to determine the performance of mega development projects in government sector− Establishment of a clear link between critical success factors and project success criteria− Analysis of cost overrun and delays in post disaster recovery projects in Pakistan− Role analysis of consultants, contractors, relief and recovery organization after mega disaster in Pakistan− Project success factors and criteria for aid agencies in the World− Impact assessment of post disaster reconstruction projects to examine how beneficiaries perceive the performance of reconstructed facilities

×