Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research Methodology for Built Environment and Engineering

Shah Alam,Malaysia, 7-8 October 2015

Identifying the Parameters of Uncertainty among Stakeholders for Heritage

Conservation Refurbishment Projects: A Case Study of Mosques
Farah Nasiha Suhaili and Faridah Ismail
Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, MALAYSIA

farahnasiha@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Conservation refurbishment has become vital after Melaka and Penang were announced as one of
World Heritage Site in 2008. Heritage is very important to a society and country as it reflects the true
identity of the country and creates a sense of wonder about the people and culture that produced it. Unlike
new building works, the heritage conservation works are unique and distinctive individually which do not
have precedent case to study. The existence of complexity and uncertainty elements throughout the
process can disrupt the traditional requirements for price certainty, a known date of delivery and
acknowledged quality standards. It requires a special project management and consultancy experience in
which the Malaysias construction industry is lacking. Therefore, this research is intended to identify the
parameters of uncertainty in the heritage conservation refurbishment projects in Malaysia focusing on
mosques projects. Three projects were chosen as the Case Study in which the data was collected through
questionnaire surveys distributed to five main stakeholders of the project. Descriptive and inferential
statistics are used in the data analysis. The results conclude that every heritage buildings are unique and
distinct even though the typology of the building is similar from one to another. Nevertheless, the most
common parameters of uncertainty in heritage conservation refurbishment projects are sufficiency of
time, availability of information, consultants knowledge and experience, availability of material and
availability of skilled labour.

Keywords: Uncertainty parameters; Heritage Conservation; Refurbishment; Stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION
Ever since Melaka and Penang were announced as one of the World Heritage Site in 2008, the urge
for conservation works in Malaysia has become significant. According to the statistic by Jabatan Warisan
Negara (2013), there are about 176 registered heritage buildings in Malaysia. From the total 176, only few
of them were properly conserved and the rest are left abandon with minor repair here and there.
According to Reyers & Mansfield (2001), Reyers (2003), Lee & Lim (2009), Mansfield J. R. (2009), and
Zolkafli et al. (2012), conservation projects normally involve works that cannot accurately predetermine
in terms of extent, specification, duration or cost. Ali, Rahmat, & Hassan (2008) revealed that a sensible
decision made during the inception stage depends on the availability of design information as the data
available is very limited.
According to Rahmat, Torrance, and Young (1998) and Ali, Rahmat and Hassan (2008) complexity
and uncertainty tend to create information and communication gaps between the key participants
involved. Construction Industry Research and Association (1994) cited in Ali, Rahmat, & Hassan (2008)
highlighted that the consultants efforts in gathering comprehensive information from the existing
building reflects on the design development of the project. He further argued that poor feedback from key
participants in the design team contributes to uncertainty in the design process. This is due to the
uniqueness and individuality of the heritage buildings in which it does not have precedent case to study.
Giving example of Istana Arau, Perlis and Istana Besar, Johor, although both projects are classified as the
same type of building, but the conservation works cannot be treated the same as each project have
distinctive background history, culture and architecture.

1
PARAMETERS OF UNCERTAINTY IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION
REFURBISHMENT PROJECTS
Conservation refurbishment project is unique, distinctive and highly specialized project which
involves work that cannot accurately predetermine in terms of extent, specification, duration or cost
(Zolkafli et al., 2012; Reyers & Mansfield, 2001). The existence of uncertainty factors in conservation
refurbishment can jeopardize the accuracy of price estimates, completion date and quality of
workmanship. Thus, it is crucial for the project team to identify every possible uncertainty variables
during the earliest phase of the project. Laufer (1991) revealed that research on uncertainty in
construction emphasizes the importance of incorporating uncertainty factors in project cost and time
forecast. Therefore, the approach used in measurement of uncertainty in the present study would be
adopted from the empirical analysis done in table 1.0. The variable would be categorized as Heritage
conservation refurbishment uncertainty variables.

Table 1.0 : Empirical Research on Parameter of Uncertainties

(Ali, (Faniran (Ali (Rahmat, (Ali (Laufer, (Reyers & (Zolkafli (Ramgopal,
2009) et. al., et.al. 1997) et.al., 1991) Mansfield et al., 2003)
1994) 2007) n.d.) , 2001) 2012)
Information / / / / / / / / /
Client / / / / /
Access / / / /
Labour / / /
Material / /
Experience / /
Consultants / / /
Weather / /
Storage /
Objectives / /
Time variance / /
Through the literature review analysis of previous researchers, eleven (11) dominant uncertainty
variables that are associated with heritage conservation refurbishment projects were identified. The
variables are the availability of information (Ali, 2009; Faniran et.al., 1994; Ali et.al;., 2007; Rahmat,
1997; Ali et.al., n.d.; Laufer, 1991; Reyers & Mansfield, 2001; Zolkafli et.al., 2012; Ramgopal, 2003),
changes in design made by client during construction (Ali, 2009; Ali et.al., 2007; Rahmat, 1997; Ali
et.al., n.d.; Zolkafli et.al., 2012), ease of access to the building (Ali, 2009; Ali et.al., 2007; Rahmat, 1997;
Zolkafli et.al., 2012), availability of skilled labour (Faniran et.al., 1994; Rahmat, 1997; Laufer, 1991),
availability of material (Rahmat, 1997; Zolkafli et al 2012), knowledge and experience of the
stakeholders(Faniran et al 1994; Laufer, 1994), consultants interdependency and communication (Ali
et.al., n.d.; Reyers & Mansfield, 2001; Ramgopal, 2003), impact of weather to the project (Faniran et.al.,
1994; Laufer, 1991), amount of space available for storage of material on site (Rahmat, 1997),
understanding and acknowledgment of project goal and objectives (Laufer, 1991; Ramgopal, 2003) and
sufficiency of time allocation (Ali et.al., 2007; Ali et.al., n.d.). These 11 parameters of uncertainty will be
elaborated subsequently as follows:

i. Availability of information
This first variable which is the availability of design information is the major problem faced in most
of conservation refurbishment project according to Ali (2009); Reyers & Mansfield (2001); Zolkafli et al.
(2012). Among the design information are as-built drawings, specifications, work method and others.
Ismail (1997) discovered that the lack of information have resulted to various major implications. This
resulted the degree of reciprocal interdependency between the clients and contractors during construction
phase tend to be higher, shorter communication time between the decision makers and the implementers

2
and more detailed and quality information gathering is necessary at the early stage. Reyers & Mansfield
(2001) concluded that due to incomplete design information, more assumptions are made, which should
be allowed for in the form of provisional and contingency cost allocation.

ii. Changes in design made by client during construction

Ali (2009) discovered that inability of the client to provide an adequate brief and input always
contributes to additional work and design variations. Poor briefing and breakdown of communication
happens when the client often changed their needs. Cox et.al. (n.d.) noted that the client was found to be
the main contributor to the change in design as they initiated design changes which arise due to new
information discovery on site, error in design and changes in statutory regulations. Further, variation also
occur mainly due to changes in clients preferences throughout the project period. Additionally, clients
are still uncertain about their needs during the initial stage of the design process. Consequently, the design
requirements would be changed throughout the project period.

iii. Ease access to the site

According to Ali (2009) and Ali, Rahmat, & Noordin (2007), The Chartered Institute of Building
pointed out that the difficulty of access to refurbishment projects sites could increase the level of
uncertainty in refurbishment projects. Howell et.al. (1993) revealed that the level of uncertainty
associated with access to buildings need more time and cost. This is because more time is needed to spend
for coordination and to obtain information for the material used, such as size and weight in producing and
handling on site. In some cases, more coordination with the structural engineer is required when the
project involves lifting of heavy equipment and demolition of building structure for ease of access.

iv. Availability of skilled labour

Faniran et. al. (1994) discovered that the availability of skilled labour have implication towards the
man-hour, cost and time variance as well as the satisfaction of the client. Ismail (1997) mentioned that
according to BRE (1990) a refurbishment work consists of a sequential technical problem that requires
quick solutions. Normally, the techniques and method of repair and refurbish is uniquely developed for
each building, even if the building is similar and built in the same period or era. The planning and
monitoring process for such work is certainly complex and requires skilful labour.

v. Availability of material
The Chartered Institute of Building (1987) cited the due to the problems of aesthetic value, such as
matching a new work with an old projects, the heritage conservation projects requires special design and
workmanship skills. However, Ismail (1997) in his research concluded that the problems on the
availability of material tend to be related with economic conditions, rather than inherent in refurbishment
projects. It requires the solution in terms of strategic planning of the construction firms involved in
refurbishment projects. This suggests the need to maintain long-term relationships between the
contractors and their suppliers.

vi. Knowledge and experience of the stakeholders

Laufer (1991) discovered that construction experience is one of the most influential factors that
affect both effort and outcome of a project. Conversely, Reyers & Mansfield (2001) revealed that a
commercial project management approach is valid for conservation projects regardless of the specialized
nature of the scope of work. No evidence was generated through this research that suggested project
managers required a specialist in conservation, providing an appropriately experienced and qualified
design-construct team were employed.

3
vii. Consultants interdependency and communication
Ali, Rahmat, & Noordin (n.d.) has identified that level of conflict among the designers affect the
performance of design for refurbishment projects. One of the major sources of uncertainty is the
multiplicity of people, business units and organizations involved in a project. The relationships between
various parties may be complex, thus, triggers the uncertainty arising from ambiguity about roles and
responsibilities of each individual and uncertainty associated with moral hazard and adverse selection
considerations (Ramgopal, 2003).

viii. Impact of weather to the project

Faniran et. al. (1994) identified that one of the variables that affects the workmanship of the project
the most is weather. The number of days lost due to poor weather was associated with an increase in the
proportion of planning time spent analyzing information. According to Laufer (1991), weather
predictability has an influence on the planning outcome in which 75% of the respondents identified it as
uncertain.

ix. Amount of space available for storage of material on site

Ismail (1997) reveals that the problem of too small a space to store materials is so common in
refurbishment projects. He highlighted the case of the refurbishment of 1 - 4 Eaton Square London which
suffered from a very small space for storage of material. To maximize space for this purpose on site, a
high level cantilevered platform had to be constructed above one of the roads adjacent to the building.
This confirms Egbu's (1994) finding that lack of space was one of the most difficult management
problems in refurbishment projects. Addressing on confined space in the refurbishment project, he
suggest great attention must be paid to the preparation of site layout plans.

x. Understanding and acknowledgement of project goal and objective

Laufer (1991) discovered that one of the highest situational proportions for planning time occurs
when objectives are tight and rigid as well as for control time. Thus, it has a particularly great effect on
project certainty. Meanwhile, as according to Ramgopal (2003), for improvement in project performance,
it requires clarity on the project objectives and related priorities. The implications of uncertainty in project
objectives will affect the time, cost and quality of the overall project.

xi. Sufficiency of time

Ali, Rahmat, & Noordin (2007) highlighted that there were many errors found in the design
documents if the designers complete it in short period of time due to time constraint. Inadequacy of time
could disrupt the designers to have opportunity to develop detail drawings and coordinate on various
aspects of design. As a result, many changes in design occurred during contract implementation stage.
Ali, Rahmat, & Noordin (n.d.) further added that designs time frame affect the completeness of
drawings. The performance of refurbishment projects tend to be poor with majority of them completed
with over budget and overestimated time.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The case study approach is chosen as the study design because it can become the basis of a
thorough, holistic and in-depth exploration of the aspect of the research study. This research study focus
on the parameter of uncertainties in heritage conservation refurbishment works. Among the 25 identified
religious heritage buildings, only three (3) projects are selected based on the type of procurement system
similarity between the projects. Following the judgemental or purposive sampling type as mentioned by
Kumar (2014), for every project, five (5) main stakeholders will be selected to answer the questionnaire
survey. They are the Project Manager, Architect, Civil and Structural Engineer, Mechanical and Electrical

4
Engineer and Quantity Surveyor. These five individuals are chosen based on their degree of involvement
and importance at every stage of the heritage conservation refurbishment works. To ensure 100%
feedback from the respondent, a face to face approach were adopted in which the questionnaire surveys
were answered and written by themselves. The parameters of complexity and uncertainty were identified
through literature review. The searches for relevant literature were conducted within and outside the
universitys library databases (e.g., EBSCO; ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, ProQuest; PMI Online
Library) and general Internet search engines. The analyses on the parameters of complexity and
uncertainty from literature served as a starting point to obtain input from experienced professionals to
finalize the parameters of complexity and uncertainty for heritage conservation refurbishment projects in
Malaysia especially in mosque projects.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The questionnaire survey consisted of a three sections which covered all the identified parameters
in the present study. The respondents of each case study were asked to rate the degree of uncertainty from
the parameters listed using five points of the likert scale ranging from least uncertain to certain. Table 2.0
highlights the projects background of the respective case studies. From the background of project, it is
inferred that all three projects is complex and have similar typology.

Table 2.0: Case study background

Case study A Case study B Case study C
Project Client Federal Government State Government State Government
Type of Building Religious Institution Religious Institution Religious Institution
Contract value RM 7,775,426.65 RM 9,000,000.00 RM 8,797,687.65
Construction period 44 Weeks 104 Weeks 50 Weeks
Value of service work 21.26% 25% 15.66%
Value of structural work 0.97% (new building only) 50% 7.36%
Value of provisional sum 19.30% 6% 3.18%
Table 3.0 concludes the scores of uncertainty for all 11 parameters in the projects. From here, it can
be inferred that every case study faced different sets of uncertainties and level of uncertainty. Case study
A faced uncertainty highly in changes of design (13%), insufficient information (12%), impact of poor
weather (11%), scarcity of material (10%), limited space for storage of material on site (10%) and
insufficient time allocation (10%). Meanwhile, case study B faced uncertainty mainly due to insufficient
time allocation (16%), lack of knowledge and experience (13%), insufficient information (11%), scarcity
of material (10%) and skilled labour (9%) and lack of consultants interdependency and communication
(9%). Similarly, case study C faced uncertainty due to insufficient time allocation (14%), lack of
knowledge and experience (13%), scarcity of material (13%) and skilled labour (11%) and insufficiency
of information (11%).
Table 3.0: Summary level of uncertainty
A=A/A (%) B=B/B (%) C=C/C (%) Total A+B+C=D Total (%) D/D

Information 12 11 11 42 11.17
Client 13 7 7 35 9.31
Access 6 5 6 21 5.59
Labour 9 9 11 37 9.84
Material 10 10 13 41 10.90
Experience 7 13 13 40 10.64
Consultants 5 9 7 25 6.65
Weather 11 9 9 37 9.84
Storage 10 7 7 30 7.98
Objectives 6 6 4 20 5.32
Time variance 10 16 14 48 12.77
TOTAL SCORE 151 102 123 376 100

5
 From the findings and analysis conducted, it can be concluded that each case study faced different
sets of uncertainties even though the typology of the buildings are merely the same. Case study A and
case study B have the same architecture influence which is Moorish architecture; however, the parameters
of uncertainty occurred in both case studies are substantially different.

CONCLUSION
The mosques heritage conservation refurbishment projects are unique and distinctive individually.
It involves works that cannot accurately predetermine in terms of extent, specification, duration or cost. In
order to minimize the level of uncertainty in heritage conservation refurbishment projects, the parameters
of uncertainty existed need to be identified and addressed accordingly. Throughout this study, the
parameters of uncertainty were successfully identified. Based on an extensive literature review conducted,
there are eleven (11) dominant parameters of uncertainties identified in heritage conservation
refurbishment projects. The variables are the availability of information, changes in design made by client
during construction, ease of access to the building, availability of skilled labour, availability of material,
knowledge and experience of the stakeholders, consultants interdependency and communication, impact
of weather to the project, amount of space available for storage of material on site, understanding and
acknowledgment of project goal and objectives and sufficiency of time allocation. The 11 parameters of
uncertainties were analysed individually and cross-tabulated among the case studies. It can be concluded
that the parameters that contribute most to project uncertainty is the sufficiency of time (12.77%),
availability of information (11.17%), consultants knowledge and experience (10.64%), availability of
material (10.90%) and availability of skilled labour (9.84%).

REFERENCES
[1] Ali, A. S. (2009). Complexity in Refurbishment of Services System for Historical Buildings in Malaysia. Kuala
Lumpur: Faculty of Built Environment, University Malaya.
[2] Ali, A. S., Rahmat, I., & Hassan, H. (2008). Involvement of Key Design Participants in Refurbishment Design
Process. Emerald Group, 389-400.
[3] Ali, A. S., Rahmat, I., & Noordin, N. (2007). The Design Process for Building Refurbishment Project. MIKRA
2007 (pp. B-8-1 - B-8-10). Shah Alam: Universiti Teknologi MARA.
[4] Ali, A. S., Rahmat, I., & Noordin, N. (n.d.). The Design Process for Building Refurbishment Projects.
Unpublished Phd Thesis. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
[5] Egbu, C., Young, B., & Torrence, V. (1996). Refurbishment manangement practices in shipping and
construction industries - lessons to be learned. Building Research and Information, 329-380.
[6] Faniran, O. O., Oluwoye, J. O., & Lenard, D. (1994). Effective Construction Planning. Construction
Management and Economics, 485-499.
[7] Howell, G., Laufer, A., & Ballard, P. (1993). Uncertainty and project objectives. Project Appraisal, 37-43.
[8] Kumar, R. (2014). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. London: Sage Publication.
[9] Laufer, A. (1991). Construction Planning in Uncertain Environments. Project Management, 53-60.
[10] Lee, Q., & Lim, Y. (2009). Preparation of Tender for Building Conservation Work: Current Practises in
Malaysia. International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering, 81-86.
[11]Mansfield, J. R. (2009). The use of formalised risk management approaches by UK design consultants in
conservation refurbishment projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 273-287.
[12] Rahmat, I. (1997). The Planning and Control Process of Refurbishment Projects (Doctoral Dissertation).
University of London.
[13] Rahmat, I., Torrance, V. B., & Young, B. A. (1998). The Planning and Control Process of Refurbishment
Projects. 14th Annual ACROM Conference (pp. 137-145). Reading: Association of Researchers in Construction
Management.
[14] Ramgopal, M. (2003). Project Uncertainty Management. Cost Engineering, 21-24.
[15] Reyers, J. (2003). Risk and liability for consultants advising on the built heritage. Structural Survey, 8-15.
[16] Reyers, J., & Mansfield, J. (2001). The Assessment of Risk in Conservation Refurbishment Projects. Structural
Survey, 238-244.
[17] Zolkafli, U. K., Zakaria, N., Yahya, Z., Ali, A. S., Akashah, F. W., Othman, M., et al. (2012). Risks in
Conservation Works. Journal Design + Built, 1-11.