Xây dựng mô hình cấu trúc tuyến tính đánh giá tác động của sự chậm thanh toán đến nhà thầu phụ trong các dự án nhà cao tầng

BỘ CÔNG THƯƠNG ĐẠI HỌC CÔNG NGHIỆP THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH BÁO CÁO TỔNG KẾT ĐỀ TÀI KHOA HỌC KẾT QUẢ THỰC HIỆN ĐỀ TÀI NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌCCẤP TRƯỜNG Tên đề tài: Xây dựng mơ hình cấu trúc tuyến tính đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến nhà thầu phụ dự án nhà cao tầng Mã số đề tài: 21.2 XD04 Chủ nhiệm đề tài: Nguyễn Thanh Việt Đơn vị thực hiện: Khoa Kỹ thuật Xây dựng Tp Hồ Chí Minh, 01/2023 LỜI CÁM ƠN Tác giả xin gửi lời cảm ơn đến Ban Giám Hiệu, Phòng Quản lý Khoa học Hợp tác Quốc tế, Khoa Kỹ thuật Xây dựng Trường Đại học Cơng nghiệp Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh tạo điều kiện thuận lợi để hỗ trợ tác giả suốt trình thực đề tài nghiên cứu khoa học cấp trường Tác giả xin bày tỏ lịng biết ơn đến Q Thầy/Cơ Hội đồng nghiệm thu đưa góp ý nhận xét giá trị để giúp tác giả hoàn thiện báo cáo nghiên cứu khoa học Xin chân thành cảm ơn! Tp Hồ Chí Minh, tháng 01 năm 2023 Tác giả Nguyễn Thanh Việt PHẦN I THÔNG TIN CHUNG I Thông tin tổng quát 1.1 Tên đề tài: Xây dựng mơ hình cấu trúc tuyến tính đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến nhà thầu phụ dự án nhà cao tầng 1.2 Mã số: 21.2 XD04 1.3 Danh sách chủ trì, thành viên tham gia thực đề tài TT Họ tên (học hàm, học vị) Đơn vị cơng tác Vai trị thực đề tài TS Nguyễn Thanh Việt Khoa Kỹ thuật Xây dựng, Trường Đại học Công nghiệp Tp HCM Chủ nhiệm đề tài PGS.TS Đỗ Tiến Sỹ Khoa Kỹ thuật Xây dựng, Trường Đại học Bách Khoa – ĐHQG TP HCM Thành viên ThS Võ Đình Mùi Cơng ty Kỹ thuật Xây dựng Tung Feng Việt Nam Thành viên 1.4 Đơn vị chủ trì: Khoa Kỹ thuật Xây dựng, Đại học Công Nghiệp Tp HCM 1.5 Thời gian thực hiện: 1.5.1 Theo hợp đồng: từ tháng năm 2022 đến tháng năm 2023 1.5.2 Gia hạn (nếu có): khơng 1.5.3 Thực thực tế: từ tháng năm 2022 đến tháng năm 2023 1.6 Những thay đổi so với thuyết minh ban đầu (nếu có): khơng 1.7 Tổng kinh phí phê duyệt đề tài: 50 triệu đồng II Kết nghiên cứu Đặt vấn đề Các dự án xây dựng (DAXD) với nguồn vốn lớn, thời gian dài thực hiện, tiềm ẩn nhiều rủi ro (Xie cộng 2019) Chậm tốn rủi ro có ảnh hưởng lớn đến DANCT (Jarkas Haupt 2015; Chileshe Yirenkyi-Fianko 2011; Rostami Oduoza 2017) Việc chậm trễ tốn dẫn đến vấn đề tiêu cực cho dự án chất lượng, tiến độ, chi phí suất chí mâu thuẫn, tranh chấp bên, phá sản từ bỏ dự án Các vấn đề ảnh hưởng đến hiệu thực dự án tất bên, bao gồm chủ đầu tư (CĐT), đơn vị tư vấn (ĐVTV), nhà thầu (NTC) nhà thầu phụ (NTP) Chẳng hạn, CĐT chậm trễ khai thác vận hành dự án, NTC gặp vấn đề dòng tiền ĐVTV tham gia dự án lâu so với kế hoạch Các NTP, có lẽ, bị ảnh hưởng nhiều từ việc chậm tốn họ khơng có đủ nguồn tài ổn định để xoay sở Shash Qarra (2018) phần lớn CĐT đầu chuỗi cung ứng sử dụng nhiều vốn, dễ dàng huy động vốn tránh rủi ro, phần lớn NTP cuối chuỗi sử dụng nhiều lao động với nguồn vốn hạn chế đối mặt với rủi ro cao Như thảo luận bên trên, chậm toán rõ ràng vấn đề quan trọng mà bên tham gia DANCT cần phải giải Mặc dù giải pháp khắc phục tìm thấy cơng việc nghiên cứu trước, nhiên vấn đề chậm tốn tồn tại, địi hỏi cần phải xác định nguyên nhân cốt lõi (Peters cộng 2019) Đặc biệt, điều quan trọng phải xác định nguyên nhân, yếu tố ảnh hưởng (YTAH) đến chậm toán NTP họ thực khối lượng công việc lớn DANCT Gibson (2000) NTP thực 70-75% khối lượng công việc Việc khám phá YTAH đến chậm trễ toán giúp cho NTP hiểu vấn đề toán cho phép họ thực bước cần thiết để giải chậm trễ tốn Bên cạnh đó, kết giúp CĐT NTC nhận thấy trách nhiệm họ việc chậm toán Theo Arditi Chotibhongs (2005), chậm trễ toán vấn đề lớn mắt nhiều NTP, CĐT NTC nhận thức điều Do đó, thực cần thiết họ nhận vấn đề chậm tốn cho NTP khiến NTP phải tạm dừng từ bỏ công việc dự án, rủi ro tiến độ chuyển ngược lại cho NTC CĐT Ngoài ra, việc tìm hiểu ảnh hưởng chậm toán, với việc đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến NTP quan trọng Kết cho bên thấy hệ luỵ chậm toán NTP, hết biết số định lượng mức độ tác động chậm toán đến NTP, hay nói cách khác cho thấy nghiêm trọng vấn đề chậm toán NTP, vấn đề mà dẫn đến nhiều điều liên đới tiêu cực khác gây dự án đề cập Cụ thể NTP, họ xác định khía cạnh nào, nhân tố cần ưu tiên việc khắc phục chậm trễ toán Mặc dù việc xác định yếu tố, nhóm nhân tố ảnh hưởng chính, ảnh hưởng chậm tốn, đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến NTP cấp thiết quan trọng Tuy nhiên, nghiên cứu liên quan hạn chế Việt Nam giới Đa số nghiên cứu trước xác định yếu tố dẫn đến chậm trễ toán chung cho dự án ngành xây dựng (Ye Rahman 2010; Nasser 2013; Ramachandra Rotimi 2015; Ansah 2011; Peters cộng 2019; Duy 2020; Akinsiku Ajayi 2016; Perera Dewagoda 2021) Chỉ vài nghiên cứu trước tìm hiểu YTAH đến chậm toán cho NTP (Asuquo Effiong 2017, Peters cộng 2019, Illangakoon 2017, Haron Arazmi 2020) Tuy nhiên, phát nghiên cứu có giới hạn đáng kể, ví dụ, số lượng YTAH xác định có phần hạn chế, chưa khám phá mối quan hệ YTAH, khơng có mục tiêu đánh giá mức độ tác động chậm toán đến NTP Vì vậy, nghiên cứu cố gắng hồn thiện thiếu sót Mục tiêu Nghiên cứu có mục tiêu đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến NTP Phạm vi nghiên cứu giới hạn dự án nhà cao tầng (DANCT) Tp HCM Phương pháp nghiên cứu Nghiên cứu sử dụng bảng khảo sát câu hỏi để thu thập liệu từ bên liên quan DANCT việc đánh giá YTAH ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP Nội dung bảng câu hỏi xây dựng từ việc xác định YTAH, ảnh hưởng chậm toán từ cơng trình thực tế, từ nghiên cứu trước Tiếp đến, bảng khảo sát khảo sát thử nghiệm việc xin ý kiến chuyên gia Các chuyên gia mời để xem xét dễ hiểu rõ ràng yếu tố, đảm bảo đầy đủ yếu tố, không tồn lặp lại ý nghĩa nội dung yếu tố bảng câu hỏi khảo sát Từ liệu thu thập, nghiên cứu tiến hành phân tích thống kê mơ tả, kiểm định độ tin cậy thang đo, tương quan hạng Spearman, kiểm định giả thuyết trị trung bình nhóm tham gia khảo sát (ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis) YTAH, ảnh hưởng chậm tốn Phân tích nhân tố sau thực để xác định cấu trúc tiềm ẩn YTAH đến chậm toán, ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP Để hồn thành mục tiêu nghiên cứu, mơ hình Structural equation modelling (SEM) xây dựng để xem xét tác động chậm toán đến NTP Tổng kết kết nghiên cứu Một số kết rút trình nghiên cứu sau: - Kết 1: Nghiên cứu xác định 20 YTAH đến chậm toán 08 ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP - Kết 2: Kiểm định One-way ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis khơng có khác biệt CĐT, NTC, NTP, ĐVTV việc đánh giá YTAH đến chậm toán ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP - Kết 3: Nghiên cứu khám phá 04 nhóm nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán cho NTP: Các bên tham gia thiếu trách nhiệm; Các vấn đề hợp đồng; Các bên tham gia thiếu lực kinh nghiệm; Quy trình phức tạp, sách thay đổi - Kết 4: Mơ hình SEM đánh giá tác động chậm tốn đến NTP thể hình bên Kết cho thấy vấn đề chậm toán (THANHTOAN) ảnh hưởng trực tiếp đáng kể đến NTP với hệ số 0.66 Vấn đề chậm toán phản ánh bốn nhóm nhân tố liệt kê Kết Tất nhân tố có hệ số ảnh hưởng lớn 0.5, điều cho thấy chúng nguyên nhân cốt lõi gây chậm trễ tốn Trong đó, nhân tố Quy trình phức tạp, sách thay đổi (QUYTRINH), Các bên tham gia thiếu lực kinh nghiệm (NANGLUC) tác động mạnh đến chậm toán cho NTP với hệ số ảnh hưởng 0.77 0.76 Sau nhân tố Các bên tham gia thiếu trách nhiệm với hệ số ảnh hưởng 0.67 (TRACHNHIEM), nhân tố Các vấn đề hợp đồng (HOPDONG) với hệ số ảnh hưởng 0,63 Mơ hình SEM thể tác động chậm toán đến NTP Đánh giá kết đạt kết luận Nghiên cứu xác định 20 YTAH phân chia thành 04 nhóm nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán cho NTP DANCT Nghiên cứu xác định ảnh hưởng chậm tốn đến NTP Kết nghiên cứu khơng có khác biệt đáng kể quan điểm đánh giá bên YTAH đến chậm toán ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP Kết mơ hình SEM cho thấy chậm trễ toán ảnh hưởng trực tiếp đáng kể đến NTP Các kết nghiên cứu hữu ích cho tất bên, cụ thể NTP NTP có nhìn nhận tổng quan YTAH đến chậm toán, khoanh vùng nhân tố ảnh hưởng cốt lõi cần phải ý, từ NTP đưa biện pháp chiến lược phù hợp chuẩn bị tham gia dự án nhằm hạn chế vấn đề chậm toán cải thiện hiệu quản lý dòng tiền Các NTP cần lưu tâm đặc biệt đến 04 nhóm nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán Các yếu tố dẫn đến đến chậm tốn bắt nguồn từ NTP từ yếu tố bên ngồi ngồi tầm kiểm sốt họ Để tránh yếu tố bắt nguồn từ NTP, NTP nên thực công việc theo hợp đồng Hơn nữa, lâu dài, NTP nên trọng công tác đào tạo nhằm nâng cao lực kỹ nhân sự, cụ thể việc lập hồ sơ toán CĐT/ĐVTV NTC cần nhận tầm quan trọng yếu tố bắt nguồn từ họ Họ nên nhận việc chậm tốn cho NTP có tác động tiêu cực đến dự án sau ảnh hưởng đến hiệu kinh doanh họ Cuối cùng, việc đào tạo giáo dục bên YTAH đến chậm toán thực cần thiết Trên hết, bên nên hướng đến xây dựng mối quan hệ hợp tác để tránh tình trạng chậm tốn Tóm tắt kết (tiếng Việt tiếng Anh) Tóm tắt tiếng Việt Chậm tốn vấn đề nghiêm trọng NTP Mặc dù việc xác định YTAH đến chậm toán cho NTP cần thiết quan trọng, nhiên nghiên cứu liên quan hạn chế Nghiên cứu nhằm mục đích đánh giá tác động chậm toán đến NTP DANCT Trong nghiên cứu, bảng khảo sát thiết kế để thu thập liệu từ bên liên quan DANCT việc đánh giá YTAH ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP 20 YTAH với 08 ảnh hưởng chậm toán đến NTP xác định Các bên tham gia thiếu trách nhiệm; Các vấn đề hợp đồng; Các bên tham gia thiếu lực kinh nghiệm; Quy trình phức tạp, sách thay đổi 04 nhóm nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán cho NTP Kết mơ hình SEM xác nhận tác động đáng kể chậm toán đến NTP Nghiên cứu đóng góp mặt kiến thức lĩnh vực liên quan đến chậm trễ toán DAXD Kết nghiên cứu giúp ích cho bên việc hạn chế chậm toán, đặc biệt NTP để cải thiện hiệu kinh doanh Tóm tắt tiếng Anh Payment delays are a major issue for subcontractors Despite the necessity and importance of identifying the factors of subcontractor payment delays, only a small number of studies have tried to this This study seeks to evaluate the effects of late payment on subcontractors in high-rise construction projects Practitioners are surveyed via questionnaires to acquire information The study identifies twenty factors affecting payment delays and eights their effects on subcontractors In addition, the study highlights four major groupings of factors that contribute to subcontractor payment delays: parties’ lack of responsibility, issues with contracts, incompetence and inexperience of parties, and complicated procedures and policy changes The results of the structural equation modeling demonstrate that payment delays have a major effect on subcontractors The study fills in knowledge gaps about construction payment delays The conclusions of the study would aid parties in reducing payment delays, particularly subcontractors in enhancing their company performance III Sản phẩm đề tài, công bố kết đào tạo Kết nghiên cứu (sản phẩm dạng 1, 2, 3) Sản phẩm đề tài thuộc dạng (bài báo/báo cáo khoa học) TT Tên sản phẩm Yêu cầu khoa học hoặc/và tiêu kinh tế - kỹ thuật Đăng ký Đạt C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Phân tích yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán cho nhà thầu phụ dự án nhà cao tầng Assessing the impact of the Scopus Q3 traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance in construction projects: a case study in Vietnam Tạp chí nước Tạp chí nước Scopus Q1 IV Tình hình sử dụng kinh phí T T Nội dung chi A Chi phí trực tiếp B Cơng lao động Th khốn chuyên môn Nguyên, nhiên vật liệu, Thiết bị, dụng cụ Cơng tác phí Dịch vụ th ngồi Hội nghị, hội thảo,thù lao nghiệm thu kỳ In ấn, Văn phịng phẩm Chi phí khác Chi phí gián tiếp Quản lý phí Chi phí điện, nước Tổng số Kinh phí duyệt (triệu đồng) Kinh phí thực (triệu đồng) 49,676,600 49,676,600 323,400 323,400 50,000,000 50,000,000 Ghi V Kiến nghị (về phát triển kết nghiên cứu đề tài) Một số kiến nghị đề xuất cho nghiên cứu thời gian tới như: - Mở rộng nghiên cứu phạm vi nước để có kết tổng quan YTAH tác động chậm toán đến NTP - Nghiên cứu giải pháp hạn chế chậm toán đến NTP, đánh giá khả thi hiệu giải pháp áp dụng vào thực tế VI Phụ lục sản phẩm (liệt kê minh chứng sản phẩm nêu Phần III) Sản phẩm đề tài nghiên cứu thuộc dạng báo liệt kê Phần III Cụ thể báo sau: Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 1) Nguyễn Thanh Việt, Đỗ Tiến Sỹ, Võ Đình Mùi (2022) “Phân tích yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến chậm toán cho nhà thầu phụ dự án nhà cao tầng” Tạp chí Vật liệu Xây dựng – Bộ Xây dựng 2) Nguyen, V T., Do, S T., Tran, C N., & Vo, M D (2022) “Assessing the impact of the traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance in construction projects: a case study in Vietnam” International Journal of Construction Management, 1-11 (Scopus Q1) Chủ nhiệm đề tài Phòng QLKH&HTQT Tp HCM, ngày 11 tháng 01 năm 2023 (ĐƠN VỊ) Trưởng (đơn vị) (Họ tên, chữ ký) TS Nguyễn Thanh Việt Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an PHẦN II BÁO CÁO CHI TIẾT ĐỀ TÀI NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC (báo cáo tổng kết sau nghiệm thu, bao gồm nội dung góp ý hội đồng nghiệm thu) Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an International Journal of Construction Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20 Assessing the impact of the traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance in construction projects: a case study in Vietnam Viet Thanh Nguyen, Sy Tien Do, Cuong N N Tran & Mui Dinh Vo To cite this article: Viet Thanh Nguyen, Sy Tien Do, Cuong N N Tran & Mui Dinh Vo (2022): Assessing the impact of the traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance in construction projects: a case study in Vietnam, International Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2152980 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2152980 Published online: 05 Dec 2022 Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2152980 Assessing the impact of the traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance in construction projects: a case study in Vietnam Viet Thanh Nguyena, Sy Tien Dob,c, Cuong N N Trand and Mui Dinh Voe a Faculty of Civil Engineering, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; bDepartment of Construction Engineering and Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; cVietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; dUniversity of Economics and Business- Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam; eTung Feng Construction Engineering Co.Ltd, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam ABSTRACT Payment delays are a big problem for subcontractors Although it is necessary and important to identify the causes of the payment delays to subcontractors, very few studies have attempted to so This study aims to assess the impact of the traits of payment delay causes on subcontractor’s business performance The questionnaire surveys are performed to collect data from practitioners The study identifies twenty payment delay causes to subcontractors and eight criteria for evaluating the subcontractor’s business performance The study also identifies four indicators of the traits of payment delay causes, namely parties’ lack of commitment to agreements, contractual problems, parties’ lack of experience and competence, and complex processes and policy changes The result of the tructural equation modeling confirms a significant impact of the traits of payment delay causes on the subcontractor’s business performance The study bridges knowledge gaps about payment delays in construction The findings of the study would be helpful for parties to limit payment delays, especially for the subcontractors to improve their business performance Introduction Large investments, long transaction cycles, and high risk are all characteristics of construction projects (Xie et al 2019) Delay in payment is one of the risk factors that have the greatest impact on construction projects (Chileshe and Yirenkyi-Fianko 2011; Chileshe and Yirenkyi-Fianko 2012; Jarkas and Haupt 2015; Rostami and Oduoza 2017) Payment delays can cause detrimental problems for project performance in terms of time, cost, quality, and productivity and can even lead to disputes between parties, bankruptcy, or abandonment of projects These problems affect all parties’ business performance, including owners, consultants, main contractors, and subcontractors For instance, owners delay in obtaining the expected benefit of the property while contractors have cash flow problems and consultants spend longer than planned Subcontractors, perhaps, suffer the most from payment delays because they not have strong financial stability to rotate the money Shash and Qarra (2018) showed that the majority of upstream owners in the construction supply chain are capital-intensive firms that can readily obtain finances and avoid risks, whereas the majority of downstream subcontractors are labor-intensive enterprises with limited cashs and risk tolerance As above-mentioned, it is clear that the matter of payment delays is a big problem that the parties in a construction project needs to deal with Despite the solutions and remedies mentioned in the literature, the issue of payment delays persists, necessitating a determination of the root causes (Peters et al 2019) In particular, it is important to identify payment delay causes (PDCs) to subcontractors as they execute a large amount CONTACT Viet Thanh Nguyen nguyenthanhviet@iuh.edu.vn KEYWORDS Payment delays; subcontractors; business performance; construction projects; structural equation modeling of work on projects Gibson (2000) pointed out that 70-75% percent of the total work of construction projects is performed by subcontractors Identifying the characteristics of PDCs will offer subcontractors with insight into payment difficulties and enable them to take the necessary steps to address payment delays In this study, the traits of the PDCs are characterised as a secondorder construct formed of the PDCs’ components The characteristics enable owners and main contractors recognise their own responsibility in payment delays According to Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005), late payments are a major problem in the eyes of many subcontractors, but few owners and main contractors are aware of this Therefore, they need to be aware of the PDCs’ characteristics since delay in payment to subcontractors might cause them to suspend or leave work on the project, transferring schedule risks to main contractors as well as project owners Moreover, the impact of the traits of the PDCs on subcontractor’s business performance (SBP) should be evaluated It is anticipated that this will assist subcontractors in improving their business performance by addressing the PDCs’ traits It indicates that subcontractors are able to determine which traits and causes should be prioritized to enhance their business performance Although it is necessary and important to identify the PDCs to subcontractors, very few studies have attempted to so The majority of previous studies identified the PDCs in general in construction projects or the construction industry (Ye and Rahman 2010; Ansah 2011; Nasser 2013; Ramachandra and Rotimi 2015; Akinsiku and Ajayi 2016; Peters et al 2019; Perera and Dewagoda 2021) Only a few previous studies identified the PDCs to subcontractors (Asuquo and Effiong 2017, Illangakoon 12 Nguyen Van Bao, Ward 4, Go Vap District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam ß 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an V T NGUYEN ET AL 2017, Peters et al 2019, Haron and Arazmi 2020) These studies’ findings, however, have significant limitations, for example, a limited number of the PDCs identified, specifically without the objective of exploring the traits of the PDCs and their impact on the SBP Therefore, this study attempts to fill knowledge gaps This study aims to assess the impact of the traits of the PDCs on the SBP In the study, structural equation modeling (SEM) is employed to evaluate this impact The outcomes of the study would be helpful for parties to limit payment delays, especially for subcontractors to improve their business performance Literature review Before assessing the impact of the traits of the PDCs on the SBP, it is necessary to identify the PDCs to subcontractors and the criteria of the SBP The preliminary list of the PDCs to subcontractors and the criteria of the SBP will be identified from the literature review and then validated by experts through a pilot test Causes of payment delays to subcontractors Payment delays always persist in construction projects Consequently, identifying the PDCs remains a key concern for researchers and industry practitioners around the world In a study on the risk of payment delays in the Malaysian construction industry, Ye and Rahman (2010) pointed out some of the most critical PDCs, such as cash flow issues caused by owner’s management capacity deficiencies, owner’s ineffective fund utilization, a lack of capital to finance the project, owner’s failure to generate income from the bank, and poor cash flow due to improper process implementation Meanwhile, willful withholding of payment for personal reasons and disagreement about the valuation of work done were insignificant causes, however, these causes were found to be the most critical causes related to owners in the study of Ansah (2011) on construction projects in Ghana Besides, Ansah (2011) also identified other crucial causes such as contractor’s failure to submit a new claim, contractor’s submitting claims with errors, and contractors’ failure to understand the contract agreement In construction projects in Gaza Strip, Nasser (2013) concluded that bureaucracy in governments departments, slow processing of final accounts, slow processing of variation orders, and failure to follow the certain procedures in claims were the most significant causes resulting in payment delays Among these causes, bureaucracy in governments departments, slow processing of final accounts and failure to follow the certain procedures in claims were also regarded as the most significant causes in Sri Lankan government building construction projects by Perera and Dewagoda (2021) In their analysis, Perera and Dewagoda (2021) also identified several other significant causes, including delays in approvals by internal departments due to lengthy procedures, poor financial and business management, submission of claims with errors, and late processing of payment applications by consultants In Nigerian construction projects, Akinsiku and Ajayi (2016) found that the most critical PDCs were absence of project team coordination, followed by contractor’s refusal to agree to the work valuation, poor information flow among project team, error in contractor’s claims, and unrealistic cash flow A few previous studies have addressed the PDCs to subcontractors Illangakoon (2017) conducted a study on payment delays to small-scale construction contractors in the Sri Lankan context Based on ten case studies, he discovered that the payment delays to small-scale contractors were significantly higher from the side of owners compared to contractors The primary PDCs were the owner’s prevalent internal system, the owner’s cash flow issues, the owner’s request for more work after submission of the final bill, the owner’s review period of the bill, the contractor’s failure to adhere to correct formats, and the contractor’s inappropriate submissions Despite attempting to discover the PDCs to small-scale construction contractors, Illangakoon’s (2017) study only identified six causes This could be a significant limitation of the study Asuquo and Effiong (2017) also investigated the causes responsible for payment problems for micro, small, and medium-sized construction contractors in Nigeria and agreed the contractor’s failure to adhere to correct formats and the contractor’s inappropriate submissions were main PDCs These results were in line with Peters et al (2019) study on late payment issues of small-and medium-sized companies in Trinidad Surprisingly, Peters et al (2019) identified financial failure due to bankruptcy as one of the most significant causes, but Asuquo and Effiong (2017) put it last Besides, Asuquo and Effiong (2017) showed that the use of pay when paid was paramount cause of payment delays Haron and Arazmi (2020) also came to the same conclusion in their study on late payment issues of subcontractors in the Malaysian construction industry Also, they gave other significant causes, such as the owner’s withholding the payment, a delay in certification, and no formal contract agreement Asuquo and Effiong (2017), Peters et al (2019), and Haron and Arazmi (2020) all have limitations in their research Specifically, Haron and Arazmi (2020) found solely the causes related to owners and main contractors Other causes related to, for example, subcontractors or contracts were not highlighted Importantly, the traits of payment delay causes and their impact on subcontractor’s business performance has not been discovered in all three studies Consequently, this study seeks to fill knowledge gaps The literature assessment results in the identification of 17 PDCs to subcontractors (Table 1) The selection of the causes is based on the following criteria: (1) The content of the causes is transparent and simple to comprehend; (2) The causes’ contents are mutually exclusive This indicates that causes with the similar content will be merged; (3) The causes implicate the potential for payment delays to subcontractors Criteria of subcontractor’s business performance Despite the fact that this study attempted to conduct a literature review in order to identify the criteria for measuring a SBP, the criteria may not have been discovered by prior research Because the objective of this study is to assess the impact of the traits of the PDCs on the SBP, in order to establish suitable criteria for measuring the SBP, this study relies on the impacts of payment delays on construction projects and the parties, particularly contractors and subcontractors Ansah (2011) looked at the effects of late payments on construction projects He found that subcontractors ranked refusal to continue working on the project, financial hardship for the firm, and abandonment of the project as the top three most likely effects of late payments, while owners ranked low quality of work, delay in project progress, and extending the time for the project as the top three most likely effects Akinsiku and Ajayi (2016) also concluded that the most significant impact on project delivery was a delay in project progress, followed by an extension of time and cash flow concerns for contractors In the study by Nasser (2013), all parties, including owners, contractors, and consultants, agreed that the most significant effects of Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn ID Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn PDC19 PDC20 PDC18 PDC17 PDC15 PDC16 PDC13 PDC14 PDC12 PDC11 PDC9 PDC10 PDC8 PDC6 PDC7 PDC5 PDC4 PDC3 PDC1 PDC2 Onwer’s or main contractor’s poor financial capacity Onwer’s or main contractor’s poor financial management Owner’s or main contractor’s failure to follow the procedures and agreements in the contract Owner’s or main contractor’s delays in confirming the subcontractor’s work done Complicated and time-consuming payment paperwork processing Bureaucracy of payment process Subcontractor’s delays in completing legal procedures and documents to ask for payment Subcontractor’s submission of invalid payment documents or failure to substantiate payment requests Subcontractor’s poor and unsatisfactory quality of work Subcontractor’s violation of many rules when performing work, thereby being withheld payments to deduct from the contract penalty fee Change in the scope of work (extending the time to determine the volume and price of the work according to the actual situation) Unfair and uncomprehensive contracts in dealing with payment issues Complicated and confusing contracts for parties Sketchy and incomplete bidding documents with detailed specifications Suspension of work due to force majeure Lack of coordination and information exchange between parties Delay in confirming the volume and price of the work by the consultant Inconsistency in work valuation between the owner or main contractor and the subcontractor (for work without a unit price) Disputes between parties Frequent changes in laws and policies, thereby facing many difficulties in the updating process Causes of payment delays to subcontractors (PDCs to subcontractors) Table Causes of payment delays to subcontractors References 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 Ye and Ansah Nasser Ramachandra Akinsiku and Asuquo and Illangakoon Peters Haron and Perera and Rahman (2010) (2011) (2013) and Rotimi (2015) Ajayi (2016) Effiong (2017) (2017) et al (2019) Arazmi (2020) Dewagoda (2021) Experts C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an V T NGUYEN ET AL Table Criteria of subcontractor’s business performance References ID Criteria of subcontractor’s business performance (SBP) SBP1 SBP2 SBP3 SBP4 SBP5 SBP6 SBP7 SBP8 Cash flow Profit Work schedule Disputes and litigation Productivity Reputation Business relationship Work quality Ansah (2011) Nasser (2013) Akinsiku and Ajayi (2016) Asuquo and Effiong (2017) Peters et al (2019) Perera and Dewagoda (2021) 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 Figure Research framework payment delays on construction projects were delays in project progress, the extension of project duration, and negative chain effects on other parties Other significant effects on construction projects included work suspension by the owner or contractor, disputes, such as litigation or arbitration, and an increase in project costs Meanwhile, the most significant effects on contractors were late payment of salaries, difficulty procuring materials and services, cash flow problems, and time overrun of projects Perera and Dewagoda (2021) also showed that cash flow problems were the most significant effect of payment delays on contractors, followed by delays in completing the project, cost overruns, increased creditability/high interest rate of loans, and damaged relationships with the owner Regarding the impacts of payment delays on small and medium-sized contractors/companies, Asuquo and Effiong (2017) indicated that increases in construction costs, decreases in profitability, delays in completion of projects, cash flow problems/financial hardship, and negative chain effects on other parties were the most significant impacts Nevertheless, Peters et al (2019) demonstrated that the most significant impacts were abandonment of projects, adversarial relationships between parties, and negative social impacts Based on the literature review above, eight possible criteria were chosen to measure the SBP (Table 2) Research methodology Figure depicts the framework for the present study This study begins by doing a literature analysis to identify the PDCs to subcontractors and the criteria for measuring the SBP As a consequence of the literature study, a list of causes and criteria is compiled, which is then utilized to develop the questionnaire for gathering data According to Malek and Gundaliya (2020), the questionnaire survey has been predominantly utilized and widely acknowledged in social science and management studies It is essential and useful for the analysis of quantitative data (Malek and Gundaliya 2020) This method has a number of benefits, including a greater geographic reach, reduced prejudice, increased anonymity, and a cheap cost (Thomas et al 2003) To reduce bias in data collection, pilot tests are conducted to ensure the questionnaire’s intelligibility This indicates that respondents can complete questions without providing further explanation In addition, any causes or criteria not previously explored in the literature or deemed inappropriate might be added to or deleted from the questionnaire A formal survey is conducted to collect data after amending the questionnaire Then, the technique of factor analysis is used to determine the constructs of the PDCs and the SBP To fulfill the study’s objectives, the SEM is utilized Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT to examine the impact of the PDCs’ traits on the SBP Finally, a discussion and implications are given based on the results of the SEM model The next paragraphs provide further information about pilot tests and data collection The pilot tests are conducted with ten experts who have at least ten years of experience and have been involved in payment work The composition of the experts includes three construction managers, two directors of subcontractors, two managers from owners, and three managers from consultants To seek the experts, this study uses the combined non-probability sampling techniques of convenience sampling and snowball sampling Thus, researchers invite some preceding experts using convenience sampling, and the following experts engage in the pilot tests by recommendation from the preceding ones through snowball sampling This strategy assists researchers in reducing the difficulty of finding the experts The experts are requested to remark on the clarity and sufficiency of the causes and criteria They add three PDCs to subcontractors, namely subcontractor’s violation of many rules when performing work, thereby being withheld payments to deduct from the contract penalty fee; sketchy and incomplete bidding documents with detailed specifications; and suspension of work due to force majeure Regarding the SBP, they concur that the measurement criteria were adequate In conclusion, the completed questionnaire contains twenty PDCs to subcontractors and eight criteria for evaluating the SBP The questionnaire contains three sections The first section of the questionnaire is designed to collect respondents’ general information The second section asks respondents to rate their agreement on causes leading to payment delays to subcontractors according to a five-point Likert scale ranging from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) In the final section, respondents are asked to rate the impact of payment delays on the criteria of the SBP using a second five-point Likert scale (ranging from - no impact to - significant impact) These five-point scales have been frequently employed in prior research employing the SEM technique to examine the relationships between factors/ constructs and project/business performance (e.g Cho et al 2009; Cao and Zhang 2011; Ikediashi et al 2013; Kim and Nguyen 2018, Alaloul et al 2020; Do et al 2022) This study delivers questionnaires to the main parties in construction projects in Vietnam, including owners, consultants, main contractors, and subcontractors, who are frequently directly involved in the subcontractor payment process In the study, the convenience sampling method is employed to get around problems with getting responses from respondents using the random sample method (Sekaran 2000; Kim and Nguyen 2020) The study distributes a total of 400 questionnaires to the target respondents To obtain valuable and reliable results, this study removes missing responses as well as responses with all questions only one answer from the feedback questionnaires, especially the respondents’ responses with less than three years of experience Finally, 197 valid responses are obtained To guarantee the acceptability of the data when using the SEM method, according to Hair et al (2010), a ratio of five valid responses per variable as a minimum and ten valid responses per variable as a more acceptable ratio This study has a fairly good sample size to variable ratio of about 10:1 (197:20) Besides, Bagozzi and Yi (2012) also recommended a sample size of at least 100 for reasonably reliable results and suggested at least 200 as being more appropriate for preventing the risk of sample non-normality Therefore, the study’s sample size of 197 is sufficient for SEM analysis Out of 197 valid responses, subcontractors account for the highest ratio (41%), followed by main contractors (24%), consultants (22%), and owners (13%) 57% of respondents have between and years of experience, 28% have between and 10 years, and 15% have more than 10 years Discovering the constructs of the PDCs and SBP This study employs factor analysis with the extraction method of principal components to identify the constructs of the PDC and SBP Before applying this approach, the reliability of the scales used in the collected data is checked firstly The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is determined to analyze the internal consistency of the causes/criteria According to Hair et al (2010), the minimum acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.7 In addition, values of the Corrected Item-Total Correlation in the calculation of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient less than around 0.3 may have to be dropped becauses this indicates that the item is not well correlated with the overall score (Field 2018) The test results of Corrected Item-Total Correlation have removed four PDCs, including ‘PDC1 - owner’s or main contractor’s poor financial capacity’, ‘PDC4 - owner’s or main contractor’s delays in confirming the subcontractor’s work done’, ‘PDC12 - unfair and uncomprehensive contracts in dealing with payment issues’, and ‘PDC15 - suspension of work due to force majeure’ Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for sixteen remaining PDCs and eight criteria of the SBP are calculated to be 0.875 and 0.882, respectively This demonstrates that the scales are reliable Then, the numerous tests for the suitability of factor analysis are conducted The extraction method based on the principal component analysis along with the varimax rotation is applied The latent root criterion requires that all retained constructs have eigenvalues larger than The sampling adequacy is satisfied when the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index (KMO) is more than 0.5 The significance level for Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be at the 0.05 level The causes/criteria with factor loadings greater than 0.5 are regarded as contributing significantly to the interpretation of the constructs extracted (Hair et al 2010) The factor analysis process of the sixteen PDCs demonstrates that all causes meet the aforementioned tests The Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant (p-value ¼ 0.000) The population correlation matrix is therefore not an identity matrix The correlation matrix demonstrates that all causes are significantly correlated at the 5% level, meaning that no causes should be eliminated The KMO value is 0.875, which is adequate for factor analysis (Hair et al 2010) The results of the PDC factor analysis are shown in Table The factor loadings of all PDCs are more than 0.5 Four extracted constructs account for 65.185 percent of the data’s total variance The four constructs can be rationally described as follows: construct – Parties’ lack of commitment to agreements (LCA), construct - Contractual problems (CP), construct – Parties’ lack of experience and competence (LEC), and construct - Complex processes and policy changes (PP) The results of the factor analysis of the SBP criteria are also provided in Table The KMO index value is 0.863, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant (p ¼ 0.000), indicating that the data set is appropriate for factor analysis One construct is extracted, which explains 55.344% of the total variance in the data The factor loadings of the eight criteria are greater than 0.5 The construct of the SBP is also labelled as the subcontractor’s business performance The impact of the traits of the PDCs on the SBP A SEM model is constructed to assess the PDCs’ traits on the SBP The development of the SEM model is a two-step process Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an V T NGUYEN ET AL Table Constructs of the PDCs ID Causes of payment delays to subcontractors Factor loading Construct – Parties’ lack of commitment to agreements (LCA) PDC9 Subcontractor’s poor and unsatisfactory quality of work PDC3 Owner’s or main contractor’s failure to follow the procedures and agreements in the contract PDC6 Bureaucracy of payment process PDC10 Subcontractor’s violation of many rules when performing work, thereby being withheld payments to deduct from the contract penalty fee PDC16 Lack of coordination and information exchange between parties Construct – Contractual problems (CP) PDC19 Disputes between parties PDC11 Change in the scope of work (extending the time to determine the volume and price of the work according to the actual situation) PDC18 Inconsistency in work valuation between the owner or main contractor and the subcontractor (for work without a unit price) PDC13 Complicated and confusing contracts for parties Construct – Parties’ lack of experience and competence (LEC) PDC8 Subcontractor’s submission of invalid payment documents or failure to substantiate payment requests PDC2 Owner’s or main contractor’s poor financial management PDC7 Subcontractor’s delays in completing legal procedures and documents to ask for payment PDC14 Sketchy and incomplete bidding documents with detailed specifications Construct – Complex processes and policy changes (PP) PDC5 Complicated and time-consuming payment paperwork processing PDC20 Frequent changes in laws and policies, thereby facing many difficulties in the updating process PDC17 Delay in confirming the volume and price of the work by the consultant PDC Eigenvalue Cum variance (%) 5.702 35.636 1.969 47.941 1.466 57.106 1.293 65.185 0.800 0.781 0.756 0.738 0.702 0.828 0.764 0.732 0.701 0.805 0.738 0.711 0.664 0.807 0.794 0.784 Table Constructs of the SBP ID SBP Criteria of subcontractor’s business performance Subcontractor’s business performance (SBP) SBP2 Profit SBP7 Business relationship SBP1 Cash flow SBP3 Work schedule SBP6 Reputation SBP5 Productivity SBP8 Work quality SBP4 Disputes and litigation First, the measurement model (the CFA model) is executed to provide a basis for evaluating the SEM model’s fitness (Hair et al 2010) Then, to test the SEM model, hypothesized relationships are used to replace the correlations between constructs in the CFA model (Qureshi and Kang 2015) Construct validity is evaluated based on convergent and discriminant validity in the CFA model Xiong et al (2015) showed that the discriminant validity examined whether a construct was actually unique from other constructs, which was crucial for the creation of a model, whereas the convergent validity examined the degree of positive correlation between one cause/criterion and others within the same construct The convergent validity might be evaluated by assessing the standardized regression weight (SRW), the average variance extracted (AVE), and the construct reliability (CR) (Hair et al 2010) According to Hair et al (2010), good convergent validity was typically shown by statistically significant SRWs over 0.50, AVE estimates above 0.50, and CR values above 0.70 As indicated in Table 5, all PDCs’ SRWs are greater than 0.50 and range from 0.620 to 0.852, showing the convergence of the PDCs on their common constructs Table shows that the CR estimates for constructs range from 0.787 to 0.846, indicating acceptable reliability Except for the LEC construct, the AVE estimates in Table Factor loading Eigenvalue Cum variance (%) 4.427 55.344 0.792 0.790 0.786 0.779 0.776 0.760 0.638 0.604 Table Standardized regression weights in the CFA model of the PDCs Standardized regression weights (SRWs) ID LCA PDC9 PDC3 PDC6 PDC10 PDC16 PDC19 PDC11 PDC18 PDC13 PDC8 PDC2 PDC7 PDC14 PDC5 PDC20 PDC17 0.734 0.760 0.719 0.696 0.710 CP LEC PP 0.766 0.636 0.752 0.670 0.620 0.700 0.764 0.686 0.738 0.852 0.760 exceed the 0.50 threshold Nonetheless, this dilemma is acceptable because this construct meet the SRW and CR criteria Xiong et al (2015) investigated the use of the SEM in construction research and discovered that 64.2 percent of prior studies had an AVE less than 0.5 for at least one construct The preceding Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT findings demonstrate that the PDCs’ constructs have strong convergent validity Xiong et al (2015) pointed that discriminant validity was established when the AVE estimate of one construct exceeded its Table Construct reliabilities, construct correlations, and average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs of the PDCs Constructs LCA CP LEC PP CR 0.846 0.800 0.787 0.827 0.524 0.358 0.513 0.534 0.501 0.512 0.471 0.482 0.586 0.616 Note: CR ¼ construct reliability; entries below the diagonal are correlations among constructs; diagonal entries are average variance extracted (AVE) Table SRWs, AVE and CR of the construct of the SBP Constructs Subcontractor’s business performance (SBP) SRWs SBP1 SBP2 SBP3 SBP4 SBP5 SBP6 SBP7 SBP8 0.756 0.764 0.737 0.538 0.720 0.741 0.744 0.575 AVE CR 0.492 0.884 maximum squared correlation with other constructs Each AVE estimate reveals that the diagonal of a matrix of inter-construct correlations is greater than the square of the correlations between the constructs in the column or row where it is placed, showing that the PDCs’ constructs have discriminant validity, as shown in Table The SRWs, AVE, and CR of the SBP construct are also included in Table The results imply that the SBP construct guarantee construct validity Using goodness of fit (GOF) indexes, the CFA model’s suitability is evaluated Table displays the results of the GOF measures of the CFA model The ratios of v2/df (1.095 < 2), TLI (0.990), CFI (0.992), and RMSEA (0.022 < 0.050) indicate that the CFA model fits the collected data well After establishing the validity of the CFA model, a SEM model is constructed and tested to assess the hypothesized association between the PDCs’ traits and the SBP Figure demonstrates the hypothesized SEM model In the suggested model, the PDCs’ traits are the secondorder construct and are formed from a four-dimensional construct composed of the LCA construct, the CP construct, the LEC construct, and the PP construct Hair et al (2010) showed that the approach of the second-order construct maximizes the interpretability of both the CFA and SEM models In Figure 2, the black arrow denotes the direction of the impact between the PDCs’ traits and the SBP, whereas the light arrows denote their Table GOF indexes in CFA and SEM models Goodness-of-fit (GOF) measure Recommended level of GOF measure CFA model SEM model v2/df GFI NNFI or TLI CFI RMSEA Recommended level from to (no fit) to (perfect fit) (no fit) to (perfect fit) (no fit) to (perfect fit) 0.1, unacceptable fit 1.095 0.937 0.990 0.992 0.022 1.646 0.858 0.912 0.922 0.057 Figure Hypothesized SEM model Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an V T NGUYEN ET AL Figure Final SEM model dimensions On the basis of the suggested model, the hypothesis that the PDCs’ traits have a significant impact on the SBP is tested as follows: Null hypothesis (Ho): The traits of the PDCs have insignificant impact on the SBP Alternate hypothesis (Ha): The traits of the PDCs have significant impact on the SBP Table displays the results of the GOF indexes of the SEM model (v2/df ¼ 1.646, TLI ¼ 0.912, CFI ¼ 0.922, and RMSEA ¼ 0.057), which supply evidence of a good model fitness Figure illustrates the results of the SEM model The path coefficients indicate the links between the constructs and their observed variables as well as the relationships between the constructs Similar to a regression coefficient, the path coefficient of the relationship between the PDCs’ traits and the SBP displays the linear relationship between them The bigger the coefficient value pointing from the traits of PDCs to their observable variables, the more significant the variable can be regarded as an indicator of the PDCs’ traits Figure shows that all of the path coefficients are positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001) Path coefficients for the LCA, CP, LEC, and PP are 0.67, 0.63, 0.76, and 0.77, respectively The path coefficient between PDCs’ traits and the SBP is 0.66, which supports the hypothesis Ha that PDCs’ traits have a substantial impact on the SBP Discussions and implications The result of the SEM model confirms there is a very strong positive relationship between the PDCs’ traits and the SBP This result also means that the payment of the owners/main contractors is a factor that has a substantial impact on the business performance of the subcontractors in a multitude of factors such as business goals and strategies; business environment; management capacity; human resources; etc This could be a remarkable new finding that needs special attention from subcontractors The finding implies that when participating in construction projects, subcontractors need to consider the on-time payment of the owners/main contractors as one of the key criteria to achieve good business performance Therefore, in practice, subcontractors need to pay more attention to the PDCs and the PDCs’ traits to themselves The SEM model also reveals four indicators of the PDCs’ traits with factor loading greater than 0.5, namely, parties’ lack of commitment to agreements (LCA), contractual problems (CP), parties’ lack of experience and competence (LEC), and complex processes and policy changes (PP) These indicators assist the parties in identifying the core problems that must be addressed to prevent payment delays For instance, the parties must adhere to the provisions of the contract, which include clearly defined roles and responsibilities and a clearly stated method of payment For subcontractors, they need to improve their capacity for work as well as in preparing payment documents to improve their business performance on the aspect of payment delays Out of the indicators of the PDCs’ traits, the LEC and the PP are paramount indicators It seems logical that LEC appears to be the most important indicator since all activities in construction projects require experience and competence Meanwhile, the PP emerges as the paramount indicator This result is quite interesting This is likely due to the fact that changes in laws and policies might lengthen payment terms However, there is a need for additional research In the current instance of some projects, the change and update of a series of new circulars and decrees have influenced the disbursement and payout procedure for subcontractors Changes and updates to payment request forms require considerable time to adjust and supplement The newly issued decree still has many problems Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT and lacks detailed instructions, extending the waiting period Also, the construction projects is characterized by the participation of multiple parties This means that the parties need to be involved in updating rules and making new policies, which makes it take longer to finish the necessary paperwork and procedures In deeper view of the traits of the PDCs, the SBP is affected by significant causes, such as ‘PDC20 - frequent changes in laws and policies, thereby facing many difficulties in the updating process (factor loading 0.86)’, ‘PDC19 - disputes between parties (factor loading 0.77)’, ‘PDC7 - subcontractor’s delays in completing legal procedures and documents to ask for payment (factor loading 0.76)’, ‘PDC18 - inconsistency in work valuation between the owner or main contractor and the subcontractor (factor loading 0.76)’, ‘PDC5 - complicated and time-consuming payment paperwork processing (factor loading 0.74)’, ‘PDC17 - delay in confirming the volume and price of the work by the consultant (factor loading 0.75)’, ‘PDC9 - subcontractor’s poor and unsatisfactory quality of work (factor loading 0.73)’, ‘PDC6 - bureaucracy of payment process (factor loading 0.72)’, ‘PDC16- lack of coordination and information exchange between parties (factor loading 0.71)’, ‘PDC2 - owner’s or main contractor’s poor financial management (factor loading 0.70)’, and ‘PDC10 - subcontractor’s violation of many rules when performing work, thereby being withheld payments to deduct from the contract penalty fee (factor loading 0.70)’ It can be recognized that these causes can be attributed to both the subcontractor and external factors beyond the subcontractor’s control, such as those originating from the owner, the consultant, the main contractor, and objective factors Consequently, subcontractors face them to improve their business performance In particular, subcontractors need to come up with solutions to completely avoid their own problems, but for problems outside their control, they must discover a way to mitigate them In more detail, causes that can be traced back to the subcontractors include poor and unsatisfactory work, breaking many rules while doing work, and taking too long to finish payment documents These problems are probably due to the subcontractor’s poor capacity and experience The majority of subcontractors were mall in size that lacked the knowledge and resources to implement modern quality management (Lin and Gibson 2011) and perform the needed types of construction work (Mchunu 2015) According to Lin and Gibson (2011), subcontractors lacked quality management awareness and used less competent personnel, which may have raised the likelihood of defects during the work Mchunu (2015) also showed that most subcontractors lacked skilled and qualified personnel at both technical and managerial levels This had a significant impact on the contract’s performance (Mchunu 2015) It can be said that the subcontractors’ poor capacity and experience will lead to many consequences for their business performance For instance, if the subcontractor’s work is of poor quality, the subcontractor’s reputation will suffer first, followed by a delay in payment from the owner/main contractor, which will impact the subcontractor’s cash flow In addition, the subcontractor must compensate for poor quality work, which will reduce their profits Even the future business relationship with the owner/main contractor could be affected To avoid PDCs originating from the subcontractors themselves, it is recommended that the subcontractors should finish the construction work according to the contract Moreover, in the long term, subcontractors should focus on training human recourses to improve the skills and competence of employees, especially in preparing payment documents The PDCs beyond the control of the subcontractors are related to the owner/consultant and main contractor, such as complicated and time-consuming payment paperwork processing, delays in confirming the volume and price of the work by the consultant, bureaucracy of the payment process, and the owner’s or contractor’s poor financial management This suggests that in order to reduce payment delays, the owner/consultant and main contractor must first realize the significance of their own stemmed causes They should realize that late payments to subcontractors will likewise have negative effects on the project Due to nonpayment, the subcontractors may halt work on the project, which will have the opposite effect on the owner/consultant and main contractor Some strategies should be given to limit the PDCs Specifically, the owner/consultant and main contractor should simplify the payment procedures (Perera and Dewagoda 2021), avoid bureaucracy (Nasser 2013, Perera and Dewagoda 2021) The determination of volume and price should be confined to a specific time frame and regulated from the outset The owner and main contractor also need cash-flow and financial management training (Peters et al 2019) For subcontractors, they also need to have their own strategies to mitigate the PDCs stemming from the owner/main contractor, thereby limiting the negative impact on their business performance The subcontractors should evaluate the owner’s and main contractor’s financial capacity and refuse to cooperate with parties with a history of payment delay (Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005, Ye and Rahman 2010, Haron and Arazmi 2020) According to Ye and Rahman (2010), Ansah (2011), Nasser (2013), Peters et al (2019), and Perera and Dewagoda (2021), the subcontractors need to negotiate terms with the owner and main contractor to slow down or suspend the work until payment is received Also, the subcontractors need to negotiate clauses for charging interest on late payments (Ye and Rahman 2010, Nasser 2013, Peters et al 2019, Perera and Dewagoda 2021) The aforementioned strategies of the subcontractors are necessary, which can put pressure on the owner/main contractor to pay on time However, in some cases, these strategies have a negative impact on the subcontractors For example, stopping or slowing down the work will lead to bad feelings of the owner/ main contractor towards the subcontractors Or the subcontractors refuses to work with the financially-weak owner/main contractor, they may lose business opportunities for current and other projects in the future Therefore, one of the most effective strategies is that the subcontractors should endeavour to build a good relationship with the owner and main contractor Not only must the effort come from the subcontractors but also from the owner and the main contractor This means that the parties need to establish a collaborative relationship together The collaborative relationship can limit the disagreement problems leading to payment delays such as disputes between the parties, and inconsistency in work valuation It also creates an impetus for coordination and information exchange between the parties Moreover, under the collaborative relationship with the owner and the main contractor, the subcontractors can easily get a part payment as an interim payment when facing payment delays because of changes in laws and policies Kim and Nguyen (2018) demonstrated that the collaborative relationship between the parties in the construction supply chain can improve the project performance, thereby improving their business performance (Nguyen and Do 2021) As discussed above, it can be said that the collaborative relationship between the parties is an effective strategy to minimize payment delays Another strategy that is really needed is to train and educate the parties about the PDCs Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 10 V T NGUYEN ET AL and their impact on the project in general and on themselves in particular Conclusions This study identifies twenty PDCs to subcontractors and eight criteria for evaluating the SBP The factor analysis technique is used to extract four PDC constructs, namely the LCA, the CP, the LEC, and the PP The LCA, the CP, the LEC, and the PP are also considered four indicators of the PDCs’ traits The result of the SEM model indicates that the PDCs’ traits have a significant impact on the SBP The study’s findings are beneficial for all parties, particularly subcontractors Specifically, subcontractors need to consider the on-time payment of the owners/main contractors as one of the key criteria to achieve good business performance when participating in construction projects Subcontractors need to pay more attention to the PDCs’ traits to prevent payment delays The PDCs can be attributed to both the subcontractor and external factors beyond the subcontractor’s control To avoid PDCs originating from the subcontractors themselves, it is recommended that the subcontractors should finish the construction work according to the contract Moreover, in the long term, subcontractors should focus on training human recourses to improve the skills and competence of employees, especially in preparing payment documents The owner/consultant and main contractor need to realize the significance of their own stemmed causes They should realize that late payments to subcontractors will have a negative impact on the project, and subsequently on their business performance Finally, it is really necessary to train and educate the parties about the PDCs and their impact on the project in general and on themselves in particular Above all, the parties should aim to build a cooperative relationship to avoid payment delays This study contributes to research and practice in several ways Firstly, the study investigates the impact of the PDCs’ traits on the SBP, hence bridging knowledge gaps about payment delays in construction projects Secondly, the developed SEM model provides a comprehensive and systematic understanding of which PDCs significantly influence the PDCs’ traits Thus, the parties can devise ways to minimize payment delays, as stated previously More importantly, subcontractors can improve their business performance Finally, the study confirms a significant impact of the PDCs’ traits on the SBP, especially the identification and confirmation of the PDCs’ traits and criteria for measuring the SBP Previous research has not revealed these results Thus, the findings could be utilized in future research on payment delays or the business performance of subcontractors This study has certain limitations The data was only collected in Vietnam In addition, self-reported data collection has been employed Consequently, the study’s findings may not be generalizable and may be biased Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors Funding The support of this research by the Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City (No 21.2XD04) is gratefully acknowledged References Akinsiku OE, Ajayi OM 2016 Effects of delayed payment of contractors on construction project delivery in Nigeria The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Alaloul WS, Liew MS, Zawawi NAW, Mohammed BS, Adamu M, Musharat MA 2020 Structural equation modelling of construction project performance based on coordination factors Cogent Eng 7(1):1726069 Ansah SK 2011 Causes and effects of delayed payments by clients on construction projects in Ghana J Constr Project Manag Inno 1(1):27–45 Arditi D, Chotibhongs R 2005 Issues in subcontracting practice J Constr Eng Manage 131(8):866–876 Asuquo CF, Effiong EF 2017 Impact of payment problems on the performance of micro, small and medium size construction contractors J Contemp Res Built Environ (JOCREBE) 1(1):35–46 Bagozzi RP, Yi Y 2012 Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models J Acad Mark Sci 40(1):8–34 Cao M, Zhang Q 2011 Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance J Oper Manag 29(3):163–180 Cho K, Hong T, Hyun C 2009 Effect of project characteristics on project performance in construction projects based on structural equation model Expert Syst Appl 36(7):10461–10470 Chileshe N, Yirenkyi-Fianko AB 2011 Perceptions of threat risk frequency and impact on construction projects in Ghana: opinion survey findings J Constr Dev Ctries 16(2):115–149 Chileshe N, Yirenkyi-Fianko AB 2012 An evaluation of risk factors impacting construction projects in Ghana J Eng Des Technol 10(3):306–329 Do ST, Nguyen VT, Dang CN 2022 Exploring the relationship between failure factors and stakeholder coordination performance in high-rise building projects: empirical study in the finishing phase ECAM 29(2):870–895 Field A 2018 Discovering statistics using IBS SPSS statistics Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Gibson A 2000 Economic Darwinism calls for intervention The New Zealand Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_ id=3&objectid=138048 Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL 2010 Multivariate data analysis 7th ed Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall Haron RC, Arazmi AL 2020 Late payment issues of subcontractors in Malaysian construction industry Plan Malays 18(1):78–91 Ikediashi DI, Ogunlana SO, Udo G 2013 Structural equation model for analysing critical risks associated with facilities management outsourcing and its impact on firm performance J Facil Manage 11(4):323–338 Jarkas AM, Haupt TC 2015 Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar J Eng Des Technol 13(1):165–194 Illangakoon DHS 2017 Study on payment delays in small scale construction projects in Sri Lanka:(based on case studies) http://dl.lib.uom.lk/handle/ 123/13345 Kim SY, Nguyen VT 2018 A Structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship traits on project performance in construction Prod Plan Control 29(2):170–183 Kim SY, Nguyen VT 2020 Supply chain management in construction: critical study of barriers to implementation Int J Constr Manage 1–10 DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1843768 Lin L, Gibson P 2011 Implementing supply chain quality management in subcontracting system for construction quality J Syst Manag Sci 1(1): 46–58 Malek MS, Gundaliya PJ 2020 Negative factors in implementing public–private partnership in Indian road projects Int J Constr Manage 1–9 DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1857672 Mchunu TN 2015 Critical success factors for small and medium sized construction contractors in Pietermaritzburg https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/ bitstream/handle/10413/13484/Mchunu_Thokozani_Nhlanhla_2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Nasser AI 2013 The effect of payment delay on construction projects in Gaza strip https://library.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/111755.pdf Nguyen VT, Do ST 2021 Assessing the relationship chain among causes of variation orders, project performance, and stakeholder performance in construction projects Int J Constr Manage 1–11 DOI: 10.1080/15623599 2021.1988197 Perera BAKS, Dewagoda KG 2021 Streamlining the management of payment delays: the case of Sri Lankan Government building construction projects J Financ Manag Prop Constr 26(2):236–256 Peters E, Subar K, Martin H 2019 Late payment and nonpayment within the construction industry: causes, effects, and solutions J Leg Aff Disput Resolut Eng Constr 11(3):04519013 Ramachandra T, Rotimi JOB 2015 Causes of payment problems in the New Zealand construction industry CEB 15(1):43–55 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Rostami A, Oduoza CF 2017 Key risks in construction projects in Italy: contractors’ perspective ECAM 24(3):451–462 Qureshi SM, Kang CW 2015 Analysing the organizational factors of project complexity using structural equation modelling Int J Project Manage 33(1):165–176 Sekaran U 2000 Research methods for business: a skill building approach 3rd ed New York (NY): John Wiley Shash AA, Qarra AA 2018 Cash flow management of construction projects in Saudi Arabia Proj Manag J 49(5):48–63 11 Thomas AV, Kalidindi SN, Ananthanarayanan K 2003 Risk perception analysis of BOT road project participants in India Constr Manage Econ 21(4):393–407 Xie H, Zheng J, Zhang Y, Li H 2019 Effects of payment delays at two links in payment chains on the progress of construction projects: system dynamic modeling and simulation Sustainability 11(15):4115 Xiong B, Skitmore M, Xia B 2015 A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research Autom Constr 49:59–70 Ye KM, Rahman HA 2010 Risk of late payment in the Malaysian construction industry Int J Mech Ind Eng 4(5):503–511 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn