Extension of time claim effectiveness in Malaysian construction projects: An empirical mixed-methods study of legal clarity, economic flexibility and psychological safety
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15282/construction.v6i1.13509Keywords:
Contract Administration, Extension of Time, Construction Contract, Project Risk Management, Psychological Barrier, Organizational behaviourAbstract
Ineffective administration of Extension of Time (EOT) claims remains a persistent governance challenge in construction projects, often resulting in disputes, cost overruns, and suppressed risk communication. Despite the existence of formal contractual provisions, many practitioners are reluctant to submit legitimate EOT claims due to legal ambiguity, punitive financial mechanisms, and perceived reputational risks. This study aims to empirically examine how legal framework clarity, economic flexibility, and psychological safety jointly influence the effectiveness of EOT claims in Malaysian construction projects. A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Quantitative data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey administered to 250 construction professionals from public and private sector organizations in Malaysia, and analysed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, multiple regression, and moderation analysis. Qualitative data were obtained from 15 semi-structured interviews with project managers, legal officers, and senior contractors, and analysed using thematic analysis to contextualize behavioural and organizational influences. The quantitative findings indicate that legal framework clarity is the strongest predictor of EOT claim effectiveness, followed by psychological safety, while economic flexibility significantly moderates the relationship between legal clarity and claim outcomes. Qualitative results reveal that fear of stigmatization, blame-oriented organizational cultures, and rigid penalty regimes suppress legitimate EOT claims, particularly among certain stakeholder groups. The study contributes by providing context-specific empirical validation of socio-legal and behavioural theories in construction contract administration, demonstrating that formal legal provisions alone are insufficient without supportive psychological and economic environments. Practically, the findings inform contract drafting, organizational governance, and policy reforms aimed at improving transparency, fairness, and risk communication in EOT administration.
Downloads
References
[1] S. Singh, C. Thakre, and A. Kumar, “Guidance on extension of time in construction contracts,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10–18, 2023, https://doi.org/10.55041/IJSREM19431.
[2] T. Endicott, “Contracts in Administrative Law,” in Administrative Law, pp. 599–644, 2021.
[3] M. Sambasivan and Y. W. Soon, “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 517–526, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007.
[4] A. V. Whillans, J. Yoon, A. Turek, and G. E. Donnelly, “Extension request avoidance predicts greater time stress among women,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 118, no. 45, p. e2105622118, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105622118.
[5] B. Mikušová Meričková, M. Majerík, and M. Lendvorský, “The problem of corruption in the contracting out of public services: The case of Slovakia,” Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 75–90, 2021, https://doi.org/10.32725/acta.2021.008.
[6] C. S. Tang, K. Zhang, and S. X. Zhou, “Incentive contracts for managing a project with uncertain completion time,” Production and Operations Management, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1945–1954, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12387.
[7] K. S. Aboelazm, “The legal framework and policies for sustainable administrative contracts in Egypt: Reality and challenges,” International Journal of Public Law and Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 111–129, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLAP.2023.130011.
[8] N. Fauzan, M. S. Misnan, M. Mustapa, N. M. Shukery, and M. Z. Ismail, “Challenges in construction project management: Time extensions and claims implications,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 4027–4044, 2025, https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010312.
[9] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York, NY, USA: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
[10] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
[11] A. C. Edmondson, “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 350–383, 1999, https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.
[12] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2001.
[13] J. Schoonenboom and R. B. Johnson, “How to construct a mixed methods research design,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 69, Suppl. 2, pp. 107–131, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1.
[14] M. S. Sai Vinod, P. Umesh, and N. Sivakumar, “Impact of COVID-19 on corporate social responsibility in India: A mixed methods approach,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 168–195, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-03-2022-3206.
[15] H. E. Levitt et al., “Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report,” American Psychologist, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 26–46, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151.
[16] K. M. Phillips, A. A. Tichavakunda, and A. R. Sedaghat, “Qualitative research methodology and applications: A primer for the otolaryngologist,” The Laryngoscope, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 27–31, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.30817.
[17] A. C. Curtis and C. Keeler, “Interpretive methodologies in qualitative nursing research,” American Journal of Nursing, vol. 122, no. 10, pp. 45–49, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000890224.65902.0a.
[18] C. S. F. Fernandes, J. Loureiro, and F. Alves, “Research in environmentally induced human mobility: An analysis of methodological and theoretical dimensions,” International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 729–744, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-11-2022-0137.
[19] C. A. Jusoh and A. M. Sarman, “Claim loss and expense due to extension of time (EOT),” Review of International Geographical Education Online, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 220–228, 2021.
[20] M. Kanchanarak, “Problems in the interpretation of administrative contracts: The case of contract for public services and contract for providing public utilities in accordance with the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542,” Parichart Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 566–581, 2024, https://doi.org/10.55164/pactj.v37i3.269245.
[21] Y. Wang, Y. Chen, W. Wang, Y. Chen, and M. Jin, “Revisiting the relationship between contract governance and contractors' opportunistic behavior in construction projects,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2517–2529, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2945551.
[22] R. S. B. Massad, “The evaluation of construction projects time overrun and cost overrun using machine learning method: A case of Jordan,” International Journal of Scientific Development and Research, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 166–177, 2024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13237271.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
