Los actores navieros y la aprobación de sistemas de tratamiento del agua de lastre

Respondents were asked the importance of a listing of nine different benefits from their perspective. It is clear to see that the “most significant” was the largest group in general selection, in comparison with other benefits. It ranges between 16% (legislation and legal requirement) and slightly higher than 72% (minimizing defects). This is followed by choice of the “significant” option, with the highest percentage (63.3%) recorded at resource efficiency and driving out waste. The “least significant” was the smallest proportion of overall response. The most visible choice was selection of “Least Significant” by 6.5% respondents on relevance of Handover for “save time” choice (Table 5.5). The percentages of the “neutral” choice ranged from 10.1% (minimize defect and improve quality and client satisfaction) to 31.2% (save time).

Table 5.5: Percentage (%) of the most significant benefits of effective building handover in the KSA construction sector

Most

significant Significant Neutral

Slightly significant Least significant Minimize defects 72.1 15.6 10.1 1.3 1.0 Cost reduction 26.3 52.3 19.5 0.6 1.0

Improve quality and client

satisfaction 62.3 27.6 8.8 0.6 0.6

Control construction process 26.6 50.6 3.2 16.6 2.9

Save time 46.8 15.6 31.2 1.6 4.9

Legislation and legal

requirements 15.6 51.9 1.0 27.6 1.0

Stakeholders influence 44.2 26.6 25.3 1.6 1.3

Resource efficiency and

driving out waste 15.6 60.4 21.1 1.3 1.6

Moral and ethical obligations 15.6 60.0 21.1 1.3 1.6

 Minimization of Defects as Handover Benefit

Frequency distribution of the “minimize defect” option is shown in Figure 5.19. Most of the respondents (72.1%) selected the “Most Significant” option. This was followed by slightly less than 16% selecting the “significant” option, followed by slightly higher than 10% selecting “Neutral”. The remaining 2.3% opted for the “slightly significant”

123 (1.3%) and “least significant” (1%) options. Thus, minimization of potential defects through effective building handover is seen as an important benefit of effective building handover within the KSA construction sector (Figure 5.19).

Figure 5.19: Frequency distribution of “minimize defect”.

 Cost reduction

The largest percentage 52.3% (Figure 5.20) of those who responded on this statement selected the “significant” option, followed by slightly less than 27% (“most significant”), followed by slightly less than 19.5% (“Neutral”). Thus, remaining respondents (less than 2.0%) were split between least significant (1.0%) and slightly significant (0.6%) options.

Figure 5.20: Frequency distribution of “cost reduction”.

26.6% 52.3% 19.5% 0.6% 1.0% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant

124  “Improved quality and client satisfaction” through Effective Building

Handover

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents (308) opted for the “most significant” option, followed by slightly less than 28% selecting the “significant” option, and slightly less than 9.0% opting for “neutral”. The remaining 1.2% was distributed between slightly significant (0.6%) and least significant (0.6%) options (Figure 5.21).

Figure 5.21: Frequency distribution of” improve quality and client satisfaction”.

 Control construction process

For the control construction process, it clear to see that the largest group (50.6%) opted for the “significant” option, followed by approximately 27% and 17% of the respondent population selecting the “most significant” and “slightly significant” options, respectively. Only 3.2% and 2.9% of the employees who responded to the survey selected the “neutral” and “least significant” options, respectively (Figure 5.22)

62.3% 27.6% 8.8% 0.6% 0.6% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant

125

Figure 5.22: Frequency distribution of “control construction process”.

 “Save time” through Effective Building Handover

For the “save time” as a significant benefit of effective building handover in the KSA construction sector, it is clear to see that (Figure 5.23) the respondents were distributed among all the options, ranging from 1.6% (slightly significant) to slightly less than 47% opting for the “most significant” option. Approximately one third of employees who responded to the survey on this statement were neutral, with about 16% selecting “significant” and the remaining 4.9% of employees who responded to the survey opting for the “least significant” option.

Figure 5.23: Frequency distribution of “save time”

26.6% 50.6% 3.2% 16.6% 2.9% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant 46.8% 15.6% 31.2% 1.6% 4.9% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant

126  Legislation and legal requirements

For the statement of legislation and legal requirement, the respondents were mainly distributed between the “significant” (51.9%), “slightly significant” (27.6%) and “most significant” (15.6%) options. The remaining 2.0% of employees who responded to the survey were divided into 1% for “neutral” and 1% for “least significant” (Figure 5.24).

Figure 5.24: Frequency distribution of legislation and legal requirements

 “Improving Stakeholders influence” as benefit of effective Building Handover

The result of this statement was somewhat different (Figure 5.25), where slightly higher than 44% of survey respondents selected the “most significant” option and about 51% of respondents split into “significant” (26%) and “neutral” (25.3%) options. The remaining 2.9% of employees who responded to the survey opted for the “slightly significant” (1.6%) and “least significant” (1.3%) options.

15.6% 51.9% 1.0% 27.6% 1.0% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant

127

Figure 5.25: Frequency distribution of “Stakeholders influence”

 “Resource efficiency and driving out waste”

In the responses to this statement, approximately two-thirds of the survey respondents opted for “significant”, followed by 21.1% and 15.6% of respondents selecting “neutral” and “most significant”, respectively (Figure 5.26). The remaining was similar to the previous statement, where 1.3% of employees who responded to the survey selected “slightly significant” and 1.6% selected “least significant”.

Figure 5.26: Frequency distribution of “resource efficiency and driving out waste”. 15.6% 60.4% 21.1% 1.3% 1.6% Most significant Significant Neutral Slightly significant Least significant

128  Moral and ethical obligation

Slightly higher than 60% of survey respondents opted for “significant”, followed by “neutral” and “most significant” (21.1% and 15.6%, respectively) (Figure 5.27). The remaining 1.6% and 1.3% of employees who responded to the survey selected “least significant” and “slightly significant”, respectively.

Figure 5.27: Frequency distribution of “moral and ethical obligation” as key benefit of achieving effective building