— The construction of building structure involves very complicated undertakings. It requires a trained workforce at the design stage, approval process, supervision, and construction stages. Inferior quality of workmanship is one of the significant issu es facing the workforce t o perceive and apply the proper construction methods and techniques following the quality control assurance for building projects. This study considered some of the construction stakeholders participated in the implementation of projects in Addis Ababa City. It focused on assessing and investigating poor workmanship on the quality of projects that included concreting works to acc essible ongoing construction sites across the study area. It involved determining the cause of low -level workmanship and identifyi ng factors that would significantly minimize the problems and increase client satisfaction. The study comprised of 20 construction sites , of which 55 questionnaires were collected. The data collected are related to the challenges facing the construction in dustry and concrete quality as well. The causes and strategies applied to improve construction quality were analyzed using the study's variable. Results indicated that inadequate construction management represented a low level of workmanship and a lack of training rated first with RII of 0.9556. At the same time, the Workers' motivation was placed second with RII 0.775. Hence, it recommends close observation of constru ction management factors like supervision, training, motivation, and good communication on -site to minimize the cost and effects associated with poor workmanship when implementing building projects. Keywords —Building industry, Cost, Time, Quality, Construction management factor, Poor workmanship .  I. INTRODUCTION In today’s construction environment, public sector owners are finding themselves under increasing pressure to improve project performance, complete projects faster, and reduce the cost of administering their construction programs. Construction is a vast an d an active sector, which is a backbone of the world’s economy in general and Ethiopia in particular; mobilizing an enormous amount of various resources and budgets and embracing huge manpower by creating a large job opportunity [ 1, 2]. Building construct ion is a challenging project to implement. It requires a trained workforce from inception up to completion. The building design commences with a site survey that indicates proper dimensions of the plot. To develop the plot, the clien t needs to engage the s ervices of experts in the industry. Typically, the professional or expert building team should comprise an architect, engineers, and a quantity surveyor. These teams design buildings and the surrounding environment and submit them to the appro priate author ity for approval [ 3]. The project quality, cost, and timely delivery of completed structure in the construction industry depend on workmanship. The workman's skill, experience, and personal ability go a long way in determining the workmanship quality, meas uring their efficiency and effectiveness. The failure in buildings structure comes in various forms and degrees of severity, the worst of which is a collapse. Poor workmanship makes it difficult for workers to perceive and apply quality control concepts an d building production tolerance limits. This results in inferior construction methods and techniques, which may fina lly lead to building collapse [ 4]. The construction industries are an intrinsic part of the countries economy and are often seen as a prime mover of economic growth, especially in developing countries. Recently, the Ethiopian construction industry has experienced considerable growt h in construction activities [ 5]. The high urbanization rate shows heightened increasing demand by residential and commercial building space, which has increased the number of construction activities. Due to its relatively labor -intensive nature, construction works provide employment opportunities for many people; skilled, semi -skilled, and unskilled. And concrete is one of the widely used construction material. It is composed of cement, fine and coarse aggregate, water, and other mineral admixtures. And the qual ity of concrete is mostly affected by the quality of workmanship and th e quality of ingredients used [ 6]. According to previous research conducted by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), 90% of building failures are due to problems in the design and construction stages [7]. These problems include poor communication, inadequate information, inability to che ck information, inadequate check sand controls, lack of technical expertise and skills, and insufficient feedback leading to recurring errors. Most defects in construction projects are due to human error. It means we can say that human err or happened due t o poor performance in workmanship during the construction of a building. One of the issues of this condition is due to poor quality of workmanship during a construction project. It will affect occupants' quality of life and give a bad image of Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1174 the building 's parties. Nowadays, Ethiopia's construction is one of the major labor -intensive industries, and less many of the workmanships are unskilled laborers. Due to these and other factors, concrete quality becom es poor during mixing, casting , vibrating, and curing fresh concrete processes. A block of fresh concrete needs proper treatment at every process until it be comes hardened. This paper discussed some variables related to the low quality of workmanship in construction projects and their effect on concret e quality. The objectives of the study are: t o identify the different factors that will influence poor construction workmanship; to correlate and analyze the group of factors relating the effect of construction workmanship and quality; and t o identify and recommend measures taken by the responsible stakeholders in ensuring proper quality of workmanships. This study's scope is mainly focused on twenty construction sites in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where most of the contractors and consultants of buildings are available and assessed the significant impacts of workmanship in different construction sites of Addis Ababa. The study is considered a small, medium, and large level of building enterprises in Addis Ababa. This study's significance is to reduce the effec t of poor workmanship in Ethiopia's construction industry, directly affecting the quality of concrete (i.e.) cost, time, and quality to an acceptable level. Suppose the cause of low -level workmanship can be established and a solution identified. In that ca se, poor workmanship problems can be eliminated or significantly minimized, increasing client satisfaction. It will enable the contractor and the consultant to be honest and confidential to the work th at he/she conducted, which will signify a vital role in the construction industry as a whole. II. STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 Study Area Addis Ababa is Ethiopia's capital city and found in the western margin of the Ethiopian Rift valley. Its geographical coordination is 90 0’ 19.4436” N, 380 45' 48.9996" E and 2355m above sea level. The study area has been located in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [ 8]. Fig. 1 Map of Addis Ababa (Source: Google Map 2020) 2.2 Research Design Research design implies a plan and structure of investigation to obtain answers to research questions. A descriptive study is concerned with determining the frequency with which something occurs or the relationship between variables . For this study, descriptive res earch design will be used. Descriptive design is used to obtain information concerning the phenomena' status to describe what exists concerning variables in a situation by asking individuals and questioners about their perceptions, attit udes, behavior, or values. This approach would be appropriate for this study since the researcher intends to collect detailed information through descriptions and observations, making it useful to identify variables under the investigation. 2.3 Target Population Addis Ababa has many construction sites from those sites. The workmanship level is observed from work already done on - site. In contrast, other data, such as the cause of poor workmanship, are collected through interviews and structured questio nnaires from various prof essionals and worker s involved. The target population in this study comprised a total of 2 2 contraction sites . 2.4 Determining a sample size The sample size was then calculated as follow [9, 10]: 𝑛=𝑍2∗𝑝∗𝑞∗𝑁 𝑒2∗(𝑁−1)+𝑧2∗𝑝∗𝑞................................. .................................................... ............ ........(1) Where: N= size of the population n= sample of size P= sample proportion (q= 1 -P) e= acceptable error (e= 0.05) that is estimated t o be within 5% of the true value Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1175 Z= value of standard variant at a confidence level 2.5 Data Collection Process Questionnaires, interviews, and observation are the methods of data collection to be used for this study. The data on the lev el of workmanship a t each sample site, which is the dependent variable, is to be collected through observation with the aid of a checklist while the independent variables, which are the quality management factors, will be collected through questionnaires to be distributed to the parties involved in the construction industry as well as through observation with the aid of checklist. Questionnaires and checklists were the instruments of data collection used. Questionnaires were administered to contractors, consultants, and worke rs on -site while the checklist was used by the researcher to observe the level of workmanship on sites. For ease of administering the questionnaires and analyzing data, the researcher used a structured (closed -ended) questionnaire developed from the resear ch objectives, which were intended to give information on independent variables related to workers' experience, knowledge, and motivation as tools equipment use [11]. The dependent variable, workmanship, was measured through a checklist. The operational definition of workmanship has been taken as the number of defects on work done. Therefore, the checklist comprises possible and easily identifiable defects on concrete work due to workmanship. These include cracks, the disintegration of concrete, and the d etachment of plaster. The researcher went to the sites and observed the workmanship level in the checklist by giving a zero (0) mark where a defect was observed and one (1) mark where a defect was missing. 2.6 Study Variables A variable is a measurable element that assumes different values among the subject. It is a logical way of expressing a particular aspect of an issue. 2.6.1 Independent variable An independent variable means that a researcher manipulates to determine its effect or influence on another. Independ ent variables are selected because they are causative or significant to the research's particle analytical purpose. In this study, the quality of management factors is considered as independent variables; these include the level of training of workers , Availability of proper tools and equipment , Experience , Supervision , Subcontracting , Workers motivation , Lack of care, Communication on -site, and Clarity in specifications . The measurement of this variable's components was on an ordinal scale, derived from the study's descriptive. An ordinal scale groups subject into categories and rank them according to numerals reflecting the increasing number of characteristics but not at intervals. The digits are used to represent relative position or order among the v alues of the variables. Based on the questionnaires' responses and observation, each site was given a score of either zero (0) or one (1) for each of the independent variables' components to indicate its performance in that aspect. For example, a site deem ed to have excelled well in supervision would score one (1) for supervision, while an area that has not excelled would score zero (0). It was per formed for all the components of the independent variable for every site studied. Every site's cumulative score was assumed from an interval scale and measured quality management factors. Therefore , a site that has excelled and scored one (1) in each of the independent variable components would have a cumulative total of nine (9). A place that scores zero (0) in ev ery element of the variable would have a cumulative total of zero (0), and its score of an independent variable will therefore be taken as zero (0). TABLE I SCORING FOR QUALITY M ANAGEMENT FACTORS Determinant Maximum Score Training 1 Supervision 1 Lack of care 1 Experience 1 Availability of tools and equipment 1 Clarity in Specifications 1 Sub-contracting 1 Motivation for workers 1 Communication on site 1 Total 9 2.6.2 Dependent variable For the dependent variable, their results are presumed to depend upon differences in the independent variables. Dependent variables, therefore, vary as a function of the independent variable. In this study, the construction site's workmanship leve l would be viewed as the dependent va riable because it should change in some relationship to independent variables. It will be measured on an interval scale. Six observable defects have been identified for determining the level of workmanship achieved on site. The marks (0) or (1) on the le vel of workmanship have been transformed into points such that a site without defects Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1176 scores 6 points while a site with all the defects observed gets no point. It means that loss a point for the presence of each of the six defects. TABLE III SCORING FOR THE LEVEL OF WORKMANSHIP Defects Maximum Score Cracking 1 Disintegration 1 Deflection 1 Detachment of plaster 1 Inadequate reinforcement cover 1 Brown stains 1 Total 6 2.7 Data Analysis The questionnaires would be structured questions related to the research work and directed to stockholders, the client, the contractor, and the consultant. They are the major participants of the building projects. The questionnaire is divided into t wo sections, namely the respondents' profile a nd prevalence of variation. Data analyzed using both descriptive and qualitative analyses. Random important indexes (RII) were used for ranking the variables. SPSS Version 21.0 is utilized to analyze the frequency and reliability of the study. The resul ts are exhibited in the form of tables, figures, charts, and graphs. The answers for the structured part of the questionnaire are based on Likert’s -scale of ordinal measures of agreement towards each statement.  To supply simplicity for the respondent to a nswer,  To make an evaluation of the collected data easier. Likert's -scale is essential to know respondents' feelings or attitudes about something and is utilized for the data analysis. The respondents must indicate how closely their feelings match with the question or statement on a rating scale [12]. MS =∑[𝑓∗𝑆] 𝑁............................................. ....................................................... .......... ( 2) Where: MS = Mean Score f = frequency of responses for each scores. S = Scores given to each factor. N = Total No. of responses concerning each factor. The Pearson correlation coefficient is utilized for measuring the differences in ranking between two groups of respondents sc oring for various fa ctors (i.e., labor vs. consultants, labor vs. contractors, and consultants vs. contractors). The Relative Importance Index (RII) [13] was computed using the RII Equation (2) . RII = ∑𝑤 𝐴∗𝑁 ……………………………… ………………………………….. …… .……..(3) Where: W = Weight given to each factor by the respondents A = Highest weight (i.e., 5 in this case) N = the total number of respondents III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Questionnaire Response Rate The data collected includes questionnaires administered to contractors, consultants, and workers on construction sites and data managed using different checklists. In the construction sites identified, the contractor and one of the workers deal ing with concreting were interviewed. A checklist was u tilized to record the level of workmanship and the level of quality management factors. Out of the 22 sites samples, 18 sites provided a full response, presenting 82% ; based on the respondent rate finding, the researcher decided it is reasonable and suffic ient to proceed with the analysis. Table III shows the response rate of the questionnaires distributed. Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1177 TABLE IIIII RESPONSE RATE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE No. Respondent Questionnaire Distributed Returned Questionnaire Unfinished Questionnaire Analyzed Questionnaire No. No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 1 Contractor 24 22 91.67 2 8.33 18 75.00 2 Consultant 22 19 86.36 3 13.64 17 77.27 3 Workers 24 21 87.50 3 12.50 20 83.33 Total 70 62 88.57 8 11.43 55 78.57 3.2 Contractor’s experience, their Position, Consultant experience Results indicated that 55.6% of the respondents had been in o peration for at least 10 years as a contractor , while 33.3% with experience 5 -10 years and 11. 1% with 1 -5 years of experience, while , 33.30% are project managers, and 66.70% are site engineers. On the other hand, table IV shows the practical period of Consultants in the construction industry. TABLE IVV PRACTICAL PERIOD OF C ONSULTANTS IN THE CO NSTRUCTION IND USTRY Period (Years) No. of Respondents Percentage (%) 1-5 years 8 47.10 6-10 years 9 52.90 > 10 years 0 0.00 Total 17 100.00 The above table indicates that the highest percentage, 52.9%, of the consultants have been practicing for more than 5years, followed by 47.1% who have practiced for less than 5years. It was indicated that most architects had gained enough experience in construction matters. 3.3 Age, Education level and Work experience of workers on site Fig. 2 Average age of workers It can be seen that m ore than 50% of the workers under study were over 26 years. And none of them was over 40years of age. It means that all the workers met the minimum required age of employment and within the young working -age where their productivity is high for manual work. One of the most interesting scenarios, most of the workers comprised with elementary level of education , as shown in Table V. This will show that lack of education and training cou ld be the most probable issue in the construction projects in the study area. 15% 55%30%Age of respondents (%) 21-25 years 26-30 years 31-35 yearsJournal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1178 TABLE V EDUCATION LEVEL AND WORK EXPERIENCE OF WO RKERS ON SITE Level of Education No. of Workers Percentage (%) Period worked (in years) No. of Workers Percentage (%) Did not attend 2 10.00 < 1 year 0 0.00 Elementary 8 40.00 1-2 years 2 10.00 High School 6 30.00 3-4 years 1 5.00 Diploma 4 20.00 4-5 years 6 30.00 Other 0 0.00 >5 years 11 55.00 Total 20 100.00 Total 20 100.00 The majority of the respondents at 40% had to attain elementary school while none obtained a degree certificate. Those workers achieved elementary and high school composed of 70% of the total. Because of their education level, most of them require training and learning about what will be expected from them according to their duty. Hence the majority has not attained the necessary level of education for the intended work. Besides, from the above table, 55% of the workers had over five years of work experience while none had less than a yea r of work experience. It shows that the workers have gained enough experience, and they can work under minimum supervision. 3.4 Factors Affecting Construction Workmanship The study establishes the significant causes of poor workmanship in construction through questionnaires and interviews to answer the research objectives, as attached in appendix A. As stated in the literature part of the study, the researcher i dentified many factors that affect the quality and productivity of workmanship in the Ethiopi an construction industry. One of the questions sought asked the respondents to investigate the cause of poor workmanship on -site and examine how workers judge the quality of workmanship on site, 20% of the respondents noted that it was "average." In compar ison, 80% indicated that it would "Good." Because of the following significant factors;  Poor Project Management  Lack of Supervision  Lack of Experience and Training  Poor Communication  Lack of Clarity of Specification  Lack of Motivation for Workers  Labor R ecruiting Criteria The majority of the 57% blame the contractors for the poor workmanship on sites. 19% of the respondents blame the workers, while only 24% blame the architects. Almost all (90%) the respondents noted they rarely re -do concrete work after it fails on quality, while 10% of the total didn't experience re -do of concrete work. Workers were also asked whether they report on any problems found when concreting or on completed concrete work. 97% of the respondents report the issues of which 60% report to the site agent while 40% report to the foreman. 3.5 Reliability of Variables In this part of the study, the uniformity of the variables from SPSS scale measurement should be evaluated. Reliability estimates the consistency of the measurements or, more simply, the degree of uniformity of the results obtained from repeated measurements [14]. For this purpose, the quality of data was measured, evaluated, and guaranteed using appropriate techniques. TABLE VI CRONBACH ’S ALPHA COEFFICIENTS OF THE VARIABLES No. Variables No. of items Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients 1 Construction 10 0.953 2 Labor recruiting 7 0.769 3 Design 5 0.709 4 Lack of Motivation for Workers 5 0.812 5 Training and Experience 5 0.708 The data quality has been assured and measured through an internal validity instrument into correct research instruments to measure the variables during the data collection procedures. Besides, data consistency was checked using a reliability tes t (Cronbac h's Alpha methods). The reliability of data less than 0.6 is considered poor, those in the 0.7 range, acceptable, and those above 0.8 are suitable. The closer the reliability coefficient gets to 1.0, the better. According to t his guideline, all the researc h Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.7, so the result was acceptable. Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1179 3.6 Analysis of Factors Affecting Workmanship Quality The results are directly related to the research's second specific objective and include, Reliability of research instruments based on SPSS scale analysis and combined relative importance index (RII) rank of factors affecting the quality of work and poor workmanship in Ethiopian construction work. 3.6.1 From Contractor A. Poor workmanship experience on site In reply to the queries as to whether the contractors experience a problem of poor workmanship, 16 contractors (88.9%) said that they experience the problem. Out of this, 27.8% cited that they often experience it, but 61.1% cited that they rarely ex perience it. Only 11% of contractors said that they do not experience the problem of poor workmanship. It shows that the problem of poor workmanship is experienced in most of the construction sites. Fig. 3 Frequency of poor workmanship B. Causes of Poor Workmanship during Construction Respondents requested to rate the causes of poor workmanship in order of importance, starting with 1 as very list importance and 5 as highly important. In this section, it was calculated the significant factor for each cause to rank them. TABLE VII CAUSES OF POOR WORKMA NSHIP Causes Rating RII Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Project Management 0 1 2 5 10 0.8667 3 Sub-contracting 2 7 8 1 0 0.4889 10 Experience 0 2 4 4 8 0.8000 5 Carelessness(During Concreting) 0 0 6 7 5 0.7889 6 Tools & Equipment 0 5 6 4 3 0.6556 9 Specification Clarity 0 0 9 9 0 0.7000 8 Motivation 0 0 2 4 12 0.9111 2 Communication 0 3 6 4 5 0.7222 7 Training & experience 0 0 0 4 14 0.9556 1 Close supervision 0 0 2 10 6 0.8444 4 The average RII value was calculated for each of the causes depending on the responses. The reasons with the highest RII value indicate d the most important cause. In contrast, the one with the lowest RII value showe d the least important factor , as shown in Table VII . The result show ed that the essential fact or in improving the quality of workmanship as respondents ' evidence, affirming a need for improv ement for workers' training and learning , and worker’s motivation is highly essential factors ranked 1st and 2nd with 0.955 and 0.9111, respectively. 61%28%11%Percentage (%) Rarely Often Not at allJournal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1180 C. Pearson Correlation Factors Contactors ware also asked whether it is possible to achieve low quality in construction. All of the contractors said no, cit ing the reason as: Workers are apt to making errors; Counterfeit materials are common in the construction industry, and the Nature of construction projects is unpredictable. The above questions were asked to see if contractors believed that it is possible to work towards defects prevention rather t han rectification and achieve continuous improveme nt. The construction industry is an assembly industry, which means that quality depends on many parties, not just on the contractor alone and other external factors. Unless all these conditions work togeth er unto the good, poor workmanships will always be there. TABLE VIII PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION FACTORS Mgt. Sub- contractor Experi ence Care - lessness Equip ment Specific ation Motivati on Communi cation Training Supe rvision Mgt. P. Correlation 1 -.386 .538* -.215 .624** -.126 .797** .317 .051 .067 Sig. (2 -tailed) .114 .021 .391 .006 .618 .000 .201 .842 .792 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Sub contractor P. Correlation -.386 1 -.208 .042 -.365 .292 -.473* .076 .136 -.090 Sig. (2 -tailed) .114 .409 .870 .137 .240 .047 .763 .589 .722 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Experience P. Correlation .538* -.208 1 .135 .707** .105 .616** .248 .000 -.168 Sig. (2 -tailed) .021 .409 .593 .001 .677 .007 .321 1.000 .506 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Carelessness P. Correlation -.215 .042 .135 1 .497* -.071 -.254 .108 .305 .592** Sig. (2 -tailed) .391 .870 .593 .036 .779 .309 .669 .219 .010 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Equipment's P. Correlation .624** -.365 .707** .497* 1 -.160 .639** .298 .270 .245 Sig. (2 -tailed) .006 .137 .001 .036 .527 .004 .230 .278 .328 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Specification P. Correlation -.126 .292 .105 -.071 -.160 1 -.162 -.157 -.267 .000 Sig. (2 -tailed) .618 .240 .677 .779 .527 .520 .534 .284 1.000 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Motivation P. Correlation .797** -.473* .616** -.254 .639** -.162 1 .297 -.152 -.158 Sig. (2 -tailed) .000 .047 .007 .309 .004 .520 .231 .548 .532 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Communi - cation P. Correlation .317 .076 .248 .108 .298 -.157 .297 1 .182 .046 Sig. (2 -tailed) .201 .763 .321 .669 .230 .534 .231 .470 .855 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Training P. Correlation .051 .136 .000 .305 .270 -.267 -.152 .182 1 .189 Sig. (2 -tailed) .842 .589 1.000 .219 .278 .284 .548 .470 .453 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 supervision P. Correlation .067 -.090 -.168 .592** .245 .000 -.158 .046 .189 1 Sig. (2 -tailed) .792 .722 .506 .010 .328 1.000 .532 .855 .453 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 *. Correlation is essential at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is si at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed). D. Frequency of Inspection The quality by strict supervision at a construction site is one of the criteria of contemporary practices in the construction sector. Daily supervision should be carried out by the contractors or subcontractors to identify workmanship problems, and the remedial work can be executed immediately. Besides, when executing the supervision, contractor supervisory staff must possess the knowledge, expertise, and capabilit ies to efficiently administer the construction work and superintend the craft worker. Most of the firms indicated that statutory bodies inspected works occasionally, although this was seen to depend more on the site' s location. 50% of the respondents noted that the work inspection was carried out by themselves in most ongoing construction sites. In comparison, 38.9% indicated that architects did inspect those sites. Still, while conducting this research, the researcher got 11.1% of the study sites even supe rvised by foreman only —inspection of works to ensure that quality work is in place. F. Effect of Poor Workmanship on Concrete Quality The use of batching boxes for measuring concrete ingredients was the most common, with 72.2% of the respondents using it. However, 11.1% of the sites used batching plants or equipment, while only 16.67% of the locations used manual methods of measuring the ingredients. Mixing of concrete was mostly using concrete mixers with 72.22%, while only 27.78% used hand mixing up c oncrete. It could be attributed to the ready availability of concrete mixers for hire and the labor intensiveness that concrete requires. Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1181 TABLE IX-A MEASURING OF INGREDIE NTS Measurement of Ingredients No. of Sites Percentage (%) Manual 3 16.67 Batching Box 13 72.22 Batching Plant 2 11.11 Precast Concrete 0 0 Total 18 100.00 TABLE IX-B MIXING OF CONCRETE Mixing of Concrete No. of Sites Percentage (%) Hand Mixed 5 27.78 Concrete Mixers 13 72.22 Ready Mix Concrete 0 0.00 Total 18 100.00 The literature review established that manual methods of measuring and mixing concrete lead to the low work quality. It is due to the carelessness of workers of sub -standard tools and equipment they use. Of all the sites studied, only 27.78% di d not carry out any test on freshly mixing concrete. The slump test was the most common test used in the sites with 72.22%. No site carried out a test on already cast concrete. The majority of the sites (63%) delivered their concrete into position using ho ists and cranes, while only 37% had it manually. 3.6.2 Responses from the Consultant A. Frequency of inspection A sample of 22 consultants was chosen; in each firm selected, only one of the architects was asked , and 17 out of 22(77.27%) provided full res ponses while 5 of the 22 (22.72%) had not completed on -time and, therefore, not be used for analysis. The response rate of 71.27 % gave an adequate basis for data analysis. Fig. 4 Inspection rate of consultants The above chart indicates that 41.2% of the architects have been inspecting their site one per week, followed by 35.3% inspected every day. It shows that in most construction sites, there is no daily inspection. It leads to poor workmanship and quality too. The architects said that thes es inspection was more crucial during sensitive works, which deserve high -quality control measures. B. Poor workmanship experience Regarding how the architects judge the quality of workmanship on most construction sites, 64.7% responded it was good, while 35.3% was average. It means that the level of workmanship is not to required standards in may construction sites. All the respondents replied that all stakeholders are responsible for the quality of work. Likewise, all the architects acknowledge that they cause re -done based on poor workmanship, but this is rare. They noted that workers should be supervised to ensure that work execution is to the required standard, and if this is well done, there is no point at which work will be done on account of poor wo rkmanship. 01020304050 Every day Once per week Once in two weeksPercentage (%) Inspection period Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1182 C. Causes of poor workmanship during Design & Supervision This section, the significance factor for each of the respondents' criteria was computed , and this was used in arranging them in order of preference. The element with the highest RII value shows the most preferred factor, while the one with the lowest RII value shows the least preferred aspect. Form the above table; the preference criteria are as follows (starting with the m ost preferred). TABLE X CAUSE OF POOR WORKMAN SHIP Factors Rating RII Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of proper communication 0 0 0 8 9 0.90588 2 Insufficient details 0 0 3 14 0 0.76471 3 Many variations 0 0 6 11 0 0.72941 4 Insufficient Supervision 0 0 0 7 10 0.91765 1 Poor design 0 0 14 2 1 0.64706 5 D. Person correlation factors The correlation is applied between the design factors . Table XI shows the different factors as correlated indicating how it was measure d the strength and direction of a linear relationship between the different factors . Value s always range between -1 (strong negative relationship) and +1 (strong positive relationship). Values at or close to zero imply weak or no linear relationship . As it can be observed, there was strong correlations between the different factors. TABLE XI PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DESIGN FACTORS Poor communication Insufficient detail Many variation Insufficient supervision Poor design Poor Communication Pearson Correlation 1 .491* .290 -.070 -.241 Sig. (2 -tailed) .045 .259 .788 .350 N 17 17 17 17 17 Insufficient detail Pearson Correlation .491* 1 .304 .240 -.649** Sig. (2 -tailed) .045 .236 .354 .005 N 17 17 17 17 17 Many variation Pearson Correlation .290 .304 1 -.118 -.133 Sig. (2 -tailed) .259 .236 .653 .612 N 17 17 17 17 17 Insufficient supervision Pearson Correlation -.070 .240 -.118 1 .142 Sig. (2 -tailed) .788 .354 .653 .587 N 17 17 17 17 17 Poor design Pearson Correlation -.241 -.649** -.133 .142 1 Sig. (2 -tailed) .350 .005 .612 .587 N 17 17 17 17 17 *. Correlation is essential at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed). **. Correlation is essential significant at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed). 3.6.3. Responses from Workers on Site The third category of questionnaires was administered to the workers on the identified sites. Only one worker involved in concreting per site was interviewed; hence, they formed 20 workers. The questionnaires were designed to establish their experience, education level, career development, tools, the equipment the y used, the challenges they faced, and how they perceived quality on site. A. Quality of work on site One of the questions sought to examine how workers judge the quality of workmanship on site; 20% of the respondents noted that it was "average," while 80% indicated that it would "Good." The majority of the 57% blame the contractors for the poor workmanship on sites. 19% of the respondents blame the workers, while only 24% blame the architects. Almost all (90%) the respondents noted they rarely re -do concrete work after it fails on quality, while 10% of the total didn't experience re -do of concrete work. Workers were also asked whether they reported any problems found when concreting or on Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1183 completed concrete work, and 97% of the respondents said the issues of which 60% report to th e site agent while 40% report to the foreman. To improve the quality of workmanship, the respondents recommended the following (in the order of importance). a. Contractors to enhance supervision. b. Workers to be employed based on skill and experience. c. Workers' welfare to be enhanced by increasing their pay. d. Provision of proper tools and equipment. B. Challenges faced by workers when working Respondents must rank the challenges they faced while executing their work in importance, starting with 1 as very list imp ortance and 5 as highly important. The researcher calculated the significant factor for each cause to rank them. TABLE XII CHALLENGES OF WORKERS WHICH CAUSE POOR WOR KMANSHIP Factors Rating RII Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of proper tools & equipment 0 6 4 10 0 0.6400 5 Low payment 0 0 0 5 15 0.9500 1 Being over -worked 0 0 2 6 12 0.9000 2 Poor communication 0 2 4 14 0 0.700 3 Mistreatment on site 0 0 7 13 0 0.7300 4 The researcher computed the random importance index value for each of the causes depending on the responses. The grounds with the highest RII value indicate the most important reason, while those with the lowest RII value indicate the lea st important factor. From the table above: the causes can be ranked as follows; 1. Low payment, 2. Being overworke d, 3. Poor communication, 4. Mistreatment on site, 5. Lack of proper tools and equipment. The information shows that the essential factor to be considered during the study on quality of workmanship 75% of the respondents noted one of the significant challenges was getting low payment, 60% felt overworked. Those two factors determine motivation hence production. Quality of workmanship to be achieved on -site will thus depend on these two factors. Mistreatment on site and poor communication were considered significan t, with 70% and 65%, respectively. Lack of proper tools and equipment were cited as moderately necessary, with 50% of the respondents indicating this. C. Factors that hinder workers from seeking further training One question sought to examine the workers' wish on their employment; 63% acknowledged that they would like to earn a regular income, 56% intended to gain wider experience, and acquire more skills. None of them was for the idea of working under no supervision. It shows that workers would not mind t he level of supervision, which will lead to quality improvement. They need good communication and an attractive salary to overcome poor workmanship challenges. Fig. 5 Factors that hinder workers from seeking further training 55%35%10%Percentage (%) Lack of finance Lack of time Access to nearby training centerJournal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1184 From the figure , the major hindrances in seeking further training are lack of finance and lack of time with 55% and 35% respectively. It implies those factors directly related to the factor which affect productivity, and if it increases, it also increases productivity. Lack of required minimum qualification and interest was considered as the least hindrance in seeking further training. D. Measures to Improving Quality of Workmanship The respondents were finally requested to give some recommendations to be implemented in the buildin g industry to achieve quality workmanship on site. Most of the respondents gave different opinion; hence the researcher analyzed them as follows: 1. Responses from Contractors and Consultants TABLE XIII MEASURES TO IMPROVE T HE QUALITY OF WORKMA NSHIP Measures to improve quality of workmanship Rating RII Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Train workers in quality issue 0 0 0 4 13 0.7647 2 Cease dependents on inspection by the architects 0 0 10 7 0 0.6824 3 Provide proper tools and equipment 0 4 8 5 0 0.6118 4 Work how to motivate workers 0 0 1 6 10 0.9059 1 The researcher computed the mean for each of the causes depending on the responses. The grounds with the highest RII indicate the most important reason, while those with the lowest RII indicate the least important fac tor. From the table above: the causes can be ranked as follows; i. Train workers on the quality issue: Workers should be well trained on technical issues of construction before they are allowed to work on sites. The respondents proposed introducing more training institutes to handle a large number of workers in the building industry. ii. Motivate workers: Being in the right working environment is a motivator for many employees on -site, as indicated in the literature review. Therefore, the respondents advocate d for a favorable working atmosphere to be created on -site and maintain better health standards and safety measures. It motivates workers to work to their best, enhancing the quality of workmanship on sites. iii. Proper supervision: The statutory bodies should regularly do proper inspections on -site. It should be taken at every stage of construction to ensure quality workmanship on sites. The construction site's location should not determine the number of inspections carried out by statutory bodies. A. Person c orrelation factors Results in Table XIV indicated that there was strong correlation between the different factors on improving factors of workmanship. TABLE XIV PEARSON CORRELATIONS IMPROVIN G FACTORS OF WORKMAN SHIP Train workers in the quality issue Inspection By the architects Provide proper tools & equipment Motivating workers Train workers In quality issues. Pearson Correlation 1 -.099 .236 .256 Sig. (2 -tailed) .704 .361 .321 N 17 17 17 17 Inspection By the architects. Pearson Correlation -.099 1 .591* .453 Sig. (2 -tailed) .704 .012 .068 N 17 17 17 17 Provide proper tools and equipment Pearson Correlation .236 .591* 1 .331 Sig. (2 -tailed) .361 .012 .195 N 17 17 17 17 Motivating workers Pearson Correlation .256 .453 .331 1 Sig. (2 -tailed) .321 .068 .195 N 17 17 17 17 *. Correlation is essential at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed). Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1185 2. Responses from Workers Respondents requested to ra te the challenges they faced while executing their work in importance, starting with 1 as very list importance and 5 as highly necessary. The researcher calculated the significant factor for each cause to rank them. TABLE XV MEASURES TO MOTIVATE PRODUCTIVITY Measures to improve poor workmanship Rating RII Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Increase payment 0 0 0 3 17 0.9700 1 Employment based on skills 0 0 2 4 14 0.9200 2 Provision of proper tools & equipment 0 3 10 7 0 0.6400 3 Provide training & education 0 1 15 4 0 0.6300 4 The researcher computed the random importance index for each of the causes depending on the responses. The grounds with the highest RII indicate the most important cause, while those with the lowest RII indicate the least important factor. From the table above: the causes can be ranked as follows; 1. Increase payment, 2. Employment -based on the skill, 3. Provide training and education, 4. Proper supervision and control 5. Provision of proper tools and equipment The information shows that the most crucial factor in improving workmanship quality on -site, increasing payment for workers and employment based on skill, was highly essential to consider with 85% and 70%, respectively. Providing training an d learning of workers and proper inspection and con trol were deemed to be necessary with 85% and 75%, respectively. The provision of appropriate tools and equipment was cited as moderately crucial, with 50% of the respondents indicating this. A. Person correlation factors In Table XVI shows that there wa s a significant correlation between the different factors to improve poor workmanship. TABLE XVI PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FACTOR TO IMPROVE PO OR WORKMANSHIP Increasing Payment Employment - based on skill & experience Tools & equipment. Provide Training and education. Proper supervision & control. Increasing payment Pearson Correlation 1 .169 -.496* .132 -.176 Sig. (2 -tailed) .477 .026 .579 .457 N 20 20 20 20 20 Employment -based on skill &experience. Pearson Correlation .169 1 -.044 -.442 .380 Sig. (2 -tailed) .477 .852 .051 .098 N 20 20 20 20 20 Provision of proper Tools & equipment. Pearson Correlation -.496* -.044 1 .062 -.083 Sig. (2 -tailed) .026 .852 .796 .729 N 20 20 20 20 20 Provide Training & education. Pearson Correlation .132 -.442 .062 1 -.161 Sig. (2 -tailed) .579 .051 .796 .496 N 20 20 20 20 20 Proper supervision & control. Pearson Correlation -.176 .380 -.083 -.161 1 Sig. (2 -tailed) .457 .098 .729 .496 N 20 20 20 20 20 *. Correlation is essential at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed). E. Level of Workmanship A checklist was prepared and for each site visited, the presence or absence of defects on concrete work was observed, and zero (0) work was awarded where a defect was observed while one (1) mark and awarded where a defect was not observed. Since there were 6indicators, a site without any blemish on the variables scored a maximum of 6 points, while a site with fau lts on all the variables scored (0) marks, the lowest. Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1186 TABLE XVII LEVEL OF WORKMANSHIP ON SITES Score Number of Site Percentage (%) 0 1 5.00 1 3 15.00 2 2 10.00 3 5 25.00 4 4 20.00 5 2 10.00 6 3 15.00 Total 20 100.00 A score of 6 is the highest mark showing no defect: the required level of (high level) workmanship. Only 5% met this requirement showing that the level of workmanship is low. Ninety -five percent of the sites have at least a defect on the subject . It is imp ortant to note that only 5 percent of all the places visited scored zero. This indicates that the majority of sites need improvement in workmanship. F. Summar y of Findings The researcher has established that the quality of workmanship is not to the required standards. The level of workmanship has been observed to be equally low, with many defects appearing on works. Many factors have been established as the causes o f a low l evel of workmanship. These factors are management -related factors on -site, including inadequate supervision, lack of training, inexperienced workers, unavailability of proper tools and equipment, poor communication on -site, lack of motivation for workers, lack of clarity in specifications, and also, to a smaller extent, due to subcontracting. The level of workmanship is directly proportional to the level of quality management factors. However, lack of proper supervision on site has been noted as the primary cause of poor workmanship compared to the other factors. IV. CONCLUSIONS The research objectives had been achieved based on the literature review from articles, journals, and books; findings from a questionnaire survey; and interview results. This study addresses a gap around workmanship and quality for works in the Ethiopian construction industry, specifically within the study area's scope. The study adds data to existing literature concerning curr ent construction trends. The finding has been compared ag ainst the set objectives and conclusions made. In this study, the following major conclusion was drawn based on findings in line with each specific objective. Poor workmanship is one of the significant factors that lead to building defects and failure prob lems. High rise buildings are the one which experienced most of the defects or failures issues due to poor workmanship. Form questioner survey senior officer of th e client, project manager, and resident engineer from the contractor and consultant side repo rted low quality as a significant cause of poor quality material used. Low quality also led to project cost overrun for all entities participating in project managem ent. 4.1 Findings of the Study The first objective identified the leading causes of poor w orkmanship on construction sites. From the results obtained from the respondents, the primary reasons for poor workmanship are: i. Lack of training and experience from workers ii. Lack of motivation for workers, iii. Lack of proper supervision and management skill. iv. Lack of care when concreting v. Lack of proper tools and equipment vi. Lack of clarity in drawing and specifications The result indicated further that poor workmanship is also resulting from the contractor's speedy construction and shortcuts in construction. Su bcontracting has been noted to have less impact on workmanship. However, all respondents acknowledge a lack of supervision as the significant cause of poor workmanship. The second objective established the relationship between the quality management factor s (supervision, training, experience, availability of proper tools and equipment), and workmanship. Field data on quality management factors and workmanship on site were analyzed through software called SPSS and correlation, reliability was cross -checked, and a positive relationship was established. The third objective was to identify the responsible authorities' measures in ensuring a good quality of work. For this study, the responsible authorities have been taken as the consultants (architects), consulta nts (engineers), and statutory bodies. Regarding measures taken by the architects against contractors for poor quality work, 89% of the architects noted that contractors are forced to re -do the work at their own cost, and 63% of the respondents also indica ted that they determine d whether the contact persists, and they seek damages if there is any delay to be incurred . 4.2 Implication of the Findings From the study's findings and analysis, it can be concluded that the quality of workmanship on construction s ites is relatively poor. The study has summarized all the causes of poor workmanship, that is, quality management factors. All these elements ha ve a positive influence on the level of workmanship. The finding implies that a low level of workmanship on Ethiopia construction Journal of Xidian University VOLUME 14, ISSUE 9, 2020ISSN No:1001-2400 http://xadzkjdx.cn/https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.9/128 1187 projects will continue unless the quality management factors are enhanced (supervision, training, availability of proper tools, and equipment, among others). Therefore, to reverse the trend, all efforts should be aimed at providing and improving the content and context of these factors to enable acceptable quality of works on sites. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to verbalize their profound gratitude to Ambo University for all supports extended during the research activities and respondents who shared their opinions and ideas in this research study .