ChiTr - MOP Dissertation

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:

A new CSFs framework as a support tool for project planning,

monitoring, and controlling, and organizational learning

A dissertation submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of

MSC in General Management of Project

In the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences

Year of Submission

2009 – 2010

Student Name

TRUONG HUU CHI

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

� 睢駺 �甒甒甒畅Ϡ 9Ϡ 1

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Content ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 5

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 6

Declaration ....................................................................................................................... 7

Copyright Statement ........................................................................................................ 7

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 8

Chapter I: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 9

1.2. Research Questions ............................................................................................. 11

1.3. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................ 11

1.4. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 12

1.5. Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................................... 14

Chapter II: Research Methodology ................................................................................ 15

2.1. Research Approach ............................................................................................. 15

2.2. Research Methods ............................................................................................... 17

2.2.1. Secondary Research ................................................................................... 17

2.2.2. Primary Research ....................................................................................... 18

Chapter III: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 19

3.1. The definition of Project and Project management ........................................... 19

2

3.2. Project success and Project management success ............................................. 20

3.3. Project Lifecycle Concept ................................................................................... 24

3.4. Construction Project .......................................................................................... 25

3.5. Measuring Project success and Success Criteria ................................................ 28

3.6. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) ............................................................................ 29

3.6.1. Success Criteria and Success Factors ........................................................ 29

3.6.2. The concept of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) .......................................... 30

3.6.3. Previous studies in Critical Success Factors (CSFs) ................................... 30

3.6.4. Critical Success Factors Frameworks ........................................................ 39

Chapter IV: A new Framework of CSFs in project ......................................................... 46

4.1. The new framework structure ............................................................................. 46

4.2. The new framework CSFs groups ........................................................................ 46

4.3. The new framework Time Dimension ................................................................. 47

4.4. Deriving CSFs for the new framework ................................................................. 48

Chapter V: Empirical Survey ........................................................................................... 54

5.1. Survey Methodology ........................................................................................... 54

5.1.1. Survey Method .......................................................................................... 54

5.1.2. Questionnaire Design ................................................................................ 56

5.1.3. Sample Selection ....................................................................................... 58

5.1.4. Pilot Study ................................................................................................. 58

5.1.5. Possible Limitation .................................................................................... 58

5.1.6. Data Analysis Method ............................................................................... 58

5.1.7. Survey Process ........................................................................................... 59

5.2. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 59

Chapter VI: Discussion and Recommendation .............................................................. 76

6.1. Discussion ............................................................................................................ 76

6.2. Recommendation ................................................................................................ 82

Chapter VII: Conclusion .................................................................................................. 92

3

7.1. Findings from the literature review .................................................................... 92

7.2. The new CSFs framework and empirical survey finding ..................................... 93

7.3. Application and Further Study Recommendation ............................................... 94

Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 96

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 101

Appendix 1: New CSFs Framework Form ...................................................................... 101

Appendix 2: Full CSFs Framework ................................................................................. 102

Appendix 3: Blank CSFs Framework .............................................................................. 103

Appendix 4: Map of CSFs Methodology Procedure by Boynton and Zmud ................. 104

Appendix 5: Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 105

Appendix 6: Survey Responses Result .......................................................................... 120

Word Count: 32,550

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Role of project team at each stage of implements ............................................. 27

2 Success Factors – Success Criteria interrelationship .......................................... 29

3 Development of success criteria overtime ......................................................... 31

4 Consensus Factors Affecting Construction Performance Measures .................. 35

5 A comparison of survey methods ....................................................................... 54

6 Success criteria ranking ....................................................................................... 60

7 Ranking of individual & group CSFs _ Inception stage ........................................ 61

8 Ranking of individual & group CSFs _ Feasibility & Strategy stage ..................... 63

9 Ranking of individual & group CSFs _ Design & Tendering stage ....................... 65

10 Ranking of individual & group CSFs _ Construction stage .................................. 67

11 Ranking of individual & group CSFs _ Engineering Commission stage ............... 68

12 Ranking of individual and group CSF_ Completion & Handover stage ............... 70

13 Ranking of individual and group CSF_ Users Occupation & Commission stage . 71

14 The top seven of individual critical success factors based on stage ................... 71

15 The top ten of individual success factors based on RII ....................................... 73

16 List of the most individual CSFs across construction project life cycle ............... 73

18 Feedback for the new CSFs framework improvement ....................................... 75

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Dissertation research approach .............................................................. 13

2 Positivism ................................................................................................ 15

3 Four Level of Project Success .................................................................. 23

4 Typical Construction Project Environment ............................................. 25

5 Project structure diagram- executive project management model ....... 26

6 Life cycle of construction project ............................................................ 26

7 The Ten CSFs ........................................................................................... 40

8 The new framework of CSFs in project ................................................... 41

9 The relative importance of CSFs groups across project life cycle ........... 74

10 The 11-step procedure of applying the new CSFs framework in practice83

6

Abstract

Construction projects are becoming much more complex and difficult compared to the

past, and even more under the effects of the current global crisis. Delivering successful

construction project, therefore, are becoming much more challenging for every project

manager. Consequently, the study of project success and critical success factors (CSFs)

are considered as one of potential means for achieving project success. However, the

literature review revealed that the concept of project success is elusive and is

perceived differently by different people. In addition, there is not a definitive set of

CSFs for every project due to the difference in perception of project success, the

difference in success criteria used, and the dynamic and unique nature of projects.

Moreover, there is not a comprehensive method for determining CSFs in project, as

existing methods contains several shortcomings those limit the application in practice.

Contributing to such areas, this dissertation developed a new framework for

determining project success in construction projects. Using this framework, the

authors conducted an empirical survey for determining the CSFs in construction

projects from the viewpoint of project management master students. The result of this

survey was used for testing the findings of previous studies in the literature, and

testing the strengths and weaknesses of the new framework. Using questionnaire with

significant score, means score and relative important index to identify CSFs, the survey

found 13 CSFs, in descending order of importance are: PO Approval (Completion &

Handover stage); Cost & Cash Flow Management Effectiveness; PM Monitoring & Control

Competence; Site Management Effectiveness; Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness

(Construction stage); PM Experience & Competence (Inception stage); Lesson Learn for PM &

PO (Users Occupancy & Commission stage); Construction Team Experience & Competence;

Trouble Shooting Effectiveness; PM Motivating & Leadership Competence (Construction

stage); Availability of Resource (Feasibility & Strategy stage); Communication Effectiveness

(Engineering Commission stage); PO Consultation & Direction (Design & Tendering stage). In

addition, based on the feedbacks about the framework, the authors suggested an 11-

step procedure for applying the CSFs framework in practice as a tool to aid project

tracking and controlling and organizational learning system. Direction for further

studies in the causal relationship between CSFs, between CSFs and KPIs, and computer

system embedding were also recommended.

7

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of

an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or

other institute of learning

Copyright Statement

The following three notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property

rights must be included:

i. Copyright in text of this dissertation rests with the author. Copies (by any process)

either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by

the author. Details may be obtained from the appropriate Graduate Office. This page

must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies

made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission

(in writing) of the author.

ii. The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this

dissertation is vested in the University of Manchester, subject to any prior agreement

to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the

written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of

any such agreement.

iii. Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may

take place is available from the Head of the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil

Engineering.

8

Acknowledgement

I take this opportunity to firstly thank my supervisor, Mr. Anthony Waterman, for his

invaluable support. His enthusiastic guidance has helped me to overcome numerous

obstacles to complete my dissertation, especially after the unexpected change of my

dissertation topic.

I also want to say many thanks to my classmates in the MOP master course in the

University of Manchester and the friends in the MOP master course in the University

of Salford for their voluntary participations in my empirical survey and for their

invaluable feedback for my new CSFs framework, especially in a extremely busy time

for any master student. Without their help I could not have crucial information to fulfill

my research.

Special thanks are also given to Mr. Khoi Nguyen for his crucial help in editing my

writing, and all other friends who not only gave me a help for my dissertation but also

shared with me an unforgettable time of my life in Manchester.

This research is also dedicated to my family with deep love. Without their unlimited

support and encouragement throughout the study year, I could not finish my course.

6

Abstract

Construction projects are becoming much more complex and difficult compared to the

past, and even more under the effects of the current global crisis. Delivering successful

construction project, therefore, are becoming much more challenging for every project

manager. Consequently, the study of project success and critical success factors (CSFs)

are considered as one of potential means for achieving project success. However, the

literature review revealed that the concept of project success is elusive and is

perceived differently by different people. In addition, there is not a definitive set of

CSFs for every project due to the difference in perception of project success, the

difference in success criteria used, and the dynamic and unique nature of projects.

Moreover, there is not a comprehensive method for determining CSFs in project, as

existing methods contains several shortcomings those limit the application in practice.

Contributing to such areas, this dissertation developed a new framework for

determining project success in construction projects. Using this framework, the

authors conducted an empirical survey for determining the CSFs in construction

projects from the viewpoint of project management master students. The result of this

survey was used for testing the findings of previous studies in the literature, and

testing the strengths and weaknesses of the new framework. Using questionnaire with

significant score, means score and relative important index to identify CSFs, the survey

found 13 CSFs, in descending order of importance are: PO Approval (Completion &

Handover stage); Cost & Cash Flow Management Effectiveness; PM Monitoring & Control

Competence; Site Management Effectiveness; Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness

(Construction stage); PM Experience & Competence (Inception stage); Lesson Learn for PM &

PO (Users Occupancy & Commission stage); Construction Team Experience & Competence;

Trouble Shooting Effectiveness; PM Motivating & Leadership Competence (Construction

stage); Availability of Resource (Feasibility & Strategy stage); Communication Effectiveness

(Engineering Commission stage); PO Consultation & Direction (Design & Tendering stage). In

addition, based on the feedbacks about the framework, the authors suggested an 11-

step procedure for applying the CSFs framework in practice as a tool to aid project

tracking and controlling and organizational learning system. Direction for further

studies in the causal relationship between CSFs, between CSFs and KPIs, and computer

system embedding were also recommended.

7

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of

an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or

other institute of learning

Copyright Statement

The following three notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property

rights must be included:

i. Copyright in text of this dissertation rests with the author. Copies (by any process)

either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by

the author. Details may be obtained from the appropriate Graduate Office. This page

must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies

made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission

(in writing) of the author.

ii. The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this

dissertation is vested in the University of Manchester, subject to any prior agreement

to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the

written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of

any such agreement.

iii. Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may

take place is available from the Head of the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil

Engineering.

8

Acknowledgement

I take this opportunity to firstly thank my supervisor, Mr. Anthony Waterman, for his

invaluable support. His enthusiastic guidance has helped me to overcome numerous

obstacles to complete my dissertation, especially after the unexpected change of my

dissertation topic.

I also want to say many thanks to my classmates in the MOP master course in the

University of Manchester and the friends in the MOP master course in the University

of Salford for their voluntary participations in my empirical survey and for their

invaluable feedback for my new CSFs framework, especially in a extremely busy time

for any master student. Without their help I could not have crucial information to fulfill

my research.

Special thanks are also given to Mr. Khoi Nguyen for his crucial help in editing my

writing, and all other friends who not only gave me a help for my dissertation but also

shared with me an unforgettable time of my life in Manchester.

This research is also dedicated to my family with deep love. Without their unlimited

support and encouragement throughout the study year, I could not finish my course.

9

Chapter I: Introduction

1.1. Background

The UK stepped in the recession in second quarter of 2008, continuing by a six-quarter

negative growth, and only has started to recover by a 0.4% growth in the first three

months of 2010 (ONS, 2010). As a consequence, the construction sector that accounts

for 6% of GDP with over 2.2 million employees has been affected significantly. The

construction activity has fell for the 22nd month in a row by the end of 2009, only has

been slightly recovered recently but in a much lower pace compared to other

industries (Pimlott, 2010; BWF, 2010). Due to the effects of the downturn in the

construction industry, achieving success in construction projects in such time becomes

extremely challenging for every project owner and project managers. The regulatory/

legislative change, business interruption, increasing competition, commodity price risk,

damage to reputation, cash flow/liquidity risk, distribution or supply chain failure, third

party liability, failure to attract or retain talent, reducing of market’s purchasing ability,

minimizing of organizational benefit, drying out of the funds for the future

investments, or operational disruption are only some of many issues those may affect

to achieving success of construction projects in this crisis time (Wade, 2009; Rahman,

2009; Pfinisgraff, 2009). It is therefore crucial to search for effective means for

delivering successful projects in construction industry, in both academic and practice.

The study of project success and critical success factors (CSFs) is considered as one of

such means for achieving project success.

However, a review of existing literature exposed many issues in terms of determining

project success. Firstly, it is in fact very ambiguous and difficult for determining

whether a project is successful or failure as the perception of project success may be

very personal and the criteria for project success measure may be various in different

projects (Pinto and Slevin, 1988b; Baccarini, 1999). Traditionally, a project will be

considered successful if it meets expectation in term of time, cost and quality at

completion, namely ‘iron triangle’. However, determining a project is success or failure

is now far more complex as there are many projects those exceeded time or overran

cost but still were considered “successful”, e.g. the Thames Barrier or the Fulmar North

10

Sea oil project (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). In addition, one project might be considered

successful by customer but failure by project owner if it does not meet project owner’s

specification (Wit, 1988). Secondly, there are many studies about the success or failure

factors in project, but the results are not in a consensus (Cooke-Davies, 2001). In

addition, most of such studies seemed to simply tabulate a list of individual factors

while only few of them tried to assess, analysis, and clarify factors in a logical and

systematic approach that shows the causal interrelationship between them. Moreover,

the validity of such lists of factors in practice is a question as one factor may be only

critical in a particular project but not in other projects due to the unique nature of

projects and the diversity of project contexts; or may be several critical success factors

are missing from the lists (Belassi and Tukel, 1996). For example, critical success factors

in R&D projects seems different from critical success factors in construction projects;

and even the ‘critical’ of each critical success factor may change significantly across

project life cycle (Pinto and Covin, 1989).

All issues mentioned above motivated the author of this dissertation to conduct a

research in several areas including the nature of project success; the interrelationship

between project success, success criteria, and success factors; the framework/method

for determining critical success factors in projects in practice, and the critical success

factors in construction projects.

The result of this research will benefit several beneficiaries including practitioners,

academics, and project-initiating organizations. Firstly, the result will contribute to the

body of knowledge of project success that benefits academics and practitioners having

interest in such area. In addition, the paper will provide a practical tool that helps

practitioners, especially project managers and senior managers in project-initiating

organizations, in determining critical success factors and managing their projects to

success. Other stakeholders such as contractors, architect, engineers, etc, will be also

benefited as the paper will provide them with a useful method for integrating their

interests into the overall project success. In addition, the research also benefit

project-initiating organization (or client) as providing them with a useful tool for

directing and managing a particular project in relation to other projects in the

11

organizational corporate programme (project portfolio) for achieving success in

organization level.

1.2. Research Questions

For the purpose of directing and focusing the research, the following two main

research questions can be formulated as following:

Could we develop an effective method for determining critical success factors

in construction project in practice?

What factors are critical to construction projects’ success from the UK project

management master students’ viewpoint?

The following sub-questions are relevant for the study:

• Question 1: What is the definition of project success?

• Question 2: What are the key features and characteristics of project success?

• Question 3: What is the difference and interrelationship between project

success, product success, and project management success?

• Question 4: What is the difference and interrelationship between project

success, success criteria, and success factors?

• Question 5: Is there a definitive set of critical success factors for every project?

• Question 6: Is there an existing comprehensive method for determining critical

success factors in project in practice?

• Question 7: What is an appropriate procedure to apply the frameworks for

determining critical success factors in construction projects in practice?

1.3. Aims and Objectives

The main aims of this research are developing a new framework for determining

critical success factors in construction projects; and using the new frame work as an

aid tool to conduct an empirical survey to identify critical success factors in

construction projects from the viewpoint of the UK project management master

students.

12

In order to achieve such aim, a number of main objective are established as following:

• Examining the definition and nature of project success

• Determining the key features and characteristics of project success

• Determining the difference and interrelationship between project success,

product success, and project management success

• Determining the difference and interrelationship between project success,

success criteria, and critical success factors

• Reviewing existing literature on critical success factors in project

• Reviewing existing literature on clarification/framework of critical success

factors in project

• Developing a new framework for determining critical success factors in

construction projects from the viewpoint of project manager and project owner

• Deriving hypothesized critical success factors for the new framework from

literature

• Using the new framework as an aid tool, conducting a survey for collecting data

from project management master students in the University of Manchester and

the University of Salford by questionnaire

• Analysing the results to identify critical success factors in construction projects

• Discussing the results and suggesting a procedure for applying the new

framework in practice.

1.4. Methodology

In order to achieve research aims and objectives, this dissertation will employ both

secondary data and primary data. The methodology is based on a critical review of

previous academic and practical studies, and an empirical survey. The process of this

dissertation is summarized in the Figure 1. More details about the methodology will be

presented in the next chapter.

13

Figure 1: Dissertation research approach

Literature Review Review important terms

Review CSFs in project

Collect Data

Review existing frameworks/clarification of project CSFs

Develop a new framework structure

Derive hypothesized success factors in construction

projects for the new framework from literature

Examine the definition & nature of project success,

project management success, success criteria, and critical success factors

Develop a New CSFs

Framework

Review existing CSFs in project in general and in construction industry

Empirical Survey

Analyse Data &

Derive CSFs

Select respondents

Develop survey questions

Plan and conduct the survey

Organise collected data

Respondent Analysis

Responses about definition of project success

Rank importance of 4 success criteria by RII

Importance of individual and group factors in each

of 7 stages of construction project life-cycle by RII

Derive and rank individual CSFs in each of 7 stages

of construction project life-cycle

Number of CSFs in each group and Rank CSFs

groups’ relative importance in each of 7 stages of

construction project life-cycle

Derive most individual CSFs across all 7 stages of


Comparison of the relative importance of all the

CSFs groups in each and all stages across

construction project life cycle

Rank & Analyse the variation of ‘internal weight’

of each CSFs group across all stages of


Represent CSFs and discussion

Recommendation a procedure for applying

Framework in practice

Direction for improving the Framework

Improve the Framework

14

1.5. Structure of the Dissertation

In order to achieve research aims and objectives, the research is structured in five

chapters as following:

Chapter I: Introduction

This chapter will introduce the research background of this dissertation, the

motivations of conducting this research, explaining why it is important and who it

will benefit. It will also present the research aims and objectives, and structure of

the dissertation.

Chapter II: Methodology

This chapter will introduce, illustrate, and analyse research methods that are used in

this dissertation. Disadvantages and advantages of these methods will also be

discussed.

Chapter III: Literature review

This chapter will start with a literature review on several research areas including

the concept of project, project management, project success, project management

success, success criteria, critical success factors (CSFs) in project, and CSFs

framework/clarification.

Chapter IV: A new Framework of CSFs in project

This chapter will introduce a new framework for determining CSFs in construction

projects, and derives hypothesized success factors for the new framework from

literature.

Chapter V: Empirical Survey

This chapter will present the methodology of the empirical survey, the data

collected and the result of data analysis.

Chapter VI: Discussion and Recommendation

This chapter will discuss the finding in previous chapter to address issues related to

CSFs in construction projects and the new framework, and introduce a

comprehensive procedure of applying the new framework in practice. In addition,

this chapter will recommendation the direction for future studies.

Chapter VII: Conclusions

The chapter will summarize all the process and findings of the dissertation as a

whole.

15

Chapter II: Research Methodology

In general, research is an organized and systematic process of studying or investigation

into a phenomenon for the purpose of discovering new facts, reinforcing established

facts or generating new perspective on existing facts (Clack et al., 1998). In addition,

for achieving logical and unbiased finding, the research process including the strategy

(approach) and methods (techniques) needs to be implemented methodically,

logically, and systematically; and appropriately applied to the research subject matters

(Denscombe, 1998) .Furthermore, although there is no “best type” of research, a

thorough consideration of subject matters and resource constraints can result in the

most appropriate strategy and method for achieving the research aims and objectives

(Denscombe, 1998). This chapter will present the discussion of selecting appropriate

research techniques for this dissertation including secondary research, primary

research, and survey questionnaire, followed by methods of data analysis and possible

limitation of the methodology.

2.1. Research Approach

According to O'Leary (2004), positivism and post-positivism are the two main research

philosophies, the first one aims at “describing what we experience through

observation and measurement in order to predict and control the forces that surround

us” while the second one argues that human knowledge is based upon human

conjectures rather than unchallengeable foundation, and therefore any hypothesis can

be modified or withdraw as the consequence of further investigation. A comparison

between the two approaches is illustrated in the Figure 2:

Figure 2: Positivism (O’Leary 2004)

From Positivist To Post-positivist

The World

Knowable � ……………………….. � Ambiguous

Predictable � ……………………….. � Variable

Single truth � ……………………….. � Multiple-reality

16

The nature of research

Empirical � ……………………….. � Intuitive

Reductionist � ……………………….. � Holistic

The researcher

Objective � ……………………….. � Subjective

Removed expert � ……………………….. � Participatory

Methodology

Deductive � ……………………….. � Inductive

Hypothesis-driven � ……………………….. � Explanatory

Reliable � ……………………….. � Dependable

Reproducible � ……………………….. � Auditable

Findings

Quantitative � ……………………….. � Qualitative

Statistically significant � ……………………….. � Valuable

Generalisable � ……………………….. � Idiographic

Given to the aims of this dissertation as developing a new CSFs framework and

determining critical success factors in construction project those relate to several

ambiguous, variable, and multiple-reality issues such as project success, project

management success, and critical success factors, it seems that post-positivism

approach is more suitable. However, as the knowledge in these areas has already been

studied and proved in a large number of previous studies, while this dissertation only

searches for the improvement and answer in one particular context, the research is

more empirical in nature than intuitive. In addition, the researcher is less likely to act

subjectively in searching the answer. Therefore, the positivism approach is adopted in

this research.

In addition, according to O'Leary (2004), the corresponding methodology for the

positivism approach is deductive, that will test established theory with empirical

observation. This dissertation adopts this methodology and starts with examining

existing theories in the project success and project critical success factors, followed by

17

developing a new CSFs framework based on existing ones, then using the framework

for testing the findings in previous studies and providing recommendations.

2.2. Research Methods

O'Leary (2004) distinguished methodology as the framework associated with a

particular set of paradigmatic hypotheses used to conduct research while methods are

the techniques used to collect data, and tools are the devices used to collect data.

Methodological design, on the other hand, is the plan for conducting research that

includes all of the above. In this dissertation, two methods are adopted including

secondary and primary research, i.e. literature review, survey, etc, and the selected

research tool is questionnaire.

2.2.1. Secondary Research

Literature review is essential in research that addresses the critical finding of existing

knowledge in the research area and is the guiding light for the research itself, as

“knowledge is cumulative: every piece of research will contribute another piece to it”

(Lahar, 2004). A major part of this dissertation was based on literature/desktop review

whereby the data was obtained from other sources (secondary data) such as

magazines, journals, databases, books, newsletters, reports, conference proceedings,

company documents and others sources in the Internet. This secondary data was

reviewed for addressing critical issues in terms of project success and project critical

success factors, and finding the gaps in the existing body of knowledge. Such review

provided a foundation for developing a new framework for determining critical success

factors in construction projects.

The advantages of using secondary data are numerous. Firstly, secondary data can help

to draw an overview of the research area and save the researcher from doing again on

identical topics (Veal, 1997; Eileen and Brun, 2001). Secondly, by using secondary data,

the researcher can save much of time, effort, and funds compared to collecting

primary data (Veal, 1997). With the Internet being widespread nowadays and the good

quality of the library system in the UK, the collection of secondary data is easy and

entirely possible. Thirdly, against the secondary data, the researchers can reinforce or

18

improve the existing knowledge based on new collected primary data (Stewart and

Kamins, 1993). On the other hand, secondary data has two main shortcomings, firstly

is the potential risk of personal bias of the authors of the secondary sources, and

secondly is secondary data may not always help to answer exactly the research

questions. Therefore, it still needs to adopt primary data collection in many cases,

including in this dissertation.

As the number of databases, journals, and other sources for secondary data used in

this paper is many, the following list just presents some key sources among of them:

Database

Journal Website

Science Direct

Emerald

EBSCO

Proquest

ASCE Library

IEEE Explore

Google Scholar

Journal of Construction, Engineering and

Management

Journal of Engineering, Design and

Technology

Project Management Journal

International Journal of Project Management

Harvard Business Review

NAO

OGC

APM

PMI

2.2.2. Primary Research

Primary research is also needed in the case secondary data is not enough to able the

researchers to fully answer the research questions as mentioned previously. The

primary data used in this dissertation was collected though questionnaire as mention

previously. The aim was to discover the perception in project success, success criteria,

and critical success factors in construction projects from project management

students’ viewpoint. The result would either supplement or contrast with previous

studies in the areas. In addition, it is essential to collect the feedback from the

respondents in order to improve the new CSFs framework. Given to the aims and

objectives of this dissertation, both quantitative data (in form of numbers) and

qualitative data (in form of word or descript) were collected as each can supplement

the other for further investigation. The detail survey’s methods will be discussed in the

Chapter V, Empirical Survey.

19

Chapter II: Literature Review

The concept of success or failure of project has been a challenging objective for many

researchers over dedicates without likely final consensus. Regardless of such

disagreement, many attempts by researchers and practitioners have been spent for

finding effective means to achieve success in project. This chapter will review the

literature for examining the relevant issues including the nature of project, project

management, project success, project management success, success criteria, and

critical success factors in project.

3.1. The definition of project and project management

The definition of “project” is commonly regarded as a core term of project

management. Although literature provides a variety of definitions of project, but in

general it has a high level of similarities with the definitions as following:

A project is a complex, non-routine, one-time effort limited by time, budget,

resources, and performance specifications designed to meet customer needs

(Gray and Larson, 2008).

Or

A unique set of co-ordinated activities with definite starting and finishing points,

undertaken by an individual or organization to meet specific objectives within

defined schedule, cost, and performance parameters (British Standards

Institution, 2000)

On the other words, a project can be considered to be “achievement of a specific

objective, which involves a series of activities and task which consume resources,…has

to be completed within a set specification, having definite start and end date” (Munns

and Bjeirmi, 1996), that is complex, unique, no-repetitive, goal-orientated, within a

particular set of constraints, measurable output and able of change during the process

(APM, 2006).

20

Project management, therefore, is “the process by which projects are defined, planned,

monitored, controlled and delivered such that the agreed benefits are realised” (APM,

2006); or in more simple way, is “the process of controlling the achievement of project

objectives” (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996).

3.2. Project Success and Project Management Success

Project success is an important concept of project management literature that must be

clearly defined in the first step of any study about success or failure in projects.

Although of decades of development in project management, however, defining

project success is a never easy task as explaining by (Liu & Walket, 1986; cited by

(Baccarini, 1999) as following:

Project success is a topic that is frequently discussed and yet rarely agreed upon.

The concept of project success has remained ambiguously defined. It is a concept

which can mean so much to so many different people because of varying

perceptions, and leads to disagreements about whether a project is successful or

not.

Several authors researching in the areas also stated that the interpretation of the term

“project success” has been neither well-defined and in a wide consensus (Liu & Walket,

1986; McCoy, 1986; Wells, 1998; Pinto and Slevin, 1988b; Baccarini, 1999) and the

disagreement about the concept of success have also appeared in either business or

project management literature (Shenhar & Wideman, 2000; cited by HYVÄRI, 2006).

On the other hand, although agreeing that definitions in the literature is “somewhat

conflicting”, Sanvido et al (1990) found that definition of project success by a majority

of authors is meeting of the expectation in terms of technical specification (cost, time,

quality…) and mission. For instance, project success is “having everything turn out as

hoped…in timely manner” (Tuman, 1986); “meeting the …requirement of owner,

design professionals, constructor, and regulatory agencies (presenting the public)”

(ASCE, 1988); excepted for few others such as “results much better than expected…”

(Asley, 1987); cited by Sanvido et al (1990).

21

Recently, the agreement in the definition of project success seems improve, at least as

stated by Prabhakar (2008). In his literature review in project success, Prabhaka found

that in fact recently there is a high level of agreement with the definition of project

success by (Wit, 1988) as following:

“meet of the technical performance specification and/or mission to be

performed…and a high level of satisfaction concerning project outcome among key

people in the parent organization,…in project team, and key users or clientele…”,

(Wit, 1988)

This definition seems appropriate enough as naturally project success must be defined

based on the definition of project. Comparing to the definition of project mentioned

previously, this definition of project success covers all of the two aspects: meets of

predominated cost, time, budgets at completion; and meets of customer needs. In

fact, this definition by Wit (1988) is broader than the definitions of project mention in

the previous section, as it mention about the satisfaction of all stakeholders, not only

“customer”.

On the other hand, when discussing about project success, it is necessary to mention

about the distinction between project success and project management success.

According to Baccarini (1999), the two terms ‘project success’ and ‘project

management success’ also usually confusingly intertwined in literature that should be

distinguished from each other (Wit, 1988; Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). Wit (1988) and

other writers stated that project success is “measured against the overall objectives of

the project” while project management success is “measured against the widespread

and traditional measures of performance against cost, time and quality” (cited by

Cooke-Davies, 2001).

Remarkably, Baccarini (1999) presented a very valuable writing in project success.,

making clear about the nature and interrelationship between project success, project

management success, product success, and success criteria. Based on the concept that

22

project is a process to produce one or more products, he stated that project success

has two distinct components: ‘project management success’ and ‘product success’ (or

project outcome success). According Baccarini (1999), project management success

focuses on project process, especially on successful project completion in terms of

time, cost, and qualities objectives, while product success concerns with the effects of

the project’s final product. In addition, Baccarini (1999) mentioned the four levels of

project objectives, including project goals, project purpose, project output, and project

input, in which each level is the means of the higher level one, and the ends of a lower

level. He stated that project management success, concerning project input, project

output & being responsible by project manager and project team, is only a subordinate

of product success, concerning project purpose, project goals & being responsible by

senior management in the project-initiating organization (Baccarini, 1999).

Moreover, Baccarini (1999) introduced the “sub-components” of project management

success and product success. Project management success has three components: (1)

meeting time, cost, and quality objectives (project output and input); (2) quality of the

project management process; (3) satisfying project stakeholders’ needs where they

related to the project management process (client, project team…). Product success

has three components: (1) meeting the project owner’s strategic organizational

objectives (project goals); (2) satisfaction of users’ needs (project purpose); (3)

satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs where they related to the project

(customer/users…). This clarification is logical and covers all aspects of project success

as stated in the definition mentioned previously.

Furthermore, Baccarini (1999) examined the interrelationship between project

management success and product success. He stated that project management

success is not necessary directly related to product success and vice versa, project

management success is subordinate to product success, and project management

success influences product success. Similarly, other authors found that project

management success “can contribute toward project success but is unlikely to be able

to prevent failure” (Wit, 1988); and project management success and project success

are not necessarily directly related (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996).

23

Finally, Baccarini (1999) stated several important conclusions about project success

criteria and characteristics: (1) success has “hard” dimension (objectives, tangible and

measurable such as cost, time, quality…) and “soft” dimension (subjective, subtle,

difficult to evaluate such as satisfaction, happiness, enhanced reputation…); (2)

success is perceived as every stakeholders have different perception about success and

therefore objectively measure the project success is illusion; (3) success must be

prioritized, meaning all success criteria must be agreed by all parties before the project

is started and is prioritized to the most influent stakeholders; (4) project success is

affected by time, such as product management success can be assessed during project

process and at the project completion while product success may only be assessed

after many years; (5)success is not always manageable, referring to the cases of

something happening beyond the control of project managers; (6) success may be

partial, concerning the fact that success and failure is not always “black and white”,

but can be elusive as some criteria being met but some others might not. It fairly say

that the writing of Baccarini (1999) is a valuable summary, examining and covering a

large number of previous studies by many other authors such as Couilard (1995);

Youker, (1993); Munn & Bjeirmi (1996); Shenhar et al (1997); etc (cited by Baccarini,

1999).

Many later authors adopted and improved the findings by Baccarini (1999) such as

Haughey (2010) who present a model of the four levels of project success (Figure 3) as

following:

• Level 1: Project Management Success (cost, time and quality), achieving

desired project output

• Level 2: Repeatable Project Management Success (predictable outcomes),

achieving desired project outputs consistently

• Level 3: Project Success (benefits realised), project outputs producing the

desired project outcomes

• Level 4: Corporate Success (strategies implemented, value added), project

outcomes producing or having the intended impact on the business strategy

24

Figure 3: Four Level of Project Success (Haughey, 2010)

The four levels of success model well illustrated the interrelationship between product

success and project success, and between project success and project-initiating

organization success.

In conclusion, this section examined the nature of project success and project

management success. The next sections of this paper will discuss about another

important issues, including project life cycle concept, construction project concept, the

distinction and interrelationship between project success criteria and project success

factors”.

3.3. Project Life Cycle Concept

Project life cycle is one important concept of project management literature. By

definition, project has a limited life span, from project start to when the project

outcome (product) is delivered to use. Project life cycle refers to such project life span,

usually in a pattern of typical three to five stages including initiation, execution or

development, and termination (Pinto and Prescott, 1988). Project life cycle has strong

relation to other areas of project literature.

25

3.4. Construction project

Based on the general definition of project, construction project can be defined as “…all

material and work necessary for the construction of a finished structure for occupancy

by End Customer… includes site preparation, foundations, mechanical, electrical work,

and any other work necessary to complete the project” (Steel building reference, 2005)

Figure 4, adopted from Chua et al (1999), presents a typical construction environment,

particular under the traditional procurement method. Key stakeholders can be pointed

out are Client, Contractors, Project Manager, Sub Contractors, Consultants, and

Suppliers & Manufacturers. The relationship between keys stakeholders in

construction project is presented in more detail in Figure 5, adopted from Fewings

(2005) in which the Construction Teams normally refers to Contractors, and the Design

Team normally refers to Consultants. As the term Client may lead to misinterpretation

in different contexts, in this dissertation the term Project Owner will be used as a

replacement for the term Client.

Figure 4: Typical Construction Project Environment (Chua et al., 1999)

26

Figure 5: Project structure diagram- executive project management model (Fewings, 2005)

Figure 6: Life cycle of construction project – Based on the CIBO (Figure 3.1) (Fewings, 2005)

In addition, in construction industry, a full project life cycle usually contains 7 stages in

including Inception, Feasibility & Strategy, Design & Tendering, Construction,

Engineering Commission, Completion & Handover, and Users Occupation &

Commission as showing in Figure 6 (Fewings, 2005). Basically, project constraints is

developed based on project owner’s business case at the Inception stage, followed by

testing the feasibility, affordability, and viability of project in the Feasibility stage, in

parallel with identifying how the project is carried out and controlled in the Strategy

stage. In the next stage, Design & Tendering, design team and construction team are

appointed with full pre-construction required documents such as design scheme,

tendering document, resources, health and safety plan or so forth. The next stage is

Construction where the physical facilities are actually built with heavily managerial

tasks such as controlling, monitoring, supply chain managing or so forth, followed by

27

the Engineering Commission stage where the facilities are comprehensively tested to

ensure the facilities can be operated appropriately as a whole. The project’s

construction activities then come to the end at the Completion and Handover stage

where not only documents are formally handover to facilities team but more

important the operability knowledge is transferred appropriately. In the final stage,

project owner will normally work collaboratively with user groups and facilities

operation teams in several activities such as equipment commissioning, occupiers

inducting, user training and so forth. The project success is also evaluated against

project objectives in the business case and lessons learnt for project manager and

project owner are gained.

Table 1: Role of project team at each stage of implements (Fewings, 2005)

28

Moreover, the role and responsibility of stakeholders changes across the project life

cycle as presented in the Table 1 by Fewings (2005). Noticeably, each stakeholder has

main role in one or few particular phases of a project except for project manager who

will have responsibilities for the whole project throughout the project life cycle.

As the main aims and objectives of this dissertation are not deeply researching on the

construction project’s nature, characteristics or so forth, this dissertation will adopt

the knowledge mentioned above for use in the next chapters with no further

discussion.

3.5. Measuring Project success and Success Criteria

Due to the disagreement in defining project success mentioned previously, it is also in

a debate of how to measure a project success. McCoy (1986) found that a wide-

accepted methodology to measure project success does not exist (cited by Baccarini,

1999). Pinto and Prescott (1988) also stated that how to measure a project success is

still elusive because the perception of project success and failure of the parties

involving the project are different, that is agreed by Baker et al (1988). Sanvido et al

(1990) found that the lists of success criteria in construction projects are various

between the three key stakeholders including designers, contractors, and owners. He

also found that there are both common criteria between the three stakeholders and

unique criteria related to only a particular stakeholder.

In addition, the concept of measuring project success has also changed overtime.

Traditionally, cost, time, and quality are used as main criteria for project success

measurement, well-known as “iron triangle” (Wit, 1988). However, due to the change

in the perception of project success, the selection of success criteria has also changed

significantly. Tuman (1986) stated “the days when we could define success in terms of

cost, time, schedule and technical objectives are gone…” and the need of address “a

much wider of needs, concerns, and issues which are presented to us by a diverse mix

of project stakeholders”. This statement is similar to the previous comment by

Baccarini (1999) that success criteria needs to take into account both dimensions of

project success, “hard” dimension and “soft” dimension. Hughes et al (2004) found

29

that along with traditionally wide-accepted success criteria such as time, cost,

quality/performance and safety (recently) in construction industry, there are also

other metrics more subjective and less-quatifiable but having significant impact on

perception of project success. In addition, Wit (1988) suggested that measuring project

success need to be taken in relation to organization success.

Another important aspect of success criteria is being time-driven. According to Wit

(1988), primary project objectives, as a success criteria, might vary throughout the

project life cycle and results in other success criteria.

3.6. Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

3.6.1. Success Factors and Success Criteria

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between success criteria and success factors. Wit

(1988) and other writers stated ‘success criteria’ is “the measures by which success or

failure of a project or business will be judged” while ‘success factor’s is “those inputs to

the management system that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the project or

business”. Similarly, Sanvido et al (1990) defined success criteria is “the measures of

determining whether a project is/was successful”; and success factors is “the factors

predictive of project success”.

The literature reveals that there is a strong interrelationship between success criteria

and critical success factor. For instance, Ashley (1986), cited by Wit (1988), found that

some factors are more directly related to specific criteria and their achievement than

other (Table 2).

Table 2: Success Factors – Success Criteria interrelationship (Ashley, DB, 1986)

Success Factor Success Criteria

Planning Effort (construction) Functionality

Project Management Technical Capabilities Client Satisfaction

Technical Uncertainty Client Satisfaction

Project Manager administration capabilities Budgets Performance

Legal political environment Follow-on work

30

3.6.2. The concept of Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Since first presented by Ruben & Seeling in 1967, critical success factors (CSFs) have

become a high-interested research area in project management literature. The study

of CSFs is considered as a mean for achieving project success by many authors (Torp et

al., 2004). A review of literature, however, revealed that the definition of CSFs is

various from different authors. Following are some of those definitions:

• CSFs are “those few things that must go well to ensure success for a manager or

an organization” in both short-term and long-term activities, demonstrating

“key areas, managerial or organizational, those must to be given special and

continuous attention to obtain high performance.” (Boynton and Zmud, 1984)

• CSFs is “the limited number of areas in which satisfactory result will ensure

successful competitive performance for the individual, department or

organization” (Bullen and Rockhart, 1981)

In general, although the variation among definitions, critical success factors in project

can be defined as “things or areas that must go well to ensure the project success in all

levels”.

3.6.3. Previous studies in Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Regardless the high level of agreement in the important role of CSFs, the literature

does not provide a consensus of a definitive set of success/failure factors (Korde et al.,

2005; Cooke-Davies, 2001). For instance, all important researches by key authors in the

field, both empirical and theoretical, such as Avot (1969); Martin (1976); Baker et al.,

(1983); Morris and Hough (1987); Slevin and Pinto (1987); etc, presented different sets

of success/failure criteria. Such issue may come from several reasons such as the

disagreement in the perception of project success as mentioned previously, the

difference in success measure criteria and methodology of measurement used, and the

various project nature due to the diversity of project contexts. Although the variation

in the findings of previous studies, it would still be able to draw some general trends

and key findings of researches in project critical success factors.

31

Generally, it can be seen the correspondence between the changing trend in project

critical success factors research and the changing trend in the perception of project

success and success criteria. In overall, CSFs studies have been moving from “a

mechanistic approach”, concerning purely “hard” technical issues and measuring

success against the traditional Cost-Time-Quality constraints, to a more integrated

approach, concerning both “hard” Technical issues and “soft” Organizational,

Behavioural, and Management issues (Torp et al., 2004). Along with such trend, CSFs

researches have moved from mainly focus on narrow project management process

success (concerning short-term objectives) to broader project success (concerning

long-term objectives). Table 3 shows the development of success criteria overtime,

adopted from Torp et al., (2004), and Sanvido et all, (1990).

Table 3: Development of success criteria overtime (Torp et al., 2004; Sanvido et all, 1990)

E=Empirical T=Theoretical

Research

Author

Critical Success Factors

(or failure)

Success Criteria &

Additional

Information

Ruben & Steling

(1967) (E)

(1)Project manager’s experience has minimal impact; (2) Size

of previous managed project does affect the manager’s

performance

Technical

performance

Avot (1969) (T) (1)Wrong PM selection; (2) Unplanned project termination;

(3) Unsupportive top management

Jonason (1971)

(T)

Sayles &

Chandler (1971)

(T)

(1)Project manager’s competence; (2) Scheduling; (3) Control

systems and responsibilities; (4) Monitoring and Feedback;

(5) Continuous involvement in the project

Archibald

(1976) (T)

Martin (1976)

(T)

(1)Define Goals; (2) Selection of project organizational

philosophy; (3) General management support; (4) Organize

and delegate authority; (5) Selection of project team; (6)

Allocate sufficient resource; (6) Provide for control and

information mechanisms; (8) Require planning and review

Baker, Murphy

& Fisher (1983)

(E)

(1)Clear goals; (2) Goal commitment of project team; (3) On-

site project manager; (4) Adequate funding to completion; (5)

Adequate project team capability; (6) Accurate initial cost

estimates; (7) Minimum start-up difficulties; (8) Planning and

control techniques; (9) Task - social orientation; (10) Absence

of bureaucracy

Cleland & King

(1983)

(T)

(1)Project summary; (2) Operational concept; (3) Top

management support; (4) Financial support; (5) Logistic

requirements; (6) Facility support; (7) Market intelligence; (8)

Project schedule; (9) Executive development and training;

(10) Manpower & Organisation; (11) Acquisition; (12)

32

Information & Communication Channels; (13) Project review

Asley, Lurie &

Jaselskis (1987)

(E)*

Major: (1) Management; (2) Organization; (4)

Communication; (5) Scope & Planning; (6) Controls; (7)

Environmental (Economic, Political, Social, Technical)

Detail: (1)Goal Commitment; (2) PM Capability (Tech), (AMD),

(HRM); (3) Design/Planning; (4) Construction/Planning; (5)

PM Team Motivation; (6) Scope/Work Define; (7) Control

Systems; (9) Safety; (10) Design-Interface Management; (11)

Technical Uncertainty; (13) Risk Identification &

Management; (14) Legal/Political Environment

Schedule

Budget

Functionality

Follow-on Work

Capabilities Build

Up

Specification

(Quality)

Contractor

Satisfaction

Client Satisfaction

PM Team

Satisfaction

End User

Satisfaction

Morris & Hough

(1987) (E)

(1) Project objectives; (2) Technical innovation uncertainty;

(3) Politics; (4) Community involvement; (5) Schedule

duration urgency; (6) Financial contract legal problems; (7)

Implementation problems

Pinto & Slevin

(1987) (E)

Schultz, Slevin

& Pinto (1987)

(T)

Pinto &

Prescott (1988)

(E)

Pinto & Slevin

(1989) (E)

Pinto &

Prescott (1990)

(E)

Strategy: (1) Mission (Project objectives); (2) Top

management support; (3) Schedule/Plan

Tactics: (1) Client Consultation; (2) Personnel (Human

Relations); (3) Technical tasks; (4) Client Acceptance; (5)

Monitoring and Feedback (Project control); (6)

Communication; (7) Trouble Shooting (Problem handling)

External: (1) Characteristics of project team leader; (2) Power

and Politics; (3) Environment Event; (4) Urgency

Other Findings:

Relative importance of the CSFs change significantly based on

life cycle change

� Conceptualization: Mission, Client Consultation

� Planning: Project Mission, Top Management Support, Client

Consultation, Client Acceptance

� Execution: Schedule/Plans, Personnel, Technical tasks,

Trouble Shooting, Client consultation

� Termination: Client Acceptance, Client Consultation

Relative important of the two CSFS groups, planning

(strategy) and tactics, change across the four stages in the

project life cycle. When an efficiency success measure is used,

planning factors are initially perceived to be of high

importance but are overtaken by tactical issues as the project

progresses through its life cycle. When 'external' success

measures are used, project planning factors dominate tactics

throughout the project's life cycle

Adherence to

Budget

Adherence to

Schedule

Level of

performance

Achieved

Technical Validity

Organizational

Validity

Organizational

Effectiveness

33

Tukel & Rom

(1998) (E)

(1) Availability of Resources; (2) Top management support;

(3) Client consultation; (4) Predetermination Estimates; (5)

Project managers’ performance.

Pinto &

Kharbanda

(1995) (T)

(1) Mission at the forefront; (2) Early & Continual Client

Consultation; (3) Technology; (4) Scheduling system; (5)

Project team; (6) Top Management Support; (7) Continual

‘What if?’ Approach

Walid & Oya

(1996) (E)

Four groups of CSFs:

Factors related to project itself

Factors related to PM & PM Team

Factors related to Organisation

Factors related to External Environment

Frame work for

determining CSFs

In the first period, research in project critical success factors mainly focus on achieving

success of project management process and only on the “hard” side of success. Such

trend was demonstrated through the main success criteria used by majority of authors

in this period as being ‘traditional’ cost, time, and quality, such as Ruben & Seeling

(1967). The CSFs found in the studies in this time are usually involving technical issues

such as Scheduling, Control System, Monitoring and Feedback, and so forth (Sayles &

Chandler, 1971). However, the awareness of the importance of “soft” and long-term

success has increased overtime that leads to the use of more “soft” success criteria

such as stakeholder satisfaction, although the three traditional success criteria are still

crucial. For instance, Wit (1988) cited the result of Ashley (1986) revealing that the

most frequent six success criteria used to measure construction project success are: (1)

Budget performance; (2) Client Satisfaction; (3) Contractors Satisfaction; (4)

Functionality Project Management; (5) Team Satisfaction; (6) Schedule Performance.

Three of these criteria are related to the satisfaction of stakeholders. Therefore, there

are more CSFs identified related to managerial, behavioural, and organizational

aspects such as Project Organizational Philosophy, Top Management Support, Organize

and Delegate Authority, Selection of Project Team, Goal Commitment of the Project

Team, Team Capability, (Martin, 1976; Baker, Murphy & Fisher, 1983); Executive

development and training, Communication Channel, Acquisition (Cleland and King,

1983); Community Involvement (Morris & Hughes, 1987); etc. Recently, the Project

Management Conference by Association for project managements (APM) (2008)

developed a new set of key factors for improving opportunity of project success,

suggesting that the first main critical factor for achieving project success is selecting

‘right projects’ with ‘right people’, stopping ‘wrong projects’, all in areas of project

portfolio management (cited by Trillwood, 2009). This suggestion is agreed by OGC

34

(2009) stating that project portfolio management, appropriate selection of personnel,

and collaboration between team members are key factors for project success (cited by

Trillwood, 2009). The APM report and OGC paper demonstrated the change in the

perception of project success from achieving sorely project management process

success to achieving a broader project success in multi-level, including product level,

project level, and organizational level as discussed previously.

In addition, it can be seen the change in the scope of CSFs researches. Overtime

researches in CSFs have become more comprehensive, covering broader areas of

project management and organization. One remarkable contribution is the Martin’s

theoretical study (1976), identifying eight critical success factors that are more

comprehensive compared to its previous studies including: (1) Clear Goals, (2)

Selection of project organizational philosophy (related to project itself); (3) Selection of

project team (related to project team); (4) General Management support, (5) Organize

and delegate authority (related to the project - organization relationship); (6) Provide

for control and information mechanisms, (7) Require planning and review (related to

technical project management process), and (8) Allocate sufficient resource (related to

resource) (Martin, 1976; cited by Belassi and Tukel, 1996). These CSFs were reinforced

and supplemented by similar CSFs found in an later empirical research by Baker,

Murphy & Fisher (1983) such as Clear Goals (project); Planning and Control

Techniques, Adequate funding to completion (resource); Absence of bureaucracy

(information/authority); Adequate project team capability, Goal Commitment of

project team (project team); and by Cleland & King (1983) such as Top management

support (the project - organization relationship); Information and Communication

channels (communication), or Project Schedule (technical management process) (cited

by (Torp et al., 2004).

Furthermore, the similarity in the above findings suggested that although the variation

in the finding of CSFs researches, it can find somewhat consensus in the literature.

Tukel and Rom (1998) found that Availability of resources; Top management support;

Project managers’ performance; Client consultation; and Predetermined criteria are

common critical success factors for projects across diverse industries. Korde et al

35

(2005) reviewed large number of studies in CSFs in construction project and found 38

CSFs in high consensus as presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Consensus Factors Affecting Construction Performance Measures (Korde et al., 2005)

36

Another striking contribution to body of knowledge in project CSFs was from Pinto et

al. Slevin and Pinto (1986; 1987) presented a well known set of CSFs with ten CSFs

including: (1) Project objectives (latterly called Mission); (2) Top management support;

(3) Project planning (latterly called Project Schedule/Plan); (4) Communication with

client (latterly called Client Consultation); (5) Human relations (latterly called

Personnel); (6) Technical tasks; (7) Client Acceptance; (8) Project control (latterly called

Monitoring and Feedback); (9) Communication; (10) Problem handling (latterly called

Trouble-Shooting). Using this framework in study 52 large projects in US, they found

that the factors related to meet client’s needs are the most important (cited by Dvir et

al., 1998). In addition, Pinto and Slevin (1989) added four “external” critical success

factors along with mentioned ten CSFs. Such four new CSFs are often beyond the

control of the project team but may have significant impact on the project success,

including Characteristics of project team leader, Power and Politics, Environment

Event, Urgency. The concept of “external” critical success factors were also mentioned

in earlier study by Morris & Hough (1987), with several factors such as Technical

innovation uncertainty; Politics; Community involvement.

Another important finding in CSFs was related to the relative important of each factor

across project life cycle. Pinto and Prescott (1988) revealed that the relative

importance of the ten project CSFs mentioned previously change across four stages in

the project life cycle. The relative importance of CSFs in each stage is as following:

• Conceptualization (Phase I): Mission, Client Consultation

• Planning (Phase II): Project Mission, Top Management Support, Client

Consultation, Client Acceptance

• Execution (Phase III): Schedule/Plans, Personnel, Technical tasks, Trouble

Shooting, Client consultation

• Termination (Phase IV): Client Acceptance, Client Consultation

Moreover, it found that project success factors are in fact contingent and non-

universal for all projects and different type of projects demonstrates different sets of

CSFs (Dvir et al., 1998). This finding was supported for an early research by Pinto and

37

Covin (1989), comparing CSFs in R&D project and construction project and finding that

critical success factors are contingent in different types of project and at different

stages in the project life cycle. Torp et al (2004) also found the difference in CSFs

between building project and infrastructure project (road/railway). In addition, the

nature of project initiating organization also impact to the CSFs in project (HYVÄRI,

2006)

Recently, there is a trend to use a list of larger number of factors and in a higher

degree of detail for determining CSFs. Chua et al (1999) presented 67 success factors

grouped into 4 main groups to identify CSFs in construction projects. Those success

factors were analysed in a relation to four main success criteria including budget

performance, schedule performance, quality performance, and overall performance,

and by four different stakeholders including project manager, client, contractor, and

consultant. While the research provided more options and good methods for

determining CSFs; and proved the interrelationship between success criteria and

success factors, the interrelationship between groups of factors was not strongly

reflected and the research tend to focus on the “hard” side of project success as short-

term achieving project management success. Zhang (2005) also adopted the larger list

approach in identifying CSFs in public –private partnerships projects, whereby each CSF

holds a list of sub-factors (SSFs). Such approach is also used by Saqid et al (2008) to

examine the CSFs in construction project in Pakistan, with 77 success factors grouped

in 7 groups, seemingly more comprehensive than the framework used by Chua et al

(1999). However, although addressing the variation in the perception of different

stakeholders in success criteria and project success, the result of this research did not

reflect such issue. Park (2009) even took a step further with a set of 188 individual

factors and 10 common factors for determining CSFs for the whole life performance

assessment in construction project. In general, the using a large number success

factors in different level of detail for determining CSFs in project is a potential

approach as it give more option to deal with various project contexts and help to

recover as much as possible CSFs of a particular project. However, the interrelationship

between CSFs may be difficult to demonstrate into this approach.

38

Concerning the application of CSFs, several authors spent their attempts to apply the

CSFs methodology in practice, demonstrating both advantages and shortcomings.

Boynton and Zmud (1984) suggested that CSFs concept can be apply as a means of

supporting management information system (MIS) planning and requirement analysis.

Although this research focused on CSFs in organizational level, it is obviously

contribute to the success in project level. Several weaknesses of CSFs methodology

were also pointed out as being difficult to use, high personal bias, and the limitation in

human capability. Clarke (1999) presented a practical way to integrate CSFs concept

into process of solving problems in organization, with four main CSFs are

Communication throughout the projects, Clear objectives and scope, Breaking the

project into ‘bit sized chunks’, and Using project plans as working documents. Pinto

(1990) developed the instrument called Project Implementation Profile (PIP) that was

used in his earlier studies and based on his famous ten CSFs to use as a aiding tool for

project tracking and control. His also presented a 4-step process of applying his PIP

tool in actual practice that collects data as much as possible from key stakeholders

such as project manager, project team members and end-users, and compared to the

collected data base. Finch (2003) adopted such PIP tool to an information system

project. He found that, beside the advantages of such tool, some possible

shortcomings are the limitation of number ten of CSFs that may not cover all the

possible critical factors in projects, the inter-ratter reliability of result, and the

transferability of the tool under the influences of gender, culture and politics. Park

(2009) applied the CSFs methodology to develop a whole life performance assessment

(WLAP) instrument in construction projects, and was able to present a criteria matrix

as an initial framework for WLAP in order to support decision making process at the

bid stage. However the validity of this matrix seems a question as it is not able to apply

a general set of CSFs for every project as discussed previously.

In addition, there are still many obstacles in successfully applying the CSF methodology

to achieve project success. Clarke (1999) stated that the unsystematic nature of CSFs

identified in the literature may lead to the lack of understanding by users. In addition,

other issues leading to the lack of applying CSFs concept in practice were pointed out

by Korde et al (2005). The first issue, that may be the possible reason for the different

39

finding in existing CSFs studies, is the lack of clarity or precision in the definition of the

factors identified that may lead to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation by

different users. For instance, the factor Team Capability can be interpreted in various

ways such as having required skills to complete tasks or the ability to work in group of

team members or both. Secondly, in many cases the same factors are described by

different terminology that leads to the overlap in measurement. For instance,

“competence of worker” and “suitability of the workforce” seem refer to the same

meaning. Moreover, the scope and definition of many factors identified in literature

are so ambiguous that leads to the difficulty in assessing as well as expressing their

outcome. For instance, “project manager’s competence” is considering as a CSF in

several researches, but what “competence” really means, what it’s scope is, and how it

should be valued (good, best, enough?) or even what good/bad mean. Finally, how to

match the definition of factors and related values into the existing data collected from

other management functions is an important question (Korde et al., 2005). All of issues

mentioned above limited the ability to apply the concept of project CSFs in real

practice.

3.6.4. Critical Success Factors Frameworks

One of effective means to shift the understanding about CSFs is using framework to

classify and categorize success factor in a more systematic and logical structure. The

first attempt in this area is by Morris as Hough (1986), who examined project success

in three aspects, including project functionality, project management, contractor’s

commercial performance. This may be the first research making a strong statement

about the existing of two distinction groups of success/failure factor, “external” factor

and “internal” factors. However, the attempt just stopped in presenting a new concept

model.

Another attempt in categorizing CSFs is presented by (Pinto and Slevin, 1988a), who

grouped their well-known ten CSFs in two categories, namely, planning (later called

strategic) and tactical. The interrelationship between the ten factors and the

clarification is showed in Figure 7. Their relevant researches also came to conclusion

that factors in strategic group is always more important the ones in tactical group,

40

although the relative important of every CSFs change across all stages of project life

cycle. Although providing insights in the independence and interrelationship between

the two groups factors in general, the frame work mainly focus on the project

management (process) success level and project lifecycle rather than on product

success and organization success level. The framework also did not include “external”

factors although it is mentioned in earlier research by Pinto & Slevin (1984). In

addition, the framework itself also did not present the interrelationship and

interaction among individual factors in the two groups. Moreover, the framework is

mainly theoretical and very difficult to use in day-by-day managing process.

Figure 7: The Ten CSFs (Pinto and Slevin, 1988a)

The limitation in the previous frameworks was partly improved by Belassi and Tukel

(1996). Recognizing that almost all previous studies just tried to provide a list of CSFs

rather than clarifying them into a logical system, Belassi and Tukel (1996) presented a

new framework that groups CSFs into 4 categorises: factors related to the project,

factors related to the project manager and team, factors related to the organization,

and factors related to external environment. Figure 8 present the framework by Belassi

and Tukel (1996).

41

Figure 8: The new framework of CSFs in project (Belassi and Tukel, 1996)

One of advantages of the new framework is taking into account the characteristic of

project itself, project teams and external environment that is not clearly mentioned in

previous studies. In addition, the framework also presented the causal relationship

between the factors in different groups by introducing the “fifth” factors group called

“system response”. Although the authors did not give a clear definition, such group is

based on the argument that many CSFs are in fact the ‘secondary’ factors that is

resulted from other ‘primary’ factors. For instance, the factor availability of resource

can be considered as a “system response” to several other factors such as top

management support, market condition or so forth. Furthermore, by grouping the

factors in logical groups, the framework provides a required flexibility to deal with the

42

difficulty in identifying CSFs in various project contexts. On the other words, any factor

in a particular project can belong to at least one group factors. Moreover, the

framework is also ‘open’ and easily adaptable to specific context of any project, as

practitioners can add more factors found critical in their particular projects. On the

other hand, although the significant improving in systematization and

comprehensiveness, the drawback of the framework is difficult to apply in practical

managing process as it is a general concept model rather than a practical tool, that

need deeper research in the causal relationship between CSFs and measurement

techniques (Belassi and Tukel, 1996).

Many later authors adopted the (Belassi and Tukel, 1996) framework with some

improvement to adapt to their research context. Significantly, Saqid et al (2008),

presenting a framework for assessment of CSFs for construction projects in Pakistan

with 77 CSFS into seven groups are:

• Group 1_ Project management factors

• Group 2_ Procurement related factors

• Group 3_Client related factors

• Group 4_Design related factors

• Group 5_Contractors related factors

• Group 6_Project manager related factors

• Group 7_Business and work environment related factors

In fact, the framework is quite similar but gives more detail that reflexes the specific

context of construction industry to the Belassi and Tukel (1996) framework. For

example, the group 4 and 5 are equivalent to the group related to project team; the

group 3 is equivalent to organization related group (as client in construction industry is

usually also project owner). On the other hand, this framework provided some

differences such as it distinguishes between the factors related to project manager and

teams (actors) with the factors related to the project management process (activities).

In addition, the framework adopted some features that was developed by Sanvido et

al (1990), for example, procurement related factors group is a new feature, referring to

43

the formal relationship between actors that was actually mention in earlier research

with the term “contract” in Sanvido et al research.

Earlier, Sanvido et al (1990) presented a framework for determining CSFs in

construction projects that was initially derived from The Integrated Building Process

Model (IBPM) by Sanvido (1990). The framework divided CSFs in nine main categorises

including:

• The Facility Team

• The Contract, Obligation, and Changes

• Facility Experience

• Resource

• Product Information

• Optimization Information

• Performance Information

• Constraints

• Product

Each of these main categorises contains several elements, with the total number of 41

elements. On advantage of the framework was showing a comprehensive

interrelationship between the managing process of the main management functions

and the “actors”, both are related to success factors. Moreover, framework well

presented success criteria from the perspective of different stakeholders, namely,

owner’s criteria, designer’s criteria, and contractors’ criteria.

Some other authors come with another direction, called critical COMs such as Nguyen

et al (2004) or Toor and Ogunlana (2008). Nguyen et al (2004) group CSFs in four

categories, called four COMs, including:

• COMFORTS_ concerning the issue of providing adequate funding, resources,

effort and leadership throughout the project life cycle.

• COMMITMENT_ concerning the commitment of all project participant at any

level, clear objective and scope, clear responsibility, and top management

support

44

• COMPETENCE_ concerning the issue of having appropriate experience,

competent project team, technology and incentive contract to right specialist.

• COMMUNICATION_ concerning the issue of adopting an effective information

system that is accessible and disseminates up-to-date important information to

all project’s stakeholders.

Toor and Ogunlana (2008) adopted such framework but replace Comfort by

Comprehensive and used considerably different sub-elements. However, both studies

did not provide a significant improve as all CSFs used were presented in previous

studies. In addition, the interrelationship between the four groups of CSFs in “critical”

COMs is not clear or mentioned. Moreover, such framework seem ignore the impact of

external factors. In general, this way of clarification of CSFs seems present a theoretical

concept rather than to use in practical managing process.

Many other authors also present their own framework of CSFs for specific cases. Dvir

et al (1998) presented a framework of CSFs in defence projects that mainly focuses on

the managerial process. He groups CSFs into 4 categorises including Project initiation

and pre-contract activities; Project preparations and design policy, technological

infrastructure and design method; Planning and control process; and Organizational

and managerial environment. In fact, the three first groups refer to managerial process

in different phases of a project when the last group refers to the environment in which

the managerial process is performed. The advantage of this framework is using multi-

variables to assess multi-dimension of project success including meeting design goals

and benefit to the customers. However, the framework seemed ignore the role of

external factors and mainly focus on issue within the boundary of project level.

Park (2009) present a framework for determining CSFs for implementing Whole Life

Performance Assessment. HE groups CSFs in 8 main categorises including Scope; Cost;

Time; Quality; Contract/Admin; Risk; Human Resource; and Health& Safety. This frame

work is mainly ‘criteria-orientated’ in its way of clarifying CSFs. However, the author

did not provide reason for such clarification.

45

In conclusion, although there are a numbers of authors contributed to the issue of

clarification of CSFs, only some of them generate distinctive contribution, such as Pinto

& Slevin (1984); Moris & Hough (1986); Sanvido et al (1990); or Belassi and Tukel

(1996). In addition, none of existing frameworks is comprehensive and flexible enough

to use in practice of day-by-day project management process.

46

Chapter IV: A new Framework of CSFs in project

As stated above, it seems that none of existing framework is comprehensive but simple

and flexible enough to use in day-by-say project managing process. This chapter will try

to develop a new framework that can be use as an aid tool for project owner and

project manager for determining CSFs in construction project. The tool would have to

provide the flexibility necessary to take into account all important aspects such as the

nature of project itself; the natural process of delivering a construction project; the

role, responsibility of, and interrelationships between stakeholders, the

interrelationship between project success, product success and organization success,

the interrelationship between “success” and “criteria”, the variation of relative

importance of CSFs in different stages of project, and impact of external factors. In

addition, this frame work should be simple and intuitive enough to use in practical

managing process.

Based on all the needs for the new framework and adopting advantages from existing

frameworks in the literature, a new CSFs framework is developed. The framework

contains several key features as explained following:

4.1. The new framework structure:

The framework is presented in a tabular form. Each column presents a correspondent

CSFs group. Each row presents a correspondent stage of the construction project life-

cycle. Each sell presents individual CSFs those belong to the correspondent CSFs

groups and are considered highly relative important at the correspondent stage. The

form of the framework is presented in Appendix 1.

4.2. The new framework CSFs groups:

Based on the framework of Belassi and Tukel (1996), this framework groups all CSFs

into three main groups including: Internal Factors Group, External Factors Group, and

“System Response” Group. Each of main group also has sub-groups. In addition, factors

in one group are inter-related to factors in other groups. The advantage of grouping

CSFs in such categorises was discussed in the chapter III, Literature Review.

47

Firstly, Internal Factors Group refers to all CSFs those are considered to occur relatively

within the “boundary” of the project, and directly or partly related to project itself,

project owner, project manager and project team. Therefore, the Internal Factors

Group includes 4 sub-groups: Project Owner (PO); Project Manager (PM); Project

Teams (PT); and Project (Pr). Each sub-group is presented in a separated column with

correspondent “responsibility”. For instance, Project Owner is presented with the

correspondent “responsibility” as Corporation, Directing & Approving; Project

Manager is presented with the correspondent “responsibility” as Management; Project

Team is presented with the correspondent “responsibility” as Delivery. In addition, the

term “Project Teams” refers to one or more stakeholders who have main role in

different stages of project. For instance, at the Inception stage the term “project

teams” refers to Architect who has main role in such stage while at the Construction

stage such term may refers to Construction Teams (contractors), Construction

Manager, Quantity Surveyor or so forth.

On the other hand, External Factors Group refers to all CSFs those are considered to

occur relatively outside the “boundary” of the project, out of the control of project

owner, project manager and project team but having significant impact on the project.

The External Factors Group (EF) has 2 sub-groups: Sub-contractors, End-users, and

Other Stakeholders; and Others. However, the two sub-groups are presented in the

same column in order to present information in a compact form.

Finally, System Response Group refers to all CSFs those are considered as managerial

“responses” to the External Factors and the Internal Factors in order of successful

delivering the project. System Response Group contains individual CSFs and one sub-

group of CSFs that is considered strongly related to all stakeholders throughout the

project lifecycle, namely, Stakeholder Factors (SF)

4.3. The new framework Time Dimension:

The framework is a ‘lifecycle-orientated’ structure. Based on the studies in

construction project lifecycle mentioned in the Chapter III, the CSFs in this framework

48

will include seven stages of a construction project: Inception; Feasibility & Strategy;

Design & Tendering; Construction; Engineering Commission; Completion & Handover;

and Users Occupation & Commission. Such ‘stage-orientated’ approach focuses on the

project management process success and partly on product success, with an

hypothesis that success of management at one stage will improve the opportunity to

achieve success in the next stage.

In addition, presenting CSFs in a order of stage helps project owner and project

manager not only to concentrate on critical factors with high relative importance in a

particular stage of project but also can predict what factors may become more

“critical” in the next stages according to the interrelationship between all of CSFs. For

instance, if Project Type is a critical success factor in the Inception stage that may lead

to other critical factors such as Urgency or Uniqueness in the next stage of Feasibility &

Strategy.

4.4. Deriving CSFs for the new framework

One of important elements of the new framework is individual CSFs. This section will

introduce the process of deriving hypothesized CSFs from the literature for the new

framework in order to use in the empirical survey.

As presented in Chapter III, Korde et al (2005) presented a comprehensive literature

review in construction performance models and factors, examining a large number of

data. According their report, there are 39 (of 77) factors those are in high agreement

of being “significant” to construction project performance (Table 3) with

correspondent performance metrics used. Each CSF appears at least in more than 20

percentages of reviewed studies. This list of CSFs was adopted and adapted to the new

framework by brainstorming and assuming. In addition, given many CSFs in the list

being considered “critical” when the performance metric used is Productivity that is

out of scope of this paper, therefore any CSF in the list was only adopted if the

correspondent performance metric used is at least one of among Time, Cost and

Overall performance. In addition, several CSFs name will be redefined and regroup to

present a clearer meaning and avoid any possible overlap. For instance, the factors

49

“Crew Ability” and “Experience” can be replaced by one factor “Experience &

Competence” in which Competence is defined as the acquisition of knowledge skills

and abilities at a level of expertise sufficient to be able to perform in an appropriate

work setting. Furthermore, given the fact that no list of CSFs can cover all possible CSFs

due to the diversity of projects, several others factors those are hypothesized ‘critical’

in previous studies were also added to the framework as ‘testing’ CSFs. Moreover, as

the main purpose of the framework is serving as a basic model, therefore the adapting

CSFs from literature to the framework was based on several hypotheses that can be

change depend on the specific project context. The hypotheses are:

• Hypothesis 1: Each CSF will be mainly responsible or relevant to one main

‘actor’ such as project manager or architecture at a specific stage

• Hypothesis 2: Each CSF will be more relative important in one or more certain

stages than in the others (Pinto and Prescott, 1988)

The role and responsibility of each actor was presented in chapter III, (Table 1),

adopted from Fewings (2005). The procedure of adapting each CSF to the framework

was as following:

• Step 1: The CSF will be firstly examined to address the correspondent CSFs

groups based on the main relevant ‘actor’

• Step 2: The CSF will be hypothesized to be more relative important in one or

more specific stages based on the nature of work in the stages.

The full CSFs framework is presented in the Appendix 2. The result of adopting CSFs for

CSFs groups in the framework is presented as following:

Group 1: Factors related to Project (Pr)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the Project group including:

• Inception: Project Type & Nature, Project Mission & Constraint;

50

• Feasibility & Strategy: Project Organization Structure; Project Size & Value,

Project Location, Project Uniqueness; Project Urgency

• Design & Tendering: Design Complexity; Contract Complexity

• Construction: Construction Complexity; Project Density

• Engineering & Commission: Engineering Complexity

• Completion & Handover: Operation Complexity

• Users Occupation & Commission: Maintenance Complexity

Group 2: Factors related Project Owner (PO)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the Project Owner group including:

• Inception: PO Business Case; PO Corporate Programme; PO Characteristic; PO

Experience & Competence

• Feasibility & Strategy: PO Experience & Competence; PO Decision Making

Effectiveness; PO Top Management Support; PO Approval

• Design & Tendering: PO Consultation & Direction ; PO Decision Making

Effectiveness; PO Top Management Support; PO Approval

• Construction: PO Consultation & Direction ; PO Decision Making Effectiveness;

PO Top Management Support; PO Approval

• Engineering & Commission: PO Consultation & Direction ; PO Decision Making

Effectiveness; PO Approval

• Completion & Handover: PO Consultation & Direction ; PO Decision Making

Effectiveness; PO Approval

• Users Occupation & Commission: PO Evaluation Effectiveness; PO

Administration Effectiveness

Group 3: Factors related to Project Manager (PM)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the Project Manager group including:

• Inception: PM Experience & Competence; PM perception of role/responsibility;

PM Technical Capability; Authority Delegated & Delegating

• Feasibility & Strategy: Planning & Scheduling Competence; Risk Assessment

Competence; Motivating & Leadership; Authority Delegated & Delegating

51

• Design & Tendering: Planning & Scheduling Competence; Motivating &

Leadership Competence; Design Management Competence; Procurement

Management Competence; Authority Delegated & Delegating

• Construction: Planning & Scheduling Competence; Monitoring & Control

Competence; Motivating & Leadership Competence; Organizing Competence;

Change & Conflict Management Competence; Authority Delegated &

Delegating

• Engineering & Commission: Monitoring & Control Competence; Motivating &

Leadership Competence; ; Organizing Competence; Authority Delegated &

Delegating

• Completion & Handover: Knowledge Management Competence; Motivating &

Leadership Competence; Authority Delegated & Delegating

• Users Occupation & Commission: Knowledge Management Competence

Group 4: Factors related to Project Teams (PT)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the Project Owner group including:

• Inception: Architect Experience & Competence

• Feasibility & Strategy: Architect Experience & Competence; Quantity Surveyor

Experience & Competence

• Design & Tendering: Design Team Experience & Competence; Quantity

Surveyor Experience & Competence; Construction Manager Experience &

Competence; Planning Supervisor Experience & Competence

• Construction: Construction Team Experience & Competence; Quantity Surveyor

Experience & Competence; Construction Manager Experience & Competence;

Site Manager Experience & Competence

• Engineering & Commission: Architect Experience & Competence; Construction

Manager Experience & Competence

• Completion & Handover: Operation Team Experience & Competence

• Users Occupation & Commission: Operation Team Experience & Competence

Group 5: Factors related to System Response (SR)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the System Response group including:

52

• Inception: Comprehensive Outline Planning

• Feasibility & Strategy: Option & Viability Assessment; Availability of Resource;

Risk-VFM Assessment & Allocation; Comprehensive Outline Design;

Comprehensive Execution Plan; Designability Information;

• Design & Tendering: Site Investigation Effectiveness; Comprehensive Design

Scheme; Constructability Information; Health & Safety Plan; Comprehensive

Tender Document

• Construction: % Design Completion; Site Management Effectiveness;

Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness; Quality Control Effectiveness; Sub-

contractors Performance; Trouble Shooting Effectiveness; Cost & Cash Flow

Management Effectiveness, Operability Information

• Engineering & Commission: Comprehensive System Testing; Trouble Shooting

Effectiveness; Operability Information

• Completion & Handover: Operation & Maintenance Training; Document &

Knowledge Handover

• Users Occupation & Commission: Lesson Learn for PM & PO ; Post Occupation

Assessment; End Users Feedback

Group 7: Factors related to External Factors (EF)

Several CSFs can be considered belonging to the System Response group including:

• Inception: Political Environment; Social Environment; Economical Environment;

Technology Environment; Competitors; Market Demands

• Feasibility & Strategy: Site Condition; Market Condition; Relevant Law &

Regulation

• Design & Tendering: Site Condition; Market Condition; Relevant Law &

Regulation

• Construction: Site Condition; Market Condition; Relevant Law & Regulation;

Sub-contractors Experience & Competence; Exceptional Event (weather…)

• Engineering & Commission: Relevant Law & Regulation; Exceptional Event

(weather…)

• Completion & Handover: Relevant Law & Regulation; Exceptional Event

(accident…)

53

• Users Occupation & Commission: Relevant Law & Regulation; Exceptional

Event (accident…)

Group 8: Factors related to Stakeholder (SF)

Four CSFs can be considered belonging to the Stakeholder Factors group including:

• Contract Management Effectiveness

• Communication Effectiveness

• Coordination Effectiveness

• Commitment of all Stakeholders

This chapter introduced the process and results of developing a new framework of

CSFs in project. The next chapter will present the empirical survey that uses this new

framework as an aid tool for determining CSFs in construction projects from the

viewpoint of project management master students.

54

Chapter V: Empirical Survey

This chapter will report the process and result of the empirical survey conducted for

the purpose of testing the effectiveness of the framework, and determining the CSFs in

construction projects from the UK project management students’ viewpoint. The first

section will present the methodology of the survey, followed by the section presenting

the result of data collection and analysis, and the finally section will discuss about the

result of the survey in a comparison with findings in the previous studies.

5.1. Survey Methodology:

5.1.1. Survey Method

According McNeil (1990), survey methods can be clarified into four categories

including mail survey, telephone survey, email survey and personal survey. The Table 5

presents these categories with their characteristic (McNeil, 1990). In order to adopt a

suitable survey method for this dissertation, several critical factors were taken into

account including time constraint, network connection constraint, resource constraint,

respondents characteristic, and so forth, against the advantage and disadvantages of

each survey method.

Table 5: A comparison of survey methods (Trillwood, 2009) adopted form (McNeil, 1990)

Firstly, time is the most critical factor for presented survey. Given the limitation of time

for the present survey (less than 1 month), the survey method by mail is unappreciated

to apply as the time to collect responses is long with low response rate, although the

bias is low. All others three survey method are potential for use. Secondly, concerning

survey response rate, telephone survey and personal survey are priority. However,

given to the limitation of the surveyor’s network connection as a student, it is difficult

to obtain a high number of telephone connections or face-to-face personal interviews.

55

Otherwise, email survey can send to a larger number of potential respondents and

might receive an equal number of responses although with lower response rate.

Thirdly, concerning survey bias, all three survey methods (telephone, email, and

personal) are high bias. Fourthly, concerning survey cost, email surveys is the cheapest

method compared to telephone survey and personal survey that is critical with a

student survey. Fifthly, email survey is the highest anonymous that is important to the

present survey as many respondents will not ready to reveal their individual. However,

email survey is less flexible than the other survey as the email surveyors must passively

wait for the responses, while it can be more flexible in telephone survey or personal

survey as questions and answers sequence is flexible with more opportunities to

collect deeper information if necessary.

Considering all issues above, email survey seems the prefer choice for the present

survey. This conclusion is reinforced by several other advantages of email survey such

as distance-free, time flexible for respondents, and saving time as surveyor can

continue different tasks during the time of data collection. On the other hand, several

other issues need to consider, such as ‘spam email’ issue as email filter engines may

see the survey email as spam email; and the ‘reluctance’ of respondents to spend time

to answer a long list of questions then send back.

In order to overcome disadvantages mentioned above, several solutions were

considered. To deal with the “spam issue”, the email will be sent from an email

address of Manchester University (@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk) with a cover letter as

attachment explaining the purpose of the survey. The cover letter also presents a

commission of keeping information confidentiality and sharing result as an

encouragement for respondents. The later issue of ‘reluctance’ may be partly

overcome by a new survey method, namely, Web-based survey. Such type of survey

not only contains several advantages of the email survey method as mentioned above,

but also more convenient for both surveyors and respondents. Surveyors can develop

a set of questions on a website with a plenty of question templates suitable for their

research purpose, send the link of the website to the respondents, and then collects

56

data on web. The respondents just click the link to open the website and easily fill the

questionnaires that takes a little of time and effort.

In conclusion, as a result of a careful consideration, a combination of email and web-

based survey method was selected for the present survey. A web-based questionnaire

was built on the Survey Monkey website then the link to the website was sent to the

respondents by the surveyor’s university email address with a cover letter as

mentioned above. The email also includes a copy of the framework developed

previously that can be used as an aid tool for respondents for answering

questionnaires.

5.1.2. Questionnaire Design

It was well proved in literature that design of questionnaires is critical task in data

collection as questionnaires need to be designed carefully to help the researchers

extract specific information from respondents. Several issues need to be considered in

designing questionnaire including the instruction for completion, the appearance, the

length, the order and so forth. The process of conducting questionnaire for the survey

in this dissertation was followed three steps suggested by Nauom (1999), including

conducting initial questions, grouping questions, and editing questions.

In the first step, a list of questions was conducted based on the existing questionnaires

reviewed in the literature and the CSFs in the new framework. A number of initial

questions were conducted is both open and semi-open form. The open questions were

designed in order to give a opportunities for respondents to express wider personal

opinion. The semi-open questions were all in form of multiple rating-scale questions

with the option of comment field that not only provides a quick and convenient way to

collect expected information but also provides the option to express more opinion for

respondents. The rating-scale questions are used to quantify ‘qualitative’ perception of

respondents in order to examine the relative importance of each CSF in each stage

across the project life-cycle. The rating scale is 4-point scale, from 1 to 4, where 1 is

the lowest perceived value and 4 is the highest perceived value as following:

57

• Not Significant = 1

• Slightly Significant = 2

• Very Significant = 3

• Extremely Significant = 4

As the individual CSFs in the group System Response are high various due to the

diversity of project contexts, only some ‘common’ CSFs were include in the

questionnaire.

In the second steps, all the questions were grouped into logical sections and presented

in a logical order that will help respondents to understand and answer more easily

(Nauom, 1999). There are totally 9 sections as following:

• Section 1: questions related to individual perception of project success and

success criteria

• Section 2: questions related to CSFs during Inception stage

• Section 3: questions related to CSFs during Feasibility & Strategy stage

• Section 4: questions related to CSFs during Design & Tendering stage

• Section 5: questions related to CSFs during Construction stage

• Section 6: questions related to CSFs during Engineering Commission stage

• Section 7: questions related to CSFs during Completion & Handover stage

• Section 8: questions related to CSFs during Users Occupation & Commission

stage

• Section 9_question related to the new CSFs Framework

In the third step the number of questions, the length, and the language used of each

question were examined and edited to avoid any bias or misunderstanding. Given the

issue that the respondents may lose their interest and give up if the questionnaire is

too long, especially for a student survey, the only 10 final questions were selected

after careful edited. The final web-based version of the questionnaire can be found

following the link http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/93CJQ9S . The printed version of

the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 5.

58

5.1.3. Sample Selection

An essential part of the survey is selecting “sample” with the meaning as a as

representative segment for the whole population (Nauom, 1999). In this survey, the

research population in the initial plan was all project managers in construction industry

in the UK. However, due to many constraints mentioned previously, the final research

population selected is all project management master students in the Manchester

universities that is more reality and affordable for a student survey. The sample

selected is 305 students in the Management of Project (MOP) MSc course 2010 in the

University of Manchester and 20 students in the Management of Construction project

in the University of Salford.

5.1.4. Pilot Study

It is important to ensure that the questionnaire does not contain any ambiguousness

by carrying out a pilot study. Before sending questionnaire for pilot study, the authors

of present paper carefully reviewed the questionnaire with a help from his supervisor

to address any potential problems. After reviewing, questionnaire was sent to a similar

sample as for the future survey for feedback collection. The questionnaire is edited

again based on the feedback.

5.1.5. Possible Limitation

Due to constraints in terms of time, resources, network connection and so forth as

mentioned above, the methodology of the survey contains several shortcomings.

Firstly, as all the respondents are students, this means the lack of working experience

may lead to difficulty in answering the questionnaire. Secondly, the small sample of

questionnaire may lead to an unrealisable data.

5.1.6. Data Analysis Method

The collected data was analysed by Mean Score method and Relative Important Index

method, and by analysis software such as Excel.

The Mean Score (MS) method was adopted by Park (2009) and several others authors

with four-point scale and five-point scale for evaluating critical factors in construction

59

project. This paper will adopt this method for evaluating factors. The following

formulas and notes are adopted from Park (2009)

The MS for each factor is computed by the following formula:

MS = ∑(�∗�)

� (1 ≤ MS ≤ 4)

• F= frequency of respondents to each rating (1-4) for each factors

• S=score given to each factor by the respondents, ranging from 1 to 4 where “1”

is “not significant” and “4” is “extremely significant”

• N is total number of respondents for that factor

In addition to the MS, Park (2009) and several other authors adopted the relative index

ranking technique for transforming the X-point scale to relative importance indices

(RII), for determining the rankings of the factors and verify the evaluation by the MS.

The RII for each factor is computed by the following formula:

RII = ��

�∗� (0 ≤ RII ≤ 1)

• Total point score is the summation of all the ratings for a given factor

• 4 is the maximum rating possible

5.1.7. Survey Process

The questionnaire of the survey lasted 20 days from 05th of August to 25 of August

2010. The number of response is 35 of 325. The rate of response is 10.76 percentages.

Among 35 responses, 19 (54.3%) completed all questionnaire and 16 (45.7%) partly

completed questionnaire.

5.2. Data Analysis

This section will report the result of analysing collected data form respondents. Result

will be presented several areas including definition of project success, success criteria,

critical success factors in each of 7 stages of construction project life cycle, and CAFs

framework.

60

Concerning definition of project success, there are 27 responses. The answers are

various from different respondents. It is more than a half of respondents (16/27)

defined project success as completion with meets of time, cost and quality. Among of

these definitions, along with time, cost and quality, there are some definitions adding

other specifications such as stakeholder satisfaction (2/16), benefit (1/16), safety

(1/16), performance (1/16), and project outcome (1/16). Remarkably, there is also one

definition mentioned the project success in the relation with priority of stakeholder. In

addition, among the 11 remaining answers, majority of respondents defined project

success as achievement of only one or two specifications mentioned above such as

completion on budgets (2/11), completion on time (1/11), with stakeholder

satisfaction (3/11), with client satisfaction (2/11), and on time and benefit (1/11).

There are also three other definitions define project success in more general level as

achieving project’s goals, aims, and objectives. Noticeably, there is one definition

defining project success as a combination of good strategy, structure and leadership

while another defined project success as a combination of all elements that are

needed to implement the project.

Concerning success criteria, there are 33 responses with 6 of them providing extended

information. The table 6 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of

all criteria. Stakeholder Satisfaction was the most relative important success criteria,

followed by Quality, then Cost, and in the last Time. The respondents also mentioned

to other success criteria such as Organizational Benefit, Added Value, Scope or Social

Impact.

Table 6: Success criteria ranking

Mean RII R

Cost 3.27 0.818 3

Time 3.09 0.773 4

Quality 3.44 0.860 2

Stakeholders Satisfaction 3.45 0.863 1

Concerning individual critical success factors across the life cycle of a construction

project, one factor was considered ‘important’ if it’s Relative Importance Index (RII) is

61

0.750 (equal MS of 2.50) or more. Among ‘important’ factors, top five factors with

highest Relative Importance Index (RII) in each stage were considered ‘critical’.

Concerning CSFs group, the Mean Score of a group (G-MS) was computed by the mean

score of all individual success factors’ mean scores in that group. The Relative

Importance Index of a group (G-RII) was computed by the mean score of all individual

success factors’ relative importance index in that group. In addition, the result of group

Mean Score (G-MS) and Relative Importance Index (G-RII) of each CSFs group is very

depended on the number and the appropriateness of selected individual success

factors in that group those might be very various and inaccurate. This paper, therefore

only compared the relative importance of all groups in each stage rather than for the

whole project life cycle.

The table 7 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all

hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Inception stage.

Firstly, eleven individual factors were identified ‘important’, in descending order of RII

ranking including: (1) PM Experience & Competence; (2) Market Demands; (3) Contract

Management Effectiveness; (4) Communication Effectiveness of; (5) Commitment of all

Stakeholders; (6) PO Business Case; (7) PM Role & Responsibilities Perception; (8)

Coordinating Effectiveness; (9) PM Authority Delegation; (10) Project Mission &

Constraints; (11) Economical Environment. The top five of these factors according RII

ranking were identified as critical success factors (CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 3 CSFs

are in the SF group, 1 CSF is in PM group, and 1 CSF is in the EF group. There is not any

individual CSF in the PO group, Pr group, and PT group. Secondly, in terms of CSFs

group’s relative importance ranking, the SF group (1) is the most relative important

group, followed by PM group (2); PT group (3); Pr group (4); EF group (5); PO group (6),

and SR group (7).

62

Table 7: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Inception stage

Individual Success Factors Group

MS RII R G-MS G-RII G-R

1. PO Business Case 3.08 0.770 6

2. PO Characteristic 2.62 0.655 20

3. PO Consultation & Direction 2.96 0.740 12

4. PO Project Corporate Programme 2.50 0.625 22

PO 2.790 0.698 6

5. PM Experience & Competence 3.32 0.830 1

6. PM Role/Responsibilities Perception 3.08 0.770 7

7. PM Technical Capability 2.80 0.700 16

8. PM Authority Delegation 3.08 0.770 9

PM 3.070 0.768 2

9. Architect Experience & Competence 2.96 0.740 12

PT 2.960 0.740 3

10. Project Nature & Type 2.75 0.688 18

11. Project Mission & Constraints 3.08 0.770 10

Pr 2.915 0.729 4

12. Comprehensive Outline Plan 2.72 0.680 19

SR 2.720 0.680 7

13. Contract Management Effectiveness 3.24 0.810 3

14. Communication Effectiveness 3.16 0.790 4

15. Coordinating Effectiveness 3.08 0.770 8

16. Commitment of all Stakeholders 3.13 0.783 5

SF 3.153 0.788 1

17. Political Environment 2.56 0.640 21

18. Economical Environment 3.00 0.750 11

19. Social Environment 2.88 0.720 14

20. Technology Environment 2.80 0.700 16

21. Competitors 2.88 0.720 14

22. Market Demands 3.25 0.813 2

EF 2.895 0.724 5

MS=Mean Score: if the factors are equal, they are ranked according to the number of respondent scoring 4

RII= relative importance index: if the factors are equal, they are ranked according to the number of respondent coring 4

Rank = rank G-MS = Group Mean Score G-RII = Group relative importance index G-R = Group rank


hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Feasibility &

63

Strategy stage. Firstly, eight individual factors were identified ‘important’, in

descending order of RII ranking including: (1) Availability of Resource; (2)

Communication Effectiveness; (3) Coordination Effectiveness; (4) Contract

Management Effectiveness; (5) PM Motivating & Leadership Competence; (6) PO

Decision Marking Effectiveness; (7) PO Top Management Support; (8) PM Authority

Delegation. The top five of these factors according RII ranking were identified as critical

success factors (CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 3 CSFs are in the SF group, 1 CSF is in the

PM group, and 1 CSF is in the SR group with 1 one. There is not any individual CSF in

the PO group, PT group, Pr group, and EF group. Secondly, in terms of CSFs group’s

relative importance ranking, the SF group (1) is the most relative important group,

followed by PM group (2); PO group (3); PT group (4); EF group (5); SR group (6), and Pr

group (7).

Table 8: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Feasibility & Strategy stage



1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 3.05 0.763 6

2. PO Top Management Support 3 0.750 7


4. PO Approval 2.95 0.738 11

PO 2.955 0.739 3

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Competence 2.95 0.738 9

6. PM Risk Management Competence 2.95 0.738 9

7. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence 3.09 0.773 5

8. PM Authority Delegation 3 0.750 8

PM 2.998 0.749 2


10. Quantity Surveyor Exp. & Compt. 2.89 0.723 16

PT 2.855 0.714 4

11. Project Size & Value 2.76 0.690 22

12. Project Uniqueness 2.52 0.630 28

13. Project Location 2.67 0.668 25

14. Project Urgency 2.86 0.715 17

15. Project Organizational Structure 2.77 0.693 21

Pr 2.716 0.679 7

64

16. Viability & Option Assessment 2.71 0.678 24

17. Availability of Resource 3.23 0.808 1

18. Risk - VFM Assessment & Allocation 2.95 0.738 9

19. Comprehensive Outline Design 2.62 0.655 26

20. Comprehensive Execution Plan 2.91 0.728 14

21. Designability Information 2.62 0.655 26

SR 2.840 0.710 6



18. Coordination Effectiveness 3.14 0.785 3


SF 3.095 0.774 1

20. Site Condition 2.76 0.690 22

21. Market Condition 2.86 0.715 17

22. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.91 0.728 15

EF 2.843 0.711 5





hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Design &

Tendering stage. Firstly, eight individual factors were identified ‘important’, in

descending order of RII ranking including: (1) Project Owner’s Consultation &

Direction; (2) PM Procurement Management Competence; (3) Design Team Experience

& Competence; (4) PM Design Management Competence; (5) Design Complexity; (6)

PM Planning & Scheduling Skill; (7) Contract Management Effectiveness; (8) Contract

Complexity. The top five of these factors according RII ranking were identified as

critical success factors (CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 2 CSFs are in the PM, 1 CSF is in

the Pr group, 1 CSF is in the PO group, 1 CSF is in the SF group, and 1 CSF is in the PT

group. There is not any individual CSF in the SR group, and EF group. Secondly, in terms

of CSFs group’s relative importance ranking, the Pr group (1) is the most relative

important group, followed by PM group (2); PO group (3); SF group (4); PT group (5);

EF group (6), and SR group (7).

65

Table 9: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Design & Tendering stage




2. PO Top Management Support 2.86 0.715 13


4. PO Approval 2.95 0.710 11

PO 2.938 0.734 3

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Competence 3.05 0.763 6

6. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence 2.9 0.725 12

7. PM Design Management Competence 3.05 0.763 4

8. PM Procurement Management Competence 3.1 0.775 2


PM 2.990 0.748 2

10. Design Team Exp. & Compt. 3.05 0.763 3


12. Construction Manager Exp. &Compt. 2.8 0.700 20

13. Planning Supervisor Exp. & Compt. 2.85 0.713 14

PT 2.878 0.719 5

14. Design Complexity 3.05 0.763 5

15. Contract Complexity 3 0.750 8

Pr 3.025 0.756 1

16. Site Investigation Effectiveness 2.71 0.678 24

17. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness 2.57 0.643 26

18. Health & Safety Plan 2.80 0.700 21

19. Comprehensive Tender Document 2.7 0.675 25

20. Constructability Information 2.75 0.688 23

SR 2.706 0.677 7





SF 2.928 0.732 4

66

25. Site Condition 2.55 0.638 27



EF 2.753 0.688 6





hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Construction stage.

Firstly, twenty four individual factors were identified ‘important’, in descending order

of RII ranking including: (1) PM Monitoring & Control Competence; (2) Cost & Cash

Flow Management Effectiveness; (3) Site Management Effectiveness ; (4) Monitoring &

Feedback Effectiveness; (5) Construction Team Experience & Competence; (6) PM

Motivating & Leadership Competence; (7) Trouble Shooting Effectiveness; (8) Sub-

Contractors Performance; (9) PM Organizing Competence; (10) PM Planning &

Scheduling Competence; (11) Quality Control Effectiveness; (12) Construction Manager

Experience & Competence; (13) PM Risk & Change Management Competence; (14) Site

Manager Experience & Competence; (15) Communication Effectiveness; (16)

Operability Information; (17) % Design Completion; (18) Quantity Surveyor Experience

& Competence; (19) Site Condition; (20) Commitment of all Stakeholders; (21) Contract

Management Effectiveness; (22) Coordination Effectiveness; (23) Construction

Complexity; (24) PM Authority Delegation. The top five of these factors according RII

ranking were identified as critical success factors (CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 3 CSFs

are in the SR group, 1 CSF is in the PM group, and 1 CSF is in the PT group. There is not

any individual CSF in the PO group, Pr group, SF group, and the EF group. Secondly, in

terms of CSFs group’s relative importance ranking, the SR group (1) is the most relative

important group, followed by PM group (2); PT group (3); SF group (4); EF group (5); Pr

group (6), and PO group (7).

67

Table 10: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Construction stage




2. PO Top Management Support 2.83 0.708 29


4. PO Approval 2.61 0.653 33

PO 2.763 0.691 7

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Skill 3.18 0.795 10

6. PM Monitoring & Control Compt. 3.39 0.848 1

7. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt. 3.28 0.820 6

8. PM Organizing Competence 3.22 0.805 9

9. PM Risk & Change Mangnt. Compt. 3.12 0.780 13


PM 3.198 0.800 2

11. Construction Team Experience & Compt. 3.29 0.823 5


12. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt. 3.17 0.793 12

13. Site Manager Experience & Compt. 3.11 0.778 14

PT 3.158 0.789 3

14. Construction Complexity 3 0.750 23

15. Project Density 2.67 0.668 31

Pr 2.835 0.709 6

16. % Design Completion 3.06 0.765 17

17. Site Management Effectiveness 3.35 0.838 3


19. Cost & Cash Flow Mangnt. Effectiveness 3.39 0.848 2

20. Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness 3.33 0.833 4

21.Quality Control Effectiveness 3.18 0.795 11

22. Sub-Contractors Performance 3.22 0.805 8

23. Operability Information 3.06 0.765 16

SR 3.241 0.810 1

24. Contract Management Effectiveness 3 0.750 21


26. Coordination Effectiveness 3 0.750 22

27. Commitment of all Stakeholders 3 0.750 20

SF 3.028 0.757 4

28. Site Condition 3 0.750 19

68



31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt. 2.89 0.723 26

32. Exceptional Events 2.89 0.723 26

EF 2.890 0.723 5





hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Engineering

Commission stage. Firstly, six individual factors were identified ‘important’, in

descending order of RII ranking including: (1) Communication Effectiveness; (2)

Contract Management Effectiveness; (3) Comprehensive System Testing; (4)

Coordination Effectiveness; (5) PM Organizing Competence; (6) PM Authority

Delegation. The top five of these factors according RII ranking were identified as critical

success factors (CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 3 CSFs are in the SF group, 2 CSF is in the

PM group, and 1 CSF is in the SR group. There is not any individual CSF in the PO group,

PT group, Pr group, EF group. Secondly, in terms of CSFs group’s relative importance

ranking, the PO group (1) is the most relative important group, followed by PM group

(2); SR group (3); Pr group (4); SF group (5); PT group (6), and EF group (7).

Table 11: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Engineering Commission stage


Mean RII R G-MS G-RII G-R



3. PO Approval 2.88 0.720 10

PO 2.820 0.705 5

4. PM Monitoring & Control Compt. 2.71 0.678 15


6. PM Organizing Competence 3 0.750 5


PM 2.913 0.728 4


69

9. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt. 2.65 0.663 16

PT 2.560 0.640 7

10. Engineering Complexity 2.94 0.735 8

P 2.940 0.735 2


12. Comprehensive System Testing 3.06 0.765 3

13. Operability Information 2.82 0.705 11

SR 2.920 0.730 3





SF 3.018 0.754 1



EF 2.615 0.654 6





hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Completion &

Handover stage. Firstly, five individual factors were identified ‘important’ in

descending order of RII ranking including: (1) PO Approval; (2) PO Consultation &

Direction; (3) PM Knowledge Management Competence; (4) Document & Knowledge

Transferring; (5) Coordination Effectiveness. As there are only five ‘important’ factors

at this stage, all of these factors are identified as critical success factors (CSFs). Among

of these CSFs, 2 CSFs are in the PO group, 1 CSF is in the PM group, 1 CSF is in the SR

group, and 1 CSF is in the SF group. There is not any individual CSF in the PT group, Pr

group, EF group. Secondly, in terms of CSFs group’s relative importance ranking, the

PO group (1) is the most relative important group, followed by PM group (2); SR group

(3); Pr group (4); SF group (5); PT group (6), and EF group (7).

70

Table 12: The ranking of individual and group success factors _ Completion & Handover stage


MC RII R G-MS G-RII G-R



3. PO Approval 3.41 0. 853 1

PO 3.137 0.784 1


5. PM Knowledge Management Competence 3.12 0.780 3


PM 2.980 0.745 2

7. Operation Team Experience & Compt. 2.65 0.663 15

PT 2.650 0.663 6

8. Operation Complexity 2.88 0.720 10

Pr 2.880 0.720 4

9. Document & Knowledge Transferring 3.06 0.765 4

10. Operation & Maintenance Training 2.76 0.690 12

SR 2.910 0.728 3



13. Coordination Effectiveness 3 0.750 5


SF 2.838 0.709 5



EF 2.560 0.640 7





hypothesized success factors, in individual and in group, during the Users Occupation

& Commission stage. Firstly, six individual factors were identified ‘important’, in

descending order of RII ranking including: (1) Lesson Learn for PM & PO; (2) PM

Knowledge Management Competence; (3) Post Occupation Assessment, (4) End Users

Feedback; (5) PO Evaluation Effectiveness; (6) PO Administration Competence. The top

five of these factors according RII ranking were identified as critical success factors

71

(CSFs). Among of these CSFs, 3 CSFs are in the SR group, 1 CSF is in the PM group, and

1 CSF is in the PO group. There is not any individual CSF in the PT group, Pr group, SF

group, and EF group. Thirdly, in terms of CSFs group’s relative importance ranking, the

PM group (1) is the most relative important group, followed by PO group (2); SR group

(3); PT group (4); SF group (5); Pr group (6), and EF group (7).

Table 13: The ranking of individual and group success factors _Users Occupation & Commission stage



1. PO Evaluation Competence 3 0.750 5

2. PO Administration Competence 3 0.750 6

PO 3.000 0.750 3

3. PM Knowledge Mangnt. Competence 3.24 0.810 2

PM 3.240 0.810 1

4. Operation Team Experience & Compt. 2.65 0.663 7

PT 2.650 0.663 4

5. Maintenance Complexity 2.41 0.603 11

Pr 2.410 0.603 6

6. Lesson Learn for PM & PO 3.29 0.823 1

7. Post Occupation Assessment 3.12 0.780 3

8. End Users Feedback 3.06 0.765 4

SR 3.157 0.789 2





SF 2.440 0.610 5


14. Exceptional Events 2 0.500 14

EF 2.095 0.524 7




The table 14 presents the list of seven individual critical success factors; each of these

was the most critical success factors at a particular stage of seven stages across

72

construction project life cycle. These critical success factors are: (1) PM Experience &

Competence at the Inception stage, (2) Availability of Resource at the Feasibility &

Strategy; (3) PO Consultation & Direction at the Design & Tendering stage; (4) PM

Monitoring & Control Competence at the Construction stage; (5) Communication

Effectiveness at the Engineering Commission stage; (6) PO Approval at the Completion

& Handover (7) Lesson Learn for PM & PO at the Users Occupancy & Commission

stage.

Table 14: The top seven of individual critical success factors based on stage

Top CSFs in seven stages

PM Experience & Competence (Inception)

Availability of Resource (Feasibility & Strategy)

PO Consultation & Direction (Design & Tendering)

PM Monitoring & Control Competence (Construction)

Communication Effectiveness (Engineering Commission)

PO Approval (Completion & Handover)

Lesson Learn for PM & PO (Users Occupation & Commission)

The table 15 presents the top ten of individual critical factors across construction

project life cycle based on RII ranking. These critical success factors in descending

order of RII ranking are: (1) PO Approval at the Completion & Handover stage, (2) Cost

& Cash Flow Management Effectiveness at the Construction stage; (3) PM Monitoring

& Control Competence at the Construction stage; (4) Site Management Effectiveness

at the Construction stage; (5) Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness at the Construction

stage; (6) PM Experience & Competence at the Inception stage; (7) Lesson Learn for

PM & PO at the Users Occupancy & Commission stage; 8) Construction Team

Experience & Competence at the Construction stage; (9)Trouble Shooting Effectiveness

at the Construction stage; and (10) PM Motivating & Leadership Competence at the

Construction stage.

Considering that both seven CSFs in Table 14 and ten CSFs in Table 15 are critical for

achieving project success, this paper presented them in one combining list of CSFs. As

some CSFs are in the both tables, the number of CSFs in the combining list is 13. The

73

table 16 presents the combination between individual critical factors in Table 14 and

Table 15.

Table 15: The top ten of individual success factors based on RII

Top Ten CSFs MC RII R

1.PO Approval (Completion & Handover) 3.47 0.868 1

2.Cost & Cash Flow Management Effectiveness (Construction) 3.39 0.848 2

3.PM Monitoring & Control Competence (Construction) 3.39 0.848 3

4.Site Management Effectiveness (Construction) 3.35 0.838 4

5.Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness (Construction) 3.33 0.833 5

6.PM Experience & Competence (Inception) 3.32 0.830 6

7.Lesson Learn for PM & PO (Users Occupancy & Commission) 3.29 0.823 7

8.Construction Team Experience & Competence (Construction) 3.29 0.823 8

9.Trouble Shooting Effectiveness (Construction) 3.28 0.820 9

10.PM Motivating & Leadership Competence (Construction)

3.28 0.820 10



Rank = rank

Table 16: List of the most individual critical success factors across construction project life cycle

Top 13 CSFs

1. PO Approval (Completion & Handover)

2. Cost & Cash Flow Management Effectiveness (Construction)

3. PM Monitoring & Control Competence (Construction)

4. Site Management Effectiveness (Construction)

5. Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness (Construction)

6. PM Experience & Competence (Inception)

7. Lesson Learn for PM & PO (Users Occupancy & Commission)

8. Constr. Team Experience & Competence (Construction)

9. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness (Construction)

10. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence (Construction)

11. Availability of Resource (Feasibility & Strategy)

12. Communication Effectiveness (Engineering Commission)

13. PO Consultation & Direction (Design & Tendering)

74

Figure 9: The relative importance of CSFs groups across construction project life cycle

The Figure 9 presents the comparison of the relative importance of all the CSFs groups

in each and all stages across construction project life cycle. Remarkably, the SF group

was ranked the most relative importance in the 3 stages including Inception, Feasibility

& Strategy, and Engineering & Commission. In addition, each of the Pr group, the SR

group, the PO group, and the PM group was ranked the most relative importance in

one stage while the PT group and the EF group were not ranked the most relative

importance in any stage. In the detail, the Pr group was ranked the most relative

importance in the Design & Tendering stage; the SR group was ranked the most

importance in the Construction stage; the PO group was ranked the most relative

importance in the Complete & Handover stage; and the PM group was ranked the

most relative importance in the Users Occupancy & Commission stage. On the other

InceptionFeasibility &

Strategy

Design &

TenderingConstruction

Engineering

Commission

Completion

& Handover

Users

Occupancy &

Commission

PO 6 3 3 7 5 1 3

PM 2 2 2 2 4 2 1

PT 3 4 5 3 7 6 4

Pr 4 7 1 6 2 4 6

SR 7 6 7 1 3 3 2

SF 1 1 4 4 1 5 5

EF 5 5 6 5 6 7 7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Re

lati

ve

Im

po

rta

nce

In

de

x

Reletive Importance of CSFs groups across project life cycle

75

hand, the SR group and the EF group were ranked the less relative importance in 2

stages while each of the PR group, the PO group, and the PT group was ranked the less

relative importance in one stage. In the detail, the SR group was ranked the less

relative importance in the first stage and the third stage while the EF group was ranked

the less relative importance in the two last stages. The Pr group was ranked the less

relative importance in the Feasibility & Strategy stage while the PO group and the PT

group were ranked the less relative importance in the Construction stage and the

Engineering & Commission stage, respectively. Another striking feature is that the

relative important of CSFs groups seem change reversely around two “points” of time,

one is between the Construction stage and the Engineering & Commission stage, and

one clearer is between the Completion & Handover stage and the User Occupancy &

Commission Stage. Finally, among all groups, the relative important of the PM group is

the most stably high and the relative important of the EF group is most stably low,

while other groups’ relative important are fluctuated.

Finally, Table 18 shows the feedback for the new CSFs Framework improvement.

Among 18 respondents, around one-third (33.3%) suggested improving the Logicality

of Interrelationship between CSFs, and one-third (28.7%) suggested improving the

Logicality of CSFs Clarification. Other suggested improving the Framework Features

(16.7%); Level of Convenience for Use in practice (11.1%), and Appropriateness of

selected CSFs (11.1%).

Table 18: Feedback for the new CSFs framework improvement

Improvement Areas

Mean R

1. Logicality of CSFs Clarification 28.7% 2

2. Appropriateness of selected CSFs 11.1% 4

3. Logicality of Interrelation between CSFs 33.3% 1

4. Level of Convenience for use in practice 11.1% 4

5. The Framework Features 16.7% 3

76

Chapter VI: Discussion and Recommendation

6.1. Discussion

This section presents a discussion about the results of data analysis presented above.

Firstly, the finding reinforces the statement in previous studies that the relative

important of CSFs is various across project life cycle and one factor may be critical in

some particular stages but not in others. It was proved by the variation of relative

importance of each individual success factors in the OF groups, those were examined

in all stages of construction project. For example, the factor Commitment of all

Stakeholders was found much more important in the Inception stage and Construction

stage but much less important in the Engineering Commission stage.

Secondly, the finding demonstrated the important role of project manager in achieving

project success as the relative importance of PM group is stably high, reinforcing the

previous finding in literature. In addition, the role of factors related to the

stakeholder’s interaction was also found important as the relative importance of SF

group was highest in three stages including Inception, Feasibility & Strategy, and

Engineering Commission. It reinforced the statement in previous studies about the

important of making stakeholders working as a whole to project successful including

Contract Management, Communication, Coordination and Commitment. Moreover,

the consistently low ranking of the EF group demonstrated that the impact of external

factors to project success was considered insignificant. One possible explanation is that

construction project is usually highly routine, less innovative, and less likely to

significant change after being initiated according to Pinto and Slevin (1989), and

therefore is less impacted by external factors.

Thirdly, among the top ten of success factors those were found most critical across the

construction building project based on RII ranking, one CSF is at the Inception stage,

seven CSFs are at the Construction stage, one CSF is at Completion & Handover, and

one CSF is at the Users Occupation & Commission. Such finding demonstrated that the

Construction stage was considered as the most ‘critical’ stage to achieving project

success where the majority of ‘physical’ work is delivered. In addition, the most critical

77

success factors, PO Approval at the Completion & Handover stage related to project

owner (client) demonstrated the important role of this key stakeholder for

determining project success. Surprisingly, none of CSFs in the top ten was at the

Feasibility & Strategy stage and the Design & Tendering stage. This absence might

demonstrate that respondents tend to heavily focus on ‘tangible’ delivering process at

the middle and on the results at the end of projects rather than on the ‘intangible’

preparation tasks in the pre-construction phase.

Concerning the Inception stage, the finding demonstrated that the factors related to

stakeholders’ interaction and project manager are the most critical. One explanation is

at this stage the project owner’s business case for project is gave to the professional

team to develop the constrains according to Fewings (2005), therefore the Project

manager’s experience and competence, and the good relationship between all key

stakeholders, that is influenced by Contract Management Effectiveness,

Communication Effectiveness, Commitment of all Stakeholders. Such good relationship

is critical for addressing all interests of different stakeholders to project mission. In

addition, the factor Market Demands was identified the second most critical that

demonstrates the actual important impact of external factors to the project success

especially in the very first stage of project as stated in many other studies in literature.

On the other hand, it is surprise that project owner’s (client’s) characteristic, and

project owner’s experience and competence were not considered critical, that

somewhat conflict with the findings in previous studies. In addition, Project Nature and

Type was found not critical as stated in literature. The possible reason is the

respondents, as students with less experience of working in difference types of project,

cannot provide much opinion in such areas.

Concerning the Feasibility & Strategy stage, the main tasks at this stage includes

investigation of project feasibility in terms of site, funds, design, value enhancement,

cost and test affordability (feasibility); and deciding how the project is delivery in terms

of cost, construction methodology or so forth (Fewings, 2005). Therefore it is little

surprise that the most critical success factors identified was Availability of Resource. It

can be understood that the affordability of recourse is one of fundamental factor for

78

the project owner to decide going ahead or cancel the project. Such result also

supports the same findings of previous studies in literature. In addition, three factors

related to stakeholder interaction including Communication Effectiveness,

Coordination Effectiveness, Contract Management Effectiveness, were considered

critical. Such results reinforced the previous findings in previous studies about the

importance of making all stakeholders working together in early stages of project to

ensure a full understanding of all stakeholders’ needs and to co-ordinate design and

construction strategy within project constraints. Correspondingly, Project manager’s

Motivating & Leadership Competence were found critical at this ‘go - no go’ point of

the project. One explanation is that project manager have important role to motivate

other stakeholders for deciding initiating the project. On the other hand, although not

being identified as critical, other factors such as Authority Delegation, Risk - VFM

Assessment & Allocation, Project owner’s decision marking effectiveness, and Top

management support were identified important factors. This result might reflect the

emerging attention to the important of empowerment, the emerging attention to risk

issue in project management recently, the vital of selecting ‘right’ project and the

important of top management support to initiating the project.

Concerning the Design & Tendering stage, the most CSFs are Project owner’s

Consultation & Direction, Design Team Experience & Competence, Project manager’s

Procurement Management Competence, Project manager’s Design Management

Competence, and Design Complexity. It is understandable as the main tasks at this

stage is fully developing design scheme, design drawings, tendering and mobilising

resource for construction (Fewings, 2005). The important of design’s quality for the

project success is well proved in literature that is influenced by design team

competence and experience. Consequently, the consultation and direction of project

owner for the final design of a project is crucial for archiving the satisfaction at the

project completion. Moreover, project manager’s competence in term of procurement

management obviously affects the comprehensiveness of contracts that allows and

encourages the various stakeholders to behave as a team without conflicts of interest

(Sanvido et al., 1990). Furthermore, Design Complexity was indentified critical as such

factor will directly decide the amount of time and effort needed to complete the final

79

design and will also identify the start date for construction stage which is related to the

handover and occupation of the project (Fewings, 2005). On the other hand, it is quite

surprise that other factors hypothesized or proved critical in previous studies such as

Site Investigation Effectiveness, Health & Safety Plan, Comprehensive Tender

Document, Constructability Information, were not identified critical. One possible

explanation is that some factors such as Site Investigation Effectiveness, or Health &

Safety Plan have become a ‘normal standard’ in project management and therefore

were being underestimated by respondents, while the critical impacts of some other

factors such as Comprehensive Tender Document, or Constructability Information

might be not ‘tangible’ to see and easily were being unrealized by respondents who as

students has limited working experience.

Concerning Construction project, due to the usual vast number of activities in such

stages, it is reasonable to see Project manager’s Monitoring & Control Competence

was identified the most critical. In addition, as the highest amount of resource is need

at this stage and the importance of avoiding cost overrun and drying out of cash, it is

reasonable to see Cost & Cast Flow Management Effectiveness was identified as the

second most critical factor. Moreover, Site Management Effectiveness, and Monitoring

& Feedback Effectiveness are the next two most critical factors that can be explained

by the importance of keeping the construction process on time and highest safety

level. Moreover, the Construction team’s experience and competence is also a critical

factor at this stage as it directly affected to all other factors such as quality, delay,

trouble shooting, etc. On the other hand, Trouble Shooting Effectiveness and Sub-

Contractors Performance were not identified critical although high important, that is

somewhat different with past finding in literature such as Pinto and Prescott (1988). In

addition, Project Density is also found less important that conflicts with finding by

Belassi and Tukel (1996)

Concerning Engineering Commission stage, three among six CSFs at the stage are

related to stakeholder’s interaction including Contract Management Effectiveness,

Communication Effectiveness, and Coordination Effectiveness. One explanation for this

result is that at this stage all key stakeholders, namely project owner, project manager,

80

contractor, designer, and others need to work together to ensure that the engineering

installation as a whole is installed correctly and fully operational to meet the

performance requirements without any delay. As a consequence, Comprehensive

System Testing was identified a critical factor. In addition, Project manager’s

Organizing Competence was found critical at this stage. In fact, this factor was found

important in several stages, but only become critical at this stage as other factors

become less important. It might also reflect the importance of organizing tasks

between different participants to achieving coordination.

Concerning Completion & Handover stage, the two factors related to project owner

including Project owner’s Satisfaction, and Project owner’s Consultation & Direction

were found the first and the second most CSFs. It seems reasonable as a construction

project only comes to a formal completion if the project owner approves the result of

project at this end stage that is significantly related to achieving project owner

satisfaction later. In addition, as at this stage the project is formally transferred to

project owner, it seems understandable that the consultation and direction of project

owner is necessary for this process. Another CSFs, Coordination Effectiveness, seems

also relate to such transferring process, and explains the importance of stakeholders

working together to complete the project. Moreover, the two remaining CSFs including

PM Knowledge Management Competence, and Document & Knowledge Transferring

demonstrates that one of the most important tasks at this stage is handing over not

only documents but also knowledge for running the building safety and efficiently

(Fewings, 2005). Such process also needs the Coordination Effectiveness between

stakeholders.

Concerning Users Occupation & Commission stage, the most striking features is that

all CSFs including Lesson Learn for Project manager and Project owner, Project

Manager’s Knowledge Management Competence, Post Occupation Assessment, End

Users Feedback, Project owner Evaluation Competence, are related to the terms of

project evaluation and lesson learning. It seems understandable as at this stage the

main task is running the building, inducting occupiers, evaluating the project outcome

against predetermined objectives, and obtaining lessons for next projects (Fewings,

81

2005). In order to assess the success of the project, the end-users satisfaction is one of

important objectives needed to be achieved. The end-users satisfaction is assessed by

post-occupation assessment and mainly based on end-users feedback. The

competence of project owner and project manager in learning lessons from the project

outcome also plays a crucial role in avoiding any repeated mistakes as well as applying

good success experience in future.

Finally, concerning the new CSFs Framework improvement, the feedback from

respondents demonstrates that although the appropriateness of selected success

factors and the framework’s level of convenient of use in practice are acceptable, it

still has many works to do for improving all aspects of the framework, especially in the

logicality of interrelationship between CSFs and the logicality of CSFs clarification. As

this new framework is a selective combination of several existing frameworks in the

literature, this result may also demonstrate that using only one CSFs framework is not

comprehensive enough for determining CSFs in construction building project. As

discussion in the literature review chapter, it is impossible to include all possible CSFs

in one framework due to the diversity of project contexts. In addition, given the well

proved interrelationship between critical success factors and success criteria, such

interrelationship should be taken into account during the process of determining CSFs.

Another issue is related to the relative important of CSFs. As showed in the survey, one

factor is identified ‘critical’ or ‘non-critical’ based on its relative important to project

success. However, the result of measuring of such relative importance of CSFs is

subjectively personal-driven, time-driven, and criteria-driven. Any method for

determining CSFs in project need to taken in to account these characteristics.

Moreover, the definition and the degree of detail of CSFs is also need to be considered

carefully.

In some degree, all of issues mentioned were not completely solved in this dissertation

due to the constraints in time, resource, and respondents. In the following section, the

author of this dissertation will discuss and recommend an 11-step procedure for

determining CSFs in project in practice by using the new CSFs framework presented in

this paper that can deal with all issue above.

82

5.2. Recommendation

This section will introduce an 11-step procedure for determining CSFs in construction

project. Firstly, there are two important studies needed to mention that provided

valuable ideas for developing the procedure. Boynton and Zmud (1984) suggested a

map of CSFs procedure at financial service firm (Appendix 4). This map provided a

valuable guidance for applying CSFs method although the procedure still contains

several drawbacks such as using a preliminary list of CSFs developed outside analyst

that may bias the final result. In addition, Pinto (1990) suggest a procedure to use his

well-known Project Implementation Profile instrument as a tool to aid project tracking

and control. This tool, however, contains several shortcomings as discussed in the

literature chapter such as the limitation of the only 10 CSFs or the inter-rater reliability

between different stakeholders. This dissertation learned from the advantages and

disadvantages of these studies, and the key issues mentioned in the last section, to

develop an 11-step procedure for determining CSFs in project and using CSFs

framework as a tool to aid project tracking and control, and organizational learning.

The procedure is summarized in Figure 10 and includes 11 steps as following:

Step 1: Determining a set of prioritized success criteria for the project (SCr-Set)

As discussion in the literature review in chapter III, although the perception about

project success is ambiguous, one can draw the ‘how the success looks like’ through

success criteria. Given the fact that there is always more than one stakeholder in a

project and each of them may have a different set of success criteria, success criteria

can conflict with each other. Therefore, all stakeholders need to discuss and must

agree a definitive set of success criteria as a trade-off before the project is started

(Wateridge, 1998; cited by Baccarini, 1999). In addition, in the case of a large project

that has a large the number of stakeholders, it is necessary to prioritize success criteria

based on the most influence (key) stakeholders (Tuman, 1986; Baccarini, 1999). Project

manager should take an active role in this step as a ‘connect point’ between

stakeholders. The outcome of this process is a definitive set of success criteria with the

priority of each criterion, namely, SCr-Set.

83

Note: Steps 9-11 are repeated throughout the project life cycle. Step 11 is conducted parallel with all

other steps from the beginning of the project.

Figure 10: The 11-step procedure of applying the new CSFs framework in practice

1. Determine a set of prioritized success criteria

(SCr Set)

-Project Manager takes active role in this process

-Trade-off must be agreed by all stakeholders -Success Criteria must be prioritized

2. Assign key roles and Educate staffs on CSFs

and success criteria

-Select CSFs analysts -Select stakeholders’ representatives -Educate participants

3. Derive hypothesized success-related factors

from all stakeholders by interview

-Interview, questionnaire to all participants

-Record results in ‘blank’ CSFs framework -Group results in groups based on stakeholders

4. Filtering ‘trash’ for deriving 1st

Stakeholder

Sets of HSRFs ---> (N-Stk SET1)

5. Add ‘layer’& Reorganise for deriving 2nd

Stakeholder Sets of HSR factors--->(N-Stk SET2)

6. Prioritize factors for deriving the first

common set of HSRFs ---> (SET3)

7. Add ‘criteria driven’ for deriving groups of

Criteria Sets of HSRFs ---> (Cr-SET4)

8. Add ‘time dimension’ for deriving groups of

sets of CSFs ---> (Baseline-SET5)

9. Reassessing the ‘priority’ of success criteria --

-> (SCr-Set-1)

10. Reassessing the ‘critical performance’ of

CSFs ---> (Process-SET5-1)

11. Recording and Updating Project CSFs Profile

Database

-Filter any overlap of terminologies in results -Combine all results of each stakeholder group in

one set of HSRFs ---> several stakeholder sets

- Examine the independence and interrelationship between factors in results collected -Reorganise factors in layers and groups

-Identify ‘common’ factors and ‘unique’ factors

-Negotiate to prioritize factors -Combine all results in one common set of HSRFs

-Examine the causal relationship between HSRFs and success criteria in SCr-set

-Produce set of HSRFs for each success criterion

-Develop tool to Measure relative importance of

each factors based on participant experience -Reorganize factors in appropriate project stages

-Examine the validity of each success criterion -Update new success criteria if necessary

-Reassess the priority of each success criterion

- Develop tool to Measure relative importance of each factors based on indicators from actual

project information

-Record the project profile information -Record and update information at every step -Organize recorded information in project-based

84

Step 2: Assigning key roles and Educate staffs on CSFs and success criteria

At this step it firstly needs to select CSFs Analyst. The CSFs Analyst refers to a role

rather than specific people. The CSFs Analyst may be one or more people who will

possess appropriate understanding about the project and appropriate experience,

knowledge and skills for fluently analysing the CSFs in the project. This role may be

assigned to one of among project manager, project champions, project team

members, outside consulters, or a combining group of all these people. The main role

of CSFs Analyst is preparing requirement documents, educating participant on CSFs

concept, delivering all requirement tasks and steps, collecting and analysing data,

deriving and presenting CSFs in appropriate form, and coordinating with other

participants in the procedure throughout the project life cycle. Secondly, each

stakeholder needs to select Stakeholder Representative. The Stakeholder

Representative refers to a role rather than specific people. The Stakeholder

Representative may be one or more people who will possess appropriate experience,

knowledge and skills for best representing the stakeholder‘s interest and viewpoint,

and influent using the CSFs methodology. The Stakeholder Representatives will work

closely with CSFs Analyst to achieve the highest consensus between all stakeholders

and for the best results. Thirdly, all participants in the process of determining CSFs in

the project need to be educated on CSFs concept, success criteria, and the CSFs

framework by appropriate documents and presentation from CSFs Analyst. The

summary of this dissertation may be one useful document for this purpose. The

participants may be all staffs from all stakeholders at every level whose work involve

to the project. However, the selection of participants should be mainly on the hand of

the Stakeholder Representatives and the CSFs Analyst, who should know the best

about the issue in their projects.

Step 3: Using the new CSFs framework as a tool to derive hypothesized success-related

factors (HSRFs) from all stakeholders

At this step all educated participants must be interviewed or asked by questionnaires

by the CSFs Analyst for providing factors they think the most critical to project success

85

based on their perception and in relation to their role and responsibilities. These

factors will be to fill in a ‘blank’ CSFs framework, serving as a recording sheet. A ‘blank’

CSFs framework refers to the new framework developed in this dissertation but only in

its pure form without any preliminary individual factors provided and without dividing

in stages (without time dimension) (Appendix 3). The purpose is to roughly clarify and

organize these factors following the logical and systematic structure of the framework.

In addition, the participants should also be asked to provide the definition of the

factors to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation on the next steps.

Moreover, the result of each participant is latterly grouped into different Stakeholder

Result groups in correspondence to the stakeholder that participant come from. For

instance, the result of a participant from main contractor will be added into the

Contractor Result group. The number of stakeholders involved the process will be the

same number of the Stakeholders Result groups, called ‘N’ number. The overall

purpose of this step is providing an aid tool with logical and systematic manner for the

participants form all stakeholders in order to collect as much as possible information

from different viewpoints. The fact is that the more information received the better

decision marking effectiveness, and the less of the risk of missing out some critical

factors. The outcome of this process is a large number of sets of HSRFs in the form of

the ‘blank’ framework and grouped in an ‘N’ different Stakeholder Result groups.

Step 4: Filtering ‘trash’ from the received sets of hypothesized success-related factors

for deriving a group of Stakeholder Sets of hypothesized success-related factors (N-Stk

SET1).

At this step all HSRFs received in the last step will be examined to clearly determine

the definitions. This process will help to avoid the overlap as one factor may be defined

by different terminology. During this process, all results (sets of HSRFs) in each

Stakeholder Result group will be combined into only one final set of HSRFs, namely,

Stk-Set. Each Stk-Set is still organised in the form of the ‘blank’ framework as in the last

stage. The overall outcome of this step is a group of an ‘N’ number of Stk-Sets of ‘pure’

HSRFs (with the meaning of without overlap or misinterpretation), namely, N-Stk SET1.

For reminding, ‘N’ is the number of the stakeholders examining in the process.

86

Step 5: Analysing and clarifying the ‘layer/level’, and the dependence and

interrelationship between the hypothesized success-related factors (HSRFs) in the N-

Stk-SET1 for deriving a group of an ‘N’ number of more organized Stk-Sets of HSRFs (N-

Stk SET2).

At this step, the ‘layer/level’ of each factor, and the dependence and interrelationship

between factors in the N-Stk SET1 is analysed and clarified as one factor may be ‘cover’

or being the ‘umbrella’ of several other factors in a lower ‘layer/level’. The outcome of

this step is a group of an ‘N’ number of Stakeholder Sets of HSRFs, namely, N-Stk SET 2.

The difference between the N-Stk SET1 and N-Stk SET2 is that in each Stakeholder Set

of HSRFs in the later group, factors are presented in a more organized structure. As

each Stakeholder Set of HSRFs being in form of the ‘blank’ framework with 7 CSFs

groups, each CSFs group will contains ‘primary’ factors and under each of these factors

is a sub-set of ‘secondary’ factors, then sub-set of ‘tertiary’ factors if necessary.

Step 6: Analysing and clarifying the ‘priority’ of the hypothesized success-related

factors in the N-Stk SET 2 for deriving the first common set of hypothesized success-

related factors (SET3).

At this step the CSFs Analyst will examine the ‘priority’ of the HSRFs in the N-Stk SET2.

HSRFs those mentioned by only one stakeholder preventative are clarified as ‘unique

factors’. HSRFs those mentioned by more than one key stakeholder are clarified as

‘common factors’. All ‘common factors’ will be derived for the next ‘only one’ set of

HSRFs, namely, SET3. Concerning ‘unique factors’, all the Stakeholder Representatives

and the CSFs Analyst need to discuss and determine the ‘priority’ of each factor. This

process is a negotiation process and the result is a ‘trade-off’ as set of ‘unique’ factors,

those are suggested by only one stakeholder but agreed being possible important by

other stakeholders. Only these ‘unique’ factors in this ‘trade-off’ set are derived for the

SET3. In general, the outcome of this step is only one set of HSRFs, namely, SET3. This

set is a combination of all the Stakeholder Sets of N-Stk SET2 in the step 5, and also

organised in form of the ‘blank’ framework.

87

Step 7: Examining the interaction between the hypothesized success-related factors in

the SET3 with success criteria identified in the SCr-Set in the step 1 for deriving a group

of ‘criteria-driven’ sets of hypothesized success-related factors (Cr-SET4)

At this step, the Stakeholder Representatives and the CSFs Analyst will identify the

significance of relationship between each HSRF in the SET3 to one or more certain

success criteria in the SCr-Set in the step 1. There are two methods for this process.

One method is discussion and brainstorming, and another is using Linkers’ Scale

questionnaire. The first method is more suitable for a small group of high experienced

representatives and analysts, while the second method is more suitable when it needs

to collect information from a larger group of people. Both methods, however, are

based on the experience and opinions of participants. Once a HSRF is identified

strongly related to a specific success criterion, it will be added on a Criteria Set of

HSRFs related to that criterion. For instance, if one factor is identified strongly related

to Cost criteria, it will be added into the Cost Set of HSRFs. One factor may belong to

more than one Criteria Sets, as in fact one factor may relate to more than one success

criteria. The number of success criteria will be the same the number of Criteria Set of

HSRFs, namely, number ‘M’. For instance, if Cost, Time, Quality, Safety is the four

priority success criteria it will have four criteria sets including Cost Set of Set of HSRFs,

Time Set of HSRFs, Quality Set of HSRFs, and Safety Set of HSRFs. The general purpose

of this process is developing a group of an ‘M’ number of criteria-driven sets of HSRFs,

in which each group is more directly related to a specific success criterion. The SET3 is

still used as an Overall Criteria set of HSRFs that related to all success criteria. These

Cr-SET4 will help the project manager not only have a overall view with the CSFs for

the whole project, but also a focusing view on the CSFs related to each specific success

criterion that may become more or less priory during the project life cycle. All these

‘M’ number of specific Criteria Sets and the SET 3 are in form of the ‘blank’ framework,

and together form a group called Cr-SET4, the outcome of this step.

Step 8: Adding time dimension to the Cr-SET4 for deriving Baseline-SET 5

88

As mentioned in the last steps, all the sets of HSRFs in the Cr-SET 4 are still in the form

of the ‘blank’ framework, meaning without time dimension or on the other words

meaning without dividing in project stages. At this step, the analyst will develop an

instrument, possibly in form of a set of questionnaires, for measuring the relative

important of each HSRFs of each set in different stages of project life cycle. The

questionnaire may be in form of Linkers’ Scale questions as in the survey in this

dissertation and sent to representatives to collect the response. The questionnaire will

ask respondents to rank the significant of each factor to a specific success criterion or

overall success criteria at a specific stage of project life cycle. The data collected may

be analysed in the same way as in this paper to derive the index of relative importance

of factors. Based on the ranking of relative importance index, the CSFs Analyst can

identify the most critical success factor (CSFs) in different stages of the project life

cycle for each criterion and for overall criteria. The result of this step is that each

specific Criteria Set of HSRFs and the Overall Set (SET 3) in the SCr-SET4 will be added

the ‘time dimension’, dividing in stage as in form of a full framework. For instance, the

Cost Set of HSRFs in Cr-SET4 now will be in form of a full framework, containing all

critical success factor (CSFs) significantly related to the Cost criteria and each of these

CSFs belong to a correspondent group and stages. One CSF may belong to more than

one stage as in fact the factor may be critical in several stage of project life cycle, such

as factor Project Manager’s Leadership and Motivating Competence. The final

outcome of this step is a definitive group including all the ‘in-full-form’ Criteria Sets of

CSFs and the ‘in-full-form’ Overall Set (SET3), namely, Baseline-SET5. This Baseline-

SET5 will be used as a baseline for updating the set of CSFs throughout the life cycle

project management process. The idea is similar to Baseline Plan and actual process

Plans. Using this Baseline-SET5 and other latterly updated SET5.x will help the project

manager not only have a overall view on the CSFs for the whole project at each specific

stage, but also a focusing view on the CSFs related to each specific success criterion at

each specific stage.

Step 9, 10, and 11: Updating and using the set of CSFs as a means for project tracking

and controlling, and Recording and updating data for Project CSFs Profile Database as a

mean for Organizational Learning.

89

The procedure from step 1 to step 7 is for producing a first Baseline-SET5 of CSFs.

These three steps are for the purpose of periodically reviewing and updating the set of

CSFs based on the actual project process and status, and using the set of CSFs as an aid

tool for project tracking and controlling and decision-making process. In addition, data

is recorded and updated to a database, namely, Project CSFs Profile Database, for the

purpose of aiding organizational knowledge management and learning. Concerning

deciding ‘When’ best to reassess the set of CSFs (start steps 9, 10, 11), there are two

methods suggested by (Pinto, 1990): elapsed time and critical incident. Elapsed time

method refers to regularly reassessment, for example monthly or weekly depended on

the nature of the project and the decision of project manager. Critical incident method

refers to the reassessment following specific critical incidents, such as achievement of

important target dates, the happening of a crisis situation, achievement of an

important element of product, the entrance into a new stage, or so forth. These three

steps 9, 10, 11 will be repeated many times throughout the project life cycle. In fact,

the step 11 is conducted parallel with all other steps from the beginning of the project.

Step 9: Reassessing the ‘priority’ of success criteria.

Given the fact that project objectives and other success criteria vary throughout the

total project life cycle (Wit, 1988), and the strongly interrelationship between success

criteria and CSFs, it needs to reassess the ‘priority’ of each criterion and updating the

set of success criteria SCr-Set in step 1 before updating the information for the set of

CSFs. This step is a repeat of the step 1. The outcome of this step is an updated ‘at

point of time’ SCr-Set-1. In the case new success criteria need to be added into the SCr-

Set, the CSFs Analyst need to consider identifying the CSFs related to those new

criteria following the steps mentioned above.

Step 10: Reassessing the ‘critical performance’ of CSFs.

For delivering this step, analyst needs to develop an instrument, possibly in form of

sets of questionnaires, for measuring the relative importance of each CSF at a specific

90

point of time, namely, ‘critical performance’. Each CSF will have a set of correspondent

questions for determining its ‘critical performance’. The questions may be in form of

Linkers’ Scale question, and the answers of these questions are indicators for the

‘‘critical performance’ of the CSF. One good example of this instrument is the PIP tool

developed by Pinto (1990). Noticeably, the nature of this instrument is different from

the nature of the instrument in the step 7. While the instrument in the step 7 uses

questionnaire to measure the relative important of each CSF purely based on the

experience and opinion of respondents, the instrument in this step uses questionnaire

to measure the relative important, namely, ‘critical performance, based on the

indicators derived from actual process information. The outcome of this step is an

updated Process-SET5-1.

After completing the two steps above, project manager now will be able to see which

criteria become more or less prior, and which CSFs become more or less ‘critical’. This

will help the project manager having an updated overall view of the whole project

status and at the same time focusing on the more ‘critical’ CSFs that significant related

to the more ‘prior’ success criteria.

Step 11: Recording and Updating Project CSFs Profile Database

All data about a project, the baseline and changing throughout all steps, from step 1 to

step 9, need to be record on Project CSFs Profile Database. The data about project

should include the name of the project, type of project, the size, the scope, the

urgency, the duration and so forth. This data will help to latterly clarify projects into

different categorises and match recorded knowledge about CSFs with each specific

type of projects.

In conclusion, the 11-step procedure of applying the CSFs framework can help to

improve the use of the CSFs methodology in practice. For successful applying the new

CSFs framework and consolidating the application procedure, the authors of this

dissertation recommend that further effort should focus on other remaining issues.

Firstly, it needs more research in the cause-effect relationship between critical factors.

91

It is still unclear in the mechanism of interaction between factors at the same

‘layer/level’ and in different ‘layers/levels’’, and how to measure the degree of effects.

Secondly, it is need further efforts in building a standard tool for measure factors’

relative important, based on the data collected from other day-by-day management

functions (rick management, change management, etc.) Especially, the relationship

between CSFs and KIPs need to be examined. Thirdly, as the procedure of applying the

new CSFs framework is quite complex, it should be benefit if embedding the new CSFs

framework and its application procedure in computer system.

92

Chapter VII: Conclusion

The recent global crisis has affected the UK construction industry significantly, that

makes achieving success in construction projects becoming extremely challenging for

every project manager. Therefore identifying how to delivery successful a construction

project is crucial, in which determining critical factors for project success is a well-

know method. This dissertation aims to contribute to such area. This chapter will

summarize the process and main results of this dissertation.

7.1. Findings from the literature review

This dissertation firstly reviewed the literature in area of critical success factors in

project, aiming to examine the key findings in previous studies and the gap of

knowledge that need to be filled. The literature review reveals several findings in

previous studies as following:

Concerning project success concept as the key stone for any further study, there is not

a definitive definition of project success. However there is a high agreement with the

definition by Wit (1988): “meet of the technical performance specification and/or

mission to be performed…and a high level of satisfaction concerning project outcome

among key people in the parent organization,…in project team, and key users or

clientele…”. In addition, project success has ‘human’ dimension as being “a matter of

perception” (Liu & Walket, 1986; cited by Baccarini, 1999). Other important findings by

Baccarini (1999) and other authors are: Project success has ‘time’ dimension; Project

Success has “hard” side and “soft” sides; Project Success is not always manageable and

may be partly; Project success can be considered having 2 components: project

management success and product success (project output); and Project management

success is a subordinated and influence project success but does not completely

decide the success or failure of project.

Concerning success criteria, it found that success criteria is various due to the diversity

of project context and stakeholder viewpoints. Therefore it is important that success

93

criteria must be priority. In addition, success criteria also have “hard” side and “soft”

side.

Concerning critical success factors (CSFs) in project, there is not a definitive set of CSFs

in project as CSFs are various due to the diversity of project context and strongly

interrelated to the success criteria by various stakeholder viewpoints. In addition, the

relative importance of each CSF is various across project life cycle. Moreover, there is

not a definitive and comprehensive framework or clarification for CSFs in project.

Finally, there are many issues limiting the application of CSFs concept in actual practice

such as the lack of precision in definition and scope of CSFs, the difficulty in evaluating

CSFs, and the integration of CSFs concept in the existing management system.

7.2. The new CSFs framework and empirical survey

From the key findings in the literature above, in the first step the dissertation tried to

develop a more effective method for determining CSFs in construction projects that

adopts advantages and limits the disadvantages of previous methods. The result is a

new CSFs framework that has tabular form dividing into 2 main groups (internal and

external) with 7 sub-groups of CSFs and 7 stages of construction project. As

consequence, each CSF in one cell of the framework will belong to one specific group

and relate to one specific stage, and all CSFs in the framework are interrelated to each

other. All CSFs in the new framework is adopted from previous studies those were in

high consensus.

Consequently, the author of this dissertation used the framework as an aid tool to

conduct an empirical survey. The survey aims to test the effectiveness of the

framework and to determine the CSFs in construction project from project

management (MOP) student viewpoint, who will be project manager in near future.

The survey provided several findings as following:

Firstly, the perception of project success is various. Majority respondents focused on

the “hard side” of project success as meeting specification in terms of time, cost,

quality that is traditional and related to short-term success. In contrast, the

94

stakeholder’s satisfaction is considered as the most success criteria, followed by

Quality, Cost, and Time.

In addition, the relative important of each CSF is various across the project lifecycle,

that reinforces the findings in previous studies. One factor may be critical in one stage

but not critical in others. As a consequence, the relative important of each CSFs group

that relate to specific stakeholders is various across the project lifecycle.

Moreover, the 13 most critical success factors in construction projects identified from

MOP students’ viewpoint in order of stages are:

1. PO Approval (Completion & Handover)

2. Cost & Cash Flow Management Effectiveness (Construction)

3. PM Monitoring & Control Competence (Construction)

4. Site Management Effectiveness (Construction)

5. Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness (Construction)

6. PM Experience & Competence (Inception)

7. Lesson Learn for PM & PO (Users Occupancy & Commission)

8. Constr. Team Experience & Competence (Construction)

9. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness (Construction)

10. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence (Construction)

11. Availability of Resource (Feasibility & Strategy)

12. Communication Effectiveness (Engineering Commission)

13. PO Consultation & Direction (Design & Tendering)

Finally, the new framework still contains several shortcomings such as the logicality of

the interrelationship between CSFs or the logicality of CSFs clarification.

7.4. Application and Further Study Recommendation

Realizing the shortcomings of the new framework, the authors of this dissertation

recommended an 11-step procedure of applying the framework in practice that can

help to overcome the existing limitations. This procedure will help to use the

framework for not only determining the CSFs in projects but also using CSFs framework

95

as a tool to aid project tracking and controlling, and organizational learning. The 11

steps (three steps 9, 10, 11 are repeated throughout the project life cycle) are:

1. Determine a set of prioritized success criteria (SCr Set)

2. Assign key roles and Educate staffs on CSFs and success criteria

3. Derive hypothesized success-related factors from all stakeholders by interview

4. Filtering ‘trash’ for deriving Stakeholder Sets 1 of HSR factors (N-Stk SET 1)

5. Add ‘layer’& Reorganise for deriving Stakeholder Sets 2 of HSRFs (N-Stk SET 2)

6. Prioritize factors for derive the first common set of HSR factors (SET 3)

7. Add ‘criteria driven’ for derive groups of sets of HSR factors (SCr-SET 4)

8. Add ‘time dimension’ for derive groups of sets of HSR factors (Baseline-SET 5)

9. Reassessing the ‘priority’ of success criteria (SET 3)

10. Reassessing the ‘critical performance’ of CSFs

11. Recording and Updating Project CSFs Profile Database

The authors also provided a recommendation on the direction for future research,

including focusing on the cause-effect relationship between factors; building a

standard tool for measure factors’ relative important that is integrated to data

collected from other day-by-day management functions; and embedding the new CSFs

framework and its application procedure in computer system.

96

Bibliography

APM 2006. APM Body of Knowledge.

AVOT 1969. Why does project management fail. Cali fornia Management Review, 12.

BACCARINI, D. 1999. The Logical Framework Mathod for Defining Project Success.

Project Management Journal, 30, 25-32.

BAKER, N., MURPHY, D. & FISHER, D. 1983. Project Management Handbook: Factors

affecting project success, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

BELASSI, W. & TUKEL, O. I. 1996. A new framework fot determining critical

success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project

Management, 14, 141-151.

BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2000. Guide to Project Management, BSI, UK.

BOYNTON, A. C. & ZMUD, R. W. 1984. An assessment of Critical Success Factors. Sloan

Management Review, 25, 17.

BULLEN, C. V. & ROCKHART, J. F. 1981. A primer on critical success factors. (Working

Paper No. 69), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

BWF 2010. UK Recovery Hindered By Construction Recession.

CHUA, D. K. H., MEMBER, ASCE, KOG, Y. C. & LOH, P. K. 1999. Critical Success Factors

for Different Project Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and


CLACK, R. N., MEIDINGER, E. F. & MILLER, G. 1998. Intergrating Science and Policy in

Natural Resource Management: Lessons and Opportunities from North

America. United State of America.

97

CLARKE, A. 1999. A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of

project management International Journal of Project Management, 17, 139-

145.

CLELAND, D. I. & KING, W. R. 1983. Systems analysis and project management, New

York, McGraw-Hill.

COOKE-DAVIES, T. 2001. The "eal" success factors on projects. International Journal of

Project management, 20, 181-190.

DENSCOMBE, M. 1998. Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects,

Berkshire: Open University Press.

DVIR, D., S.LIPOVESTSKY, A.SHENHAR & A.TISHLER 1998. In search of project

classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors. Research

Policy, 27, 915-935.

EILEEN, K. & BRUN, O. R.-D. 2001. Doing Your Own Research. Marion Boyars: New

York.

FEWINGS, P. 2005. Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach, Taylor

& Francis.

FINCH, P. 2003. Applying the Slevin-Pinto Project Implementation Profile to and

Information Systems Project. Project Management Journal, 34, 32-39.

GRAY, C. F. & LARSON, E. W. 2008. Project Management: The managerial process,

MC_Graw Hill.

HAUGHEY, D. 2010. The Project Management Maturity Matrix [Online]. Available:

http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/four-levels-of-project-success.html [Accessed].

HUGHES, S. W., TIPPETT, D. D. & THOMAS, W. K. 2004. Measuring Project Success in

the Construction Industry. Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3.

98

HYVÄRI, I. 2006. SUCCESS OF PROJECTS IN DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL CONDITIONS.

Project Management Journal, 37, 31-41.

KORDE, T., LI, M. & RUSSELL, A. D. Year. State-of-the-Art Review of Construction

Performance Models and Factors. In: Construction Research Congress 2005:

Broadening Perspectives 2005.

LAHAR, C. J. 2004. Materials from the 8th Annual Socio-Cultural Research Training

Seminar: Qualitative Research Methods.

MARTIN, C. C. 1976. Project Management, New York, Amaco.

MCNEIL, P. 1990. Research Methods, London: Routledge.

MORRIS, P. W. G. & HOUGH, G. H. 1987. The anatomy of major projects: A study of the

reality of project management, Chichester and New York, Wiley

MUNNS, A. K. & BJEIRMI, B. F. 1996. The role of project managment in achieving

project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 81-87.

NAUOM, S. 1999. Dissertation research and writing for construction students, Baston,

Mass, Butterworth-Heinemann.

NGUYEN, L. D., OGUNLANA, S. O. & LAN, D. T. X. 2004. A study on project success

factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 11, 404 - 413.

O'LEARY, Z. 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Research, SAGE Publications.

ONS. 2010. Economic & Labour Market Review. 4. Available:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/04_10/downloads/ELMR-Apr10.pdf

PARK, S. H. 2009. Whole Life Performance Assessment: Critical Success Factors. Journal

of Construction Engineering and Management, 135, 1146-1161.

PFINISGRAFF, M. 2009. Bolstering Your Risk Defense. Risk Management, 56, 58.

99

PIMLOTT, D. 2010. UK construction industry remains in slump. Financial Time.

PINTO, J. K. 1990. Project Implementation Profile: a tool to aid project tracking and

control. International Journal of Project Management, 8, 172-182.

PINTO, J. K. & COVIN, J. G. 1989. Critical factors in project implementation: a

comparision od construction and R&D projects. Technovation, 9, 49-62.

PINTO, J. K. & PRESCOTT, J. E. 1988. Variations in Critical success Factors Over the

Stages in the Project Life Cycle. Journal of Management, 14, 5-18.

PINTO, J. K. & SLEVIN, D. P. 1988a. Critical Success Factors in Effective Project

Implementation. In: CLELAND, D. I. & KING, W. R. (eds.) Project Management

Handbook, Second Edition. Wiley.

PINTO, J. K. & SLEVIN, D. P. 1988b. Project success: definitions and measurement

techniques. Project Management Journal, 19, 67-73.

PINTO, J. K. & SLEVIN, D. P. 1989. Critical Success Factors in RD project Reasearch

Technology Management, 32, 31-35.

PRABHAKAR, G. P. 2008. What is Project Success: A Literature Review. International

Journal of Business and Management, 3, 3-10.

RAHMAN, A. 2009. Financial crisis: A Multi Level impact on construction [Online].

Available: http://www.e-stm8.com/blog/news.php?id=1 [Accessed].

SANVIDO, V., COYLE, M., GUVENIS, M. M., GROBLER, F. & PARFITT, M. K. 1990.

CRITICAL PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS (CPSF) FOR BUILDINGS. In: REPORT.

University Park, PA 16802, Computer Integrated Construction Research Program

Department of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University

SAQID, M., FAROOQUI, R. U. & LODI, S. H. 2008. Assessment of critical success factors

for construction projects in Pakistan. First International Confference on

100

Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC-I), "Advancing and Integrating

Construction Education, Research & Practice". Karachi, Pakistan.

SLEVIN, D. P. & PINTO, J. K. 1987. Critical factors in successful project implementation.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34, 22-27.

STEWART, D. W. & KAMINS, M. A. (eds.) 1993. Secondary Research: Information

Sources and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods): SAGE Publications, Inc

TOOR, S.-U.-R. & OGUNLANA, S. O. 2008. Critical COMs of success in large-scale

construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry.

International Journal of Project Management 26, 420–430

TORP, O., AUSTENG, K. & MENGESHA, W. J. 2004. Critical success factors for project

performance; a study from front-end assessments of large public projects in

Norway. Proc., Nordnet 2004 Conf.

TRILLWOOD, S. 2009. Examination of critical success and failure factors in large-scale

construction projects in the UK. Master, University of Manchester.

TUKEL, O. I. & ROM, W. O. 1998. Ananlysis of the characteristics of projects in diverse

industries. Journal of Operation Management, 16, 43-61.

VEAL, A. J. 1997. Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide, Prentice

Hall: New Jersey.

WADE, J. 2009. Crisis and Congress. Risk Management, 56, 16.

WIT, A. D. 1988. Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project


ZHANG, X. 2005. Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnerships in

Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and


Appendix 1: New CSFs Framework Form

101

Appendix 2: Full CSFs Framework

102

Appendix 3: Blank CSFs Framework

103

Appendices 4: Map of CSFs Methodology Procedure by Boynton & Zmud

104

Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey

2. Section 2

Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of

your projects during INCEPTION Phase.

NOTE: If your factors are not listed below, please add them to the areas provided below, and/or mention the CSFs

group (showed in the framework) those factors are belong to.

1. CSFs during Inception Phase:

Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant

1. PO Business Case

2. PO Characteristic

3. PO Consultation & Direction

4. PO Project Corporate Programme

----------

5. PM Experience & Competence

6. PM Role/Responsibilities Perception

7. PM Technical Capability

8. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate

----------

9. Architect Experience & Competence

----------

10. Project Nature & Type

11. Project Mission & Constraints

----------

12. Comprehensive Outline Plan

----------

13. Contract Management Effectiveness

14. Communication Effectiveness

15. Coordinating Effectiveness

16. Commitment of all Stakeholders

----------

17. Political Environment

18. Economical Environment

19. Social Environment

20. Technology Environment

Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==

1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:20

106


21. Competitors

22. Market Demands

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey

"Surveys Made Simple."

Please specify any other factors here:


2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:20

107


3. Section 3


your projects during FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY Phase.



1. CSFs during FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY Phase:


1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness

2. PO Top Management Support


4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Compt

6. PM Risk Management Competence

7. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence


----------


10. Quantity Surveyor Exp. & Compt.

----------

11. Project Size & Value

12. Project Uniqueness

13. Project Location

14. Project Urgency

15. Project Organizational Structure

----------

16. Viability & Option Assessment

17. Availability of Resource

18. Risk - VFM Assessment & Allocation

19. Comprehensive Outline Design

20. Comprehensive Execution Plan

21. Designability Information

----------


1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:26

108




18. Coordination Effectiveness


----------

20. Site Condition

21. Market Condition

22. Relevant Law & Regulation

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey


Please specify other factors here:


2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:26

109


4. Section 4


your projects during DESIGN & TENDERING Phase.



1. CSFs during DESIGN & TENDERING Phase:





4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Competence

6. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence

7. PM Design Management Competence

8. PM Procurement Management Compt


----------

10. Design Team Exp. & Compt.


12. Construction Manager Exp. &Compt.

13. Planning Supervisor Exp. & Compt.

----------

14. Design Complexity

15. Contract Complexity

----------

16. Site Investigation Effectiveness

17. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness

18. Health & Safety Plan

19. Comprehensive Tender Document

20. Constructability Information

----------


1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22

110






----------

25. Site Condition



Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey


Other (please specify)


2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22

111


5. Section 5


your projects during CONSTRUCTION Phase.



1. CSFs during CONSTRUCTION Phase:





4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Skill

6. PM Monitoring & Control Compt.

7. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt.

8. PM Organizing Competence

9. PM Risk & Change Mangnt. Compt.


----------

11. Construction Team Experience & Compt.


12. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt.

13. Site Manager Experience & Compt.

----------

14. Construction Complexity

15. Project Density

----------

16. % Design Completion

17. Site Management Effectiveness


19. Cost & Cash Flow Mangnt. Effectiveness

20. Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness


1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22

112


21.Quality Control Effectiveness

22. Sub-Contractors Performance

23. Operability Information

----------





----------

28. Site Condition



31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt.

32. Exceptional Events

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey




2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22

113


6. Section 6


your projects during ENGINEERING COMMISSION Phase.



1. CSFs during ENGINEERING & COMMISIONS Phase:




3. PO Approval

----------



6. PM Organizing Competence


----------



---------

10. Engineering Complexity

----------


12. Comprehensive System Testing

13. Operability Information

---------





---------




1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23

114

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey




2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23

115


7. Section 7


your projects during COMPLETION & HANDOVER Phase.



1. CSFs during COMPLETE & HANDOVER Phase:




3. PO Approval

----------


5. PM Knowledge Management Competence


----------

7. Operation Team Experience & Compt.

----------

8. Operation Complexity

----------

9. Document & Knowledge Transferring

10. Operation & Maintenance Training

----------





----------





1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23

116

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey



2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23

117


8. Section 8


your projects during USERS OCCUPATION & COMMISSION Phase.



1. CSFs during USER OCCUPATION & COMISSION Phase:


1. PO Evaluation Competence

2. PO Administration Competence

----------

3. PM Knowledge Mangnt. Competence

----------

4. Operation Team Experience & Compt.

----------

5. Maintenance Complexity

----------

6. Lesson Learn for PM & PO

7. Post Occupation Assessment

8. End Users Feedback

----------





----------





1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:24

118


9. Section 9

In the last question of the survey, I would like to ask for your opinion to improve the FRAMEWORK that is used as

an aid tool with this survey.

In the case you want to receive a summary report of this survey, please add your Email address in the text box

provide below.

I would like to thank you very much for your significant help!

If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Truong Huu Chi

University of Manchester

Email: [email protected]

1. Do you think the FRAMEWORK need to improve in area of:

Survey Powered by:

SurveyMonkey


Logicality of CSFs clarification

Appropriateness of selected CSFs

Logicality of interrelation between CSFs

Level of convenience for use in practice

Framework's feartures

If you have any other suggestion for improving the framework, please specify here: (& add Email address for receiving summary report)


1 of 1 05/09/2010 19:24

119

Response Summary

Appendix 7: Survey Responses Result

You have a BASIC account | To remove the limits of a BASIC account and get unlimited questions, upgrade now!

Critical Success Factors in Construction

Projects Edit

+ Add Report

Total Started Survey: 35

Total Completed Survey: 19 (54.3%)

Select a page to view below or view all pages:

« »

PAGE: SECTION 1

1. How do you define the project success? Download

Response

Count

Hide replies 27

1. Client satisfaction Fri, Aug 20, 2010 3:11 AM Find...

2. on time, within budget, profitable Sat, Aug 14, 2010 2:28 AM Find...

3. Project finishes on time, on budget with the right quality. Fri, Aug 13, 2010 6:40 AM Find...

4. finish project on time, no overrun cost, no accident and proper quality. Thu, Aug 12, 2010 3:55 PM Find...

5. It would be easy to say a project that was delivered on time, at a reasonable cost

and to the correct quality makes a project a success. I prefer to keep things simple.

To this end, I would say a project that meets the satisfaction of the client and

perhaps aspirations of stakeholders is a successful project. One may also want to

add the measurable impact of a project and the benefit it has on physical

determinants such as health, socio-economic factors (employment) and as a vehicle

to trigger investment into a deprived community makes such a project a success; in

my humble opinion.

Wed, Aug 11, 2010 2:17 PM Find...

6. get target on time Wed, Aug 11, 2010 3:07 AM Find...

7. Project Success is a Combination of All elements that are needed to implement the

project.

Tue, Aug 10, 2010 3:22 AM Find...

8. achievement on time within budget,and quality Tue, Aug 10, 2010 2:15 AM Find...

9. project success is when you meet the specified targets, including satisfying the

clients

10. when the project has been completed in time, within the budget and meets the

quality and performance standards

Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:26 PM Find...

Mon, Aug 9, 2010 3:18 PM Find...

< 1 >

11. by satisfaction of all stakeholders Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:22 AM Find...

12. A project is said to be successful when it is delivered within cost, time and quality

expectations; and if benefits agreed initially are realised.

Sun, Aug 8, 2010 4:10 PM Find...

13. meet client's requirements within preset cost Sun, Aug 8, 2010 1:35 PM Find...

14. completion on time and to be budget , also to the stipulated quality Sun, Aug 8, 2010 8:58 AM Find...

15. Projects that satisfies the needs of the majority principle stakeholders. Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:41 AM Find...

16. completion; on budget, on time, to specification and scope Sun, Aug 8, 2010 2:35 AM Find...

17. a project success is a mix of good strategies,structures that compin with a strong

leadership.

Sat, Aug 7, 2010 7:30 PM Find...

18. within budget Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:35 PM Find...

19. That depends on your priority in your project. Mostly, on budget, on time, with good

quality.

Sat, Aug 7, 2010 2:51 PM Find...

20. client santisfaction Sat, Aug 7, 2010 1:50 PM Find...

< 2 >

120

21. project finish on planned time, within budgeted cost and meeting quality standards Sat, Aug 7, 2010 9:50 AM Find...

22. successful accomplishment of the project's goal, aim and objectives Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:52 AM Find...

23. Satisfaction of stakeholders Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:25 AM Find...

24. Project Success lies in the situation in hand. Mostly, it may be related to things

such as achievement of aims and objectives. Apart from just this criteria, success

can be accounted for the service a company is trying to provide for people and its

effective

implementation. Results are what matter and are directly linked to the success criteria

set by an organisation, whether it is construction or others.

Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:22 AM Find...

25. achieve the goal of the peoject Sat, Aug 7, 2010 4:01 AM Find...

26. On time, within budget, satisfy quality and safety demands Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:29 PM Find...

27. On time, within budget, at quality with positive Net Present Value. Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:24 PM Find...

answered question 27

skipped question 8

2. Please rank the significant of criteria that you use to measure project

success (or failure).

Create Chart Download

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating

Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count

Cost

9.1% (3)

9.1% (3)

27.3% (9)

54.5% (18)

3.27

33

Time

12.1% (4)

9.1% (3)

36.4% (12)

42.4% (14)

3.09

33

Quality

6.3% (2)

6.3% (2)

25.0% (8)

62.5% (20)

3.44

32

Stakeholder sastisfaction

6.1% (2)

3.0% (1)

30.3% (10)

60.6% (20)

3.45

33

Hide replies If you use other criteria to measure project success (or failure), please specify. 6

1. The ability of the project to influence other related construction projects. For

example, this is anecdotal, but my residential apartment is an early 'Urban Splash'

design in Chorlton cum Hardy denoting features such as a wooden box style timber

beam frontage, sitting in front of metal balconies to each self contained apartment in

the residential block. The development received a housing design award in the early

00s and was promoted for its energy efficiency qualities on the television . But, the

development was not completed on time and went over budget at the expense of

inferior quality to the original design specification, yet the design has been copied

throughout Manchester and there are now two similar developments in Chorlton cum

Hardy. One can argue, in this sense, the project was a success impacting on society

as a whole (Manchester) for new residential infrastructure.

Wed, Aug 11, 2010 2:17 PM Find...

2. Benefits to project organisation Mon, Aug 9, 2010 2:22 AM Find...

3. business case and scope Sun, Aug 8, 2010 8:58 AM Find...

4. added value Sun, Aug 8, 2010 6:41 AM Find...

5. Satisfaction of stakeholders Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:25 AM Find...

6. Well, here I would also suggest "Team or employee Motivation" which is also my

dissertation area. Employee motivation is a pivotal factor in success of projects.

Sat, Aug 7, 2010 5:22 AM Find...


skipped question 2


« »

121

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

26.9% (7)

38.5% (10)

34.6% (9)

3.08

26

0.0% (0)

50.0% (13)

38.5% (10)

11.5% (3)

2.62

26

3.8% (1)

46.2% (12)

46.2% (12)

3.8% (1)

2.50

26

0.0% (0)

26.9% (7)

50.0% (13)

23.1% (6)

2.96

26

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

4.0% (1)

8.0% (2)

40.0% (10)

48.0% (12)

3.32

25

4.0% (1)

16.0% (4)

48.0% (12)

32.0% (8)

3.08

25

8.0% (2)

32.0% (8)

32.0% (8)

28.0% (7)

2.80

25

0.0% (0)

25.0% (6)

41.7% (10)

33.3% (8)

3.08

24

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

24.0% (6)

56.0% (14)

20.0% (5)

2.96

25

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

37.5% (9)

50.0% (12)

12.5% (3)

2.75

24

0.0% (0)

20.0% (5)

52.0% (13)

28.0% (7)

3.08

25

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

48.0% (12)

32.0% (8)

20.0% (5)

2.72

25

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

16.0% (4)

44.0% (11)

40.0% (10)

3.24

25

Response Summary

SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...



Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 2


1. PO Business Case

2. PO Characteristic


4. PO Project Corporate

Program me

----------

5. PM Experience & Competence

6. PM Role/Responsibilities

Perception

7. PM Technical Capability

8. PM Authority Delegated &

Delegate

----------

9. Architect Experience &

Competence

----------

10. Project Nature & Type

11. Project Mission & Constraints

----------

12. Comprehensive Outline Plan

----------

13. Contract Management

Effectiveness


skipped question 9

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:52

122


4.0% (1)

12.0% (3)

48.0% (12)

36.0% (9)

3.16

25

15. Coordinating Effectiveness

0.0% (0)

24.0% (6)

44.0% (11)

32.0% (8)

3.08

25

16. Commitment of all

Stakeholders 0.0% (0)

16.7% (4)

54.2% (13)

29.2% (7)

3.13

24



----------

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

17. Political Environment

8.0% (2)

44.0% (11)

32.0% (8)

16.0% (4)

2.56

25

18. Economical Environment

4.0% (1)

12.0% (3)

64.0% (16)

20.0% (5)

3.00

25

19. Social Environment

0.0% (0)

32.0% (8)

48.0% (12)

20.0% (5)

2.88

25

20. Technology Environm ent

0.0% (0)

44.0% (11)

32.0% (8)

24.0% (6)

2.80

25

21. Competitors

4.0% (1)

32.0% (8)

36.0% (9)

28.0% (7)

2.88

25

22. Market Dem ands

0.0% (0)

16.7% (4)

41.7% (10)

41.7% (10)

3.25

24

Please specify any other factors here: 0


skipped question 9


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:52

123

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

22.7% (5)

50.0% (11)

27.3.0% (6)

3.05

22

4.5% (1)

18.2% (4)

50.0% (11)

27.3% (6)

3.00

22

0.0% (0)

36.4% (8)

45.5% (10)

18.2% (4)

2.82

22

0.0% (0)

20.0% (4)

65.0% (13)

15.0% (3)

2.95

20

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

20.0% (4)

65.0% (13)

15.0% (3)

2.95

20

0.0% (0)

9.1% (2)

86.4% (19)

4.5% (1)

2.95

22

9.1% (2)

0.0% (0)

63.6% (14)

27.3% (6)

3.09

22

0.0% (0)

14.3% (3)

71.4% (15)

14.3% (3)

3.00

21

4.5% (1)

18.2% (4)

68.2% (15)

9.1% (2)

2.82

22

0.0% (0)

21.1% (4)

68.4% (13)

10.5% (2)

2.89

19

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

38.1% (8)

47.6% (10)

14.3% (3)

2.76

21

9.5% (2) 38.1% (8) 42.9% (9) 9.5% (2) 2.52 21

0.0% (0)

38.1% (8)

57.1% (12)

4.8% (1)

2.67

21

0.0% (0)

36.4% (8)

40.9% (9)

22.7% (5)

2.86

22

0.0% (0)

41.0% (9)

41.0% (9)

0.18% (4)

2.77

22

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 3


1. PO Decision Marking

Effectiveness



4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling

Compt

6. PM Risk Managem ent

Com petence

7. PM Motivating & Leadership

Competence


Delegate


Competence

10. Quantity Surveyor Exp. &

Compt.

----------

11. Project Size & Value

12. Project Uniqueness

13. Project Location

14. Project Urgency

15. Project Organizational

Structure


skipped question 13

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

124

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

42.9% (9)

42.9% (9)

14.2% (3)

2.71

21

0.0% (0)

13.6% (3)

50.0% (11)

36.4% (8)

3.23

22

0.0% (0)

18.2% (4)

68.2% (15)

13.6% (3)

2.95

22

0.0% (0)

47.6% (10)

42.9% (9)

9.5% (2)

2.62

21

0.0% (0)

27.3% (6)

54.5% (12)

18.2% (4)

2.91

22

9.5% (2)

28.6% (6)

52.4% (11)

9.5% (2)

2.62

21

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.0% (1)

15.0% (3)

45.0% (9)

35.0% (7)

3.10

20

4.8% (1) 4.8% (1) 57.1% (12) 33.3% (7) 3.19 21

0.0% (0)

19.0% (4)

47.6% (10)

33.3% (7)

3.14

21

4.8% (1)

14.3% (3)

61.9% (13)

19.0% (4)

2.95

21

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

33.3% (7)

57.1% (12)

9.5% (2)

2.76

21

0.0% (0)

27.3% (6)

59.1% (13)

13.6% (3)

2.86

22

0.0% (0)

31.8% (7)

45.5% (10)

22.7% (5)

2.91

22



----------

16. Viability & Option Assessm ent

17. Availability of Resource

18. Risk - VFM Assessment &

Allocation

19. Comprehensive Outline

Design

20. Comprehensive Execution

Plan

21. Designability Inform ation

----------

16. Contract Managem ent

Effectiveness




Stakeholders

----------

20. Site Condition



Please specify other factors here: 0


skipped question 13


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

125

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

36.8% (7)

42.1% (8)

21.1% (4)

2.84

19

0.0% (0)

28.6% (6)

57.1% (12)

14.3% (3)

2.86

21

0.0% (0)

23.8 (5)

42.9 (9)

33.3 (7)

3.10

21

0.0% (0)

23.8% (5)

57.1% (12)

19.0% (4)

2.95

21

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

9.5% (2)

76.2% (16)

14.3% (3)

3.05

21

0.0% (0)

23.8% (5)

61.9% (13)

14.3% (3)

2.90

21

0.0% (0)

15.0% (3)

65.0% (13)

20.0% (4)

3.05

20

0.0% (0)

15.0% (3)

60.0% (12)

25.0% (5)

3.10

20

0.0% (0)

20.0% (4)

75.0% (15)

5.0% (1)

2.85

20

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0) 23.8% (5) 47.6% (10) 28.6% (6) 3.05 21

0.0% (0)

42.9% (9)

33.3% (7)

23.8% (5)

2.81

21

0.0% (0)

40.0% (8)

40.0% (8)

20.0% (4)

2.80

20

0.0% (0)

30.0% (6)

55.0% (11)

15.0% (3)

2.85

20

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report


Total Completed Survey: N/A


« »

PAGE: SECTION 4



Effectiveness



4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling

Com petence


Com petence

7. PM Design Managem ent

Com petence

8. PM Procurement Managem ent

Compt


Delegate

----------

10. Design Team Exp. & Compt.


Compt.

12. Construction Manager Exp.

&Compt.

13. Planning Supervisor Exp. &

Compt.

----------


skipped question 14

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

126

0.0% (0)

14.3% (3)

66.7% (14)

19.0% (4)

3.05

21

0.0% (0)

25.0% (5)

50.0% (10)

25.0% (5)

3.00

20

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

47.6% (10)

33.3% (7)

19.0% (4)

2.71

21

0.0% (0)

47.6% (10)

47.6% (10)

4.8% (1)

2.57

21

5.0% (1)

35.0% (7)

35.0% (7)

25.0% (5)

2.80

20

0.0% (0)

40.0% (8)

50.0% (10)

10.0% (2)

2.70

20

10.0% (2)

20.0% (4)

55.0% (11)

15.0% (3)

2.75

20

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

23.8(5)

52.4(11)

23.8(5)

3.00

21

0.0% (0) 25.0% (5) 55.0% (11) 20.0% (4) 2.95 20

0.0% (0)

25.0% (5)

55.0% (11)

20.0% (4)

2.95

20

4.8% (1)

38.1% (8)

28.6% (6)

28.6% (6)

2.81

21

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

10.0% (2)

40.0% (8)

35.0% (7)

15.0% (3)

2.55

20

4.8% (1)

23.8% (5)

61.9% (13)

9.5% (2)

2.76

21

5.0% (1)

15.0% (3)

60.0% (12)

20.0% (4)

2.95

20



14. Design Complexity

15. Contract Complexity

----------

16. Site Investigation

Effectiveness

17. Trouble Shooting

Effectiveness

18. Health & Safety Plan

19. Comprehensive Tender

Docum ent

20. Constructability Inform ation

----------


Effectiveness




Stakeholders

----------

25. Site Condition



Other (please specify) 0


skipped question 14


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

127

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

27.8% (5)

50.0% (9)

22.2% (4)

2.94

18

0.0% (0)

33.3% (6)

50.0% (9)

16.7% (3)

2.83

18

0.0% (0)

44.4% (8)

44.4% (8)

11.2% (2)

2.67

18

5.6% (1)

50.0% (9)

22.2% (4)

22.2% (4)

2.61

18

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

47.1% (8)

35.3% (6)

3.18

17

0.0% (0)

5.6% (1)

50.0% (9)

44.4% (8)

3.39

18

0.0% (0)

5.6% (1)

61.1% (11)

33.3% (6)

3.28

18

0.0% (0)

16.7% (3)

44.4% (8)

38.9% (7)

3.22

18

0.0% (0)

23.5% (4)

41.2% (7)

35.3% (6)

3.12

17

0.0% (0)

22.2% (4)

55.6% (10)

22.2% (4)

3.00

18

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

11.8% (2)

47.1% (8)

41.2% (7)

3.29

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

58.8% (10)

23.5% (4)

3.06

17

5.6% (1)

16.7% (3)

33.3% (6)

44.4% (8)

3.17

18

0.0% (0)

27.8% (5)

33.3% (6)

38.9% (7)

3.11

18

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 5



Effectiveness



4. PO Approval

----------

5. PM Planning & Scheduling Skill



Compt.

8. PM Organizing Com petence

9. PM Risk & Change Mangnt.

Compt.


Delegate

----------

11. Construction Team

Experience & Compt.


Compt.

12. Constr. Manager Exp. &

Compt.

13. Site Manager Experience &

Compt.

----------


skipped question 17

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

128

0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 66.7% (12) 16.7% (3) 3.00 18

11.8% (2)

23.5% (4)

58.8% (10)

11.8% (2)

2.67

18

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

22.2% (4)

50.0% (9)

27.8% (5)

3.06

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

29.4% (5)

52.9% (9)

3.35

17

0.0% (0)

16.7% (3)

33.3% (6)

50.0% (9)

3.33

18

0.0% (0)

5.6% (1)

50.0% (9)

44.4% (8)

3.39

18

0.0% (0)

11.2% (2)

44.4% (8)

44.4% (8)

3.33

18

0.0% (0)

11.8% (2)

58.8% (10)

29.4% (5)

3.18

17

0.0% (0)

5.6% (1)

66.7% (12)

27.8% (5)

3.22

18

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

35.3% (6)

35.3% (6)

3.06

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

41.2% (7)

29.4% (5)

3.00

17

0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 55.6% (10) 27.8% (5) 3.11 18

0.0% (0)

22.2% (4)

55.6% (10)

22.2% (4)

3.00

18

0.0% (0)

33.3% (6)

33.3% (6)

33.3% (6)

3.00

18

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.1% (2)

11.1% (2)

44.4% (8)

33.3% (6)

3.00

18

16.7% (3)

5.6% (1)

61.1% (11)

16.7% (3)

2.78

18

11.0% (2)

11.1% (2)

55.6% (10)

22.2% (4)

2.89

18

5.6% (1) 11.1% (2) 72.2% (13) 11.1% (2) 2.89 18

5.6% (1) 22.2% (4) 50.0% (9) 22.2% (4) 2.89 18



14. Construction Complexity

15. Project Density

----------

16. % Design Completion

17. Site Managem ent

Effectiveness


Effectiveness

19. Cost & Cash Flow Mangnt.

Effectiveness

20. Monitoring & Feedback

Effectiveness

21.Quality Control Effectiveness

22. Sub-Contractors Perform ance

23. Operability Inform ation

----------


Effectiveness




Stakeholders

----------

28. Site Condition



31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt.




skipped question 17


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54

129

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

41.2% (7)

41.2% (7)

17.6% (3)

2.76

17

0.0% (0)

35.5% (6)

47.1% (8)

17.6% (3)

2.82

17

0.0% (0)

35.3% (6)

41.2% (7)

23.5% (4)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.9% (1)

29.4% (5)

52.9% (9)

11.8% (2)

2.71

17

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

47.1% (8)

23.5% (4)

2.94

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

64.7% (11)

17.6% (3)

3.00

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

64.7% (11)

17.6% (3)

3.00

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

17.6% (3)

23.5% (4)

52.9% (9)

5.9% (1)

2.47

17

5.9% (1) 29.4% (5) 58.8% (10) 5.9% (1) 2.65 17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0) 17.6% (3) 70.6% (12) 11.8% (2) 2.94 17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

41.2% (7)

29.4% (5)

29.4% (5)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

35.3% (6)

35.3% (6)

3.06

17

0.0% (0)

41.2% (7)

35.3% (6)

23.5% (4)

2.82

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 6



Effectiveness


3. PO Approval

----------



Compt.

6. PM Organizing Com petence


Delegate

----------


Com petence


---------

10. Engineering Complexity

----------


Effectiveness

12. Com prehensive System

Testing

13. Operability Inform ation

---------


skipped question 18

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

130

0.0% (0)

23.5% (4)

41.2% (7)

35.3% (6)

3.12

17

0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 52.9% (9) 35.3% (6) 3.24 17

0.0% (0)

23.5% (4)

47.1% (8)

29.4% (5)

3.06

17

11.8% (2)

29.4% (5)

41.2% (7)

17.6% (3)

2.65

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.8% (2)

23.5% (4)

35.3% (6)

29.4% (5)

2.82

17

29.4% (5) 11.8% (2) 47.1% (8) 11.8% (2) 2.41 17




Effectiveness




Stakeholders

---------





skipped question 18


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

131

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


0.0% (0)

35.3% (6)

41.2% (7)

23.5% (4)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

53.0% (9)

29.4% (5)

3.12

17

0.0% (0)

17.6% (3)

23.5% (4)

58.8% (10)

3.41

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

47.1% (8)

23.5% (4)

2.94

17

0.0% (0)

11.8% (2)

64.7% (11)

23.5% (4)

3.12

17

0.0% (0)

23.5% (4)

64.7% (11)

11.8% (2)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.9% (1)

29.4% (5)

58.8% (10)

5.9% (1)

2.65

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.9% (1)

23.5% (4)

47.1% (8)

23.5% (4)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

0.0% (0)

23.5% (0)

47.1% (0)

29.4% (0)

3.06

17

5.9% (1)

29.4% (5)

47.1% (8)

17.6% (3)

2.76

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.8% (2)

29.4% (5)

35.3% (6)

23.5% (4)

2.71

17

5.9% (1) 35.3% (6) 35.3% (6) 23.5% (4) 2.76 17

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 7



Effectiveness


3. PO Approval

----------


Compt.

5. PM Knowledge Managem ent

Com petence


Delegate

----------

7. Operation Team Experience &

Compt.

----------

8. Operation Complexity

----------

9. Document & Knowledge

Transferring

10. Operation & Maintenance

Training

----------


Effectiveness



skipped question 18

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

132

0.0% (0)

29.4% (5)

41.2% (7)

29.4% (5)

3.00

17

5.9% (1)

29.4% (5)

35.3% (6)

29.4% (5)

2.88

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.8% (2)

17.6% (3)

41.2% (7)

29.4% (5)

2.88

17

29.4% (5) 35.3% (6) 17.6% (3) 17.6% (3) 2.24 17





Stakeholders

----------





skipped question 18


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

133

Not

Slightly

Very

Extremely

Rating


5.9% (1)

23.5% (4)

35.3% (6)

35.3% (6)

3.00

17

6.3% (1)

12.5% (2)

56.3% (9)

25.0% (4)

3.00

16

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.9% (1)

11.8% (2)

35.3% (6)

47.1% (8)

3.24

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.8% (2)

11.8% (2)

76.5% (13)

0.0% (0)

2.65

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

11.8% (2)

41.2% (7)

41.2% (7)

5.9% (1)

2.41

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

5.9% (1)

11.8% (2)

29.4% (5)

52.9% (9)

3.29

17

5.9% (1)

11.7% (2)

47.1% (8)

35.3% (6)

3.12

17

5.9% (1)

17.6% (3)

41.2% (7)

35.3% (6)

3.06

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

23.5% (4)

35.3% (6)

29.4% (5)

11.8% (2)

2.29

17

11.8% (2) 29.4% (5) 47.1% (8) 11.8% (2) 2.59 17

11.8% (2)

47.1% (8)

23.5% (4)

17.6% (3)

2.47

17

17.6% (3)

41.2% (7)

23.5% (4)

17.6% (3)

2.41

17

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.00

0

Response Summary




Projects Edit Edit

+ Add Report




« »

PAGE: SECTION 8


1. PO Evaluation Com petence

2. PO Administration Com petence

----------

3. PM Knowledge Mangnt.

Com petence

----------

4. Operation Team Experience &

Compt.

----------

5. Maintenance Complexity

----------

6. Lesson Learn for PM & PO

7. Post Occupation Assessm ent

8. End Users Feedback

----------


Effectiveness




Stakeholders

----------


skipped question 18

1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

134




37.5% (6)

18.8% (3)

31.3% (5)

12.5% (2)

2.19

16


35.3% (6)

35.3% (6)

23.5% (4)

5.9% (1)

2.00

7



skipped question 18


« »

2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55

135

ChiTr - MOP Dissertation

Documents

Transcript of ChiTr - MOP Dissertation