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
construction project life-cycle
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
construction project life-cycle
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
The table 8 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
MS RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 3.05 0.763 6
2. PO Top Management Support 3 0.750 7
3. PO Consultation & Direction 2.82 0.705 19
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
9. Architect Experience & Competence 2.82 0.705 19
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
16. Contract Management Effectiveness 3.1 0.775 4
17. Communication Effectiveness 3.19 0.798 2
18. Coordination Effectiveness 3.14 0.785 3
19. Commitment of all Stakeholders 2.95 0.738 10
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
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
The table 9 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
MS RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 2.84 0.775 16
2. PO Top Management Support 2.86 0.715 13
3. PO Consultation & Direction 3.1 0.738 1
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
9. PM Authority Delegation 2.85 0.713 14
PM 2.990 0.748 2
10. Design Team Exp. & Compt. 3.05 0.763 3
11. Quantity Surveyor Exp. & Compt. 2.81 0.703 17
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
21. Contract Management Effectiveness 3.00 0.750 7
22. Communication Effectiveness 2.95 0.738 9
23. Coordination Effectiveness 2.95 0.738 10
24. Commitment of all Stakeholders 2.81 0.703 17
SF 2.928 0.732 4
66
25. Site Condition 2.55 0.638 27
26. Market Condition 2.76 0.690 22
27. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.95 0.738 8
EF 2.753 0.688 6
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
The table 10 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
MS RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 2.94 0.735 25
2. PO Top Management Support 2.83 0.708 29
3. PO Consultation & Direction 2.67 0.668 31
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
10. PM Authority Delegation 3 0.750 24
PM 3.198 0.800 2
11. Construction Team Experience & Compt. 3.29 0.823 5
11. Quantity Surveyor Exp. & Compt. 3.06 0.765 18
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
18. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness 3.28 0.820 7
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
25. Communication Effectiveness 3.11 0.778 15
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
29. Market Condition 2.78 0.695 30
30. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.89 0.723 26
31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt. 2.89 0.723 26
32. Exceptional Events 2.89 0.723 26
EF 2.890 0.723 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
The table 11 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
Mean RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 2.76 0.690 14
2. PO Consultation & Direction 2.82 0.705 11
3. PO Approval 2.88 0.720 10
PO 2.820 0.705 5
4. PM Monitoring & Control Compt. 2.71 0.678 15
5. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt. 2.94 0.735 7
6. PM Organizing Competence 3 0.750 5
7. PM Authority Delegation 3 0.750 6
PM 2.913 0.728 4
8. Architect Experience & Competence 2.47 0.618 18
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
11. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness 2.88 0.720 9
12. Comprehensive System Testing 3.06 0.765 3
13. Operability Information 2.82 0.705 11
SR 2.920 0.730 3
14. Contract Management Effectiveness 3.12 0.780 2
15. Communication Effectiveness 3.24 0.810 1
16. Coordination Effectiveness 3.06 0.765 4
17. Commitment of all Stakeholders 2.65 0.663 16
SF 3.018 0.754 1
18. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.82 0.705 11
19. Exceptional Events 2.41 0.603 19
EF 2.615 0.654 6
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
The table 12 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
MC RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness 2.88 0.720 7
2. PO Consultation & Direction 3.12 0.780 2
3. PO Approval 3.41 0. 853 1
PO 3.137 0.784 1
4. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt. 2.94 0.735 6
5. PM Knowledge Management Competence 3.12 0.780 3
6. PM Authority Delegation 2.88 0.720 11
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
11. Contract Management Effectiveness 2.71 0.678 14
12. Communication Effectiveness 2.76 0.690 12
13. Coordination Effectiveness 3 0.750 5
14. Commitment of all Stakeholders 2.88 0.720 9
SF 2.838 0.709 5
15. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.88 0.720 8
16. Exceptional Events 2.24 0.560 16
EF 2.560 0.640 7
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
The table 13 presents the ranking of significance and relative important of all
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
Individual Success Factors Group
MS RII R G-MS G-RII G-R
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
9. Contract Management Effectiveness 2.29 0.573 12
10. Communication Effectiveness 2.59 0.648 8
11. Coordination Effectiveness 2.47 0.618 9
12. Commitment of all Stakeholders 2.41 0.603 10
SF 2.440 0.610 5
13. Relevant Law & Regulation 2.19 0.548 13
14. Exceptional Events 2 0.500 14
EF 2.095 0.524 7
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
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
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
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
Management, 125, 142-150.
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
Management, 6, 164-170.
ZHANG, X. 2005. Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnerships in
Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 131, 3-14.
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
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
21. Competitors
22. Market Demands
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Please specify any other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:20
107
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
3. Section 3
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY 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 FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
4. PO Approval
----------
5. PM Planning & Scheduling Compt
6. PM Risk Management Competence
7. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence
8. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate
----------
9. Architect Experience & 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
----------
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:26
108
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
16. Contract Management Effectiveness
17. Communication Effectiveness
18. Coordination Effectiveness
19. Commitment of all Stakeholders
----------
20. Site Condition
21. Market Condition
22. Relevant Law & Regulation
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Please specify other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:26
109
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
4. Section 4
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during DESIGN & TENDERING 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 DESIGN & TENDERING Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
4. PO Approval
----------
5. PM Planning & Scheduling Competence
6. PM Motivating & Leadership Competence
7. PM Design Management Competence
8. PM Procurement Management Compt
9. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate
----------
10. Design Team Exp. & Compt.
11. Quantity Surveyor 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
----------
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22
110
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
21. Contract Management Effectiveness
22. Communication Effectiveness
23. Coordination Effectiveness
24. Commitment of all Stakeholders
----------
25. Site Condition
26. Market Condition
27. Relevant Law & Regulation
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Other (please specify)
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22
111
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
5. Section 5
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during CONSTRUCTION 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 CONSTRUCTION Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
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.
10. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate
----------
11. Construction Team Experience & Compt.
11. Quantity Surveyor Exp. & Compt.
12. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt.
13. Site Manager Experience & Compt.
----------
14. Construction Complexity
15. Project Density
----------
16. % Design Completion
17. Site Management Effectiveness
18. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness
19. Cost & Cash Flow Mangnt. Effectiveness
20. Monitoring & Feedback Effectiveness
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22
112
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
21.Quality Control Effectiveness
22. Sub-Contractors Performance
23. Operability Information
----------
24. Contract Management Effectiveness
25. Communication Effectiveness
26. Coordination Effectiveness
27. Commitment of all Stakeholders
----------
28. Site Condition
29. Market Condition
30. Relevant Law & Regulation
31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt.
32. Exceptional Events
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Please specify other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:22
113
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
6. Section 6
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during ENGINEERING COMMISSION 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 ENGINEERING & COMMISIONS Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness
2. PO Consultation & Direction
3. PO Approval
----------
4. PM Monitoring & Control Compt.
5. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt.
6. PM Organizing Competence
7. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate
----------
8. Architect Experience & Competence
9. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt.
---------
10. Engineering Complexity
----------
11. Trouble Shooting Effectiveness
12. Comprehensive System Testing
13. Operability Information
---------
14. Contract Management Effectiveness
15. Communication Effectiveness
16. Coordination Effectiveness
17. Commitment of all Stakeholders
---------
18. Relevant Law & Regulation
19. Exceptional Events
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23
114
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Please specify other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23
115
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
7. Section 7
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during COMPLETION & HANDOVER 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 COMPLETE & HANDOVER Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
1. PO Decision Marking Effectiveness
2. PO Consultation & Direction
3. PO Approval
----------
4. PM Motivating & Leadership Compt.
5. PM Knowledge Management Competence
6. PM Authority Delegated & Delegate
----------
7. Operation Team Experience & Compt.
----------
8. Operation Complexity
----------
9. Document & Knowledge Transferring
10. Operation & Maintenance Training
----------
11. Contract Management Effectiveness
12. Communication Effectiveness
13. Coordination Effectiveness
14. Commitment of all Stakeholders
----------
15. Relevant Law & Regulation
16. Exceptional Events
Please specify other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23
116
Survey Powered by:
SurveyMonkey
"Surveys Made Simple."
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
2 of 2 05/09/2010 19:23
117
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
8. Section 8
Use the FRAMEWORK as an aid tool, please rank the significant of factors for the successful implementation of
your projects during USERS OCCUPATION & COMMISSION 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 USER OCCUPATION & COMISSION Phase:
Not Significant Slightly Significant Very Significant Extremely Significant
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
----------
9. Contract Management Effectiveness
10. Communication Effectiveness
11. Coordination Effectiveness
12. Commitment of all Stakeholders
----------
13. Relevant Law & Regulation
14. Exceptional Events
Please specify other factors here:
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
1 of 2 05/09/2010 19:24
118
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Exit this survey
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
"Surveys Made Simple."
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)
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects Survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Jy5huOCmBQo6J8hLRVl4Q==
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...
answered question 33
skipped question 2
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
121
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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...
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 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 2
1. CSFs during Inception Phase:
1. PO Business Case
2. PO Characteristic
3. PO Consultation & Direction
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
answered question 26
skipped question 9
1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:52
122
14. Communication Effectiveness
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during Inception Phase:
----------
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
answered question 26
skipped question 9
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:52
123
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 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 3
1. CSFs during FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY Phase:
1. PO Decision Marking
Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
4. PO Approval
----------
5. PM Planning & Scheduling
Compt
6. PM Risk Managem ent
Com petence
7. PM Motivating & Leadership
Competence
8. PM Authority Delegated &
Delegate
9. Architect Experience &
Competence
10. Quantity Surveyor Exp. &
Compt.
----------
11. Project Size & Value
12. Project Uniqueness
13. Project Location
14. Project Urgency
15. Project Organizational
Structure
answered question 22
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during FEASIBILITY & STRATEGY Phase:
----------
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
17. Communication Effectiveness
18. Coordination Effectiveness
19. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
----------
20. Site Condition
21. Market Condition
22. Relevant Law & Regulation
Please specify other factors here: 0
answered question 22
skipped question 13
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54
125
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 Edit
+ Add Report
Total Started Survey: 35
Total Completed Survey: N/A
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
PAGE: SECTION 4
1. CSFs during DESIGN & TENDERING Phase:
1. PO Decision Marking
Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
4. PO Approval
----------
5. PM Planning & Scheduling
Com petence
6. PM Motivating & Leadership
Com petence
7. PM Design Managem ent
Com petence
8. PM Procurement Managem ent
Compt
9. PM Authority Delegated &
Delegate
----------
10. Design Team Exp. & Compt.
11. Quantity Surveyor Exp. &
Compt.
12. Construction Manager Exp.
&Compt.
13. Planning Supervisor Exp. &
Compt.
----------
answered question 21
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during DESIGN & TENDERING Phase:
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
----------
21. Contract Managem ent
Effectiveness
22. Communication Effectiveness
23. Coordination Effectiveness
24. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
----------
25. Site Condition
26. Market Condition
27. Relevant Law & Regulation
Other (please specify) 0
answered question 21
skipped question 14
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54
127
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 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 5
1. CSFs during CONSTRUCTION Phase:
1. PO Decision Marking
Effectiveness
2. PO Top Management Support
3. PO Consultation & Direction
4. PO Approval
----------
5. PM Planning & Scheduling Skill
6. PM Monitoring & Control Compt.
7. PM Motivating & Leadership
Compt.
8. PM Organizing Com petence
9. PM Risk & Change Mangnt.
Compt.
10. PM Authority Delegated &
Delegate
----------
11. Construction Team
Experience & Compt.
11. Quantity Surveyor Exp. &
Compt.
12. Constr. Manager Exp. &
Compt.
13. Site Manager Experience &
Compt.
----------
answered question 18
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during CONSTRUCTION Phase:
14. Construction Complexity
15. Project Density
----------
16. % Design Completion
17. Site Managem ent
Effectiveness
18. Trouble Shooting
Effectiveness
19. Cost & Cash Flow Mangnt.
Effectiveness
20. Monitoring & Feedback
Effectiveness
21.Quality Control Effectiveness
22. Sub-Contractors Perform ance
23. Operability Inform ation
----------
24. Contract Managem ent
Effectiveness
25. Communication Effectiveness
26. Coordination Effectiveness
27. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
----------
28. Site Condition
29. Market Condition
30. Relevant Law & Regulation
31. Sub-contractors Exp. & Compt.
32. Exceptional Events
Please specify other factors here: 0
answered question 18
skipped question 17
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:54
129
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 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 6
1. CSFs during ENGINEERING & COMMISIONS Phase:
1. PO Decision Marking
Effectiveness
2. PO Consultation & Direction
3. PO Approval
----------
4. PM Monitoring & Control Compt.
5. PM Motivating & Leadership
Compt.
6. PM Organizing Com petence
7. PM Authority Delegated &
Delegate
----------
8. Architect Experience &
Com petence
9. Constr. Manager Exp. & Compt.
---------
10. Engineering Complexity
----------
11. Trouble Shooting
Effectiveness
12. Com prehensive System
Testing
13. Operability Inform ation
---------
answered question 17
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during ENGINEERING & COMMISIONS Phase:
14. Contract Managem ent
Effectiveness
15. Communication Effectiveness
16. Coordination Effectiveness
17. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
---------
18. Relevant Law & Regulation
19. Exceptional Events
Please specify other factors here: 0
answered question 17
skipped question 18
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55
131
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 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 7
1. CSFs during COMPLETE & HANDOVER Phase:
1. PO Decision Marking
Effectiveness
2. PO Consultation & Direction
3. PO Approval
----------
4. PM Motivating & Leadership
Compt.
5. PM Knowledge Managem ent
Com petence
6. PM Authority Delegated &
Delegate
----------
7. Operation Team Experience &
Compt.
----------
8. Operation Complexity
----------
9. Document & Knowledge
Transferring
10. Operation & Maintenance
Training
----------
11. Contract Managem ent
Effectiveness
12. Communication Effectiveness
answered question 17
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during COMPLETE & HANDOVER Phase:
13. Coordination Effectiveness
14. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
----------
15. Relevant Law & Regulation
16. Exceptional Events
Please specify other factors here: 0
answered question 17
skipped question 18
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55
133
Not
Slightly
Very
Extremely
Rating
Response Significant Significant Significant Significant Average Count
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
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
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 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 8
1. CSFs during USER OCCUPATION & COMISSION Phase:
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
----------
9. Contract Managem ent
Effectiveness
10. Communication Effectiveness
11. Coordination Effectiveness
12. Commitment of all
Stakeholders
----------
answered question 17
skipped question 18
1 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55
134
SurveyMonkey - Survey Results http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=xjfutg...
1. CSFs during USER OCCUPATION & COMISSION Phase:
13. Relevant Law & Regulation
37.5% (6)
18.8% (3)
31.3% (5)
12.5% (2)
2.19
16
14. Exceptional Events
35.3% (6)
35.3% (6)
23.5% (4)
5.9% (1)
2.00
7
Please specify other factors here: 0
answered question 17
skipped question 18
Select a page to view below or view all pages:
« »
2 of 2 04/09/2010 15:55
135
Top Related