Girma Thesis

DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN ETHIOPIA
EPHREM GIRMA SINESILASSIE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
JANUARY 2017
DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN ETHIOPIA
by
EPHREM GIRMA SINESILASSIE

Department of Civil Engineering
Submitted
In fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
to the
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

January 2017
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled ―Determinants of Success of Public
Construction Projects in Ethiopia”, being submitted by Ephrem Girma Sinesilassie to
the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi for the award of the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy is a bonafide record of the research work carried out by him under our
supervision and guidance. The thesis work, in our opinion, has reached the requisite
standard, fulfilling the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The contents of this thesis, in full or in parts, have not been submitted to any other
University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
Dr. K.N. JHA Dr.S.Z.S. TABISH.

(Associate professor) Central Public Works Department,
Department Of Civil Engineering Director (Works), Office of CAG of
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
India, New Delhi, India.
Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016 (India)
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost all praise, honor and glory be to Almighty God for providing me this
opportunity and granting me the capability to proceed successfully.
“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever.
Amen.‖ (Romans 11:36 KJV).
I express my deepest sense of gratitude towards my supervisor Dr. K.N. Jha, for the
motivation, inspiration, critical comments, encouragement and advice he has provided
throughout my time as his student. This thesis would not have been possible without
his help, support and patience. I have been extremely lucky to have a supervisor who
cared so much about me and my work, and who responded to my questions and queries
so promptly. I am extremely indebted to him for accepting me as a student of Ph.D. under
his guidance.
I also would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. S.Z.S. Tabish, for
his warm encouragement, thoughtful guidance, critical comments, and correction of the
thesis, which were determinant for the accomplishment of the work presented in this
thesis. Besides my supervisors, I would like to thank members of student research
committee, Prof. A. K. Nema, Dr. S.P. Singh, and Dr. J. U. Maheswari for their advice
and guidance during the course of my Ph.D.
I am very thankful to Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA), SNNPR Trade, Industry and
Urban Development Bureau (TIUDB), Addis Ababa Housing Construction Project
(AAHCP), Ethiopian Water Works Construction Enterprise (EWWCE), Ethiopian
Railways Corporation (ERC), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPC), Oromia
Water Works Construction Enterprise (OWWCE), Ministry of Urban Development and
ii
Construction (MoUDC), and many other construction companies and public
organizations for providing their platforms to collect data, information and guidance
for this research.
I am also thankful to my friends Dr. Dilip A. Patel, Endalu Tadele, Manish Khandare,
Prachi Purohit, Abhilasha Panwar, for their friendly assistance with various problems all
the time and for making the atmosphere of our lab as friendly as possible.
I would like to acknowledge the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi for offering me the
admission to enable me to undertake the present research. I am especially thankful to all
staff of Civil Engineering Department, TRIPP, and Shivalik hostel for their kind support,
help and guidance whenever I needed.
I also express my thanks to Ato Daniel Admassu and W/ro Senait Taye for providing me
excellent accommodation and hospitality in their home during data collection.
I am very much thankful to my dearest Dad and Mom Ato Girma Sinesilassie and W/ro
Senait Tesfaye, my mother-in-law W/ro Asegedech Simegn, and my family members for
their constant prayers and support which raised me to this level. Thank you, your prayers
are answered and dreams are fulfilled. Praise be to God.
Lastly, and most importantly, I owe my loving thanks to my lovely wife, Azeb Taye,
whose vision and endless help, support and encouragement gave me the ability to pursue
and complete my graduate studies. She with whom I share the joyful happiness of our
most beautiful and precious gifts of God, Dan Ephrem and Loyed Ephrem. She is
extraordinary mother who always cares for our children and gives them only the best. It is
to her and to my parents that I dedicate this work.
Ephrem Girma Sinesilassie.
iii
ABSTRACT
Public construction projects play a vital role in the economic growth of a country. The
performance of these projects greatly depends on some critical factors which are
responsible for their success/failure. Hence, understanding of the impact of these critical
factors on public project performances is considered to be a means of improving their
efficiencies and effectiveness.
The study was conceptualized and implemented in two phases. In phase one, a list of 35
attributes responsible for impacting the performance of the projects was identified based
on a detailed literature review, and presented to construction professionals in public
construction projects in Ethiopia in the form of a structured questionnaire. The responses
were collected and analysed. Statistical analysis of responses differentiated them into
distinct sets of success attributes and failure attributes. The significant success and failure
attributes were then ranked on the basis of different project performance criteria.
For better understanding and to reduce the number of attributes, the success and failure
attributes were subjected to factor analysis separately. After factor analysis, multivariate
regression analysis were used to explore the relative importance of the factors extracted
from factor analysis on various criteria of the success of public construction projects. The
factor analysis yielded the following success factors for overall performance: project
manager's competence, owner's competence, management support and updates, scope
clarity, interaction among project participants, and monitoring and feedback. On the other
hand, the following success factors were obtained for schedule performance: project
manager‘s competence, interaction among project participants, scope clarity, monitoring
and feedback, owner's competence, understanding responsibilities, pre-qualification, and
iv
adequate plans and specifications. The success factors obtained for cost performance
were: project manager‘s competence, scope clarity, owner‘s competence, monitoring and
feedback, interaction among project participants, top management support, and quality
control and assurance. The success factors obtained for quality performance were: quality
assurance/control and scope clarity, top management support and resource availability,
project manager‘s competence, owner‘s competence, and interaction among project
participants. Finally, the success factors obtained for no-dispute performance were:
availability of resources and pre-qualification, project manager's competence, top
management support, owner's competence, interaction among project participants,
construction meetings, and schedule and budget updates.
On the other hand, the factor analysis yielded the following failure factors for overall
performance: project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge, indecisiveness of
project participant, project specific factors, conflict among project participants, socio-
economic and climatic conditions, and owner‘s incompetence. For schedule performance,
the failure factors were: conflict among project participants, project manager‘s ignorance
and lack of knowledge, indecisiveness of project participants, unfavourable socio-
economic and climatic conditions, project specific factors, and poor human resource
management. The factors responsible for poor cost performance were: conflict among
project participants, project specific factors, indecisiveness of project participants, project
manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge, socio-economic and climatic conditions, and
owner's incompetence. For poor quality performance: conflict among project participants,
indecisiveness of project participants, project specific factors, project manager‘s
ignorance and lack of knowledge, poor human resource management, and hostile social
v
and economic environment. For no-dispute performance the failure factors were: conflict
among project participants, indecisiveness of project participants, project manager's
ignorance and lack of knowledge, socio-economic and climatic condition, and project
specific factors.
The relative importance of identified success factors was established with multiple
regression analysis for overall performance, schedule performance, cost performance,
quality performance, and no-dispute performance. Accordingly, the most important
success factor for overall performance is found to be ‗scope clarity‘. ‗Owner‘s
competence‘ is the most important success factor when the objective is schedule
performance. The factor ‗scope clarity‘ is the most important success factor when the
objective is cost performance. The factor ‗quality assurance/control and scope clarity‘ is
the most important success factor when the aim is quality performance, and the success
factor ‗owner‘s competence‘ is the most important when the aim is no-dispute
performance.
The relative importance of identified failure factors was also established with multiple
regression analysis for overall performance, schedule performance, cost performance,
quality performance, and no-dispute performance. The most important failure factor for
overall performance is found to be ‗project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge'.
‗Conflict among project participants‘ is the most important failure factor when the
objective is schedule performance. The factor ‗conflict among project participants‘ is the
most important failure factor when the objective is cost performance. The factor ‗project
manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge‘ is the most important failure factor when
the objective is quality performance, and the failure factor ‗conflict among project
vi
participants‘ is the most important when the objective is no-dispute performance. These
results would be helpful to public construction project professionals in enabling them to
take appropriate proactive measures for the successful completion of public projects.
In phase two of the study, identification of success criteria for each phase of public
construction projects was done. Based on an extensive literature review a list of eleven
success criteria was identified for public projects. This was followed by a questionnaire
survey employing the Delphi method. The results show that success criteria such as time,
cost, quality, technical performance, satisfaction of key project participants, and social
responsibility are the most important criteria for the pre- construction phase, while time,
cost, quality, no-dispute, health and safety, satisfaction of key project participants,
technical performance, and social responsibility are the most important criteria for the
construction phase. In the post-construction phase satisfaction of end-users and outsiders,
environmental sustainability, and satisfaction of key project participants are found to be
the most important criteria. It is pointed out that the relative importance of different
success criteria depends on the different phases of a construction project. Validation of
the results is provided through case studies. The study offers valuable resources for the
improvement of public construction project performance.
Keywords: Critical factors, success criteria, public construction projects, factor analysis,
multiple regression analysis, structural equation modeling.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NO.

CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... xvi
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 19
1.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 19
1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THIS STUDY .......................................................................................... 21
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 22
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ......................................................................................... 22
2 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 24
2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND ITS PHASES................................................................ 24
2.3 UNDERSTANDING PROJECT SUCCESS .............................................................................. 26
2.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ............. 28
2.5 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................ 33
2.5.1 Project Success Attributes 33
2.5.2 Project Failure Attributes 38
2.6 RESEARCH/KNOWLEDGE GAP ............................................................................................ 39
2.7 SUMMARY AND GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH ............................................................... 42
3 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................................................................. 45
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 45
viii
3.2 THE NEED FOR A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY .................................................................. 46
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PART ONE ............................................... 47
3.3.1 Respondent‘s Personal Details and Professional Experience 47
3.3.2 Project Details and Success and Failure Attributes 47
3.3.3 Relative Importance of Project Performance Evaluation Criteria 48
3.3.4 Project Performance Attributes and Criteria 48
3.3.5 Responses Received 49
3.3.6 Respondents‘ Profile 49
3.4 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR PART ONE.......................................................................... 50
3.5 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 50
3.6 FACTOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 51
3.7 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS................................................................................... 53
3.8 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM) ................................................................... 55
3.9 VALIDATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR PART ONE RESULTS ............................. 56
3.10 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PART TWO .................................................. 56
3.10.1 Identification of Success Criteria 56
3.10.2 Preparation of Questionnaires 57
3.11 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE FOR PART TWO ........................................................................... 57
3.11.1 The Delphi Method 57
3.11.2 Selection of Respondents 58
3.11.3 Feedback from Experts 59
3.11.4 Round 1 61
3.11.5 Round 2 61
3.12 VALIDATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR PART TWO RESULTS ............................ 62
3.13 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY SUMMARY .......................................................................... 62
4 CHAPTER 4
MAJOR ATTRIBUTES OF PUBLIC PROJECT PERFORMANCE .......................................... 64
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 64
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES ........... 64
4.3 RANKING OF SUCCESS/FAILURE ATTRIBUTES .............................................................. 67
4.3.1 Ranking of Success Attributes for Overall Performance 67
4.3.2 Ranking of Success Attributes for Schedule Performance 70
4.3.3 Ranking of Success Attributes for Cost Performance 71
ix
4.3.4 Ranking of Success Attributes for Quality Performance 73
4.3.5 Ranking of Success Attributes for No-dispute Performance 75
4.3.6 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Overall Performance 77
4.3.7 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Schedule Performance 79
4.3.8 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Cost Performance 80
4.3.9 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Quality Performance 82
4.3.10 Ranking of Failure Attributes for No-dispute Performance 84
4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 85
5 CHAPTER 5
SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS ....................................................................................... 89
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 89
5.2 NUMBER OF EXTRACTED FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 89
5.3 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE ..................................................... 90
5.4 FAILURE FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE ...................................................... 95
5.5 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE ................................................... 99
5.6 FAILURE FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE .................................................. 103
5.7 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE ............................................................ 106
5.8 FAILURE FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE ............................................................ 110
5.9 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE .................................................... 113
5.10 FAILURE FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE ..................................................... 115
5.11 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE............................................... 119
5.12 FAILURE FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE ............................................... 123
5.13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 126
6 CHAPTER 6
CRITICAL FACTORS FOR SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................. 130
6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 130
6.2 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE ................................ 130
6.3 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE ................................ 132
6.4 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE .............................. 133
6.5 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE .............................. 134
6.6 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE ........................................ 135
6.7 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE ......................................... 136
x
6.8 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE ................................. 137
6.9 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE ................................. 139
6.10 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE ........................... 140
6.11 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE ............................ 142
7 CHAPTER 7
SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 145
7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 145
7.2 CRITERIA FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE ................................................................ 146
7.2.1 Time, Cost, and Quality 146
7.2.2 Health and Safety 147
7.2.3 No-Dispute 147
7.2.4 Satisfaction 148
7.2.5 Technical Performance 148
7.2.6 Environmental Sustainability 149
7.2.7 Social Responsibility 150
7.2.8 Compliance with Rules and Regulations 150
7.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................. 151
7.3.1 Ranking of Success Criteria 151
7.3.2 Consensus 151
7.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 155
8 CHAPTER 8
MODEL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 158
8.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 158
8.2 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM) ................................................................. 160
8.2.1 Establishing the Overall Measurement Model 161
8.2.2 Designing a Model to Generate Empirical Results 167
8.2.3 Assessing Measurement Model Validity 168
8.2.4 Specifying the Structural Model 172
8.2.5 Assessing the Structural Model Validity 172
8.2.6 Measurement and Path Model Validation 173
xi
9 CHAPTER 9
VALIDATION OF RESULTS ................................................................................................... 179
9.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 179
9.2 CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................................................... 180
9.2.1 Case 1: Woldiya Alamata road project 180
9.2.2 Case 2: Butajira Gubre road project 181
9.2.3 Case 3: Gindeber Gobensa road project 183
9.2.4 Case 4: Adiremet Dejena Dansha road project 184
9.2.5 Case 5: Tekeze hydropower project lot 1a site access road 185
9.2.6 Case 6: Addis Ababa ring road project (AARRP) 186
9.2.7 Case 7: Wacha Maji road upgrading project 188
9.2.8 Case 8: Dire-Dawa Airport rehabilitation project 189
9.2.9 Case 9: Track laying of Ethiopia-Djibouti Railway project 190
9.2.10 Case 10: Construction of one library, one dining hall, and one kitchen building
block at the new Hossana University 192
9.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 193
10 CHAPTER 10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 197
10.1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 197
10.2 SUCCESS AND FAILURE ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................ 199
10.3 SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS ................................................................................... 200
10.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 203
10.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE .................................................... 203
10.6 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 207
10.7 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY ................................................................................ 208
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 209
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE PART ONE ...................................................................... 227
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE PART TWO ..................................................................... 235
APPENDIX C: BIO-DATA AND LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BASED ON THE
THESIS ....................................................................................................................................... 240
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.

Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of research method .......................................................... 46
Figure 3.2 Suggested modified procedure for application of the Delphi method (Adapted
from Hallowell and Gambatese (2010)) ........................................................................... 60
Figure 6.1 The most important success factors for different performance criteria ........ 143
Figure 6.2 The most important failure factors for different performance criteria ......... 143
Figure 8.1 Hypothesized model of success factors ........................................................ 165
Figure 8.2 Hypothesized model of failure factors.......................................................... 166
Figure 8.3 Structural equation modeling results of linkage between success factors and
project success ................................................................................................................ 176
Figure 8.4 Structural equation modeling results of linkage between failure factors and
project failure .................................................................................................................. 177
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.

Table 2.1 Summary of success criteria .......................................................................................... 29
Table 2.2 Summary of project success measurement criteria and their evaluation method .......... 32
Table 2.3 Summary of critical success factors .............................................................................. 35
Table 2.4 Summary of critical failure factors................................................................................ 40
Table 3.1 Name of the responding organizations for part one questionnaire ................................ 49
Table 3.2 Summary of respondent‘s profile and project contract amount .................................... 50
Table 3.3 Steps of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ............................................................. 56
Table 4.1 Meaning for ranges of mean values for performance criteria ....................................... 65
Table 4.2 Significant success attributes based on performance criterion ...................................... 66
Table 4.3 Significant failure attributes based on performance criterion ....................................... 68
Table 4.4 Ranking of success attributes based on overall performance criteria............................ 69
Table 4.5 Significant success attributes based on schedule performance criteria ......................... 71
Table 4.6 Significant success attributes based on cost performance criteria................................. 72
Table 4.7 Significant success attributes based on quality performance criteria ............................ 74
Table 4.8 Significant success attributes based on no-dispute performance criteria ...................... 76
Table 4.9 Ranking of failure attributes based on overall performance criteria ............................. 78
Table 4.10 Significant failure attributes based on schedule performance criteria......................... 80
Table 4.11 Significant failure attributes based on cost performance criteria ................................ 82
Table 4.12 Significant failure attributes based on quality performance criteria ........................... 83
Table 4.13 Significant failure attributes based on no-dispute performance criteria ...................... 84
Table 4.14 Top five significant success and failure attributes for different performance criteria . 86
Table 5.1 Factor structure of project success attributes for overall performance criterion ........... 90
Table 5.2 Factor structure of project failure attributes for overall performance criterion ............. 95
Table 5.3 Factor structure of project success attributes for schedule performance criterion ........ 99
Table 5.4 Factor structure of project failure attributes for schedule performance criterion ........ 103
Table 5.5 Factor structure of project success attributes for cost performance criterion .............. 106
Table 5.6 Factor structure of project failure attributes for cost performance criterion ............... 110
Table 5.7 Factor structure of project success attributes for quality performance criterion ......... 113
Table 5.8 Factor structure of project failure attributes for quality performance criterion ........... 116
Table 5.9 Factor structure of project success attributes for no-dispute performance criterion ... 119
Table 5.10 Factor structure of project failure attributes for no-dispute performance criterion ... 123
xiv
Table 6.1 Stepwise multiple regression results for success factors ............................................. 130
Table 6.2 Stepwise multiple regression results for failure factors .............................................. 132
Table 6.10 Stepwise multiple regression results for failure factors ............................................ 142
Table 7.1 Success criteria for pre- construction phase ................................................................ 152
Table 7.2 Success criteria for construction phase ....................................................................... 153
Table 7.3 Success criteria for post-construction phase ............................................................... 153
Table 7.4 Mean values of different success criteria for the three project phases ........................ 154
Table 8.1 Constructs and their indicators .................................................................................... 162
Table 8.2 Individual item reliability and construct validity for success factors .......................... 170
Table 8.3 Individual item reliability and construct validity for failure factors ........................... 171
Table 8.4 Goodness of fit and indices for the structural equation models .................................. 175
Table 9.1 Summary of causes of success/failure factors for the case studies ............................. 193
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAHCP Addis Ababa Housing Construction Project
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AVE Average Variance Extracted
BSc Bachelor of Science
CCECC China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFF Critical Failure Factor
CFI Comparative Fit Index
CM Construction management
CPP Conflict Among Project Participant
CR Construct Reliability
CRG China Railway Group
CSF Critical Success Factor
CWE China International Water and Electric Corporation
DBST Double Bitumen Surface Treatment
EEPC Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation
EIR Executive Intelligence Review.
ERA Ethiopian Roads Authority
ERC Ethiopian Railways Corporation
ETB Ethiopian Birr
EWWCE Ethiopian Water Works Construction Enterprise
GLM General Linear Modeling
GoF Goodness-of-Fit
xvi
IAPP Interaction Among Project Participants
ICB International Competitive Bidding
IFI Incremental Fit Index
IPP Indecisiveness of Project Participant
IQR Inter-Quartile Range
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
LISREL Linear Structural Relations
MF Monitoring And Feedback
MOE Ministry of Education
MoUDC Ministry of Urban Development and Construction
MR Multiple Regression
MSU Management Support And Updates
NBS National Building Specification
NNFI Nonnormed Fit Index
OC Owner‘s Competence
OI Owner Incompetence
OWWCE Oromia Water Works Construction Enterprise
PE Professional Engineer
PM Project Manager
PM4DEV Project Management for Development
PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMC Project Manager‘s Competence
PMILK Project Manager‘s Ignorance And Lack Of Knowledge
PPP Public-Private Partnership
PSF Project Specific Factors
xvii
RIR Relative-Interquartile-Range
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SC Scope Clarity
SECC Socio Economic And Climatic Condition
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
Sig Significance
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
TIUDB Trade, Industry and Urban Development Bureau
TLI Tucker Lewis Index
TQM Total Quality Management
UK United Kingdom
USA United State of America
xviii
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
In many ways, the pace of economic growth of any nation can be measured by the
development of its physical infrastructure, such as buildings, roads, bridges, etc. The role of
infrastructure in economic development has been well documented in the literature (Aschauer
1989; World Bank 1994; 2008; Calderon and Serven 2003; Bhattacharya et al. 2012). The
lack of physical infrastructure is hindering the economic growth in many developing
countries. Although physical infrastructure contributes to increasing productivity and future
economic growth, unfortunately, the infrastructure is still inadequate in developing countries.
How can we expect to maintain our quality of life or see our economy rebound without an
adequate functioning infrastructure system? Hence the development of physical infrastructure
is the most critical issue for sustained future growth. The volume of construction output will
grow by more than 70 percent, to $15 trillion worldwide, by 2025 (Roy et al. 2014).
The government of Ethiopia is pushing investment in infrastructure in the hope that it will
help the country achieve middle-income status by 2025. Billions of dollars of public works
projects, including new roads, railways, and power generation, are being carried out across
the country (Africa Review 2014). For instance, the government has undertaken projects to
improve the country's transportation network and plans to complete the Addis Ababa-to-
Djibouti highway, which is part of a 64,000-km road network, by 2015 (EIR 2014).
Public construction projects in Ethiopia are part of the country‘s development initiative. It
takes up a considerable amount of the country‘s scarce financial resources. In Ethiopia, the
construction industry is the largest recipient of the government‘s budget regarding the
government‘s development program. Consequently, public construction projects consume, on
19
average, nearly 60% of the government‘s capital budget, according to (MoFED 2006).
Furthermore, the construction industry in Ethiopia contributes more than half (56.1%) to the
growth of the industrial sector and 8.5% to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
(NBE 2015). The Ethiopian government is implementing the Growth and Transformation
Plan, a five-year economic development plan through 2015 in which it is spending 569
billion birr (US$ 29.1 billion at an exchange rate of Birr 19.56 for 1US$) on government
projects (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland 2013).
Studies conducted for improving performance have revealed a number of
variables/attributes, called success or failure attributes that affect the outcome of a project
(Babatunde et al. 2014; Muhwezi et al. 2014; Ikediashi et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2004). The
literature on the success and failure attributes for public construction projects reveal that very
few studies have been exclusively about public projects (Shrestha et al. 2013; Tabish and Jha
2011; Molenaar et al. 1999; Songer and Molenaar 1977), and the performance of public
construction projects have also not been encouraging. Hence more awareness of the factors
for success and failure of public projects needs to be created among construction
professionals. However, it is recognized that research on project success and failure factors
needs further effort and in-depth investigation. Earlier research on these success and failure
factors includes the perception of respondents from either the private sector or both private
and public sectors uniformly without any difference. However, the existence of a difference
in the perceptions about the relative importance of these success and failure factors between
the private and the public sector has been reported (Yang et al. 2009; Divakar and
Subramanian 2009). Hence, the uniformity of the respondents (employees of the public
sector) rather than a diversity of respondents involved in projects, and that too only for public
projects, is also very important. This can be a useful source for the application of success
factors in future public construction projects.
20
The term ‗success‘ itself has undergone a sea change in the complex project
environment with so many stakeholders involved. As modern public construction projects
contain multiple participants, there always exists a possibility of a clash of objectives and
interests among them. Ensuring the success of a project is the main objective of project
management. In addition to managing the iron triangle (schedule, cost, and quality) there are
a number of other criteria to measure the success of a project. These are project participants‘
satisfaction, the technical performance of the project, and the number of disputes at the
completion of the project. Thus, the measurement of performance also depends to an extent
on the criteria employed to measure it (PMBOK 2013). Due to the unavailability of
documented and structured data on completed projects within the professional organization
for use in the present study, questionnaire surveys were conducted for collecting the requisite
data and the responses received were statistically analyzed.
1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THIS STUDY
The performance of Ethiopian public construction projects have not been very encouraging,
due to time and cost overruns. For instance, Dessa (2010) examined the performance of 15
completed projects in different regions of Ethiopia and found that the delay encountered in
most projects ranges from 20.66% to 500% of the original contract time, and the cost increase
is greater than 80% of its contractual sum.
While going through the literature on project performance, it can be noticed that there
are very few studies that have been conducted in the context of Ethiopian public projects.
Resources are always in scarcity in any country, more so in developing countries. It is of the
utmost concern that the resources be used to their full potential. In this context, one cannot
afford to have time and cost overruns, poor quality, and a number of disputes between the
different stakeholders in a project. Thus, there is a great need that public projects be executed
21
professionally and all stakeholders should be aware of the key factors which lead a project to
success. They must also be familiar with the causes that lead a project to failure so that they
can be avoided. All these issues have been the prime motivating factors behind undertaking
this study.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The present study has the following objectives.
 To identify and rank the success and failure attributes responsible for the success of
public projects, in terms of various performance criteria.
 To identify success and failure factors corresponding to various performance criteria.
 To evaluate the impact of these identified success or failure factors on various
performance criteria for public construction projects.
 To identify success criteria for public construction projects.
 To evaluate the relative importance of the identified success criteria in different
phases of construction projects.
 To help construction professionals to achieve the required outcome in projects.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
The thesis is presented in ten chapters. The remaining nine chapters of the thesis are
organized as follows.
In Chapter 2, a literature review with special reference to the topic of the present
study is presented. It deals with studies in the field of understanding success of a project, the
factors affecting performances of a project and studies on success criteria.
In Chapter 3, the research methodology is discussed. The difficulty in getting the data
of completed projects in Ethiopia and the necessity of adopting the questionnaire survey
22
approach for the study are described. The questionnaire development, survey responses and
various data analysis techniques used in the study are discussed in this chapter.
In Chapter 4, the major attributes of project performance are discussed. The relative
importance of the attributes of project success and failure are evaluated in terms of various
project evaluation criteria, viz., schedule, cost, quality, no-dispute, and overall performance.
In Chapter 5, the intrinsic characteristics of the success and failure attributes have
been studied. The attributes have also been classified into success and failure factors
corresponding to different performance criteria.
In Chapter 6, critical success and failure factors are identified and discussed using
multivariate regression for different performance criteria.
In Chapter 7, the eleven success criteria identified in different phases of a construction
project (i.e., pre-construction, construction, and post-construction) are briefly discussed.
These are time, cost, quality, health and safety, no-dispute, technical performance,
compliance with rules and regulation, the satisfaction of key project participants, social
responsibility, satisfaction of end-users and outsiders, and environmental sustainability.
In Chapter 8, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is presented to check the
hypotheses that assume project success is influenced by the success factors and project failure
is influenced by the failure factors.
In Chapter 9, a validation of the research findings through a case study of public
construction projects is presented.
Lastly, the presented research work and the conclusions drawn in various chapters are
summarized in Chapter 10. In the end, the limitations of the present study are highlighted,
and suggestions for further research are given.
23
2 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Increasing complexities in technology and uncertainties in the budget and development
process have created a dynamic construction industry. Construction projects now are much
more complex and difficult and the construction team faces unprecedented challenges.
Construction involves many stakeholders at various stages. The stakeholders, such as the
client, designer, contractor, subcontractors, specialists, construction managers, and
consultants, etc. are involved from the start to the completion of the project. Each
stakeholder has his/her own definition of success, and it need not be same even in a given
project. Success and failure are relative terms, and are highly subjective (Parfitt and Sanvido
1993). The definitions of success or failure can even change from project to project. Success
to one stakeholder may be a failure to another (de Wit 1998). Therefore, it becomes a very
complex process to measure the performance of any construction project in terms of success
or failure. The study of project success or failure attributes and critical factors is a way of
understanding and thereby improving the effectiveness of construction projects. Success
(respectively, failure) attributes are the variables that influence the outcome of a project in a
positive (respectively, negative) manner. The attributes can be people oriented (project
stakeholders and their qualities and traits), resources based, technology dependent, working
environment and system, or task related.
2.2 A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND ITS PHASES
A construction project is a high-value, time bound, special construction mission of creating a
construction facility or service, with predetermined performance objectives defined regarding
quality specification, completion time, budgeted cost, and other specified constraints
24
(Chitkara 2011). Construction projects include numerous interdependent and interrelated
activities and employ a great amount of resources in terms of men, materials, and machines.
Each project is ‗unique‘ and ‗temporary.'
The PMBOK (2013) defines a project as a ―temporary endeavor undertaken to create a
unique product, service, or result.‖ It highlights the word ‗temporary‘ in the following
aspects:
 The opportunity or market window is usually temporary: most projects have a limited
time frame in which to produce their product or service.
 The project team, a working unit, seldom outlives the project: it is usually disbanded
after the project.
The PMBOK (2013) recognized the uniqueness of a project as associated with the creation of
a unique product, service, or result in some distinguishable way from all other similar
products, services or results. Although repetitive elements may be present in some project
deliverables, this repetition does not change the fundamental uniqueness of the project work.
A construction project passes through different phases or stages of its lifecycle. The
nature of work mostly varies among the phases although there are no clear cut demarcations
between the phases of a project. Thus, there may be some overlapping works in different
phases in the work.
There is no consensus among researchers regarding the nomenclature for the different
phases in a project. For example, Bonnal et al. (2002) used planning, execution, and
operation as the three main phases of a construction project. On the other hand, Munns and
Bjeirmi (1996) proposed six phases of a construction project: conception, planning,
production, handover, utilization, and close down. Other researchers, such as Pinto and
Slevin (1988b), considered the four phases of a construction project to be the conceptual,
25
planning, execution, and termination phases, while Chan et al. (2002) used the pre-
construction, construction, and post-construction phases.
Whatever the difference in the nomenclature used by different researchers for the phases
of a construction project, it is understood that the phases play an important role in decision
making. For example, depending on the phase of the project, one requires different skill sets
for the project manager. To be precise, a project in the pre-construction phase may require
completely different traits in a project manager than in the construction phase (Spitz 1982).
On a similar note, the success criteria required to measure project success would be different
in different phases of a project (de Wit 1988) and going further, the relative importance of the
project performance attributes would also be different in different phases of a construction
project (Pinto and Slevin 1988). To make the discussion more meaningful, it would be
appropriate first to discuss the ways in which project performance is measured. This is
presented in the next section.
2.3 UNDERSTANDING PROJECT SUCCESS
One of the vaguest concepts of project management is project success. Although it is
probably the most frequently discussed topic in the field of project management, yet it is the
least agreed upon even though for more than two decades, researchers have labored to
identify the managerial variables critical to project success (Pinto and Slevin 1988).
Baccarini (1999) revealed that the literature on project management provides no
consistent interpretation of the term ―project success.‖ He summarized literature from McCoy
(1986) and Wells (1998). McCoy (1986) observes that there is neither a standardized
definition of project success nor an accepted methodology of measuring it. Wells (1998)
observes that there has been a lack of attention given to defining success except in quite
general terms. Furthermore, Jugdev and Muller (2005) mentioned that to define what success
26
means in the context of projects is like gaining consensus from a group of people on the
definition of ―good art.‖
It is, then, quite clear that there are difficulties associated with defining the success of
a project. However, despite these difficulties, project success has been defined by some
researchers. For instance, Sanvido et al. (1992) defined success for a given project participant
as the degree to which the project‘s goals and expectations are met. They added that these
goals and expectations might include technical, financial, educational, social, and
professional aspects.
According to de Wit (1988), a project is considered an overall success if the project
meets the technical performance specifications and mission to be performed. It is considered
successful if there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among the
major people in the parent organization, project team, and key users or clientele of the
project.
Since each group of people who are involved in a project has different needs and
expectations, it is very unsurprising that they interpret project success in their own way. For
example, a project that met budget and schedule constraints but did not meet customer needs
and requirements might be considered as successful (Baker et al. 1988).
Furthermore, delays in the completion of a project are common, but they could still be
considered successful. For example, the Sydney Opera House project construction was
originally scheduled for four years, with a budget of AUS $7 million, but the project ended
up taking fourteen years to complete and cost AUS $102 million. It is one of Australia‘s
iconic buildings and is recognized around the world: it has become a global symbol of
Australia (Paol and Jonas 2009).
According to Munns and Bjeirmi (1996), differences in perceptions of project success
will continue to exist if a distinction between project success and project management
27
success is not established. Project management success is oriented towards planning control
in the context of the short-term life of the project‘s development and delivery, but project
success tends to be long-term in nature and stretches with the objective, or product the project
delivers.
2.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC PROJECT PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION
Success criteria are the measures by which the success or failure of a project or business is
judged (de Wit 1998). Traditionally, the criteria for measuring project success have been
adjudged to be scheduled time, budgeted cost, and required quality. These are also known as
‗The Iron Triangle‘ (Atkinson 1999, Chan 2001, Cooke-Davies 2001, Koelmans 2004).
However, as project management practices and theories have developed over the
decades, researchers have suggested the inclusion of additional performance evaluation
criteria to evaluate the execution of a construction project from a more balanced perspective.
For instance, the safety of the project site (Hare et al. 2006; Haslam et al. 2005; Illias 2000),
site disputes (Tabish and Jha 2011), environmental impact (Eriksson and Westerberg 2011),
and community/client/customer satisfaction (Ali and Rahmat 2010; Chan and Chan 2004)
have been suggested by researchers.
In addition to the traditional criteria of cost, time, quality, and scope, Westerveld (2003)
propounds the following key performance indicators (KPI) for project success: the client‘s
appreciation; project personnel appreciation; users‘ appreciation; contracting partners‘
appreciation, and finally stakeholders‘ appreciation.
Atkinson (1999) developed a model for success criteria that takes into consideration the
entire project life cycle. He separates success criteria into delivery and post-delivery stages
and provides a ―square route‖ to understanding success criteria: iron triangle, information
system, benefits (organizational) and benefits (stakeholder community). The ‗iron triangle'
28
has cost, time and quality as its criteria (for the delivery stage). The post-delivery stages
comprise: (i) the information system, with such criteria as maintainability, reliability,
validity, information quality use; (ii) benefits (organizational): improved efficiency,
improved effectiveness, increased profits, strategic goals, organizational learning, and
reduced waste; (iii) benefits (stakeholder community): satisfied users, social and
environmental impact, personal development, professional learning, contractors‘ profits,
capital suppliers, content project team, and economic impact on surrounding community.
Table 2.1 shows a summary of the success criteria used by previous studies.
Table 2.1 Summary of success criteria
S. No. Authors Success criteria

Time and cost, Budget / Financial performance/ profitability, Health
Parfitt and and safety, Quality , Meeting technical performance specification
1 Sanvido and functionality, Satisfaction of client/ customer, Contractor,
(1993) project manager/ Team satisfaction, Expectation / aspiration of
client/ contractor/project manager/ team satisfaction.
Shenhar et Project efficiency, Impact on customer, Direct and business

2 al.(1997) success, Preparing for the future.
Lim and Zain Time ,Cost, Quality, performance and safety
3 Mohamed
(1999)
Westerveld Time and cost, Quality, Project objectives/ Goal attainment
4 (2003) (technical), Satisfaction of client/ customer, contractor, Project
Manager/ Team satisfaction
Bryde and Project cost, project duration, Satisfying the customer‘s needs,
5 Robinson. Satisfying the needs of stakeholders (other than customers) and
(2005) Meeting the technical specification.
quality , schedule, budget, Customer Satisfaction, Functional
6 Al-Tmeemy Requirements, Revenue and Profits, Competitive Advantage,
et al.(2010) Market Share and Reputation.
Tabish and Schedule, Cost, Quality, Safety, No- dispute

7
Jha (2012)
Time, Cost and Quality Management; Satisfaction, Health and
8 Adinyira et al. environmental Safety; User Affordability and Design
(2012) Consideration; and Cost of Individual Units and Technology.
29
S. No. Authors Success criteria
Dosumu and Users satisfaction on product, Fitness for purpose, Project
Onukwube functionality, Value for money, Meets pre stated objectives ,
9 (2013) Stakeholders needs and expectation, Exploration of technology,
Increase level of professionalism, Develop new knowledge and
expertise, Benefit to end users,
Lim and Mohamed (1999) categorized project success measurement into a micro viewpoint:
completion time, completion cost, completion quality, completion performance, completion
safety; and macro viewpoints: completion time, completion satisfaction, completion utility,
completion operation. A key feature of this category is that it proposes only lagging
indicators and gives no room for continuous assessment and monitoring.
Bryde and Robinson (2005) have compared the perspectives of the client and the
construction contractor on project success criteria. In developing their study, they used five
sets of success criteria, which include: cost; time; meeting the technical specifications; and
customers' and stakeholders' satisfaction.
Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) grouped their measurement criteria into three groups:
(i) criteria from an organizational perspective: resource productivity, organizational learning;
(ii) criteria from a project perspective: time-to-market, customer satisfaction; and (iii) criteria
from a personal perspective: personal growth, personal satisfaction. Lipovetsky et al. (1997)
proposed a division of project success into four dimensions: meeting design goals, the benefit
to the customer, the benefit to the developing organization, and the benefit to the defense and
national infrastructure.
According to Songer and Molenaar (1997), a project is considered as successful if it is
completed on budget, on schedule, conforms to user‘s expectations, meets specifications,
attains quality workmanship, and minimizes construction aggravation. Kumaraswamy and
Thorpe (1996) included a variety of criteria in their study of project evaluation. These include
30
meeting the budget, schedule, quality of workmanship, client and project manager‘s
satisfaction, transfer of technology, friendliness of environment, and health and safety.
Chan and Chan (2004) concentrated on construction projects and, based on previous
works (particularly of Shenhar et al. 1997; Atkinson 1999; and Lim and Mohamed 1999),
proposed 15 key performance indicators (KPIs), including both objective measures, such as
construction time, speed of construction, time variation, unit cost, percentage net variation
over final cost, net present value, accident rate, environmental impact assessment (EIA)
scores, and subjective measures, such as quality, functionality, end user's satisfaction, client‘s
satisfaction, design team‘s satisfaction, and construction team‘s satisfaction.
A more structured approach to project success is grouping the criteria into categories.
Shenhar and Wideman (2001) describe four groups, all of them time dependent: ―internal
project objectives (efficiency during the project), the benefit to the customer (effectiveness in
the short term), direct contribution (in the medium term) and future opportunity (in the long
term).‖ The characterization ‗time dependent‘ is based on the fact that success varies with
time. Looking at the future benefits to the organization can be really difficult, because in
some cases they do not even know what they want, yet it is vital to know what the project is
trying to achieve after completion time so that the success criteria are clearly defined in the
early stages. This is quite а different approach, because the focus moves from the present
success criteria to the future, in a way that a project can be unsuccessful during execution if it
is judged by criteria like cost and quality, but in the long term it can turn out to be a thriving
success story. A good example of this іѕ hosting the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece,
which received massive criticism both during the planning period, due to delays in
construction time, and when it was finished, due to the huge cost. However, the benefits that
Greece will gain from the Olympic Games can only be fully appreciated after five or perhaps
31
ten years from the hosting year (Athens2004.com). A summary of success evaluation criteria
and standards is presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Summary of project success measurement criteria and their evaluation method
S. No. Project success Evaluation method
criteria
1. In terms of This is measured in terms of cost over/under run with
project budget respect to the initial budget /contracted cost (Might and
Fisher 1985; Songer and Molenar 1997).
2. In terms of This is measured in terms of schedule over/under run with
project schedule respect to the initial plan /contracted schedule (Might and
Fisher 1985; Songer and Molenar 1997).
3. In terms of This is measured in terms of amount of rework required
quality of (Crane et al. 1999) and in terms of compliance with
workmanship respect to the specifications (Songer and Molenar 1997).
4. In terms of This is measured in terms of compliance/noncompliance
stakeholders‘ of goals of stakeholders such as client and the project
satisfaction team (Munnes and Bjeirmi 1996).
5. In terms of safety This is measured in terms of various safety statistics such
as lost time incidents, etc. and the compliance/non-
compliance of safe working conditions and health and
safety rights of the project people (Crane et al. 1999).
6. In terms of This is measured in terms of number and nature of
dispute in the disputes resulting from the disagreements among
32
project stakeholders.
2.5 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
Project attributes are the variables responsible for influencing the outcome of a project. The
attributes can be people (project participants and their qualities and traits), resources,
technology, working environment, system, or task. Identifying and dealing with the success
and failure attributes of a construction project helps in enhancing the chances of the project‘s
success. These success and failure attributes are discussed separately in the next two sections.
2.5.1 Project Success Attributes
In the literature, several authors have identified, explained, and discussed the factors that are
critical to the success of a project. In 1982, Rockart used the word ―critical success factors‖
(CSFs) for the few key areas of activity in which favorable results are necessary for a
particular manager to reach his or her goals (Rockart 1982). Furthermore, Boynton and Zmud
(1984) defined critical success factors (CSFs) as those few things that must go well to ensure
success for a manager or an organization, and therefore, they represent those managerial or
enterprise areas that must be given special and continual attention to bring about high
performance. They had been used in management information systems (MIS) to examine
their existing methodologies, and from time to time, CSFs have been widely used by other
industries, including the construction industry. Today, more and more researchers are intent
on enhancing the use of CSFs for construction projects.
Kog and Loh (2012) identified ten CSFs from sixty-seven factors describing aspects of
project characteristics, contractual arrangements, project participants, and interactive
processes.
Iyer and Jha (2005) established attributes that related to the cost performance of Indian
construction projects, listing 55 attributes that were subsequently grouped into six CSFs and
33
seven critical failure factors (CFFs). Those CSF factors were: project manager‘s competence;
top management support; project managers coordinating and leadership skill; involvement on
the part of the top management and owner in the project; interaction between project
participants; monitoring and feedback by project participants; owner‘s competence; and
favorable climatic condition. Alzahrani and Emsley (2013) studied the impact of contractors‘
attributes on the success of construction projects in the UK, from a post-construction
evaluation perspective, and identified which CSFs have a great impact on the success of a
project. They selected 35 CSFs, which were categorized into 9 groups: safety and quality;
past performance; environment; management and technical aspects; resources; organization;
experience; size/type of previous projects; and finance. Bing et al. (2005) identified 17
attributes and grouped them into 5 CSFs for public–private partnership (PPP) projects in the
UK. Those five categories were effective procurement, project implementation ability,
government guarantees, favorable economic conditions, and the availability of finance.
Pakseresht and Asgari (2012) identified 26 critical success factors in the construction
projects of the Pars Garma Company. They grouped them into six groups. The research
findings indicated that the critical success factors in these construction projects have different
priorities and weights. Also, in order of their importance, the critical success factors are the
technical and economic assessment of the project‘s required resources, the experience and
executive history of the project manager, project strategic planning, and the executive
experiences of the contractor team in the project‘s subject.
Based on an analysis of the literature that has been outlined earlier, it has become
apparent that there are plenty of factors with the potential to affect the project success.
Therefore, one of the objectives of the present research is identifying those critical factors
responsible for the success of public construction projects in Ethiopia. A summary of critical
success factors used by different researchers is presented in Table 2.3.
34
Table 2.3 Summary of critical success factors
Types of Methods of No. of variables

S. No. Authors Critical success factors
respondent analysis considered
No bureaucratic interference, owners need thoroughly
Professionals understood and defined, a high degree of trust shared by
project participants, timely and valuable decision from top
Tabish from public
management, availability of resources as planned throughout
and Jha sector with an analysis of
the project, comprehensive pre-tender site investigation,
(2011) average of 22 variance
1 years of thorough understanding of scope on the part of project
(ANOVA) manager and contractor, no social and political interference,
experience 36
in public regular quality control and quality assurance activities,
construction regular monitoring and feedback by top management, top
projects. management support, regular monitoring and feedback by
owner, clearly articulated scope of work, adequate
communication among all project participants.
Ranking, Competent project manager, adequate funding until project
Nguyen Mixed type Spearman‘s completion, multidisciplinary/competent project team,
et al. respondent rho, factor commitment to project, and availability of resources.
2 20
(2004) (Public & analysis.
Private)
Babatu Mixed type percentage, Environmental factor, institutional factor, economic factor,
3 nde et respondent frequency political factor, legal factor, administrative related factor, and
al. (Public & distribution, design related factor, technological factor, variations related
22
(2014) Private) relative factor, and social factor, enabling legislation with due
significance diligence, strong commitment of public and private sectors,
index (RSI), strong financial package, and enabling environment and
35
and factor allocation of risk.
analysis.
Kog Adequacy of plans and specifications, constructability,

and Mixed type Ranking , project manager competency, realistic obligations/clear
Loh. respondent and objectives, adequacy of funding. ,
4 67
(2012) (Public & Spearman‘s
Private) rho
Users satisfaction on product, fitness for purpose, project
Dosum Mixed type Frequencies, functionality, value for money, meets pre stated objectives ,
u and respondent mean stakeholders needs and expectation, exploration of
Onukw (Public & scores, technology, increased level of professionalism, fast
5 rectification of defects, develop new knowledge and
ube Private) factor
(2013) analysis and 30 expertise, easy to maintain, benefit to end users, develop new
correlation. business relationship, worthwhile warranty program
,generate positive reputation, and accomplish core business
needs.
Representative Ranking, Owner satisfaction with delivered projects, adequacy of
Hwang from public pairwise plans and specifications, constructability, owner involvement
6 et al. sector agencies analysis, and frequent feedback, realistic obligations / clear objectives
(2013) having 10 years AHP. and scope, adequate planning and control techniques,
experience. 32 construction control meeting and site inspection.
Ranking, Realistic obligation / clear objectives, adequacy of plans and
Inayat, Mixed type pairwise specifications, capability of contractor‘s key personnel,
et al. respondent analysis, construction control meetings, site inspections, capability of
7 53
Spearman‘s client‘s key personnel, capability of consultant‘s key
36
(2012) (Public & rho personnel, level of skill labor required, site access limitation.
Private)
Mixed type Decision making effectiveness, project manager‘s experience

Saqib, respondent Criticality , contractor‘s cash flow, contractor experience, timely
et al. (Representative Index. decision by owner/ owner‘s, representative , site
8 77
(2008) from Public & management, supervision, planning effort, prior project
Private) management experience, client‘s ability to make decision.
Teo, et Mixed type Mean, Company safety policy; construction process; personnel
9 al. respondent Frequencies, management with regard to safety; and incentives.
(2005) (Public & factor
50
Private) analysis.
Brayde Mixed type Ranking, Minimizing project cost, minimizing the project duration,
10 and respondent factor satisfying the customer‘s needs, satisfying the needs of
Robins (Public & analysis stakeholders (other than customers)and meeting the technical
16
on Private) specification,
(2005)
37
2.5.2 Project Failure Attributes
Project success has been defined as the degree to which goals and objectives of a project are
met (Frederikslust 1978). The inability of projects to meet these goals and objectives is
referred to as project failure. A project is adjudged a failure when it fails to meet the tripartite
criteria of time, budget, and quality, even though recent studies have added such criteria as
sustainability, stakeholder management, communication, and risk management issues.
Ogunlana et al. (1996) identified three main categories of problems working against
project success: problems of shortages or inadequacies in the industrial infrastructure,
problems relating to clients and consultants, and challenges caused by a contractor‘s
incompetence. These were all discovered to have a significant impact on the performance of
construction projects in Thailand.
Kaming et al. (1997) investigated the factors responsible for the failure of 31 high-rise
projects in Indonesia and discovered that cost and time overruns are the most critical.
However, cost overruns were more severe than time overruns. The study listed material cost
increases due to inflation, inaccurate material estimation, and the degree of complexity as the
major sub-factors driving cost overruns, while design changes, poor labour productivity,
inadequate planning, and resource shortages drive time overruns.
In a study of large construction projects in developing countries, Nguyen et al. (2004)
organized the top ranking problems/failure factors into four major categories: incompetent
designers and contractors, poor estimation and a change in management, social and
technological issues, and improper techniques and tools.
Recently, Kazaz et al. (2012) used a questionnaire survey to examine the causes and
reasons for delays and failures in construction projects in Turkey. Out of the 34 factors used
for the survey, design and material changes, delay of payments, and cash flow difficulties by
38
contractors were found to be the three most significant factors. A summary of the critical
failure factors used by different researchers is presented in Table 2.4.
2.6 RESEARCH/KNOWLEDGE GAP
Based on the literature review conducted in the previous sections, the research gap is briefly
outlined. The goal of project management is to improve the performance and thereby to bring
success in construction projects. The literature review has provided insights into several
important factors of the success or failure of public construction projects, such as the owner's
competence, clarity of scope, project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge, conflict
between project participants, etc. These factors affect and control the performance of
construction projects.
Moreover, a review of the literature further reveals that although there are a number
of works from developed countries on the performance of public construction projects, not
much research has been carried out on the determinants of the success of public construction
projects in Ethiopia. Further, earlier research on success and failure factors include the
perception of respondents from either the private sector or both private and public sectors
uniformly without any difference. Also, the success and failure aspects are not discussed
together in earlier studies exclusively on public projects based on the opinion of public sector
respondents.
39
Table 2.4 Summary of critical failure factors
No. of
Types of
S. No. Authors Methods of analysis variables Critical failure factors
respondent
considered
1 Mixed type Importance Index, Poor site management and supervision, poor project
respondent Spearman‘s rank correlation management assistance, financial difficulties of
Le et al. 21
(Public & tests, Factor Analysis owner, financial difficulties of contractor; design
(2008)
Private) changes.
2 Ikediashi Mixed type Frequencies, percentage, Poor risk management, budget overruns, poor
et al. respondent mean scores, Standard communication management, schedule delays, poor
(2014) (Public & deviation, factor analysis estimation practices, cash flow difficulties, design
Private) Relative importance index 30 discrepancies, lack of efficient change management,
(RII). inadequate project structure and lack of teamwork.
Experts Frequencies, percentage. Corruption, termination of public projects,
working in bureaucratic administrative system to obtain permits
Ling
foreign and approvals, changing and inconsistent regulations,
andHoan
3 firms 9 inadequate legal framework, fluctuation of exchange,
g (2010)
(Public & and interest and inflation rates.
Private)
4 Nguyen Mixed type Frequency analysis and mean Disregard of the significance of project planning
and respondent scores. process and project planning, lack of experience in
Chileshe (Public & executing complicated project, poor design capacity
(2013) Private) and frequent design changes, lack of knowledge and
ability in managing construction projects, lack of
20 financial capacity of owner poor performance of
contractors, lack of a systematic approach to
managing the project and entire organization,
40
No. of
Types of
S. No. Authors Methods of analysis variables Critical failure factors
respondent
considered
corruption and bribery in construction projects, the
delays in payment, and economic volatility and high
inflation.
Nguyen Mixed type Mean scores, Standard Incompetent designers and contractors, poor
et al. respondent deviation, Spearman‘s rank estimation and change management, social and
(2004) (Public & correlation coefficient, and technological issues, site related issues, and improper
5 Private) factor analysis 62 techniques and tools.
Mixed type Frequencies, percentage, Bureaucratic government system and long project
respondent mean scores, ranking, and approval procedures, poor design, incompetence of
Thuyet et 59
(Public & risk-index score. project team, inadequate tendering practices, and late
al. (2007)
6 Private) internal approval processes from the owner.
7 Muhwezi Mixed type Relative importance index Delay in assessing changes in the scope of work by
et al. respondent (RII) and ranking. the consultant, financial indiscipline/dishonesty by
81
(2014) (Public & the contractor, inadequate contractor‘s experience,
Private) design errors made by designers, inadequate site
investigation by the consultant.
8 Agumba Mixed type Content analysis Poor communication, poor contract documentation,
and respondent suspension of work, failure to understand and
14
Baloyi (Public & correctly bid or price the work, bad weather, non-
(2014) Private) circulation of information, incomplete tracing
mechanisms for request of information and delays in
extensions of time.
41
2.7 SUMMARY AND GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH
The following bullet points recapitulate the salient lessons from the literature review
presented in the previous sections.
 Construction projects are unique and temporary in nature. A construction project
during its life cycle passes through a number of phases. The phases are named
differently by different researchers. The phase of a construction project plays a
major role in different decision making situations, such as appointing an
appropriate project manager considering the project phase, assigning the relative
weights to success criteria and success attributes for a project and so on.
 Considering the complex nature of construction projects, it is very difficult to say
whether a project can be characterized as successful or a failure. This is because
there is ambiguity in the way in which project success is defined. The same is the
case with the criteria used for measuring the project success.
 Some of the commonly used project performance evaluation criteria reported in
the literature are time, cost, quality (collectively the three criteria are referred to
as the ‗iron triangle‘), technical performance of the project, satisfaction of project
participants, the number of disputes at the completion of project, and safety.
 Some of the success attributes identified in the literature are a thoroughly
understood and defined scope, regular monitoring and feedback by owner, project
manager goal commitment, project manager technical abilities, control systems,
scope and work definition, clarity of project mission, top management support,
regular schedule and budget updates, and personnel selection and training. On the
42
other hand, some of the commonly referred to failure attributes in the literature
are unsupportive top management, lack of communication goals, inadequate
project formulation, choice of wrong project manager, unplanned project
termination, and the improper management of the project.
 Depending on the performance criteria adopted by a researcher, the success and
failure factors would have different impacts on the project performance. Thus a
particular success factor may be classified as critical for a particular performance
criterion while the same factor may not be considered as critical for another
performance criterion.
 It was also noticed from the literature review that different researchers have used
different research tools, such as statistical methods consisting of simple univariate
analysis to complex multivariate analysis, analytical hierarchy method, neural
networks, etc.
Keeping the research gaps in mind, the present study has adopted four performance
criteria, which are objective in nature, to measure the success of a construction project.
These criteria are schedule compliance, cost compliance, quality compliance, and the
extent of the occurrence of disputes. The last criterion is referred to as the ‗no-dispute‘
criterion in this study.
In another part of the study, 11 success criteria have been identified for measuring
project performance at the different phases of a public project, viz., pre-construction,
construction, and post-construction. They are time, cost, quality, health and safety, no-
dispute, technical performance, compliance with rules and regulation, the satisfaction of
43
key project participants, social responsibility, satisfaction of end-users and outsiders, and
environmental sustainability.
In this chapter, a thorough review of the literature has been conducted. This has
led to the identification of gaps in the literature. This has further helped the author to fix
the objectives of the study. The research methods applied to achieve the study objectives
are described in the next chapter.
44
3 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
From the previous chapter we learnt that although there has been a substantial amount of
work reported from developed countries in the area of success and failure factors for a
construction project in an isolated manner, very few studies consider the success and
failure of projects in an integrated manner for a public construction project. Besides,
neither are the relative importance of the success criteria in different phases of a public
construction project presented in previous studies. Further, there is hardly any literature
in the Ethiopian context which deals with the success and failure of public construction
projects that too based on the perceptions of respondents from public sectors.
Accordingly, the research objectives have been set for the present study as given in
Chapter 1. This chapter deals with the method to achieve the research objectives.
Primarily, the method of the study broadly involves three steps, as given below and
depicted in detail in Figure 3.1. A brief description of the stages of the method is given
later in this chapter.
 Step 1: Questionnaire survey
 Step 2: Data analysis of responses using univariate analysis, factor analysis,
multiple regression analysis for the first and second objectives, and the Delphi
technique for the third objective.
 Step 3: Validation of the results using case studies.
45
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of research method
3.2 THE NEED FOR A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
As it is challenging to get the required data on completed public construction projects,
due to the problem of data preservation and the confidentiality of the information about
the projects, this study considered a questionnaire survey approach as appropriate. The
problem of data collection was present with ongoing projects as well, for the same
46
reasons as for the completed projects. For to these reasons, a questionnaire survey was
found to be the most appropriate means to collect the data.
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PART ONE
The questionnaire used for part one is presented in Appendix A. The first part of the
questionnaire contains three broad questions as given below:
3.3.1 Respondent’s Personal Details and Professional Experience
The questionnaire contained questions on personal data and professional experience of
the respondents. These questions are asked to ensure that only respondents with adequate
experience and expertise respond. It was decided beforehand that if any respondent had
less than five years of experiences, his response would not be considered for analysis.
3.3.2 Project Details and Success and Failure Attributes
Details about the project and the success and failure attributes are sought through several
sub-questions in Q1–Q2. These questions are mainly structured to compare and analyze
the response sets of different project details and understand the level of success and
failure attributes, as well as to evaluate the success and failure factors in achieving the
various project objectives.
The details sought are given below:
 Name, location, gross floor area, selection method, cost, duration, contract type,
design completion and complexity of the case project.
 Respondent‘s involvement with the project, viz. contractor, consultant, engineer/
project manager, owner, etc.
47
 Rating of the project regarding performance on schedule, cost, quality, no-dispute,
and overall.
3.3.3 Relative Importance of Project Performance Evaluation Criteria
The performance of a public project is generally measured by its compliance with the
four criteria: schedule, cost, quality, and no-dispute. Negative deviations from the target
values of these are considered a poor performance. On the other hand, compliance with
the target values is considered successful in the performance rating.
3.3.4 Project Performance Attributes and Criteria
Q2 lists 35 project attributes responsible for the success or failure of a public project. A
number of critical attributes for public sector projects were identified through the
literature survey (Section 2.5 in the previous chapter) and personal discussion with
construction professionals in Ethiopia.
As mentioned above, Q2 seeks a response on the impact of the 35 project
attributes on the project‘s outcome (success or failure). The performance evaluation
parameters considered to measure the impact of these success or failure attributes are
―schedule,‖ ―cost,‖ ―quality,‖ ―no-dispute,‖ and ―overall performance.‖ A five-point scale
that suggests 5 for ―positive effect‖; 4 for ―no effect‖; 3 for ―marginal negative effect‖; 2
for ―significant negative effect‖; and 1 for ―adverse effect‖, was used for measuring each
attribute‘s influence.
Though the list of 35 attributes in Q2 covers attributes about public construction
projects, they may not be called exhaustive due to the vast magnitude and fragmented
nature of the construction industry. An open-ended question (Q3) is therefore included to
48
get suggestions from the respondents on any other factors for ensuring project success,
not listed in Q2.
3.3.5 Responses Received
A total of 407 respondents were identified from the addresses available with government
offices and through personal contacts. Questionnaires were delivered through e-mail,
post, and personally. The professionals included in the survey were public sector
engineers. The owner is the Government agency, local authority, utility or any
organization on whose behalf the engineer/project manager (PM) of the public sector is
executing the project. A total of 200 responses were received. The name of the
responding organizations and the number (percentage) of questionnaires delivered are
given in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 Name of the responding organizations for part one questionnaire
Organization Number (percentage) of questionnaire delivered

ERA 45 (22.5%)
TIUDB(SNNPR) 30 (15%)
AHCPO 40 (20%)
EWWCE 15 (7.5%)
ERC 20 (10%)
EEPC 10 (5%)
OWWCE 10 (5%)
MoUDC 30 (15%)
3.3.6 Respondents’ Profile
The respondents were chosen with a wide range of experience and number of years of
service. A summary of the respondents‘ profile is given in Table 3.2. From Table 3.2, it
49
can be seen that respondents with 10-20 years‘ experience form the largest group and the
average experience of the respondents works out to be 17 years.
Table 3.2 Summary of respondent‘s profile and project contract amount
Experience in years Percentage Contract amount Percentage

Between 5-10 year 20 Less than Birr 100 Million 36.0
Between 10-20 year 51.5 Between 100- 300 Million 20.5
Between 20-30 year 21 Between 300-600 Million 33.0
More than 30 year 7.5 Between 600-900 Million 7.0
Above 900 Million 3.5
Note: 1 USD = 20.99 Ethiopian Birr.
3.4 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR PART ONE
Responses to the questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS Rel. 20 (Statistical Package for
Social Science). The statistical analysis procedures that were used for part one of the
study included both univariate and multivariate (factor analysis, multiple regression
analysis, and the SEM) analysis techniques.
A combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis techniques was
successfully used in the present study for identifying the success and failure factors for
various performance criteria and structural equation modeling was used for validation of
the results obtained. Brief descriptions and the utility of the various techniques are given
below.
3.5 UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Univariate analysis is a simple form of statistical analysis which involves only a single
variable. There are two main ways of analyzing univariate data, a numeric method, and a
50
graphic method. The numeric method involves using descriptive statistics to summarize
the main features of the data in table form, while the graphic method involves using
various graphs and charts to visualize the main aspects of the variable. Univariate
analysis is used mainly for descriptive purposes, and most commonly involves frequency
tables, graphs, and descriptive statistics. We can use univariate analysis to find specific
information, such as central tendency (mean, mode, median), dispersion (range, variance,
max, min, quartiles, and standard deviation), etc. relating to each variable.
3.6 FACTOR ANALYSIS
Factor analysis is a useful tool for investigating variable relationships for complex
concepts. The key concept of factor analysis is that multiple observed variables have
similar patterns of responses because of their association with an underlying latent
variable, the factor, which cannot easily be measured. It operates on the notion that
measurable and observable variables can be reduced to fewer latent variables that share a
common variance and are unobservable, which is known as reducing the dimensionality
(Bartholomew et al. 2011). These unobservable factors are not directly measured but are
essentially hypothetical constructs that are used to represent variables.
Many researchers from other areas, including politics, sociology, economics,
human-machine systems, accident research, taxonomy, biology, medicine, and geology,
have also applied this technique (Williams and Child 2003). Rahman et al. (2011) have
used factor analysis to identify critical barriers and benefits of TQM implementation in
the manufacturing industry.
51
In the construction industry, for instance, Enshassi and Al Swaity (2015) have
used factor analysis to explore key stressors leading to construction professionals' stress
in the Gaza Strip. Maloney and McFillen (1995) used this technique to identify
differences in the job characteristics of union and non-union workers. Fox and Skitmore
(2007) applied this technique to determine a set of eight key factors associated with
construction industry development. Furthermore, in identifying the critical factors
affecting schedule performance in Indian construction projects, Iyer and Jha (2006) used
factor analysis to transform 55 project performance attributes into a total of 20 factors (11
success factors and 9 failure factors). According to Hair et al. (2014), factor analysis can
be used primarily to identify a set of factors in a large set of variables and to determine a
set of variables to be used for subsequent analysis, such as multiple regression, etc.
The number of responses for effective implementation of a factor analysis are 5–
10 respondents for each item (Bryman and Cramer 2005).
On the other hand, Ferguson and Cox (1993) recommended that the least number
of responses for factor analysis be 100.
There are many factor extraction techniques in SPSS, such as principal axis and
maximum likelihood. Factor analysis is mathematically complex and the criteria used to
determine the number and significance of factors are vast.
Factor rotation is used to know how variables are related to the identified factors.
There are two types of rotation techniques: orthogonal rotation and oblique rotation.
Orthogonal rotation (e.g., Varimax and Quartimax) involves uncorrelated factors whereas
oblique rotation (e.g., Direct Oblimin and Promax) includes correlated factors. The
52
interpretation of factor analysis is based on rotated factor loadings, rotated eigenvalues,
and screen test.
3.7 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
The general purpose of multiple regression is to learn about the relationships between
several factors (known as the independent variables or explanatory variables) and another
factor (referred to as the dependent variable). The regression model takes the form of the
following equation.
-------------------------------------- (3.1)
The values of the dependent and independent variables can be observed. They are what
our data must contain. The parameters are unknown and hence need to be estimated
based on the data we have. The model could be used to examine whether an independent
variable (Xi) has any effect on the dependent variable. This is done by examining the
results of the t-test for the coefficient (ai) of the independent variable. If the coefficient is
significant at the 5% level or better, which means the probability that the coefficient
equals zero is less than 0.05, we may conclude that the independent variable has an effect
on the dependent variable. If the sign of the coefficient is positive, then the effect is
positive, and if negative, then negative.
Alternatively, the regression model could be used to forecast the value of the dependent
variable given the independent variables. The coefficients of all the variables were
examined. We keep all the significant variables and discard the insignificant ones to
obtain the equation for forecasting. The values of the independent variables are then
53
provided as input into the forecasting equation to obtain the forecasted value of the
dependent variable.
Only a ―good‖ model can be used for forecasting. A regression with a high
coefficient of determination (R2) is regarded as a ―good‖ model. The coefficient R2
represents the percentage of the variations in the dependent variable that are ―explained‖
by the independent variables. The value of R2 ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the value of
R2, the better the model is fitted. However, the addition of more independent variables,
even if they are not significant at all, cannot cause the value of R2 to fall. Pursuing a
higher R2 could lead to too many useless independent variables. The adjusted R2 is a
better estimate of the model‘s goodness of fit. It measures the proportion of variation
explained by only those independent variables that affect the dependent variable.
Applications of multiple regressions in the construction management area are
described briefly as follows:
Lowe et al. (2006) adopted multiple regression techniques to predict the
construction cost of buildings, based on 286 sets of data collected in the United Kingdom.
Out of 41 identified potential independent variables, 5 variables emerged as significant,
suggesting that they are the key linear cost drivers in the data.
Lin and Lee (2006) using factor analysis and multiple regressions identified five
critical success factors. Accordingly, the establishment of a reward strategy, willingness
to share knowledge, a mechanism to approve activities, friendly system to exchange and
reuse knowledge, and top management support, proved to be essential in bringing
successful outcomes to knowledge management in construction.
54
Ika et al. (2012) used a stepwise regression analysis to establish which CSF
contributes the most to project success. The results showed that only the design CSF and
the monitoring CSF significantly contributed to the explanation of project success.
3.8 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM)
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used for the validation of the study results for
overall performance. SEM is a general term that has been used to describe a large number
of statistical models used to evaluate the validity of substantive theories with empirical
data. It is a statistical technique that combines a measurement model (confirmatory factor
analysis) and a structural model (regression or path analysis) in a single statistical test
(Kline 2011). The measurement model is concerned with how well the variables measure
the latent factors addressing their reliability and validity, and the structural model is
concerned with modeling the relationships between the latent factors by describing the
amount of explained and un- explained variance, which is akin to the system of
simultaneous regression models (Wong and Cheung 2005). Furthermore, SEM is more
helpful in understanding performance algorithms because users can visually and
systematically recognize complex relationships (Kim et al. 2009). Its ability to explore
relationships, as several studies in construction management show, makes it the perfect
choice for discovering the underlying interrelationships among critical factors (Cho et al.
2009; Kim et al. 2009; Ng et al. 2010). Thus the literature reveals the soundness and
applicability of SEM in this study.
Table 3.3 presents the guidelines which were used to develop the SEM in the light
of the research objectives (Hair et al. 2014). Table 3.3 contains six steps for the SEM. In
55
the development of a model for this study, the LISREL 8.8 software package was used
due to its user-friendly approach.
Table 3.3 Steps of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Step
Confirmatory factor 1. Define individual constructs
analyses (CFA)
2. Develop the overall measurement model
3. Design a study to generate empirical results
4. Assess measurement model validity
Path analysis 5. Specify the structural model
6. Assess the structural model validity
3.9 VALIDATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR PART ONE RESULTS
After analysis, the results were validated through case studies, which are presented in
Chapter 9. Ten live projects were selected randomly to avoid bias, and the senior
engineers dealing with the projects were requested to allow access to the files containing
correspondence and project related information. Since the study was about the
construction phase of the projects, the case projects selected were those that were in the
execution stage. The methodology consisted of referring to the contract document and
correspondence files of the contracts.
3.10 DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PART TWO
3.10.1 Identification of Success Criteria
Based on the literature and project management textbooks (Sears et al. 2010; Nunnally
2010), 12 success criteria were identified, and discussions were held with key
construction professionals in Ethiopia. Taking the suggestions made by these
56
professionals, the necessary modification was made to the list of success criteria, and
finally, 11 success criteria were considered for further study. In this study, the Delphi
method was employed for the evaluation of the identified success criteria.
3.10.2 Preparation of Questionnaires
A questionnaire based on the above-mentioned success criteria was formulated. The first
part of the questionnaire sought information about the respondent‘s personal details and
professional experience. The second part of the questionnaire seeks a response on the 11
success criteria for performance evaluation and respondents were asked to rate these
criteria for the different phases (i.e., pre-construction, construction, and post-
construction) of public construction projects. In the third part of the questionnaire,
respondents were given a choice to add any other success criteria not mentioned in the
questionnaire. A five-point scale, varying from unimportant (1) to very important (5),
was used to collect the responses. In this scale, 2, 3, and 4 stand for intermediate values,
to reflect compromises.
3.11 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE FOR PART TWO
3.11.1 The Delphi Method
The Delphi method is an iterative process used to collect and distill the judgments of
experts, using a series of questionnaires interspersed with feedback. In other words, it is a
group process involving an interaction between the researcher and a group of identified
experts on a specified topic, usually through a series of questionnaires. The Delphi
method has the following advantages (a) it is conducted in writing and does not require
face-to-face meetings; (b) it helps keep attention directly on the issue; (c) it allows a
57
number of experts to be called upon to provide a broad range of views on which to base
the analysis; and (d) it is inexpensive. According to Sackman (1975), the Delphi method
is fast, inexpensive, easy to understand, and versatile in the sense that it can be applied
wherever expert opinion is believed to exist.
3.11.2 Selection of Respondents
Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) suggested a minimum of eight experts in the Delphi
method. However, as such, no significant correlation is observed between the number of
experts and effectiveness. Ludwig (1994) notes that the number of experts used in a
Delphi study is "generally determined by the number required to constitute a
representative pooling of judgments and the information processing capability of the
research team‖ (Ludwig 1994, p. 52). However, what constitutes an optimal number of
subjects in a Delphi study has never reached a consensus in the literature.
Delbecq et al. (1975) suggest that ten to fifteen subjects could be sufficient if the
background of the Delphi subjects is homogeneous. Regarding any set standards of
selecting Delphi subjects, there is, in fact, no specific criterion currently listed in the
literature concerning the selection of Delphi participants. That is, ―throughout the Delphi
literature, the definition of [Delphi subjects] has remained ambiguous‖ (Kaplan 1971 p.
24). Regarding the criteria used to guide the selection of Delphi subjects, individuals are
considered eligible to be invited to participate in a Delphi study if they satisfy the
following (Pill 1971; Oh 1974).
 Somewhat related backgrounds and experiences concerning the target issue;
 Capable of contributing helpful inputs:
 Willing to revise their initial or previous judgments for the purpose of reaching or
58
attaining consensus.
Therefore, the following criteria were set for the selection. The experts had to satisfy at
least the following criteria:
 Ten years of professional experience in the construction industry.
 Member or chair of the committee.
 Advanced degree in the field of civil engineering, CM, or other related fields
(minimum of a B.Sc.).
 Professional registration, such as Professional Engineer (PE), Licensed.
 Participated in large construction projects (in terms of monetary value), with a
contract amount at least ETB 200,000,000.00.
Based on the above criteria, ten experts were selected. About the time management
between iterations, the authors provided two weeks for the Delphi subjects to respond to
each round (Delbecq et al. 1975).
3.11.3 Feedback from Experts
In general, in this technique, feedback or information from experts is collected in a
number of rounds. The number of rounds for this study was pre-decided to be two. The
Delphi method requires a minimum of two rounds (three if round one is open-ended).
Beyond that, the number of rounds is disputed (Thangaratinam and Redman 2005).
Walker and Selfe (1996) also make the sensible point that ―repeated rounds may lead to
fatigue by respondents and increased attrition.‖ Most studies use only two or three rounds
(Mitchell 1991; Sackman 1974). The feedback process allows and encourages the
selected Delphi participants to reassess their initial judgments about the information
provided in previous iterations. Thus, in a Delphi study, the results of previous iterations
59
regarding specific statements and items can change or be modified by individual panel
members in later iterations based on their ability to review and assess the comments and
feedback provided by the other Delphi panelists. The suggested basic steps of the Delphi
procedure by Hallowell and Gambatese (2010) are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Suggested modified procedure for application of the Delphi method
(Adapted from Hallowell and Gambatese (2010))
60
The major statistics used in Delphi studies are measures of central tendency
(mean, median, and mode) and level of dispersion (standard deviation and inter-quartile
range) to present information concerning the collective judgments of respondents
(Hasson et al. 2000). In the literature, the use of mean score and inter-quartile range,
based on a Likert-type scale, is favored (Murray and Jarman 1987). In this study, the
consensus was measured by RIR (Relative Inter-quartile Range). Generally, the smaller
the RIR value, the more is the agreement among experts in judging the success criteria;
the higher the mean, the more important the criterion is.
The median of the responses, inter-quartile ranges, and some extreme views of a
respondent on a specific point are communicated to the respondents in the next round.
The questionnaires were administered in two rounds, as explained below.
3.11.4 Round 1
Experts were asked to evaluate the importance of the success criteria for each phase of
construction on a 5-point scale varying from unimportant (1) to very important (5). In the
5-point scale, 2, 3, and 4 stand for intermediate values to reflect compromises. The
objective was to verify the consensus of the experts. The mean, median, inter-quartile
range and standard deviations of the responses collected from the administration of
Round 1 of the questionnaire were analyzed. Then, a ranking of the 11 success criteria
was done, and some variations in the respondents‘ consensus range were observed.
Therefore, it was found necessary to conduct Round 2 of the same questionnaire with the
participating respondents to reaffirm the responses.
3.11.5 Round 2
During the second and final round of the Delphi process, the panel of experts was
61
requested to look at the results and analysis of the response obtained from Round 1. In
the second round, values representing the medians and inter-quartile ranges of the first
round were provided to the experts, as well as pertinent comments submitted by the
respondents on the previous round. Experts were asked to reconsider their responses.
Analysis of Round 2 responses brought very little change in the responses to Round 1.
3.12 VALIDATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS FOR PART TWO

RESULTS
Generally, all respondents were vastly experienced and occupied top and responsible
positions in their respective fields. The validation of the results was done by means of
personal discussions with the experts, as the experts could relate the outcome of the
survey to their experience with project success measures.
3.13 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
Because of the poor documentation of data for completed and ongoing projects and the
confidentiality of some of the data for projects, it is very difficult to get full information
about the projects, hence using a questionnaire was found to be an appropriate option to
achieve the research objectives for the present study.
The questionnaire survey was an exploratory one with the aim of gaining insight
into specific research issues. The research method in this study dealt with the use of
factor analysis, multiple regression analysis, and SEM.
For the second part of the questionnaire, the Delphi technique was used. The
results of its analysis will be presented beginning with the next chapters. In the next
chapter, the analyses of the project success attributes will be discussed.
62
63
4 CHAPTER 4
MAJOR ATTRIBUTES OF PUBLIC PROJECT PERFORMANCE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the requirements of the study, suitable research methods to achieve the objectives of
the study were chosen in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the ranking of project success and
failure attributes on various project performance criteria are discussed. Identifying the attributes
which are responsible for success/failure of public projects on various performance criteria is one
of the objectives of the study. The relative importance of attributes which are grouped into
different success/failure factors is evaluated on various project performance measures, such as
schedule, cost, quality, no-dispute, and overall performance. These are briefly discussed in the
following sections.
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT PERFORMANCE

ATTRIBUTES
The relative importance of all attributes for all performance parameters is identified based on the
mean values of responses. The 35 attributes in the questionnaire were measured using a five-
point Likert scale for all performance criteria whereby 1 indicates ‗adverse effect‘; 2 indicates
‗significant negative effect‘; 3 indicates ‗marginal negative effect‘; 4 indicates ‗no effect‘, and 5
indicates ‗positive effect.' For interpretation purposes, any effect that lies between the mid points
of two adjacent scales has been considered. Based on their mean scores, three groups of
attributes are constructed. The first group of attributes with µ>4.5 shows a positive contribution;
the second group of attributes with 3.5< µ <4.5 shows no significant impact on the project
64
outcome; the third group of attributes with µ<3.5 indicates a negative impact. Therefore,
attributes having a mean value µ>4.5 are called success attributes, those attributes having a mean
value 3.5< µ <4.5 are called neutral, and those having a mean value µ<3.5 are called failure
attributes. Table 4.1 describes the meaning of ranges of mean values for performance criteria.
Table 4.1 Meaning for ranges of mean values for performance criteria
Performance Interval of mean values

criteria µ>4.5 3.5< µ <4.5 µ<3.5
Neither enhances nor Adversely
Schedule Enhances the progress adversely affects affects
Neither contributes nor Adversely
Cost Contributes to saving adversely affects affects
Neither contributes nor Adversely
Quality Contributes to improving adversely affects affects
Neither contributes in
Adversely
No-dispute Contributes in decreasing dispute decreasing nor adversely
affects
affects
The results of the analysis, based on performance measuring criteria, have led to different sets of
success attributes. Accordingly, 15 attributes have been found to be significant when schedule is
the performance-measuring criteria, 14 attributes have been found to be significant when cost is
the performance-measuring criteria, 13 attributes have been found to be significant when quality
is performance-measuring criteria, 13 attributes have been found to be significant when no-
dispute is performance-measuring criteria, and 15 attributes have been found to be significant for
overall performance-measuring criteria. These attributes with mean values and sig. values are
summarized criterion-wise in Table 4.2.
65
Table 4.2 Significant success attributes based on performance criterion
Attributes Overall Schedule Cost Quality No-dispute

Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig.
Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials etc.)as 4.69 0.00 4.74 0.00 4.68 0.00 4.69 0.00 4.61 0.00
planned throughout the project
Regular quality control and quality assurance activities 4.61 0.00 4.47 0.48 4.48 0.01 4.73 0.00 4.44 0.51
Adequate communication among all project participants 4.70 0.03 4.75 0.00 4.70 0.00 4.74 0.00 4.63 0.02
Regular monitoring and feedback by owner 4.73 0.02 4.68 0.00 4.61 0.02 4.78 0.00 4.47 0.42
Clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the tender 4.72 0.04 4.65 0.00 4.48 0.69 4.70 0.00 4.61 0.01
Compliance with rules and regulations of anti-corruption 4.48 0.75 4.42 0.10 4.47 0.66 4.34 0.15 4.39 0.20
Adequate design and drawings. 4.59 0.10 4.45 0.22 4.40 0.16 4.46 0.50 4.61 0.59
Regular monitoring and feedback by top management 4.65 0.00 4.67 0.00 4.61 0.00 4.45 0.36 4.60 0.00
Top management support 4.70 0.00 4.45 0.24 4.66 0.01 4.71 0.00 4.63 0.03
Regular schedule and budget updates. 4.63 0.00 4.70 0.00 4.38 0.11 4.51 0.49 4.68 0.02
Regular design and construction control meetings. 4.63 0.00 4.66 0.00 4.68 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.59 0.04
Project Manager‘s with similar project experience. 4.42 0.19 4.72 0.00 4.74 0.00 4.42 0.33 4.62 0.00
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his 4.65 0.00 4.68 0.00 4.63 0.00 4.68 0.00 4.59 0.03
team members and sub-contractors.
Understanding responsibilities by various project participants. 4.61 0.00 4.72 0.02 4.43 0.53 4.65 0.00 4.62 0.02
Thorough pre-qualification for potential bidders. 4.64 0.00 4.64 0.00 4.48 0.00 4.58 0.00 4.61 0.04
Owners need thoroughly understood and defined 4.62 0.01 4.59 0.00 4.68 0.02 4.70 0.01 4.47 0.11
Thorough understanding of scope of work by project manager 4.68 0.00 4.73 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.70 0.00 4.60 0.02
Adequate plans and specifications. 4.59 0.10 4.34 0.00 4.45 0.67 4.55 0.12 4.61 0.21
Utilization up- to-date technology by contractor 4.43 0.20 4.45 0.39 4.68 0.02 4.66 0.00 4.43 0.53
No major changes in the scope of work during construction. 4.69 0.00 4.41 0.00 4.75 0.00 4.47 0.83 4.74 0.04
Note: Sig. values shown in bold face shows the attributes which are significant at 0.05 sig. level
66
The study did not consider the second group of attributes with mean values 3.5< µ <4.5 because
these attributes show no significant impact on the project outcome. Table 4.3 shows significant
failure attributes based on a different performance criterion.
The results of the analysis, based on performance-measuring criteria, have resulted in
different sets of failure attributes. Accordingly, 15 attributes have been found to be significant
when schedule is the performance-measuring criteria, 15 attributes have been found to be
significant when cost is the performance-measuring criteria, 14 attributes have been found to be
significant when quality is the performance-measuring criteria, 12 attributes have been found to
be significant when no-dispute is the performance-measuring criteria, and 15 attributes have
been found to be significant for overall performance-measuring criteria. These attributes with
mean values and sig. values are summarized criterion-wise in Table 4.3.
4.3 RANKING OF SUCCESS/FAILURE ATTRIBUTES
The data received in the first questionnaire was analyzed, and the ranking of success and failure
attributes for all measuring criteria was done based on the mean values for the significant success
and failure attributes. Wherever two or more success or failure attributes had the same mean
value, the one with the lowest standard deviation was assigned the highest ranking.
4.3.1 Ranking of Success Attributes for Overall Performance
The ranking of the significant success attributes for overall performance is shown in Table 4.4.
Regular monitoring and feedback by owner, clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the
tender, adequate communication among all project participants, top management support, and
67
availability of resources (funding, machinery, materials, etc.) as planned throughout the project have emerged as the top five success
attributes for overall performance.
Table 4.3 Significant failure attributes based on performance criterion
Attributes Overall Schedule Cost Quality No-dispute

Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig. Mean Sig.
Conflict among team members 2.37 0.00 2.38 0.00 2.35 0.00 1.88 0.00 2.07 0.00
Conflict between project manager and sub-contractor. 2.12 0.00 2.59 0.00 2.51 0.00 2.03 0.00 2.19 0.00
Conflicts between project manager and top management. 1.84 0.00 2.28 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.99 0.00 2.02 0.00
Unfavorable climatic condition at the site 2.21 0.00 2.64 0.00 2.57 0.00 1.98 0.00 2.39 0.00
Holding key decisions in abeyance 2.08 0.00 1.79 0.00 2.14 0.00 1.51 0.00 2.20 0.00
Hostile social and economic environment. 2.16 0.00 2.68 0.00 2.47 0.00 1.96 0.00 2.21 0.00
Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques 1.91 0.00 2.35 0.00 2.53 0.00 1.87 0.00 2.28 0.00
by project manager.
Inadequate project formulation in the beginning. 1.88 0.00 2.67 0.00 1.66 0.00 3.54 0.40 2.47 0.00
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the 2.09 0.00 2.37 0.00 2.53 0.00 1.64 0.00 2.32 0.00
project manager.
Poor human resource management 2.36 0.00 2.48 0.00 2.70 0.00 1.93 0.00 3.54 0.46
Reluctance in timely decision by project manager. 1.79 0.00 2.42 0.00 2.26 0.00 1.91 0.00 2.48 0.00
Reluctance in timely decision by top management. 1.90 0.00 2.19 0.00 1.93 0.00 1.96 0.00 1.89 0.00
Size and value of the project being large 2.19 0.00 2.77 0.00 2.49 0.00 1.89 0.00 2.48 0.00
Tendency to pass on the blame to others. 2.10 0.00 2.04 0.00 2.33 0.00 1.89 0.00 3.46 0.52
Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high 2.35 0.00 2.50 0.00 2.20 0.00 1.89 0.00 3.46 0.49
technical know-how
Note: Sig. values shown in bold face shows the attributes which are significant at 0.05 sig. level
68
Researchers such as Songer and Molenar (1997) and Chan et al. (2001) have reported the
importance of the involvement and commitment of key project participants in ensuring
the success of public construction projects. The role of owner in public construction
projects is more important than other key participants because he/she is making funds
available, giving approval, and defining the scope clearly. If these tasks are neglected or
mismanaged, misunderstanding and conflict leading to delays may arise. For the success
of construction projects, the project participants are required to understand the scope and
define it accordingly; in this regard active owner involvement plays great role. The first
step in reducing scope changes is to clearly document the agreed-upon scope and nature
of work in the tender for the project. According to Isik et al. (2009), smooth labour
relations have a significant impact in preventing potential delays by minimizing disputes
and strikes. Further, top management support positively contributes to project success
(Ogwueleka 2011; Besner and Hobbs 2008; Zwikael and Globerson 2004). These studies
show that top management support is considered to be among the project management
success factors.
Table 4.4 Ranking of success attributes based on overall performance criteria
S. No. Project success attributes Mean SD Rank

1 Regular monitoring and feedback by owner 4.73 0.63 1
2 Clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the 4.72 0.67 2
tender
3 Adequate communication among all project participants 4.70 0.68 3
4 Top management support 4.70 0.74 4
5 Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials 4.69 0.66 5
etc.)as planned throughout the project
6 No major changes in the scope of work during 4.69 0.67 6
construction.
7 Thorough understanding of scope of work by project 4.68 0.70 7
manager.
8 Regular monitoring and feedback by top management 4.65 0.71 8
9 Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with 4.65 0.77 9
his team members and sub-contractors.
69
10 Thorough pre-qualification for potential bidders. 4.64 0.79 10
11 Regular design and construction control meetings. 4.63 0.82 11
12 Regular schedule and budget updates. 4.63 0.73 12
13 Owners need thoroughly understood and defined 4.62 0.60 13
14 Regular quality control and quality assurance activities 4.61 0.84 14
15 Understanding responsibilities by various project 4.61 0.95 15
participants.
4.3.2 Ranking of Success Attributes for Schedule Performance
The rankings for schedule performance criteria (Table 4.5) suggest that adequate
communication among all project participants, availability of resources (funding,
machinery, materials, etc.) as planned throughout the project, thorough understanding of
scope of work by project manager, project managers‘ experience, and understanding of
responsibilities by various project participants have emerged as the top five success
attributes. The schedule is one of the success criteria and defined as the achievement of
completion of a public construction project on or before its contractual finish time.
Smooth progress of projects, without delays, can be achieved through the involvement
and commitment of key project participants (Divakar and Subramanian 2009). Adequate
communication among all project participants contributes a lot in this regard.
Communication involves effective working relationships among all project participants,
which allows them to understand the requirements of the owner and enables all the
workers to understand their responsibility and participate with their expertise. A
competent owner would have his scope of work well-outlined and presented to the
project manager and contractor so that it helps them in developing a thorough
understanding of the scope of work during construction which enhances schedule
70
performance of the project. For successful completion of the project, the project manager
should also be securing and organizing the required resources through constant
persuasive interactions with his superiors. In this regard, the project manager‘s previous
experience with similar projects may help him a lot.
Table 4.5 Significant success attributes based on schedule performance criteria

1 Adequate communication among all project participants. 4.75 0.77 1
2 Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials etc.) 4.74 0.60 2
as planned throughout the project.
manager.
4 Project manager with similar project experience. 4.72 0.71 4
participants.
7 Regular monitoring and feedback by owner. 4.68 0.82 7
9 Regular monitoring and feedback by top management. 4.67 0.85 9
11 Clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the tender. 4.65 0.61 11
13 Owners need thoroughly understood and defined. 4.59 0.83 13
construction.
15 Adequate plans and specifications. 4.34 0.76 15
4.3.3 Ranking of Success Attributes for Cost Performance
The top five important success attributes for cost performance have emerges as: no major
changes in the scope of work during construction, project manager with similar project
71
experience, thorough understanding of scope of work by Project Manager, adequate
communication among all project participants, and regular design and construction
control meetings. Ranking of these attributes is shown in Table 4.6. For the project to be
considered successful in achieving the cost performance, it should be completed at or
under the contractual cost. If there is no change in the scope, then the project should stay
within the approved budget. De Furia (2008) has found out that any scope change
produce unwanted cost variance in the project. This indicates that if the scope is changed,
it will affect the budget. Therefore, the initial budget has to be modified to the
requirements of the current project scope.
According to Andersen et al. (2006), a well-understood project improves
managerial ability to deliver results on budget. This is possible if project manager
understands the scope clearly and has previous experience on the similar project.
Furthermore, communication difficulties or disorder during the project process
can directly lead to a sharp increase in the volume of unnecessary expenditure, resulting
in cost overruns and also affecting the progress of the project (Anumba and Evbuowan
1999). Therefore, adequate communication among all project participants is essential to
the success of construction projects (Tam 1999). In their study, Otim et al. (2002) were
able to identify that regular design and construction-control meetings are one of cost-
control techniques used on building construction sites in Uganda that enable projects to
be completed within budget.
Table 4.6 Significant success attributes based on cost performance criteria

construction.
72
3 Thorough understanding of scope of work by Project 4.72 0.55 3
manager.
6 Utilization of up- to-date technology by contractor. 4.68 0.57 6
8 Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials 4.68 0.60 8
etc.)as planned throughout the project.
9 Top management support. 4.66 0.58 9
14 Regular quality control and quality assurance activities. 4.48 0.60 14
4.3.4 Ranking of Success Attributes for Quality Performance
The ranking of the significant success attributes for quality performance is shown in
Table 4.7. Regular monitoring and feedback by owner, adequate communication among
all project participants, regular quality control and quality assurance activities, regular
design and construction control meetings, and adequate plans and specifications have
emerged to be the top five success attributes when quality criteria is of prime importance
in gauging the project performance. The success of public construction projects can be
measured according to its quality performance. Quality in construction can be considered
as meeting or exceeding the requirements of the client/owner. This can be achieved if
regular quality control and assurance activities are carried out. To implement regular
quality control and quality assurance activities, the project manager—in collaboration
73
with the quality team—needs to use quality control tools to monitor the quality
management process, reveal any errors or faults, recommend corrective actions and
ensure that the project deliverables are developed in compliance with the quality
requirements and customer needs. Furthermore, the project manager and the quality team
need to plan the overall process for assuring quality. This helps to design a quality
assurance plan template and monitor problems and drawbacks that may appear during the
project implementation process. The quality team needs to use such a plan to perform the
rest of the quality assurance activities, such as audit and analysis. Also, construction
quality can be maintained if regular quality control and verification on the site is done for
every material that arrives and every task that is performed. It is important for the owner
to establish a monitoring and feedback mechanism at the site to ensure that any
unexpected problem related to the quality of work can be dealt with promptly and
effectively. As Faniran et al. (1998) stated, the purpose of carrying out project monitoring
and control strategies is to complete a project to specified quality standards. Furthermore,
proper monitoring and timely feedback help in controlling the workmanship and they
enhance the quality of a project (Jha and Iyer 2006). The study by Chua et al.(1999)
revealed that adequate communication among all project participants, regular design and
construction-control meetings, and top management support are the most significant
CSFs (critical success factors) for quality performance.
Table 4.7 Significant success attributes based on quality performance criteria

3 Regular quality control and quality assurance activities. 4.73 0.8 3
74
manager.
11 Utilization of up- to-date technology by contractor. 4.66 0.5 11
participants.
4.3.5 Ranking of Success Attributes for No-dispute Performance
If public construction projects are completed without litigations resulting from
disagreements among project participants, it can be considered that the project has
achieved good no-dispute performance. No major changes in the scope of work during
construction, regular schedule and budget updates, adequate communication among all
project participants, top management support, and understanding of responsibilities by
various project participants have emerged as the top five success attributes for no-dispute
performance. Rankings are shown in Table 4.8. The study by David (2009) showed that
the process of managing of all stakeholders in public sector construction projects could
be used as an opportunity and a source and support for dispute resolution.
The studies by Hewitt (1991) and Ashworth (2013) revealed that changes in the
scope of work during construction can cause disputes in the construction industry. Project
75
scope changes could be a result of incorrect initial scope definition. Hence, a drawing and
design brief with minimal subsequent changes should be presented and approved by the
client/owner at the highest level.
Updating the project schedule and budget on a regular basis while keeping a close
watch on the timeline and cost may help the project manager to avoid time and cost
overruns, which are the main causes of disputes in construction projects (Heath et al.
1994; Adriaanse 2005).
Adequate communication and understanding of responsibility helps in building trust,
which in turn helps to resolve conflicts among the project participants and deliver the
project with the minimum of disputes. Further, if project managers and the top
management are supportive of each other, even major disputes can be resolved.
Table 4.8 Significant success attributes based on no-dispute performance criteria

construction.
participants.
as planned throughout the project
manager.
76
4.3.6 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Overall Performance
The ranking of the significant failure attributes for overall performance is shown in Table
4.9. Reluctance in the timely decision by the project manager, conflicts between the
project manager and top management, inadequate project formulation in the beginning,
reluctance in the timely decision by top management, and ignorance of appropriate
planning tools and techniques by project manager have emerged to be the top five failure
attributes for overall performance.
Reluctance in the timely decision by the project manager and by top management
affects construction project performance (Chitkara 2011). Timely decision-making by the
project manager and top management keeps the project within the stipulated time and
cost (Iyer and Jha 2006). According to Ferguson (1999), conflict within any social
organization is to be expected, construction being no exception (Gardiner and Simmons
1992). It is one of the factors that affect the performance of construction projects and,
therefore, project manager and top management must develop strategies to deal with it.
Early engagement in discussions that help resolve initial, uncomfortable, possibly
stressful disagreements may reduce the potential for conflict escalation. Another
difficulty encountered in the implementation of public construction projects in
developing countries is proper project preparation. Inadequate and poor initial project-
formulation has often caused project failure. Time and cost over-runs often have their
origins in poorly formulated projects (Chitkara 2011; Muhwezi et al. 2014; Elanga et al.
77
2014); if the project parameters are not properly determined or time and cost are
understated, then over-runs are likely at the implementation stage. Moreover, Voetsch et
al. (2004) found a significant and positive relationship between the management
knowledge and technical skills of project managers and the performance of the
construction projects. Ives (2005) also found technical skills to be one of the success
attributes of a project manager. If project managers do not have the skill to choose the
project management tools and techniques that best suit their management style, the
project may not be successful. Therefore, they should be able to combine their
educational background with the real-world knowledge necessary to oversee their teams
and carry out projects.
Table 4.9 Ranking of failure attributes based on overall performance criteria
S. No. Project failure attributes Mean SD Rank

1 Reluctance in timely decision by project manager. 1.84 0.98 1
2 Conflicts between project manager and top 1.88 0.90 2
management.
3 Inadequate project formulation in the beginning. 1.90 0.80 3
4 Reluctance in timely decision by top management. 1.91 0.95 4
5 Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and 2.08 0.81 5
techniques by project manager.
6 Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the 2.09 0.76 6
project manager.
7 Tendency to pass on the blame to others. 2.10 0.83 7
8 Conflict between project manager and sub-contractor. 2.12 0.87 8
9 Hostile social and economic environment. 2.16 0.76 9
10 Holding key decisions in abeyance. 2.18 0.90 10
11 Size and value of the project being large. 2.19 0.81 11
12 Unfavorable climatic condition at the site. 2.21 1.07 12
78
13 Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high 2.35 0.97 13
technical know-how.
14 Poor human resource management. 2.36 1.01 14
15 Conflict among team members. 2.37 1.09 15
4.3.7 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Schedule Performance
The ranking of failure attributes in schedule performance criteria (Table 4.10) suggests
that the top five failure attributes are: holding key decisions in abeyance, tendency to pass
on the blame to others, reluctance in timely decision by top management, conflicts
between project manager and top management, and ignorance of appropriate planning
tools and techniques by project manager. Holding key decisions in abeyance and
indecisiveness in taking day to day decisions have a negative impact on schedule
performance. In an organization where people at the higher end of a hierarchy tend to
pass blame downwards, the achievement of timely project completion always remains in
doubt. Planning precedes all managerial activities, and the process combines systematic
creative thinking with planning techniques to develop a project plan (Chitkara 2011). If a
project manager lacks this knowledge, he/she is unable to identify, guide and control
those activities, which are fundamental to on-schedule completion. This may cause time
overruns for the project. Moreover, the top management must devise a means to avoid
conflict by creating a suitable environment to build up a team spirit among project
participants. This is because the achievement of success in schedule performance is a
team effort, and if the team members are not working in unison it leads to adverse effects
on the performance of a construction project.
79
Table 4.10 Significant failure attributes based on schedule performance criteria

4 Conflicts between project manager and top 2.28 0.78 4
management.
5 Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and 2.35 1.04 5
techniques by project manager.
6 Lack of understanding of operating procedure by 2.37 1.04 6
the project manager.
technical know-how.
11 Conflict between project manager and sub- 2.59 0.90 11
contractor.
4.3.8 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Cost Performance
The ranking of the failure attributes in cost performance criteria (Table 4.11) suggests
that the top five failure attributes are: inadequate project formulation in the beginning,
conflicts between project manager and top management, reluctance in timely decision by
top management, poor human resource management, and uniqueness of the project
activities requiring high technical know-how. Reviewing public sector construction
projects in Nigeria, Dlakwa and Culpin (1990) found that inadequate initial project-
80
formulation is one of the three main reasons for cost overruns. Chitkara (2011) also
identified inadequate in initial project-formulation as the main cause of cost overruns in
projects. Conflict seems to be synonymous with construction projects, and it is found to
be one of the causes of increases in project costs. According to Cheung and Suen (2002),
if conflicts are not properly managed, they may cause project delays and increase project
costs. Therefore, the top management must devise a means to avoid conflict by creating a
suitable environment to build up a team spirit among project participants. This is because
the achievement of success in cost performance is a team effort and if the team members
are not working in unison that leads to adverse effects on the performance of the project.
According to Chitkara (2011), reluctance in the timely making of decisions by top
management causes management failure in construction projects. This may be the cause
for poor cost performance of projects. As construction projects are labour intensive,
human resources are a fundamental requirement for any project. Human resources are an
organization‘s largest assets, and account for the majority of costs in most construction
projects (Roper and Leed 2006; Loosemore et al. 2003). Further, the relationship with
and between the labour forces can be beneficial in managing facilities, planning projects
and executing construction.
If the project manager is holding key decisions in abeyance, it may have a
negative impact on project cost performance. Therefore, stimulating early decision
making by the project manager and communicating that decision to the concerned bodies
punctually may minimize the cost overrun. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the project
activities may require participants to devote some initial time to getting used to the
project. This may result in a loss of efficiency at the beginning that may have a negative
81
impact on cost performance.
Table 4.11 Significant failure attributes based on cost performance criteria
S. No. Project failure attributes RII SD Rank

2 Conflicts between project manager and top management. 1.80 0.99 2
4 Poor human resource management 2.14 0.70 4
technical know-how.
Project Manager.
13 Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by 2.53 1.11 13
project manager.
14 Unfavourable climatic condition at the site. 2.57 1.00 14
4.3.9 Ranking of Failure Attributes for Quality Performance
Holding key decisions in abeyance, lack of understanding of operating procedure by the
project manager, ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by project
manager, conflict among team members, and tendency to pass on the blame to others
have emerged as the top five failure attributes when quality criteria is of prime
importance in gauging the project performance (Table 4.12).
Where there is blame and fear, conflict follows and relationships weaken.
Therefore, if team members are not working in unison, it leads to adverse effects on the
82
quality of a construction project. Conflict is common in an organization where people at
higher levels of a hierarchy tend to pass blame downwards and try to hold key decision in
abeyance. Consequently, in an organization of such kind, the achievement of desired
quality always remains in doubt.
Ignorance and lack of knowledge in managing a project (in regard to technical,
procedural, or economic aspects) may cause poor quality performance at the site. Jha and
Iyer (2006) identified project managers‘ ignorance and lack of knowledge as one of the
critical factors affecting the quality performance of a construction project.
Table 4.12 Significant failure attributes based on quality performance criteria

project manager.
3 Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques 1.87 0.49 3
by project manager.
technical know-how.
83
4.3.10 Ranking of Failure Attributes for No-dispute Performance
The ranking of failure attributes in the no-dispute performance criteria (Table 4.13)
suggests that the top five failure attributes are as follow: reluctance in timely decision by
top management, conflicts between project managers and top management, conflicts
among team members, conflicts between project managers and sub-contractors, and
holding key decisions in abeyance . Disputes arise from a process involving conflict
(Fenn et al. 1997). The prior presence of conflict between parties may result in an
unnecessary dispute (Kumaraswamy 1997). In addition, the failure of top management to
make timely decisions can lead to serious disagreements among the construction team.
Therefore, valuable, timely decisions by top management can help in taking measures to
avoid disputes. If any conflict during construction is not resolved and timely decisions are
not given, disputes become complicated and difficult to resolve.
Table 4.13 Significant failure attributes based on no-dispute performance criteria

7 Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by 2.28 0.82 7
project manager.
project manager.
9 Unfavorable climatic condition at the site. 2.39 128 9
84
12 Size and value of the project being large 2.48 0.87 12
4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A total of 35 attributes affecting the project performance objectives of schedule, cost,
quality, no-dispute, and overall compliances were identified and discussed in this chapter.
Depending upon the mean scores of responses for various attributes, the attributes were
divided into three groups: if the mean score of responses for any attribute is significantly
>4.5, that attribute contributes positively for the success of the project and is designated
as a ―success attribute‖ (Group-1); conversely, if the mean score is significantly <3.5 then
it causes negative impact and is named as a ―failure attribute‖ (Group-3). However, an
attribute with a mean score falling between 3.5 and 4.5 (3.5 <µ<4.5) can be considered as
neutral (Group-2) because it would neither have positive nor negative impact. Only two
groups of attributes, success and failure attributes, were taken up for further study.
Moreover, sets of the most significant success and failure attributes have been identified
for different project performance criteria. Depending on the nature of projects, for
example, public or private projects, the performance criteria vary. The study has revealed
the significant success and failure attributes and ranked them by different project
performance criteria. The top five significant success and failure attributes for different
project performance criteria are listed in Table 4.14.
85
Table 4.14 Top five significant success and failure attributes for different performance
criteria
S. No. Project Significant success attributes Significant failure attributes

performance
attributes
1 Overall 1. Regular monitoring and 1. Reluctance in timely decision
performance feedback by owner by project manager.
2. Clearly articulated scope and 2. Conflicts between project
nature of work in the tender manager and top management.
3. Adequate communication 3. Inadequate project formulation
among all project in the beginning.
participants 4. Reluctance in timely decision
4. Top management support by top management.
5. Availability of resources 5. Ignorance of appropriate
(fund, machinery, materials planning tools and techniques
etc.)as planned throughout by project manager.
the project
2 Schedule 1. Adequate communication 1. Holding key decisions in
performance among all project abeyance.
participants. 2. Tendency to pass on the blame
2. Availability of resources to others.
(fund, machinery, materials 3. Reluctance in timely decision
etc.) as planned throughout by top management.
the project. 4. Conflicts between project
3. Thorough understanding of manager and top management.
scope of work by project 5. Ignorance of appropriate
manager. planning tools and techniques
4. Project manager‘s with by project manager.
similar project experience.
5. No major changes in the
scope of work during
construction.
3 Cost 1. No major changes in the 1. Inadequate project formulation
performance scope of work during in the beginning.
construction. 2. Conflicts between Project
2. Project Manager with similar Manager and top management.
project experience. 3. Reluctance in timely decision
3. Thorough understanding of by top management.
scope of work by Project 4. Poor human resource
Manager. management.
4. Adequate communication 5. Uniqueness of the project
86
S. No. Project Significant success attributes Significant failure attributes
performance
attributes
among all project activities requiring high
participants. technical know-how.
5. Regular design and
construction control
meetings.
4 Quality 1. Regular monitoring and 1. Holding key decisions in
performance feedback by owner. abeyance
2. Adequate communication 2. Lack of understanding of
among all project operating procedure by the
participants. project manager.
3. Regular quality control and 3. Ignorance of appropriate
quality assurance activities. planning tools and techniques
4. Regular design and by project manager.
construction control 4. Conflict among team members
meetings. 5. Tendency to pass on the blame
5. Adequate plans and to others.
specifications.
5 No-dispute 1. No major changes in the 1. Reluctance in timely decision
performance scope of work during by top management.
construction. 2. Conflicts between project
2. Regular schedule and budget manager and top management.
updates. 3. Conflict among team members
3. Adequate communication 4. Conflict between project
among all project manager and sub-contractor.
participants. 5. Holding key decisions in
4. Top management support. abeyance
5. Understanding
responsibilities by various
project participants.
It is very difficult for a project manager to aim to achieve excellence on all the
performance criteria at any point in time. Depending on the circumstances, the project
manager would aim to excel in terms of the schedule, cost, quality, and no-dispute
performance criteria. Hence, it is better for a project manager to distinguish the attributes
that need greatest attention to achieve excellence on the particular criterion which will
87
ensure the highest gain. Adequate communication among all project participants emerges
as important success attribute for all criteria, and reluctance in the timely decision by top
management emerges as important failure attribute for all criteria except quality (Table
4.14). Communication involves effective working relationships among all project
participants, and it allows them to understand and carry out the requirements of owner
properly. It needs to be established from the start and is essential to the success of
construction projects (Tam 1999). According to Wirick (2009) timely decisions from top
management help to build trust among project participants and thus avoiding delays. As
can be seen from Table 4.14, success attributes connected with the owner‘s involvement,
clarity of scope and top management support, and failure attributes connected with
inadequate project formulation in the beginning, and conflicts between the project
manager and top management all play important roles for overall performance criteria.
Obviously, the owner‘s input in the development of a clear project brief, which reflects
the project requirements accurately, is important (Chan et al. 2001). Also, inadequate
initial project-formulation may result in design changes and changes in project scope,
which can lead to construction disputes (Jergeas 1996).
The significant success and failure attributes identified in this chapter will be used in
the next chapter to identify the critical success and failure factors for public projects on
various performance criteria.
88
5 CHAPTER 5
SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, the significant success and failure attributes emerging for various
performance criteria were discussed. Subsequent to identification of success and failure
attributes (Section 4.2), the responses received for these attributes on five performance
evaluation criteria (schedule, cost, quality, no-dispute, and overall) were segregated into
two data sets called (a) the success attributes data set and (b) the failure attribute data set.
These two data sets represented responses to the success attributes and responses to the
failure attributes respectively. In order to know the correlations among the attributes that
would indicate some latent or intrinsic properties among the correlated variables, factor
analysis was applied individually to responses to success attributes and failure attributes.
As it has been observed that responses are sought on five project performance criteria,
there are five different response sets within the given data set, and factor analysis was
applied to all five response sets individually.
5.2 NUMBER OF EXTRACTED FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
In the study, the varimax rotation option was used for the factor analysis. When using this
option, orthogonal rotation of the reference axes is performed. Accordingly, six success
and six failure factors emerge for the overall and schedule performance-measurement
criteria. Similarly, when cost is the performance measurement criterion, seven success
and six failure factors emerge, and when quality is the performance measurement
89
criterion, a total of five success and six failure factors emerge, while when no-dispute is
the performance measurement criterion, five success and six failure factors emerge.
Factor loadings < 0.5 are suppressed in the analysis and those having loading values > 0.5
are only taken for interpretation. The reliability of the factor model was also checked
with the communality of each variable. Communalities of all the variables were found to
be much greater than 0.5, which signifies that the factor model is reliable.
The following paragraphs deal with the description of success factors
corresponding to individual performance measurement criteria.
5.3 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE
A total of six success factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. Names
were assigned to these factors. The factor structure, the loadings of various attributes, and
the variance explained by each factor are summarized in Table 5.1. The six factors
collectively explain 73.04% of the total variance. In the following paragraphs, the six
success factors corresponding to overall performance measurement criteria are discussed.
Table 5.1 Factor structure of project success attributes for overall performance criterion
Variance
Factor structure Loading explained
Factor 1: Project manager’s competence 16.55%

Thorough understanding of scope of work by project 0.835
manager.
Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials etc.) as 0.782
planned throughout the project.
Regular design and construction control meetings. 0.781
Understanding responsibilities by various project participants. 0.622
90
Variance
Factor 2: Owner's competence 14.55%

Regular monitoring and feedback by owner. 0.862
Thorough pre-qualification for potential bidders. 0.812
Owners need thoroughly understood and defined. 0.773
Factor 3: Management support, and schedule and budget

updates 11.67%
Top management support. 0.897
Regular schedule and budget updates. 0.895
Factor 4: Scope clarity 11.56%

No major changes in the scope of work during construction. 0.868
Clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the tender. 0.791
Factor 5: Interaction among project participants 9.37%

Adequate communication among all project participants. 0.771
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his
team members and sub-contractors. 0.663
Factor 6: Monitoring and feedback 9.34%

Regular quality control and quality assurance activities. 0.832
Regular monitoring and feedback by top management. 0.730
Cumulative variance explained 73.04%
Factor 1: Project manager’s competence
Four attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 16.55% of the variance. The
attributes are a thorough understanding of the scope of work by the project manager,
availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials, etc.) as planned throughout the
91
project, regular design and construction control meetings, and understanding of the
responsibilities of various project participants. Generally, the success of a construction
project depends on the competency of project managers (Chua et al. 1999). A competent
project manager ensures that his or her team members understand their responsibilities
and have a sense of commitment to them. He or she also empowers himself or herself
through demanding authority in getting the required resources as planned throughout the
project duration from his or her superiors. Further, the project manager exerts himself or
herself by getting involved in construction control meetings and obtaining a thorough
understanding of the scope of work of the project. Therefore, managing projects
successfully requires a mixture of skills including interpersonal ability and technical
competencies along with the capability to understand the situation and people (Strang
2003).
Factor 2: Owner's competence
This factor has three attributes, accounting for 14.55% of the variance. They comprise
regular monitoring and feedback by the owner, thorough prequalification for potential
bidders, and a thorough understanding and definition of the owner‘s needs.
Thorough prequalification of potential bidders helps the successful completion of the
projects. The purpose of prequalification is to include only those bidders that appear to be
capable of carrying out the project in an adequate manner. Further, the owner is
responsible for thoroughly understanding and defining the needs, preparing a clear and
unambiguous specification, and establishing a mechanism for monitoring the progress of
the work. According to Dunman (1984), if the owners are kept abreast of the daily status
of the project and are also engaged in day-to-day decision making such that they can
92
appreciate the impact of every deviation and change order, any number of constraints
faced by the project can be successfully handled.
Factor 3: Management support and schedule and budget updates
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 11.67% of the variance. They
comprise top management support and regular schedule and budget updates.
Top management support is known to have a positive influence on project success
(Ogwueleka 2011; Besner and Hobbs 2008; Zwikael and Globerson 2004). These studies
show that top management support is considered to be among the important project
success factors. Besides, regular schedule and budget updates help the successful
completion of construction projects by making it possible to successfully deal with many
possible project obstacles with regard to time and cost performance.
Factor 4: Scope clarity
This factor has two attributes: no major changes in the scope of work during construction
and a clearly articulated scope and nature of work in the tender. The factor accounts for
11.56% of the variance.
If the scope of work is outlined well, there will be no major changes to it during
construction, which will enhance the successful completion of the project. A properly
defined and managed scope leads to the delivery of a good-quality product at the agreed
cost and within schedules specified to the stakeholders. This is why, before a project
begins, there is a need for clearly defined requirements. Knapp (2011) states that failing
to clearly define and manage the project scope is one of the most common reasons why
projects fail.
93
Factor 5: Interaction among project participants
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 9.37% of the variance. They comprise
adequate communication among all project participants and the coordinating ability and
rapport of the project manager with his or her team members and sub-contractors.
Continuous coordination by the project manager and good relationships among project
participants are required throughout the project lifecycle for successful completion of the
construction project.
A study by Chua et al. (1999) revealed that adequate communication among all
project participants is one of the critical success factors that enhance the success of
Factor 6: Monitoring and feedback
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for a variance of 9.34%: first,
regular quality control and quality assurance activities, and second, regular monitoring
and feedback by top management. Quality control and assurance in construction
addresses the overall problem of ensuring the quality of the facility to be built in the most
efficient, economical, and satisfactory manner possible.
It is important for the owner to establish a monitoring and feedback mechanism at
the site to ensure that any unexpected problem related to the quality of work can be dealt
with promptly and effectively. According to Jha and Iyer (2006), proper monitoring and
timely feedback can help control the workmanship and enhance the performance of a
project.
94
5.4 FAILURE FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Factor analysis of responses for the overall performance criterion on 15 failure attributes
resulted in six failure factors, which accounted for about 72.80% of the variance
explained.
The factor structure, the loadings of various attributes, and the variance explained
by each factor are summarized in Table 5.2. In the following paragraphs, the six failure
factors corresponding to the overall performance measurement criterion are discussed.
Table 5.2 Factor structure of project failure attributes for overall performance criterion
Variance
Factor 1: Project manager's ignorance and lack of
knowledge 14.18%
Reluctance in timely decision by project manager. 0.806
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the 0.751
project manager.
Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by 0.707
project manager.
Factor 2: Indecisiveness of project participants 13.80%
Holding key decisions in abeyance. 0.917
Reluctance in timely decision by top management. 0.865
Factor 3: Project specific factor 12.76%
Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high 0.873
technical know-how.
Size and value of the project being large. 0.798
Factor 4: Conflict among project participants 12.05%
Conflict among team members. 0.829
Conflict between project manager and sub-contractor. 0.679
Conflicts between project manager and top management. 0.660
Factor 5: Socio economic and climatic condition 10.78%
Hostile social and economic environment. 0.871
95
Unfavorable climatic condition at the site. 0.805
Factor 6: Owner’s incompetence 9.23%
Inadequate project formulation in the beginning. 0.824
Tendency to pass on the blame to others. 0.765
72.80%
Cumulative variance explained
Factor 1: Project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge
This factor accounts for 14.18% of the explained variance. The attributes that have a high
loading in this factor are reluctance to make timely decisions by the project manager, lack
of understanding of the operating procedure by the project manager, and ignorance of
appropriate planning tools and techniques by the project manager. One of the most
important failure factors affecting construction project performance is the project
manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge about managing a project (Omran and
Mamat 2011). The project manager needs to make effective and timely decisions
regarding any issue that might arise during the course of the project. Therefore, he or she
needs to have the required skill to carry out the project successfully.
Katz and Kahn (1978) have suggested that an effective project manager should possess
essentially three skills: technical skills, human relationships skills, and conceptual skills.
While technical skills include the ability to apply knowledge in a given field, such as
engineering, finance, and so on, human relationship skills involve the ability to
communicate efficiently and to maintain a harmonious working group. Finally,
conceptual skills include the ability to perceive the project as a system by keeping a
global perspective and not thinking of only one aspect at once. Further, MacInnis (2003)
has identified poor project manager competency as another major reason for project
failures.
96
Factor 2: Indecisiveness of project participants
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for a variance of 13.80%. They
comprise holding key decisions in abeyance and top management‘s reluctance to make
timely decisions. Reluctance by top management to make day-to-day decisions and
holding key decisions in abeyance have negative impacts on construction project
performance. Therefore, top management needs to make effective and timely decisions
regarding any issue that might arise during the course of the project.
Factor 3: Project-specific factor
This factor accounts for 12.76% of the explained variance. The attributes with high
loading in this factor are uniqueness of the project activities requiring a high level of
technical know-how and a large size and value of the project.
As the size and value of the project increase, the schedule and cost overrun also
increase (Shrestha et al. 2006; Jahren and Ashe 1990). Further, the uniqueness of the
project activities may require participants to spend some initial time getting used to the
project. This may result in loss of efficiency at the beginning, which may have a negative
impact on the performance of construction projects (Iyer and Jha 2006).
Factor 4: Conflict among project participants
Three attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 12.05% of the variance. They
comprise conflict among team members, conflict between the project manager and sub-
contractor, and conflicts between the project manager and top management.
One of the major factors threatening construction projects is conflict between the
project participants. When project team members interact during the course of completing
their tasks and responsibilities, there is always potential for conflicts (Verma 1998). The
97
work of Walton and Dutton (1969) found that conflict results in low trust and low
respect, which in turn have adverse effects on performance.
Factor 5: Socio-economic and climatic conditions
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for a variance of 10.78%.They
comprise a hostile social and economic environment and unfavorable climatic conditions
at the site.
The social environment or social conditions in which people live and work have a major
influence on the successful implementation of construction projects. Iyer and Jha (2005,
2006) identified socio-economic and climatic conditions as one of the factors that have a
significant influence on the performance of construction projects.
Unfavorable climatic conditions affect the performance of construction projects.
For instance, strong winds can cause major problems at work and in certain areas they
can stop the work completely. Strong winds influence the stability of the scaffolding,
formwork, roof, and so on.
Factor 6: Owner’s incompetence
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for a variance of 9.23%. These
attributes emphasize owner-related faults leading to project failure. It can be inferred that
an incompetent owner may go ahead even with an inadequately formulated project.
Chitkara (2011) found that inadequate project formulation at the beginning is one of the
main causes of cost overruns in projects.
Often, projects are found to be poorly formulated because of inadequate field
investigation, bad cost estimates, lack of experience, and so on, and as a consequence
most projects face a huge amount of time and cost overruns. Besides, poor performance is
98
common in construction projects where people higher in the hierarchy tend to pass the
blame to those lower in the hierarchy in order
to make them responsible for problems that people at higher levels should have
dealt with.
5.5 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
A total of six success factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. Names
success factors corresponding to schedule performance measurement criteria are
discussed.
Table 5.3 Factor structure of project success attributes for schedule performance criterion
Variance
Project manager with similar project experience. 0.800
Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials etc.)
as planned throughout the project. 0.740
Thorough understanding of scope of work by project
manager. 0.646
Factor 2: Coordination and communication among
project participants 10.67%
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with
his team members and sub-contractors. 0.636
99
Variance
Factor 3: Scope clarity ,monitoring and feedback 10.58%
Factor 5: Understanding responsibilities 9.02%
Understanding responsibilities by various project
participants. 0.818
Factor 6: Pre-qualification, adequate plans and
specifications 8.02%
Adequate plans and specifications. 0.649
Most attributes of the first factor indicate that the project manager‘s competence is their
common property. The factor explains a variance of 23.11% (see Table 5.3). A competent
project manager possesses the capability to ensure the project is completed within budget
and on schedule. He or she does so by carrying out regular schedule and budget updates.
The previous experience of a project manager on similar projects makes him or her
competent. It is not enough to possess the skills mentioned above unless the project
manager makes an effort to get involved in the project by getting involved in the project
through regular schedule and budget updates and taking an active part in construction
control meetings and possesses a thorough understanding of the scope of the work. These
attributes are seen to emerge in the first factor (Table 5.3), hence the name of the factor.
100
Factor 2: Coordination and communication among project participants
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 10.67% of the variance. Any project
involves interaction between different project participants and most of the activities
require proper understanding of the needs of the others. There are instances when the
schedule of the project suffers for want of proper interaction between the participants.
The ability of the project manager to coordinate with his team members and sub-
contractors is a great asset in such conditions. Short and informal lines of communication
among project team members support the achievement of the desired project completion
time.
Factor 3: Scope clarity, monitoring, and feedback
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 10.58% of the variance. This
factor has attributes that mainly focus on scope clarity, monitoring, and feedback. Most
of the literature on the success of construction projects has identified these attributes as a
key factor responsible for the success of many projects (Songer and Molenaar 1977; Iyer
and Jha 2005).
Factor 4: Owner’s competence
comprise regular monitoring and feedback by the owner and the owner‘s needs being
thoroughly understood and defined. Regular monitoring and feedback on the progress of
the project and thoroughly understanding and defining his or her needs are some of the
characteristics of a competent owner.
101
Factor 5: Understanding responsibilities
Only one attribute emerged under this factor, accounting for 9.02% of the variance. The
responsibility for delivering a project as planned rests with the entire team. Therefore, all
parties to a construction project should understand, from the outset, basic responsibilities
associated with their work. In order to ensure that various participants understand their
responsibilities in a construction project, it is important to know about their roles in their
particular areas. This helps them to ensure that the client will receive a facility that
matches his or her expectations within the scheduled time.
Factor 6: Prequalification, adequate plans, and specifications
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 8.02% of the variance.
Thorough prequalification helps in getting good agency for execution and also addresses
the needs and expectations of all parties to the construction process. No-one is well
served if an unqualified contractor or subcontractor is awarded the work. General
contractors, owners, and designers use prequalification as a means of ensuring that the
project will be built on time.
Furthermore, having adequate plans and specifications is a fundamental
requirement for construction projects. Insufficient plans and specifications result in
uncertainties in the work, which generally lead to remedial work prior to completion and
an increase in the number of changes in the work. Increased changes in a construction
project generally reduce productivity and efficiency and increase the chances of poor
schedule performance. For instance, inadequate plans and specifications due to defects in
design often cause delay in construction projects (Samantha 2002)
102
5.6 FAILURE FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
A total of six failure factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. Names
failure factors corresponding to schedule performance measurement criteria are
discussed.
Table 5.4 Factor structure of project failure attributes for schedule performance criterion
Variance
Factor 2: Project manager’s ignorance and lack of
knowledge 13.72%
Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques
by project manager. 0.981
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the
project manager. 0.979
103
Factor 5: Project specific factor 9.74%
Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high
technical know-how 0.628
Factor 6: Poor human resource management 8.49%
Poor human resource management. 0.854
As can be seen from Table 5.4, this factor explains 16.71% of the variance, the highest of
all factors, and contains four attributes with high factor loadings (> 0.5). Conflicts remain
a challenge in the construction industry (Kassab et al. 2010) and have the potential to
lead to project failures (Tsai and Chi 2009), litigation, and sometimes outright
abandonment of the project (Tazelaar and Snijders 2010). Walton and Dutton (1969) also
found that conflict results in low trust and low respect, which in turn have adverse effects
on performance.
Factor 2: Project manager’s ignorance and lack of knowledge
This factor accounts for 13.72% of the explained variance. The attributes that have high
loading in this factor are ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by the
project manager and lack of understanding of the operating procedure by the project
manager. An unqualified project manager can severely hamper a project. Lack of
knowledge or experience in managing a project with regard to either technical or
economic aspects can cause delays or time overruns.
104
comprise reluctance to make timely decisions by top management, holding key decisions
in abeyance, and reluctance to make timely decisions by the project manager.
Indecisiveness in making day-to-day decisions as well as delaying key decisions has a
negative impact on schedule performance. Therefore, top management and the project
manager need to make effective and timely decisions regarding schedule issues that
might arise during the course of the project.
Attributes of this factor include unfavorable climatic conditions at the site and a hostile
social and economic environment. Unfavorable climatic conditions create difficult
working conditions for workers on site. They cause difficulties in mobilizing resources in
a timely fashion. Both attributes under this factor have a negative impact on the
efficiency and productivity of the workforce and thus impact on the schedule
performance. This factor explains 10.89% of the variance.
The attributes having a high loading in this factor are a large size and value of the project,
uniqueness of the project activities, necessitating a high level of technical know-how, and
inadequate project formulation at the beginning. Poor field investigation, inadequate
project information, bad cost estimates, inadequate project analysis, and so on result from
inadequate project formulation in the beginning and may contribute to project time
overruns. Project participants may initially take some extra time to get used to the project
if it is unique. This may result in loss of efficiency at the beginning, which may have a
105
negative impact on the schedule (Iyer and Jha 2006). The results of research conducted
by Shrestha et al. (2013) revealed that as the size and value of the project increase,
schedule overruns also increase. This factor explains 9.74% of the variance.
Factor 6: Poor human resource management
This factor, with only one attribute, explains 8.49% of the variance. Human resources are
critical for effective organizational functioning. Poor human resource management can be
a cause of low efficiency and productivity of workers on projects, which in turn might be
a factor in increasing the schedule overruns of projects.
5.7 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE
A total of seven success factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. Names
the variance explained by each factor are summarized in Table 5.5. The seven factors
collectively explain 72.66% of the total variance. In the following paragraphs, the seven
success factors corresponding to cost performance measurement criteria are discussed.
Table 5.5 Factor structure of project success attributes for cost performance criterion
Variance
Utilization of up- to-date technology by contractor. 0.657
planned throughout the project.
Factor 2: Scope clarity 10.91%
106
Variance
Thorough understanding of scope of work by project manager. 0.805
Factor 3: Owner’s competence 10.12%
Factor 4: Monitoring and feedback 9.85%
Factor 5: Coordination and communication among project
participants 9.56%
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his 0.790
Factor 6: Top management support 7.89%
Factor 7: Quality control and assurance 7.80%
All attributes of the first factor have the project manager‘s competence as a common
property. The factor explains 16.53% of the variance. The attributes are regular design
and construction control meetings, a project manager with similar project experience,
utilization of up-to-date technology by the contractor, and availability of resources
(funds, machinery, materials, etc.) as planned throughout the project. According to Iyer
and Jha (2005), the project manager‘s competence has a significant effect on project cost
performance.
107
Factor 2: Scope clarity
comprise the absence of major changes in the scope of work during construction and
thorough understanding of the scope of work by the project manager. Completion of any
project within its estimated cost is the basic criterion for the success of any project.
Moreover, controlling and managing changes to the scope is critical to the success of any
project, as scope changes can significantly impact the cost of a project. According to
Nguyen (2010), controlling the project scope includes understanding the root cause of
changes to the project scope, identifying a tendency toward changes and the risks
associated with them, and preventing unnecessary changes to the project scope.
A thorough understanding of the scope of the work by the project manager is a critical
factor for the success of public projects. In cases where the project manager starts the
project without understanding the scope of the work (i.e. knowing what he or she is
supposed to be delivering at the end to the client and what the boundaries of the project
are), he or she actually does not have any chance of succeeding with this disorganized
approach.
comprise thorough prequalification of potential bidders and the owner thoroughly
understanding and defining his or her own needs. The purpose of prequalification is to
include only those bidders that appear to be capable of carrying out the project in an
adequate manner. Thorough prequalification of potential bidders and thoroughly
understanding and defining the needs are some of the characteristics of a competent
108
owner.
Factor 4: Monitoring and feedback
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 9.85% of the variance. This
factor has attributes that mainly focus on monitoring and feedback. Most of the literature
on the success of construction projects has identified these attributes as a key factor
responsible for the success of many projects (Iyer and Jha 2005; Wang 2000).
Factor 5: Coordination and communication among project participants
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 9.56% of the variance. Communication
involves effective working relationships among all project participants, allows them to
understand the requirements of the owner, and enables all the workers to contribute their
expertise, which is essential for successful cost performance. The ability of the project
manager to coordinate with his or her team members and sub-contractors is a great asset
in such conditions. Short and informal lines of communication among project team
members support the achievement of the desired cost performance.
Factor 6: Top management support
Only one attribute emerged under this factor, accounting for 7.89% of the variance. This
attribute is ‗top management support'. The willingness of top management to provide the
necessary resources and authority or power for project success has a positive impact on
cost performance.
Factor 7: Quality control and assurance
This factor, with only one attribute, explains 8.49% of the variance. The attribute is
‗regular quality control and quality assurance activities‘. Poor quality means more
product failures. Therefore, developing and applying proper quality control and quality
109
assurance programs in the project will reduce the cost incurred due to product failure.
5.8 FAILURE FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE
failure factors corresponding to cost performance measurement criteria are discussed.
Table 5.6 Factor structure of project failure attributes for cost performance criterion
Variance
Factor Structure Loading Explained
Factor 2: Project specific factors 13.83%
Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high technical 0.957
know-how.
knowledge 10.40%
project manager.
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the project 0.752
manager.
110
Unfavourable climatic condition at the site. 0.819
Factor 6: Owner's incompetence 8.10%

Four attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 18.06% of the variance, the
highest of all factors. They comprise conflicts between the project manager and top
management, conflict between the project manager and sub-contractor, conflict among
team members, and a tendency to pass on blame to others. Top management must devise
a suitable means of avoiding conflict among participants.
The attributes having a high loading in this factor are a large size and value of the project
and uniqueness of the project activities, necessitating a high level of technical know-how.
The research conducted by Shrestha et al. (2013) revealed that as the size and value of
the project increase, the cost overruns also increase. The uniqueness of the project
activities may require participants to initially spend some time becoming familiar with
the project. This may result in a loss of efficiency at the beginning, which may have a
negative impact on the cost of the project (Iyer and Jha 2006). This factor explains
13.83% of the variance.
comprise reluctance by top management to make timely decisions and holding key
decisions in abeyance. Indecisiveness in making day-to-day decisions and holding back
111
key decisions have negative impacts on cost performance. Therefore, top management
and the project manager need to make effective and timely decisions regarding cost
issues that might arise during the course of the project.
This factor accounts for 10.40% of the explained variance. The attributes having high
loadings in this factor are ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by the
project manager and lack of understanding of operating procedures by the project
manager. According to Omran and Mamat (2011), ignorance and lack of knowledge
about managing a project by the project manager is one of the most important failure
factors that affect cost performance.
Attributes of this factor include unfavourable climatic conditions at the site and a hostile
social and economic environment. Iyer and Jha (2005) identified socio-economic and
climatic conditions as one of those factors having a significant influence on cost
performance. Both attributes under this factor have negative impacts on the efficiency
and productivity of the work force and thus impact the cost performance. This factor
explains 8.85% of the variance.
Factor 6: Owner’s incompetence
This factor has only one attribute and explains 8.10% of the variance. The attribute is
inadequate project formulation in the beginning. An incompetent owner will go ahead
even with an inadequately formulated project, which may result in an unsuccessful
outcome as far as cost is concerned.
112
5.9 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE
To find the success factors corresponding to quality performance, factor analysis is
performed separately on a group of 13 success attributes. Five success factors are
extracted from these 13 success attributes, explaining a total of about 72.19% of the
variance. Details of the success factors are presented in Table 5.7 and are described in the
following paragraphs.
Table 5.7 Factor structure of project success attributes for quality performance criterion
Variance
Factor 1: Quality assurance / control and scope clarity 16.78%
Thorough understanding of scope of work by project 0.815
manager.
Factor 2: Top management support and resource
availability 16.35%
Availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials etc.) 0.930
Understanding responsibilities by various project 0.838
participants.
Utilization of up- to-date technology by contractor 0.568
Factor 4: Owner’s competence 13.33%
Owners need thoroughly understood and defined 0.767
Regular monitoring and feedback by owner 0.730
Adequate communication among all project participants 0.882
113
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his 0.879
Factor 1: Quality assurance and control and scope clarity
The attributes emerging under the first factor account for 16.78% of the variance, the
highest of all factors, and explain the quality assurance and control and scope clarity.
They comprise a clearly articulated scope and nature of the work in the tender, regular
quality control and quality assurance activities, and a thorough understanding of the
scope of work by the project manager.
Factor 2: Top management support and resource availability
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 16.35% of the variance. They comprise top
management support and availability of resources (fund, machinery, materials, etc.) as
planned throughout the project. Arshida and Agil (2013) pointed out that top
management support and commitment is an essential element for ensuring good quality
performance. Also, it is very difficult to achieve the desired quality if the required
resources are unavailable. Hence the project manager should always ensure that sufficient
resources, including personnel, materials, equipment, and so on, are in place to perform
the required quality functions.
comprise understanding of responsibilities by various project participants, regular design
and construction control meetings, and utilization of up-to-date technology by the
contractor. The project manager must, of course, take the lead by establishing clear
responsibilities and making sure each project participant knows what he or she is
114
responsible for to enhance quality. Further, the project manager should take an active part
in construction control meetings held at the site level and should ask the contractor for
the use of up-to-date technology whenever needed to improve the construction quality.
comprise a thorough understanding and definition of needs by the owner and regular
monitoring and feedback by the owner. The importance of the owner‘s role begins at the
start of the project when plans are formulated, and this is when the owner has the most
influence over the construction process. He or she is responsible for preparing clear and
unambiguous specifications and establishing a mechanism for monitoring the progress of
the work. According to Barnes (1988), having the client‘s inspectors work with the
contractor to establish good quality control procedures before the work is done is much
more effective than walking around afterwards.
This factor has two attributes: adequate communication among all project participants
and coordinating ability and rapport of the project manager with his team members and
sub-contractors. This factor accounts for 12.30% of the variance. Continuous
coordination and good relationships among project participants are required throughout
the project life cycle to solve problems and achieve the desired quality performance.
5.10 FAILURE FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE
115
failure factors corresponding to the quality performance measurement criteria are
discussed.
Table 5.8 Factor structure of project failure attributes for quality performance criterion
Variance
Factor 1:Conflict among project participants 19.84%
Conflict between project manager and top management. 0.592
Factor 2:Indecisiveness of project participants 14.97%
Factor 3:Project specific factor 14.60
Uniqueness of the project activities requiring high technical 0.950
know-how.
Factor 4:Project manager’s ignorance and lack of
knowledge 12.11%
project manager.
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the project 0.580
manager.
Factor 5:Poor human resource management 8.70%
Poor human resource management. 0.936
Factor 6:Hostile social and economic environment 7.40%
116
Four attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 19.84% of the variance, the
highest of all the factors. They comprise conflict between the project manager and sub-
contractor, a tendency to pass on blame to others, conflict among team members, and
conflict between the project manager and top management. The top management must
devise suitable means of avoiding conflict among participants.
comprise reluctance to make timely decisions by top management, holding key decisions
in abeyance, and reluctance to make timely decisions by the project manager. Reluctance
to make day-to-day decisions by the top management and project manager and holding
key decisions in abeyance have negative impacts on quality performance. Therefore, top
management and the project manager need to make effective and timely decisions
regarding quality issues that might arise during the course of the project.
The attributes having high loadings in this factor are uniqueness of the project activities,
necessitating a high level of technical know-how, and a large size and value of the
project. The quality of the completed work delivered decreases with increasing project
size, which could be because larger projects are typically more complex, non-integrative,
and more time consuming, require multi-disciplinary inputs, and so on, and hence there
will be a greater likelihood of non-compliance with quality requirements (CIDB 2011).
Further, Jha and Iyer (2006) pointed out that if a project involves certain unique activities
in which the project participants lack prior experience, this contributes negatively to
117
achieving the desired quality. Some learning time may also be required for the people
involved in these activities.
This factor accounts for 12.11% of the explained variance. The attributes having high
loadings in this factor are ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by the
project manager and lack of understanding of operating procedures by the project
manager. Project management tools and techniques help the project manager in the
development of a realistic approach to achieve the desired quality performance.
Therefore, the project manager should have the required knowledge about these tools and
techniques and their application in construction projects and must also know which
quality-related operating procedures should be carried out to enhance the quality of the
projects. However, lack of these operating procedures and lack of knowledge by the
project manager may have a negative impact on quality performance.
Factor 5: Poor human resource management
This factor, which has only one attribute, explains 8.70% of the variance. The attribute is
poor human resource management. Summers (2005) stated that human resources should
be planned and managed to improve quality objectives. Poor human resource
management means that the human resource assets of the organization will not be aligned
with the organizational goals and objectives. Thus, it contributes to poor quality
performance of the project.
118
Factor 6: Hostile social and economic environment
This factor, which has only one attribute, explains 7.40% of the variance. The attribute is
a hostile social and economic environment. Jha and Iyer (2006) also found that a hostile
social and economic environment adversely affects the quality of a construction project.
5.11 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE
A total of six success factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. The factor
structure, the loadings of various attributes, and the variance explained by each factor are
summarized in Table 5.9. The six factors collectively explain 70.14% of the total
variance. In the following paragraphs, the six success factors corresponding to no-dispute
performance measurement criteria are discussed.
Table 5.9 Factor structure of project success attributes for no-dispute performance
criterion
Variance
Factor 1: Availability of resources and pre-qualification 13.10%
planned throughout the project
Factor 2: Project manager's competence 12.23%
Thorough understanding of scope of work by project manager. 0.828
Understanding responsibilities by various project participants. 0.649
Factor 3: Top management support 11.76%
Coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his
team members and sub-contractors. 0.838
119
Variance
Factor 6: Construction meetings, and schedule and budget
updates 10.31%
Factor 1: Availability of resources and prequalification
The attributes emerging under the first factor account for 13.10% of the variance, the
highest of all factors, and they explain the availability of resources and prequalification.
They comprise the thorough prequalification of potential bidders and the availability of
resources (funds, machinery, materials, etc.) throughout the project.
Resources should be made available and, if needed, shared resources could also
be utilized to fulfill the objectives. The availability of resources throughout the project
will help reduce the potential for disputes. A study by Harmon (2003) noted that a
shortage of resources in construction projects is one of the causes of disputes. Another
study by ACA (2006) also revealed that the unavailability of resources as planned was
one of the top ten causes of disputes in construction projects. Furthermore, the thorough
prequalification of potential bidders is a yardstick for allowing or disallowing firms‘
participation in bidding. It helps the owner to select reputable and capable firms with
proven track records so that disputes during construction may be reduced.
Factor 2: Project manager's competence
This factor has three attributes, accounting for 12.23% of the variance. These attributes
comprise a thorough understanding of the scope of work by the project manager, various
project participants‘ understanding of their responsibilities, and the project manager
120
having experience on similar projects. The project manager is the key person in a project
and should understand his or her role. He or she should have good interpersonal,
technical, and administrative skills.
A clear understanding of the scope of work by the project manager may minimize
construction disputes. In cases in which the project manager does not understand the
scope of work, he or she cannot apply the proper basics of managerial principles to the
project; hence, progress of the project may be delayed and disputes may arise. Moreover,
he or she must take the lead by establishing clear responsibilities and making each project
participant understand what he or she is responsible for to minimize the number of
disputes. In this regard, the previous experience of a project manager on similar projects
makes him or her competent.
Factor 3: Top management support
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 11.76% of the variance. This factor
comprises top management support and regular monitoring and feedback by top
management.
Top management support and commitment is an essential element for ensuring no-
dispute performance. For instance, the willingness of top management to provide the
resources and authority or power to the project manager necessary for project success has
a positive impact on no-dispute performance. Also, it is difficult to minimize disputes
without regular monitoring and feedback by top management.
121
Factor 4: Owner's competence
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 11.58% of the variance: a
clearly articulated scope and nature of the work in the tender and no major changes in the
scope of the work during construction.
One of the priority issues in enhancing no-dispute performance in construction
projects is to clearly articulate the scope and nature of the work in the tender so that there
are no major changes in the scope during construction. Therefore, experience and a
sufficient level of competence of the owner are required in preparing scope documents.
This factor has two attributes: the project manager‘s rapport and ability to coordinate his
team members and sub-contractors and adequate communication among all project
participants. This factor accounts for 11.16% of the variance. Continuous coordination by
the project manager and relationships among project participants are required throughout
the project life cycle in order to solve problems and achieve no-dispute performance.
Factor 6: Construction meetings and schedule and budget updates
This factor has two attributes, accounting for 10.31% of the variance: regular schedule
and budget updates and regular design and construction control meetings. A thorough,
detailed review of the contractor's schedule and budget baseline and schedule and budget
updates are necessary to ensure that schedules and budgets comply with the specification
requirements. This may help in reducing the potential for disputes. Furthermore, to
ensure that the project meets the targets without disputes, the entire process should be
closely scrutinized by the project manager and his or her team members using regular
design and construction control meetings.
122
5.12 FAILURE FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE
A total of five failure factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted. The factor
structure, the loadings of various attributes, and the variance explained by each factor are
summarized in Table 5.10. The six factors collectively explain 72.14% of the total
variance. In the following paragraphs, the six failure factors corresponding to no-dispute
performance measurement criteria are discussed.
Table 5.10 Factor structure of project failure attributes for no-dispute performance
criterion
Variance
Conflict between project manager and top management. 0.721
knowledge 14.00%
Lack of understanding of operating procedure by the
Ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by
Factor 5: Project specific factors 12.28%
A
123
Variance
Three attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 18.05% of the variance, the
highest of all factors. They comprise conflict among team members, conflict between
project managers and top management, and conflict between project managers and sub-
contractors.
Top management must devise suitable means of avoiding conflicts among project
participants, which could lead to disputes.
Two attributes emerged under this factor, accounting for 14.64% of the variance: the
failure of top management to make timely decisions and holding key decisions in
abeyance.
The reluctance of top management and project managers to make day-to-day
decisions and holding key decisions in abeyance have negative impacts on no-dispute
performance. Therefore, top management and project managers need to make effective
and timely decisions regarding any issue that might arise during the course of the project.
Factor 3: Project manager’s ignorance and lack of knowledge
This factor accounts for 14% of the explained variance. The attributes with high loadings
in this factor are a lack of understanding of operating procedures by the project manager
and ignorance of appropriate planning tools and techniques by the project manager.
Project management tools and techniques help a project manager in the
development of a realistic approach to achieve no-dispute performance. Therefore, the
124
project manager should have the required knowledge about these tools and techniques
and their application in construction projects. A project manager has to know what
operating procedures should be followed to avoid the factors that cause disputes.
However, lack of this knowledge of operating procedures by a project manager may have
a negative impact on no-dispute performance.
Attributes of this factor include a hostile social and economic environment and
unfavorable climatic conditions at the site. Hostile socio-economic and climatic
conditions create difficult working conditions for workers on site. This factor has adverse
impacts on construction projects in the form of difficulties in the timely mobilization of
the resources, frequent stoppage of work, labor unrest, and reduced productivity, which
may lead to construction disputes. Further, a study by Kumaraswamy (1997) identified
unfavorable climatic conditions at the site as one of the causes of disputes. Both attributes
under this factor have negative impacts on the efficiency and productivity of the
workforce and thus impact no-dispute performance. This factor explains 13.17% of the
variance.
The attributes with high loadings in this factor are inadequate project formulation at the
beginning and a large size and value of the project. This factor accounts for 12.28% of
the variance.
Inadequate project formulation at the beginning may result in design changes,
changes in project scope, schedule acceleration, and failure to supply sufficient resources,
which can lead to construction disputes (Jergeas 1996). Moreover, as the size and cost of
125
the project increase, its complexity and risk may increase (Carmichael 2002). This could
be because larger projects require multi-disciplinary inputs and are typically more
complex, non-integrative, more time consuming, and so on and hence there could be a
greater likelihood of disputes.
5.13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In order to reduce the number of attributes and to understand the success and failure
attributes in a better way, factor analysis was conducted separately on significant
attributes. The factor analysis on attributes of different performance criteria resulted in
different sets of success factors. Accordingly, the project manager‘s competence, owner‘s
competence, scope clarity, and interaction among project participants were found to be
common success factors for all performance-measurement criteria (schedule, cost,
quality, no-dispute, and overall).
The study by Gudienė et al. (2013) revealed that the project manager‘s
competence and owner‘s competence are among the top-ranking success factors for
A competent project manager should possess the capability to ensure the project is
completed on schedule, on budget, with the required quality, and with the least amount
litigation resulting from disagreement among project participants. He or she should
possess a thorough understanding of the scope of work and should make an effort to get
involved in the project through regular schedule and budget updates and taking an active
part in construction control meetings. Besides, a clear understanding of the scope of the
work by the project manager may minimize construction disputes. In cases where the
126
project manager does not understand the scope of work, he or she cannot apply the proper
basics of managerial principles to the project; hence the project‘s progress may be
delayed and disputes may arise. He or she must, of course, take the lead by establishing
clear responsibilities and making sure that each project participant is aware of his or her
responsibilities to minimize disputes. In this regard, the previous experience of a project
manager on similar projects will make him or her competent.
In addition to this, the owner is responsible for preparing a clear and unambiguous
specification and establishing a mechanism for monitoring the progress of the work.
According to Barnes (1988), having the client‘s inspectors work with the contractor to
establish good quality control procedures before the work is done is much more effective
than walking around afterwards. Also, one of the priority issues in enhancing no-dispute
performance in construction projects is to clearly articulate the scope and nature of work
in the tender so that there will be no major changes in the scope during construction.
Therefore, experience and a sufficient level of competence of the owner are required
when preparing the scope document.
Furthermore, many researchers have identified adequate communication among
all project participants as vital for the success of construction projects (Pinto and Slevin
1988; Chua and Kog 1999; Cooke-Davies 2002; Nguyen et al. 2004; Toor and Ogunlana
2008). Al-Qudsi (1995) also identified team effort by all parties to a contract – owner,
architect, construction manager, contractor, and subcontractors – as a crucial factor for
the successful completion of a project.
On the other hand, the factor analysis of attributes of different performance
criteria has resulted in different sets of failure factors. Accordingly, conflict among
127
project participants, ignorance and lack of knowledge of the project manager,
indecisiveness of project participants, and project-specific factors are found to be
common failure factors for all performance-measurement criteria (schedule, cost, quality,
no-dispute, and overall).
The construction industry is often considered as a project-based industry that is
influenced by the unique characteristics of each project and the involvement of the
various parties within the project life cycle. Due to the diversity of the industry and the
involvement of various parties, conflicts do take place (Mahato and Ogunlana 2011). Tsai
and Chi (2009) indicated that conflicts and contractual disputes are one of the major
problems affecting the success of publicly funded projects in Taiwan.
There is a general consensus that conflicts yield dysfunctional project outcomes.
Empirically, it has been shown that project participants have a great impact on project
performance. Hence, a breakdown of relations amongst project participants leads to poor
performance (Meng 2012). The evident implications of this are low productivity, low
morale, distrust, communication problems, requirement instability, rework, and disputes
(Love and Edwards 2004; Liu et al. 2011). Therefore, top management must devise
suitable means of avoiding conflict among participants.
This factor reveals that ignorance and lack of knowledge of the project manager
can cause failure. Hence, a competent project manager is responsible for the success of
the project. Contracting organizations are well advised not to compromise on the
competence of a project manager. Therefore, providing training at regular intervals to
supplement the knowledge needs of project participants should be considered by the top
management.
128
Top management and project managers are responsible for making decisions, both
large and small. Every decision they make must directly benefit their project. However, if
top management and project managers are reluctant to make decisions and hold key
decisions in abeyance there will be a negative impact on the performance of the project.
Therefore, top management and project managers need to make effective and timely
decisions regarding any issue that might arise during the course of the project and
communicate the decision and the expected outcomes to everyone who is impacted by the
decision. Moreover, as the size and cost of the project increase, its complexity and risk
may increase (Carmichael 2002). Since large construction projects are exposed to
uncertain environments because of factors such as planning, design, and construction
complexity, the presence of various interest groups, resources availability, and so on,
poor performance of the projects may occur.
129
6 CHAPTER 6
CRITICAL FACTORS FOR SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, factor analysis was used to transform the significant success and
failure attributes into a few success and failure factors. To explore the relative importance
of these factors in impacting the five performance criteria, multiple regression analysis
was applied. The factors found to be significant using multiple regression analysis are
referred to as ‗critical success/failure factors‘. A discussion of critical success and failure
factors corresponding to the five performance criteria is presented in the succeeding
paragraphs.
6.2 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Table 6.1 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗overall performance‘ is
treated as the dependent variable and the six success factors discussed in the Chapter 5
are taken as independent variables.
Table 6.1 Stepwise multiple regression results for success factors
Independent variables B σ β t-value p-value

Dependent variable: Overall performance; R2= 0.07, Adjusted R2= 0.06
Constant 4.26 0.03 NA 124.47 0.00
Factor 4. Scope clarity 0.10 0.03 0.22 2.86 0.00
Factor 5. Interaction among project participants 0.07 0.03 0.16 2.01 0.04
130
In this case, ‗scope clarity‘ (Factor 4) and ‗interaction among project participants‘ (Factor
5) were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for overall performance of public projects.
These factors are the most important when the objective is overall performance.
Previous studies have shown that scope changes have a significant impact on the
cost of projects (Rathi and Khandve 2016; Bolin and Bolin 2015). Chick (1999) showed
that the later a change occurs during a project, the more effect it will have on the project‘s
cost. Mikhail and Chris (2005) conducted a study to quantify the costs and time overruns
of a project due to changes in the scope of work during construction and found a 4%
increase in the total cost of steel erection work for the project.
Clear articulation of the work required during pre-project planning helps develop
a thorough understanding of the scope of work by the project manager and will help
avoid major changes during construction. Anderson et al. (2006) observed that when the
project purpose is understood well, it improves the managerial ability to deliver results in
terms of cost performance, which is possible if the project manager understands the scope
clearly. Further, lack of adequate communication among different parties may lead to
failure. Effective communication has been strongly linked with project success
(Clutterbuck 2007; Hernon and Rossiter 2006). Hartenian (2003) suggested that teams
with cooperative behaviour are more likely to achieve their set goals properly. Therefore,
adequate communication among all project participants enhances the success of
131
6.3 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Table 6.2 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗overall performance‘ is
treated as the dependent variable and the six failure factors are treated as independent
variables. ‗Project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge‘ (Factor 1) and
‗indecisiveness of project participants‘ (Factor 2) were found to be significant at p < 0.05
for the overall performance of public construction projects.
Table 6.2 Stepwise multiple regression results for failure factors
Independent variables B Σ β t-value p-value

Dependent variable: Overall performance; R2= 0.10, Adjusted R2= 0.09
Constant 1.95 0.02 NA 128.38 0.00
Factor 1. Project manager‘s ignorance
-0.10 0.02 -0.28 -4.14 0.00
and lack of knowledge
Factor 2. Indecisiveness of project
-0.03 0.02 -0.14 -2.04 0.04
participants
The project manager can be considered as the most important person for the success or
failure of a project (Hendrickson and Au 1988). According to Omran and Mamat (2011),
one of the most important failure factors which affect construction project performance is
ignorance and lack of knowledge about managing a project by the project manager.
According to Project Management for Development Organisations
(PM4DEV2015), project managers are expected to accomplish project objectives by
using their knowledge, skills, and practical experience. During the project management
process, they have to use a combination of their roles (integrator, communicator, and
leader) and skills (management and interpersonal). They should be able to plan, organize,
direct, implement, monitor, and control the course of the project. All these roles and skills
are equally important in managing a project successfully.
132
Besides, indecisiveness of project participants, reluctance by top management and
project managers to make day-to-day decisions, and holding key decisions in abeyance
have negative impacts on project performance. Therefore, top management and project
managers need to make effective and timely decisions regarding any issue that might
arise during the course of the project.
6.4 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
Table 6.3 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗schedule performance‘ is
treated as the dependent variable and the six success factors discussed above are treated
as independent variables.
Independent Variables B Σ β t-value p-value

Dependent variable: Schedule performance; R2= 0.11, Adjusted R2= 0.10
Constant 3.85 0.08 NA 48.98 0.00
Factor 4. Owner‘s competence 0.26 0.08 0.34 3.24 0.02
In this case, only Factor 4, ‗owner‘s competence‘ was found to be significant at p < 0.05
for schedule performance on public projects. The factor ‗owner‘s competence‘ is the
most important when the objective is schedule performance. A competent owner will
have his or her project scope clearly defined at the very beginning of the project. Besides,
he or she will also be able to make timely decisions and resolve any disputes that emerge
with his or her contractors. The owner‘s competence has also been identified as important
for delivering projects on time by Iyer and Jha (2006), Anderson et al. (2006), and
Divakar and Subramanian (2009). Owners should be able to develop clear definitions of
133
project scope, express their requirements clearly in project briefs, and possess the ability
to manage design changes (Songer and Molenaar 1997). The owner is, therefore, able to
ensure that accurate and clear preparation of the project scope definition expresses
expectations for the project schedule performance.
6.5 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
Table 6.4 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗schedule performance‘ is
variables. ‗Conflict among project participants‘ (Factor 1), ‗poor human resource
management‘ (Factor 6), and ‗project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge‘
(Factor 2) were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for the schedule performance of public
Independent Variables B σ β t-value p-value

Dependent variable: Schedule performance; R2= 0.28, Adjusted R2= 0.27
Constant 1.40 0.03 NA 44.19 0.00
Factor 1. Conflict among project participants -0.22 0.03 -0.45 -6.98 0.00
Factor 6. Poor human resource management -0.10 0.03 -0.21 -3.30 0.00
Factor 2. Project manager‘s ignorance and lack
-0.09 0.03 -0.18 -2.82 0.01
of knowledge
Conflict among project participants is generally considered to mar the team spirit and
sometimes leads to division among the team and lack of cooperation between the
conflicting groups. Conflicts are detrimental to the smooth progress of work and
134
eventually delay the completion of those jobs that require cooperation and coordination
among the differing groups.
In today's highly competitive environment, managing people effectively can also
have a significant impact on the schedule performance of a project, since as
Hubbard (1990) noted, most major project failures are related to social issues. For
instance, a study by Todryk (1990) revealed that a well-trained project manager is a key
factor linked with project success because, as a team builder, he or she can create an
effective team. Besides, ignorance and lack of knowledge of the effort required to
achieve schedule performance by the project manager can result in unnecessary wastage
of activity time, causing time overruns of the project.
6.6 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE
Table 6.5 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗cost performance‘ is
treated as the dependent variable and the seven success factors discussed above are
treated as independent variables.

Dependent variable: Cost performance; R2= 0.11, Adjusted R2= 0.10
Constant 4.44 0.05 NA 89.50 0.00
Factor 2. Scope clarity 0.16 0.05 0.26 3.28 0.00
Factor 1. Project manager‘s competence 0.12 0.05 0.20 2.49 0.01
In this case, ‗scope clarity‘ (Factor 2) and ‗project manager‘s competence‘ (Factor 1)
were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for the cost performance for public projects.
These factors are the most important when the objective is cost performance.
135
For the success of public projects, the project manager must have a thorough
understanding of the scope, which is only possible when the scope itself is clearly
articulated. Major changes during construction should also be avoided as they disturb the
project planning, resulting in extensive delays and cost overruns as seen in the
construction of the Sydney Opera House, which was delivered 10 years later than
originally planned at a cost overrun of 1,400% (Flyvbjerg 2014). According to Nguyen et
al. (2004), a competent project manager was found to be one of the critical success
factors for project success in large construction projects in Vietnam.
6.7 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR COST PERFORMANCE
Table 6.6 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗cost performance‘ is
variables. ‗Conflict among project participants‘ (Factor 1) and ‗project manager‘s
ignorance and lack of knowledge‘ (Factor 4) were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for
cost performance of public construction projects.
Independent variables B σ Β t-value p-value

Dependent variable: Cost performance; R2= 0.22, Adjusted R2= 0.21
Constant 1.66 0.03 NA 51.65 0.00
Factor 4. Project manager's ignorance and lack of

-0.11 0.03 -0.24 -3.49 0.00
knowledge
The cause of conflict in project teams can be related to differences in values, attitudes,
needs, expectations, perceptions, and so on. Project managers must identify, analyze, and
136
evaluate negative impacts of conflict and their effects on cost performance. In a study of
50 Indian construction firms, Iyer and Jha (2004) found that respondents ranked conflict
among project participants as the factor that had the greatest effect on project cost.
Besides, ignorance and lack of knowledge of the effort required to achieve good cost
performance by the project manager results in unnecessary wastage of money, leading to
cost overrun of the project.
6.8 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE
Table 6.7 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗quality performance‘ is
treated as the dependent variable and the five success factors discussed above are treated
as the independent variables.

2 2
Dependent variable: Quality performance; R = 0.07, Adjusted R = 0.06
Constant 4.52 0.04 NA 112.91 0.00
Factor 1. Quality assurance / control and
0.11 0.04 0.21 2.59 0.01
scope clarity.
Factor 2. Top management support and
0.10 0.04 0.16 2.02 0.02
resource availability .
In this case, ‗quality assurance/control and scope clarity‘ (Factor 1) and ‗top management
support and resource availability‘ (Factor 2) were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for
good quality performance of public projects. These factors are the most important when
the objective is good quality performance.
Quality assurance and quality control are extremely important aspects of any
engineering or construction project without which the successful quality performance of
137
the project cannot be imagined. The contractors are responsible for constructing the work
in accordance with the plans and specifications. Each contractor is also responsible for
controlling the quality of its work to meet contract plans, specifications, and related
requirements. The project manager is supposed to ensure that daily monitoring and
scheduled inspections do take place to verify the effectiveness of the quality control
program and to assure that the quality control is working effectively and that the resultant
construction complies with the quality requirements established by the contract. If the
quality parameters or the guidelines provided in the quality assurance documents are
followed properly, the ultimate quality target for a construction project will be achieved.
A thorough understanding of the scope of work by the project manager is a
critical factor for the success of public projects. If the project manager starts the project
without understanding its scope (i.e. knowing what he or she is supposed to be delivering
to the client at the end and what the boundaries of the project are), he or she actually does
not have any chance of accomplishing the project with the required quality performance.
A study by Oruma et al. (2014) revealed that top management support and
commitment is an essential element for ensuring successful quality performance, and as
such, top management must be at the forefront of the quality management process,
starting from the initial stages. Consequently, the success of any critical decision made in
an organization is highly dependent on top management support and commitment
(Zakuan et al. 2012). Baidoun (2003) also pointed out that top management must develop
a clear quality mission and goals, identify quality values, and communicate these values
to all employees. Furthermore, project resources provide the means of accomplishing the
work objectives (Padilla and Carr 1991). Cobb (2012) indicated that the main reason for
138
the success of construction firms is that resources are made available when needed by
project members.
If resources are not available as planned throughout the project, the project may
suffer from poor quality performance. Yean and Ling (2004) found that the availability of
resources was one of the most significant factors affecting the quality of building
elements in design-build projects.
6.9 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR QUALITY PERFORMANCE
Table 6.8 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗quality performance‘ is
variables.

Dependent variable: Quality performance; R2= 0.05, Adjusted R2= 0.04
Constant 1.87 0.03 NA 75.29 0.00
Factor 4. Project manager‘s ignorance and lack
-0.08 0.03 -0.23 -3.16 0.00
of knowledge.
In this case, ‗ignorance and lack of knowledge‘ (Factor 4) is found to be significant at p <
0.05 for quality performance of public construction projects. This factor is the most
important when the objective is quality performance.
A project manager needs to have the right balance of skills in order to be
successful in managing projects and teams. The PMBOK guide is an excellent source of
the knowledge he or she needs to master and what is most needed for today's managers.
Ignorance and lack of knowledge and experience of a project manager regarding the use
139
of quality control and techniques to ensure total quality management lead to poor quality
performance. According to Truman and King (2015), poor project management or lack of
sound project management by the project manager will result in a completed facility that
fails to meet the specified quality and fails to produce the intended products. Therefore,
the project manager should have the required or adequate knowledge about applying
good project management practices to help avoid failure in terms of project quality
performance.
6.10 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE
Table 6.9 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗no-dispute performance‘
is treated as the dependent variable and the six success factors discussed above are treated
as the independent variables.

2 2
Dependent variable: No-dispute performance; R = 0.34, Adjusted R = 0.10
Constant 4.58 0.04 NA 121.617 0.00
Factor 4. Owner's competence 0.15 0.04 0.29 3.88 0.00
Factor 5. Interaction among project
0.10 0.04 0.16 2.07 0.04
participants
In this case, ‗owner's competence‘ (Factor 4) and ‗interaction among project participants‘
(Factor 5) were found to be significant at p < 0.05 for no-dispute performance of public
projects. These factors are the most important when the objective is no-dispute
performance.
The importance of the owner‘s role in minimizing disputes begins at the start of
the project when the plans are formulated, which is when the owner has the most
140
influence on the construction process. The owner should be competent enough to prepare
a clearly articulated scope and unambiguous statement of the nature of work in the
tender. By doing so, major changes in the scope of work during construction, which are
the cause of construction disputes (Hewitt 1991; Ashworth 2005), could be avoided.
Moreover, project managers and their teams must develop effective communication
channels to avoid or reduce the potential for disputes. They must learn to create an
atmosphere that encourages open communication. Communication needs to be
established from the start to prevent the escalation of problems into disputes. Poor
communication and misunderstandings among project members are some of the most
common reasons for disputes (Cakmak and Cakmak 2014). Moreover, as the construction
process requires a large amount of manpower with a diverse skill set, every stage of the
project requires coordination.
Coordination may consume much time. Project managers must realize that time
spent on coordination is an investment that bears fruit through avoiding no-dispute
performance. Further, according to Cheung and Suen (2002), if conflicts are not properly
managed, they may cause project delays and increase project costs, leading to disputes.
Therefore, top management must devise a means of avoiding conflict by creating a
suitable environment to build up a team spirit among project participants. This is because
the achievement of success in no-dispute performance is a team effort and if the team
members are not working in unison there will be adverse effects on the performance of a
construction project.
141
6.11 CRITICAL FAILURE FACTORS FOR NO-DISPUTE PERFORMANCE
Table 6.10 shows the stepwise multiple regression results when ‗no-dispute performance‘
is treated as the dependent variable and the five failure factors are treated as independent
variables.

Dependent variable: No-dispute performance; R2= 0.05, Adjusted R2= 0.04
Constant 1.85 0.03 NA 70.783 0.00
‗Conflict among project participants‘ (Factor 1) is found to be significant at p < 0.05 for
no-dispute performance of public construction projects.
The presence of conflict between parties may initiate an unnecessary dispute
(Kumaraswamy 1997). If conflicts are not well managed, they quickly turn into disputes.
Disputes are one of the main factors that prevent the successful completion of
construction projects (Cakmak and Cakmak 2014). Therefore, top management must
develop effective communications and mechanisms for resolving conflicts among the
various project participants.
In the previous chapter, factor analysis was used for each performance criterion to
transform success and failure attributes into a few success and failure factors. To explore
the relative importance of these factors in impacting the five performance-measurement
criteria, multiple regression analysis was applied. This study uses the schedule, cost,
142
quality, no-dispute, and overall performance of the project as the dependent variables and
factors obtained from the factor analysis as independent variables.
The most important success and failure factors for different performance criteria
are shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.
Figure 6.1 The most important success factors for different performance criteria
Figure 6.2 The most important failure factors for different performance criteria
143
 The owner‘s competence and scope clarity are a generic success property and
must be given full attention.
 The owner must have the ability to define the project scope clearly, which will
help in successful accomplishment of the objectives of the project.
 Quality is an essential element for sustainability and customer satisfaction. In
construction projects, quality performance is considered vital for client
satisfaction. The quality performance of the projects can be ensured through
regular quality control and quality assurance activities.
 Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the project participants, conflict is an
unavoidable issue in the construction industry. Internal conflicts between the
parties who participate directly in the project such as project owners, project
consultants, and project contractors can break the relationship among them and
affect the work quality and productivity and may lead to project failure if they are
not managed well.
 While a competent project manager is responsible for the success of the project,
ignorance and lack of knowledge of the project manager can be a cause of failure.
The top management can devise ways to supplement the knowledge needs of
project participants by providing training at regular intervals. A proper
recruitment policy and the arrangement of an in-house training program for the
project team members can also tackle these aspects.
144
7 CHAPTER 7
SUCCESS CRITERIA
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, the relative importance of various success and failure attributes, their
intrinsic characteristics, and the extent of the criticality of various success and failure factors
have been discussed. It was observed in Chapter 4 that a project manager does not aim to achieve
all the performance criteria simultaneously, and depending on the circumstances, the relative
levels of importance of performance criteria may vary.
The identification of appropriate success criteria is of interest to project-based organizations in
an attempt to track key project results (Liu and Walker 1998; Pinto and Slevin 1988). Project
success, particularly on public construction projects, has been a major problem in Ethiopia
(Dessa 2003; Mustefa 2015). Adinyira et al. (2012) argue that the foremost challenge has always
been the ambiguities associated with assessing the success of such projects and until this is
resolved, it will be very difficult to accurately monitor and anticipate project outcomes
effectively. For these reasons, the identification of success criteria for each phase of public
construction projects in Ethiopia is critical. Since expert groups who have experience in all the
phases of construction are limited in Ethiopia, and no database is available to rely upon, the
Delphi method was used. The Delphi method is a widely used group technique. It was developed
about 60 years ago as a means of collecting and synthesizing expert judgments. The technique
allows one to obtain highly reliable data from certified experts using strategically designed
surveys (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010).
145
7.2 CRITERIA FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE
7.2.1 Time, Cost, and Quality
It is a widely accepted view that, at a minimum, the performance measures of a project should be
based on time, cost, and quality. Time and cost are defined as the degree to which the general
conditions promote the completion of a project within the allocated duration and budget,
respectively (Bubshait and Almohawis 1994). Time can be measured (Naoum 1994) by:
 Time overrun, which is the percentage increase or decrease in the duration of the
program compared to what was estimated (in days/weeks);
 Construction time, which is number of days from starting work on site to the practical
completion of the project; and
 The speed of construction, which is the gross floor area (in square meters) divided by the
construction time (in days).
Cost can be measured (Naoum 1994) by:
 Cost overrun, which is the increase or decrease in budget (in ETB) (1 ETB = 0.05 USD)
 Unit cost, which is the cost (in ETB) of the building divided by the gross floor area (in
square meters)
Quality is defined as the degree to which the general conditions promote the meeting of the
project‘s established requirements of materials and workmanship (Bubshait and Almohawis
1994). It is also expressed in terms of technical specification, function, and appearance and is
defined as the totality of features required by a product or service to satisfy a given need (Hatush
and Skitmore 1997). According to Molenaar et al. (1999), the composite measures of quality for
146
a construction project comprise conformity with expectations, administrative burden, and overall
owner satisfaction.
7.2.2 Health and Safety

Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined health and safety as the degree to which the general
conditions promote the completion of a project without major accidents or injuries. According to
Hosseinian and Torghabeh (2012), accidents are caused by unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and
acts of God. The measure of safety can be represented by the following injury/accident rate per
1,000 workers (Labour Department 2005):
( )
Many researchers used safety as a criterion to measure the success of a construction project (Liu
and Walker 1998; Tabish and Jha 2011). Everyone controlling the site work has health and safety
responsibilities. Safety is assessed during construction phases when work packages are taking
place and the result can be representative. Checking that working conditions are healthy and safe
before work begins and ensuring that the proposed work is not going to put others at risk require
planning and organization. Therefore, the contractor will be restrained from starting construction
operations until a health and safety plan has been developed to the client‘s satisfaction (Mosey
1998).
7.2.3 No-Dispute
Disputes are one of the main problems that prevent successful completion of construction
projects. Disputes are associated with issues of trial in a court of law and require resolution by,
147
for example, mediation, negotiation, arbitration, litigation, and so on. Thus, it is important to be
aware of the causes of disputes in order to complete the construction project within the desired
time and budget and to the desired quality. According to Takim and Adnan (2008), the absence
of any claims or proceedings in projects is the major criterion for measuring project success for
all parties (client, designer, and contractor). Therefore, this criterion should be assessed in the
construction phase of the project.
7.2.4 Satisfaction
Satisfaction describes the level of ‗happiness‘ of people affected by a project (Chan et al. 2002).
Such people include key project participants, namely the client, architect, contractor, various
subcontractors, surveyors and engineers, end-users, and third parties.
Bititci (1994) believes that the client is satisfied if the project is delivered with good quality,
reliability, on-time deliveries, high service levels, and minimum cost of ownership. According to
Atkinson (1999), two possible criteria that could be used to measure the success of the project
are the resultant system (the product) and the benefits to the many stakeholders involved in the
project such as the users, customers, or project staff.
Liu and Walker (1998) also consider satisfaction as an attribute of project success. Therefore, if
end-users are satisfied, the project can be considered successfully completed in the long run
(Torbica and Stroh 2001).
7.2.5 Technical Performance

Clear specifications and a consistent understanding of the intent of the specifications by all
parties lead to a project of higher quality. The performance measure of the technical specification
is the extent to which the specified technical requirements can be achieved. In addition to that,
148
Songer and Molenaar (1997) consider meeting specifications as one success criterion for
construction projects that is consistent with the measurement of technical performance, which is
to be measured in both the pre-construction and construction phases when the technical
requirements are laid down.
7.2.6 Environmental Sustainability

The public (users) consider the ability of the project to meet their needs as project success. Even
though construction project development potentially contributes to economic and social
development and to the enhancement of both standard of living and quality of life, it is also
associated with deterioration of the environment (Azqueta 1992). A large volume of waste
results from the production, transportation, and use of materials (Kein et al. 1999). It should be
noted that construction activities contribute approximately 29% of waste in the USA, more than
50% in the UK, and 20–30% in Australia (Teo and Loosemore 2001). According to Levin
(1997), in the USA, construction contributes 25% of solid waste generated. In 2001, 38% of the
solid waste disposed of in Hong Kong was generated by construction and demolition (C & D)
activities (Tam et al. 2007). According to Chen et al. (2000), sources of pollution and hazards
from construction activities can be divided into seven major types: dust, harmful gases, noises,
solid and liquid wastes, fallen objects, ground movements, and others.
Environmental sustainability is measured in the post-construction stage since it takes time for
effects to take place and they are rather long-lasting. The owner, the design team, and the
contractor should be able to measure the effects on the surrounding environment that justify the
appointment of an independent environmental consultant to prepare pre-contract designs and
tender documentation to monitor the works on site (Mosey 1998).
149
7.2.7 Social Responsibility
Since the impact of the construction industry upon society is massive, socially responsible
practices should be considered. Social responsibility can be defined as commitment to the
integration of socially responsible values and concerns of stakeholders into their operations in a
manner that fulfills and exceeds current legal expectations. The core values of social
responsibility are transparency, fairness, inclusiveness, integrity, responsiveness, diversity, and
accountability (Constructing Excellence 2004). Social responsibility is measured in the pre-
construction and construction stages of a project.
7.2.8 Compliance with Rules and Regulations

The compliance with rules and regulation helps in the successful completion of projects (Kassel
2008). Anyone involved in public construction projects will find that rules and regulations play
an important role. There are various acts that govern the construction process, employment
relations, health and safety, and disputes (among numerous other things), and a good working
knowledge of the law is essential for all construction participants. Public construction projects
are part of government procurement, an important function of any government. Procurement is a
legal matter because it is governed by specific rules and regulations. Thai (2008) emphasizes the
importance of good procurement laws and regulations for a sound public procurement system.
150
7.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
7.3.1 Ranking of Success Criteria
The analysis primarily deals with ranking the success criteria for each construction phase (pre-
construction, construction, and post-construction) based on their mean scores to determine their
levels of importance.
7.3.2 Consensus
A consensus is a measure of the amount of agreement achieved in the first and last rounds of the
Delphi method. Statistical parameters and their cut-off values depend on the requirements of the
study. Therefore, it was necessary to fix the statistical parameters because of a lack of guidelines
in order to measure the consensus in the Delphi method (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010).
According to Andrés et al. (2016), consensus is understood to exist if the variation in the relative
interquartile range (RIR) between rounds is lower than 0.30 (30%). Raskin (1994) and Rayens
and Hahn (2000) suggested that an interquartile range (IQR) of less than or equal to 1 is a
suitable consensus indicator for four- or five-unit scales.
Hence, this study adopted the following criteria:
 The mean (µ) should be greater than or equal to 4.0;
 The IQR should be less than or equal to 1; and
 The variation in the RIR between rounds of the Delphi method should be lower than
0.30 (30%).
The RIR is the change in the spread between the lower (Q1) and upper quartile (Q3) values per
unit mean value for a given success criterion. In other words,
151
where Q1 and Q3 are the lower and upper quartile values, respectively.
The mean, median, and RIR values for the first and final rounds of success criteria for each
phase of construction are given in Tables 7.1 to 7.3. Whenever two or more success criteria had
the same mean, the one with the lowest standard deviation was assigned the highest ranking.
An analysis of the 11 criteria considered by survey respondents for the measures of project
success in the pre-construction phase was carried out. Of the 11 success criteria, the six success
criteria highlighted in Table 7.1 are rated as the most important by the survey groups.
Table 7.1 Success criteria for pre- construction phase
After first round After final round
S. No. Success criteria

Rank Mean RIR Rank Mean RIR
1 Time 1 4.8 0.00 1 4.8 0.00

2 Cost 2 4.7 21.28 2 4.7 21.28
3 Quality 3 4.5 22.22 3 4.5 22.22
4 Technical performance 4 4.4 22.73 4 4.4 22.73
5 Satisfaction of key project 5 4.3 23.26 5 4.3 23.26
participants
6 Social responsibility 6 4.0 0.00 6 4.0 0.00
7 Compliance of rules and regulation 7 3.0 0.00 7 3.0 0.00
8 Satisfaction of end -users and 8 1.4 71.43 8 1.3 76.92
outsiders
9 Health and safety 9 1.3 76.92 8 1.3 76.92
10 No-dispute 9 1.3 76.92 8 1.3 76.92
11 Environmental sustainability 9 1.3 76.92 8 1.3 76.92
The results of the analysis carried out for the eleven criteria considered by survey respondents
for the measures of project success in the construction phase showed that out of 11 success
criteria, the eight highlighted in Table 7.2 are rated as the most important. It may be observed
152
from Tables 7.1 and 7.2 that the ‗iron triangle‘ is the basic performance measure in a public
construction project in both phases: pre-construction and construction.
Table 7.2 Success criteria for construction phase

1 Time 1 5.0 0.00 1 5.0 0.00
2 Cost 1 5.0 0.00 1 5.0 0.00
3 Quality 1 5.0 0.00 1 5.0 0.00
5 No-dispute 5 4.9 0.00 5 4.9 0.00
participants
outsiders
In the post-construction phase, out of the 11 success criteria, the three highlighted in Table 7.3
are rated as the most important.
Table 7.3 Success criteria for post-construction phase

outsiders
participants
153
S. No. Success criteria After first round After final round
7 No-dispute 7 1.4 71.43 7 1.4 71.43
8 Cost 7 1.4 71.43 7 1.4 71.43
9 Time 9 1.3 76.92 9 1.3 76.92
10 Quality 9 1.3 76.92 9 1.3 76.92
Finally, to study the comparative levels of importance of different criteria across different project
phases, Table 7.4 was prepared. The table gives the mean values of different success criteria
across the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases.
Table 7.4 Mean values of different success criteria for the three project phases
S. No. Success criteria Pre- Construction Post-

construction construction
1 Time 4.8 5 1.3
2 Cost 4.7 5 1.4
3 Quality 4.5 5 1.3
4 Health and safety 1.3 5 1.2
5 No-dispute 1.3 4.9 1.4
6 Technical performance 4.4 4.7 1.6
7 Compliance with rules and 3 3.4 1.6
regulation
8 Satisfaction of key project 4.3 4.8 4.5
participants
9 Social responsibility 4 4.6 3.3
10 Satisfaction of end -users 1.3 1.2 5
and outsiders
11 Environmental 1.3 1.2 5
sustainability
154
7.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many criteria are used to measure the performance of a construction project. To improve
performance in the complex construction industry, it is important to identify appropriate criteria
to measure performance in each phase of a construction project. This study identified six primary
success criteria for the pre-construction phase (Table 7.1): time, cost, quality, technical
performance, the satisfaction of key project participants, and social responsibility. It can be noted
that in this phase, less importance is attached to no-dispute, which may be due to the absence of
the main contractor and the subcontractors during this phase. According to a survey of different
construction firms in the UK compiled by the National Building Specification (NBS), 76% of
respondents said that the lion's share of disputes are between clients and main contractors, while
29% of respondents said they had been involved in a dispute between the main contractor and a
subcontractor (Yoosof 2016). For the construction phase, the study identified eight success
criteria: time, cost, quality, health and safety, no-dispute, the satisfaction of key project
participants, technical performance, and social responsibility.
Shahrzad and Hamidreza (2011) used time performance, cost performance, quality performance,
health and safety, and satisfaction of key project participants as the project success criteria for
measuring the success of construction projects. Tabish and Jha (2011) also used schedule, cost,
quality, no-disputes, and complying with safety norms as criteria for measuring success in the
construction phase to identify important factors for the success of public construction projects.
Further, the study identified three success criteria for the post-construction phase: the satisfaction
of end-users and outsiders, environmental sustainability, and the satisfaction of key project
participants.
155
This is in line with the opinion of Globerson (1997), who notes that the more closely the product
fulfills the customer‘s satisfaction, the higher the probability of completing the project
successfully.
The philosophy of modern management science considers customer satisfaction as a baseline
standard of performance and a possible standard of excellence for any business organization. To
reinforce their customer orientation on a day-to-day basis, a growing number of companies
choose customer satisfaction as their main performance indicator (Omonori 2014). In
construction, customer satisfaction could be determined by the extent to which a physical facility
(product) and a construction process (service) meet or exceed a customer‘s expectations. This
definition recognizes the importance of understanding, evaluating, defining, and managing
expectations so that the customers‘ requirements are met. According to PMBOK (2013), this
requires a combination of conformance to specifications (the project must produce what it said it
would produce) and fitness for use (the product or service produced must satisfy real needs).
Project success is a topic long-discussed in the construction management field. This study
identified, ranked, and evaluated the following 11 success criteria: time, cost, quality, social
responsibility, satisfaction of key project participants, technical performance, compliance with
rules and regulations, satisfaction of end-users and outsiders, health and safety, no-dispute, and
environmental sustainability in the three phases of construction: pre-construction, construction,
and post-construction.
It was hypothesized that across different phases of construction, different success criteria might
predominate. The results of the study show that the levels of importance of criteria change across
156
the project phases and what is significant in one phase may not necessarily be significant in the
other phases. For instance, the satisfaction of key project participants is crucial in all project
phases, whereas environmental sustainability is crucial in the post-construction phase only. This
may be because it takes time for the effects of environmental sustainability to be seen and they
are rather long-lasting. The most important criteria in each phase were found to be as follows:
 Time, cost, quality, technical performance, the satisfaction of key project participants,
and social responsibility are crucial in the preconstruction phase.
 Time, cost, quality, health and safety, no-dispute, the satisfaction of key project
participants, technical performance, and social responsibility are crucial in the
construction phase.
 The satisfaction of end-users and outsiders, environmental sustainability, and the
satisfaction of key project participants are crucial in the post-construction phase.
One can observe from the results that all the experts agreed on all criteria for each phase. In this
study, the importance of having an understanding of the various success criteria in different
phases of construction projects has been emphasized.
157
8 CHAPTER 8
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, the identification of success criteria for each phase of public construction
projects in Ethiopia was discussed. In this chapter, the structural equation modeling (SEM)
technique is used to test the hypothesized positive interrelationships between success factors and
project success and between failure factors and project failure.
SEM is a very general statistical modeling technique that is widely used in the behavioral
sciences. Statistically, it represents an extension of general linear modeling procedures, such as
ANOVA and multiple regression analysis. SEM is adopted to understand the causal relations
among the various constructs. Structural equation models are ideally suited for many of the
research issues dealt with in construction engineering and management (Molenaar et al. 2000).
SEM can be viewed as a combination of factor analysis and regression or path analysis. The
interest in SEM is often focused on theoretical constructs, which are represented by the latent
factors. The relationships between the theoretical constructs are represented by regression or path
coefficients between the factors. The structural equation model implies a structure for the
covariance between the observed variables, hence the alternative name ‗covariance structure
modeling‘. However, the model can be extended to include the means of observed variables or
factors in the model, which makes covariance structure modeling a less accurate name. Structural
equation models are often visualized by a graphical path diagram. The statistical model is usually
represented in a set of matrix equations.
158
The first step in SEM is the validation of the measurement model through confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). CFA belongs to the family of SEM techniques, as it allows for the assessment of
fit between observed data and a prior conceptualized and theoretically grounded model that
specifies the hypothesized causal relationship between constructs and their observed indicator
variables (Mueller and Hancock 2001).
The advantages of using SEM for data analysis are as follows:
 SEM can make use of several indicator variables per construct simultaneously, which
leads to more valid conclusions on the construct level. The use of other methods of
analysis often results in less clear conclusions and requires several separate analyses.
 SEM makes it possible to model and test complex patterns of relationships, including a
multitude of hypotheses, simultaneously as a whole (including mean structures and group
comparisons). When using other methods of analysis, this would frequently require
several separate analyses.
 SEM allows testing of complex models for their compatibility with the data in their
entirety and to test speciﬁc assumptions about parameters for their compatibility with the
data.
The disadvantages of using SEM for data analysis are as follows:
 Most often, SEM is not based on raw data as input information but is based on the
empirical covariances of all indicator variables. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate
more model parameters than the number of (distinct) entries in the empirical covariance
matrix.
 SEM that simultaneously includes a multitude of relationships is computationally
intensive and is done using iterative algorithms, that is, by trying to gradually approach
159
an optimal solution (in terms of reproducing the empirical relationships). The algorithm
may not converge, that is, no optimal solution can be found, or the algorithm may
converge and result in a supposedly optimal solution but the parameter estimates do not
make sense.
 SEM is often employed as a statistical method of testing causal hypotheses. However,
decision problems can occur in cases when there are two or more alternative models that
make fundamentally different assumptions about the variables‘ causal relationships but
still lead to the same model ﬁt, making it impossible to base a decision solely on
statistical criteria.
8.2 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (SEM)
Based on the results of the factor analysis, it was hypothesized that project success is influenced
by success factors and the project failure is influenced by failure factors. The project
performance is measured by the schedule, cost, quality, and no-dispute performance achieved in
the project. The project performance in terms of schedule and cost is measured in terms of
overrun and underrun as percentages of the duration and cost initially planned. The quality
performance is measured by the compliance or noncompliance with the accepted standards and
technical specifications. On the other hand, no-dispute performance is measured by checking
whether the project is completed with the least number of litigations resulting from
disagreements among participants.
This study utilizes the SEM technique to test the hypothesized positive interrelationships
between success factors and project success and between failure factors and project failure.
160
Success and failure factors have been defined here as second-order constructs, each composed of
six latent constructs. The latent constructs for the success factor are the project manager‘s
competence (PMC), the owner‘s competence (OC), management support and updates (MSU),
scope clarity (SC), interaction among project participants (IAPP), and monitoring and feedback
(MF). The latent constructs for the failure factor are the project manager‘s ignorance and lack of
knowledge (PMILK), conflict among project participants (CPP), indecisiveness of project
participants (IPP), project specific factors (PSF), socio-economic and climatic condition (SECC),
and owner‘s incompetence (OI). The steps involved in the SEM technique are discussed below.
8.2.1 Establishing the Overall Measurement Model

Numerous indicators are not necessarily better to fully represent the construct and maximize
reliability. Even though the use of a higher number of indicators does produce higher reliability
estimates and generalizability, it also necessitates a large sample size and can make it difficult to
produce truly unidimensional factors. Further, parsimony leads to the use of the smallest number
of indicators to represent a construct adequately. Kline (2010) and Rahim et al. (2001)
recommend a minimum of two indicators per construct as good practice. Therefore, to develop
the hypothesized and measurement model, based on the results of factor analysis, six latent
variables and their 15 measurable variables for the success factors and six latent variables and
their 14 measurable variables for the failure factors were identified, as shown in Table 8.1.
161
Table 8.1 Constructs and their indicators
Success factors Failure factors

Second First order Indicators Second First order Indicators
order construct (Latent order construct
construct variables) construct (Latent
(Latent (Latent variables)
variable) variable)
Availability of resources (fund, Ignorance of appropriate
machinery, materials etc.) as planning tools and techniques by
planned throughout the project project manager (PMILK1).
(PMC1). 1. Project
1. Project Understanding responsibilities by manager‘s Reluctance in timely decision by
Manager‘s various project participants ignorance and project manager (PMILK2).
competence (PMC2). lack of
(PMC) Regular design and construction knowledge Lack of understanding of
control meetings (PMC3). (PMILK) operating procedure by the
Thorough understanding of scope project manager (PMILK3).
of work by project manager
(PMC4).
Regular monitoring and feedback Conflict among team members
2. Conflict
by owner (OC1). (CPP1)
2. Owner‘s among project
Owners need thoroughly Conflict between project
competence(OC) participant
understood and defined (OC2). manager and sub-contractor
(CPP)
(CPP2)
162
Success factors Failure factors
Thorough pre-qualification for Conflicts between PM and top
potential bidders (OC3). management (CPP3).
Top management support 3. Holding key decisions in

3. Management (MSU1). Indecisiveness abeyance (IPP1).
support and Regular schedule and budget of project Reluctance in timely decision by
updates (MSU) updates (MSU2). participant top management (IPP2).
(IPP)
No major changes in the scope of Uniqueness of the project
work during construction (SC1). activities requiring high
4. Project
4. Scope clarity technical know-how (PSF1).
specific factors
(SC) Clearly articulated scope and Size and value of the project
Success Failure (PSF)
nature of work in the tender being large (PSF2).
factors factors
(SC2).
Adequate communication among Hostile social and economic
all project participants (IAPP1). 5. Socio environment (SECC1).
5. Interaction
Economic and
among project Coordinating ability and rapport Unfavorable climatic condition
climatic
participants of project manager with his team at the site (SECC2).
condition
(IAPP) members and sub-contractors
(SECC)
(IAPP2).
Regular monitoring and feedback Inadequate project formulation
6. Monitoring by top management (MF1). 6. Owner in the beginning (OI1).
and feedback incompetence
(MF) Regular quality control and (OI) Tendency to pass on the blame
quality assurance activities (MF2) to others (OI2)
163
A set of measures (indicators) is explained by only one underlying construct; therefore, all
measures are unidimensional measures. Based on the hypothesis formulated above, conceptual
models are hypothesized (see Figures 8.1 and 8.2.) to test the relationship between
success/failure factors and the performance of a construction project. The second-order approach
is recommended by Hair et al. (2014) because it maximizes the interpretability of both the
measurement and the structural models. The dark arrow in Figure 8.3 defines the direction of the
hypothesized influence between two constructs. The constructs (latent factors) are shown as
ovals and their indicators as rectangles. The data were collected based on a questionnaire survey
approach. The selection of respondents and determination of significant attributes for the
analysis have been discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. One of the most popular reliability statistics in
use today is Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach 1951). Cronbach's alpha determines the internal
consistency or average correlation of items in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability.
In this study, the Cronbach‘s alpha reliability test was performed to analyze the appropriateness
of the grouping of constructs of project performance and the reliability of the data. The alpha
value ranges from 0 to 1. Values of alpha ranging from 0.6 to 0.7 are considered sufficient; a
value of more than 0.7 is considered good in reliability testing (Hair et al. 2014).
164
Figure 8.1 Hypothesized model of success factors
165
Figure 8.2 Hypothesized model of failure factors
166
8.2.2 Designing a Model to Generate Empirical Results
This study uses covariance matrices in the SEM analysis. This is because covariance matrices
have distinct statistical advantages over correlation matrices (Schumacker and Lomax 2004; Hair
et al. 2014).
Moreover, outliers, multivariate normality, sample size, estimation technique, model complexity,
and communality are important criteria when developing a model.
Bartlett‘s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test were also conducted to take
care of sampling adequacy and multivariate normality. Bartlett‘s test of sphericity tests whether
the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that the factor model is
inappropriate. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy, a popular diagnostic measure, tests
whether the partial correlations among variables are small. It is a measure of the homogeneity of
variables (Sharma 1996). A higher KMO value is desired. It is generally recommended that the
KMO value should be greater than 0.5 if the sample size is adequate (Gorsuch, 1983; Field
2013). The KMO value is found to be 0.65, which is greater than 0.5. Thus the responses are
considered appropriate for analysis (Kim and Mueller 1978).
Because all of the variables indicators have some degree of association with all the factors, these
associations could be represented in an infinite number of ways. Therefore, no factor solution
will provide ‗the truth‘ – a single definitive answer about how best to represent the patterns of
relationships in the data. Hence, to facilitate interpretation of factor loadings, factor rotation is
required. The objective of factor rotation is to increase the magnitude of loadings for certain
variables while at the same time decreasing their cross-factor loadings. Therefore, an oblique
rotation of the reference axes, called varimax rotation, was performed and the derived factors and
167
their corresponding loadings were obtained (Hair et al. 2014). The communalities and factor
loading values were also reviewed (Hair et al. 2014; Malhotra 1999).
Hair et al. (2014) suggest a minimum sample size of 150 in SEM if there are seven or fewer
constructs, with modest communalities (0.5) when there is no under-identified construct.
However, this study has a sample size of 200, which may be considered adequate for conducting
SEM (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001).
LISREL 8.8 software was used in the development model due to its user-friendly approach.
Besides, it was also ensured that there were at least two indicators per construct. For models with
more than one latent construct, at least two indicators are required for each (Kline 2011; Rahim
et al. 2001).
8.2.3 Assessing Measurement Model Validity

To assess the measurement model‘s validity, it is necessary to compare the theoretical
measurement model with the real model to see how well the data fit. Therefore, the validity of a
measurement model depends on both establishing acceptable levels of the goodness of fit for the
measurement model and finding specific evidence of construct validity (Hair et al. 2014). After
correctly specifying the measurement model, both reliability (construct and item) and validity
(convergent, discriminant, face, and nomological) are tested. Brief explanations and the
permissible ranges of reliability and validity are discussed below.
Reliability (construct and item)
Reliability refers to the precision or consistency of a measure. The assessment of the reliability
of constructs is a critical step in the development of a measurement scale. The reliability of a
research instrument concerns the extent to which the instrument yields the same results in
168
repeated trials. Construct reliability refers to the degree to which an observed instrument reflects
an underlying factor. It is computed from the squared sum of factor loadings for each construct
and the sum of the error variance terms for a construct. Construct reliability values of 0.6 and 0.7
may be acceptable (Hair et al. 2014). Further, item reliability, which refers to the amount of
variance in an item due to underlying constructs rather than due to error, can be obtained by
squaring the factor loadings and should be greater than 0.50 (Hair et al. 2014).
Validity (convergent, discriminant, face, and nomological)

Validity refers to the extent to which the research is accurate. Convergent validity is a way to
assess the construct validity of a measurement procedure (Campbell and Fiske 1959). It refers to
the degree with which indicators of the same constructs should converge or share a high
proportion of variance in common. The average variance extracted (AVE), factor loading, and
communality are used to assess convergent validity. The AVE, factor loading, and communality
should be 0.50, 0.60, and 0.50, respectively, or above (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al.
2014).
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which conceptually similar concepts are distinct.
The measures of theoretically different constructs should have low correlations with each other.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity can be checked using the AVE
too. The AVE of each construct should be higher than the squared correlations between the
construct and all other constructs in the model. Face validity is the extent to which a test
is subjectively viewed as covering the concept it purports to measure. It refers to an
understanding of every item‘s meaning or content. Nomological validity is a form of construct
validity that refers to whether the correlations among the constructs in a measurement theory
make sense. Both face and nomological validity can be checked using the existing literature.
169
Table 8.2 Individual item reliability and construct validity for success factors
Latent Cronbac Factor Factor Uniqu Comm AVE CR R2 R2 t-value

variables Indicat h‘s loading loading e unality (Indicat (Latent
ors Alpha (Indicators) (Latent varian ors) variables )
variables) ce
PMC PMC1 0.864 0.80 0.92 0.36 0.64 0.63 0.87 0.64 0.85 12.07
PMC2 0.79 0.40 0.60 0.61
PMC3 0.69 0.50 0.50 0.48
PMC4 0.88 0.24 0.76 0.77
OC OC1 0.703 0.69 0.96 0.48 0.52 0.51 0.76 0.49 0.92 9.26
OC2 0.77 0.39 0.61 0.60
OC3 0.68 0.55 0.45 0.45
MSU MSU1 0.701 0.69 0.82 0.63 0.37 0.51 0.71 0.47 0.68 8.32
MSU2 0.78 0.40 0.60 0.56
SC SC1 0.710 0.74 0.98 0.47 0.53 0.58 0.73 0.54 0.95 11.48
SC2 0.78 0.45 0.55 0.62
IAPP IAPP1 0.714 0.84 0.96 0.30 0.70 0.58 0.74 0.71 0.92 8.86
IAPP2 0.68 0.53 0.47 0.45
MF MF1 0.764 0.81 0.87 0.34 0.66 0.62 0.77 0.66 0.75 10.38
MF2 0.77 0.42 0.58 0.58
Success
0.82 0.68 7.57
factors
170
Table 8.3 Individual item reliability and construct validity for failure factors
Latent Cronba Factor Factor Unique Commu AVE CR R2 R2 t-value

factors Indicators ch‘s loading loading variance nality (Indicators) (Latent
Alpha (Indicators) (Latent factors)
factors)
PMILK PMILK1 0.854 0.85 0.95 0.29 0.71 0.71 0.88 0.72 0.90 11.97
PMILK2 0.81 0.36 0.64 0.65
PMILK3 0.87 0.25 0.75 0.76
CPP CPP1 0.812 0.83 0.93 0.30 0.70 0.63 0.83 0.69 0.86 12.48
CPP2 0.87 0.25 0.75 0.76
CPP3 0.66 0.55 0.45 0.44
IPP IPP1 0.845 0.89 0.98 0.22 0.78 0.77 0.87 0.79 0.95 11.45
IPP2 0.87 0.24 0.76 0.75
PSF PSF1 0.804 0.77 0.90 0.42 0.58 0.68 0.81 0.59 0.81 11.16
PSF2 0.88 0.22 0.78 0.77
SECC SECC1 0.754 0.78 0.91 0.40 0.60 0.63 0.77 0.61 0.83 8.81
SECC2 0.81 0.36 0.64 0.65
OI OI1 0.764 0.82 0.93 0.31 0.69 0.63 0.77 0.68 0.85 9.37
OI2 0.77 0.42 0.58 0.59
Failure
0.87 0.76 7.58
factors
171
8.2.4 Specifying the Structural Model
Specification involves identifying the set of relationships someone wants to examine and
determining how to specify these variables within the model, keeping in mind that
specifying a relationship needs theoretical or empirical support. Based on the hypotheses,
two structures are built, as shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2. In the CFA, the overall model fit
portrays the degree to which the specified attributes represent the hypothesized
constructs. The structural model is evaluated by using several measures of goodness-of-
fit indices. However, this study focuses only on the measures shown in Table 8.4. After
an adequate overall fit has been achieved, the measurement model is further evaluated for
its reliability and validity (convergent and discriminant).
8.2.5 Assessing the Structural Model Validity

In the last step, the decision process assesses the extent to which a hypothesized data fit ,
or in other words, adequately describes the sample data. Ideally, the evaluation of a
model fit should derive from a variety of perspectives and should be based on several
criteria that assess model fit from a diversity of perspectives. According to Hair et al.
(2014), the use of at least one absolute index, one incremental index, and the model Δχ2
is required to evaluate the structural model validity. Therefore, the overall fit of the
structural model in this study is assessed by using multiple goodness-of-fit (GOF)
indices, including the ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom, the RMSEA, the CFI,
and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). The GOF indicates how well the specified model
reproduces the observed covariance matrix among the indicator items (i.e. the similarity
of the observed and estimated covariance matrices). Moreover, the researcher should
examine the statistical significance and direction of the relationships among constructs.
172
The parameter estimates should be consistent with the hypotheses that reflected them
before testing.
8.2.6 Measurement and Path Model Validation
Measurement model (confirmatory factor analyses)

The validity of the measurement model depends on establishing acceptable levels of the
goodness of fit for the model and finding specific evidence of construct validity (Hair et
al. 2014). To evaluate the validity of the measurement model, convergent and
discriminant validity were assessed. The six success factors – project manager‘s
competence (PMC), owner‘s competence (OC), management support and updates
(MSU), scope clarity (SC), interaction among project participants (IAPP), and monitoring
and feedback (MF) – were measured using 15 items. The six failure factors – project
manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge (PMILK), conflict among project participant
(CPP), indecisiveness of project participants (IPP), project specific factors (PSF), socio-
economic and climatic condition (SECC), and owner‘s incompetence (OI) – were
measured using 14 items.
The communalities of all indicators are greater than 0.5, except for OC3 (‗thorough pre-
qualification for potential bidders‘), MSU1 (‗top management support‘), IAPP2
(‗coordinating ability and rapport of project manager with his or her team members and
sub-contractors‘), and CPP3 (‘conflicts between project manager and top management‘).
The communalities of OC3, IAPP2, and CPP3 are close to 0.5 and can be accepted. Also,
the three indicators OC3, IAPP2, and CPP3 do not represent the same latent factor and
their respective factor loadings are higher than .50, indicating that the measurement
model is capable of reflecting the average variation among the measured variables and
173
item reliability in order (Hair et al. 2014). The communality of MSU1 is 0.37 but since
its construct AVE value is more than 0.5 and this indicator is an important one, it has
been retained. The value of alpha can vary from 0 to 1. A common threshold for
sufficient values of Cronbach‘s alpha is 0.6, and if the value is more than 0.7, the data are
considered to be highly acceptable (Wong and Cheung 2005; Yang and Ou 2008). As can
be seen from Tables 8.2 and 8.3, the Cronbach‘s alpha values for all groupings in the
hypothesized model are greater than 0.7, which indicates that the hypothesized model has
good internal consistency and reliability.
Measures like communality, Cronbach‘s alpha, and AVE were used to determine the
convergent validity of measured constructs (Fornell and Bookstein 1982). The AVE
measures the amount of variance that a latent variable captures from its measurement
items relative to measurement errors (Chin 1998). In Tables 8.2 and 8.3, the AVE of each
construct is computed and found to be higher than 0.5, which shows that the indicators of
each construct converge or share a high proportion of variance in common. Content
validity was also checked by conducting an extensive literature survey to specify the
variables that define constructs. Content validity is the extent to which the elements
within a measurement procedure are relevant and representative of the construct that they
will be used to measure (Haynes et al. 1995). Nomological validity and face validity were
also checked through discussions with professionals.
Testing of the overall model fit was based on the goodness-of-fit indicators statistics
index of the LISREL 8.8 output (Hair et al. 2014). The GOF test results for the model
studies are summarized in Table 8.4.
174
Table 8.4 Goodness of fit and indices for the structural equation models
Goodness of Parameters Permissible Overall Overall

fit and indices range model model
(success) (failure)
Goodness of Chi square As low as 306.87 291.5
fit index possible
DOF As high as 145 128
possible
Normed chi square Between 2 and 5 2.12 2.28
(chi square/DOF)
P-value > 0.05 or 0.01 0.00 0.00
Absolute fit GFI 0 to 1 0.87 0.86
indices Adjusted GFI >0.80 0.83 0.82
RMSEA <0.08 0.07 0.07
SRMR < 0.08 or 0.05 0.06 0.06
Incremental NFI > 0.90 or 0.95 0.95 0.95
fit indices TLI or NNFI > 0.90 or 0.95 0.97 0.97
CFI > 0.90 or 0.95 0.98 0.97
IFI > 0.90 or 0.96 0.98 0.97
Parsimony fit PNFI > 0.50 0.81 0.80
indices
PGFI > 0.50 0.66 0.65
The ratios of chi-square to DOF (2.12 and 2.28) are within the permissible range. The p
values are less than the significance error (0.05). Therefore, other fit statistics of the
model need to be examined. The goodness-of-fit index values are 0.83 and 0.82, which
are good indicators, and other indices like RAMSE (0.07) and SRMR (0.06) are also in
their permissible ranges, and thus they are acceptable. Given the values above, χ2
indicates an acceptable fit for the CFA model.
175
Furthermore, the incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-
Lewis index (TLI) values are higher than their cutoff values, as shown in Table 8.4. This
reveals that the model complexity and sample size are acceptable.
Path model (path analysis)

The hypothesized theory is presented visually as a structural (path) model in the path
diagram based on the hypotheses mentioned above as shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2. The
hypothesized relationship between the constructs is represented by a dark arrow and can
be interpreted as being similar to a regression coefficient that describes the linear
relationship between two constructs (Matt and Dean 1993). The numbers written over the
paths (Figures 8.3 and 8.4) are the standardized path coefficients: the larger the
coefficient value, the more important the variable can be considered to be as an indicator
of success factors or failure factors.
Figure 8.3 Structural equation modeling results of linkage between success factors and
project success
176
Figure 8.4 Structural equation modeling results of linkage between failure factors and
project failure
All of the standardized path coefficients are positive and statistically significant in the
desired direction, indicating linkages. The relationship between success factors and the
six constructs can be expressed as:
Success factors = 0.92 (PMC) + 0.96 (OC) + 0.82 (MSU) + 0.98 (SC) + 0.96 (EP) + 0.87
(MF) ---------(8.1)
The relationship between failure factors and the six constructs can be expressed as:
Failure factors = 0.95 (PMILK) + 0.93 (CPP) + 0.98 (IPP) + 0.90 (PSF) + 0.91 (SECC) +
0.93 (OI) --------- (8.2)
All values of the different parameters of the overall models that are shown in Table 8.4
are within the permissible range. The t-test result confirms the significance of the path
177
coefficient and indicates whether or not the hypothesized relationship holds. The obtained
values of the coefficient of determination, R2 (see Tables 8.2 and 8.3), also confirm a
strong linear relationship among the constructs. The hypotheses that assume that project
success is influenced by success factors and that project failure is influenced by failure
factors are found to be supported because of the significant path coefficients (0.82 and
0.87) of the two models. Thus, these findings reveal and endorse the validity of the result
obtained for overall performance. Furthermore, the model can help construction
professionals understand those factors that have a strong relation to the success and
failure of public projects more vividly. All coefficients in the model are greater than 0.82,
indicating a strong relationship between success factors and project success and between
failure factors and project failure. The model confirms the hypothesized positive
interrelationships between success factors and project success and between failure factors
and project failure.
Besides, the model indicated that the six constructs for success and failure were major
contributing factors for the success and failure of public construction projects in Ethiopia.
Therefore, to achieve the required outcomes of the projects, project professionals can
strategize by focusing on identified factors at any particular measurement-criterion
performance level exhibited by the project and concentrate on the identified factors
instead of handling all the factors simultaneously, as handling all factors does not yield
results that are proportionate to effort.
178
9 CHAPTER 9
VALIDATION OF RESULTS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to establish the
hypothesized positive interrelationships between project success factors and project
success and between project failure factors and project failure. In this chapter, the
validation of results obtained and discussed in previous chapters is presented. The
respondents to the questionnaire survey employed in this study occupied the top and
responsible positions in their respective organizations and this in itself lends creditability
to the obtained results. In fact, in some studies in which the respondents were in senior
positions with vast experience, researchers did not feel the need to validate the results
through other means (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1996; Ling 2002). However, in this study,
real life projects have been investigated as another method of cross-checking the findings
and validating the results. This is one of the most widely accepted approaches for
validation (Fellows and Liu 1997; Jefferies et al. 2002). The difficulties that a researcher
encounters in data collection, especially for public sector projects, were pointed out in the
chapter ‗Research Method‘. This sentiment was also echoed by Thai (2008) in his study.
Similar challenges in data collection are faced when undertaking case studies of public
construction projects. Despite the difficulties in getting access to data, a total of 10 cases
have been studied. Most cases are from a single Ethiopian government organization
called the Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA). This is one of the organizations under the
Ministry of Works and Urban Development. The organization is responsible for planning
179
and formulating long- and short-term plans and programs for road construction, design,
maintenance of trunk and major link roads, and administration of contracts. In the
subsequent sections, case projects, their outcomes, and reasons for the given outcomes
are described.
9.2 CASE STUDIES
9.2.1 Case 1: Woldiya Alamata road project
The project was to upgrade the existing road and structure to a two-lane bituminous
mixture surfacing with a standard carriageway width of 7 m and 1.5-m shoulders over a
length of 78.3 km. The project was awarded to the China Wanbao Engineering
Corporation by ERA for a sum of ETB 150,329,634.00 in April 1999 with a start date
April 17, 1999 and stipulated date of completion of April 16, 2002. The contract duration
of the project was 36 months. The status of the works as compared with the contract
schedule revealed that the works were behind schedule.
One of the critical problems was related to late handover of the site and rights of way.
The contractor submitted an intention to claim for extension of time and additional cost
for the delay in site possession in the villages of Waja, Gobiye, Robit, and Kobo. Further,
the contract was awarded to the contractor without first clarifying the problems related to
the rights of way. This caused some disputes related to the time extension and financial
claims and affected the time of completion of the project. Consequently, clearing of
obstructions within the right of way of Woldiya town was a serious problem in the
progress of works; in particular, the construction of the three remaining minor drainage
structures was due to the non-removal of houses in Woldiya town. Also unclear
180
obstructions belonging to different government agencies (for instance, electric poles that
belonged to the power corporation and that needed to be removed) and poor coordination
of the removal of such obstructions significantly increased delays and associated claims.
Hence, the contractor was forced to carry out works out of sequence for which he claimed
later on. Other reasons for the delay of the project found during the case study were the
unrealistic work program of the contractor, which did not conform to the resources on
site, poor management on site, and late decision-making by top management. Upon
studying all the claims and counter-claims of the client and contractor, it appears that the
genesis of all the disputes lies in the lack of timely decision-making, delay in making an
important decision, and the project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge,
validating the findings of this study.
9.2.2 Case 2: Butajira Gubre road project
The location of the project is in the western part of Southern Nations, Nationalities, and
Peoples‘ Region (SNNPR) Regional State. The route lies in two physiographic divisions
of Ethiopia, namely in the main Ethiopian Rift Valley and the western Ethiopian
Highlands. The beginning of the project (Butajira) is located 130 km from Addis Ababa
along the Addis Ababa / Alemgena – Hossaena road. The project consists of upgrading of
about 81.9 km of two-lane single carriageway gravel road to a two-lane single
carriageway of DS4 standard (ERA‘s Design Standard 4 Road Classification) double
bitumen surface treatment (DBST) asphalt road. The road is designed as a 2 × 3.5 m =
7.0 m carriageway with a variable shoulder of a maximum of 1.5 m on each side in the
rural section and a 14 m asphalt carriageway with a 2.5-m footpath on both sides of the
181
road in the town section. The road was initially constructed as a two-lane single
carriageway gravel road, which deteriorated on account of insufficient maintenance.
The project was awarded by the ERA to the Sunshine Construction Company for a
sum of ETB 637.5 million in December 2007 with a start date of December 11, 2007 and
stipulated date of completion of December 17, 2012.
During the case study, it was found that there was a change in scope that was initiated
at the request of the administration office of Butajira city and that included extending the
design standard of the town section for Butajira town by 770 m and a change in the
design for the section of the road from Km 84 + 300 to Km 86 + 900 from the rural
section to the town section. Thus, the status of the works revealed that they were 555
days behind the contract schedule due to the following reasons:
(1) an extension of 263 days due to a shortage of cement,
(2) an extension of 87 days due to exceptionally adverse climatic conditions,
(3) an extension of 205 days due to the absence of suitable aggregates for the
recommended cutback bitumen type of MC-3000 around the project root corridor,
(4) the contractor‘s failure to mobilize asphalt bitumen, graders (expected to mobilize
four more graders), wagon drill and dynamite, and workforce (the contractor deployed
only 45 masons whereas more than 100 should have been deployed), and
(5) conflict with top management due to insufficient effort by the contractor to improve
its performance.
182
Thus, the causes of delay are the scarcity of resources available to the contractor,
unfavorable climatic conditions at the site, and the project manager‘s ignorance and lack
of knowledge, thus validating the findings of this research.
9.2.3 Case 3: Gindeber Gobensa road project
Gindeber–Gobensa road segment is part of the Sembo–Sholagebeya–Gorfu–Gobensa
Road and is located in the central part of the country, connecting the East Shoa zone of
Oromia to the North Shoa zone of Amhara National Regional state.
The project was awarded by the ERA to Yencomad Construction PLC for a sum of
ETB 755.5 million in April 2010 with a start date April 6, 2010 and stipulated date of
completion of October 4, 2013.
The scope of the project was a 33-km DS4 Standard road project that consists of
excavations and embankment filling of the existing roadside, construction of new minor
drainage structures, paving the road surface with triple surface treatment asphalt, and
providing road furniture to assist the smooth and safe flow of traffic.
During the case study, it was observed that there was a problem in estimating the cost
of earthworks at the design stage. The Road Agency reviewed the design and determined
there was a significant overestimate. It was found that the quantity of excavated soil to be
used for fill as per the design was 1,564,900 m3, whereas the quantity of soil excavated
and used for fill was 230,265 m3, a decrease of 85.3% compared to the design volume.
The total reduced contract value of the item due to this variation was ETB 57,562,796.
Here, owner competence in monitoring and reviewing the design played a significant role
in saving 7.6% of the total original contract amount, thus validating the findings of this
research.
183
Also, the quantities of soil, intermediate material (material between soil and rock), and
rock excavated and taken to spoil as per the design were 752,960m3, 2,425,825m3, and
zero respectively. The actual executed quantities of soil and intermediate material were
1,673,032 and 3,546,782 m3 respectively. The amounts of soil and intermediate material
excavated showed increases of 122.2 and 46.2%, respectively, compared to the design
quantities. On the other hand, the actual quantity of rock excavated was 271,024 m3,
although in the original bill of quantity there was no mention of this item. The major
cause of the large variations in earthworks quantities for this project was a realignment of
the route due to inadequate site investigation before the design. The investigation was
limited to a depth of 1.5 m in cut areas. The total increased contract value of the project
due to the variations was ETB 127,346,973, which is 16.9% of the total original contract
value. There was no variation of the contract duration, and the escalation of contract price
was due to inadequate project formulation at the beginning. thus validating the findings
of this research.
9.2.4 Case 4: Adiremet Dejena Dansha road project

The project is located in the northwest part of Ethiopia, in Tigrai, which starts from
Dansha town, passes through Dejena, and ends at Adiremet.
The project was awarded by the ERA to Hunan Huanda Road and Bridge Corporation
for a sum of ETB 926.3 million in February 2009 with a start date of February 10, 2009
and stipulated date of completion of February 8, 2013.
The project includes construction of a 98-km DS-3 Standard road that involves earth
work, subbase, base course and gravel wearing; bitumen surfacing; three bridges, which
will be 10 to 30 m in length; 35 drainage systems; and other structural works.
184
During the case study, it was observed that a total of 365 days of variation of the
contract duration and an escalation of the contract price by ETB 27.1 million occurred.
The causes of these overruns were as follows: the GPS (original benchmark and reference
points) from Km 60 was not found during execution, hence there was a need for redesign
and approval of the cross-section template for execution; failure of the contractor to
mobilize asphalt plant, supply bitumen, and start crushing the asphaltic coarse aggregate,
which delayed the asphalt work for part of the road where the base course had been
completed; the employer‘s delay in paying compensation for removing right-of-way
obstructions from station Km 76 + 00 to 97 + 567.01 due to reluctance to make timely
decisions; and the contractor‘s slow progress due to conflict among team members,
insufficient supervisory staff, and frequent and longer leave periods of contractor staff
including the project manager. On the other hand, the number of dump trucks deployed
was not sufficient to utilize the full capacity of dozers, graders, and loaders. All of these
were cases of inadequate project formulation at the beginning, conflict among project
participants, reluctance by top management to make timely decisions, and lack of
availability of adequate resources, which validates the findings of this paper.
9.2.5 Case 5: Tekeze hydropower project lot 1a site access road

The project was the construction of a site access road to Tekeze hydropower project Lot
1A. It was awarded by the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) to BERTA
construction PLC for a sum of ETB 34,150,000. After the award of the contract, work
could not be started for want of approval by a local body. In this case, the owner‘s
involvement and top management support were required. However, the owner and
architect did not anticipate the amount of time that would be required to get the approval
185
from local government. After the work started, local people began blocking roads,
demolishing constructed roads, and so on. The basic reason for this was that the route
was used by the client without providing compensation and the local people became
hostile towards the contractor. During the case study, it was found that the project
suffered from a lack of communication between owner and contractor. There were very
few joint meetings and participants resorted to an exchange of letters rather than solving
the problems across the table by having face-to-face meetings. This resulted in a
widening of the conflict among the project participants. The project is heading towards
failure because of a lack of adequate communication among project participants, conflict
among the project participants, and the owner's incompetence in formulating the project
at the beginning, which validates the findings of this study.
9.2.6 Case 6: Addis Ababa ring road project (AARRP)
The Addis Ababa Ring Road Project is located in Addis Ababa and covers a total of
33.257 km of dual carriageway with a typical width of 40 m, including 2 + 2
carriageway, 2 + 2 frontage road, sidewalks, and a total of 41 structures (two viaducts,
one big river-crossing bridge, three interchange bridges, 18 footbridges, four slab bridges,
and seven other medium or small-sized bridges or over bridges). The purpose of the
project is to enhance traffic flow and reduce congestion in the city center. The project
was awarded by the Addis Ababa City Roads Authority (AACRA) to China Road and
Bridge Corporation for the sum of ETB 459,000,000.00. The contract duration of the
project was 1460 calendar days (four years).
During the case study, it was observed that the scope of the project was clearly defined
by the owner. The complexity of the ring-road project meant that a large volume of work
186
had to be completed by consultants; thus, a heavy load was placed on supervising
engineering design and works. During the course of the project, the owner retained the
design consultant, Parkman Ltd, a UK-based firm, to act as a quality control engineer, to
supervise the many consultants involved in the project, and to ensure that the road and
infrastructure were constructed in accordance with the design objectives and
specifications. AACRA believed that one consultant playing the dual roles of designer
and engineer could make the approved design understood and implemented better.
Quality control and quality assurance activities were performed regularly. The ring-road
project could not have been completed successfully without the support of AACRA and
other government agencies in providing permits and temporary traffic control and
resolving emergent issues related to the project. The top management was supportive as
the ring-road project represents the most important road project in Addis Ababa.
For the Chinese contractors, negotiation appears to be the first choice. Claims are
considered to be an extreme step and the last step, which would result in a loss of ‗face‘
on both sides. As a result, good relationships with all involved, especially employers and
engineers, were absolutely critical for resolving all conflicts amicably. The dedication of
the team with the involvement of the owner led to the successful completion of the
project, as regular monitoring was an important feature of this project.
There were good interactions among all the team members. The communication and
interaction on a continuous basis among all team members helped in fast decision
making. Furthermore, there were periodical reviews of the project during the weekly site
review meetings, which were attended by senior officials from AACRA (the owner),
Parkman, the international consultancy (consultant), and China Road and Bridge
187
Corporation (contractor). This supports the findings of this study, wherein the role of
scope clarity, adequate communication among all project participants, regular quality
control, quality assurance activities, owner‘s competence, and top management support
are highlighted as important success factors.
9.2.7 Case 7: Wacha Maji road upgrading project

The project consisted of construction and upgrading works of the existing earth/track
road to a gravel road with a 7-m carriageway inclusive of shoulders over a total length of
175 km between the towns of Wacha and Maji in SNNPR. Approximately 20.0% of the
road length (35 km) on steep grades in mountainous terrain was surfaced using double
bitumen surface treatment.
The project was awarded by the ERA to the China International Water and Electric
Corporation (CWE) for a sum of ETB 290.4 million in September 2007 with a start date
September 25, 2007 and stipulated date of completion of December 10, 2012.
The procurement of civil works was carried out under International Competitive
Bidding procedures with pre-qualification of contractors.
The consultant inspected the works, supervised the necessary quality control testing
performed by the contractors, tracked progress and costs, and maintained close liaison
with the ERA and relevant ministries responsible for the project.
CWE‘s project management succeeded in completing the project six months ahead of
schedule for handover on June 10, 2012.
The project manager played a significant role in facilitating effective communication
among all the team members. The communication and interaction among all team
members on a continuous basis contributed greatly to the successful completion of the
188
project. Prequalification of the contractors after evaluation of predefined criteria and
inspection of similar works executed by the contractors was done to make sure that only
competent contractors were shortlisted for the issue of tender. There were periodical
reviews of the project during monthly site review meetings attended by senior officials of
the ERA (owner), CWE, and the consultant. It can be observed that support and
monitoring by the owner and top management led to the early completion of the project.
This supports the findings of this study, wherein the role of interaction among project
participants, scope clarity, monitoring and feedback, project manager‘s competence, and
owner competence are highlighted as important success factors.
9.2.8 Case 8: Dire-Dawa Airport rehabilitation project

The project was the rehabilitation of Dire-Dawa Airport. The project was awarded by the
Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority / Ethiopian Airports Enterprise to Geom. Luigi
Varnero Construction Pvt. Ltd. Co. for a sum of ETB 30,696,001.50. The contract
duration of the project was 361 calendar days. During the case study, it was found that
there were incidents of conflict between client/consultant and contractor. Before being
approved by the consultant, the first quarry site selected was tested and re-tested as per
the contract specification and the ERA standard specification and was found to be in
proper compliance with the requirements prescribed in the specification. However, the
client insisted that the engineer select a new quarry without any proper reason.
The engineer, despite the technical results of the tests, sent an order by letter to the
contractor stating that work on the quarry should be stopped and the work should shift to
a new quarry. Due to the change of the quarry site by the client, work by the contractor
was suspended and the contractor made claims for both time extension and financial cost.
189
The total number of days requested by the contractor for extension of the contract was
153 calendar days, and the contractor‘s total revised financial claim was ETB
2,741,866.90. The consultant did not accept the request. The consultant recalculated the
time and financial claim and ordered a time extension of only 111 days and financial
claim of only ETB 335,099.92. The contractor did not accept the order and explained that
the consultant together with the client should have exhaustively investigated and
finalized the source of construction materials before processing and awarding the contract
and even after awarding the contract, tests for all potential quarry sites should have been
done and approval should have been obtained prior to mass production. Then, the
contractor insisted that his claim be respected. In this case, the involvement of the
Ministry of Infrastructure was necessary to settle the matter. The Ministry of
Infrastructure wrote a letter to the consultant stating that the time extension of 153
calendar days claimed by the contractor must be accepted, leaving the financial claim for
further correspondence. Both parties agreed to the decision of the Ministry of
Infrastructure. The conflict originating from a change of the quarry site would have been
avoided had the project introduced partnering of the client, consultant, and contractor
from the onset to allow timely action of any changes before mass production. This
supports the findings of this study, wherein conflict among project participants is an
important failure factor.
9.2.9 Case 9: Track laying of Ethiopia-Djibouti Railway project

In 2011, the Ethiopian Railway Corporation (ERC) awarded contracts to two Chinese
state-owned companies for the construction of a new standard gauge railway from Addis
Ababa to the Djibouti border at a cost of ETB 60 billion in June 2011 with a start date
190
June 21, 2011 and stipulated date of completion of July 5, 2016. A 320-km stretch from
Addis Ababa to Mieso is being built by the China Railway Group and the 339 km section
from Mieso to the Djibouti border is being built by the China Civil Engineering
Construction Corporation.
The project owner, ERC, and the contractor, China Civil Engineering Construction
Corporation (CCECC), worked in unison toward the successful completion of the project.
A positive working relationship between the ERC and the CCECC helped them to
overcome the problems that inevitably arose during the project. During the case study, it
was found that the scope of the work was clearly defined, the project manager updated
the project plan regularly, and the owner was able to effectively measure the progress of
the work and to check and ensure that the work was being properly coordinated to avoid
delay.
Regular quality control and quality assurance activities were conducted by the Chinese
side, the Ethiopian side, and an independent third party. There were good interactions
among all the team members. The communication and interaction on a continuous basis
among all team members helped in fast decision making. Furthermore, there were
periodical reviews of the project during weekly site review meetings attended by senior
officials of the ERC (owner), China Railway Group (CRG), and CCECC. This supports
the findings of this study, which highlighted that adequate communication among all
project participants, regular quality control, and quality assurance activities, scope clarity,
and owner‘s competence are important success factors.
191
9.2.10 Case 10: Construction of one library, one dining hall, and one
kitchen building block at the new Hossana University
On May 16, 2010, the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MOE) awarded construction of
one library, one dining hall, and one kitchen building block at the new Hossana
University to five construction contractors at a cost of ETB 510.6 million for consecutive
phases. The stipulated date of completion was February 10, 2012. The purpose of the
project was to contribute to the expansion of tertiary education throughout the country
while placing special emphasis on educational services in disadvantaged regions and
remote areas to achieve the important objectives of political and administrative
decentralization and balanced and equitable growth of the economy.
During the case study, it was observed that a total of 628 days of variation of the
contract duration and an escalation of the contract price by ETB 2.6 million occurred.
The causes of these overruns were variation of work items that were omitted fromthe
contract‘s bill of quantity and a financial shortage that was partly caused by non-
compliance of the client with regard to supplying all construction materials as per the
contract, as the client changed his mind after signing the contract and wished to supply
only cement, glazing, agrostone, and reinforcement, forcing the contractor to supply all
other materials. This created conflict between the owner and contractors. There were few
design and construction control meetings and both parties resorted to the exchange of
letters rather than solving the problems by sitting down together and talking through all
aspects of the project. This resulted in a widening of conflict between the owner and
contractors. There was also reluctance by the owner to approve justified delays. These
issues can be attributed to the indecisiveness of project participants and conflict among
project participants, thus validating the findings of the research.
192
9.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The causes of success and failure factors for the case study projects discussed in the
previous sections are summarized in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Summary of causes of success/failure factors for the case studies
No. Case project Successful/ failed Reasons for success/failure

1 Woldiya Alamata Failed Lack of timely decision, hold in
road project important decision, and project
manager‘s ignorance and lack of
knowledge contributed to the delay of
the project
2 Butajira Gubre Failed Inadequate resources available with the
road project contractor, unfavorable climatic
condition at the site, conflict with top
management, and project manager‘s
ignorance and lack of knowledge were
the main causes for the project to be
behind schedule.
3 Gindeber Gobensa Failed Inadequate project formulation, in the
road project beginning, contributed to the escalation
of the contract price.
4 Adiremet Dejena Failed Inadequate project formulation, in the
Dansha road beginning, conflict among project
project participants, reluctance in the timely
decision by top management, and non-
availability of adequate resources
contributed to the variation in contract
duration and escalation of contract price
were the main causes for the project to
be behind schedule.
5 Tekeze hydro Failed Lack of adequate communication
power project lot among project participants, conflict
1a site access road among the project participants, and
owner's incompetence in formulating
the project, in the beginning, were the
primary causes of delay.
6 Addis Ababa ring Successful Scope clarity, adequate communication
road project among all project participants, regular
(AARRP) quality control and quality assurance
activities, owner‘s competence, and top
management support were the major
reasons for achieving success.
7 Wacha Maji road Successful Interaction among project participants,
193
upgrading project scope clarity, monitoring and feedback,
project manager‘s competence, and
owner competence were the major
reasons for achieving success.
8 Dire-Dawa Airport Failed Conflicts among project participants
rehabilitation contributed in keeping the project
project behind schedule.
9 Track laying of Successful Adequate communication among all
Ethiopia- Djibouti project participants, regular quality
Railway project. control, and quality assurance activities,
scope clarity, and owner‘s competence
were the major reasons for achieving
success.
10 Construction of Failed The indecisiveness of project
one library, one participants and conflict among project
dining hall and one participants contributes to the variation
kitchen building in contract duration and escalation of
blocks at the contract price were the primary causes
new Hossana of delay.
University.
The projects considered were from different domains of public construction. For
example, there were road projects, railway projects, airport projects, and building
projects. One of the limitations of the research was that these projects were carried out by
the same organization. However, this was because of the difficulties and reluctance of
other organizations to provide access to sites and data. Of the ten projects studied, seven
projects are considered as failures while the remaining three are considered successful.
The project failure can be attributed to a number of factors, namely variations in contract
duration and contract price, deviations from specifications, and disputes between client
and contractor. The prominent causes of project failures, identified by going through the
records and available documents, were:
 Lack of timely decision-making by top management
 Project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge
 Inadequate resources available with the contractor
194
 Unfavorable climatic conditions at the site
 Conflict among project participants
 Inadequate project formulation at the beginning
 Lack of adequate communication among project participants
 Owner's incompetence
Three cases showed good performances with regard to schedule, cost, quality, and
other performance criteria and were found to be successful. Based on the records,
their success can be attributed to the following major reasons:
 Scope clarity
 Regular quality control and quality assurance activities
 Owner‘s competence
 Top management support
 Interaction and adequate communication among project participants
 Monitoring and feedback
 Project manager‘s competence
The identified causes of the successes and failures are similar to those obtained
based on the questionnaire survey. Because of a lack of data, the results were not
validated for individual success criteria such as schedule, cost, quality, and no-dispute
performance. Despite the limited data, the research findings and the records obtained
from real life cases show very good similarity. There is consistency between the
opinions of respondents and the documentary evidence provided by the cases on
public construction projects.
195
Considering the very few researches conducted regarding public procurement in the
Ethiopian context, the research results need to be validated in a wider context. Public
agencies should volunteer to make data available to make the research more widely
acceptable.
In this chapter, the validation of results by a case study approach was presented. In
the next chapter, a summary of the study and conclusions derived from the research
objectives is presented in a consolidated manner.
196
10 CHAPTER 10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
10.1 SUMMARY
The study by Thai (2008) revealed that there had not been much research work carried
out on public sector projects. There are some distinctions between a public sector project
and a private sector project. For example, while a private sector project utilizes money
from the private body and is characterized by the prime motive of profit making, a public
sector project uses public money, and thus accountability and public welfare are the two
key words characterizing them. According to Wirick (2009), ‗overlapping oversight
mechanism‘ is the distinguishing characteristic that differentiates public sector projects
from private sector projects.
In the present study, an extensive examination of factors responsible for the success
and failure of public sector projects in Ethiopia has been carried out. For this, a thorough
initial literature review was conducted to capture knowledge about project performance
evaluation criteria and attributes.
Through the literature review, 35 attributes responsible for success /failure of public
construction projects were identified. Due to non-availability of documented/structured
data for completed public construction projects, a questionnaire survey approach was
selected to collect the responses of experienced public sector professionals to the
identified attributes. The statistical tests in this study included both univariate and
multivariate analysis techniques. Univariate analysis included finding out summary
statistics for responses, such as mean, median, standard deviation, relative interquartile
197
range (RIR), and t-test. Multivariate analysis in the study comprised of three techniques:
factor analysis, multiple regression analysis, and structural equation modelling (SEM).
Based on the mean responses, the project attributes were classified into two categories:
success attributes (those which contribute to the success of the project) and failure
attributes (which contribute negatively to the outcome of the project). These attributes
were then grouped into a few success and failure factors through factor analysis. Multiple
regression was used to identify the critical success and failure factors for various
objectives such as schedule, cost, quality, no-dispute, and overall performance.
A construction project is characterized by different phases in its project life cycle. It is
reported that the relative importance of performance criteria changes with different
phases of a project. The second part of the study addressed this issue. For this, a total of
11 success criteria were identified based on the literature (including leading journals and
project management text books) and evaluation of the relative importance of performance
criteria for different phases (pre- construction, construction, and post- construction) of
public construction projects in Ethiopia was made using the Delphi method.
In general, this study provides new and significant information regarding the
determinants affecting construction projects in Ethiopia. It will help public industry
practitioners and researchers to focus on a few factors to take proactive measures and get
the optimum result in the performance of public construction projects. Further, it helps in
eliminating or solving failure factors that affect public construction projects and,
consequently, new projects may be completed within the stipulated time and budget. The
implications of this study are not limited to construction industry practitioners and
researchers. The Ethiopian government could adopt the results of this study to
198
reduce/avoid additional costs incurred due to the poor performance of public construction
projects and the poor utilization and increased social and economic costs which result.
Furthermore, the study may also help government efforts to enhance efficiency and
effectiveness in the use of public funds on construction projects, an ongoing concern of
both the government and the international development community.
In the following sections, some major conclusions derived in earlier chapters are
recapitulated. These are presented under three headings: success and failure attributes,
success and failure factors, and success criteria. The chapter ends with a discussion of the
limitations and future scope of the study.
10.2 SUCCESS AND FAILURE ATTRIBUTES
 Adequate communication among all project participants emerges as an important
success attribute for all criteria. Communication involves effective working
relationships among all project participants, and it allows them to understand and
carry out the requirements of an owner properly.
 Top management plays a significant role not only in monitoring but also in
providing support and decision-making to the project participants. Therefore, a
timely decision from top management helps to build trust and thus to avoid poor
performance of construction projects (Wirick 2009).
 Reluctance of top management and project managers to make day-to-day
decisions, and holding key decisions in abeyance both have a negative impact on
the performance of construction projects. Therefore, managers need to make
effective and timely decisions regarding any issue that might arise during the
199
course of the project and communicate the decision to the concerned body on
time.
 Misunderstanding the principles of construction management may result in
conflicts between the project manager and top management. Project managers
should understand the technology of the work and the characteristics of the
project to enable them to deal with the many variables which they must consider
in successfully delivering the project.
10.3 SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS
 The most important success factor for overall performance criteria is found to be
‗scope clarity'. A properly defined and managed scope leads to delivery of a
quality product to the stakeholders, at the agreed cost and within specified
schedules. This is why before a project begins, there is a necessity for clearly-
defined requirements. Knapp (2011) states that failing to clearly define and
manage project scope is one of the most common reasons for the failure of
projects.
 The most important success factor for schedule performance criteria is found to be
‗owner‘s competence'. Iyer and Jha (2006) have emphasized the importance of
owners‘ competence for enhancement of schedule performance.
 The most important success factor for cost performance criteria is found to be
‗scope clarity'. Andersen et al. (2006) also observed that a well-understood
project improves managerial ability to deliver results on time, and is possible if
owners have the ability to define the project scope clearly.
200
 The most important success factor for quality performance criteria is found to be
‗quality assurance/control and scope clarity'. Quality assurance and quality
control are extremely important aspects of any engineering or construction
project, without which successful quality performance of the project cannot be
imagined. Clear articulation of work during pre-project planning helps project
manager to develop a thorough understanding of the scope of work and helps in
achieving desired quality performance.
 The most important success factor for the no-dispute performance criteria is found
to be ‗owner‘s competence'. The importance of the owner‘s role in minimizing
disputes begins at the start of the project, as plans are formulated, and this is when
the owner has the most influence over the construction process. The owner should
be competent enough to prepare a clearly-articulated scope and unambiguous
nature of work in the tender. By doing so, major changes in the scope of work
during construction, which are the cause of construction disputes (Hewitt 1991;
Ashworth 2013), could be avoided.
 The most important failure factor for overall performance criteria is found to be
‗project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge'. A project manager needs to
have the right balance of skills to be successful in managing projects and teams.
According to Truman and King (2015), poor project management or lack of sound
project management by a project manager results in a completed facility that fails
to meet the performance requirements specified in the contract and fails to
produce the intended products. Therefore, as a project manager, one should have
201
the required or adequate knowledge to apply good project management practices
that help to avoid failure in project performance.
 The most important failure factor for schedule performance criteria is found to be
‗conflict among project participants'. Conflict among project participants is
generally considered to mar the team spirit and sometimes leads to division
among the team and lack of cooperation between the conflicting groups. This is
detrimental to the smooth progress of work and eventually delays the completion
of all those jobs that require cooperation and coordination among the differing
groups.
 The most important failure factor for cost performance criteria is found to be
‗conflict among project participants'. In a study of 50 Indian construction projects,
Iyer and Jha (2005) found that respondents ranked conflict among project
participants highest among factors affecting project costs.
 The most important failure factor for quality performance criteria is found to be
‗project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge‘. If the project manager lacks
understanding of operating procedure and is ignorant of appropriate planning
tools and techniques then he/she cannot develop a realistic approach to achieve
the desired quality performance.
 The most important failure factor for no-dispute performance criteria is found to
be ‗conflict among project participants‘. According to Cheung and Suen (2002), if
conflicts are not properly managed, they may cause project delays and increase
project costs, which leads to a dispute. Therefore, top management must devise a
means to avoid conflict by creating a suitable environment to build team spirit
202
among project participants. This is because the achievement of success in project
performance is a team effort, and if the team members are not working in unison
it leads to adverse effects on the performance of a construction project.
10.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The results of the study show that criteria change across project phases, such that what is
significant in one phase may not be significant in the other phases. The following are
found to be the most important criteria in each phase:
 Time, cost, quality, technical performance, the satisfaction of key project
participants, and social responsibility are crucial in the pre-construction phase.
 Time, cost, quality, no-dispute, health and safety, the satisfaction of key project
participants, technical performance, and social responsibility, are crucial in the
construction phase.
 Satisfaction of end-users and outsiders, environmental sustainability, and
satisfaction of key project participants are crucial in the post-construction phase.
It can be also observed from the results of the Delphi study that all the experts have
agreed on all criteria for each phase.
10.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE
There has been little research regarding construction projects in Ethiopia. There is even
less research on public construction projects in Ethiopia. Therefore, the research has
largely been inductive in its approach, highlighting the main issues in public construction
projects in Ethiopia and the most critical factors to consider in such projects.
203
This study has contributed to knowledge and practice in construction management by
identifying important determinants of success in public construction projects. It has
offered new information and a better understanding of the theory behind: (1)
identification of success and failure factors in Ethiopian public construction projects, and
(2) the extensions of the application of the SEM in public construction management area.
In practice, this study presents and contributes models which will be useful in enhancing
the success of public projects. The research also highlights the importance of success
criteria in different phases of construction.
The present study has contributed to the field by integrating knowledge about critical
success and failure factors, as well as what is known about the success criteria for
different phases of construction. By determining the critical success and failure factors
which are most influential in achieving a good performance and preventing poor
performance, the results can lead to a better performance within the construction
industries. Furthermore, the study has taken some steps towards enhancing our
understanding of critical factors in performance measurement as they relate to the
construction project. It has also contributed to the growing body of literature regarding
construction project performance, particularly, using both success and failure aspects
exclusively for public projects based on the opinion of public sector respondents. This
research has developed a practical way of understanding the determinants of success
within public construction projects.
The results of the study show that all the critical factors found are related to people‘s
competency, pointing to the fact that competency issues in Ethiopian public construction
projects are not given adequate attention. The lack of competent people in the sector
204
lowers the possibility of achieving a successful public project. Therefore, an effective and
efficient university-industry linkage is a necessary condition for knowledge and
technology transfer from university to the construction industry. Developing countries
should also target their investments in education and training to the best programmes
aimed at producing professionals, technicians and skilled people suited to deliver the best
possible public construction projects in the national context.
It is common for developing countries like Ethiopia to use foreign consultancy firms
to develop their physical infrastructures. These foreign companies, in addition to
executing different projects across the country, should make an effort to work on
technology transfer and training, to produce competent people in the sector who will
enhance the domestic capability. This research has shown that the role of people in the
construction industry needs to be highly emphasized.
The results of this study are expected to help researchers and industry practitioners to
focus on a few factors to take proactive measures and achieve the optimum results in
successful delivery of public construction projects. Further, they should assist in
eliminating failure factors which affect a construction project negatively. This will help
in reducing time and cost of projects, enabling new projects to be completed within the
stipulated period.
The Ethiopian government could also adopt the results of this study to reduce and
avoid additional costs incurred due to the poor performance of public construction
projects leading to poor utilization and increased social and economic costs. Additionally,
the study may also help government efforts to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the
use of public funds for construction projects, an on-going concern of the government and
205
the international development community. The research also highlights the importance of
different success criteria in various phases of construction. The results show that the
success criteria change across project phases, and what is important in one phase may not
be important in the other phases.
Structural equation modelling technique has been used in the study to empirically
validate the proposed hypothesis – that success factors have a significant positive
influence on the construction project success. Grounded in extant literature, a conceptual
model was developed and tested using data gathered via a questionnaire survey. Scope
clarity and effective partnership coupled with the owner‘s competency in a project play a
significant role in making a project successful. Currently, public sector procurement for
construction in Ethiopia is largely based on the traditional procurement method (also
known as the design-bid-build method). In this method, the client or his representative
develops their need into a set of workable activities and estimates the time and cost for
executing the set of activities. The client is also responsible for specifying the quality
requirement and presents them in the form of a specification and ‗good for construction‘
drawings. Thereafter, the process of contractor selection is initiated and a responsible
contractor (usually the lowest bidder) is awarded the contract through competitive
bidding (Hatush and Skitmore 1998). One of the critical problems faced by government
authorities is the poor performance of these projects (Mustefa 2015; Fetene 2008). Poor
performance is often caused by a number of issues, such as the absence of clearly
articulated scope and nature of work in the tender, and major changes in the scope of
work during construction. Changes during project execution often reflect the
uncertainties that occur during the early stages of the project (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006).
206
The study has highlighted that to reduce these changes; the project scope should be well-
defined and clearly articulated at the pre-planning stage of the project.
Different stakeholders within the construction industry will also find the study of use
in enhancing the performance of public construction projects. Although the research
study presented here was based in Ethiopia, it is anticipated that these results would be
broadly applicable to other developing countries. Lastly, the study has resulted in good
publications in international peer-reviewed journals and thus contributed to the
dissemination of knowledge to the national and international community (see Appendix
C).
10.6 LIMITATIONS
As with any other opinion-based study, the present study has certain limitations. The
majority of respondents have evaluated the projects in their execution stage only, and
very few have evaluated the performance of projects at the planning and operation stages.
Also, the study has been carried out in the Ethiopian context. Hence the study has a
limitation in these regards. Moreover, the regression model described in the study does
not pay attention to the long-term success of the construction project. The self–reporting
method of data collection from various construction projects has been used, and hence
there is also a possibility of bias playing a role in the outcome of the study.
In SEM, according to Hair et al. (2014), a good empirical fit does not prove that the
given model is the only true structure, and a researcher may revise the model, adding or
deleting latent factors and their indicators with theoretical evidence. These limitations
207
should be considered during the implementation of the findings in the field and in further
studies.
These limitations could be addressed in future studies if respondents evaluate the
choice projects in different phases of construction, and if the respondents and projects
studied are drawn from many different countries.
10.7 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
Further studies can be undertaken using the critical factors determined by this study to
develop project performance prediction models. These models can be developed using
either mathematical tools such as neural networks or statistical tools such as regression
modelling. Data on critical factors can be collected from projects.
 The success and failure factors identified in this study are based on the execution
phase of public construction projects. Further research should be conducted to
identify the determinants of success in public construction projects at other phases
of construction, such as pre-construction and post-construction.
 The present study used only five performance-measuring criteria (schedule, cost,
quality, no-dispute, and overall) for which the critical factors were determined.
Similar studies could be undertaken determining critical factors corresponding to
other performance-measuring criteria such as health and safety compliance,
technical performance and the satisfaction of key participants.
 A large sample of respondents representing various organizations from different
geographical locations can be used to improve the external validity of the
proposed constructs.
208
11 REFERENCES
ACA. (2006). A survey of pressure points in Australian construction and infrastructure

projects. Blake Dawson Waldron.
Adinyira, E., Botchway, E., and Kwofie, T. E. (2012). ―Determining Critical Project
Success Criteria for Public Housing Building Projects (PHBPS) in Ghana.‖
Engineering Management Research, 1(2), 122–132.
Adriaanse J (2005), Construction Contract Law: The essentials. Wales, Palgrave

Macmillan.
Africa Review (2014). Boosting Ethiopia's economic growth with building boom. <http://
www. africareview.com//Special-Reports/Making-sense-of-Ethiopias-building-
boom/-/979182/ 2239086/-/eqyigpz/-/index.html?relative=true.> (June 07, 2014)
Agumba, M., and Baloyi, J. N. (2014). ―Causes of dispute in construction projects in

South Africa- A case of Gauteng province.‖ In Proceedings 8th Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB) Postgraduate Conference, 179–187.
Ali, A. S., and Rahmat, I. (2010). ―The performance measurement of construction

projects managed by ISO-Certified contractors in Malaysia.‖ Journal of Retail and
Leisure Property, 9(1), 25–35.
Al-Qudsi, H. (1995). ―Don‘t burn that bridge.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering,

11(6), 22–25.
Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H. M., Abdul-Rahman, H., and Harun, Z. (2010). ―Future criteria for
success of building projects in Malaysia.‖ International Journal of Project
Management, 29(3), 337–348.
Alzahrani, J. I., and Emsley, M. W. (2013). ―The impact of contractors‘ attributes on

construction project success: A post construction evaluation.‖ International Journal
of Project Management, 31(2), 313–322.
Andersen, E. S., Birchall, D., Jessen, S. a., and Money, A. H. (2006). ―Exploring project
success.‖ Baltic Journal of Management, 1(2), 127–147.
Anumba, C. J., and N.F.O.Evbuomwan. (1999). ―A taxonomy for communication facets

in concurrent life-cycle design and construction.‖ Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 14, 37–44.
Arshida, M. M., and Agil, S. O. (2013). ―Critical success factors for total quality
management implementation within the Libyan iron and steel company.‖ Issand
Mlb, 254–259.
209
Aschauer, D. A. (1989). ―Is public expenditure productive?‖ Journal of Monetary
Economics, 23(2), 177–200.
Ashworth, A. (2013). ―Contractual procedures in the construction industry‖, sixth edition.
Athens (2004). <http://www.athens2004.com/en/Legacy> (June 06, 2014).
Atkinson, R. (1999). ―Project management: cost time and quality two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it‘s time to accept other success criteria.‖ International Journal of
Project Management, 17(6), 337–342.
Azqueta, D. (1992). ―Social project appraisal and environmental impact assessment: a

necessary but complicated theoretical bridge.‖ Development Policy Review, 10(3),
255–270.
Babatunde, S. O., Perera, S., Udeaja, C., and Zhou, L. (2014). ―Challenges of
implementing infrastructure megaprojects through public-private partnerships in
Nigeria : A case study of road infrastructure.‖ International Journal of Architecture,
Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 142–154.
Baccarini, D. (1999). ―The logical framework method for defining project success.‖
Project Management Journal, 30(I4), 25–32.
Baidoun, S. (2003). ―An empirical study of critical factors of TQM in Palestinian

organizations.‖ Logistics Information Management, 16(2), 156–171.
Baker. B.N., Murphy, D.C., and Fisher D. (1988). Factors affecting project success.
Project Management Handbook (2nd edn), Van Nostrand Reinhold co., New York.
Barnes, M. (1988). ―Construction project management.‖ International Journal of Project

Management, 6(2), 69–79.
Bartholomew, D., Knotts, M., and Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor
analysis: A unified approach. (3rd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Besner, C., and Hobbs, B. (2008). ―Project management practice, generic or contextual:
A reality check.‖ Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16–33.
Bhattacharya, A., Romani, M., and Stern, N. (2012). Infrastructure for development :
meeting the challenge. Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., and Hardcastle, C. (2005). ―Critical success
factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry.‖ Construction
Management and Economics, 23(5), 459–471.
Bititci, U. S. (1994). ―Measuring Your Way to Profit.‖ Management Decisions, 32(6),

16–24.
210
Bolin, J. M. (2015). Effective change order management. Long International Inc.
Bonnal, P. (2002). ―On life-cycle of technical projects.‖ Project Management Journal,

33(1), 12–19.
Boynton, A. C., and Zmud, R. W. (1984). ―An assessment of critical success factors‖.
Sloan Management Review, 25, 17–27.
Bryde, D. J., and Robinson, L. (2005). ―Client versus contractor perspectives on project
success criteria.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622–629.
Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A
guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Bubshait, A. A., and Almohawis, S. A. (1994). ―Evaluating the general conditions of a

construction contract.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 133–
136.
Cakmak, E., and Cakmak, P. I. (2014). ―An analysis of causes of disputes in the
construction industry using analytical network process.‖ Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 109, 183–187.
Calderon, C. a., and Serven, L. (2014). ―The effects of infrastructure development on

growth and income distribution‖. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3400.15.
Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). ―Convergent and discriminant validation by

the multitrait-multimethod matrix.‖ Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Carmichael, D. (2002). Disputes and international projects. Taylor and Francis, New
York.
Chan, A. P. C. (2001). ―Framework for measuring success of construction projects.‖ 1–

21.
Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., and Tam, C. M. (2001). ―Design and Build Project Success
Factors: Multivariate Analysis.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 127(2), 93–100.
Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., and Lam, E. W. M. (2002). ―Framework of success criteria for
design/build projects.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 120–128.
Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., and Chan, A. P. L. (2004). ―Factors affecting the success of a
construction project.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
130(1), 153–155.
211
Chen, Z., Li, H., and Wong, C. T. C. (2000). ―Environmental management of urban
construction projects in China.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 126(4), 320–324.
Cheung, S.-O., and Suen, H. C. H. (2002). ―A multi-attribute utility model for dispute
resolution strategy selection.‖ Construction Management and Economics, 20(7),
557–568.
Chick, D. (1999). ―The time value of project change.‖ Cost Engineering, 41(6): 27-31.
Chin, W. (1998). ―The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.‖
Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chitkara, K.K. (2011). Construction Project Management - Planning, Scheduling and

Controlling, 2nd Edition, Tata McGraw Hills.
Cho, K., Hong, T., and Hyun, C. (2009). ―Effect of project characteristics on project
performance in construction projects based on structural equation model.‖ Expert
Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10461–10470.
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., and Loh, P. K. (1999). ―Critical success factors for different
project objectives.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3),
142–150.
CIDB. (2011). Construction quality in South Africa: A client perspective.

https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=crandei=u0keV7fIMsKL8QfGhrLwAQ#q=Const
ruction+quality+in+South+Africa:+A+client+perspective. (March 08,2015).
Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work. Nicholas Brealey International,

London.
Cobb, A.T., (2012). Leading Project Teams: The Basics of Project Management and
Team Leadership. Sage Publications, USA.
Constructing Excellence. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Fact Sheet, 1–6.

http://doi.org/http://cenew.idnet.net/pdf/fact_sheet/social_responsibility.pdf (Sep. 2,
2014).
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). ―The ―real‖ success factors on projects.‖ International Journal

Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2001). Towards improved project management practice:

Uncovering the evidence for effective practices through empirical research.
Dissertation.com USA. Leeds Metropolitan University.
Crane, T. G., Felder, J. P., Thompson, P. J., Thompson, M. G., and Sanders, S. R. (1999).
―Partnering Measures.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2), 37–43.
212
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). ―Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.‖
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
De Furia, L.G. (2008). Project management recipes for success. New York: CRC Press.
de Wit, A. (1988). ―Measurement of project success.‖ International Journal of Project

Management, 6(3), 164–170.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., and Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group Techniques for
Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman and Company.
Dessa, A. (2010). Claims in Ethiopian construction industry. Addis Ababa University,

Ethiopia. http://etd.aau.edu.et/dspace/handle/123456789/1179 (November 24, 2014).
Divakar, K., and Subramanian, K. (2009). ―Critical success factors in the real-time
monitoring of construction projects.‖ Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, 1(2), 35–39.
Dlakwa, M.M., and Culpin, F.M. (1990). ―Reasons for overrun in public sector
construction projects in Nigeria.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 8(4),
237–241.
Dosumu, O. S., and Onukwube, H. N. (2013). ―Analysis of project success criteria in the
Nigerian.‖ International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and
Technology, 4(1), 31–47.
Dunnam, C. N. (1984). ―Dealing with constraints affecting construction quality.‖

Procurement Quality in the Constructed Project, ASCE, New York, 162-168.
EIR. (2014). The World at a Crossroads: BRICS New Paradigm, or War of Extinction.
Elanga, G. B. E., Paul, L., & Pettang, C. (2014). ―Evaluation of cost overrun factors in
the construction projects in developing countries : Cameroon as case study.‖
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 4(10), 2–
7.
Enshassi, A., and Al.Swaity, E. (2015). ‖ Key stressors leading to construction

professionals‘ stress in the Gaza strip, Palestine.‖ Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, 20(2), 53–79.
Eriksson, P. E., and Westerberg, M. (2011). ―Effects of cooperative procurement

procedures on construction project performance: A conceptual framework.‖
International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 197–208.
Faniran, O. O., Oluwoye, J. O., and Lenard, and D. J. (1998). ―Interaction between
construction planning and influence factors.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 124(4), 245–256.
213
Fenn, P., Lowe, D., and Speck, C. (1997). ―Conflict and dispute in construction.‖
Construction Management and Economics, 15(6), 513–518.
Ferguson, E. D. (1999). ―Individual Psychology and Organizational Effectiveness.‖

Journal of Individual Psychology, 55(1), 109–114.
Ferguson, E., and Cox, T. (1993). ―Exploratory factor analysis: A users‘ guide.‖
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84–94.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). ―What you should know about megaprojects and why: An
overview.‖ Project Management Journal. http://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409
Fornell, C., and Bookstein, F. L. (1982). ―Two structural equation models: LISREL and
PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory.‖ Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),
440.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. (1981). ―Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error.‖ Journal of Marketing Research,
18(3), 39–50.
Fox, P., and Skitmore, M. (2007). ―Factors facilitating construction industry

development.‖ Building Research and Information, 35(2), 178–188.
Frederikslust, R.A.I. (1978). Predictability of Corporate Failure. Leiden, Netherlands:

Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.
Gardiner, P. D., and Simmons, J. E. L. (1992). ―Analysis of conflict and change in

construction projects.‖ Construction Management and Economics, 10(6), 459–478.
Globerson, S. (1997). ―Discrepancies between customer expectations and product

configuration.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 199–203.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gudienė, N., Banaitis, A., Banaitienė, N., and Lopes, J. (2013). ―Development of a
Conceptual Critical Success Factors Model for Construction Projects: a Case of
Lithuania.‖ Procedia Engineering.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Babin, B. J., and Black, W. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Pearson Education, London. (7th ed.). Pearson Education, London.
Hallowell, M. R., and Gambatese, J. a. (2010). ―Qualitative research: application of the

delphi method to CEM research.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(1), 99–107.
214
Hare, B., Cameron, I., and Duff, A. R. (2006). ―Exploring the integration of health and
safety with pre-construction planning.‖ Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 13(5), 438–450.
Harmon, K. M. J. (2003). ―Conflicts between owner and contractors: Proposed

intervention process.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 121–125.
Hartenian, L. S. (2003). ―Team member acquisition of team knowledge, skills, and

abilities.‖ Team Performance Management, 9(1/2), 23–30.
Haslam, R. A., Hide, S. A., Gibb, A. G. F., Gyi, D. E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., and Duff,
A. R. (2005). ―Contributing factors in construction accidents.‖ Applied Ergonomics,
36(4), 401–415.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., and McKenna, H. (2000). ―Research guidelines for the Delphi
survey technique.‖ Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.
Hatush, Z., and Skitmore, M. (1997). ―Criteria for contractor selection.‖ Construction
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., and Kubany, E. S. (1995). ―Content validity in

psychological assessment : a functional approach to concepts and methods
introduction to content validity.‖ Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247.
Heath, B. C., Hills, B., and Berry, M. (1994). ―The nature and origin of conflict within
the construction process.‖ In Proceedings of the CIB TG15 Conference, Kentucky,
USA, CIB publication 171, 35–48.
Hendrickson, C., and Au, T. (1988). Project management for construction fundamental
concepts for owners, engineers, architects and builders. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Hernon, P., and Rossiter, N. (2007). Making a difference : leadership and academic
libraries. Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT.
Hewitt, J. (1991). Winning construction disputes: strategic planning for major litigation,
Ernst and Young, London.
Hosseinian, S. S., and Torghabeh, Z. J. (2012). ―Major theories of construction accident

causation models : A literature review.‖ International Journal of Advances in
Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 53–66.
Hubbard, D., (1990). ―Successful utility project management from lessons learned.‖
Project Management Journal 11 (3), 19–23.
Hwang, B. G., Zhao, X. B., and Ng, S. Y. (2013). ―Identifying the critical factors
affecting schedule performance of public housing projects.‖ Habitat International,
38(October 2015), 214–221. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.008
215
Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., and Thuillier, D. (2012). ―Critical success factors for World Bank
projects: An empirical investigation.‖ International Journal of Project Management,
30(1), 105–116.
Ikediashi, D., Ogunlana, S., and Alotaibi, A. (2014). ―Analysis of Project Failure Factors
for Infrastructure Projects in Saudi Arabia: A Multivariate Approach.‖ Journal of
Construction in Developing Countries, 19(1), 35–52.
Illias, O. (2000). Systematic Prevention of Construction Failures. ITEM-HSG QM and T

Report, 9.
Inayat, A., Hani Melhem, and Esmaeily, A. (2012). ―Critical success factors for different
organizations in construction projects.‖ Icsdec, 695–702.
Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., and Birgonul, M. T. (2009). ―Impact of corporate
strengths/weaknesses on project management competencies.‖ International Journal
Ives, M., (2005). ―Identifying the contextual elements of project management within
organizations and their impact on project success.‖ Project Management Journal,
36(1): 37-50.
Iyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2005). ―Factors affecting cost performance: Evidence from
Indian construction projects.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 23(4),
283–295.
Iyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2006). ―Critical factors affecting schedule performance:
Evidence from Indian construction projects.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 132(8), 871–881.
Jahren, C. T., and Ashe, A. M. (1990). ―Predictors of cost-overrun rates.‖ Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 116(3), 548–552.
Jergeas, G. F., Eng, P., and Hartman, F. T. (1996). ―A contract clause for allocating
risks.‖ AACE Transactions, 1–3.
Jugdev, K., and Moller, R. (2005). ―A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success.‖ Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., and Harris, F. C. (1997). ―Factors
influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia.‖
Construction Management and Economics, 15, 83–94.
Kaplan, L. M. (1971). The use of the Delphi method in organizational communication: A

case study. Unpublished master‘s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
216
Kassab, M., Hegazy, T., and Hipel, K. (2010). ―Computerized DSS for construction
conflict resolution under uncertainty.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(12), 1249–1257.
Kassel, D. S. (2008). ―Performance, accountability, and the debate over rules.‖ Public
Administration Review, 68(2), 241–252.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. (1998). The Social Psychology of Music. John Wiley, USA.
Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S., and Tuncbilekli, N. A. (2012). ―Causes of delays in construction
projects in Turkey.‖ Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(3), 426–435.
Kein, A. T. T., Ofori, G., and Briffett, C. (1999).‖ISO 14000: its relevance to the
construction industry of Singapore and its potential as the next industry milestone.‖
Construction Management and Economics, 17(4), 449–461.
Kim, D. Y., Han, S. H., Kim, H., and Park, H. (2009). ―Structuring the prediction model
of project performance for international construction projects: A comparative
analysis.‖ Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2 PART 1), 1961–1971.
Kim, J., and Mueller, C. W. (1978). Review of factor analysis basics. Sage Publications,
London.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Knapp, D. (2011). A guide to customer service skills for the service desk professional.
Boston: Cengage Learning.
Koelmans, R. G. (2004). ―Project success and performance evaluation.‖ International

Platinum Conference ―Platinum Adding Value‖, the South African institute of
mining and metallurgy, 229–236.
Kog, Y. C., and Loh, P. K. (2012). ―Critical success factors for different components of
construction projects.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
138(4), 520–528.
Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1997). ―Conflicts, claims and disputes in construction.‖

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 4(2), 95–111.
Kumaraswamy, M.M., Thorpe, A. (1996). ―Systematizing construction project

evaluations.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(1), 34–39.
Labour Department. (2005). Occupational safety and health statistics bulletin, (5), 1–8.
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y. D., and Lee, J. Y. (2008). ―Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large
construction projects: A comparison with other selected countries.‖ KSCE Journal
of Civil Engineering, 12(6), 367–377.
217
Levin, H. (1997). ―Systematic evaluation and assessment of building environmental
performance (SEABEP).‖ Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Buildings, 3–10.
Lim, C. S., and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). ―Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243–248.
Lin, H., and Lee, G. (2006). ―Effects of socio‐technical factors on organizational

intention to encourage knowledge sharing.‖ Management Decision, 44(1), 74–88.
Ling, F. Y. Y., and Hoang, V. T. P. (2010). ―Political, economic, and legal risks faced in
international projects: case study of Vietnam.‖ Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 136(3), 156–164.
Ling, Y. Y. (2002). ―Model for predicting performance of architects and engineers.‖

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(5), 446–455.
Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., and Shenhar, A. (1997). ―The relative importance of
project success dimensions.‖ Research and Development Management, 27(2), 97–
106.
Liu, A. M. M., and Walker, A. (1998). ―Evaluation of project outcomes.‖ Construction

Liu, M., Ballard, G., and Ibbs, W. (2011). ―Work Flow Variation and Labor
Productivity : Case Study.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(October),
236–242.
Loosemore, M., Dainty, A. and Lingard, H. (2003). Human resource management in

construction projects, Spon Press, London.
Love, P. E. D., and Edwards, D. J. (2004). ―Determinants of rework in building

construction projects.‖ Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
11(4), 259–274.
Lowe, D. J., Emsley, M. W., and Harding, A. (2006). ―Predicting construction cost using
multiple regression techniques.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132(7), 750–758.
Ludwig, B. (1994). Predicting the future: ―Have you considered using the Delphi
Methodology?‖ Journal of Extension, 35(5), 1-4.
MacInnis, P. (2003). ―Skill test question.‖ Computing Canada, 29 (18), 10.
Mahato, B. K., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2011). ―Conflict dynamics in a dam construction

project: a case study.‖ Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(2), 176–
194.
218
Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing research: An applied orientation. The handbook of
marketing research uses misuses and future advances. SAGE publication Inc.
Maloney, W. F., and Mcfillen, J. M. (1995). ―Job characteristics union-nonunion

differences.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(1), 43–54.
Matt, G. E., and Dean, A. (1993). ―Social support from friends and psychological distress
among elderly persons: moderator effects of age.‖ Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 34(3), 187–200.
McCoy, F.A. 1986. ―Measuring Success: Establishing and Maintaining a Baseline,‖ PMI
Annual Seminar/Symposium, Montreal Canada, 47-52.
Meng, X. (2012). ―The effect of relationship management on project performance in

construction.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 188–198.
Might, R. J., and Fischer, W. A. (1985). ―The role of structural factors in determining
project management success.‖ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
32(2), 71–77.
Mikhail, C., and Chris, H. (2005). ―Cost impacts, scheduling impacts, and the claims
process during construction.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
131(1), 102–107.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. (2013). Country Strategy for Development

Cooperation with Ethiopia 2013-2016.
<http://formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=274547andcontentlan=2andc
ulture=en-US> (April 10,2015)
Mitchell, V. W. (1991). ―The Delphi technique: an exposition and application.‖

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3(4), 333–358.
MoFED. (2006). Ethiopia : Building on Progress. A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP). 2005/06-2009/10), I, 278.
<http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-
Documents/Plan_for_Accelerated_and_Sustained_(PASDEP)_final_July_2007_Vol
ume_I_3.pdf> (October 15, 2014)
Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A. D., and Barash, M. (1999). ―Public-sector Design/Build

evolution and performance.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2), 54–62.
Molenaar K., Simon, W., and Diekmann, J. (2000). ―Structural Equation Model of
construction contract dispute potential.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 126(4).
Mueller R. O., and Hancock, G. R. (2001). Factor analysis and latent structure,
confirmatory. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences,
Pergamon, Oxford, 5239-44.
219
Muhwezi, L., Acai, J., and Otim, G. (2014). ―An assessment of the factors causing delays
on building construction projects in Uganda.‖ Construction Engineering and
Management, 3(1), 13–23.
Munns, A. K., and Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). ―The role of project management in achieving
project success.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81–87.
Murray, W. F., and Jarman, B. O. (1987). ―Predicting future trends in adult fitness using
the delphi approach.‖ Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58(2), 124–131.
Naoum, S. G. (1994). ―Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional
contracts.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(4), 687–705.
NBE. (2015). National Bank of Ethiopia Annual Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ng, S. T., Wong, Y. M. W., and Wong, J. M. W. (2010). ―A structural equation model of
feasibility evaluation and project success for public-private partnerships in Hong
Kong.‖ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(2), 310–322.
Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., and Lan, D. T. X. (2004). ―A study on project success
factors in large construction projects in Vietnam.‖ Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 11(6), 404–413.
Nguyen, S. (2010). Project scope management - the basic principles. Retrieved. (March 5,
2014).
Nguyen, T. P., and Chileshe, N. (2013). ―Revisiting the critical factors causing failure of
construction projects in Vietnam.‖ Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, 929–938.
Nunnally S.W.(2010). Construction Methods and Management (8th ed.) Prentice Hall,
Inc., New Jersey.
Ogunlana, S. O., Promkuntong, K., and Jearkjirm, V. (1996). ―Construction delays in a

fast-growing economy: Comparing Thailand with other economies.‖ International
Journal of Project Management, 14(1), 37–45.
Ogwueleka, A. (2011). ―The critical success factors influencing project performance in

Nigeria.‖ International Journal of Management Science, 6(5), 343–349.
Oh, K. H. (1974). Forecasting through hierarchical Delphi. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Omonori, A. (2014). ―Understanding customers‘ satisfaction in construction industry in

Nigeria.‖ Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 5(25), 115–121.
220
Omran A, Mamat SNB. (2011). ―Factors affecting cost performance in construction
projects with in Kelantan state in Malaysia.‖ Journal of Academic Research in
Economics 3(1): 63-76.
Oruma, B. W., Mironga, J. M., and Muma, B. O. (2014). ―Top management commitment
towards implementation of total quality management (TQM) in construction
companies in Nakuru county-Kenya.‖ International Journal of Economics, Finance
and Management Sciences, 2(6), 332.
Otim, G., Nakacwa, F., and Kyakula, M. (2002). ―Cost control techniques used on
building construction sites in Uganda.‖ Second International Conference on
Advances in Engineering and Technology, 367–373.
Padilla, E. M., and Carr, R. I. (1991). ―Resource strategies for dynamic project
management.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(2), 279–
293.
Pakseresht, A. (2012). ―Determining the critical success factors in construction projects :

AHP approach.‖ Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4,
383–393.
Anter, V., Hansson, E., McNaught-Reynolds, O., Tessar, A., (2009). The Sydney opera
house, stakeholder management and project success.
<http://www.iei.liu.se/fek/svp/723g18/case_material/1.111101/SydneyOperaHouseP
rojectStudy.pdf>(September 13, 2014)
Parfitt, M. K., and Sanvido, V. E. (1993). ―Checklist of Critical Success Factors for
Building Projects.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(3), 243–249.
Patanakul, P., and Milosevic, D. (2009). ―The effectiveness in managing a group of

multiple projects: Factors of influence and measurement criteria.‖ International
Pill, J. (1971). ―The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated
bibliography.‖ Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 5(1), 57–71.
Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1988). ―Project success : Definitions and measurement
techniques.‖ Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–73.
Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1988b). ―Critical success factors across the project life
cycle.‖ Project Management Journal, 19, 67–75.
PM4DEV. (2015). The project management roles and responsibilities. IMPACTO4DEV.
PMBOK. (2013) (5th ed.). Project Management Institute, PA, 556.
221
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., and Psenicka, C. (2001). ―A structural equations model of
leader power, subordinates‘ styles of handling conflict, and job performance.‖
International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 191–211.
Rahman, M. A., Shokshok, M. A, and Wahab, D. A. (2011). ―Barriers and benefits of

total quality management implementation in Libyan manufacturing companies.‖
Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 7(4), 619–624.
Raskin, M. S. (1994). ―The Delphi Study in Field Instruction Revisited: Expert

Consensus on Issues and Research Priorities.‖ Journal of Social Work Education,
30(1), 75–89.
Rathi, A. S., and Khandve, P. V. (2016). ―Study of factors influencing cost overruns : an
overview.‖ International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(3), 334–336.
Rayens, M. K., and Hahn, E. J. (2000). ―Building consensus using the policy Delphi
method.‖ Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 1(4), 308–315.
Rockart, J. F. (1982). ―The Changing Role of the Information Systems Executive: A

Critical Success Factors prespective.‖ Sloan Management Review, 24(1), 3–13.
Roper, K. O., and Leed, A. P. (2006). ―Future trends impact construction , real estate and
facility management.‖ CIB W107 Construction in Developing Countries
International Symposium, (January).
Roy, A., Curt, G., Marco, B., and Richard, W. (2014). Greening the building supply
chain. UNEP-Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative.
Sackman, H. (1974). Delphi assessment: expert opinion, forecasting and group process.
United States air force project RAND.
Samantha, I. P. (2002). ―An overview of construction claims: how they arrive and how to
avoid them.‖ lorman seminar for construction contracting for public entities.1–37.
British Columbia.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., and Coyle, M. (1992). ―Critical success
factors for construction projects.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 118(1), 94–111.
Saqib, M., Farooqui, R. U., and Lodi, S. H. (2008). ―Assessment of critical success
factors for construction projects in pakistan.‖ First International Conference on
Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I) ―Advancing and Integrating
Construction Education, Research and Practice,‖ 392–404.
Schumacker, R., and Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner‘s guide to structural equation

modeling (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
222
Sears S. K. , Sears G.A., and Clough R.H. (2010). Construction Project Management- A
Practical Guide to Field Construction Management (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.
Shahrzad, K., and Hamidreza, A. (2011). ―A success measurement model for

construction projects.‖ International Conference on Financial Management and
Economics IPEDR, 11, 186–190.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York.
Shenhar, A. J., and Wideman, R. (2001). ―Improving PM: Linking success criteria to
project type.‖ Proceedings Project Management, 96(May 1996), 71–76.
Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., and Dvir, D. (1997). ―Mapping dimensions of projects success.‖
Project Management Journal.
Shrestha, P. P., Burns, L. A., and Shields, D. R. (2013). ―Magnitude of construction cost
and schedule overruns in public work projects.‖ Journal of Construction
Engineering, 2013(2), 9.
Songer, A. D., and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). ―Project characteristics for successful public-
sector Design-Build.‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
123(1), 34–40.
Spitz, C.J. (1982) The project leader: a study of task requirements, management skills
and personal style, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Case Western Reserve University,
USA.
Strang, K.D. (2003). Achieving organizational learning across projects. Proceedings: PMI
North America Global Congress. Baltimore, USA, 23 September.
Summers, D. C. S. (2005). Quality management: creating and sustaining organizational

effectiveness. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
PsycCRITIQUES.28.
Tabish, S. Z. S., and Jha, K. N. (2011). ―Identification and evaluation of success factors
for public construction projects.‖ Construction Management and Economics, 29(8),
809–823.
Tabish, S. Z. S., and Jha, K. N. (2012). ―Success Traits for a Construction Project.‖
Takim, R., and Adnan, H. (2008). ―Analysis of effectiveness measures of construction

project success in Malaysia.‖ Asian Social Science, 4(7), 74–91.
223
Tam, C. (1999). ―Use of the Internet to enhance construction communication: total
information transfer system.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 17(2),
107–111.
Tam, V. W. Y., Shen, L. Y., Fung, I. W. H., and Wang, J. Y. (2007). ―Controlling
construction waste by implementing governmental ordinances in Hong Kong.‖
Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 7(2), 149–166.
Tazelaar, F., and Snijders, C. (2010). ―Dispute resolution and litigation in the
construction industry. Evidence on conflicts and conflict resolution in the
Netherlands and Germany.‖ Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 16(4),
221–229.
Teo, E. A. L., Ling, F. Y. Y., and Chong, A. F. W. (2005). ―Framework for project
managers to manage construction safety.‖ International Journal of Project
Management, 23(4), 329–341.
Teo, M. M. M., and Loosemore, M. (2001). ―A theory of waste behavior in the

construction industry.‖ Construction Management and Economics, 19(7), 741–751.
Thai, K. V. (2008). International handbook of public procurement. CRC Press, Taylor

and Francis Group, NY.
Thangaratinam, S., and Redman, C. W. E. (2005). ―The Delphi technique.‖ The

Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, 7(2), 120–125.
Thuyet, N. Van, Ogunlana, S. O., and Kumar, P. (2007). ―Risk management in oil and
gas construction projects in Vietnam.‖ International Journal of Energy Sector
Management, 1(2), 175–194.
Todryk, L. (1990). ―The project manager as team builder: creating an effective team.‖
Project Management Journal, 21(4), 17–22.
Toor, S. u R., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). ―Critical COMs of success in large-scale

construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry.‖ International
Torbica, Z. M., and Stroh, R. C. (2001). ―Customer Satisfaction in Home Building.‖

Truman, P. E., and King, D. (2015). Assessment of problems associated with poor project
management performance. Long International Inc.
Tsai, J.-S., and Chi, C. S. F. (2009). ―Influences of Chinese cultural orientations and
conflict management styles on construction dispute resolving strategies.‖ Journal of
224
Verma, V. K. (1998). Conflict management. The Project Management Institute Project
Management Handbook, Ed Jeffrey Pinto.
Voetsch, R. J., Cioffi, D. F., and Anbari, F. T. (2004). ―Project Risk Management
Practices.‖ In IRNOP VI Conference. Turku, Finland.
Walker, A. M., and Selfe, J. (1996). ―The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied
health researcher.‖ British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 3(12), 677–681.
Walton, R. E., and Dutton, J. M. (1969). ―The management of interdepartmental conflict :

a model and review.‖ Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 73–84.
Wang, Y. (2000). ―Coordination issues in Chinese large building projects.‖ Journal of

Management in Engineering, 16(6), 54–61.
Weaver, W.T. (1971). ―The Delphi forecasting method.‖ Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappan, 52 (5), 267-273.
Wells W.C. (1998). ―From the editor.‖ Project management journal, 29(4), 4-6.
Westerveld, E. (2003). ―The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical
success factors.‖ International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411–418.
Williams, J. S., and Child, D. (2003). ―The essentials of factor analysis.‖ Contemporary
Sociology, 8.
Wirick, D. W. (2009). Public-sector project management: Meeting the challenges and

achieving results. New York, NY John Wiley and Sons. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wong, P. S. P., and Cheung, S. O. (2005). ―Structural equation model of trust and
partnering success.‖ Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(2), 70–80.
World Bank. (2008). Strategies for sustained growth and inclusive development.
Commission on growth and development, 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC
20433.
Woudenberg, F. (1991). ―An evaluation of Delphi.‖ Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 40(2), 131–150.
Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Drew, D. S., and Ho, M. (2010). ―Critical success factors for
stakeholder management: Construction practitioners‘ perspectives.‖ Journal of
Yang, J.-B., and Ou, S.-F. (2008). ―Using structural equation modeling to analyze
relationships among key causes of delay in construction.‖ Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 35(4), 321–328.
Yoosof, F. (2016). Disputes rife between clients and main contractors, 1–3.
225
Zakuan, N., Muniandy, S., Saman, M. Z. M., Ariff, M. S. M., Sulaiman, S., and Jalil., R.
A. (2012). ―Critical success factors of total quality management implementation in
higher education institution : A review.‖ International Journal of Academic Research
in Business and Social Sciences, 2(12), 19–32.
Zerihun, A. W., Haile, K., and James, W. (2015). African Economic Outlook: Ethiopia.
Zwikael, O., and Globerson, S. (2004). ―Evaluating the quality of project planning: a
model and field results.‖ International Journal of Production Research, 42(8), 1545–
1556.
226
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE PART ONE
227
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry is dynamic in nature due to the increasing uncertainties in
technology, budgets, and development processes. Nowadays, construction projects are
becoming much more complex and difficult. The project team is facing unprecedented
changes. A project is completed as a result of combination of many events and
interactions, planned or unplanned, over the lifetime for a facility, with changing
participants and processes in a constantly changing environment. The study of project
success/ failure and the critical success/failure factors (CSFs/CFFs) are considered to be a
means to improve the effectiveness of project. Various attempts were made by different
researchers to determine CSFs and CFFs in construction. Not much systematic studies
have been carried out to understand the factors influencing success/failure of public
project. A number of variables influencing project success/failure have been proposed. It
is our endeavor to study this aspect of management to help the public construction
organizations to achieve project success, which has so far been the personal experience of
the project manager.
For our study we prepared a questionnaire to understand various issues related to project
success/failure. We recognize that you being a professional having vast experience in the
field, you response to the questionnaire will be a great contribution to our study. To save
your response time, multiple responses are already given for most of the questions in the
form of scales followed by legend to the scales. You are just required to put tick () in the
appropriate box for your response.
We assure the confidentiality of all responses and your responses will be used only for
academic purpose. We are grateful to you for sparing your valuable time.
Thanking you in advance. For any doubt/ clarification, please contact

Ephrem Girma,
Mob. O910571995
E-mail ephremg41@gmail.com
P.O. Box 2994, Nazareth, Ethiopia
228
Following definition may be used:
Owner: An owner could include a government, a local authority, a utility and any
organization, whether public or private sector, on behalf of which the engineer/
project manager is executing the project.
Engineer/ Project Manager (PM): An engineer/ project manager means the
person appointed by the owner / Employer to act as engineer for the purposes of
the contract and carry out duties specified in the contract.
Design complexity: Projects are considered design complex if they have
complicated design.
Technological advancement: Projects are considered technologically advanced
if they use new or emerging design and construction process.
About yourself
Name (Optional) ________________ Organization:_________________________
Educational qualification: _______________________________
Designation in the organization:_____________________________________________
Contact no. (Optional)______________ E-mail (Optional):______________________
About Your Experience:
Length of your total experience (years):________________
1. Project details
Kindly furnish the details of two projects of your choice. One of which in your view was
successful and the other a failure.
Project data Project 1 Project 2 (Failure)

(Successful)
Name of the project and location
Gross floor area (Sq. meter) or length
of the project in Km in case of road/
railway
Prequalification/Shortlisting done for
this project ( please write yes or no)
Bid selection and selection criteria Price only Price only
(please tick  on one only) Technical capability Technical capability
only only
Combination of Combination of
price and technical price and technical
capability capability
Estimated cost of project (in Birr) Original cost- Original cost -
229
Revised cost- Revised cost –
Project cost (Birr) Original - Original -
Revised - Revised -
Final (Achieved) - Final (Achieved) -
Project duration (in months) Original - Original -
Revised - Revised -
Final (Achieved) - Final (Achieved) -
Contract type (please tick on one 1. Turnkey. 1. Turnkey.
only) 2. Lump sum. 2. Lump sum.
3. Item Rate. 3. Item Rate.
4. Cost Plus. 4. Cost Plus.
Contract provision (please tick on one 1. Contract include 1. Contract include
only) Design (DB). Design (DB).
2. Contract does not 2. Contract does not
include Design include Design
(DBB). (DBB).
Design completion when bids are 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
invited (by Engineer) (please tick on 1= 0%, 2=Up to 1= 0%, 2=Up to
one only) 10%, 3= 11to 25%, 10%, 3= 11to 25%,
4= 26 to 49%, 5= > 4= 26 to 49%, 5=
50%. > 50%.
Level of technological advancement Not complex. Not complex.
(please tick on one only) Complex. Complex.
Highly complex. Highly complex.
Your involvement was mostly as 1. Contractor 1. Contractor.
(please tick on one only) 2. Consultant 2. Consultant.
3. Engineer/ Project 3. Engineer/ Project
Manager Manager.
4. Owner 4. Owner.
How do you rate the time performance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
of this project on a scale of 1 to 1=Behind schedule 1=Behind schedule
5(please tick √ on one only) by >10%, 2=Behind by >10%, 2=Behind
schedule by < 10%, schedule by < 10%,
3=On schedule, 4= 3=On schedule, 4=
Ahead schedule by Ahead schedule by
< 10%, 5=Ahead < 10%, 5=Ahead
schedule by >10%. schedule by >10%.
How do you rate the cost performance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
of this project on a scale of 1 to 1=Over budget by 1=Over budget by
5(please tick √ on one only) >10%, 2= Over >10%, 2= Over
budget by <10%, 3= budget by <10%,
On budget, 4=Under 3= On budget,
budget by <10%, 5= 4=Under budget by
Under budget by <10%, 5= Under
>10%. budget by >10%.
230
How do you rate the quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
performance of this project on a scale 1=Very low, 1= Very low,
of 1 to 5 (please tick √ on one only) 2=Low, 3=Fair, 2=Low, 3=Fair,
4=High, 5= Very 4=High, 5= Very
high. high.
How was the performance of this 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
project on safety account on a scale of 1
to 5(please tick √ on one only) 1=Very low (major 1=Very low (major
accident), 2=Low, accident), 2=Low,
3= Fair, 4= High, 5= 3= Fair, 4= High,
Very high (no 5= Very high (no
accident). accident).
What was the performance of this 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
project on No-dispute account (please 1=Very low(large 1=Very low (large
tick √ on one only) disputes),2=Low, 3= disputes), 2=Low,
Fair, 4= High , 5= 3= Fair, 4= High,
Very high (no 5= Very high (no
dispute) dispute).
How do you rate the compliance of this 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
project on anti-corruption norms on a
1=Very low, 1=Very low,
scale of 1 to 5 (please tick √ on one
2=Low, 3=Fair, 2=Low, 3=Fair,
only).
high. high.
How do you rate the compliance of this 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
project on audit norms on a scale of 1 to 1=Very low, 1=Very low,
5 (please tick √ on one only). 2=Low, 3= Fair,4= 2=Low,3= Fair, 4=
High , 5= Very high. High, 5= Very high.
How do you rate Overall performance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
of this project
1=Very low, 1=Very low,
(please tick √ on one only)
2=Low, 3=Fair, 2=Low, 3=Fair,
high. high.
2. Listed below are some of the attribute responsible for advantage /hindrances to
project success. Please indicate the effects of these attributes on various project
success evaluation criteria given alongside the attributes.
231
Legend:
Adversely Adversely Adversely Adversely Adversely
1
delay affect affect increase affect
Significantly Significantly Significantly Significantly Significantly
2
Marginally Marginally Marginally Marginally Marginally
3
4 No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect
Helps Helps in Helps in Helps in Helps in
5 speeding up saving improving decreasing improving
progress
Effects on Effects on
Effects on Effects on Effects on
S. Project Success Completio Overall
Project Project Project
No. Attributes n Schedule performanc
cost Quality Dispute
e
Availability of
resources (fund,
machinery, materials
1. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
etc.)as planned
throughout the
project
Regular quality
2. control and quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
assurance activities
Adequate
communication
3. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
among all project
participants
Regular monitoring
4. and feedback by 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
owner
Clearly articulated
5. scope and nature of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
work in the tender
Compliance with rules
6. and regulations of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
anti-corruption
Adequate design and
7. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
drawings.
Regular monitoring
8. and feedback by top 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
management
Top management
9. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
support
Regular schedule and
10. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
budget updates.
232
Regular design and
11. construction control 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
meetings.
Project Manager’s
12. with similar project 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
experience.
Coordinating ability
and rapport of PM
13. with his team 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
members and sub-
contractors.
Understanding
responsibilities by
14. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
various project
participants.
Thorough pre-
15. qualification for 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
potential bidders.
Adequate plans and
16. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
specifications.
Thorough
17. understanding of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
scope of work by PM.
Owners need
thoroughly
18. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
understood and
defined
Utilization up- to-date
19. technology by 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
contractor
No major changes in
20. the scope of work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
during construction.
Conflict among team
21. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
members
Conflict between PM
22. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
and sub-contractor.
Conflicts between PM
23. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
and top management.
Unfavorable climatic
24. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
condition at the site
Holding key decisions
25. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
in abeyance
Hostile social and
26. economic 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
environment.
27. Ignorance of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
233
appropriate planning
tools and techniques
by PM.
Inadequate project
28. formulation in the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
beginning.
Lack of understanding
29. of operating 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
procedure by the PM.
Poor human resource
30. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
management
Reluctance in timely
31. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
decision by PM.
Reluctance in timely
32. decision by top 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
management.
Size and value of the
33. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
project being large
Tendency to pass on
34. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
the blame to others.
Uniqueness of the
project activities
35. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
requiring high
technical know-how
3. Is there anything else you would like to suggest us, which might help in our
study?
Thank you once again for your valuable contribution.
234
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE PART TWO
235
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016
Dear Participant,
Success has always been the ultimate goal of every activity, and a construction project is
no exception. Due to the ambiguous definition of project success and the different
perceptions of participants toward this concept, it may be difficult to tell whether a
project is successful as there is a lack of consensus. Time, cost, and quality have long
been the success criteria used to evaluate the performance of a construction project.
However, such a list has been criticized as not being comprehensive. Even studies of the
project success of a particular construction methods, such as the design/build and
design/bid/ build procurement system, are lacking in most previous research considering
construction projects in general. Further, not much systematic studies have been carried
out to understand the success criteria required at different phases (i.e. pre-construction,
construction and post- construction) of public construction projects. It is our endeavor to
study this aspect of management to help the public construction organizations to achieve
project success.
For our study we prepared a questionnaire to establish criteria for success of public
construction projects. You have been selected as a member of a panel of experts to
participate in a two round questionnaire on criteria for project success of a design/build
and design/bid/ build projects in public construction project.
We recognize that you being a professional having vast experience in the field, your
response to the questionnaire will be a great contribution to our study. To save your
response time, multiple responses are already given for the questions in the form of scales
followed by legend to the scales. You are just required to put tick () in the appropriate
box for your response.
We assure the confidentiality of all responses and your responses will be used only for
academic purpose. We are grateful to you for sparing your valuable time. Kindly send
back the response at following address:
Thanking you in advance. For any doubt/ clarification, please contact
Ephrem Girma,
Mob. O910571995
E-mail ephremg41@gmail.com
P.O. Box 2994, Nazareth, Ethiopia
236
Purpose
The purpose of this survey is to obtain the expert opinion on most important success
criteria that will enhance the performance of DB and DBB project in public construction
project.
Instruction
(Please review these instruction to understand the purpose of this survey and to be able to
answer the questions). This survey divided in two rounds:
First round: the participants required to review the list of success criteria and rank their
importance.
Second round: the participants required to confirm their ranking of the success criteria
based on other experts‘ opinion.
About yourself
Name (Optional) _________________ Organization:__________________________
Educational qualification: _______________________________
Designation in the organization:______________________________________________
Contact no. (Optional)______________ E-mail (Optional):______________________
About your experience:

Length of your total experience (years):________________
4. Listed below are criteria for project success for a design/build and design/bid/ build
projects in public construction project. Please rate these criteria for different phases
(i.e. pre-construction, construction and post- construction) of public construction
projects by marking tick () on one only for each construction phase, given alongside
the criteria. If you had no idea about the question you can mention ―Don‘t know‖
against the question.
We have assumed that:
 Preconstruction phase is the period before the actual construction work is
begun.
 Construction phase is the period in which the actual construction work
(project operations) started and goes until project closeout and termination is
made.
 Post-construction phase is the period after project closeout and termination
has been made.
237
(Following legend may be used)
1 Unimportant.
2 Of Little Importance.
3 Moderately Important.
4 Important.
5 Very Important.
Success Criteria Phases Level of Importance

Pre- Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Time Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Post- Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Cost Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Quality Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Health & Safety Construction 1 2 3 4 5
No-dispute Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Technical Pre- Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Performance Construction 1 2 3 4 5
(compliance with
scope of work, etc.) Post- Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Compliance with
Construction 1 2 3 4 5
rules and regulation
Satisfaction of key
project participants
Social responsibility Construction 1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction of end -
users and outsiders
Environmental
sustainability
238
5. Do you feel any other criteria which is important and not presented in the previous
list please, suggest us.
Thank you once again for your valuable contribution.
239
APPENDIX C: BIO-DATA AND LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BASED ON
THE THESIS
240
BIO-DATA AND LIST OF PUBLICATIONS BASED ON THE THESIS
Ephrem Girma Sinesilassie (the author) is lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of
Arba Minch University (Arba Minch). He has field experience of 3 years and teaching
experience of 15 years. He obtained his Bachelor‘s degree in Construction Technology
from Adama Science and Technology University (ASTU) in 2000. He completed his
Master‘s degree in Construction Management from Adama Science and Technology
University (ASTU)in 2010. His area of specialization is ―Construction project
management‖. Following is the list of the publications based on this research work:
Peer Reviewed International Journals
1. Sinesilassie, E.G., Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N., 2016. Critical factors affecting
schedule performance: A case of Ethiopian public construction projects -
Engineers‘ perspective. Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, Emerald (Accepted).
cost performance: A case of public construction projects in Ethiopia.
International Journal of Construction Management, Taylor and Francis
(Published).
no-dispute performance: A case of Ethiopian public construction projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Project Management, KICEM (Accepted).
quality performance: A case of Ethiopian public construction projects. Journal of
241
Construction in Developing Countries, Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia (under
review).
5. Sinesilassie, E.G., Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N., 2016. An empirical study of
success criteria for measuring success in different phases of public projects in
Ethiopia. Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Springer (under review).
6. Sinesilassie, E.G., Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N., 2016. Modelling Success Factors
for Public Construction Projects with the SEM Approach: Engineer's Perspective.
Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE (under review).
7. Sinesilassie, E.G., Hareru, W.K., Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N., 2016. Causes of
construction delays in public building construction projects in Ethiopia. Journal
of Public Procurement, PrAcademics Press (under review).
Peer Reviewed International Conference Proceeding
8. Sinesilassie, E.G., Hareru, W.K., Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N., 2016. Delays in
public building construction projects in Ethiopia. Proc., the 7th International
Public Procurement Conference, Bali (3rd- 5th Aug. 2016).
242

Girma Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Girma Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF PUBLIC

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN ETHIOPIA

EPHREM GIRMA SINESILASSIE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

EPHREM GIRMA SINESILASSIE

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

Construction Projects in Ethiopia”, being submitted by Ephrem Girma Sinesilassie to

standard, fulfilling the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

Dr. K.N. JHA Dr.S.Z.S. TABISH.

opportunity and granting me the capability to proceed successfully.

Amen.‖ (Romans 11:36 KJV).

motivation, inspiration, critical comments, encouragement and advice he has provided

so promptly. I am extremely indebted to him for accepting me as a student of Ph.D. under

thesis. Besides my supervisors, I would like to thank members of student research

and guidance during the course of my Ph.D.

Urban Development Bureau (TIUDB), Addis Ababa Housing Construction Project

(AAHCP), Ethiopian Water Works Construction Enterprise (EWWCE), Ethiopian

Railways Corporation (ERC), Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPC), Oromia

Water Works Construction Enterprise (OWWCE), Ministry of Urban Development and

for this research.

admission to enable me to undertake the present research. I am especially thankful to all

help and guidance whenever I needed.

excellent accommodation and hospitality in their home during data collection.

are answered and dreams are fulfilled. Praise be to God.

to her and to my parents that I dedicate this work.

Ephrem Girma Sinesilassie.

factors on public project performances is considered to be a means of improving their

efficiencies and effectiveness.

on a detailed literature review, and presented to construction professionals in public

construction projects in Ethiopia in the form of a structured questionnaire. The responses

manager's competence, owner's competence, management support and updates, scope

manager‘s competence, interaction among project participants, scope clarity, monitoring

and feedback, owner's competence, understanding responsibilities, pre-qualification, and

project manager‘s competence, owner‘s competence, and interaction among project

availability of resources and pre-qualification, project manager's competence, top

management support, owner's competence, interaction among project participants,

construction meetings, and schedule and budget updates.

performance: project manager's ignorance and lack of knowledge, indecisiveness of

and lack of knowledge, indecisiveness of project participants, unfavourable socio-

project participants, project specific factors, indecisiveness of project participants, project

indecisiveness of project participants, project specific factors, project manager‘s

among project participants, indecisiveness of project participants, project manager's

regression analysis for overall performance, schedule performance, cost performance,

quality performance, and no-dispute performance. Accordingly, the most important

success factor for overall performance is found to be ‗scope clarity‘. ‗Owner‘s

regression analysis for overall performance, schedule performance, cost performance,

overall performance is found to be ‗project manager‘s ignorance and lack of knowledge'.

results would be helpful to public construction project professionals in enabling them to

construction phase. In the post-construction phase satisfaction of end-users and outsiders,

environmental sustainability, and satisfaction of key project participants are found to be

success criteria depends on the different phases of a construction project. Validation of

improvement of public construction project performance.

multiple regression analysis, structural equation modeling.

TITLE PAGE NO.

Figure No. Title Page No.

Table No. Title Page No.

AAHCP Addis Ababa Housing Construction Project

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

AVE Average Variance Extracted

BSc Bachelor of Science

CCECC China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis