Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Critical success criteria for mass house building projects

in developing countries
D.K. Ahadzie *, D.G. Proverbs, P.O. Olomolaiye
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, United Kingdom

Received 18 May 2007; received in revised form 30 July 2007; accepted 4 September 2007

Abstract

Project success is a complex and often illusory construct. Nonetheless, it is crucially contingent towards enabling appropriate and
effective allocation of resources in project management practice. Mass house building projects (MHBPs) represent one of the largest
and most established project-based sectors of the construction industry in most developing economies. Above all, the management skills
required on these projects differ significantly from the one-off projects often encountered in the construction industry. While some success
criteria may be common across project types, there is no denying the fact that some determinants of success are likely to be unique to
projects of specific characteristics. This research sets out to address what constitutes the determinants of success in MHBPs. A question-
naire survey is used to establish property developers’ perception of critical success criteria in MHBPs in Ghana. Data analysis (involving
one-sample t-test) reveals some interesting findings in regard to how property developers perceive the importance of the project success
criteria. Factors analysis reveals four underlying clusters named in order of their significance as environmental-impact, customer satisfac-
tion, quality and cost and time. This systematic approach towards understanding the taxonomy of the success dimension in MHBPs is
important for re-enforcing effective project management practices in this significant sector of the construction industry.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mass house building projects (MHBPs); Ghana; Repetitive management techniques; Success criteria and factor analysis

1. Introduction and ‘‘project success’’ [6,7]. Equally contentious is the ques-

There is a great need in the construction industry for
identifying key success criteria so that construction execu-
tives and project managers can appropriately plan resource
allocation [1]. However, the concept of project success
remains somewhat of an enigma [2]. Despite several stud-
ies, researchers are yet to come to agreement on what
should be the critical success criteria on construction
projects [3,4]. Apart from ambiguities in identifying the
appropriate criteria, there is also disagreement over defini-
tions [5]. There are also contrasting views as to the differ-
ence between the terms ‘‘project management success’’
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01902 323581; fax: +44 01902
322743.
E-mail address: divinedka10@yahoo.com (D.K. Ahadzie).
tion of who should determine the success criteria [8].
A critical concern about these ambiguities is that, until
there is some consensus on the determinants of success, it
will be very difficult to accurately monitor and anticipate
project outcomes effectively [2,6]. Identification of the
appropriate criteria is thus of interest to project based
organisations so that they can have an ongoing framework
to help track key project results [2,6,9]. Moreover, knowl-
edge of the key success criteria is important for enabling
the appropriate allocation of resources [10].
Mass house building projects (MHBPs) represent one of
the largest project-based sectors of the construction indus-
try in most developing economies. Typically, these projects
constitute the single largest contributor to construction
GDP, accounting for up to about 60% of all building pro-
jects [11]. Thus, in most developing economies, MHBPs are
of significant value towards advancing project management

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.006
676 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687
knowledge and practices in the determinants of project suc-
cess. Interestingly researchers have not attempted to sys-
tematically address the issues of what constitutes project
success in the implementation of these projects. This is
against the background that these projects differ signifi-
cantly from the ‘‘one-off’’ projects often encountered in
construction and requires unique management approaches
to, for example, engender the appropriate allocation of
resources. Identification of critical success criteria should
therefore be an important step towards enabling effective
project management in these projects.
As part of an ongoing study to develop a predictive
model for project managers’ (PMs) performance measures
in MHBPs in Ghana [12–14], the results of a questionnaire
survey of property developers perceptions of success criteria
in the implementation of these projects is presented. The
aim being to provide property developers and PMs operat-
ing in developing countries such as Ghana, a much clearer
understanding of ‘‘successful outcomes’’ so that these can
be accurately monitored and anticipated. While the data is
based on Ghana where the ‘‘paradigm’’ underlying housing
delivery may be different, the findings contribute towards
the systematic understanding of success criteria in MHBPs.
A review of some of the related studies on the determi-
nants of success criteria within the construction industry is
first presented. This is followed by a working definition of
MHBPs including a commentary on the unique character-
istics of these projects. Thereafter, a theoretical framework
is presented based on the current view of the determinants
of success criteria in mainstream project management prac-
tice. Subsequently, a success framework for MHBPs is con-
ceptualised towards incorporating the appropriate
variables. The next section then illuminates the research
methods adopted for the study followed by a discussion
of the findings. The final section provides an overview of
the issues discussed in the paper and attempts to draw con-
clusions from the study including recommendations for
further studies.
2. Project success
Generally, there is no consistent interpretation of the
term project success [6]. There is also no standardised def-
inition of the term nor is there an accepted methodology
for measuring it [6]. However, it is recognised that the cri-
teria for project success must be agreed at the commence-
ment of the project to avoid differences amongst project
teams [2,6]. Accordingly, the last decade has witnessed
increasing research towards identifying success criteria
within the construction industry in developing countries
[5,10,15–17]. The key significance of these studies lies in
their systematic contribution towards developing an under-
standing of the overall success model [10]. Nonetheless,
there lacks a systematic understanding of what constitute
success criteria in MHBPs. This is against the background
that, arguably, MHBPs, constitutes one of the largest and
established project-based sectors of the industry [11]. In
addition, MHBPs differ significantly (in terms of produc-
tion and management principles) from many of the one-
off projects often encountered in the wider construction
industry [18,19]. Admittedly, while project success criteria
may be common across some sectors, there is no denying
the fact that there are likely to be unique criteria for
MHBPs.
3. Definition and characteristics of mass house building
projects
The term mass house building projects (MHBPs) is used
in the construction industry to describe mass production
techniques of housing development projects [18]. This def-
inition, which has been used by many other researchers to
date, is derived from the manufacturing sector [19–21].
However the definition fails to explicitly highlight some
of the characteristics found in construction such as the pro-
ject environment; site conditions including topography; the
weather; bulky materials; design considerations [22]. In an
attempt to provide a definition encapsulating the true char-
acteristics of the industry and for the purpose of this study,
MHBPs are defined as ‘‘the design and construction of
speculative standardised house-units usually in the same
location and executed within the same project scheme’’
[14]. Such house-units could include: terrace, multi-storey
or tower blocks, maisonettes, semi-detached, and/or
detached residences or a combination of them. Four main
points are worth noting in regard to the definition of
MHBPs as follows.
 They must be based on one or more standardized
designs in the sense that the architectural design of all
phases should largely be the same for all house-units.
This is necessary to ensure that the concept of repetition
is met.
 They should involve the construction of domestic resi-
dences (whatever their form).
 They must be speculative in the sense that the acquisi-
tion of land, design of house-units and construction
are made without reference to any specific customer in
mind.
 They should potentially be located in the same area and
be part of the same scheme and/or contract conditions.
What is not clear in this definition is the quantity of
house-units involved. Basic experience or learning curve
theory suggests that each time the number of repetition
doubles the cumulative production rate (man-hours per
unit) declines by a consistent fixed percentage of the previ-
ous cumulative production rate [23]. When this theory was
replicated in the construction industry using 45 identical
house-units, it was confirmed that each time the house-
units doubled the cumulated production rate was 90%
[24]. This suggests that a minimum of two house-units is
sufficient to achieve a learning curve effect arising out of
the repetition involved in MHBPs. This not withstanding,
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687
the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa has
suggested that for developing countries to meet their pres-
ent and future housing needs, they should aim at an annual
production rate of 10 house-units per 1000 population [25].
Subsequently in this study the threshold for the minimum
quantity of house-units is fixed at 10 house-units.
MHBPs differ in many ways from the traditional one-off
projects often encountered in the construction industry.
For instance, these projects by their nature must be based
on standardised design; there is the need to identify the
stages in production at which control is to be exerted;
and there is the need for production time between stages
including delivery of house-units [26,27]. Furthermore
because of their unique nature, the setting up of the pro-
duction system involves two associated problems; the mini-
mising of synchronising loss and the maximizing of
resource utilization [26]. Moreover, depending on the
quantity of house-units involved, these projects are often
relatively large-scale and can stretch over a considerable
production area. This coupled with the numerous interre-
lated skills involved makes the management of these pro-
jects inherently more complex and difficult than many
one-off projects [18,19].
Thus, the key to achieving project management success
on MHBPs is for PMs to have the requisite knowledge
and skills that enhances management intuition in repetitive
construction planning [18,19,28,29]. That is, the PM must
be able to take advantage of the repetitive tasks involved
so as to ensure continuity of work and in particular achieve
cost and time savings [18,19,28,29]. Subsequently, PMs are
faced with providing the appropriate management struc-
ture consistent with available resources to support the
economies of large-volume work that help achieve
improved performance levels [30]. To this effect, a clear
understanding of the determinants of project success in
these projects will assist property developers and PMs to
appropriately plan towards effective resource allocation.
4. Theoretical framework
In mainstream project management practice, project
success is traditionally conceptualised and operationalised
based on the iron triangle of time, cost and quality [2].
The conventional practice is that these output-based mea-
sures are only assessed at the end of a project (i.e. at com-
pletion) [4]. The reason why these measures are so popular
is that they are simple to apply and also largely objective,
particularly for time and cost [2,31]. However, in recent
times, there has been an acknowledgement that limiting
the success criteria to these traditional measures excludes
the long-term satisfaction of the relevant stakeholders
[32]. Thus, in recent times, the contemporary ideology is
to view success criteria as both measures of the success of
the production system in terms of time, cost and quality
and the benefit to stakeholders [32].
In view of this, numerous project management research-
ers [2,32–36] have developed alternative project success
677
frameworks. While these various frameworks conceptualise
the success criteria against the traditional measures, they
also include criteria that represent the interests of other
stakeholders. Subsequently, new and emerging criteria such
as health and safety, technology transfer, environmental
friendliness, risk containment, client satisfaction and stake-
holder’s satisfaction have become an accepted part of these
emerging frameworks.
The framework developed by Pinto and Slevin [2] has
been the driver behind a number of studies aimed at iden-
tifying project success criteria [5,32,37]. This framework is
based on the premise that the key factors in the implemen-
tation of successful projects incorporate three criteria: tech-
nical validity, organisational validity and organisational
effectiveness. Technical validity is the first hurdle in identi-
fying success criteria and this is assessed in the context of
whether the project after completion performs as intended
(i.e. an issue of functionality crops in here) [2]. With respect
to organisational validity, an important consideration is
that the project must be ‘‘right’’ or acceptable for the cli-
ents for whom it is intended. Furthermore, an important
condition about organisational effectiveness is that the
PM must be involved in making sure that the ‘‘right’’ pro-
ject is delivered to the client and/or user [2]. Thus, organi-
sational effectiveness is how well the accepted project
makes a positive impact on the user.
A key implication of the three measures of implementa-
tion of success is that success criteria are equally important
both inside and outside the project organisation. Subse-
quently, Pinto and Slevin [2] developed a 12-factor model
based on the key constructs of time, cost, satisfaction,
usage, performance and effectiveness. In doing so the cen-
tral theme was for the success criteria to focus on the needs
of the project and client (and/or user) [see [2]].
5. A project success framework for MHBPs
Drawing on Pinto and Slevin’s [2] project success frame-
work, Fig. 1 presents a proposed success framework for
MHBPs.
Note that in this case the underlying themes have been
identified as: projects and customers. In addition to the
constructs in Pinto and Slevin’s model, other potential suc-
cess criteria (such as health and safety, environmental
friendliness and technology transfer) were incorporated to
broaden the scope of the criteria [4,15]. It is contended that,
in MHBPs, the critical issue is for the PM to take advan-
tage of the repetitive nature of the work involved so as to
ensure cost and time effectiveness through learning and
experience [18,19,28,29]. Alternatively, it is expected that
customers (as the potential users) will expect high quality
work that will make a positive impact on their well-being.
Thus, whereas issues relating to technical and organisa-
tional validity are critical in terms of the project and/or
product, it is expected that organizational effectiveness will
be influenced largely by customer satisfaction, quality and
other subjective measures. Indeed organisational effective-
678 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687

Levels of Validity Key themes Potential Success Criteria

Overall project cost
Cost of individual house-units
Technical Overall project quality
Project Quality of individual house-units
Overall project duration
Rate of delivery of individual house-units
Technology transfer
Overall risk containment
Organisational Risk containment on individual house-units
Overall health and safetymeasures
Overall environmental impact

Environmental impact of individual house-units

Customer Overall
Effectiveness Healt hand safety on individual house-units
Overall Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction on individual house units

Fig. 1. Project success framework for MHBPs based on the idea of Pinto and Sleven [2].

ness is assessed subjectively based on a sense of smoother the information that will enable them to channel the
operations and employee and customer satisfaction [2]. appropriate behaviours towards implementing the rele-
To this end, 15 potential success criteria were identified vant management tools. This viewpoint is supported from
for MHBPs (see Fig. 1). Table 1 presents a definition of a psychological perspective that the behavioural actions of
the various variables identified. managers towards achieving project success is influenced
Granted that no systematic studies have been under- by the degree and expected level of results [39]. Subse-
taken to identify success criteria for MHBPs in developing quently, it is noted that, behaviours that might be associ-
countries, the definition of the 15 success criteria was ated with short term planning where ‘‘detail’’ is very
partly informed by generic definitions noted in the Asso- important may be different from undertaking strategic
ciation of Project Management (APM) body of knowl- planning where ‘‘creativity’’ is rather more important
edge (2000) [38] and, in the notion that, in MHBPs, [39]. Thus, the behaviours and skills underlying effective
PMs have to use their knowledge of repetitive techniques short term planning (e.g. attention to detail) can be
to achieve effective levels of performance [18]. This intui- expected to be different from those contributing to long
tion therefore led to the discrimination between meeting term planning (e.g. creativity). In a similar vain, it is
‘‘overall success criteria’’ (i.e. success in the larger project anticipated that if PMs were aware of the critical success
context) and ‘‘success criteria on individual house-units.’’ dimensions, appropriate resources could be allocated
The contention being that, this would provide PMs with towards fulfilling these.
Table 1
Definition of potential success criteria
Variable Variable name Definition
CSF1 Overall project cost Final out-turn cost for overall project including infrastructure such as road networks and street
lighting
CSF2 Cost of individual house-units Final out-turn cost for individual house-units.
CSF3 Overall project duration Time taken to complete entire project including provision of infrastructure such as road works and
street lighting
CSF4 Rate of delivery of individual Time taken to deliver individual house-units
house-units
CSF5 Overall project quality Quality of entire project including associated infrastructure as seen by customers and the public
CSF6 Quality of individual house-units Quality of individual house-units as seen by the customer or user
CSF7 Overall customer satisfaction Satisfaction of customers with overall project outcomes including infrastructure provision
CSF8 Customer satisfaction on Satisfaction of customers with individual house-units
individual house-units
CSF9 Overall risk containment The extent to which all kinds of risk were contained or minimised
CSF10 Risk containment on individual Ditto in relation to individual house-units
house-units
CSF11 Overall environmental impact Impact of construction waste, environmental degradation and pollution on the general public
CSF12 Environmental impact of Impact of living environment waste such rubbish, sewage, drainage
individual house-units
CSF13 Overall health and safety measures Number of accidents and the extent to which employees use appropriate safety gear and equipment
CSF14 Health safety measures with Health and safety in terms of health hazard posed by the living environment, poor materials poor
individual house-units construction practices
CSF15 Technology transfer The extent to which new technology significantly improves the design and construction of a living
space by decreasing installed cost, increasing installed performance and improving the construction
process is applied on the project
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687 679

6. Research methodology of each attribute was tabulated to help provide a clearer

picture of the consensus reached by the respondents. A
Struckenbach [8] argued that one of contestable issues in summary of the test results is shown in Tables 2–4. The
determining project success is who determines the criteria. mean for each attribute including the associated standard
However, Pickett [40] has also noted that the ‘‘current deviation and standard error is reported in Table 2. For
and future success of an enterprise is a reflection of the effec- each attribute, the null hypothesis was that the attribute
tiveness of the senior team, their vision and leadership, and was unimportant (H0:U = U0) and the alternative hypoth-
combined knowledge and skills of the organisations work- esis was that the attribute was important (Ha:U > U0),
force.’’ This suggests that the identification of success crite- where U0 is the population mean (U0 was fixed at 3.5,
ria that will enable an organisation to meet the demands of drawing from Ling, 2002) [41]. The significance level was
the future can be assumed to be the key responsibilities of set at 95% in accordance with conventional risk levels
senior managers such as senior business executives or man- (see for instance Colen, 1992 cited in Ling, 2002) [42].
aging directors. Subsequently, in this context, managing Thus, based on the five-point Likert rating scale, a success
directors of house building companies in Ghana were cho- criterion was deemed critical or important if it had a mean
sen as the unit of analysis as they are responsible for deci- of 3.5 or more. Where two or more criteria have the same
sion making regarding corporate and project objectives. As mean, the one with the lowest standard deviation was
major stakeholders in the property industry in the Ghana- assigned the highest importance ranking [42,43].
ian construction industry, the perceptions of these senior According to Field [43], the standard error is the stan-
managers should help other interested stakeholders such dard deviation of sample means and it is a measure of
as PMs to have a clearer understanding of what constitutes how representative a sample is likely to be to the popula-
project success. The targeted respondents for this study tion. A large standard error (relative to the sample mean)
(hereafter called property developers) were drawn (using suggests that there is a lot of variability between means
random sampling techniques) from the registered list of of different samples. A small standard error suggests that
members of the Ghana Real Estate Developers Association most sample means are similar to the population mean
(GREDA). The GREDA is the umbrella body of house- and so the sample is likely to be an accurate reflection of
building companies in the Ghanaian construction industry. the population [43]. The standard error associated with
Following a pilot survey in April/May 2006 [41], 153 all the means was relatively close to zero suggesting that
structured questionnaires were administered to the prop- the sample chosen is an accurate reflection of the popula-
erty developers to elicit their perceived importance of the tion (Table 2). Furthermore, the fact that the standard
15 success criteria adopted for this study. Respondents deviations are all less than 1.0 indicates that there is little
were invited to indicate the degree of importance of each variability in the data and consistency in agreement among
of the success criteria based on a five-point Likert rating the respondents [43].
scale (very important = 5, important = 4, neutral = 3, However it is important to draw attention to the vari-
unimportant = 2 and not very important = 1). Fifty-seven able technology transfer, which had a standard deviation
completed questionnaires were received representing a
37% response rate.
The demographic background of the respondents indi- Table 2
Results of t-test showing one-sample statistics
cated that they were all active members of the GREDA,
had a minimum of five years experience in the implementa- N Mean Std. Std. error
deviation mean
tion of MHBPs in Ghana, and were active in business.
Technology transfer 57 3.571 1.015 .135
Health and safety on individual house- 57 4.035 .981 .129
7. Data analysis
units
Overall health and safety measures 57 4.035 .925 .123
Two statistical analyses were undertaken, namely one Environmental impact of individual 57 3.849 .953 .126
sample t-test and factor analysis. The one-sample t-test house-units
was used to establish the relative importance of the vari- Overall environmental impact 57 4.010 .955 .126
Risk containment on individual house- 57 3.638 .893 .118
ables whilst factor analysis was used in establishing which
units
of the variables could be measuring the same underlying Overall risk containment 57 3.766 .885 .117
effect. The procedure, findings and relevant discussion Customer/client satisfaction on 57 4.393 .794 .105
follows. individual house-units
Overall customer/client satisfaction 57 4.393 .771 .102
Quality of individual house-units 57 4.500 .681 .090
7.1. One sample t-test for ranking of success criteria in
Overall project quality 57 4.607 .556 .073
MHBPs Rate of delivery of individual house- 57 4.071 .820 .108
units
A one sample t-test was carried out to determine Overall project duration 57 4.178 .804 .106
whether the population considered a specific attribute to Cost of individual house-units 57 4.571 .622 .082
Overall project costs 57 4.754 .688 .091
be important or otherwise. Furthermore, the mean ranking
680 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687

Table 3
One-sample test
Test value = 3.5
T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean difference 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Technology transfer .535 56 .595 .0719 .1974 .3413
Health and safety on individual house-units 4.117 56 .000 .5351 .2747 .7955
Overall health and safety measures 4.367 56 .000 .5351 .2896 .7806
Environmental impact of individual house-units 2.765 56 .008 .3491 .0962 .6021
Overall environmental impact 4.033 56 .000 .5105 .2569 .7641
Risk containment on individual house-units 1.171 56 .247 .1386 .0986 .3757
Overall risk containment 2.273 56 .027 .2667 .0316 .5017
Customer/client satisfaction on individual house-units 8.485 56 .000 .8930 .6821 1.1038
Overall customer/client satisfaction 8.735 56 .000 .8930 .6882 1.0978
Quality of individual house-units 11.080 56 .000 1.0000 .8192 1.1808
Overall project quality 15.012 56 .000 1.1070 .9593 1.2547
Rate of delivery of individual house-units 5.262 56 .000 .5719 .3542 .7897
Overall project duration 6.374 56 .000 .6789 .4656 .8923
Cost of individual house-units 12.996 56 .000 1.0719 .9067 1.2372
Overall project costs 13.751 56 .000 1.2544 1.0716 1.4371

Table 4 The summary shows that overall project cost emerged

Summary of t-test showing rankings as the most important criteria whilst technology transfer
Mean Std. Ranking Sig. emerged as the least important. Generally the findings lar-
deviation (1-tailed) gely concur with the conventional wisdom of perceiving
Overall project costs (CSF1) 4.7544 .68870 1 .00025 project success in terms of cost, time and quality. How-
Overall project quality (CSF2) 4.6070 .55673 2 .00025 ever, it is interesting to note that, whilst overall project
Cost of individual house-units 4.5719 .62271 3 .00025
quality was ranked 2nd behind overall project cost, the cri-
(CSF3)
Quality of individual house-units 4.500 .68139 4 .00025 terion, overall project duration was ranked 7th. In Ghana
(CSF4) and for that matter many other developing countries,
Overall customer/client satisfaction 4.3930 .77179 5 .00025 whilst the demand for increased housing supply exists,
(CSF5) completed house-units take some time to be sold due to
Customer/client satisfaction on 4.3930 .79459 6 .00025
the relatively low income of most new homebuyers. Sub-
individual house-units (CSF6)
Overall project duration (CSF7) 4.1789 .80417 7 .00025 sequently, property developers are not particularly keen
Rate of delivery of individual 4.0719 .82066 8 .00025 on delivering projects on time unless there are willing buy-
house-units (CSF8) ers (i.e. if prospective buyers can readily be identified).
Overall health and safety measures 4.0351 .92514 9 .00025 Otherwise, it appears the practice is for the property
(CSF9)
developers to build at their own pace hoping that willing
Health and safety on individual 4.0351 .98134 10 .00025
house-units (CSF10) buyers will emerge. However, as soon as a buyer shows
Overall environmental impact 4.0105 .95575 11 .00025 keen interest, then the necessary steps would be taken
(CSF11) to speed delivery to meet the buyers’ specific circum-
Environmental impact of 3.8491 .95340 12 .004 stances. Indeed, rate of delivery of individual house-units
individual house-units (CSF12)
was also ranked 8th behind overall project duration sug-
Overall risk containment (13) 3.7667 .88587 13 .014
Risk containment on individual 3.6386 .89378 14 .124 gesting that though time is an important criteria, it is
house-units (CSF14) not an issue that property developers are particularly con-
Technology transfer (CSF15) 3.5719 1.01520 15 .298 cerned about.
Table 4 further reveals that, some of the recently
acknowledged new and emerging criteria are now also
slightly more than one (1.02) suggesting that there might be perceived to be important by property developers. That
differences to how this variable was interpreted by the is, success can also be defined in terms of health and
respondents. Further discussion on the t-test below pro- safety (p = 0.00025), overall environmental impact (p =
vides plausible explanation for this. 0.00025), overall risk containment (p = 0.014) and overall
The significance (i.e. p-value) of each attribute is dis- client satisfaction (Table 4, p = 0.00025 in all cases). Note
played in Table 3. The p-value is for a two-tailed test, how- however that while technology transfer is generally
ever as shown per the test hypothesis, what is of interest believed to have the potential for improving overall per-
here is one-tailed test (i.e. U > U0). Subsequently the formance outcome [29], in the Ghanaian context prop-
‘‘sig.’’ value in Table 3 has been divided by two and the erty developers do not consider it as important as
summary listed in Table 4. some other criteria.
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687 681

Another point worth noting is that whilst overall risk Table 5

containment emerged significant with a ranking of 14th, Communalities
risk containment on individual house-units emerged non-sig- Initial Extraction
nificant (p = .124). In many developing countries such as Technology transfer 1.000 .578
Ghana, one of the major risks associated with MHBPs Health and safety on individual house-units 1.000 .774
relates to access to credit. Furthermore, where credit is Overall health and safety measures 1.000 .812
Environmental impact of individual house-units 1.000 .876
available it is at an interest rate of sometimes up to 32% Overall environmental impact 1.000 .872
per annum [44]. Moreover, the business cycle in the coun- Risk containment on individual house-units 1.000 .643
try including inflation is constantly changing [45]. Thus Overall risk containment 1.000 .726
property developers might therefore be concerned about Customer/client satisfaction on individual house- 1.000 .773
‘‘creative’’ ways to contain the associated risk that comes units
Overall customer/client satisfaction 1.000 .662
with gaining credit rather that spending too much time Quality of individual house-units 1.000 .785
on risk associated with specific issues relating to individual Overall project quality 1.000 .632
house-units. Thus, knowledge of risk management can help Rate of delivery of individual house-units 1.000 .578
in appropriate allocation of resources in this respect. Overall project duration 1.000 .742
It is understandable that the criteria cost, time and qual- Cost of individual house-units 1.000 .692
Overall project costs 1.000 .777
ity are perceived as highly important by property develop-
ers as these traditional measures constitute the foundation Extraction method: principal component analysis.
of project success. However, in many developing countries
the concept of viewing customer satisfaction, environmental
Table 6
friendliness, health and safety and risk containment as poten- KMO and Bartlett’s test
tial success criteria have for a considerable length of time
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling .758
been taking for granted [46]. This is because of the rela- adequacy
tively weak technological, socio-economic and structural Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. 531.149
conditions prevailing, which do not readily provide the v2
enabling environment for these criteria (particularly, those Df 105
related to environmental and health and safety) to be appre- Sig. .000
ciated. It is therefore encouraging to note that despite the
lack of adequate ‘‘structures’’ the climate is changing with value of 0.75 (Table 6); the Bartlett test of sphericity was
respect to the perception of developers. Hitherto, the hous- also significant suggesting that the population matrix was
ing industry in many developing countries was Govern- not an identity matrix (Table 7). Thus, the necessary tests
ment controlled in the sense that, Government was in respect of the adequacy of the sample size were favour-
responsible for the direct supply of houses. However, in able for the factor analysis to proceed. Cronbach’s alpha of
recent times, private property developers have now 0.8966 suggested the reliability of the research instrument
emerged as the main stakeholders driving the sector for- used was also good.
ward [47]. This has created a competitive environment in The data was subjected to principal component analysis
which developers must plan appropriately to meet the chal- (with varimax rotation). The eigenvalue and factor loading
lenges ahead. It is therefore not surprising that customer were set at conventional high values of 1.0 and 0.5, respec-
satisfaction is now receiving prominence. tively [4]. As shown in Table 8, four components with
Generally these findings suggest that the housing climate eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted using the factor
in developing countries is becoming more competitive and loading of 0.50 as the cut-off point (see also scree plot in
PMs would now have to contend with satisfying broader Fig. 2). The relatively high values of the loading factor
measures of success criteria on these projects. Thus, PMs (0.6 for more than four variables) lend support to the
have to strive towards applying themselves appropriately favourability of the sample size for the analysis. The total
to meeting the challenges in the future. variance (see Table 9) explained by each component
extracted is as follows; component 1 (42.401%), component
8. Factor analysis 2 (11.233), component 3 (9.530), component 4 (9.115).
Thus, the final statistics of the principal component analy-
Factor analysis was employed to establish which of the sis and the components extracted accounted for approxi-
variables could be measuring aspects of the same underly- mately 73% of the total cumulative variance.
ing dimensions. Factor analysis is useful for identifying Based on an examination of the inherent relationships
clusters of related variables and thus ideal for reducing a among the variables under each component, the following
large number of variables into a more easily understood interpretation was made; component 1 was termed environ-
framework [48,49]. Tables 5–9 and Fig. 2 present the mental impact; component 2 customer satisfaction; compo-
results. Average communality of the variables after extrac- nent 3 quality and component 4 cost and time. These names
tion was above 0.6 (Table 5); the Kaizer–Meyer–Olkin were derived from the components using the variables with
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy achieved a high the highest loading factor.
682 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687

Table 7
Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Factor CSF1 CSF2 CSF3 CSF4 CSF5 CSF6 CSF7 CSF8 CSF9 CSF10 CSF11 CSF12 CSF13 CSF14 CSF15
CSF1 1.000
CSF2 .321 1.000
CSF3 .292 .082 1.000
CSF4 .095 .565. .518 1.000
CSF5 .071 ..401 .289 .475 1.000
CSF6 .029 .147 .137 .363 .651 1.000
CSF7 .435 .375 .082 .117 .282 .162 1.000
CSF8 .190 .235 .095 .209 .397 .304 .549 1.000
CSF9 .126 .409 .200 .312 ..481 .394 .320 .493 1.000
CSF10 .119 .451 .335 .374 .500 .371 .517 .420 .766 1.000
CSF11 .039 .450 .188 .343 .475 .179 .313 .375 .706 .706 1.000
CSF12 .100 .542 .184 .407 .434 .257 .320 .304 .755 .755 .858 1.000
CSF13 .174 .216 .198 .315 .422 .511 .396 .522 .686 .624 .424 .495 1.000
CSF14 .184 .189 .198 .299 .436 .448 .355 .412 .599 .685 .407 .536 .841 1.000
CSF15 .010 .214 .001 .129 .443 .474 .214 .453 .435 .356 .155 .173 .446 .381 1.000
Note: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = .758; Bartlett test of sphericity = 531.149; significance = 0.000.
Explanation to acronyms as in Table 1.

Table 8 important. A good environmental image is also important

Rotated component matrix
for improving the competitive edge of organizations in an
Component increasingly complex and environmentally conscious indus-
1 2 3 4 try [51].
Overall environmental impact .909 However, the reality is that, property developers tend to
Environmental impact of individual house- .904 allow considerable amounts of wastage on site rather than
units allocating appropriate resources to manage it [52]. Thus,
Overall health and safety measures .760
waste management is a major environmental issue includ-
Health and safety on individual house-units .710
Customer/client satisfaction on individual .815 ing construction and demolition waste being dumped at
house-units landfill sites [52]. Morrel et al. [53] also admits that as the
Technology transfer .767 demand for housing continues, widespread use of high
Overall risk containment .679 energy materials such as aluminium, cement, concrete
Overall customer/client satisfaction .619
and steel must comply with directives aimed at protecting
Risk containment on individual house-units .613
Rate of delivery of individual house-units .528 the environment including the emission of carbon dioxide,
Quality of individual house-units .813 reduction of new quarries, obligation to rehabilitate quar-
Cost of individual house-units .772 ries and protection of materials extracted from river beds.
Overall project quality .595 Thus property developers and interested stakeholders
Overall project costs .827
should appropriately allocate resources to assist the PMs
Overall project duration .765
to handle these increasingly important issues. The irony
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method:
is that, while the need to preserve the environment is
Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a Rotation converged in 7 iteration. increasingly becoming important, developing countries in
particular are not well positioned to face these challenges
(see for instance [54]). Furthermore, education and training
9. Discussion of results on environmental issues, which is still evolving leaves much
to be desired (see for instance [46]). Thus developing coun-
9.1. Component 1: environmental impact tries in particular have a lot more to do in developing the
capacity and expertise of the key managerial staff towards
The four extracted success criteria for component 1 were addressing environmental issues in MHBPs.
overall environmental impact (90.9%), environmental impact It is not strange that health and safety relating to individ-
of individual house-units (90.4%), overall health and safety ual house-units has been shown to be related to the environ-
measures (76.0%) and health and safety on individual mental criteria. This is because ultimately safety standards
house-units (71.0%). The number in parenthesis indicates have environmental implications and vice versa [55,56].
the respective factor loadings. This cluster accounted for The crux of the matter is that environmental-safety protec-
43.7% of the variance (refer to Table 9). These criteria tion is no longer a concept but has now become a world-
share a common link to environmental issues and as argued wide challenge facing the construction industry (Pasquires
by Ukoma and Bemish [50], the suitability of the living cited in [56]). It is therefore recommended that property
environment to the needs of the residents is now very developers and stakeholders should join forces towards
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687 683

Table 9
Component transformation matrix
Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 6.558 43.721 43.721 6.558 43.721 43.721 3.737 24.910 24.910
2 1.680 11.197 54.918 1.680 11.197 54.918 3.149 20.990 45.900
3 1.438 9.586 64.505 1.438 9.586 64.505 2.166 14.438 60.338
4 1.246 8.308 72.813 1.246 8.308 72.813 1.871 12.474 72.813
5 .921 6.138 78.951
6 .624 4.157 83.108
7 .581 3.872 86.980
8 .458 3.056 90.036
9 .447 2.981 93.017
10 .308 2.051 95.067
11 .221 1.477 96.544
12 .190 1.267 97.811
13 .174 1.159 98.971
14 .086 .576 99.546
15 .068 .454 100.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Scree Plot ticular, Torbica and Stroh [58] assert that for property
7 developers to compete in the long term, they must be sure
that current and prospective customers are satisfied.
6
Interestingly, Toole [59] has noted that homebuyers
5 approach the buying decision for a new home very differ-
ently from other purchases, often with very strong bonds
Eigenvalue

4 to tradition. Furthermore home buyers respond to ‘‘word-

3 advertising placing the reputation of the property developer
2
1
0 opers throughout the lifecycle of MHBPs that is most
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Component Number
Fig. 2. Scree plot for factor analysis.
developing appropriate structures that would enable PMs’
to be adequately prepared to face the challenges involved in
the management of the environment in MHBPs.
9.2. Component 2: customer satisfaction
Component 2 accounted for 11.2% of the variance. The
respective loading factors are customer satisfaction with
individual house-units (81.5%), technology transfer (76.7%),
overall risk containment (67.9%), overall customer satisfac-
tion (61.9%), risk containment on individual house-units
(61.3%) and rate of delivery of individual house-units
(52.8%). Subsequently this component was labelled cus-
tomer satisfaction.
Satisfied customers as the evidence suggests are the
backbone of the house building industry [57,58]. It is there-
fore significant that customer satisfaction with house-units
emerged as the most critical factor in this grouping. In par-
of-mouth’’ effects more than mass media or other types of
in the centre of all these. Subsequently the satisfaction of
‘‘old or current customers’’ is instrumental in convincing
potential future homebuyers. In this respect Toole [59] fur-
ther found that it is the service provided by property devel-
important in shaping the overall homebuyer satisfaction.
The remaining variables (overall risk containment, risk con-
tainment on individual house-units and technology transfer)
are either directly or indirectly associated with the provision
of some services are therefore linked towards satisfying the
ultimate users who are the customers.
Here, technology transfer refers to the application of
technology that is new to the property developer and signif-
icantly improves the design and construction of a living
space by decreasing cost, increasing performance and
improving the business of the process. While the property
developers do not consider it significantly important for
assessing project success in MHBPs, it does influence
‘‘the overall performance outcome.’’
However as noted by Toole [59], uncertainty plays a crit-
ical role in the adoption of innovations by property devel-
opers. Uncertainty as used here is defined as the state when
the property developer is lacking information relating to
decision-making (see for instance [59]). Subsequently,
Toole [59] identified five characteristics that may make it
difficult for property developers to understand how innova-
tions may affect their operations. That is, the end product
varies considerably, there is a long time frame and wide
684 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687
range of conditions associated with the production process,
the end product of the task consists of many interacting
parts and/or dynamic subsystems, the task requires high
levels of tacit knowledge and skills and the task requires
interaction with a large number of diverse entities. Hence
property developers have to been convinced that a new
technology will provide significant advantages over existing
products before they will commit themselves.
What is also quite clear is that, the adoption of new
technology involves taking some risk. Hence the more
uncertainties that exists the more reluctant property devel-
opers would be to embrace technological innovations [59].
Alternatively Yang et al. [60] have suggested that a plausi-
ble way forward for minimising the uncertainties is to
clearly quantify the benefits to be derived from technology
adaptation and application. They suggested that it might
be appropriate to quantify these benefits in terms of cost,
schedule and safety success as these are issues of major con-
cern to ‘‘project stakeholders.’’
Given that customers’ satisfaction is arguably the most
critical factor here, there is also no doubt any uncertainty
reduction would have to take their interest into serious
consideration. Thus, ultimately, whilst it is important for
property developers to fully appreciate the potential risks
associated with adopting technological innovation, their
knowledge about the factors that are related to home
buyers satisfaction or dissatisfaction would be an invalu-
able tool in achieving a competitive edge (see for instance
[59]).
9.3. Component 3: quality
Component 3 consists of quality of individual house-units
(81.3%), cost of individual house-units (77.2%) and overall
project quality (59.5%), and was labelled quality of house-
units accounting for 9.6% of the variance. Quality of indi-
vidual house-units emerged the highest factor in this group-
ing and conforms to the empirical evidence that quality
significantly predicts overall homebuyer satisfaction and
ultimately project success [58]. Indeed just like satisfaction,
the primary antecedents of quality are product and service
performance and customer expectation concerning the
future performance of the product [61].
In effect, a focus on improving quality at all stages of
MHBPs is important to improving project success. The
problem however is that no two identical houses are the
same in quality because of variations in construction pro-
cess and the weather, the skills and attitudes of the trades-
men and whether specified materials were correctly
delivered and installed. In short, it is difficult for property
developers to be completely confident that every portion
of a new house that they build will stand up to the same
design installation, occupancy conditions over the years
[62]. The onus is therefore on property developers to make
sure that the appropriate resources are channelled to enable
the understanding of effective quality management that
meets the bespoke needs of potential customers.
Given that one of the main objectives of repetitive con-
struction methods is cost effectiveness, it seems plausible
that quality of individual house-units and cost of individual
house-units are also seen to be measuring the same underly-
ing criteria. The potential implication for PMs is that,
whilst striving to make cost savings on the delivery of
MHBPs, this should not be done at the expense of the qual-
ity of individual house-units. This is against the background
that often ‘‘profit’’ made by property developers is at the
expense of quality [63]. Property developers are therefore
reminded that while it is important to strive towards cost
effectiveness in MHBPs this should be achieved by taking
advantage of improved productivity of resources arising
out of the repetitive works involved and not by deliberately
cutting down expenditure meant for quality improvement.
Furthermore, it is recommended that property developers
should create the necessary environment so that their
PMs can take advantage of the management tools available
to help strike the right balance in achieving cost savings
and maintaining quality standards.
9.4. Component 4: overall cost and time
Component 4 accounted for 8.3% of the variance and
comprised overall project cost (loading factor 82.7%) and
overall project duration (loading factor 76.5%) and was
labelled cost and time. The issue of shortening construction
time, reducing cost and improving production performance
has engaged both practitioners and researchers for some
time, (see for instance [64–66]). The studies include motiva-
tion and productivity investigations as well as analysis of
planning and scheduling techniques [67]. Prefabrication
and industrialisation have also been widely considered in
housing projects in the name of improving overall time
and cost associated with these projects. Other innovative
methods such as modular boxes, pre-stressed panels and
polystyrene have also been advocated [67].
However, against the background of a huge demand for
residential buildings in developing countries, delays and
cost overruns are still major militating factors influencing
the implementation of MHBP [47,66]. Indeed, in some
instances, the cost and time over-runs have been so severe
that serious questions about the human resource manage-
ment practices have been raised [67]. Thus, at a time when
an estimated one billion people are living in inadequate
housing in developing countries, the cost and time perfor-
mance remain crucial to project success.
10. Conclusion
The determinants of project success have been the sub-
ject of considerable debate in project management research
practice. Here, a success framework for MHBPs has been
developed and presented. The results of a questionnaire
survey of property developers has revealed no distinction
in regards to how project success is perceived in terms of
overall project and individual house-units.
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687
The determinants of success in MHBPs can be classified
into four main clusters, namely environmental impact, cus-
tomer’s satisfaction, quality and cost and time. These find-
ings lend support to the prevailing evidence that the
challenges facing property developers concern the need to
minimise cost and time over-runs and to keep current
and potential customers satisfied [58,67]. It is therefore rec-
ommended that property developers and PMs pay particu-
lar attention and resources towards ensuring these factors
are met in the delivery of MHBPs.
11. Reflection on the findings
In identifying the 15 potential success criteria used in
this study, it was contended that repetition should lead to
effectiveness both in terms of the individual project and
overall project context. This led to distinction of the suc-
cess criteria in terms of individual house-units and the
overall project context. To help establish an understanding
of the perceptions of property developers, the success crite-
ria were ranked based on their importance. These findings
should help PMs to channel appropriate behaviours
towards meeting these success criteria.
In this study, the factor scales identified four clusters,
namely; environmental impact, quality, customer satisfaction
and cost and time. The theoretical position of the four clus-
ters is relatively well supported in the mainstream literature
on success criteria. In particular and in the context of the
study, the scaling lends support to the work of Odusami
[15] in Nigeria and thus also makes an important contribu-
tion to understanding the overall success model in project
management practice in developing countries.
With respect to MHBPs in particular, the findings has
revealed that the expectation of the customer is one of
the critical issues that property developers have to contend
with in a speculative venture such as in MHBPs [55]. The
study has also revealed the emerging importance of
environmental issues as indicated by the result of the
analysis.
12. Limitations
The key limitation of this study is the relatively small
sample size used, however this should not nullify the con-
clusions given that the necessary preliminary tests associ-
ated with the adequacy of the sample size (including the
assumptions of central limit theorem) proved favorable
for the analysis to proceed. Convergence with the literature
and the authors’ experience of MHBPs provide some addi-
tional confidence in the findings.
13. Recommendations for further research
While the success criteria adopted were largely identified
from the literature, it may have been useful to provide
opportunity for the respondents to suggest others. This
might have led to the identification of other reasonably
685
important criteria unique to MHBPs. It would therefore
be useful if this is considered as part of any further research
to advance the systematic understanding of the determi-
nants of success criteria in MHBPs. Furthermore, while
the concept of repetition is an important consideration that
may influence the perception of success by property devel-
opers ‘in MHBPs, its impact and/or degree of impact was
not specifically considered in this study. With the increas-
ing use of standardization in MHBPs this could also be a
potential source of future research towards fully under-
standing the taxonomy of the determinants of success in
these projects.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contribution of an anony-
mous reviewer who made very useful suggestions to im-
prove the quality of the paper. The Government of
Ghana is also acknowledged for providing the scholarship
funding. The authors also wish to thank all the participants
who responded to the survey.
References
[1] Cox RF, Issa RRA, Ahrens D. Management perception of key
performance Indicators for construction. J Construct Eng Manag
2003;129:42–152.
[2] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Project success and definition and measurement
techniques. Project Manag J 1988;19(1):67–71.
[3] Brown A, Adams J. Measuring the effect of project management on
construction outputs: a new approach. Int J Project Manag
2000;18:327–35.
[4] Dainty ARN, Cheng Mei-I, Moore DR. Redefining performance
measures for construction project managers: an empirical evaluation.
Construct Manag Economics 2003;21:209–18.
[5] Lim CS, Mohammed Z. Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination. Int J Project Manag 1999;17:243–8.
[6] Baccarini D. The logical framework method for defining project
success. Project Manag J 1999;30(4):25–32.
[7] Cooke-Davies T. The real success factors on project. Int J Project
Manag 2002;20:185–90.
[8] Struckenbruck LC. Who determines project success. Project Man-
agement Institute Seminar/Symposium, Canada, September, 1987,
p. 13–21.
[9] Liu AAA, Walker A. Evaluation of project outcomes. Construct
Manag Economics 1998;16:209–19.
[10] Chua DKH, Kog YC, Loh PK. Critical success factors for different
project objectives. J Construct Eng Manag 1999;125(3):45–50.
[11] Zawdie G, Langford DA. The state of construction infrastructure in
sub-Saharan Africa and strategies for a sustainable way forward. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference in developing
countries: challenges facing the construction industry in developing
countries. 15–17, November, 2000, Gabarone, Botswana <http://
www.odsf.co.za/cdcproc/1stproceedings.html>, [accessed 31.03.04].
[12] Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P. Meeting housing delivery
targets in developing countries: the contribution of project managers
in Ghana. In: Ogunlana S et al., editors. Globalization and
construction in developing countries. Bangkok, Thailand: AIT
Conference Centre; 2004. p. 620–30. 17–19th November.
[13] Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P. Towards measuring the
performance of project managers; some methodological challenges.
In: 1st International conference on complexity and the built environ-
ment. University of Liverpool; 2004, p. 181–90.
686 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687
[14] Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P, Gameson R. A conceptual
predictive model for evaluating the performance of project managers
in mass house building projects. In: Balwin A., et al., editors.
Construction sustainability and innovation/CIB W 89, international
conference on building education and research, Hong Kong. 10–13,
April, 2006a, p. 12 (ISBN: 962-367-511-9).
[15] Odusami KT. Criteria for measuring project performance by
construction professionals in the Nigeria construction industry.
J Financial Manag Property Construct 2003;8(1):10.
[16] Mbachu J, Nkado R. Factors constraining successful building project
implementation in South Africa. Construct Manag Economics
2007;25:39–54.
[17] Shen Q, Liu G. Critical success factors for value management studies
in construction. J Construct Eng Manag ASCE 2003;129(5):485–91.
[18] Ashley DB. Simulation of repetitive-unit construction. J Construct
Div, Proc ASCE 1980;106(Co2):185–98.
[19] Mahdi I. A new LSM approach for planning repetitive housing
projects. Int J Project Manag 2004;22:339–46.
[20] Hyari K, EL-Rayes K. Optimal planning and scheduling for
repetitive construction projects. J Manag Eng 2005;22(1):11–9.
[21] El-Rayes K, Ramnathan R, Moselhi O. An object oriented model for
planning and control of housing construction. Construct Manag
Economics 2000;20:210–20.
[22] Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P. Project managers’
performance measures; a fresh perspective. In: 21st ARCOM confer-
ence, SOAS, London, 3–5 September, 3–10, 2005.
[23] Schwartzkopf W. Calculating lost productivity labour productivity in
construction claims. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 1995.
[24] United Nations. United Nations Committee and Housing, Building
and Planning, effect of repetition on building operations and
processes on site, New York, 1965.
[25] Edmonds GA, Miles DWJ. Foundations for change: aspects of the
construction industry in developing countries. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications; 1984.
[26] Burgess RA, White G. Building production and construction
processes. London: The Construction Press; 1979.
[27] Muhlemann A, Oakland J, Lockyer K. Production and operations
management. London: Pitman Publishing; 1992.
[28] Dhansekor M. Identification of optimal size resource for a repetitive
housing. Construct, Eng, Construct Architectural Manag
2000;7(4):347–61.
[29] Enhassi A. Site organization and supervision in housing projects in
the Gaza strip. Int J Project Manag 1997;15(2):93–9.
[30] Atkinson R. Project management: cost time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria.
Int J Projects Manag 1999;17(6):337–42.
[31] Latham GP, Fay C, Saari LM. The development of behavioural
observation scales for appraising the performance of foremen.
Personnel Psychol 1979;32:299–311.
[32] de Wit A. Measurement of project management success. Int J Project
Manag 1988;6(3):164–70.
[33] Morris PWG, Hough GH. The anatomy of projects. John Wiley; 1987.
[34] Wateridge J. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success. Int J
Project Manag 1998;16(1):59–63.
[35] Turner JR. The handbook of project-based management. McGraw-
Hill; 1993.
[36] Odusami KT, Iyagba RRO, Onirin MM. The relationship between
project leadership, team cooperation and construction project. Int J
Project Manag 2003;21:519–27.
[37] Morris PWG, Patel MB, Wearne SH. Research into revising the APM
body of knowledge. Int J Project Manag 2000;18:155–64.
[38] Tett RP, Guterman AB, Bleir A, Murphy PJ. Development and
content validation of a hyperdimensional taxonomy of managerial
competences. Human Perform 2000;13(3):205–51.
[39] Pickett L. Competencies and managerial effectiveness: putting com-
petencies to work. Public Personnel Manag 1998;27(1):103–14.
[40] Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, Olomolaiye P. Development of research
instrument for project managers performance measures in mass house
building projects. In: 22nd ARCOM conference, University of
Central England, September, 2006c, 4–7, p. 165–75.
[41] Ling YY. A conceptual model for the selection of architects by
project managers in Singapore. Int J Project Manag 2003;21:135–44.
[42] Field A. Discovering statistics, using SPSS for windows. London:
Sage Publications; 2005.
[43] Bank of Ghana. Fiscal Report for Financial year 2006–2007, 2007.
[44] Ayirebi-Dansoh K. Strategic planning practice of constriction firms in
Ghana. Construct Manag Economics 2005;23:148–63.
[45] Smallwood J. Practising the discipline of construction management:
knowledge and skills. In: 2nd international conference on construc-
tion in developing countries: challenges facing the construction
industry in developing countries, Gabarone, Botswana; 15–17
November, 2000, <http://www.odsf.co.za/cdproc/2nd_proceed-
ings.html>, [accessed 31.03.04].
[46] Keivani R, Werna E. Modes of housing provision in developing
countries. Progress Planning 2001;55(2):65–118.
[47] Hair F et al. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
[48] Norusis MJ. SPSS 10.0 guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall; 2000.
[49] Ukoha OM, Beamish JO. Assessment of residents’ satisfaction with
public housing in Abuja, Nigeria. Habitat Int 1997;21(4):445–60.
[50] Ngowi AB. Creating competitive advantage by using environment-
friendly building processes. Build Environ 2001;36:291–8.
[51] Poon CS, Wan yu TA, Wong SW, Cheung E. Management of
construction waste in public housing projects in Hong Kong.
Construct Manag Economics 2004;22:675–89.
[52] Morrel JC, Mesbah A, Oggero M, Walker P. Building houses with
local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact
of construction. Build Environ 2000;36:1119–26.
[53] Ofori G. Challenges of construction industry in developing countries:
lessons from various countries. In: Proceedings of the 2nd interna-
tional conference in developing countries: challenges facing the
construction industry in developing countries. Gabarone, Botswana;
15–17, November, 2000 <http://www.odsf.co.za/cdcproc/1stproceed-
ings.html>, [accessed 31.03.04].
[54] Kirbert CJ, Coble RJ. Integrating safety and environmental regula-
tions of construction industry. J Construct Eng Manag, ASCE
1995;121(1):95–9.
[55] Xiao Hong. A comparative study of contractor performance based on
Japanese, UK & US Construction practice, Unpublished PhD,
University of Wolverhampton, UK; 2002.
[56] Baker BN, Murphy DC, Fisher D. Factors affecting project success.
In: Cleland, King editors. Project Management Handbook, New
York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 669–85.
[57] Torbica ZM, Stroh RC. Customer satisfaction in home building. J
Construct Eng Manag, ASCE 2001;127:82–6.
[58] Toole M. Uncertainty and home builders adoption of technological
innovation. J Construct Eng Manag, ASCE 1998;124(4):323–32.
[59] Yang LR, O’Connor JT, Wang CC. Technology utilization on
different sizes of projects and associated impacts on composite project
success. Int J Project Manag 2006;24:96–105.
[60] Anderson EWC, Lehman DR. Customer-satisfaction, market share
and profitability, findings from sweden. J Marketing 1994;58:53–66.
[61] Ozsoy A, Atlas NE, OK V, Pulat G. Quality assessment model for
housing; a case study of Istanbul on outdoor spaces in Istanbul.
Habitat Int 1996;20(2):163–73.
[62] Rukuro WR, Olima WHA. Developer profits undermine residents’
satisfaction in Nairobi’s residential neighbourhood: implication for
local government in Kenya. Habitat Int 2003;27:143–57.
[63] Odenyinka HA, Yusif A. The causes of delay on completion of
housing projects in Nigeria. J Financial Manag Property Construct
1997;2(3):31–44.
[64] Okuwoga AA. Cost-time performance of public sector housing
projects in Nigeria. Habitat Int 1998;22(4):389–95.
[65] Chan DWM, Kumaraswamy MM. Forecasting construction dura-
tions for public housing projects: a Hong Kong perspective. Build
Environ 1999;34:633–46.
 D.K. Ahadzie et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 675–687 687

[66] Tam CM, Deng ZM, Zeng SX. Evaluation of construction methods [67] Kaming PF, Holt GD, Kometa ST, Olomolaiye PO. Severity
and performance for high rise public housing construction in Hong diagnosis of productivity problems-a reliability analysis. Int J Project
Kong. Build Environ 2002;37:983–91. Manag 1998;16(2):107–13.