An Evaluation of Critical Success Factors for Efficient and

Effective Project Management in the Construction Industry

By

Kingsley Tangwe Tumasang

(Student Number: J00046530)

A research project for the award of a Masters degree in Project Management

2019
 2

DECLARATION FORM

The work I have submitted is my own effort. I certify that all the
material in this Research project, which is not my own work, has been
identified and acknowledged. No materials are included for which a
degree has been previously conferred upon me.

Signed Date
K. T. Tumasang 27th November 2019
 3

Abstract
The successful delivery of construction projects (especially at complex and large-scale
level) faces several challenges. There exist differences in perception between
construction project professionals as to what factors of project implementation would
ensure outstanding project delivery. The success factors of construction projects vary
between regions, countries and different project contexts.
Researchers have not done adequate studies to expose the issues construction
professionals deal with in Africa. This research is an effort to equip construction project
professionals with some insights about project factors that are essential to delivering a
successful construction enterprise. It will seek the perception of construction
professionals on the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) that affect the successful delivery
of construction projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

This researcher used a questionnaire survey to assess the perception of construction

project professionals about CSFs. The participants in the survey were project
professionals from Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal and Mauritania; sub-Saharan countries,
who provided their perception on CSFs in the sub-region. Thirty participants filled the
survey that shows that factors relating to project manager competence, project planning
and control, risk management and stakeholder management were crucial to the delivery
of construction projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Effective communication, resources
allocation and the involvement of the client were essential factors that the participants
identified as critical in the delivery of construction projects.

This study focused on construction project professionals in the sub-Saharan sub-region

and then generalised the findings to all such projects across Africa. Regional, cultural,
economic and environmental differences exist across the continent. However, the results
of this research would be valid when due consideration to regional differences are kept
in mind. Professionals need to assess their current project and compare them with those
in Africa to design a set of CSFs that are relevant to the context of their projects.

Limitations resulting from budget and time constraints in this research prevented the use
of extensive interviews which would richly enhance the quality of the data collected in
this study.
 4

Contents
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................7

1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................7

1.2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................7

1.3 RESEARCH SCOPE, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................9

1.4 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF CSFS ......................................................9

1.5 RESEARCH APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 12

1.6 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 12

1.7 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ...................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 14

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 PROJECT SUCCESS AND SUCCESS FACTORS.......................................................................... 14

2.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS ............................................................................................... 15

2.4 THE CATEGORISATION OF CSFS IN THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR ......................................... 17

2.5 PRIORITISATION OF CSFS IN THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR .................................................. 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 22

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM ......................................................................................................... 22

3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH AND STRATEGY; ................................................................................ 25

3.3.1 Sampling and Recruitment Strategy................................................................... 25

3.3.2 Survey Design ..................................................................................................... 26
3.4 DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................................. 28

3.4.1 The Profile of the Respondents .......................................................................... 28

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 29
 5

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS ....................................................................................................... 29

3.6.1 Data Reliability and Validity ............................................................................... 30

3.6.2 Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................ 30
3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION.................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FINDINGS ............................. 34

4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 34

4.3 DATA CODING...................................................................................................................... 34

4.4 DATA RELIABILITY .............................................................................................................. 34

4.5 HYPOTHESIS TESTING .......................................................................................................... 35

4.6 STATISTICAL TEST OF MEANS .............................................................................................. 36

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 40

4.7 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 42

4.7.1 The Competence of the project manager .......................................................... 42

4.7.2 The organisation of the project .......................................................................... 44
4.7.3 Competence of Project team members ............................................................. 44
4.7.4 Risk Management............................................................................................... 45
4.7.5 Client Engagement ............................................................................................. 46
4.7.6 Senior management engagement ...................................................................... 47
4.7.7 Stakeholder management .................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ..................................................... 49

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 49

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 49

REFERENCES: .................................................................................................................................. 51

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX I: TABLES FOR THE RANKING OF CSFS FOR PROJECT SUCCESS CATEGORIES..................... 63

The Competence of the project manager ........................................................................... 63

The organisation of the project........................................................................................... 63
 6

Competence of Project team members .............................................................................. 64

Project contract structure ................................................................................................... 64
Risk Management ............................................................................................................... 65
Client Engagement .............................................................................................................. 65
Senior management engagement ....................................................................................... 65
Stakeholder management ................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX II: WEB-BASED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (IN ENGLISH). ................................................. 66

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE IN FRENCH. ..................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX IV: COLLECTED DATA AND CODED DATA ARE ATTACHED WITH THIS SUBMISSION .......... 88

APPENDIX V: ETHICS RESPONSE FORM ............................................................................................ 88

B. REFERRED TO ETHICS COMMITTEE: ............................................................................. 99

 7

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Projects have become an essential tool that contemporary organisations use to

implement their business strategy, and the quest to maximise project performance
primordial to project management professionals. Shenhar (2015) posits that an adequate
blend of creativity, project context and excellent team management with traditional
operational success criteria of project management. However, the author stresses the
importance of considering the strategic objectives of the project to achieve the business
objectives and maximise the achievement of stakeholders’ requirements for the project.
This chapter presents the research background, framework, limitations and structure.

1.2 Research Background

Pinto & Slevin are the pioneers in the development of Critical Success Factors (CSFs), a
concept that began in the 1980s (Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Slevin &
Pinto, 1986). Rockart (1982) defined CSFs as the set of essential aspects of project
activity in which the project management team needs to excel in to deliver the best
project outcomes. Futrell et al. (2001) regard CSFs as those factors of project
management activity whose success is crucial to deliver project outcomes that highly
satisfy the requirements of the main stakeholders of the project. Consequently, a
knowledge of the CSFs of a project will enable the project management team to focus
the scarce resources of the project on a manageable set of project activities that are
essential to the successful delivery of outcomes that satisfy the objectives of the project
(Shenhar, 2015).

Globally, the construction industry is amongst the most critical sectors of the economy;
including processes ranging from construction to demolition of infrastructures (Tsiga,
2016). World Market Intelligence (2010) reports that the construction industry is about
the highest employer in the world. The industry consists of all civil engineering projects
like building, maintenance and repair of already constructed structures. The constant
growth witnessed in the industry implies that industry actors will always carry out
novel, complicated and more extensive projects (Chan & Chan, 2004).
 8

There are different construction project delivery methods. These methods determine the
sequence of project design, procurement and construction flow while defining the roles
and responsibilities of project actors. Esmaelli et al. (2016) identify the main
construction project delivery methods as Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction
Management at Risk (CMR) and Design-Build (DB). These delivery methods define
different relationships between the project owner, the project designer and the
contractor. In the different delivery methods, project actors have different roles and
responsibilities. The CSFS differ between delivery methods.

Some researchers classify CSFs in groups (Schultz et al., 1987) while like Dvir et al.
(1998) argue that all projects should not be assessed using a universal set of CSFs. The
context (the organisational, social, economic and political environment) of the project
would drive the choice and the stratification of the CSFs of a project.

Africa is rife with exquisitely written policies, projects, programs and visions but the
continent is replete with failed, and poor-performing projects that have significantly
contributed to thwarting its development (Eneh, 2009; Ika, 2012). The failure rate of
African projects is above 50%, a figure so shocking that the May 2000 edition of The
Economist carried a front-page article of Africa as “a hopeless continent” (Ika & Saint-
Macary, 2014).

The poor performance of project management in Africa is evident in the delivery of a

high number of projects with some attaining as high as three times the expected budget
and schedule while others do not generate the strategic benefits for their conception. A
glaring example is the Chad-Cameroon pipeline that though delivered on-time, within
budget and quality, failed to satisfy its development objectives (Ika & Saint-Macary,
2012).

These shreds of evidence demand an examination of the project management process in

Africa to determine the necessary actions required for the improvement of project
delivery and performance in the continent. Apart from poor governance and corruption,
the lack of (project) management competence stands out as a usually neglected but
essential cause of project failure in Africa (Collier, 2007; Moyo, 2009). Rwelamila &
Purushottam (2012) posit that a majority of project managers in Africa lack formal
 9

project management training because project management courses are mainly

inadequate, leading to a deficiency in strategic project management focus.

1.3 Research Scope, Purpose and Objectives

This study does not seek to determine the causes of project failure in African
construction projects. It studies insights from construction project management
professionals in the continent to reveal CSFs relevant to the construction project
industry. This research weighs in to fill the gap in project management focus by
generating a list of CSFs for African construction projects. It presents the project
professional with a list of construction project CSFs, which positively influences the
project management process in Africa. The CSFs so generated will enhance project
management in the continent by presenting a set of activities whose efficient
management will improve the project success rate in the continent.

Researchers have examined CSFs in the construction industry in the European context
(Gudienė et al., 2012,), the Asian context, (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009; Chua et al., 1999;
Chua et al., Kog & Loh, 2012), the middle east context (Omran et al., 2012) but very
little about the African context. Toor & Ogunlana (2006) posit that a majority of
research concerning CSFs for construction projects are contextual and are mostly valid
for the countries and cultures of the location of the study. Furthermore, Toor &
Ogunlana (2008) recommend that to cater for the characteristics of the local
construction industry, the size of construction projects, local cultures and regulations,
along with other factors peculiar to a project, researchers need to carry out more studies
in other regions (contexts). This study examines the results obtained in the African
context with those in other studies from other continents to determine if CSFs
developed for these areas can respond to the needs of the African continent.

1.4 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of CSFs

To drive the study, this researcher uses the following framework as a roadmap to
conceptualise the research methodology, data collection and data analysis:
 10

Input Phase Process Phase

Project Outcome Phase

Project
Project management
Strategic Project Success
Process
Requirements

Process Domain

Performance Domain

Project Project
Project
Performance Performance
Peformance
Optimisation Measurement
Goals
Strategy (Through KPIs)

Figure 1.3.1: Conceptualisation of CSFs in the Construction Industry.

The presentation on figure 1.3.1 partitions the project implementation process into two
domains and three phases to quickly understand the effects of CSFs in construction
project management. Toor & Ogunlana (2005, 2008, 2009) and Baccarini (1996) use a
similar conceptualisation to study the role and importance of CSFs in the construction
industry.

The process domain defines the project objectives in the input phase, designs a suitable
project management structure in the process phase and delivers the project product in
the outcome phase. Meanwhile, the performance domain devises the performance
objectives in the input phase, defines a performance enhancement strategy (CSFs) in the
process phase and determines performance measurement criteria in the form of KPIs
(Key Performance Indicators) in the output phase. Figure 1.3.1 also displays the
interaction between the elements in the process domain and those in the performance
domain.

This research studies and reveals insights that answer to the following questions:

1. How do construction project management professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa

prioritise CSFs?
 11

2. What difference exists between the Sub-Saharan context (the organisational,

social, economic and political environment) and other regional contexts in
construction project management?

The Critical Success Factors (CSF) of a project define the areas of project activity
whose efficient management and implementation accord the project the highest
performance (Futrel et al., 2001). CSFs could include project mission, top management
support, project schedule/plan, monitoring and feedback, communication management,
client consultation and participation (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). CSFs have cause and
effect relationships whose management could determine the success or failure of a
project. Since projects differ in their contexts, they are also unique in the CSFs that
would drive their success.

The knowledge of the CSFs of a project would enable the project management team to
determine the aspects of the project that require the focus of project resources to achieve
the best project outcomes (Bullen and Rockhart, 1981). Identifying the CSFs of a
project will enable the project management team to apply the Pareto (eighty/twenty)
principle which suggests that eighty per cent of the performance of a project would be
accounted for by twenty per cent of the project’s success factors. Consequently, after
prioritising the CSFs of a given project, the project management team would have to
allocate an appropriate amount of project resources on the top twenty per cent of project
success factors to achieve maximum project success. It does not imply that the project
team would neglect the other success factors of the project. CSF prioritisation only
provides project managers with a priority list of activities for management focus and
resources allocation.

The project management team could develop a set of CSFs which will guide all project
actors about the expectations of the project and what is required to achieve its outcomes
successfully. Communicating the CSFs will ensure that every project participant
understands clearly what he or she needs to contribute to ensuring that the project meets
the expected level of success.
 12

1.5 Research Approach

This research uses a mix method approach (quantitative and qualitative) to solicit the
insights of construction project professionals in sub-Saharan Africa. The assumption in
this approach is that similar issues exist across Africa and so a study of a region in the
continent could be generalised across other regions. The literature review reveals a
preliminary set of success factors which, after adequate refining, serves in the design of
a questionnaire used in a survey.

The survey generates quantitative as well as qualitative data. The qualitative aspect
results from the nature of the responses gotten from participants which are subjective.
The responses the participants give are their opinions about the ratings they give to
CSFs based on a Likert scale. The survey results serve in the data analysis process. This
researcher verifies the validity and reliability of the data, further analyses the data to
reveal evidence of how construction project management professionals in sub-Saharan
Africa rank success factors.

1.6 Research Limitations

Researchers have found that project success is context-sensitive because professionals
in different industries and even those within the same sector have varying views about
project success (Gudienė et al., 2012). Developing a standard set of criteria to measure
project performance could be challenging, as well as unrealistic for practitioners. This
difficulty results from the fact that project management professionals measure project
success based on the varying contexts of projects and so CSFs developed for a
particular context may not suit other situations. Notwithstanding this challenge,
professionals engaged in the implementation of projects need to find ways to achieve
adequate project success since it is the ultimate objective of every project management
process (Chan & Chan, 2004).

The available time and budget limit the quality and validity of this research because the
researcher could not recruit an adequate number of participants with an optimal mix of
project roles and responsibilities. Extensive interviews could provide insights that are
reliable as well as valid. Furthermore; this study assumes that Africa is homogeneous in
 13

its defining characteristics and does not take into consideration differences that exist
between different countries in the continent. The existing socio-political and
environmental differences would affect the CSFs of specific countries.

1.7 Structure of the Dissertation

This chapter has introduced the study, its background, theoretical framework, approach
and limitations. The next chapter (chapter two) delves into a review of the literature to
reveal current themes, theories and debates on CSFs. The third chapter presents the
research methods and justifies the choices adopted in this study. Chapter four entails
data collection, analysis and presentation, while chapter five discusses the results and
proposes recommendations for further research.
 14

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The review of literature deals with critical analysis and presentation of previous works
on Critical Success Factors in construction projects. The chapter aims to provide an
understanding and the context of this research. A review of previous research in CSFs
uncovers gaps in previous studies while discovering key variables, trends and
influencing actors in the environment of the research. This section also presents a
framework that determines the validity of the choices made in the methodology section
while ensuring the congruence of the findings with those of previous studies.

2.2 Project Success and Success Factors

Project success means different things to different professionals in different contexts.
The concept refers to the effectiveness of the project management and implementation
process and the product satisfying the strategic aims and objectives of the project. Cox
et al. (2003) posit that management’s perspective may determine the perception of
project success, which may differ from those of construction executives in the analysis
of project performance.
Lim & Mohamed (1999) distinguish between macro-level project success and micro-
level project success. The macro perspective focuses on the business objectives and the
usability of the project product; the extent to which the project meets these objectives.
The product end-users are usually those who are interested in how well the project’s
outcome satisfies its strategic objectives. The project champions (the owners) are
mostly interested in the business satisfaction of the product. At the micro-level,
construction actors like contractors and consultants would be more concerned with the
on schedule, within budget and according to the scope objectives of the project (Toor &
Ogunlana, 2010). However, micro-level and macro-level performance is necessary for a
project to be successful.

While differentiating between project success (based on the overall project objectives)
and project management success (measured against operational measures of budget,
schedule and scope; Cooke-Davies (2002) also distinguishes between the success
criteria and the success factors of a project. The author posits that success factors of a
 15

project contribute to achieving successful delivery of the project at micro as well as

macro-level project performance while the success criteria of a project are the measures
against which project actors assess the success or failure of the project. The success
criteria of a project represent the Known Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the project.

At a strategic level, project success would include several objectives, which may
include increased revenue for the client and key stakeholders, satisfying some
developmental needs of the society, increased market share for the client, provision of
competitive advantage for the client, and many other objectives for different
individuals. It follows, therefore, that a project management process may deliver the
project within time, budget, and scope and yet is not a success. Project success depends
on the perception and the objective of the assessor.

The operational views of project success based on budget, schedule, and quality
excessively focus on process control while neglecting some crucial aspects of the
project relating to the strategic objectives of the project, uncertainty, and change
management is mostly inadequate (Williams, 2005 and Lenfle & Loch, 2009). Jugdev
and Müller (2005) disclose the inadequacies of traditional project management methods
based on cost, budget and scope (the iron triangle) as success criteria.

2.3 Critical Success Factors

Since the emergence of the concept of Critical Success factors (CSFs) in the nineteen
eighties (Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Slevin & Pinto, 1986), there has
been tremendous interest in the concept by project management professionals. This
section explores some of the main abstractions of the concept and presents the views of
some researchers in construction project management. This section also elaborates on
the underlying theory and framework for this study while developing the main research
questions.

Research on critical success factors (CSFs) has its foundation from the work of Pinto
and Slevin in the 1980s (Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Slevin & Pinto,
1986) who were the pioneers to study project success as a multidimensional concept
rather than adopting the measures of budget, schedule and scope. The first definition of
the idea came from Rockart (1982), who identifies the CSFs of a project as the crucial
 16

elements of project activity that are essential to achieve the best project outcomes.
Futrell et al. (2001), on their part, regard critical success factors as the aspects of project
management activity that, if efficiently managed, will maximise the probability that the
key project actors will achieve their objectives for the project.

Knowledge of the CSFs of a project would provide project managers with best practices
that can influence the achievement of the best outcomes for the project. Essentially,
knowing which factors are necessary for the success of a project in its unique context
would enable the project management team focus relevant project resources on the
elements that would yield the highest effect on the project outcomes (Bullen & Rockart,
1981). Project management professionals use their understanding of CSFs to determine
the aspects of a project that are crucial to achieving maximum positive outcomes in a
project while optimising the attainment of the strategic objectives of the project. Project
professionals would need to select the success factors necessary for effective project
delivery and then prioritise them according to their assessment of the influence these
success factors have on the overall success of the project.

Müller & Jugdev (2012) investigated the CSFs for general project management, Toor &
Ogunlana (2009), Yong & Mustaffa (2013) and Gudiene et al., (2014) for construction
projects, Almajed and Mayhew (2014) for information technology projects, Finney &
Corbett (2007) and Umble et al. (2003) for enterprise solutions projects and still many
others have focused on different industries to develop CSFs that ensure the success of
projects in their various sectors and contexts.

The identification, categorisation and prioritisation of CSFs accord the project

management team three main advantages. Firstly, CSFs aid in identifying and analysing
the reasons for the success or failure of projects (Low & Chuan, 2006). Secondly, a
knowledge of the CSFs of a project will inform the choice of project team members,
forecasting their development requirements and anticipate project performance levels
even before the project starts (Chan et al., 2001). Thirdly, CSFs accord the project
management team a decision framework (Songer & Molenaar, 1997) thereby assisting
the organisation (the project owner) in understanding the strategic value of the project.
Invariably, the identification of the CSFs of a construction project will enable the
 17

effective allocation of scarce project resources like time, human resources and budget
(Chua et al., 1999).

2.4 The categorisation of CSFs in the Construction Sector

A majority of the success factors in previous researches fall under main categories that
include: project management factors, external environment, human factors and project
structure-related factors (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009). However, other researchers have
broken down broader categories of success factors into smaller groupings (Fortune &
White, 2006; Chan et al., 2001; Chua et al., 1999; Li et al., 2005; Nguyen et al., 2004).
The advantage of categorising CSFs lies in the possibility of dealing with related factors
grouped according to some aspect of project management and implementation.

Toor & Ogunlana (2005, 2008) categorise CSFs into three phases; input, process and
outcome phases and two domains; process and performance domains. They describe the
process domain as accounting for the project objectives setup during the input phase. In
the process phase, the process domain caters for designing a suitable project
management system capable of achieving the project management objectives (the
product or constructed facility). The deliverable of the process domain is the product
(expected outcome of the project). The performance domain is concerned with setting
performance goals for the project during the input phase by establishing the
performance enhancement strategy (CSFs). The process and performance domains may
be different but interact as parts of the project management activity (Toor & Ogunlana,
2009).

Some researchers have categorised CSFs into two major groups; the hard category is
objective, measurable and tangible while the soft category is subjective, difficult to
measure and intangible (Andersen & Jessen, 2000; Chan et al., 2004; Andersen et al.,
2006). Indicators of project success for the former category would be on-time, within-
budget and satisfactory quality, which are universally agreed upon (Belasi & Tukel,
1996; Shenhar et al., 1997; Hatush & Skitmore, 1997; and Atkinson, 1999).
Accordingly, the latter category would have success indicators like customer
satisfaction, effective project team management, effective stakeholder management,
 18

effective communication and efficient conflict management (Nicolini, 2002; Andersen

et al., 2006; Walker & Hampson, 2003; and Toor & Ogunlana, 2009).

Table 2.4.1: Categorisation of CSFs in the construction Industry.

Category Success Factor Sources

Competence Experience and training Cooke-Davies (2002), Phua

of the project (2004), Arian & Low (2005),
Motivational and coordinating expertise
manager Fortune & White (2006) and Yu
Leadership and management skills et al. (2005), Nguyen et al.

Communication and feedback skills (2004), Toor & Ogunlana (2009),

Barclay & Osei-Bryson (2009),
Conflict resolution and change
Malach-Pines et al. (2009),
management expertise

The Effective project planning and control Fortune & White (2006), Cooke-
organisation Davies (2002), Phua (2004),
Adequately defined project team roles
of the project Belout & Gauvreau (2004),
and responsibility
Nguyen et al. (2004), Toor &
Relevant project control mechanisms Ogunlana (2009), Bersanetti &

Team composition and integration Carvalho (2015), Varajao et al.

(2014) and Gudiene et al. (2014)
Work schedule and definition

Selection and management of

subcontractors

Availability of sufficient human and

material resources

Adequately designed, communicated

and coordinated tasks
 19

The effects of organisational culture on

project management practices

Level of use of technology in

construction tasks

Competence The learning/training capacity Fortune & White (2006), Nguyen

of Project et al. (2004), Toor & Ogunlana
Professional experience
team (2009), Yu et al. (2005), Gudiene
members Planning and organising skills et al. (2014), Ram & Corkindale

Level of engagement (2014), Almajed & Mayhew

(2014) and Varajao et al., 2014
Flexibility and adaptability to change

Relationship among members

Quality of craftsmanship

Project Tendering and recruitment process of
contract competent and experienced contractors
structure and designers
Clearly defined contract with adequate
dispute resolution clauses
Reliability of project estimates
Gale & Luo (2004), Phua (2004),
Nguyen et al. (2004), Toor &
Ogunlana (2009), Tan & Ghazali
(2011), Omran et al. (2012),
Young & Mustaffa (2013), Chan
et al. (2004)

Type of contract

Risk Initiation, identification, assessment, Didraga (2013), Rabechini Junior

Management response planning and implementation & Monteiro de Carvalho (2013),
Almajed and Mayhew (2013)
Communication, monitoring and review

Client Expression and prioritisation of project Yu et al. (2005), Nguyen et al.

Engagement goals by client (2002), Chan et al. (2001), Phua
 20

Regular and prompt client feedback (2004), Fortune & White (2006),
Songer & Molenaar (1997)
A clear understanding of customer
requirements Belout & Gauvreau (2004) and
Pinto & Slevin (1988).
Client understanding and acceptance of
project plans

Senior Support Kerzner (1987), Chua et al.,

management (1999), Niccolini (2002), Fortune
The level of bureaucratic practices
engagement & White (2006), Nguyen et al.
involved in the project
(2004), Yu et al. (2005), Belout &
Gauvreau (2004), Phua (2004)
and Nguyen et al. (2004)

Stakeholder Cordial and respectable relationship Yu et al. (2005), Nguyen et al.

management with project stakeholders (2004), Chua et al. (1999), Phua
(2004), Ng & Mo (1997), Songer
Knowledge of the goals and priorities of
& Molenaar (1997), Gale & Lou
all stakeholders
(2004), Fortune & White (2006),
Alignment of project goals with
Turner (1999), Pinto & Slevin
stakeholders’ interests
(1988) and
Regular project review meetings with
Chan et al. (2001), Belout &
relevant stakeholders to evaluate
Gauvreau (2004), Cooke-Davies
project performance
(2002) and Nicolini (2002)
Cordial relationship based on trust
among project stakeholders

Efficient communication amongst

project actors
 21

2.5 Prioritisation of CSFs in the Construction Sector

Kog & Loh (2012) observed that diverse professionals in the construction industry
would rate CSFs differently according to their practical experience and also to the
construction project component in which they are engaged. Hence, architects, civil
engineers, quantity surveyors, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers will differ with
each other in their rating of the CSFs essential for the successful delivery of the project.
The differing rating stems from the fact that each professional will look at CSFs through
the lens of his or her profession. Furthermore, Kog & Loh (2012) posit that it is crucial
to stratify different prioritised sets of CSFs for the various components of a construction
project to reflect the perceptions of the diverse professionals (architects, engineers,
surveyors, quality controllers, regulators, to name just a few) involved in the project.
This knowledge would enable the project team to efficiently distribute scarce project
resources to the relevant construction project CSFs to obtain maximised project
outcomes.

A review of relevant literature shows research on CSFs in the UK, Hong Kong, China,
Malaysia and Australia. However, no study has considered the African context;
particularly in construction projects. This research, therefore, focuses on revealing how
project management professionals select and prioritise the CSFs for their projects in
sub-Saharan Africa.
 22

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter covers a discussion of the research paradigm, methods and techniques, an
analysis of the research approach and strategy and a presentation of the research design
(sampling, data collection, and data analysis methods). This researcher aims to articulate
and justify the choices in the study while providing relevant theories to support these
choices.

3.2 Research Paradigm

Ontology, epistemology and methodology are the significant aspects of the research
process (TerreBlanche & Durrheim, 1999). These authors regard a research paradigm as
an all-encompassing structure of interrelated practice and rationalisation that use these
three dimensions to define the enquiry.

The ontological and epistemological dimensions capture the researcher's perception

(worldview) of the aspects of reality that pertains to the study. “Ontology and
epistemology are to research what ‘footings’ are to a house: they form the foundations
of the whole edifice” (Grix, 2004: 59).

Ontology defines “the nature of our beliefs about reality” (Richards, 2003: 33). To
carry out any research, researchers need to make assumptions (implicit or explicit)
about reality, its existence, and how to study it. To answer the ontological question, the
researcher inquires about the kinds of reality: “a singular, verifiable reality and truth (or)
… socially constructed multiple realities” (Patton, 2002: 134).

Epistemology examines the nature and validity of knowledge (Gall et al., 2003). It
studies “ the nature and forms (of knowledge), how it can be acquired, and how it can
be communicated to other human beings” (Cohen et al., 2007: 7). The epistemological
question requires the researcher to debate “ the possibility and desirability of
objectivity, subjectivity, causality, validity and generalisability” (Patton, 2002: 134).

The choice of an ontological belief determines the epistemological assumptions of a

researcher. Consequently, the assumption of a singular verifiable truth (positivism)
 23

demands that “the posture of the knower must be one of objective detachment or value
freedom in order to be able to discover ‘how things really are’ and ‘how things really
work’” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 108). On the other hand, a belief in socially constructed
multiple realities (interpretivism) requires researchers to reject studying people like
objects as in natural sciences but instead interact with the subjects of the study to
comprehend contextual issues (Rehman & Alharthi, 2016).

Methodology refers to “an articulated, theoretically informed approach to the

production of data” (Ellen, 1984: 9). It encompasses the analysis of data generation
techniques. The methodology of research is the “strategy, plan of action, process or
design” that determines a researcher’s preference of research methods (Crotty, 1998: 3).
A discussion of methodology describes how “a particular piece of research should be
undertaken” (Grix, 2004: 32).

The positivist methodology relies on experimentation to measure, control, predict,

create laws and determine causality (Cohen et al., 2007). Hence, positivist research
often generates numerical (quantitative) data. The quality of positivist research depends
on its internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). Critics of the positivist approach to social research mostly argue that scientific
methods may be appropriate to study natural phenomena but are not suitable for social
phenomena (Gage, 2007; Gall et al., 2003; Grix, 2004; Richards, 2003; Grix, 2004).

Interpretivism rejects “any permanent, unvarying (or foundational) standards by which

truth can be universally known” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005: 204). Interpretivists believe
that reality varies and is socially constructible. For Grix (2004), “researchers are
inextricably part of the social reality being researched, i.e. they are not ‘detached’ from
the subject they are studying” (p.83). However, social phenomena should be understood
“through the eyes of the research participants and not the researcher” (Cohen et al.,
2007: 21). Interpretive epistemology is subjective and constructive. Flick (2004) posits
that “perception is seen not as a passive-receptive process of representation but as an
active constructive process of production” (p.89). Interpretive research methods
generate qualitative data.

Critics of the interpretive paradigm observe its inability to yield theories that are
generalisable to broader populations (Grix, 2004). Grix also identifies the interaction of
 24

the researcher with the researched as an aspect of interpretive research that renders its
results subjective with little objectivity.

Research methods are processes, techniques and strategies employed to collect data
necessary for analysis for information generation. There exist quantitative, qualitative
and mixed methods in research.

Quantitative research methods use numerical data “to quantify attitudes, opinions,
behaviours, and other defined variables, and generalise the results to a larger sample
population” (DeFranzo, 2011: para 3). Quantitative methods facilitate robust hypothesis
testing, generates internally valid and externally generalisable, and examines cause-and-
effect relationships between constructs (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). These
methods are unsuitable for social research because they disenfranchise the participants
in the research, studying people like objects rather than human beings, and they miss
out on the contextual, vibrant and multidimensional insights that could emerge from the
interaction of the researcher and the researched.

Qualitative research methods and tools are useful to understand and describe human
experiences and hence renders the study prone to the subjective views of the
participants despite the experience of the researcher. The essential advantage of
qualitative methods is their ability to profer a complete understanding and analysis of a
study subject without limitations to the scope of the research and the characteristics of
participants’ responses (Collis & Hussey, 2003). They capture a complete
understanding of the study. Qualitative methods employ constructivist or relativist
paradigms to enhance the engagement with the contextual social influences that enrich
social study (Lincoln & Guba, 2000).

Mixed methods research designs adopt at least one element of qualitative and
quantitative research like viewpoints, inference techniques, data collection and analysis
(Johnson et al., 2007). Their use responds to the tensions between quantitative and
qualitative proponents and captures the advantages of these methods in methodological
pluralism (Barker & Pistrang, 2005, 2012; Tebes, 2005). Thus this researcher adopts
mixed methods to capture the ‘completeness’ of qualitative methods while exploring the
internal validity and external generalizability of quantitative methods to enhance the
quality of the research.
 25

3.3 Research approach and strategy;

The objective of the approach and strategy for this research is to generate adequately
high-quality data that optimises the reliability and validity of the results.

3.3.1 Sampling and Recruitment Strategy

The entire set of entities on which we relate management decisions is referred to as the
population, in the case of this study, project professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Proposals and ideas about a population are valid, meaningful and trustworthy if such are
made on substantial evidence (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). Researchers mostly study
samples (drawn from the population) because the vast nature of the entire population
will render any study complex and usually impracticable (Easterby – Smith et al.,
2012).

Quantitative sampling approaches seek to select samples that represent most of the
characteristics of the entire population (the sample is representative of the population).
Researchers use the evidence derived from a sample to generate insights that apply to
the population by inference (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). However, inductive
approaches produce generalised conclusions and theories from a limited amount of
observations and so negatively affect the reliability of the research (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005).

This research uses convenience sampling (the selection of the most accessible
participants) to target construction project management professionals with sufficient
training and experience to provide valuable insights in the study context (Freedman et
al., 2007). The rationale behind this sampling strategy is to avoid involving practitioners
with limited knowledge and experience in the field.

However, the researcher is aware of the effect convenience sampling could have on the
quality of data that could result from such samples since the sample that such a method
generates does not adequately represent the characteristics of the entire population.

The participants in this research come from the construction project management sector
in West and Central Africa. This research will target construction project professionals
with at least five years of experience in construction projects to ensure that the
 26

participants have adequate knowledge and experience in construction project practice to

generate relevant insights on the subject of the study.

3.3.2 Survey Design

The survey seeks data that provides an understanding of the current perspectives of
construction project management practitioners relating to CSFs and how they go about
identifying, categorising and prioritising essential project success factors. Insights from
the survey will uncover how various construction project management practitioners
measure, monitor, and evaluate the performance of construction projects against the
CSFs of the project. This research uses a questionnaire with semi-structured and open-
ended questions.

The survey consists of self-completion questionnaires, administered via the web.

Automated email serves to remind the survey participants daily. The respondents record
their answers by themselves directly on the web page. The web administration of the
survey has a low cost per respondent compared to face-to-face interviews for widely
dispersed samples (Easterby-Smith et al., 2013). Other attractions of web-administered
surveys these authors cite are easy customisation for respondents and interactivity of
web technologies avail the researcher the possibility to use drop-down boxes to explain
parts of the survey to respondents.

However, Easterby-Smith et al. (2013) note that the absence of personal

contact/interaction with the survey participants to enhance co-operation tremendously
lowers the response rates of web-administered questionnaires. Furthermore, these
authors identify the possibility of responses to web-based questionnaires coming from
people who were not targets for the survey since some respondents could use their
subordinates to fill the questionnaires and there is usually no way the researcher could
determine if such happened.

3.3.2.1 Questionnaire Design

This study uses the CSFs, derived from the extensive literature review and displayed in
Table 2.1 to formulate the questions on the questionnaire. Open-ended questions solicit
the personal, professional views of construction project management practitioners on
 27

procedures and strategies they use to maximise the possibility of project success.
Easterby-Smith et al. (2013) propose five principles for a good questionnaire design:

1. To avoid ambiguity in the responses, each item in the questionnaire must

express a unique idea.

2. When wording the questions, this researcher avoids the use of “jargons and
colloquialisms” such that all participants understand the meaning of all the
questions. In avoiding colloquialisms, this researcher uses plain language to
ensure that all participants are familiar with the expressions in the questionnaire.

3. The use of simple expressions in the active rather than passive tense ensures that
the message conveyed in the questions is clear. This researcher divides any
complicated arguments into more straightforward steps instead of expressing it
in a lengthy sentence.

4. In avoiding the use of negatives, this researcher ensures that respondents do not
answer questions the wrong way around (especially in the Likert scale
questions), thereby perturbing the clarity of data analysis.

5. This researcher avoids “leading questions” in formulating the questions to avoid

influencing the answers of participants.

This researcher uses a five-point Likert scale for some survey questions to quantify the
opinions of the participants and facilitate response by respondents and data analysis.
The Likert scale serves to quantify qualitative data to enable the use of statistical
(quantitative) methods for analysis. The need to transform qualitative data into
numerical (quantitative data) comes from the “necessity to transform an individual’s
subjectivity into an objective reality” (Joshi et al., 2015: 397). The development of the
Likert scale followed the quest to measure ‘attitude’ in a compelling, scientifically and
acceptable manner (Edmondson, 2005; McLeod, 2014). Participants in the answer the
survey questions with an awareness of the numerical rating of the said opinion in the
research.

In using a Likert scale in the questionnaire, this research generates quantitative data
from the qualitative rankings of CSFs by the research participants. The shared
 28

experiences and relationships of the research participants and other sources generate the
needed data (Easterby – Smith et al., 2012).

3.4 Data Collection

This researcher utilises the forty-two CSFs for construction projects on Table 2.6.1,
resulting from a thorough literature review to develop a comprehensive preliminary
questionnaire. A pilot survey with five construction project management experts
enabled the refinement of the questionnaire, which initially had forty-five questions to
forty-four questions and the rewording of several questions also enhanced clarity in
understanding the questions by the participants.

This researcher delivered fifty-four questionnaires to the survey participants via auto-
email generation from a survey website (esurveycreator.com). The auto-generated email
introduced the participants to the objectives of the survey and provided a link to the
survey web page. This researcher first used his email address to view the contents and
the presentation of the questionnaire before mass-mailing them to the participants. This
researcher sent reminder-emails every day to the respondents to enhance the response
rate to the survey. The use of social media (Skype, Facebook Messenger, and
WhatsApp) as part of the means to follow-up participants also enhanced the response
rate to the survey questionnaires.

Overall, this survey obtained thirty-one responses, yielding a fifty-seven point four
(57.4) per cent response rate. However, to enhance data integrity, this researcher
checked each response and eliminated two, which were incomplete.

3.4.1 The Profile of the Respondents

Ninety-five per cent of the participants are construction project professionals with more
than ten years of construction project experience, while about sixty per cent are
construction project managers by training. The respondents occupy middle to top
management positions in their organisations and are all engineers (civil, electrical and
mechanical) with seventy per cent having professional postgraduate degrees. Therefore,
the survey data is of acceptable credibility because the participants have excellent
project management experience and training.
 29

The participants in this research are project management professionals from Cameroon,
Nigeria, Mauritania, and Senegal; which are countries in the Sub-Saharan region in
Africa. Time and financial constraints were the main limiting factors in this survey that
impacted both the number of respondents (30) and the number of countries used in the
study.

3.5 Data Analysis

In the process of data analysis, the researcher’s efforts aim to bring order, structure, and
meaning to the mass of data collected (Marshall & Rossman, 1999:150). This process
may be ambiguous, time-consuming, and more or less messy but might be creative as
well as fascinating. Even though it might not proceed in an orderly fashion, data
analysis makes sense of, interprets and theorises data by searching for general insights
among data categories (Schwandt, 2007:6). Hence Best & Khan (2006:354) claim that
data interpretation is the application of inductive as well as deductive logic to the study
(quantitative analysis). Verma & Mallick (1999) and Morrison (2012) posit that the
interpretive approach which involves deduction from the collected data depends on the
experiences of the participants in the study and hence is a part of qualitative research.
According to Schostak & Schostak (2008), collected data are usually not fixed but are
open to reconfiguration and thus present the possibility of multiple ways of drawing
insights into the issues under investigation.

The methodological strategy of this research (the rationale the study will employ to
answer the research questions (Mason, 2002)) will focus on gathering data and insights
on how construction project management professionals identify, categorise and
prioritise CSFs and develop a framework to measure the performance of projects against
the prioritised CSFs.

3.6 Data Analysis Tools

This research will use the IBM SPSS software editing and analysing data collected
throughout the research. The ability of SPSS to perform advanced statistical analysis,
text analysis, the ease of its integration with many applications as well as its ease of use
and flexibility inform its preference for use in this research.
 30

3.6.1 Data Reliability and Validity

Dependability and reliability are analogous concepts and refer to the consistency of
generating identical results in similar research situations. Merriam (1998) views data
consistency as the possibility of replicating research findings given similar participants
or context. Salkind (1997), however, regards reliability as the ability of the same
research method to have identical performance in the past as in the future. It is therefore
vital to sufficiently describe the circumstances and contexts that are necessary to ensure
the consistency of research findings so that other researchers in the field can clearly
understand the conditions under which the study generated the findings.

3.6.2 Reliability and Validity

Reliability is a concept that researchers use in assessing quantitative research while in

the qualitative paradigm, reliability most often refers to information elicitation
(Muhammad et al., 2008). Qualitative researchers mostly regard reliability as a
definition of the quality of the study that aids professionals to make sense out of an
otherwise difficult or confusing situation (Eisner, 1991). Stenbacka (2001) posits that
reliability is the “purpose of explaining” in the quantitative approach while in the
qualitative research paradigm it serves in “generating understanding”. However,
Stenbacka (2001) regards the concept of reliability as ambiguous since a discussion of
reliability in a qualitative study is an indication of the questionable quality of the
research.

Validity should be at the centre of any sound study that aims to produce results that are
trustworthy as well as accurate (Bond, 2003). For the research to achieve validity, the
data collection process should cover the scope of the research (Ghauri & Gronhaug,
2005) and ensures that the researcher performs all intended assessments (Field, 2005).
Reliability refers to how well the assessment of reality generates consistent and stable
outcomes in similar circumstances (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Reliable measurement
will achieve the same results when repeated (repeatability).

The definitions and analyses of the concepts of validity and reliability refer mostly to
quantitative research methods and require a redefinition in the qualitative realm. While
validity and reliability determine quality in quantitative design, credibility, Neutrality,
 31

confirmability, consistency, dependability, and transferability define quality in

qualitative research design (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Patton (2001) discusses the reliability and validity of qualitative research by answering
the questions:

1. What were the approaches adopted to guarantee the integrity, validity, and
accuracy of the research findings?

2. How do the qualification and professional experience of the researcher enhance

the quality of the research?

3. What are the underlying assumptions of the study?

In quantitative research, the validity of the employed research instrument refers to how
well the study measures the intended phenomenon and the accuracy of the research
results (Golafashani, 2003).

Lincoln & Guba (1985) emphasise “inquiry audit” as a means to enhance the
dependability of qualitative study, while Clont (1992) and Seale (1999) prefers data
consistency or reliability. Campbell (1996) posits that research professionals can
achieve data consistency through the verification of the collected data, data reduction
procedures and outputs, and process notes.

However, Stenbacka (2001) argues that since reliability is concerned with measurement,
the concept is not relevant in qualitative research and so should not apply when making
judgments about the quality of qualitative research. Lincoln & Guba (1985) reveal the
congruence and reliability by claiming that reliability is a direct consequence of
validity, a position supported by Patton (2001).

Kvale (1989) proposes validity as investigation, as communication, and as action as

approaches to validity in qualitative research. In this regard, the researcher draws out of
experience in order to evaluate the validity, reliability and generalisability of the study.
Hence, researchers address the validity of a study through description and explanation
in reconciliation with existing descriptions. The researcher's perception in the study and
his/her chosen research paradigm influences the validity of the research (Miller, 2000).
However, the researcher still needs to develop his/her concept of validity. According to
 32

Senbacka (2001), reliability is an essential quality concept a qualitative researcher needs

to resolve in order to determine that the study is a part of proper research.

To enhance the credibility of research, Golafashani (2003) recommends the

maximisation of validity and trustworthiness, an effort that can render the result of the
study defensible as well as generalisable, a position Stenbacka (2001) supports. To
ensure the validity of research, McMillan & Schumacher (2006) recommend
continuously refining sampling as well as data collection techniques during the data
collection process.

On the other hand, some authors have recommended that the researcher spends enough
time on the field and use multiple data collection methods to validate the findings
(Stenbacka, 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seale, 1999; McMillan & Schumacher,
2006). This so-called triangulation is a strategy researchers have employed to improve
the validity and the reliability of research. Patton (2001) posits that triangulation
enhances the quality of research by combining methods, that is, employing different
methods or data, which may entail the use of quantitative as well as qualitative
approaches.

This study analyses the rating professionals in project management give to CSFs in the
Sub-Saharan context and compare this to the results and contexts of other researchers
like Toor & Ogunlana (2009) and Gudiene (2014) to determine the validity of the study.
Triangulation in the context of this research is not possible because the researcher had
limited time and budget to carry out the study. However, this researcher carries out a
pilot study using five participants to refine the questionnaire in a manner to assure the
quality of the collected data. During Analysis, this researcher uses Cronbach's alpha
calculations to determine the reliability of the results of this study.

3.6 Ethical Consideration

Murphy and Dingwall observe that “research participants may experience anxiety,
stress, guilt and damage to self-esteem during data collection” (2001: 340). This
researcher will be actively making situational ethical and moral decisions during and
after interview sessions (Mason, 2002). Furthermore, the researcher will avoid
 33

encouraging any personal relationships with participants as these may influence the
quality of the data resulting from the survey.
 34

Chapter 4: Results, Analysis and Evaluation of Findings

4.1 Introduction

This chapter implements the methodology discussed in the previous chapter. It builds
the survey questionnaire, administers them, collects the responses, codes the responses
into meaningful data that can serve in analysis and interpretation, and draws insights
that answers the research questions in the introductory chapter of this research. By the
end of this chapter, this researcher aims to determine how construction project
professionals select and prioritise CSFs and also bring out the existing differences in the
prioritisation of CSFs between the context of this research and those in previous
research.

4.3 Data Coding

The survey questions solicited the rating of success factors from participants according
to their professional judgment. This survey used a five-point Likert scale from zero (Not
sure) to five (Extremely important). To accurately convert the results of the
questionnaire into numerical values, this researcher used the Find-and-Replace function
in excel, thereby ensuring that the data transcription from text to numerical variables is
error-free.

4.4 Data Reliability

The previous chapter discusses the importance of data reliability (consistency). Data
consistency aims to determine whether there is a general agreement in opinion
concerning the survey questions. This researcher used IBM SPSS software to verify the
reliability of the CSFs on the questionnaire by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha value of
the responses. Cronbach’s alpha is the average of all correlations in all combination of
split-halves (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Cronbach’s alpha values vary from zero (no
consistency/reliability) to one (total consistency/reliability). A strong correlation depicts
high reliability, while a weak correlation is an indication of an unreliable research
instrument. An alpha-value of less than 0.5 is usually not unacceptable.
 35

Table 4.4 displays the results from the calculation.

Table 4.4: Data consistency output from IBM SPSS

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

0.964 42

Where the number of items represents the forty-two five-point Likert questions on the
questionnaire.
The alpha value on the table (0.964) shows very high reliability of the survey measuring
instrument (the questionnaire).

4.5 Hypothesis Testing

The purpose of the test is to establish the source of variation in the perception of CSFs
by construction project management professionals. This researcher carried out the
Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) to establish the cause of variations in the means of the
CSFs. The Null Hypothesis is “variation in the rating of CSFs is by chance” while the
alternative to the null is “variation results from differences in the rating that
construction project management professionals give to CSFs”. Table 4.5.1 displays the
output of the ANOVA.

Table 4.5.1. The output of ANOVA on the collected data from IBM SPSS

ANOVA

Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups 93.259 39 2.3912 2.61170862 4.0342E-07 1.4106

Within Groups 993.41 1085 0.9156

Total 1086.7 1124

 36

The results in Table 4.5.1 shows an F-value that is greater than the F-critical (F statistic)
value and a p-value less than 0.05. Consequently, this researcher can reject the null
hypothesis that variations of the means are a result of chance and adopt the alternative
to the null hypothesis which claims that variations in the means result from differences
in the ranking of CSFs by the participants in the survey.

4.6 Statistical Test of Means

To determine the prioritisation of CSFs by the participants, this researcher used the
Descriptive Statistic function in IBM SPSS to calculate and rank the means of CSFs.
Table 4.6.1 displays the result in descending order. Some researchers (Nguyen et al.,
2004; Li et al., 2005; Gale & Lou; 2004; Low & Chuan, 2006; Toor & Ogunlana, 2009)
used a similar rating approach to rank CSFs. Other researchers like Gudiene et al.
(2013), Yong & Mustaffa (2013) and Iyer & Jha (2006) prefer the Relative Importance
Index (RII) to provide an understanding of various predictors as well as their roles in a
data set (Tonidandel & Breton, 2011).

Table 4.6.1: Ranking of CSFs as obtained from IBM SPSS

Descriptive Statistics

Standard
Rank Success Factors N Sum Mean Variance
Deviation

Efficient communication
1 28 130 4.64 0.559 0.312
amongst the project actors

Effective project planning

2 29 132 4.55 0.686 0.470
and control

Expression and prioritisation

3 28 127 4.54 0.693 0.480
of project goals by the client

Leadership and management

4 29 130 4.48 0.871 0.759
skills of the project manager
 37

Risk communication,
5 28 125 4.46 0.693 0.480
monitoring and review

Communication and feedback

6 management skills of the 29 129 4.45 0.827 0.685
project manager

Professional training and

7 experience of the project 29 129 4.45 0.736 0.542
manager

Initiation, identification,
assessment, response
8 28 123 4.39 0.832 0.692
planning and implementation
of risk management

Regular project review

meetings with relevant
9 28 123 4.39 0.629 0.396
stakeholders to evaluate
project performance

Adequately designed,
10 communicated and 29 126 4.34 0.721 0.520
coordinated tasks

Support to project
11 management team by top 28 121 4.32 1.020 1.041
management

Client’s understanding and

12 28 121 4.32 0.772 0.597
acceptance of project plans

Regular attendance at project

13 28 121 4.32 0.612 0.374
review meetings by the client

Professional experience of
14 27 116 4.30 0.775 0.601
team members
 38

Alignment of project goals

15 28 120 4.29 0.810 0.656
with stakeholders’ interests

A clear presentation of
16 project requirements and 28 120 4.29 0.976 0.952
objectives by the client

Regular and prompt client

17 28 119 4.25 0.887 0.787
feedback

Clearly defined contract with

18 adequate dispute resolution 28 119 4.25 1.076 1.157
clauses

Motivational and
19 coordinating abilities of the 29 122 4.21 0.819 0.670
project manager

Adequately defined project

20 29 122 4.21 1.082 1.170
team roles and responsibility

Reliability of project
21 28 117 4.18 1.056 1.115
estimates

Planning and organising

22 26 108 4.15 1.008 1.015
skills of team members

Cordial and respectful

23 relationship among project 27 112 4.15 0.718 0.516
team members

Availability of sufficient
24 28 116 4.14 0.803 0.646
human and material resources

An understanding of the
25 goals and priorities of all 28 116 4.14 0.803 0.646
stakeholders
 39

Effective tendering and

recruitment procedure of
26 28 116 4.14 1.353 1.831
competent and experienced
contractors and designers

Cordial and respectable

27 relationship with project 28 116 4.14 0.803 0.646
stakeholders

28 Work schedule and definition 29 120 4.14 0.789 0.623

Learning/training capacity of
29 27 111 4.11 0.892 0.795
project team members

Conflict resolution skills of

30 29 119 4.10 0.939 0.882
the project manager

Level of engagement of
31 27 110 4.07 0.874 0.764
project team members

The influence of
32 organisational culture on 29 117 4.03 0.944 0.892
project management practices

Change management skills of

33 29 116 4.00 1.282 1.643
project manager

Team composition and

34 29 115 3.97 0.823 0.677
integration

Selection and management of

35 29 113 3.90 1.145 1.310
subcontractors

Flexibility and adaptability to

36 27 105 3.89 1.188 1.410
change of team members
 40

Quality craftsmanship and

37 innovative skills of team 27 104 3.85 1.134 1.285
members

Relevant project control

38 29 111 3.83 1.167 1.362
mechanisms

Type of contract (Design-

build, design-bid-build,
39 28 101 3.61 1.370 1.877
public-private-partnership,
multi-firm, and so forth)

Level of use of technology in

40 29 104 3.59 1.119 1.251
construction tasks

Cordial relationship based on

41 trust among project 28 98 3.50 1.401 1.963
stakeholders

The level of bureaucratic

42 practices involved in the 28 93 3.32 1.156 1.337
project

Analysis and Summary

Research Question 1: How do construction project management professionals in

Sub-Saharan Africa prioritise CSFs?

An analysis of the data on table 4.6.1 displays the answer to the first research question
the emphasis the participants in this study have placed on factors relating to project
manager competence and effective risk management. Stakeholder management related
aspects, project organisation, project manager competence, and risk management
aspects feature as the top priority CSFs on the table. Factors relating to risk
management feature in the top ten essential project success factors.
 41

The appearance of risk management factors in the top ten CSFs, though not surprising,
is a significant deviation from other research contexts in the construction projects
sector. An important aspect of projects is uncertainty which is a severe issue even for a
highly experienced manager (De Meyer, 2002). De Meyer found out that most managers
fail to recognise and identify various types of uncertainty which individually demand
different management approaches. Furthermore, the project, in its very essence, is
unique with interrelated tasks, has a fixed duration and a pre-defined outcome.
Therefore, to deal with the unusual nature of a project, a project management team
needs to accord adequate importance to risk management to achieve the best project
outcomes.

Research Question 2: What difference exists between the Sub-Saharan context

(the organisational, social, economic and political environment) and other
regional contexts in construction project management?

The top ten success factors in the table reveal some fascinating deviations from previous
research from other parts of the world (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009; Yong & Mustafa,
2013; Gudiene et al., 2014; Omran et al., 2012; Phua & Rowlinson, 2004; Varajao et al.,
2014). Toor & Ogunlana (2009), Yong and Mustaffa (2013), Gunduz & Yahya (2015),
found success factors concerning the organisation of the project like planning and
control, project resources, contract structure and requirements analysis featuring in the
top ten essential CSFs to consider when implementing projects in the relevant contexts
of their studies.

Collier (2007) and Moyo (2009) identify limitations in project management capacity as
an essential cause of the poor performance of African projects. Furthermore, Ika &
Saint-Macary (2014) observe that a significant number of project managers in Africa
lack professional training in project management. It is not a surprise, therefore, that
participants in this research have emphasised project manager competence related
success factors as priority CSFs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, this researcher
observes that project manager competence impacts project team performance,
stakeholder management, project planning and organisation, project risk management,
communication management and many other aspects of the project. The project
 42

manager’s competence is like a nucleus that binds together other aspects of the project
that are essential for successful project delivery.

4.7 Discussion and Summary

This study thus far has a central objective to evaluate the CSFs in the construction
industry in the sub-Saharan context, examines the influencing factors that determine the
selection and prioritisation of CSFs intending to ameliorate project performance in sub-
Sharan Africa. In the following sections, this researcher discusses the main categories of
CSFs that are relevant to the construction industry in the sub-Saharan region with their
relevant and ranked CSFs. Appendix iv displays the tables with the CSFs rankings for
the various categories as found in the literature review chapter of this research.

4.7.1 The Competence of the project manager

Leadership and management skills, communication and feedback management skills,

and professional training and experience feature in the top ten most essential success
factors in this study. This indicates the importance project management professionals
give to the competence of the project manager in construction projects. The rationale for
the high ranking of project manager competence results from the glaring inadequacy of
project management capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, as reflected in Collier (2007) and
Moyo (2009). Rwelamina & Purushottam (2012) highlight the lack of project
management capacity by observing that sub-Saharan construction project managers
mostly lack formal project management training.

Construction project management professionals are mostly engineers, architects and

surveyors who lack proper project management training and skills. Therefore, it is
imperative that for construction project professionals to deliver compelling project
performances, they should acquire construction-specific as well as project management
specific competencies. The emergence of design-and-build and other construction
project procurement methods has resulted in construction project professionals dealing
with issues and taking up new roles and responsibilities (Gilleard and Chong, 1996;
Shenhar et al., 1997). Ceran & Dorman (1995) and Russel et al. (1997) argue that
construction professionals must seek to complement their traditional roles and
 43

responsibilities with relevant project management knowledge and skills to meet

contemporary demands which have become their responsibility.

Edum-Fotwe & McCaffer (2000) emphasise the importance of project management

competencies to equip construction project professionals to deal with the challenging
industry climate and to ensure sustainable project delivery. It is also logical that an
improvement of project management capacity would lead to better project planning and
control, and all other success factors related to the organisation of the project

Motivational and coordinating skills, conflict resolution skills, change management

skills, and communication and feedback management skills relate closely with
leadership and management skills. These skillsets are essential for the project manager
to effectively influence the project team and maximise their engagement in the project.
The project manager also needs these skills to manage project consultants, contractors
and key project stakeholders to deliver project outcomes that meet the micro (scope,
time and cost) as well as the macro (functionality and strategic) objectives of the
project.

Project management activities are essential to project success (Hubbard, 1990). By

adopting the management tools relevant to the unique context of a project, Jaselskis &
Ashley (1991) posit that project managers would necessarily plan and implement
construction projects efficiently in a way that optimises the possibility of the project’s
success. The competence of the project manager is critical in establishing and
maintaining a relationship based on credibility and trust with project stakeholders and in
the construction project management industry at large (Mayer et al., 1995; Kadefors,
2004; Pinto et al., 2009). Credibility, trust and competence are essential in the
maintenance of healthy project relationships with all project stakeholders (Pinto et al.,
2009).

Project managers should be skilled conflict, uncertainty and change managers. The
leadership skills of the project team leader and his or her engagement in the project are
critical factors that influence project planning, scheduling, as well as communication
(Belassi & Tukel, 1996).
 44

This study recommends capacity building in project management of project personnel,

the engagement of adequately trained project managers as well as the provision of
proper project management training incentives by project actors and relevant
stakeholders.

4.7.2 The organisation of the project

The appearance of effective planning and control and adequately designed,

communicated and coordinated tasks in the top ten list of most essential CSFs of a
construction project in the sub-Saharan context is consistent with other contexts. These
and the other aspects of the organisational setup of a construction project are essential
because they determine the pace of most of the other project activities. Research by
Toor & Ogunlana (2009), Bersanetti & Carvalho (2015), Varajao et al. (2014) and
Gudiene et al. (2014) emphasise effective project planning and control, which features
among essential success factors in the context of their studies.

In organising a construction project, the breakdown of works into smaller and easily
managed tasks is essential for effective planning, control, schedule and allocation of
project resources, work schedule and definition, the composition of teams, and selection
and management of sub-contractors. The adequate management of these features
positively impacts the effective delivery of construction project outcomes. The
definition of the team roles of key project actors impacts the effectiveness and
efficiency of the project team.

Construction projects require diligent and thorough planning at the very beginning of
the project before execution starts while adequate monitoring ensures the project runs
smoothly (Toor and Ogunlana, 2009). Lack of proper planning may result in budget and
schedule overruns and scope creeps (Yong & Mustaffa, 2013) and possibly to project
outcomes that fail to meet the business and strategic objectives of the project owners.

4.7.3 Competence of Project team members

Project planning and implementation require a project team that is highly trained,
experienced, skilled and versatile. A capable project team would require excellent
professional training of individual team members, planning and organising skills,
 45

excellent interpersonal skills, capacity and willingness to learn, high engagement among
many vital factors.

Long-term trust among project teams may be difficult as a result of the temporal
characteristic of construction projects, but project managers must be sensitive to the
needs of team members and ensure that the first impression of team members as they
begin a project inspires commitment and collaboration during the project (Munns,
1995). The leadership and motivational abilities of the project manager are factors that
highly influence the competence of construction project teams. Project managers should
monitor team performance and ensure that issues and conflicts that arise among team
members are resolved to foster cohesion, collaboration and respect within the team.

4.7.4 Risk Management

A project, being a novel and unique venture implies that in its very nature, has a high
level of uncertainties. Risk management is, consequently a crucial project management
skill that impacts project success (Krane et al., 2009).

The two risk management factors introduced in this study occupy the fifth and eighth
positions in the ranking. This indicates the critical nature of risk management in
construction project management. Worthy of note is the absence of risk management in
the studies of some researchers like Pinto & Slevin (1987) and Toor & Ogunlana
(2009). However, other studies have dealt more with risk management as an essential
success factor in construction projects (Maytorena et al., 2007; Simister, 2004; Miller &
Lessard, 2001; Moynihan, 1997).

In the process phase presented in the conceptual framework, during a brainstorming

session, the project management team identifies and analyses the project risks and
identify and assign risk resources. The risk management team designs
methodologies/strategies to manage various project risks, determine risk probabilities
and impacts and put together a risk reporting and tracking mechanism.

Risk management closely relates to change and uncertainty management and

stakeholder management. The project management team aligns project objectives with
stakeholder needs and ensure that all stakeholders are fully involved in the project
 46

implementation process. The project manager’s uncertainty management, change

management and conflict management skills significantly impact risk management in a
project.

4.7.5 Client Engagement

The overall ranking of CSFs shows that all five of the client-related factors feature in
the top twenty factors. The client must understand his or her role while participating in
project planning and implementation and also communicate his or her requirements to
various stakeholders like designers and contractors (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009) to avoid
ambiguities creeping up during the execution of the project.

At the input phase in the process domain, presented in the conceptual framework in
chapter 1, the client clearly outlines, explains and communicates project requirements to
all concerned with project execution. The set project requirements guide the project
management team to set the project performance goals which serve as a road map
during the implementation of the project. In the same vein, the client needs to fully
engage in satisfying the needs of relevant project actors to avoid delays and
misunderstandings in the process phase (Pinto & Slevin, 1988).

Low and Chuan (2006) argue that the client could be solely responsible for project
failure. Such is the case with a significant number of African projects where especially
government projects suffer cost and schedule overruns because clients do not pay
milestone bills to project contractors on time leading to some contractors suspending or
slowing down works on the project. Low and Chuan (2006) also posit that “clients’
actions before, during and after the project can affect the performance of a project”.
Consequently, client engagement, awareness and prompt response to the needs and the
issues of consultants, contractors and other project stakeholders during all stages of the
project is a crucial project success factor (Bresnen & Haslam, 1991).

Inadequate client engagement during project execution could result in unforeseen

changes, schedule and budget overruns, and disputes concerning the final product of the
project (Fortune & white, 2006; Millet, 1999; Toor & Ogunlana, 2006). To achieve a
successful construction project; therefore, clients need to actively play their roles in the
duration of the project (Low & Chuan, 2006; Blyth & Worthington, 2001).
 47

4.7.6 Senior management engagement

Support to the project management team by top management featuring as number

eleven CSF indicates how essential the success factor is for successful project delivery.
Yong & Mustaffa (2013) find the support and motivation of top management to the
project manager as well as the project management team positively influence the project
team’s commitment and hence the success of the project. In the process phase in the
process domain, top management needs to facilitate the timely availability and
allocation of human and material resources required in different stages in the project
implementation process to prevent delays.

More than required bureaucratic practices are also a deterrent to project success.
Bureaucratic bottlenecks could slow down project decision-making processes, cause
conflicts between project stakeholders, prevent the timely availability of project
resources and generally slow down the project. Bureaucratic practices are one among
many causes of poor project performance in sub-Saharan Africa (Collier, 2007; Moyo,
2009).

4.7.7 Stakeholder management

The literature review section of this study describes project success as the extent to
which the final product meets both the requirements of all stakeholders and the
satisfaction of the business objectives of the project. A successful construction project
delivery requires the involvement and commitment of relevant stakeholders from the
duration of the project.

To effectively manage the engagement of stakeholders in a project some researchers

found that efficient communication was indispensable (Dainty et al., 2006; Anderson et
al., 2006; Cheung et al., 2003; Meng, 2012). The complex relationships between
contractors, suppliers, clients, consultants and other project personnel demands and
effective communication management plan. Therefore, stakeholder management is
intimately related to the communications and feedback management skills of the project
manager. At the input phase of the project, the project management team identifies the
key stakeholders of the project, determine their interest in the project and the issues they
might bring to bear on the smooth running of the project. The team then designs an
 48

adequate management and communication plan to engage these stakeholders

effectively.
 49

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendation

conclusions

The aims of this research were to examine how professionals in construction project
management select and prioritise the CSFs necessary for successful project delivery. It
also sought the differences between the CSFs for African projects and those for projects
in other countries and continents. The study’s main objective is to provide construction
project professionals with CSFs that address the prevailing socio-political environment
in the continent.

In this study, insights drawn from the knowledge and experiences of project
management professionals have aided the researcher to examine how CSFs are selected
and prioritised. The research also revealed the underlying differences between the
ranking of CSFs of construction projects in the African Context and other regions of the
world. The results show some interesting deviations from the ranking obtained by
researchers in different regions and context. Efficient communication amongst project
actors tops the list of CSFs in this research, relegating effective project planning and
control to the second place. The results further show that sub-Sharan construction
project professionals emphasise on the competence of the project manager, client
engagement, project organisation and risk management.

The appearance of risk management is one of the surprises in this study because the
works of most researchers in the field do not show risk management amongst the
essential CSFs in construction projects.

Recommendations

It is crucial to engage trained, experienced and competent project managers, solicit

adequate client engagement, set up an effective project organisation and carry out
adequate risk management to ensure that the project runs successfully. For project
champions who have succeeded in past projects, a comparison with the real success
factors in their past experiences would generate a list of factors that best fits with their
contexts.
 50

The insights in this study could also aid construction project champions in sub-Saharan
Africa to establish an improved baseline for performance enhancement and increase the
probability of project success. Improved implementation of a performance enhancement
strategy will reduce the high failure rate of construction projects in the sub-region.

Any construction project leader seeking to use the results of this study to enhance
project performance should note that CSFs are context-sensitive and so cannot be
generalised. The data for this study comes from construction professionals in sub-
Saharan Africa and should undergo adequate adaptations to suit other regions and
environments.

This study used construction project professionals from different organisational

backgrounds. The organisational environments of the various participants bring to bear
diverse experiences and insights, thereby enhancing the quality of the research.
Inadequate budget and time available for this project hindered the inclusion of some
essential project management players in the research. Some construction project players
like clients, suppliers, sub-contractors, regulators and quality controllers could not
participate in the project. Therefore, the prioritisation of CSFs in this study may not
represent the views of all construction project personnel in sub-Saharan Africa.

Furthermore, some qualitative insights into the CSF selection and prioritisation process
in sub-Saharan Africa could further increase the quality of the findings of this research.
Interviews were not logistically possible due also to time and lack of adequate
resources. This researcher, therefore, recommends further inquiry into the prioritisation
of CSFs in the construction industry in sub-Saharan Africa while taking into
consideration interviews and the inclusion of all construction project management
actors in the study.

The factors influencing the selection and ranking of success factors of construction
projects could also be a question for further research. An understanding of the internal,
as well as external factors that influence the ranking of CSFs, would better inform
professionals on the issues to consider when selecting and prioritising the CSFs for the
unique contexts of their projects. The factors to consider when selecting and ranking
CSFs in the construction industry could accompany construction project management
professionals to effectively select and prioritise the CSFs of their projects.
 51

References:
Almajed, A., & Mayhew, P. (2014). ‘An empirical investigation of IT project success in
developing countries’. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers, pp.984-990.
Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280359839_An_empirical_investigation_of_I
T_project_success_in_developing_countries Accessed: 07/04/2019

Andersen, E.S. and Jessen, S.A. (2000). ‘Project evaluation scheme: a tool for
evaluating project status and predicting project results’. Project Management Journal, 6
(1), pp.61–9.

Andersen, E.S., Jessen, S.A., Birchall, D. and Money, A.H. (2006). ‘Exploring project
success’. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(2), pp.127–47.

Ankur, J., Kale, S., Satish, C & Pal, D.K. (2015). ‘Likert Scale: Explored and
Explained.’ British Journal of Applied Science & Technology

7(4) pp.396-403

Atkinson, R. (1999). ‘Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and
a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria’. International Journal of
Project Management, 17(6), pp.337–42.

Baccarini, D. (1996). ‘The concept of project complexity – a review’, International

Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, pp.201-4.

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). ‘Quality criteria under methodological pluralism:
Implications for conducting and evaluating research.’ American Journal of Community
Psychology, 35, pp.201-212.

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2012). Methodological pluralism: Implications for

consumers and producers of research. In L. A. Jason & D. Glenwick (Eds.),
Methodological approaches to community-based research (pp. 33-50.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
 52

Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996). ‘A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects’. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3),
pp.141–51.

Best, J.W. & Kahn, J. (2006). Research in Education. New Delhi. Prentice-Hall of.
India Pvt. Ltd.

Blyth, A. & Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the Brief for Better Design. Spon,
London.

Bresnen, M.J. and Haslam, C.O. (1991). ‘Construction industry clients: a survey of their
attributes and project management practices’, Construction Management and
Economics, 9(4), pp.327-42.

Bond, T (2003). ‘Validity and Assessment: a Rasch Measurement Perspective’.

Metodoliga de las Ciencias del Comportamento, 5(2), pp.179-194

Bullen, C., & Rockart, J. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. Sloan School of
Management.

Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment, Newbury

Park, CA, SAGE.

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,
ASCE, 127(2), pp.93-100.

Chan, A. P., Scott, D. & Chan, A. P. (2004). ‘Factors affecting the success of a
construction project’. Journal of construction engineering and management. 130(1),
pp.153-155. Available at https://web-b-ebscohost-
com.uoro.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=a26227b0-17b6-4247-
9e4d-99b14abe053b%40pdc-v-sessmgr02 Accessed: 08/04/2019.

Cheung, S.O., Ng, T.S.T., Wong, S.P. and Suen, H.C.H. (2003). ‘Behavioral aspects in
construction partnering’. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), pp.333–
43.
 53

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, ASCE,
125(3), pp. 142-50.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Colbert, F. (2003). ‘Company Profile: The Sydney Opera House: An Australian Icon’.
International Journal of Arts Management, 5(2), pp.69-77.

Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are

failing and what can be done about it. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Collis, J. & Hussey R (2003). Business Research. 2nd edition, Palgarve Macmillan.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). ‘The ‘real’ success factors on projects’. International Journal

of Project Management, 20(3), pp.185-90.

Cox, R.F., Issa, R.R.A., & Aherns, D. (2003). ‘Management’s perception of key
performance indicators for construction’. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 129 (2), pp.142-151.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dainty, A., Moore, D. and Murray, M. (2006). Communication in Construction: Theory

and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London.

DeFranzo, E. S. (2011). What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative

research? Retrieved from: https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/qualitative-vs-
quantitative-research/

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Jackson, P. (2012). Management Research. (4th ed.)
London: SAGE Publications.

Edmondson, D.R. (2005). ‘Likert scales: A history.’ Proceedings of the 12th

Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in Marketing. California; April 28-
May1 2005.
 54

Ellen, R. F. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. New York,

NY: Academic Press.

Esmaelli, B., Molenar, K. R & Pellicer, E. (2014). ‘Critical Success Factors for
Construction Projects.’ International Congress on Project Management and
Engineering, (18), pp. 58–468 Alcañiz

Finney, S., & Corbett, M. (2007). ‘ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of
critical success factors.’ Business Process Management Journal, 13(3) pp.329-347.
Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228353687_ERP_implementation_A_compila
tion_and_analysis_of_critical_success_factors Accessed: 08/04/2019.

Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications Inc.

Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006). ‘Framing of project critical success factors by a

systems model.’ International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp.53-65.

Futrell, R. T., Shafer, L. I., & Shafer, D. F. (2001). Quality software project
management. Prentice Hall PTR.

Flick, U. (2004). Constructivism. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A

companion to qualitative research (pp. 88–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gage, N. (2007). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A historical sketch of research
on teaching since 1989. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research and Evidence-
based Practice (pp. 151–166). London, England: Sage.

Gale, A. and Luo, J. (2004), ‘Factors affecting construction joint ventures in China’,
International Journal of Project Management, 22 (1), pp.33-42.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies, Harlow,

FT/Prentice Hall.

Goetz, J. P. and LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in

Educational Research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
 55

Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. London, Sage.

Available at
https://books.google.cm/books/about/Fourth_Generation_Evaluation.html?id=k_zxEUst
46UC&redir_esc=y Accessed: 11/04/2019

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In

N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp.
163–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudienė, N., Banaitis, A., & Banaitienė, N. (2013). ‘Evaluation of critical success
factors for construction projects – an empirical study in Lithuania’, International
Journal of Strategic Property Management, 17(1), pp.21-31. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261583602_Evaluation_of_critical_success_f
actors_for_construction_projects_-_an_empirical_study_in_Lithuania Accessed:
06/04/2019.

Gunduz, M. & Yahya, A.M (2015). ‘Analysis of project success factors in construction
industry.’ Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(1), pp.67-80

Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. (1997). ‘Evaluating contractor prequalification data:

selection criteria and project success factors.’ Construction Management and
Economics, 15(2), pp.129-47.

Heale, R. & Twycross A. (2015). ‘Validity and reliability in quantitative research.’

Evidence based Nursing, (18) 3

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition, London,
Sage.

Hubbard, D. G. (1990). ‘Successful utility project management from lessons learned.’

Project Management Journal, 21(3), pp.19-23.

Ika, L. A. (2012). ‘Project management for development in Africa: Why

projects are failing and what can be done about it.’ Project Management

Journal, 43(4), pp.27-41.

 56

Ika, L. A., & Saint-Macary, J. (2014). ‘Special Issue: Why Do Projects Fail in Africa?’
Journal of African Business, 15(3), pp.151-155

Jaselskis, E. J., & Ashley, D. B. (1991). ‘Optimal allocation of project

management resources for achieving success.’ Journal of Construction Engineering

Management,

117(2), pp.321-340.

Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). ‘Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come.’ Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp.14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., and Lisa A. Turner, L.A. (2007). ‘Toward a
definition of mixed methods research.’ Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, pp.112–
133.

Jugdev, K. and Muller, R. (2005). ‘A retrospective look at our evolving understanding

of project success.’ Project Management Journal, 36(4),

pp.19-31. Available at https://web-b-ebscohost-

com.uoro.idm.oclc.org/ehost/results?vid=2&sid=08cf490c-74d6-4098-a8fd-
4d7a7718ee30%40pdc-v-
sessmgr03&bquery=A+retrospective+look+at+our+evolving+understanding+of+proj
ect+success.&bdata=JmRiPWFwaCZkYj1wc3loJmRiPXBkaCZkYj1idWgmZGI9cHpoJ
mRiPWJ0aCZkYj1laGgmZGI9czNoJmRiPXBzdCZkYj1weGgmdHlwZT0wJnNlYXJjaE1
vZGU9U3RhbmRhcmQmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Kadefors, A. (2004). ‘Trust in project relationships: inside the black box.’ International
Journal of Project Management, 22(3), pp.175-82.

Karlsen, J.t., Andersen, J., Birkely, L.S. & Odegard, O. (2006). ‘An empirical study of
critical success factors in IT projects.’ International journal of management and
enterprise development, 3 (4), pp.292-311.

Krane, P.K., Rolstadas, A. & Olsson, N.O.E. (2010). ‘Categorizing Risks in Seven
Large Projects: Which Risks Do the Projects Focus On?’ Project Management Journal,
41(1), pp. 81-86.
 57

Lenfle, S. and Loch, C. (2009). ‘Lost roots: how project management came to
emphasise control over flexibility and novelty.’ California Management Review, 53(1)
pp.32-55.

Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. & Hardcastle, C. (2005). ‘Critical success factors for
PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry’, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 23, pp.459-71.

Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999). ‘Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination.’ International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), pp.243-8.

Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and

emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp.163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Low, S. P. and Chuan, Q. (2006). ‘Environmental factors and work performance of

project managers in the construction industry’, International Journal of Project
Management, 24(1), pp.24-37.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. London:
Sage Publications.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). ‘An integrative model of
organizational trust.’ Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp.709-34.

Maytorena, E., Winch, G. M., Freeman, J., & Kiely, T. (2007). ‘The influence of
experience and information search styles on project risk identification performance.’
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54,

pp.315-326.

McLeod, S. (2014). Likert Scale. Simplypsychology.org.

Retrieved: http://www.simplypsychology.org/Likert-scale.html/pdf

Meng, X. (2012). ‘The effect of relationship management on project performance in

construction.’ International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), pp.188-98.
 58

Miller, R., & Lessard, D. (2001). ‘Understanding and managing risks in large
engineering projects.’ International Journal of Project Management,

19, pp.437-443.

Millet, R.A. (1999). ‘Failures: how to avoid them’, Journal of Management in

Engineering, 15(5), pp.32-6.

Moynihan, T. (1997). ‘How experienced project managers assess risk.’ IEEE Software,
14(3), pp.35-41.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a

better way for Africa. Vancouver, Canada: D&M Publishers.

Munns, A. (1995). ‘Potential influence of trust on the successful completion of a

project.’ International Journal of Project Management, 13(1), pp.19-24.

Murphy, E. & Dingwall, R. (2001) ‘The Ethics of Ethnography’ in P. Atkinson et al.

(eds) Handbook of Ethnography, London: Sage.

Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O. & Lan, D. T. (2004). ‘A study on project success

factors on large construction projects in Vietnam’, Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management, 11 (6) pp. 404-13.

Nicolini, D. (2002). ‘In search of ‘project chemistry’. Construction Management and

Economics, 20(2), pp.167-77.

Omran, A., Abdulbagei, M. A. and Gebril, A. O. (2012). ‘An Evaluation of the Critical
Success Factors for Construction Projects in Libya.’ Journal of Economic Behaviour,
(2) pp.17-25

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phua, F. T. T. and Rowlinson, S. (2004). ‘How important is cooperation to construction

project success? A grounded empirical quantification’, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, (11), pp.45-54.
 59

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987). ‘The critical factors in successful project
implementation’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1),

pp.22-8. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260621619_Critical_Factors_in_Successful_P
roject_Implementation Accessed: 10/04/2019.

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988). ‘Critical success factors across the project life
cycle’, Project Management Journal, 19(3), pp. 67-75. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236175751_Critical_Success_Factors_Across
_the_Project_Life_Cycle Accessed: 10/04/2019.

Rehman, A.A. & Alharti, K. (2016). ‘An introduction to research paradigms.’

International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(8), pp.51-59. Available at:
www.ijeionline.com

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Rockart, J. F. (1982). The changing role of the information systems executive: a critical
success factors perspective. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Boston, 2. Available
at https://web-b-ebscohost-com.uoro.idm.oclc.org/ehost/results?vid=11&sid=08cf490c-
74d6-4098-a8fd-4d7a7718ee30%40pdc-v-
sessmgr03&bquery=The+changing+role+of+the+information+systems+executive%3a
+a+critical+success+factors+perspective&bdata=JmRiPWFwaCZkYj1wc3loJmRiPXB
kaCZkYj1idWgmZGI9cHpoJmRiPWJ0aCZkYj1laGgmZGI9czNoJmRiPXBzdCZkYj1we
GgmdHlwZT0wJnNlYXJjaE1vZGU9U3RhbmRhcmQmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting,

resources allocation, McGraw-Hill, London.

Savenye, W. C. and Robinson, R. S. (2005). ‘Using qualitative research methods in

higher education.’ Journal of Computing. Higher Educ., 16(2), pp.65-95.

Schostak, J. F. Schostak, J. R. (2008). Radical Research: Designing, developing and

writing research to make a difference. London: Routledge.
 60

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd ed, Sage
Publications, Inc.

Shenhar, A. (2015). ‘What is Strategic Project Leadership?’ Open Economics and

Management Journal, 2, pp. 29-37 available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276077542_What_is_Strategic_Project_Leade
rship Accessed: 07/04/2019.

Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1986). ‘Project implementation profile: a new tool for
project managers’, Project Management Journal, 17(3), pp. 57-70. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Pinto/publication/236175714_The_Project
_Implementation_Profile_New_Tool_for_Project_Managers/links/54d2633f0cf2501791
7dee78/The-Project-Implementation-Profile-New-Tool-for-Project-Managers.pdf
Accessed: 10/04/2019

Songer, A. D. and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). ‘Project characteristics for successful public-

sector design-build’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
123(1) pp. 34-40.

Tebes, J. K. (2005). ‘Community science, philosophy of science, and the practice of

research.’ American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, pp.213-230.

Terre Blanche, M., & Durrheim, K. (1999). Social constructionist methods. In M. Terre
Blanche & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied

methods for the social sciences (pp. 147-177). Cape Town, SA: University of Cape
Town Press.

Tonidandel, S. & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). ‘Relative importance analysis: A useful

supplement to regression analysis.’ Journal of Business and Psychology, pp.1-9.

Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2005). ‘What is crucial for success: investigating the
critical success factors and key performance indicators for mega construction projects’,
CI 9,2 166 paper presented at the Singapore Project Management Institute Annual
Symposium, Singapore, October 12.
 61

Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). ‘Critical COMs of success in large-scale

construction projects: evidence from Thailand construction industry’, International
Journal of Project Management, 26, pp. 420-30.

Toor, S. & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). ‘Construction professionals' perception of critical

success factors for large-scale construction projects.’ Construction Innovation, pp.149-
67. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235302067_Construction_professionals'_perc
eption_of_critical_success_factors_for_large-scale_construction_projects Accessed:
08/04/2019.

Toor, S. & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). ‘Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception
of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development
projects.’ International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), pp.228-236.

Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning:
Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European journal of
operational research, 146(2) pp.241-257. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222409354_Enterprise_Resource_Planning_I
mplementation_Procedures_and_Critical_Success_Factors Accessed: 08/04/2019.

Varajao, J., Dominguez, C., Ribeiro, P. & Paiva, A. (2014). ‘Critical success aspects in
project management: similarities and differences between the construction and software
industry.’ Tehnivcki vjesnik, pp.583-89.

Verma, G. K., & Mallick, K. (1999). Researching education Perspectives and

techniques. Philadelphia Open University Press.

Walker, D.H.T. and Hampson, K. (2003). Procurement Strategies: A Relationship-

Based Approach, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Williams, T. (2005). ‘Assessing and moving on from the dominant project

management discourse in the light of project overruns.’ IEEE Transport Engineering

Management, 52(4), pp.497-508.

World Market Intelligence, (2010). The Future of Global Construction to 2014. Market
Intelligence Report.
 62

Yeomans, K. A. (1979). Statistics for the social scientist: Applied statistics

v. 2, Penguin, London, pp.302-309. 528

Yong, Y. C. & Mustaffa, N. E., (2013). ‘Critical success factors for Malaysian
construction projects: an empirical assessment.’ Construction Management and
Economics, pp.959-978.
 63

Appendices

Appendix I: Tables for the ranking of CSFs for project success

categories.

The Competence of the project manager

Rank Success Factor

1 Leadership and management skills

2 Communication and feedback management skills

3 Professional training and experience

4 Motivational and coordinating abilities

5 Conflict resolution skills

6 Change management skills

The organisation of the project

Rank Success Factor

1 Effective project planning and control

2 Adequately designed, communicated and coordinated tasks

3 Adequately defined project team roles and responsibility

4 Availability of sufficient human and material resources

5 Work schedule and definition

6 The influence of organisational culture on project management

practices
 64

7 Team composition and integration

8 Selection and management of subcontractors

9 Relevant project control mechanisms

10 Level of use of technology in construction tasks

Competence of Project team members

Rank Success Factor

1 Professional experience

2 Planning and organising skills

3 The cordial and respectful relationship among project team members

4 Learning/training capacity

5 Level of engagement

6 Flexibility and adaptability to change

7 Quality craftsmanship and innovative skills of team members

Project contract structure

Rank Success Factor

1 Clearly defined contract with adequate dispute resolution clauses

2 Reliability of project estimates

3 Effective tendering and recruitment procedure of competent and

experienced contractors and designers

4 Type of contract (Design-build, design-bid-build, public-private-

partnership, multi-firm partnership)
 65

Risk Management

Rank Success Factor

1 Risk communication, monitoring, and review

2 Initiation, identification, assessment, response planning and

implementation of risk management

Client Engagement

Rank Success Factor

1 Expression and prioritisation of project goals by the client

2 Client’s understanding and acceptance of project plans

3 Regular attendance at project review meetings by the client

4 A clear presentation of project requirements and objectives by the client

5 Regular and prompt client feedback

Senior management engagement

Rank Success Factor

1 Support to project management team

2 The level of bureaucratic practices involved in the project

Stakeholder management

Rank Success Factor

1 Efficient communication amongst the project actors

 66

2 The level of bureaucratic practices involved in the project

3 Regular project review meetings with relevant stakeholders to evaluate

project performance

4 Alignment of project goals with stakeholders’ interests

5 An understanding of the goals and priorities of all stakeholders

6 Cordial and respectable relationship with project stakeholders

7 Cordial relationship based on trust among project stakeholders

Appendix II: Web-based survey questionnaire (in English).

Link:
https://www.esurveycreator.com/?url=survey_email&uid=1755124&sub=survey_email
_delivery&done=1

An Evaluation of Critical Success Factors for Efficient and Effective Project

Management in the Construction Industry

General Introduction

I am Kingsley Tumasang, the author of this questionnaire. I am a master’s degree

student of Project Management in the University of Roehampton, London focusing on
the topic “An Evaluation of Critical Success factors for Efficient and Effective Project
Management in the Construction Industry”. This questionnaire aims to gather data and
insights about your personal and professional views on the above topic and serves as
part of my research project for the award of a MSc degree in Project Management from
the above University.
I am collecting data regarding the use and the prioritisation of Critical Success Factors
(CSFs) that influence the successful delivery of projects. This questionnaire will ask
you forty-four (44) questions in eight (8) categories regarding your professional insights
on how you select, prioritise, monitor, and evaluate CSFs in your projects. I am seeking
 67

to correlate your views in the Sub-Saharan context with existing views from other
locations in the world.

Demographics

Please enter your personal and professional information below

Name (optional):

Project role (Engineer, Architect, Surveyor, Project manager,

supervisor….)

Years of experience (0-5), (5-10), (10+):

Highest Qualification:

Email address

Specific Instructions:

You will be providing your ideas and insights on the aforementioned topic by answering
the following question:

How important are the following characteristics of a construction project have on the
project’s success?

Please click on the radio button corresponding to your choice.

N.B. This research will rank your response on a Likert scale of five (5) in the following
manner:
Low importance = 1
Slightly important = 2
Important = 3
 68

Very important = 4
Extremely important = 5
Not sure = 0.

The Competence of the project manager

1. Training and experience

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

2. Motivational and coordinating abilities

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

3. Leadership and management skills

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

4. Communication and feedback management skills

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

5. Conflict resolution skills

Low importance Important Extremely important

 69

Slightly important Very important Not sure

6. Change management skills

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

The organisation of the project

7. Effective project planning and control

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

8. Adequately defined project team roles and responsibility

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

9. Relevant project control mechanisms

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

10. Team composition and integration

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

11. Work schedule and definition

 70

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

12. Selection and management of subcontractors

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

13. Availability of sufficient human and material resources

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

14. Adequately designed, communicated and coordinated tasks

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

15. The influence of organisational culture on project management practices

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

16. Level of use of technology in construction tasks

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Competence of Project team members

 71

17. The learning/training capacity

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

18. Professional experience

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

19. Planning and organising skills

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Competence of Project team members

20. Level of engagement

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

21. Flexibility and adaptability to change

Low importance Important Extremely important

 72

Slightly important Very important Not sure

22. Cordial and respectful relationship among team members

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

23. Quality craftsmanship and innovative skills of team members

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Project contract structure

24. Effective tendering and recruitment procedure of competent and experienced

contractors and designers

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

25. Clearly defined contract with adequate dispute resolution clauses

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

26. Reliability of project estimates

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

 73

27. Type of contract (Design-build, design-bid-build, public-private-partnership,

multi-firm, and so forth)

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Risk Management

28. Initiation, identification, assessment, response planning and implementation

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

29. Risk communication, monitoring and review

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Client Engagement

30. Expression and prioritisation of project goals by client

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

31. Regular attendance at project review meetings

 74

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

32. Regular and prompt client feedback

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

33. A clear presentation of project requirements and objectives

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

34. Client understanding and acceptance of project plans

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Senior management engagement

35. Support to project management team

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

36. The level of bureaucratic practices involved in the project

 75

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

Stakeholder management

37. Cordial and respectable relationship with project stakeholders

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

38. An understanding of the goals and priorities of all stakeholders

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

39. Alignment of project goals with stakeholders’ interests

Extremely
Low importance Important
important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

40. Regular project review meetings with relevant stakeholders to evaluate project
performance

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

41. Cordial relationship based on trust among project stakeholders

 76

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

42. Efficient communication amongst project actors

Low importance Important Extremely important

Slightly important Very important Not sure

In the following questions, please use the text box provided to express your
personal professional views regarding the following questions:

43. What factors (both intrinsic and extraneous) do you consider when selecting
and prioritising CSFs for individual projects.

44. In your project implementation procedure, list any framework you use to
monitor and measure the performance of the project in relation to the identified
CSFs.

Thank you so much for taking this survey, if you have any comments I will
appreciate it if you pen them down below. Thank you again.
 77

Appendix III: Questionnaire in French.

Évaluation des facteurs de réussite essentiels pour une gestion de projet efficace et
efficiente dans le secteur de la construction

Introduction générale

Je suis Kingsley Tumasang, l’auteur du présent questionnaire. Je suis étudiant en

« Masters in Project Management » à l’Université de Roehampton, Londres centré sur
la thématique « Évaluation des facteurs de réussite essentiels pour une gestion de
projet efficace et efficiente dans le secteur de la construction ». Ce questionnaire
vise à recueillir des données et des idées sur votre point de vue personnel et
professionnel sur le sujet susmentionné et fait partie de mon projet de recherche visant à
l’octroi d’un « Masters of Science Project Management » de l’Université ci-dessus.

Je collecte des données concernant l’utilisation et la priorisation des facteurs essentiels

de succès (FES) qui influencent la bonne réalisation des projets. Ce questionnaire vous
posera quarante-quatre (44) questions en huit (8) catégories concernant vos idées
professionnelles sur votre procédure pour prioritiser, surveiller et évaluer les FES dans
vos projets. Je cherche à établir une corrélation entre votre point de vue dans le contexte
subsaharienne avec des vues existantes dans d’autres régions du monde.

Données démographiques

Nom (facultatif) :

Rôle de projet (ingénieur, architecte, métreur, chef de projet, superviseur...)

 78

Années d’expérience :

Plus haut diplôme :

Instructions spécifiques

Vous offrirez vos idées sur le sujet susmentionné en répondant aux questions suivantes :

Quel est le degré d'importance des caractéristiques suivantes d'un projet sur sa réussite ?
(Veuillez cliquer sur le bouton radio correspondant à votre choix).

N.-B. Cette recherche classera votre réponse sur une échelle de Likert de cinq (5) de la
manière suivante :

Peu d’importance = 1

Légèrement important = 2

Important = 3

Très important = 4

Extrêmement important = 5

Pas certain = 0.

Compétence du chef de projet

 79

1. Formation et expérience du chef de projet

2. Capacité de motivation et coordonation du chef de projet

3. Leadership et capacité de gestion du chef de projet

4. Compétences de communication et en gestion rétroaction du chef de projet

5. Compétences de résolution des conflits du chef de projet

6. Compétences de gestion de changement du chef de projet

 80

L’organisation du projet

7. Planification et contrôle efficaces de projet

8. Rôles et responsabilités de l'équipe de projet correctement définis

9. Mécanismes de contrôle de projet pertinents

10. Composition et intégration de l’équipe

11. Définition et programmation des tâches du projet

 81

12. Sélection et gestion des sous-traitants du projet

13. Disponibilité de ressources humaines et matérielles suffisantes

14. Tâches bien conçues, communiquées et coordonnées

15. L’influence de la culture organisationnelle sur les pratiques de gestion de projet

16.Niveau d’utilisation de la technologie dans des tâches de construction

 82

Compétence des membres de l’équipe du projet

17. La capacité d’apprentissage et de formation des membres de l’équipe

18. Expérience professionnelle des membres de l’équipe

19. Compétences de planification et organisation des membres de l’équipe

20. Niveau d’engagement des membres de l’équipe

21. Souplesse et adaptabilité au changement des membres de l’équipe

 83

22. Relation entre les membres de l’équipe

23. Qualité de l’artisanat des membres de l’équipe

Structure de contrat de projet

24. Procédure efficace d'appel d'offres et de recrutement d'entrepreneurs et de

concepteurs compétents et expérimentés

25. Contrat clairement défini avec des clauses de résolution de différend adéquate

26.Fiabilité des estimations du projet

 84

27. Type de contrat (conception-construction, conception-soumission-construction,

partenariat public-privé, multi-entreprise, etc.)

Gestion des risques

28. Initiation, identification, évaluation, planification et mise en œuvre de l'intervention

29.Communication, suivi et revue de risques

Engagement des clients

30. Expression et prioritisassions des objectifs du projet par le client

 85

31. Participation régulière des clients aux réunions de revue du projet

32. Feedback régulier et rapide des clients

33. Une présentation claire des exigences du projet et des objectifs

34.Compréhension et validation des plans de projet par le client

Engagement de la haute direction

35. Soutien à l’équipe de gestion de projet

 86

36. Le niveau des pratiques bureaucratiques impliqués dans le projet

Management des parties prenantes

37.Relations cordiales et respectable avec les parties prenantes du projet

38. Alignement des objectifs du projet avec les intérêts des parties prenantes

39. Une compréhension des objectifs et des priorités de toutes les parties prenantes
 87

40. Réunions régulières de revue avec les parties prenantes concernées pour évaluer la
performance du projet

41. Relations cordiales, basée sur la confiance entre les parties prenantes du projet

42. Communication efficace entre les acteurs du projet

Dans les questions suivantes, veuillez utiliser la zone de texte fournie pour exprimer
votre point de vue professionnel personnel concernant les questions suivantes :
 88

1. Quels facteurs (intrinsèques ainsi que externes) informent la sélection et la

hiérarchisation des FES spécifiques à vos projets ?

2. Dans vos procédures de mise en œuvre de vos projets, veuillez indiquer dans le
cadre suivant des mesures que vous utilisiez pour surveiller et mesurer la
performance des projets par rapport aux FESs identifiés ?

Appendix IV: Collected data and coded data are attached with this
submission

Appendix V: Ethics Response Form

there are any subsequent modifications to the study once it is underway a

further Ethics Response Form and re-approval will be required
 89

Researcher (student): Kingsley Tumasang Faculty reviewer: Dr. Eleni Lamprou

Working title of Proposal or summary of study scope: An Evaluation of Critical Success factors
Management in the Constr

Proposal attached? _X_ Yes __No Supplementary documentation attached (i

Each of the ethical standards below must be adequately addressed by the

researcher in order to obtain ethics approval.

In the blue column, the RESEARCHER (student) should perform a self-check

using these 35 questions before submitting the ethics form to the faculty member
supervising the study. In each row of the blue column, the RESEARCHER should
enter YES, NO, or NA as well as a very brief explanation. The Academic Honesty
Declaration must be attached and should be signed and dated.

In the yellow column the ETHICS REVIEWER (Research Proposal faculty

member) will enter YES, NO, or NA to confirm or challenge the RESEARCHER’S
self-check on each standard. With each NO, the ETHICS REVIEWER will indicate
 Researcher’s ethics self-
check
In each row, the researcher
should confirm compliance
with the ethical standard by
entering “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A,”
along with a brief defence of
the response (i.e., stating
keywords that point to how
the ethical standard has been
met).
Ethics Reviewer’s Researcher’s
assessment: response to Ethics
Reviewer
90
Researcher must use
After the researcher has this column to explain
presented the evidence how and where each of
for compliance with each the Ethics Reviewer’s
ethical standard, the concerns (in the yellow
Ethics Reviewer should column) has been
either confirm by entering addressed.
“Yes” or challenge with
“No.” With each “No,” the
reviewer must specify
what revisions are
needed to obtain ethics
approval.

Example: Will data Yes. Data files will be kept No. Please also address Paper surveys will be
be stored on a password protected how the paper surveys in a locked file
securely? computer. will be secured prior to cabinet. Proposal has
being entered as been updated.
electronic files.
The first 11 questions apply to all studies (even when the researcher is not interacting with
participants to collect new data).

Hover the mouse over the blue footnoted words to view information and definitions.
1. Are participant Yes. A survey via social Yes.
recruitment and network sites will be used
data collection and participation will be
1
steps adequately voluntary and anonymous.
described, such that
the study’s risks and
burdens can be
discerned?
2. Will the research Yes, the responses will be Yes.
procedures ensure kept anonymous.
privacy2 during data
collection?
3. Will data be Yes, the computer used to Yes.
stored securely3 store data will be password-
with adequate protected.
provisions to
maintain the
confidentiality of the
data?
4. Will the data be Yes, data will be stored for at Yes.
stored for at least 5 least 5 years
years?
5. If participants’ NA, participants’ names are Yes.
names or contact not necessary to carry out the
info will be recorded research
in the research
records, are they
 91

absolutely
necessary4?
6. Do the research Yes, de-identification will take Yes.
procedures and place when data is keyed into
analysis/write-up the write-up such that no
plans include all participant’s identity is
possible measures disclosed.
to ensure that
participant identities
are not directly or
indirectly5
disclosed? For
secondary data
analyses, the
proposal must
clearly state
when/how de-
identification will
occur.
7. Have all potential Yes, the research is Yes.
psychological6, interactive (between the
relationship7, legal8, investigator and the object of
economic/professio the investigation) and
nal9, physical10, and sometimes, interaction will
other risks been take place over the internet
fully (Skype).
acknowledged11 and
described?
8. Have the above Yes, the connection will be Yes.
risks been secured and coded, the
minimized 12as participants will use agreed
much as possible? upon pseudonyms such that
personal information will not
be tracable
9. Has the Yes, participants will be Yes.
researcher drawn from across the globe
proactively and the research is not
managed any organization-dependent.
potential conflicts of
interest13? Note
that student
researchers may
not utilise
research
assistants to
recruit participants
or collect research
 92

data on behalf of
the researcher.

10. Are the research Yes, a framework to identify Yes.

risks and burdens14 and measure the
reasonable, in performance of a project in
consideration of the various project success
new knowledge15 factors is important
that this research knowledge compared to the
design can offer? ethical risks involved in the
research
11. If applicable, Yes, all organisations Yes.
has the research contacted will grant
site provided an permission for relevant data
Authorisation Letter access, access to
(or email) granting participants, the use of their
permission16 for all premises and personnel time
relevant data17 for research purposes.
access, access to
participants, facility
use, and/or use of
personnel time for
research purposes?
The remaining questions only apply to studies that involve recruiting participants to collect new
data (such as surveys, interviews, observations).
____ Please place an X on this line if NONE of the questions in the next section are applicable to
the proposed study.

12. Will this Yes, I have adequate training Yes.

researcher be in research methods and data
appropriately collection procedures and I
qualified18 and will be supervised by a
supervised19 in all suitably qualified Faculty
data collection Member.
procedures?
13. Is participant Yes, participation in the Yes.
recruitment co- research is entirely voluntary
ordinated in a
manner that is non-
coercive20?
Coercive elements
include: leveraging
an existing
relationship to
“encourage”
participation,
 93

recruiting in a
group21 setting,
extravagant
compensation,
recruiting individuals
in a context of their
treatment or
evaluation22, etc. A
researcher must
disclose here
whether/how the
researcher may
already be known
to the participants
and explain how
perceptions of
coerced research
participation will
be minimized23.
14. If anyone would Yes, any exclusions will be Yes.
be excluded from handled professionally and
participating, is their courteously.
exclusion justified?
Is their exclusion
handled respectfully
and without
stigma24?
15. Where the NA the research will be Yes.
researcher limited to English and French
proposes to use an speaking participants.
interpreter, has
adequate
consideration been
given to the
interpreter’s training
regarding
confidentiality and
principles of
informed consent,
etc.?
16. Do the informed Yes, the participant will have Yes.
consent25 enough time to review the
procedures provide study and ask questions
adequate time to before giving consent.
review the study
information and ask
questions before
giving consent?
 94

17. Will informed Yes, a folder will be Yes.

consent be maintained where all consent
appropriately26 forms for selected
documented? participants will be kept.
18. Is the Participant Yes, PIS will be written in Yes.
Information Sheet both French and English to
(PIS) written using ensure participation from a
language that will be cross-section of the world.
understandable27 to
the potential
participants?
19. Does the PIS Yes, a brief summary of the Yes.
include an purpose of the research will
understandable28 be attached to the
explanation of the participation request
research purpose?
20. Does the PIS Yes, the PIS will state that Yes.
explain the sample’s participation is open only to
inclusion criteria in project management
such a way29 that practitioners and the
the participants can sampling for consideration at
understand the end of the research will
how/why THEY are be entirely random.
being asked to
participate?
21. Does the PIS Yes, the PIS will explicitly Yes.
clearly state that state that participation is
participation is voluntary.
voluntary?
22. Does the PIS Yes, the PIS states that Yes.
convey that the participants in the research
participant has the reserve the right to
right30 to decline or discontinue participation
discontinue whenever they want to.
participation at any
time?
23. Does the PIS Yes, the PIS clearly Yes.
include an describes the data collection
understandable procedures.
description of the
data collection
procedures?
24. Does the PIS Yes, participation is from May Yes.
include an estimate to November 2019 but the
of the time duration of any interview will
commitment31 for not exceed 20 minutes.
participation?
 95

25. Does the PIS Yes, I will include in the PIS a Yes.
describe any thank statement explaining why
you gifts, there won’t be any thank you
compensation, or gifts, compensation, or
reimbursement to reimbursement to
participants (for participants.
travel costs, etc.) or
lack thereof?
26. Does the PIS Yes, all foreseeable risks and Yes.
include a description discomforts to participants
of reasonably are described in the PIS.
foreseeable risks32
or discomforts?
27. Does the PIS Yes, any known potential Yes.
include a description benefit of the research to
of anticipated participants are stated on the
benefits to PIS
participants33 and/or
others?
28. Does the PIS Yes, the email of the Yes.
explain how the Programme Director will be
participant can stated on the PIS and any
contact the participant who needs to
researcher? The contact the Programme
Programme Director Director will be encouraged to
and the Chair of the do so.
OREC at
Ethics@roehampton
-online.com

29. Does the PIS Yes, the PIS will state that Yes.
describe how anonymity of participants will
privacy will be be respected throughout the
maintained34? research
30. Does the PIS Yes, all conflicts of interest Yes.
disclose all potential are outlined in the PIS.
conflicts of interest
(specifying that this
study is separate
from the
researcher’s other
professional role)?
31. Do the consent Yes, clearly states the legal Yes.
documents preserve rights of participant and the
the participant’s researcher’s engagement to
legal35 rights? preserve those rights during
and after the research
 96

The remaining questions regarding sensitive content and vulnerable populations should be
reviewed and addressed by the researcher (student) and faculty reviewer, but must also be
confirmed by the International Online Research Ethics Committee before the study may go ahead.
Definition of Vulnerability
A UK term for an individual who is dependent on others and more susceptible to coercion; pressure;
emotional, psychological or physical humiliation; has reduced ability to take care of him or herself, or to
protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation due to life circumstances, e.g. underage
(under 16 years old); homeless; refugee; mentally ill; frail and elderly or with a cognitive impairment.

Vulnerability may be due to the power relationship of the researcher to the participant, ie a subordinate at
work, patient or client of a health care professional, resident of a care home or other supported
accommodation, teachers and their students, prison staff and prisoners. Where participants are in a
relationship of dependency with researchers, researchers must take particular care throughout the research
to minimise the impact of that dependency.

NOTE: When recruiting research participants who fall within this definition, initial consent should be
obtained first from those who have a legal responsibility for their welfare or a duty of care, such as a parent
or guardian, school, care home, charity or local authority [a ‘Responsible Other’]. However, a ‘Responsible
Other’ cannot consent on behalf of the vulnerable person and passive consent, including group consent,
given solely by a gatekeeper such as a School Principal or Senior Manager should be avoided wherever
possible. Researchers should take appropriate and relevant steps to also obtain informed consent
from the participant.
_X_ Please place an X on this line if NONE of the questions in the next section are applicable to the
proposed study.

32. If vulnerable
individuals will be
specifically sought
out as participants,
is such targeted
recruitment
justified36 by a
research design that
will specifically
benefit that
vulnerable group at
large?
33. If the researcher
happens to also
serve in a trusted or
authoritative37 role
to the participant
(e.g., health care
provider, teacher
etc.), do the
recruitment
 97

procedures ensure
voluntary
participation?
34. If the research
procedures might
reveal or create an
acute psychological
state that
necessitates
referral, are there
suitable procedures
in place to manage
this?
35. If the research
procedures might
reveal criminal
activity, child/elder
abuse, or employer
policy non-
compliance that
necessitates38
reporting, are there
suitable procedures
in place for
managing this? Are
limits to
confidentiality (i.e.,
duty to report)
appropriately
mentioned in the
Participant
Information Sheet?
36. Education
Programmes only:
Does the research
fall under the
definition of usual
curriculum or other
institutional activities
(see definition
below) and do you
have (or will obtain
before research
begins) the written
approval for your
research project
from a senior
member of school
 98

staff (or
organization) with
legal responsibility?

Definition of usual
curriculum or
other institutional
activities
The preparation,
delivery and
assessment of
classes (one or
more students) that
are part of your
agreed class /
subject allocation for
the academic year,
following the usual
curriculum for the
subject area, with
the usual student
group.

what revisions are required for ethics approval. The faculty reviewer will also
render a decision at the end of this form and return the form to the
RESEARCHER.

If the ETHICS REVIEWER (Research Proposal faculty member) is able to approve

“as is” then the orange column is left blank.

In the orange column, the RESEARCHER (student) will respond to each of the
ETHICS REVIEWER’S concerns to explain where/how each of the reviewer’s
concerns was met in the resubmitted materials.
 ETHICS APPROVAL
DECISION 99

This document must be posted in the ‘ethics’ thread/forum in the student researcher’s
classroom after the supervising faculty member has rendered a decision.

The Research Proposal faculty member will mark an x next to box a, b, or c. If box a or
b is marked, then the Research Proposal faculty member will also mark an x next to
the applicable subcategory (1, 2, 3, etc.):

A. APPROVED VIA EXPEDITED (LIGHT TOUCH) ETHICS REVIEW:

 As the Research Proposal faculty member, I confirm that all
applicable criteria 1-35 above are met with either a “Yes” or “N/A.”
For Education programmes only: Where 36 is met with a “Yes”,
Programme Director approval is indicated below
Date:
PD Name:
X
PD Signature:
 I understand my responsibilities, and will ensure to the best of my
abilities that the student investigator abides by the University’s policy
on Research Ethics at all times.
 I affirm that the research activities fall entirely within the parameters of
the design, indicated with an X below (1, 2 or 3), that the Online
Research Ethics Committee has authorized faculty members to
approve via expedited (light touch) review:
1. The proposed study is analysis of public documents, artifacts, behaviour or dat
X
X 2. The proposed study is secondary analysis of existing data that is privately
held but released for research purposes (with all identifiers removed);
3. The study will use surveys or interviews of non-vulnerable adults on non-
X sensitive topics (i.e., there is no potential to participants of coercion,
distress, loss of work/school time, damage to professional reputation etc).

B. REFERRED TO ETHICS COMMITTEE:

 As the initial reviewer, I am referring this study to the full ethics

committee (OREC) as indicated below [please mark 1, 2, 3, 4 or
Other below].
 I will email the student’s ethics application and all attachments,
including the Module 7 Faculty Checklist, as a single zip file to the
ethics committee via Ethics@roehampton-online.com, copying the
Programme Director.

The ethics committee meets every two weeks and accepts applications
at any time. The application may not necessarily be presented at the
next OREC meeting if it is received less than one week before the
meeting date.
 100

Module 7 faculty will be notified of the date the application will be

reviewed.

Decisions and feedback will be emailed to the student and Module 7

faculty member within 5 business days of the review.
1. The researcher proposes to collect data from vulnerable individuals such
as children, clinic patients, prisoners, military personnel, facility residents,
anyone over whom the researcher holds authority (e.g., students,
subordinates etc), anyone who might feel undue pressure to participate in
the study, or any individuals with severe enough mental disabilities to
interfere with capacity to consent to the study.

2. Some (potential) participants may find the research topic or premise

sensitive

3. Participants’ jobs or livelihoods may be placed at risk by the study

activities

4. The participants’ culture and/or international location suggest that extra

participant protections may be necessary

Other: _____

c. C. REVISIONS REQUIRED:
The student needs to revise the proposal and ethics materials to
address the concerns in the yellow column and resubmit to me before
I can select A or B above.
 101

1
In order to weigh potential risks against benefits, the researcher first needs to plan and clearly articulate all of the
following that apply:

how existing data or contact information of potential participants will be obtained,

format and context of the initial contact with potential participants,

informed consent procedures,

assignment to groups (if applicable),

description of any pilot activities,

data collection steps,

transcript review and/or member check (if applicable), and

how results will be shared with stakeholders.

2
Privacy risks might include unintended breach of confidential information (such as educational or medical records);
being observed/overheard by others while meeting researcher or providing data; or intrusion on the privacy of others
who are not involved in the study (e.g. participant’s family).

3
Secure data storage requires password protection on electronic files and locks for physical data.
 102

4
Note that consent forms do not require signatures if the participant can indicate consent by some action such as
clicking on a link, returning a completed survey, etc.

5
Participant identities might be “indirectly” and unintentionally disclosed if a researcher’s final research report fails to
with hold demographic details or site descriptions that might permit a reader to deduce the identity of a participant. So
the researcher needs to think about which demographic descriptors are most important to collect and report, while
ensuring that the identity of individual participants is protected. Also, the name of the site/organization is typically
masked in scholarly research though in some cases, the organization can elect to publicize their name along with the
research results.

6
Psychological risks include stress greater than what one would experience in daily life (e.g., materials or topics that
could be considered sensitive, offensive, threatening, degrading).

7
Relationship risks are present if the recruitment or data collection process are likely to alter the existing dynamics
between the researcher and participant (who may be coworkers or have some professional relationship), among
participants (if they know one another), or between the participant and the participant’s friends, coworkers, or family
members.

8
Legal risks are present if data collection might result in a participant’s disclosure of violation of laws.

9
Economic/professional risks are present if data collection could result in the participant disclosing violation of
workplace policies, disagreement with leadership decisions, poor work performance, or anything else that could be
damaging to the participant’s position, professional reputation, promotability, or employability. Risks are acceptable but
participants need to be made aware of professional risks during the consent process so they can make an informed
decision.

10
Physical risks are not common in social science research but would involve risk of serious physical injury to the
participant or the researcher.

11
Minimal risks are acceptable but must be identified upfront. Minimal risk is defined as when: “the probability and
magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily
encountered in daily life.”

12
The researcher is responsible for planning measures that will provide participants with reasonable protection from
privacy loss, distress, psychological harm, economic loss, damage to professional reputation, and other possible
harms.

13
A conflict of interest is caused when the researcher has some sort of dual role in the research context, such as being
a teacher, therapist, investor, business-owner, manager, etc. Conflict of interest must be managed to ensure that the
research reveals “truth,” not just the outcome that the researcher might desire to see due to their other role.

14
All research activities place some degree of burden on the participants by asking the participants to share personal
information, volunteer time, and assume risks.

15
Examples of “new knowledge” include: effectively addressing a gap in the literature, generating new theory,
enhancing understanding of a phenomenon, assessing effectiveness of a particular professional practice, addressing a
local practical problem via data analysis.
 103

16
No documentation of permission is required (a) if the researcher will simply be asking organizations to distribute
research invitations on the researcher’s behalf, or (b) if the researcher is using only public means to identify/contact
participants.

17
Note that when medical, educational, or business records would be analyzed or used to identify potential research
participants, the site needs to explicitly approve access to data for research purposes (even if the researcher normally
has access to that data to perform his or her job).
18
Researchers must be able to document their training in the data collection techniques and the ethics committee might
require the researcher to obtain additional training prior to ethics approval. For most student researchers, the research
course sequence is sufficient but some research procedures (such as interviewing people with mental disabilities) may
require additional training. For psychological assessments, the manual indicates specific qualifications required. Data
collection from children requires a background check/clearance through a local agency.

19
Remote supervision is suitable for most studies but onsite supervision may be required for certain types of sensitive
data collection (e.g., interviews or assessment regarding emotional topics).

20
For example, anonymous surveys and/or low-pressure communications such as email invitations permit potential
participants to opt out with minimal fear of retaliation or other negative consequences.

21
It is not ethically acceptable to invite a “captive audience” to participate in research on the spot (i.e., to ask an entire
class or a group of meeting attendees to complete a survey during their session). Such a dynamic would not provide
sufficient privacy or respect for their right to decline research participation. However, a researcher may use the last few
minutes of a meeting to introduce a study and distribute materials, such that the potential participants can then take their
time to decide later about participation.

22
Generally, data collection cannot be approved during work hours or school hours unless a “free period” has been
identified (e.g., lunch) so the research activities can be separated from the participants’ regular activities. It is important
to maintain an “opt in” dynamic rather than implying that employees/students/group members are expected to
participate.

23
Completion of the study directly benefits the student (allowing him or her to obtain a degree), and so the researcher
should minimize the potential for either (a) conflict of interest or (b) perceived coercion to participate. Researchers who
are in positions of authority or familiarity must take extra precautions to ensure that potential participants are not
pressured to take part in their study. Examples: an instructor researcher may recruit her students AFTER grades have
been assigned; a psychologist researcher may recruit clients from ANOTHER psychologist’s practice; a manager
researcher may conduct ANONYMOUS data collection so that subordinates do not perceive their responses or
[non]participation as being associated with their job standing.
24
When applicable, the exclusion criteria should be listed on the recruitment material (flyer, invitation email,etc.) or
participant information sheet (PIS) to prevent situations in which the researcher rejects volunteers in a stigmatizing
manner.

25
Informed consent is not just a form; it is a process of explaining the study to the participant and encouraging questions
before the participant makes a decision about participation.

26
While documenting consent via signature is common, note that anonymous surveys can obtain “implied consent” by
informing the participant, “To protect your privacy, no consent signature is requested. Instead, you may indicate your
consent by clicking here/returning this survey in the enclosed envelope.”) It is also acceptable to audio record verbal
consent for interviews, in order to not have any record of the interviewee’s name.

27
The ethics committee encourages tailoring the language to the readers as long as a professional tone is maintained.
 104

28
Minimal jargon should be used during the informed consent process. Everyday layperson language is most
appropriate to help a participant make an informed decision about participation.

29
People receiving the PIS should not be left wondering, “How did the researcher get my name?” or “Why am I being
invited and not others?” or “Does the researcher already know private information about me?” The means by which the
researcher has identified and contacted the potential participant needs to be made clear, if it is not already clear from
the context. Sample explanations of inclusion criteria in PIS: (a) The human resources department has forwarded this
invitation to all employees who meet the researcher’s study criteria (i.e., have been with the organization at least 2 years
and have transitioned into a managerial role within the past year); or (b) The researcher is inviting all attendees of the
past year’s XYZ professional conference to be in the study; or (c) The researcher will be randomly selecting possible
participants by approaching the residents of every 5th home in this neighborhood until 100 responses are obtained.

30
When the researcher is already known to the participant, the PIS must include written assurance that declining or
discontinuing will not negatively impact the participant’s relationship with the researcher or (if applicable) the invitee’s
access to services.

31
Provide an estimate (in minutes or hours) of each component of data collection (e.g., survey, interview, member
checking. etc. )

32
Describe only the possible harms that go beyond the risks of daily life.

33
For most social science studies, it is appropriate to state that there are no particular direct benefits to the individual. In
this case, just present the benefits to society.

34
The PIS should explain that the research report will not include names and that the data will not be used for any
purposes other than research. It is not always clear to participants how a research interview is different from a
journalistic interview, in which informants might be named. So the PIS should also describe any coding system that will
permit the researcher to not use names. For sensitive interviews, the researcher might also want to assure participants
that recordings will be destroyed immediately after transcription.

35
The consent forms/process should not ask a participant to waive any legal rights.

36
Targeted recruitment of vulnerable participants can only be approved when the ethics committee determines that the
study’s benefits justify its risks/costs.

37
A researcher with a dual role must use anonymous surveys or some other method that permits potential participants
to opt out without fear of negative consequences. Patients, students, and subordinates of the researcher need explicit
assurance that their decision about participation will in no way impact their ongoing relationship with the researcher.

38
Any limits to confidentiality (i.e., duty to report) must be mentioned in the participant information sheet (PIS).