See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332911119

Impact of project monitoring and evaluation practices on construction project

success criteria in Ghana

Article  in  Built Environment Project and Asset Management · May 2019

DOI: 10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0135

CITATIONS READS

9 12,411

6 authors, including:

Ernest Kissi Kofi Agyekum

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
77 PUBLICATIONS   354 CITATIONS    159 PUBLICATIONS   509 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

B.K. Baiden Reuben Agyei Tannor

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
55 PUBLICATIONS   895 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Construction Economics View project

Lean Construction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernest Kissi on 05 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Built Environment Project and Asset Management
Impact of project monitoring and evaluation practices on construction project
success criteria in Ghana
Ernest Kissi, Kofi Agyekum, Bernard Kofi Baiden, Reuben Agyei Tannor, George Effah Asamoah,
Emmanuel Tweneboah Andam,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ernest Kissi, Kofi Agyekum, Bernard Kofi Baiden, Reuben Agyei Tannor, George Effah Asamoah,
Emmanuel Tweneboah Andam, (2019) "Impact of project monitoring and evaluation practices on
construction project success criteria in Ghana", Built Environment Project and Asset Management,
https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0135
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0135
Downloaded on: 07 May 2019, At: 04:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 75 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:YJAPNWN6JDC4UTZJX5RC:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm

Project
Impact of project monitoring monitoring
and evaluation practices and evaluation
practices
on construction project
success criteria in Ghana
Ernest Kissi, Kofi Agyekum, Bernard Kofi Baiden and Received 25 November 2018
Revised 21 February 2019
Reuben Agyei Tannor Accepted 15 March 2019

Department of Construction Technology and Management,

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
George Effah Asamoah
College of Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Kumasi, Ghana, and

Emmanuel Tweneboah Andam
Ghana Revenue Authority, Accra, Ghana

Abstract
Purpose – Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of projects is a very important aspect of project execution and
management. This is because proper M&E practices have a significant effect on the successful delivery of
projects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of project M&E practices on construction project
success criteria.
Design/methodology/approach – Structured questionnaires were used to solicit the views of project
professionals in the Ghanaian construction industry. The questions were developed through critical review
of literature and complemented with a pilot interview on the subject. This paper utilized a partial least
square–structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM) to establish the impact of project M&E practices
(constructs) on project success based on the hypothesis.
Findings – Results showed that M&E practices had a positive statistical significant relationship with
construction project success criteria. In addition, health and safety performance and project scope showed a
strong significant relation with M&E practice, implying that, in developing countries, these two main
constructs should be given critical attention in achieving project success.
Practical implications – The findings of this study may be useful to organizations in determining M&E
techniques that are relevant and contribute highly to project success. This may go a long way to increase
productivity and accelerate the rate of successful project delivery.
Originality/value – The application of rigorous analysis, PLS–SEM, gives a more reliable information on
M&E practices that can ensure successful delivery of construction projects.
Keywords Evaluation, Ghana, Success, Projects, Construction, Criteria, Condition monitoring
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The successful completion of projects across different sectors and industries is one of the
most important factors that determine the development and growth of many nations
(Maylor et al., 2006). Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is important for the successful
management of projects (Nyonje et al., 2012). Decades ago, M&E practices were determined
by placing emphasis on prudent utilization of resources (Rogers and Williams, 2006).
However, many organizations and institutions, as well as project managers in the modern
era, regard M&E practices as a requirement for success rather than a management tool used Built Environment Project and
Asset Management
for project appraisals, identifying and correcting problems in planning and implementation © Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-124X
of projects (Armstrong and Baron, 2013). According to Cleland and Ireland (2007), DOI 10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0135
 BEPAM project management was formally recognized as a distinct field in the late 1950s
when much emphasis was placed on M&E of projects as a result of the discontentment of
stakeholders.
Shapiro (2007) defined M&E as a systematic collection and an analysis of information
and the processes to determine the extent to which goals and milestones are
being met and analyzed for any discrepancies. According to Kusek and Rist (2004),
M&E is one of the most relevant tools that influence the performance and successful
completion of projects. Shapiro (2007) further iterated that M&E always aims at
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a project. M&E is discrete, yet
complementary, and is closely linked to functions in projects (Crawford and
Bryce, 2003).
According to Action Centre la Faim (ACF, 2011), M&E is described as an activity to
support evidence-based decision-making processes for the achievement of project
objectives. As a management function, the main task of M&E should be to make available
information on programs in the right form, order and at the right time to contribute
toward effective decision-making process (Connelly, 2004). M&E also supports project
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

managers by providing them with accurate evidence-based information from data

gathered from the field and stakeholders (IFRC, 2011). According to Shapiro (2006),
the insights obtained from the information generated from M&E practices ensure the
development of policies. This assertion was later confirmed by The ACF (2011), which
indicated that undertaking effective M&E on projects provides a system that
helps the project managers to achieve internal and external requirements by producing
evidence-based results. According to Jones (2012), establishing M&E systems in project
management provides opportunities for the project implementing organization/agency to
meet requirements of donors/financiers. This is so because it provides evidence on the
project accomplishments. From the view of Herrero et al. (2012), undertaking continuous
monitoring of projects ensures that the implementing staff should keep the project
activities on schedule, they should review and update the project plan and costs as
necessary and they should review timelines and deliverables, which will help clarify any
differences that are not in line with the original project plan. Thus, M&E provides the
managers with early warning signs in relation to delays and cost of variances and
provides them with evidence. The UNDP (2002a, b) described M&E as a major
management responsibility of the project manager; hence, it is a good management tool
that can be relied upon to improve the way governments and organizations attain
their results on the projects they pursue. Despite the advantages of undertaking M&E,
many organizations fail to carry it out and its impact is felt in the failure of projects
among other things.
Over the years, several governments, companies and agencies have witnessed project
failures in one way or the other (McManus and Wood-Harper, 2008). Generally, the
failures of projects in Ghana have been attributed to many factors like socio-economic,
political and technological among others (Africa Development Bank, 2006). However,
Ayee (2000) indicated that there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim of project
failures. To bridge this gap and to contribute to existing body of knowledge, Damoah
et al. (2015) conducted a study to identify the causes of government project failures in
developing countries, specifically in Ghana. Their study identified several factors that
led to the failure of government projects in Ghana, with the top 10 causes of such failures
identified as M&E, corruption, political interference, change in government, bureaucracy,
lack of continuity, fluctuating prices, planning and delays in payment and release of
funds. Out of these ten factors, Damoah et al. (2015) identified issues relating to M&E to
be the most influencing factors. From this finding, it can be inferred that effective M&E
can have an influence on project success. It is evident that existing body of knowledge in
 other sectors points out a significant relationship between the parameters for assessing Project
M&E and factors that account for project success. The construction industry has also monitoring
received its fair share of knowledge in this area, but most of these studies have and evaluation
concentrated on developing nations. In a developing nation like Ghana where the
government has recently introduced M&E practices in all spheres of the public sector practices
administration, the construction industry seems to be left off the hook in this initiative.
However, following the poor performances of the industry over the years, it has become
necessary to monitor and evaluate the projects awarded to such companies. The
government has therefore found it necessary to appoint a minister to solely oversee M&E
practices. From this initiative, the important question that needs to be asked is: what will
be the impact of this M&E practices on construction project success criteria? To answer
this question, the study seeks to examine the impact of project M&E practices on
construction project success criteria in Ghana.

Literature review
Monitoring and evaluation practices
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Practices in M&E refer to the patterns that have been identified to be efficacious in
improving project performance. Such practices have been accepted by practitioners as an
effective way to implement M&E in projects (Webb and Elliot, 2000). M&E practices start
with baseline data collection through the gathering of basic information about a project
(Estrella and Gaventa, 2010). This data are later used to provide a comparison for
assessing the overall effect of the project (United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), 2010). The second practice deals with planning that underlies the
assumptions on which the achievement of project goals depends. Armstrong and Baron
(2013) categorized M&E planning into resources of budget, capacity, feasibility, timeline
and ethics. M&E structural framework is the third practice and is targeted at identifying
the reasons behind performance measurement and project elements, how related they are,
and their underlying fundamentals (Muzinda, 2007). The fourth practice is the M&E
budget (Kelly and Magongo, 2004). To ensure proper M&E, it is important for the budget
of the project to make a clear and adequate provision for the activities (Muzinda, 2007).
The fifth practice of M&E deals with scheduling, and according to McCoy et al. (2005),
M&E must be scheduled so that it is given the required importance and it is not carried
out only at the whims of the project manager. Specifying the frequency of data collection
follows scheduling. Gyorkos (2003) stated that a clear specification should be made on
how often M&E data collection should be done. The involvement of all stakeholders at
this stage is very important. According to Muzinda (2007), the participatory approach to
M&E is viewed as an empowerment tool for their involvement in projects. ICT usage is
the seventh practice, and this has a very important value in the process of M&E practices.
In cases of data analysis, for instance, the computers and computer-aided programs are
normally relied upon for data analysis. M&E teams employ computer and computer-aided
programs in data analysis, which reduces too much paper work and also results in an
efficient construction design (Kelly and Magongo, 2004). The eighth practice is the
midterm and end evaluation that determines the impact of the project and the way it
contributed to the attainment of the project goal (Gyorkos, 2003). The midterm and end
evaluation help in ascertaining how project fared in terms of the input and in terms of the
level of output (Gilliam et al., 2003). It is important that after the implementation of the
project, lessons learnt are documented to be incorporated into subsequent projects and
shared with other stakeholders. Uitto (2004) added that it is advisable that these
lessons are shared with the implementing staff. Finally, in the M&E activity, there should
be a plan for dissemination of M&E findings. These findings should be disseminated
to the stakeholders by way of reports to the donors, depending on the requirement,
 BEPAM communication to the community and beneficiaries and to the implementation staff
to help improve their implementation practices and strategies. Table I summarizes the
various M&E practices discussed above.

Project success criteria

Lim and Mohamed (1999) indicated that project success in the construction industries is
generally affected by factors such as cost performance, schedule performance, quality
performance, health and safety performance, relationship with stakeholders of a project,

Practices Sub-practices

Baseline studies (BS) Organization performs comprehensive BS before the implementation of project
The project team designs the plan for performing the BS
The BS is done in accordance with the designed plan
Organization designs research materials for undertaking BS
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

There are adequate collections and capturing of data on project demands

Data are captured on project beneficiaries
Data are captured on the environment and impact of project on environment
Data collected and captured are analyzed and results are reviewed
The baseline reports are formulated, and the results are shared among stakeholders
Monitoring and The Project team also undertakes comprehensive planning for all projects
evaluation planning The project members actively take part in planning so as to have all details
(MEP) of project
There is a comprehensive planning of project cost
There is planning of the capacity of project team to execute project
The plan covers the feasibility of the proposed project activities
Timeliness of project is put into project plan
There is a risk assessment and mitigation planning
M&E framework (MEF) The project is aided by a structured conceptual framework
The framework helps to identify reasons behind project performance
Project framework is put in place for planners to measure performance from
beginning to end of the project
M&E budget (MEB) There is always a project budget that makes adequate provisions for all project
activities
The M&E budget is defined within the total project budget
The M&E budget covers at least 5‒10 percent of total project budget
M&E scheduling (MES) M&E activities are included in the overall project schedule
Individuals are specifically assigned to project M&E
Different personnel are assigned to M&E activities such as data collection, analysis
and report writing
M&E specification and Specification is made for how often M&E data are collected
frequency (MESF) Project stakeholders can be a part of M&E process
ICT usage (ICTS) M&E team employs the use of computers and computer-aided programs in data
collection
M&E team employs computer and computer-aided programs in data analysis,
which reduces too much paper work
Employs use computer for efficient construction design
Midterm and end term There is a performance of a midterm project evaluation
evaluation (MEE) There is a performance of end of project evaluation to ascertain how project
performed
Documentation of After project implementation, lessons are captured and documented for subsequent
lessons learnt (DLL) projects
Lessons learned from evaluation are shared with project implementing staff as well
as stakeholders
Table I. Role of external External project evaluators are allowed in the M&E process
M&E practices evaluators (REE) The project team makes plan to disseminate to the stakeholders
 scope and environmental performance of projects. According to Salter and Torbett (2003), Project
measuring the cost performance of a project is the easiest and commonest approach for monitoring
determining the success of the project. Gyadu-Asiedu (2013) also indicated that the and evaluation
overall success of a construction project is affected by the contractor’s ability to effectively
plan resources, estimate, budget and control cost. Swan and Khalfan (2007) posited that time practices
is regarded as major factor that is used to determine the project success. Furthermore,
bureaucratic hindrance and resource availability as planned affects the early completion of
construction projects. Egemen and Mohamed (2005) were of the view that undertaking a
project to meet the required quality and standard is a major factor in determining
project success. The quality of a project is achieved when the legal, aesthetic and functional
needs of the project customers or beneficiaries are achieved (Lau and Tang, 2009).
Therefore, in the construction sector, quality is determined by the project’s ability to
conform to the set standards.
According to the International Labour Organization, health and safety is the prevention
and maintenance of the mental, social, as well as physical well-being of workers, and
prevention of illness caused by working conditions. Health and safety performance of
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

projects is achieved when the project is completed successfully without the occurrence of
any major accidents and injuries (Auffan et al., 2009). According to Chan and Chan (2004),
the occurrence of accidents during the execution of projects can affect the success of the
project in many ways. Accidents can lead to cost overruns or delays that can sometimes
affect the reputation of the company. The relationship with project stakeholders explains
the existence or the non-existence of disputes among all project stakeholders. The absence
of disputes is regarded by many as a major criterion of success ( Jha and Iyer, 2007).
Therefore, project stakeholders must always do everything to ensure good cordial
relationship among themselves.
Project scope can be defined as all the features and functions that are to be included
in a product or service (PMI, 2000). Thus, project scope describes the totality of a project.
The significance of project scope in the achievement of project success is well-reported
(Collins and Baccarini, 2004). According to Muhammad et al. (2013), a major contribution to
unsuccessful projects is the lack of understanding of project scope. Some studies have
shown the significance of environmental performance in accessing the success of a project.
The inclusion of environmental performance can be attributed to the huge awareness of
sustainability in the construction industry, which encompasses social, economic and
environmental aspects. The environmental category of sustainability focuses on
environmental hazards and degradation. A summary of the project success criteria is
shown in Table II.

Hypothesis development
The Project Management Book of Knowledge (Project Management Institute, 2010)
continually stresses the importance of M&E in the realization of project success. This
means that the success of a project can be dependent on the M&E practices in every
organization, with the construction industry not being an exception to such development.
However, M&E practices are given less recognition in the project execution processes.
Naidoo (2011) noted that M&E managers need to have success factors to help strengthen
their credibility and the monitoring team needs to be enhanced and strengthened so that it
has more power to increase its effectiveness. Although the successful completion of a
project may depend on many factors, the role and importance of M&E of projects cannot
be downplayed. Otieno (2000) identified that project managers do not recognize the
usefulness of M&E in projects from the beginning to the end of projects. Hence, they are
unable to implement M&E practices to ensure project success. Phiri (2015) concluded
that M&E practices serve as the blueprint for achieving successful projects. Consequently,
 BEPAM Criteria Sub-criteria

Cost performance (CP) Effective resource planning

Project schedule performance (PSP)
Project quality performance (PQP)
Health and safety performance (HSP)
Relationship with project stakeholder (REL ST)
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)
Efficient cost estimation
Proper cost budgeting
Effective cost control
Availability of resources as planned
Efficient activity scheduling
Pre-tender proceedings
Top management support
Effective quality planning
Effective quality assurance
Effective quality control
Top management support
Proper site layout planning
Proper use of PPEs
Availability of welfare facilities
Top management support

Effective communication
Regular monitoring and feedback by top management
Project scope (PS) Involvement of stakeholders
Effective communication
Proper scope definition
Monitoring and feedback
Table II. Environmental performance (ENV. PERF.) Top management support
Project success High resource usage efficiency
criteria Efficient construction methods

Kamau and Bin Mohamed (2015) noted that several studies have been conducted
with the aim of determining the critical success factors that lead to project success.
Most of these studies found that project success in many instances was a result
of effective M&E. For example, Prabhakar (2008) noted that M&E feedback was among
the factors that led to project success. According to Papke-Shields et al. (2010), the
likelihood of achieving success in projects is enhanced, among other factors, by constant
monitoring of the project. The study further indicated that M&E practices were
important in the management of project scope, time, cost, project quality,
human resources, communication and risk (Papke-Shields et al., 2010). In the view of
Hwang and Lim (2013), monitoring and evaluating the budget performance,
schedule performance and quality performance contribute to project success.
According to Ika et al. (2012), there exists a positive relationship between critical
success factors for project completion and M&E practices. The above assertions show
some level of agreement across the project management discipline, which states that
M&E is a major contributor to the success of projects. Drawing from the above, it can be
deduced there exists a relationship between M&E practices and project success
in construction projects. On this basis, a hypothesized conceptual framework was
developed (see Figure 1).

Research method
A quantitative research approach of enquiry was adopted for this study. A review of
literature on the subject was conducted to discover M&E practices adopted in most
industries with special emphasis on the construction industry and the factors of project
success in construction project practices. The information gathered from the review was
 Baseline studies Data specification Project
monitoring
Cost performance
and evaluation
practices
Schedule
M&E planning performance
ICT

Quality
performance

Midterm/end term
M&E framework evaluation
Health and safety
performance
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Stakeholder
relationship
M&E budgeting Documentation

Project scope

M&E scheduling Environmental

performance External evaluators

Figure 1.
Hypothetical
conceptual framework

used to develop a protocol interview, involving (ten) experts to corroborate the variables
identified from literature. These experts were selected based on their experiences on the
subject matter under study. The criteria used were that an expert must have had a
professional qualification, worked for more than 20 years and must have worked in both
the public and private sectors. The experts were tasked to determine the reasonableness
and extensiveness of the identified variables; following this, they were asked to either
make additional suggestions or delete any variable. Subsequent to this, a structured
questionnaire was developed and was purposively administered to 120 professionals in
the Ghanaian construction industry, who must have been involved in M&E in
construction projects. The questionnaires were distributed online and supplemented by
self-administration. Respondents were asked to score on a Likert scale of 1–5 (where 1
extremely low to 5 extremely significant) as per the significance of the identified success
criteria. Furthermore, they were asked to indicate the M&E practices that were frequently
used in M&E proceedings based on Likert scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 highly infrequent to
 BEPAM 5 highly frequent). Out of 120 questionnaires distributed, 81 questionnaires were retrieved
and were deemed valid, representing a relatively high response rate of 68 percent. This
response rate was achieved due to constant reminders and follow-ups. The questionnaire
administration was aided by four assistants and the collection lasted for seven months.
The sample size was considered acceptable, as it satisfied the recommendation by
Ott and Longnecker (2001) that a sample of 30 for any group could be deemed
representative. These respondents were generally M&E Officers, Quantity Surveyors and
Architects’ consultants who had worked in both private and public sectors dealing with
wide range of projects. It must be noted that the questionnaire was purposively
administered to the respondents based on the criteria discussed previously in this
section. From the questionnaires retrieved, 60 percent were from M&E Officers,
20 percent were from Quantity Surveyors and the remaining 20 percent were from
Architects. The respondents had good educational backgrounds, as 5.50 percent had PhD
qualification, 39 percent had MSc/MPhil qualification and 55.50 percent had BSc
qualification. In terms of their professional experiences, 12 percent had 1–5 years of
experience, 56 percent had 6–10 years of experience, 16.5 percent had 11–15 years of
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

experience, 15.5 percent had 16–20 years of experience and 6.60 percent had over 20 years
of experience.
This study adopted the partial least square–structural equation modeling (PLS–SEM)
tool for the statistical analysis of the data generated. The PLS–SEM was used to determine
the impact between the respective constructs. The PLS–SEM approach was adopted for this
study, because it combines variables relating to both econometric and psychometric in
modeling for statistical purposes and it works well for studies with comparatively small
sample size (Rigdon, 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2016). The analysis of the data obtained for this
study was done in accordance with the procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2014) and
Sarstedt et al. (2016). The procedure involves the appraisal of both the measurement
and structural models.

Results and discussion

Results
Assessment of measurement model. The factor loadings for each construct were calculated
prior to the assessment to assess their reliability. The recommended threshold for
factor loadings is 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2014). The factor loadings
for all the constructs are summarized in Table III. Constructs had a satisfactory
level of individual variable reliability. However, the indicators PQP1, HSP2, HSP4, REL
ST1, REL ST2 and PROJ SCOPE2 had loadings below 0.700. This was done to avoid a
construct being measured with a single item (see Sarstedt et al., 2016). The results
indicated that all the other outer loading values exceeded the standardized loading
threshold of 0.7.
The assessment of measurement model was done by calculating the Cronbach’s α
values that gave an appraisal of the reliability of the constructs based on the
inter-correlations of the observed indicator variables (Straub et al., 2004). The range of
acceptable values for Cronbach’s α is from 0.700 to 0.950 (DeVellis, 2003). The composite
reliability was described as the different outer loadings of the indicator variables by
Straub et al. (2004). A composite reliability threshold of 0.700 was recommended
by Hair et al. (2014). In assessing the internal consistency and reliability of the constructs,
AVE was used. A threshold of 50 percent was again recommended by Hair et al. (2016)
for AVE values. Thus, from the Table III, all Cronbach’s α, composite reliability and
AVE were within the acceptable limits, indicating a measure of internal consistency
for this study.
 Indicators Loadings Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE
Project
monitoring
Cost performance 0.784 0.867 0.687 and evaluation
CP2 0.900
CP3 0.876 practices
CP4 0.696
Project schedule performance 0.775 0.867 0.686
PSP1 0.806
PSP2 0.806
PSP3 0.870
Project quality performance 0.847 0.899 0.755
PQP1 0.615
PQP2 0.971
PQP3 0.972
Health and safety performance 0.791 0.703 0.500
HSP2 0.545
HSP3 0.861
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

HSP4 0.565
Relationship with project stakeholder 0.749 0.746 0.525
REL ST1 0.694
REL ST2 0.599
REL ST3 0.857
Project scope 0.776 0.870 0.696
PROJ SCOPE1 0.910
PROJ SCOPE2 0.628
PROJ SCOPE4 0.930
Environmental performance 0.741 0.845 0.732
ENV. PERF.1 0.899
ENV. PERF.3 0.810
Baseline survey 0.803 0.863 0.559
BS2 0.744
BS3 0.729
BS5 0.665
BS6 0.812
BS7 0.780
M&E planning 0.789 0.846 0.609
MEP1 0.773
MEP3 0.808
MEP6 0.756
MEP7 0.784
M&E framework 0.872 0.915 0.782
MEF1 0.849
MEF2 0.933
MEF3 0.869
M&E budget 0.727 0.846 0.647
MEB1 0.751
MEB2 0.836
MEB3 0.824
M&E scheduling 0.647 0.811 0.590
MES1 0.722
MES2 0.860 Table III.
MES3 0.714 Factor loadings,
Cronbach’s α,
composite reliability
(continued ) and AVE
 BEPAM Indicators Loadings Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE

M&E specification and frequency 0.781 0.900 0.819

MESF1 0.887
MESF2 0.922
ICT usage 0.820 0.917 0.847
ICTU1 0.931
ICTU2 0.909
Midterm and end term evaluation 0.765 0.789 0.652
MEE1 0.817
MEE2 0.797
Documentation of lessons learnt 0.732 0.844 0.730
DLL1 0.876
DLL2 0.832
Role of external evaluators 0.742 0.840 0.725
REE1 0.817
REE2 0.885
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Table III.

The final step in the assessment of the model was the analysis of the discriminant validity.
The discriminant validity is the degree to which constructs vary from other constructs by
empirical measures (Sarstedt et al., 2016; Hair et al., 2016). The criterion for the measurement
of the discriminant validity was the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Thus, the use of the Fornell–
Larcker criterion will establish if a latent variable accounts for more variances in its
associated indicator variables than it shares with other constructs in the same model (Hair
et al., 2017). In satisfying this, each construct AVE was compared with squared correlations
with other constructs in the model (Table IV ). The results as shown in Table IV imply that
the discriminant validity of the measurement model at both construct and indicator levels
was sufficient.
Assessment of the structural model. The assessment of the structural model helps in
ascertaining the degree to which the hypothesis is supported by the empirical data. In the
evaluation of the structural model, Sarstedt et al. (2016) proposed the assessment of
the path coefficients and the use of coefficients of determination (R2). The results
from the bootstrapping were used to assess the significance of the relationships.
The predictive accuracy of the model is represented by the R2 value. R2 values of 0.75,
0.50, 0.25 describe significant, moderate or weaker levels of predictive accuracy,
respectively (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler and Fassott, 2010). The R2 values shown in Table V
portray that the independent constructs significantly and moderately affect the dependent
constructs (success criteria).
The next step involved the testing of the hypothesis based on the path coefficients and
significance. To facilitate this, a bootstrapping method was carried out as PLS–SEM does
not assume that the data are normally distributed. This implies that parametric
significance cannot be applied to test whether coefficients such as outer weights, outer
loadings and path coefficients are significant (Hair et al., 2017). Using a sub-sample of
5,000 and a confidence level of 10 percent (α ¼ 0.10; two-tailed test), the bootstrapping was
undertaken. The implementation of the bootstrapping aided the use of the SmartPLS3.
Therefore, when t-value is above 1.65, it can be concluded that the hypothesis is
statistically supported. Out of 70 hypotheses, 35 were not supported. Table VI and
Figure 2 show the summary of path coefficients and significance levels and final model,
respectively.
 Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

BS CP DLL ENV. PERF. HSP ICTU MEB MEE MEF MEP MES MESF PQP PROJ SCOPE PSP REE REL ST

BS 0.748
CP 0.003 0.829
DLL 0.338 0.199 0.854
ENV. PERF. −0.517 0.237 −0.035 0.856
HSP −0.473 0.250 0.027 0.538 0.673
ICTU 0.376 0.440 0.499 −0.028 0.099 0.920
MEB 0.409 0.451 0.482 −0.183 −0.047 0.625 0.805
MEE 0.033 0.203 0.258 0.014 0.472 0.273 0.354 0.807
MEF 0.448 0.051 0.405 −0.307 −0.020 0.210 0.340 0.230 0.884
MEP 0.292 0.242 0.477 −0.029 0.005 0.445 0.530 0.182 0.346 0.781
MES 0.381 0.407 0.577 −0.168 −0.042 0.624 0.695 0.210 0.262 0.636 0.768
MESF 0.600 0.245 0.377 −0.356 −0.063 0.459 0.524 0.455 0.421 0.289 0.472 0.905
PQP −0.138 0.304 0.148 0.510 0.289 0.152 0.116 −0.069 0.036 0.372 0.191 −0.056 0.869
PROJ SCOPE 0.317 0.141 0.430 0.063 −0.073 0.354 0.255 −0.099 0.342 0.473 0.508 0.243 0.440 0.834
PSP −0.006 0.344 0.360 0.372 0.239 0.351 0.282 −0.064 0.087 0.453 0.456 −0.016 0.678 0.511 0.828
REE 0.318 0.209 0.164 −0.276 0.205 0.305 0.463 0.618 0.338 0.123 0.181 0.655 −0.266 −0.178 −0.129 0.851
REL ST 0.333 0.185 0.317 0.209 −0.045 0.295 0.357 0.066 −0.030 0.375 0.385 0.258 0.213 0.503 0.224 0.103 0.724
practices
monitoring
Project

and evaluation

Table IV.

criterion
Fornell–Lacker
 BEPAM Discussion
In practice, M&E serves as the lever for measuring the time at which the project
was started, the progress that has been achieved in a given period and the methods to
execute the project within the client-stated requirements and objectives. From the
analysis, it can be inferred that there exists a clear relationship between the various
project success criteria and M&E practices. This is demonstrated through the
analysis wherein all R2 values recorded significant relationships with all the M&E
practices. Furthermore, the findings as presented suggest the need for critical assessment
of the M&E practices that have strong impacts on project success criteria. In buttressing
this, Naidoo (2011) reiterated that there is a need to strengthen and empower M&E
professionals in a project setting to help in the strict enforcement of M&E practices
that lead to a successful project. Although successful completion of projects remains a
critical objective to clients, to achieve such successes, there is a need to give an utmost
importance to the relationship that exists between these parameters in project execution
processes. Therefore, continual and consistent practicing of M&E has the tendency to
ensure that projects are completed within project success criteria. It is therefore not
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

surprising that project scope management recorded a strong significant relationship with
M&E since scope management deals directly with the baseline practices, midterm and end
reviews of M&E practices. This is in agreement with Papke-Shields et al. (2010) who
indicated that management of project scope has a direct relationship with M&E practices
and it remains a success criterion for project execution. In addition, it is worth noting that
health and safety practices recorded the highest R2 value, suggesting a strong level of
impact of M&E practices on health and safety. Although health and safety practices
over the years have been neglected in most developing countries (Kheni et al., 2006;
Jason, 2008), in recent time the practices have gained some recognition among industrial
players. Auffan et al. (2009) indicated that health and safety performance of projects is
achieved when the project is completed successfully without the occurrence of any major
accidents and injuries. This shows that M&E practices can help in achieving the expected
health and safety performance.

Conclusion
Successful completion of projects is a fundamental goal for all organizations. However, it has
been noted that most organizations struggle with the internal and external processes of
demands for a continuous improvement of project execution processes in order to achieve the
main objective of the client. M&E has been found to be a major management function for
ensuring that the objectives set for projects are successfully achieved and that projects meet
stakeholder expectations. Projects that have not been properly monitored and evaluated end
up not being successfully completed. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of
project M&E practices on construction project success criteria in Ghana. Quantitatively,

Dependent variables R2 values Effects

Cost performance 0.326 Moderate

Environmental performance 0.379 Moderate
Health and safety 0.536 Significant
Project scope 0.511 Significant
Table V. Project quality performance 0.315 Moderate
Predictive accuracy Relationship with stakeholders 0.319 Moderate
of the model Project schedule performance 0.383 Moderate
 No. Paths Path coefficients t-statistics p-values Inference
Project
monitoring
1. BS → CP −0.327 2.091 0.037 Supported and evaluation
2. BS → ENV. PERF. −0.459 3.344 0.001 Supported
3. BS → HSP −0.573 3.688 0.000 Supported
practices
4. BS → PQP −0.340 1.761 0.079 Supported
5. BS → PROJ SCOPE 0.009 0.062 0.950 Not supported
6. BS → PSP −0.219 1.662 0.046 Supported
7. BS → REL ST 0.299 1.812 0.071 Supported
8. DLL → CP −0.091 0.693 0.489 Not supported
9. DLL → ENV. PERF. 0.150 1.720 0.023 Supported
10. DLL → HSP 0.022 0.167 0.868 Not supported
11 DLL → PQP −0.018 0.142 0.887 Not supported
12. DLL → PROJ SCOPE 0.084 0.789 0.430 Not supported
13. DLL → PSP 0.151 1.626 0.011 Supported
14. DLL → REL ST 0.185 1.769 0.086 Supported
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

15. ICTU → CP 0.279 1.698 0.011 Supported

16. ICTU → ENV. PERF. 0.237 1.835 0.067 Supported
17. ICTU → HSP 0.279 1.954 0.051 Supported
18. ICTU → PQP 0.135 0.647 0.518 Not supported
19. ICTU → PROJ SCOPE 0.139 1.609 0.027 Supported
20. ICTU → PSP 0.194 1.762 0.046 Supported
21. ICTU → REL ST −0.066 0.398 0.691 Not supported
22. MEB → CP 0.289 1.738 0.025 Supported
23. MEB → ENV. PERF. 0.001 0.007 0.994 Not supported
24. MEB → HSP −0.272 1.678 0.040 Supported
25. MEB → PQP 0.132 0.645 0.519 Not supported
26. MEB → PROJ SCOPE −0.139 1.650 0.348 Supported
27. MEB → PSP −0.012 0.060 0.952 Not supported
28. MEB → REL ST 0.144 0.522 0.602 Not Supported
29. MEE → CP −0.045 0.246 0.806 Not supported
30. MEE → ENV. PERF. 0.128 1.652 0.477 Supported
31. MEE → HSP 0.381 2.531 0.012 Supported
32. MEE → PQP −0.034 0.178 0.859 Not supported
33. MEE → PROJ SCOPE −0.108 0.727 0.468 Not supported
34. MEE → PSP −0.173 1.672 0.084 Supported
35. MEE → REL ST −0.010 0.042 0.966 Not supported
36. MEF → CP −0.009 0.071 0.943 Not supported
37. MEF → ENV. PERF. −0.144 0.948 0.344 Not supported
38. MEF → HSP 0.121 1.608 0.014 Not supported
39. MEF → PQP 0.071 0.646 0.519 Not supported
40. MEF → PROJ SCOPE 0.248 1.724 0.085 Supported
41. MEF → PSP 0.038 0.238 0.812 Not supported
42. MEF → REL ST −0.387 2.481 0.013 Supported
43. MEP → CP −0.042 0.279 0.780 Not supported
44. MEP → ENV. PERF. 0.157 0.884 0.377 Not supported
45. MEP → HSP 0.043 0.314 0.754 Not supported
46. MEP → PQP 0.415 2.834 0.005 Supported
47. MEP → PROJ SCOPE 0.191 1.651 0.071 Supported
48. MEP → PSP 0.249 1.675 0.041 Supported
49. MEP → REL ST 0.262 1.710 0.088 Supported Table VI.
Summary of path
coefficients and
(continued ) significance levels
 BEPAM No. Paths Path coefficients t-statistics p-values Inference

50. MES → CP 0.182 0.939 0.348 Not supported

51. MES → ENV. PERF. −0.268 1.687 0.038 Supported
52. MES → HSP 0.053 0.316 0.752 Not supported
53. MES → PQP −0.163 0.758 0.449 Not supported
54. MES → PROJ SCOPE 0.252 1.667 0.043 Supported
55. MES → PSP 0.283 1.680 0.015 Supported
56. MES → REL ST 0.021 0.074 0.941 Not supported
57. MESF → CP 0.129 0.664 0.507 Not supported
58. MESF → ENV. PERF. −0.023 0.129 0.898 Not supported
59. MESF → HSP −0.110 0.547 0.585 Not supported
60. MESF → PQP 0.265 1.661 0.074 Supported
61. MESF → PROJ SCOPE 0.273 1.847 0.065 Supported
62. MESF → PSP −0.148 0.912 0.362 Not supported
63. MESF → REL ST 0.044 0.185 0.853 Not supported
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

64. REE → CP 0.028 0.127 0.899 Not supported

65. REE → ENV. PERF. −0.214 1.682 0.168 Supported
66. REE → HSP 0.205 1.667 0.072 Supported
67. REE → PQP −0.456 2.515 0.012 Supported
68. REE → PROJ SCOPE −0.438 3.121 0.002 Supported
69. REE → PSP −0.028 0.163 0.871 Not supported
Table VI. 70. REE → REL ST 0.003 0.014 0.989 Not supported

a clear relationship between the two concepts have been realized; it is evident that the project
success criteria, which include the project scope performance, the health and safety
performance, the environmental performance, the cost performance and the relationship with
stakeholders, are impacted positively by M&E practices. From the findings, it was evident
that health and safety, and project scope showed a significant relationship with the M&E
practices, implying that critical attention must be given to these main constructs in practice.
Theoretically, the study provided a clear quantification of the relationship
between M&E practices and their impacts on project success. These established
relationships will provide a guide to project managers and contractors in the execution of
projects, thereby increasing the success rate of construction projects. It will also serve
as a guide to the management of public sector institutions by revealing proper M&E
practices that should be employed by organizations to ensure positive results regarding
project execution. The study will be important for students and other researchers because
literature generated will not only serve as an additional source of knowledge but it will
also serve as a reference point in the conduct of similar studies. Despite the valuable
contribution of this study to both practice and knowledge, the data collection is
geographically limited to Ghana. But it is worth noting that the results of the study can be
adequately implemented in other countries with similar construction industry
characteristics. It is suggested that further studies should lean more on health and
safety performance and project scope, as these two project success criteria constructs
recorded the highest significant impact on projects M&E practices as per the analysis.
It is also interesting to note that out of 70 hypotheses, only half were supported.
It is therefore suggested that further studies should consider other statistical tools such as
regression or confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypothesis and these studies can
further consider whether the 35 hypotheses that were not supported can have any impact
on project success.
 Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

PSP1 PSP2 PSP3

0.806 0.806 0.870

REE1 MEB1
0.817 0.751
0.885 –0.028
0.383 –0.012 0.836 MEB2
REE2
0.824
REE MEB3
PSP MEB

0.151
–0.214 0.038
ENV. PERF.1 ENV. PERF.3 0.001

0.028
DLL1 0.899 0.810 0.289
0.876 MEF1
0.832 0.849
DLL2 –0.173
–0.438 0.933 MEF2
–0.139 –0.144
DLL 0.379 0.869
0.249 MEF3
–0.091 MEF
ENV. PERF. –0.009
0.003
0.194 0.144

0.128 CP2
0.900
0.326 0.248
0.876
0.205 CP3 0.696 –0.272
0.045 0.157
CP4 CP
MEE1 –0.148
0.817 PROJ SCOPE –0.387
0.237
0.797 –0.042 MEP1
MEE2 –0.108 0.910
PROJ SCOP... –0.219
–0.456 0.628
0.511 0.132
MEE 0.279 0.773
0.930 0.191
MEP3
–0.010 0.283 PROJ SCOPE 0.808
–0.023 PROJ SCOP...
0.756
MEP6
–0.018 0.262
ICTU1 REL ST1 –0.459 0.784
0.129 0.071 MEP
0.931 0.381 0.694
–0.066 REL ST2 0.599 0.319
ICTU2 0.909 MEP7
0.857 –0.327
0.273 –0.268 0.043
REL ST1
REL ST
ICTU
0.279 0.034 0.009
0.182
0.044
0.415
HSP2
0.252 0.545 0.299
0.861
0.536
0.135 HSP3
–0.110 0.565
MESP1 BS2
0.887 HSP4 HSP
0.021
0.922 –0.573
MESP2 BS3
0.744
MESF 0.729
0.265
0.053
0.665 BS5
–0.340 0.812
0.315 0.780 BS6
BS
BS7
–0.163
PQP
MES1
0.615 0.971 0.972
0.722
MES2 0.860
0.714
PQP1 PQP2 PQP3
MES3
MES
practices
monitoring
Project

Figure 2.
and evaluation

Final conceptualized
model
 BEPAM References
ACF (2011), “Food security and livelihood monitoring and evaluation guidelines. A guideline for field
workers”, Action Centre la Faim, available at: www.actionagainsthunger.org/sites/default/files/
publications/Food_Security_and_Livelihoods_Monitoringand_Evaluation_Guidelines_A_
Practical_Guide_For_Field_Workers_10.2011.pdf (accessed March 10, 2018).
Africa Development Bank (2006), “Country assistance evaluation, final report”, Operations Evaluation
Department, February.
Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (2013), “Performance Management”: The New Realities, Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Auffan, M., Rose, J., Bottero, J.Y., Lowry, G.V., Jolivet, J.P. and Wiesner, M.R. (2009), “Towards a
definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective”,
Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 1-8.
Ayee, J.R.A. (2000), Saints, Wizards and Demons and Systems: Explaining the Success or Failure of
Public Policies and Programmes, Ghana Universities Press, Accra.
Chan, A.P. and Chan, A.P. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction success”,
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-221.

Cleland, D.L. and Ireland, L.R. (2007), Project Manager’s Handbook, McGraw-Hill Professional.
Collins, A. and Baccarini, D. (2004), “Project success – a survey”, Journal of Construction Research,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Connelly, M.C. (2004), “Basic principles of monitoring & evaluation for service providers”, available at:
www.drugmisuse. isdscotland.org/dat/lanarkshire/publicatio ns/adat (accessed May 16, 2018).
Crawford, P. and Bryce, P. (2003), “Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the
efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation”, International Journal oF Project
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 363-373.
Damoah, I., Akwei, C. and Mouzughi, Y. (2015), “Causes of government project failure in developing
countries”, Focus on Ghana British Academy of Management (BAM) Conference, Portsmouth
University, available at: www.researchgate.net (accessed April 7, 2018).
DeVellis, R. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications: Theory and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Egemen, M. and Mohamed, A.N. (2005), “Different approaches of clients and consultants to contractors’
qualification and selection”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 267-276.
Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (2010), “Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: a
literature review”, IDS Working Paper No. 70, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gilliam, A., Barrington, T., Davis, D., Lascon, R., Uhi, G. and Phoenix, U. (2003), “Building evaluation
capacity for HIV prevention programs”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 133-142.
Gyadu-Asiedu, W. (2013), “Towards a systemic construction industry development: a research agenda
for a fragmented industry in Africa”, Journal of Construction Project Management and
Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 680-696.
Gyorkos, T. (2003), “Monitoring and evaluation of large-scale helminth control programmes”,
Acta Tropica, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 275-282.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
 Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural Project
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research”, European Business monitoring
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
and evaluation
Henseler, J. and Fassott, G. (2010), “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of
available procedures”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, practices
pp. 713-735.
Herrero, O., Martín, J.P., Freire, P.F., López, L.C., Peropadre, A. and Hazen, M.J. (2012), “Toxicological
evaluation of three contaminants of emerging concern by use of the Allium cepa test”, Mutation
Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, Vol. 743 Nos 1–2, pp. 20-24.
Hwang, B. and Lim, E. (2013), “Critical success factors for key project players and objectives: case
study of Singapore”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 2,
pp. 204-215.
IFRC (2011), Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, The International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2012), “Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

empirical investigation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 105-116.
Jason, A. (2008), “Organizing informal workers in the urban economy, the case of the construction
industry in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania”, Habitat International, No. 32, pp. 292-202.
Jha, K.N. and Iyer, K.C. (2007), “Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 527-540.
Jones, H. (2012), A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Influence, Overseas Development
Institute, London, available at: www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-
opinion-files/6453.pdf (accessed November 8, 2018).
Kamau, C.G. and Bin Mohamed, H. (2015), “Efficacy of monitoring and evaluation function in achieving
project success in Kenya: a conceptual framework”, Science Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 82-94.
Kelly, K. and Magongo, B. (2004), “Report on assessment of the monitoring and evaluation capacity of
HIV/AIDS organisations in Swaziland”, National Emergency Response Council on HIV/AIDS.
Kheni, N.A., Gibb, A.G. and Dainty, A.R. (2006), “The management of construction site health and
safety by small and medium-sized construction businesses in developing countries: a Ghana
case study”, 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, September, pp. 295-304.
Kusek, J.Z. and Rist, R.C. (2004), Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System,
The International Bank for Reconstruction and, Washington, DC.
Lau, A.W. and Tang, S.L. (2009), “A survey on the advancement of QA (quality assurance) to TQM
(total quality management) for construction contractors in Hong Kong”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 410-425.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success: an explanatory re-examination”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-248.
McCoy, L., Ngari, P. and Krumpe, E. (2005), Building Monitoring, Evaluations and Reporting Systems
for HIV/AIDS Programs, USAID, Washington, DC.
McManus, J. and Wood-Harper, T. (2008), “A study in project failure”, British Computer Society,
Chartered Institute of IT, available at: www.bcs.org/server.php (accessed March 4, 2018).
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T. and Hodgson, D. (2006), “From projectification to
programmification”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 663-674.
Muhammad, N.M., Zohreh, P. and Mojde, S. (2013), “Significance of scope in project success”,
International Conference on Project Management, pp. 722-729.
Muzinda, M. (2007), “Monitoring and evaluation practices and challenges of Gaborone based local
NGOs implementing HIV/AIDS projects in Botswana”, master’s thesis in manegement,
University of Botswana.
 BEPAM Naidoo, I.A. (2011), “The role of monitoring and evaluation in promoting good governance in
South Africa: a case study of the department of social development”, University of
Witwatersrand: WIReDSpace, Johannesburg.
Nyonje, R.O., Ndunge, K.D. and Mulwa, A.S. (2012), Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects and
Programs - A Handbook for Students and Practitioners, Aura Publishers, Nairobi.
Otieno, F.A.O. (2000), “The roles of monitoring and evaluation in projects”, 2nd International
Conference on Construction in Developing Countries: Challenges Facing the Construction Industry
in Developing Countries, November, pp. 15-17.
Ott, L.R. and Longnecker, M. (2001), Student Solutions Manual for Introduction to Statistical Methods &
Data Analysis, Duxbury Resource Center.
Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C. and Quan, J. (2010), “Do project managers practice what they preach, and does
it matter to project success?”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 650-662.
Phiri, B. (2015), “Influence of monitoring and evaluation on project performance”, master’s thesis,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
PMI (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute,
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Newtown Square, PA.

Prabhakar, G.P. (2008), “What is project success: a literature review”, International Journal of Business
and Management, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 1-10.
Project Management Institute (2010), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK), 4th ed., Project Management Institute.
Rigdon, E.E. (2016), “Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management
research: a realist perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 598-605.
Rogers, P.J. and Williams, B. (2006), “Evaluation for practice improvement and organizational
learning”, The Sage Handbook of Evaluation, Sage, London, pp. 76-97.
Salter, A. and Torbett, R. (2003), “Innovation and performance in engineering design”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 573-580.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O. and Gudergan, S.P. (2016), “Estimation issues with PLS
and CBSEM: where the bias lies!”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 3998-4010.
Shapiro, I., Infineon Technologies AG (2006), “Transmitting information through a communication link
and monitoring link quality”, US Patent Application No. 11/207,436.
Shapiro, J.S. (2007), “Evaluating public health uses of health information exchange”, Journal of
Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. S46-S49.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Validation guidelines for IS positivist research”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 380-427.
Swan, W. and Khalfan, M.M. (2007), “Mutual objective setting for partnering projects in the public
sector”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-130.
Uitto, J.I. (2004), “Evaluating environment and development: lessons from international cooperation”,
Evaluation Office, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), available at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1356389013517443 (accessed October 25, 2010).
UNDP (2002a), “Linking poverty reduction and environmental management: policy challenges
and opportunities”, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
UNDP (2002b), Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results, Evaluation Office, United Nations
Development Programme (accessed August 8, 2018).
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2010), “Map of earthquake affected
areas and population movement in Haiti”, available at: www.usaid.gov/ourwork/humanitarian_
assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/haiti/template/maps/fy2011/haiti_10222010.pdf
(accessed October 25, 2010).
Webb, D. and Elliot, L. (2000), “Learning to live: monitoring and evaluation of HIV/AIDS programmes
for young people”, Evaluation exchange, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 2-7.
 Further reading Project
Derfus, A.M., Chan, W.C. and Bhatia, S.N. (2004), “Probing the cytotoxicity of semiconductor quantum monitoring
dots”, Nano Letters, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-18. and evaluation
Dobi, B.A., Nyonje, R. and Wanjare, J. (2012), “Factors influencing adoption of monitoring and practices
evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda District, Siaya county,
Kenya”, master of arts degree in project planning and management thesis, University of Nairobi,
Nairobi.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J. Jr,
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS:
comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 182-209.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2010), “Project management in the international development
industry: the project coordinator’s perspective”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 61-93.
Downloaded by 154.160.21.188 At 04:43 07 May 2019 (PT)

Jayamaha, A. and Silva, L.M.D. (2012), “Budgetary process and organizational performance of apparel
industry in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 354-360.
Jody, Z. and Ray, R. (2004), Ten Steps to a Result-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Handbook
for Development Practitioners, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Macdonald, J.S., McCoy, S., Whitehead, R.P., Iqbal, S., Wade, J.L., Giguere, J.K. and Abbruzzese, J.L.
(2005), “A phase II study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in pancreatic cancer: a
Southwest oncology group (SWOG 9924) study”, Investigational New Drugs, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 485-487.
Memon, Z.A., Majid, M.Z.A. and Mustaffar, M. (2006), “A systematic approach for monitoring and
evaluating the construction project progress”, The Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 26-32.
Shapiro, J. (2004), Monitoring and Evaluation, CIVICUS, Johannesburg.
Tengan, C. and Aigbavboa, C. (2016), “Evaluating barriers to effective implementation of project
monitoring and evaluation in the Ghanaian construction industry”, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 164, pp. 389-394.
Tengan, C. and Aigbavboa, C. (2017), “Level of stakeholder engagement and participation in
monitoring and evaluation of construction projects in Ghana”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 196,
pp. 630-637.
Valente, C.P., Novaes, M., Mourão, C.A. and Neto, J. (2012), “Lean monitoring and evaluation in a
construction site: a proposal of lean audits”, Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, Vol. 20, San Diego, CA.

Corresponding author
Ernest Kissi can be contacted at: kisernest@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats