The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Effect of project organization Effect of

project
elements on the mental health organization

of project management practitioner

in AEC projects
Bashir Tijani, Xiaohua Jin and Robert Osei-Kyei Received 7 April 2022
Revised 31 May 2022
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, 2 July 2022
Sydney, Australia Accepted 18 July 2022

Abstract
Purpose – Due to the frenetic and dynamic working conditions ascribed to architecture, engineering and
construction (AEC) project organizations, enormous research has addressed the poor mental health propensity
of project management practitioners (PMPs). However, research has not considered the distant factors related
to organizational design causing poor mental health. Therefore, this study addresses the problem by
integrating institutional theory, agency theory and resource-based theory (RBT) to explore the relationship
between organizational design elements: project governance, knowledge management, integrated project
delivery, project management skills and mental health management indicators. Examples of mental health
management indicators include social relationships, work-life balance and project leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – Purposive sampling method was adopted to collect survey data from 90
PMPs in 60 AEC firms in Australia. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was utilized to test the relationship
between the variables.
Findings – The research found that project governance, knowledge management and integrated project
delivery are positively correlated to mental health management indicators. However, the research finding
suggests that project management skills have a negative impact on mental health management indicators.
Originality/value – The findings offer guidelines to AEC firms on achieving positive mental health
management outcomes through concentration on project governance, knowledge management and integrated
project delivery. It further calls for a reconsideration of existing project management skills causing poor mental
health management outcomes.
Keywords AEC; Integrated project delivery; Knowledge management; Project governance;
Project management skills; PMPs; Mental health management indicators
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past decade, mental health professionals and researchers have expended
tremendous efforts to address the pervasiveness of poor mental health among PMPs in
architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) project organizations via various
mechanisms. For instance, Haynes and Love (2004) established coping mechanisms as an
individual intervention approach to alleviate poor mental health among project managers.
Similarly, Bowen et al. (2014a) and Leung et al. (2006) found that coping behaviours reduces
work stress, thereby promoting positive mental health among construction project
professionals. In another dimension, organizational supports received significant interest
among scholars to examine relationship between organizational resources and mental health
among PMPs (Chan et al., 2016; Leung et al., 2008; Love et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2017).
Organizational supports, including workgroup supports, superior supports, company

Engineering, Construction and

This research is funded by the Western Sydney University under the Graduate Research Scholarship Architectural Management
Scheme. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Disclosure statement: The authors report that there is no competing interest to declare. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-04-2022-0309
ECAM management system and organizational justice, have been confirmed to be positively related
to the mental health of PMPs in construction project environments (Bowen et al., 2014c; Leung
et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2018). These findings were underpinned by the perception that poor
mental health is a resultant effect of imbalance between job demands and resources.
Recently, several studies have criticized the concentration on the imbalance between job
demands and resources as the theoretical underpinning for identifying factors driving
positive mental health due to the limitation in explaining distant antecedents influencing job
demands responsible for excessive work stress in a project based organization (PBO) (Koch
and Schermuly, 2021). The distant antecedents cover organizational design elements,
including organizational climate and human resources management that shape job demands
at task level, leading to emotional exhaustion for workers (Albrecht et al., 2015; Dollard et al.,
2013). Distant antecedents affect emotional exhaustion through the process of accumulating
job demands (Pak et al., 2019).
Despite the advocation for organizational design concept in revealing distant practices
impacting mental health in a PBO (Koch and Schermuly, 2021; Tan and Yeap, 2021), research
in this important area has been fragmented, disorganised and under-theorised. Recent
empirical studies continue to focus imbalance between job demands and resources as causes
of poor mental health (Liang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021). For instance, Bowen et al. (2014c)
revealed that organizational supports and job control mitigate work stress among
construction project consultants based on theoretical concept that work stress is a
consequential effect of imbalance between job demand and resources. Haynes and Love
(2004) established coping strategies as resources for adjusting the mental health of
construction project managers due to the theoretical perception of the most influential theory
of stress and coping by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) who posited that stress emanated from
imbalance between demands and personal resources. Similar theoretical approach was
adopted by Leung et al. (2015) and Yang et al. (2017) to confirm the organizational
management strategies for addressing mental health of construction project managers.
Those studies focused on individual and organizational resources for addressing project
demands causing poor mental health among PMPs without considering the design of project
responsible for work stress. Little is known on how project organizational design influence
the mental health. In this context, the research aims to addresses this knowledge gap by
exploring the organizational design factors which determine the mental health of PMPs in
AEC project organizations. The meaning of determination of mental health by this study is
the impact of organizational design elements: project governance, integrated project delivery,
knowledge management, integrated project delivery and project management skills on
mental health management indicators, which influence the mental health of PMPs. Hence, this
study aims to address this knowledge gap by answering the below research question:
What are the interactive relationships between project governance, integrated project
delivery, knowledge management and project management skills and mental health
management indicators in AEC project organizations?
Given that an AEC project is a PBO that involves multiple organizations, this study
mobilised emerged organizational theories: institutional theory, agency theory and resources
based theory (RBT) to examine how interrelationships between organizational design
dimensions: project governance, integrated project delivery, knowledge management and
project management skills impact mental health management indicators.
The perception of organizational design dimensions in this study is based on the
classification of organizational design elements as structure, processes and skills by previous
studies (Miterev et al., 2017b; Turner and Miterev, 2019). Structure represents project
governance; processes depict integrated project delivery; knowledge management and skills
represent project management skills. Theoretically, interactive relationships between these
organizational design elements predict organizational outputs (Miterev et al., 2017a).
Therefore, testing the impacts of the interactive relationships on mental health management Effect of
indicators is extending organizational design knowledge to mental health management. project
Mental health management indicators refer to indices that define organizational elements
that determine the mental health of workers in a working environment (Bergh et al., 2014).
organization
Please refer to Section 2.2.5 for detailed explanation.
The research question is addressed by developing a theoretical model that proposed
hypothetical relationships between project governance, integrated project delivery,
knowledge management, project management skills and mental health management
indicators. The theoretical model is empirically verified to test the hypotheses
underpinned by organizational theories. Through the hypothetical testing, this research
revealed dimensions of project governance, integrated project delivery, knowledge
management, project management skills related to mental health management indicators
in AEC project organizations.

2. Theoretical and conceptual background

2.1 Theories
This section presents the theoretical background of this research. To develop the
theoretical model, institutional theory, agency theory and RBT were integrated to propose
the hypotheses in this study. These theories were chosen and integrated because of their
capacity to explain the interactive impact of governance institution, project delivery
system and resources element of a PBO on mental health management outcomes. They
are considered appropriate for this study as they offer in-depth theoretical knowledge
on the relationship existing between project governance, knowledge management,
integrated project delivery, project management skills and mental health management
indicators. Moreover, the combination of the selected theories is necessary to address the
multifaceted dimensions of an organization responsible for mental health management
practices.
2.1.1 Institutional theory. Institutional theory is an organizational theory pioneered by
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and elucidates the impact of institutions on the behaviour of
organizations. Institutions refer to regulative, normative and cognitive structures that
provide resilience and stability for social behaviour (Scott, 2013). In addition, the institutional
theory posits that institutions exert coercive isomorphism on organizations to determine
organizational behaviour and outcomes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 2013). Coercive
isomorphism refers to pressure from an institution that possesses resources on which an
organization depends (Scott, 2013). Through the institutional theory, Currie and Suhomlinova
(2006) confirmed the impact of institutional forces in an organization on knowledge sharing
among workers. Dai et al. (2005) developed a theoretical model based on coercive
isomorphism to examine how internal forces of academia influence the decision to patent
university research.
Theoretical concept of institutional theory and its mobilisation in project management,
education sector and health care has demonstrated that internal institutional forces can
determine behaviour and outcome of organizations (Hanson, 2001; Johnson, 2013). Adoption
of institutional theory has grown in project management over a couple of decades to examine
the impact of internal regulations on project outcomes (Morris and Geraldi, 2011).
Nevertheless, its application in project management to tackle poor mental health among
PMPs in AEC project organizations received scant attention. Through the prism of
institutional theory, governance institutions exert forces on project organizations to develop
project management practices that influence mental health (Delisle, 2020). Governance
structure controls and coordinates project organizations through improvement of project
management activities, which include, competency development, performance appraisal
ECAM processes, cost performance evaluation and profit distribution between the company and
organization that shapes the mental health of PMPs (Yang et al., 2017).
2.1.2 Agency theory. From its root in economic domain, agency theory has been adopted by
scholars across multiple disciplines, including law, organizational behaviour, marketing and
health care (Bendickson et al., 2016). The theoretical lens of agency theory hinges around
principal-agent problem or governance mechanism; therefore, in essence, agency theory
emanated from economic shared view of risk sharing, which occurs between principal and
agent (Eisenhardt, 1989). According to agency theory, an agent or agency is employed by one
or more person (s), called the principal, under a contract and is rewarded by the principal to
achieve targeted goals (Miles, 2012). Agency theory also explained the mechanisms to resolve
problems that may occur in agency relationship, which is referred to as “agency problem”
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Concerning mental health in project organizations, agency theory
explains how effective relationships between multiple project parties can promote positive
mental health management outcomes. Fragmentation in AEC projects is an antecedent to
poor mental health because of reliance on subcontracting, long supply chains and transient
workforce. Subcontracting imposes a burden on PMPs as they are required to manage
multiple organizations with different goals to deliver projects. In terms of long supply chain,
management of complex system of organization, people, activities and information becomes
the responsibility of PMPs managing the delivery of products and services to AEC
project sites.
2.1.3 Resources based theory. In a simple term, resources based theory (RBT) focuses on
capacity of organizations to compete against others based on their resources and capabilities
(Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources are regarded as anything that serves as a
strength for an organization. Organizational resources are viewed as a strength that assists
an organization to compete better and to accomplish its vision, missions and goals (Porter,
1981). The theory further explains that organizational competitive positions relative to other
organizations are subjected to its collection of resources and relationships (Rumelt, 1974).
Organization has a competitive advantage when it uses a profitable, value-creating strategy
that is not being adopted by the competing firm in the dynamic environment (Barney, 1991).
Viewing poor mental health in AEC project organizations as a consequence of
organizational resources adaptation to external environment demand based on the
assertion of Dollard et al. (2013), this research drew inspiration from RBT to complement
institutional theory to explain the influence of resources elements on mental health
management outcomes. For example, knowledge management is an organizational resource
(Wernerfelt, 1984), that predict mental health management outcomes through acquisition,
sharing, creation, retention and codification of knowledge in organizations (Khairi et al., 2019;
Kianto et al., 2016).

2.2 Literature review of project design dimensions

2.2.1 Project governance. Scholars have defined project governance from different
perspectives to reflect the functions and purpose of institutional structure in projects.
According to Jepson et al. (2017), project governance is the structure design for consistent and
predictable project delivery within the policies set by corporate governance or agreed subset
in contracts with external stakeholders. Project governance structure is widely
acknowledged as a critical organizational component in a complex project because of
various institutions, policies and relations driving the construction operation management
(Aubry et al., 2010; Muller et al., 2019). Pinto (2014) viewed project governance as the use of
systems, structures of authority, and processes for resources allocation and coordination or
control of project activities. Project governance dimensions are characterized by roles and
institutions, policies, relations and methodology that elucidates the properties of project
governance. While the dimensions are consistent in all project, the number of institutions in Effect of
the governance dimensions vary based on project characteristics and project scope that project
underpin the construction projects (Muller et al., 2016a).
Viewing the mental distress among PMPs through project governance prism provides a
organization
platform to explore how institutions, policies and relations in governance structure influence
mental health management indicators. For example, Yang et al. (2017) found that effective
staff management, project management and organizational project institutions embedded in
governance structure reduced stressors and job burnout among project managers in China.
The institutions cater for staff training development, salary system, performance assessment
procedures, responsibility allocation and profit distribution in project management
responsible for mitigating psychosocial risks causing poor mental health.
2.2.2 Knowledge management. Knowledge management (KM) is a process of identifying
and influencing the collective knowledge that positively impacts organizational competitive
advantage, which enables organizations to compete in a competitive market (Kianto et al.,
2016). Generally, KM is a knowledge management process that consists of knowledge
creation, sharing, acquisition, transfer and application with infrastructures, skills and top
management support that enhance KM process (Gold et al., 2001; Lee and Choi, 2003). Kianto
et al. (2016) and Khairi et al. (2019) extended KM process through classification into
knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, knowledge codification and
knowledge retention. In contrast, Kasvi et al. (2003) consider KM process in a project
organization to consist of four groups of activities, which is different from Kianto et al. (2016)
and Khairi et al. (2019) categorization. The four activities groups are knowledge creation,
knowledge administration, knowledge dissemination and knowledge utilization. These
elements of KM process formed the functionality and operationalization of KM in permanent
and temporary organizations.
KM provides a favourable platform for knowledge individuals to utilize and share their
expertise and knowledge, and create new knowledge. From a knowledge-based standpoint,
the most crucial means of production are intangible; it is concentrated on human capital, for
instance, skills, competences, experiences, motivation for work, and utilization of skills for
organizational performance and well-being (Crook et al., 2011; Khairi et al., 2019). KM is a
critical factor for both organizational performance and project success, subjected to the
method of acquisition, creation, codification and sharing. Kianto et al. (2016) argued that KM
strategies attract and nurture top talents, as adequate access to knowledge across the
organizations can expedite the learning experience of new employees, build job satisfaction
and improve well-being.
2.2.3 Integrated project delivery. In a fragmented construction project organization,
collaboration becomes a viable option to address the inherent risk in the organization that
may negatively affect project outcomes. Integrated project delivery (IPD) is one of the
appropriate delivery mechanisms to tackle the problems of fragmentation through
collaborative approach of aligning incentives and goals of the project team. The American
Institute of Architects (AIA) defines IPD as “a project delivery approach that integrates
people, system, business structures and practices into process that collaboratively harnesses
the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to owner,
reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and
construction” (AIA California Council, 2007).
Unique characteristics of IPD continue to fuel its proliferation in multi-project
environments as a solution to the fragmentation in construction projects. IPD is
characterized by early involvement of all parties, multiparty agreement and sharing risk
and reward (Ashcraft, 2014; Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010). These attributes of IPD define
the project delivery system and underpin the conceptualization of the concept in construction
projects. Early involvement of all parties is one of the most fundamental advantage of IPD
ECAM derived through involvement of all project parties from earliest design stage. Collaboration
can address the problem of fragmentation between different parties that lead to inefficient
work practices and poor mental health (Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010; Raisbeck et al., 2010;
Sang et al., 2007).
2.2.4 Project management skills. Skills are instruments for performing activities to achieve
the desired goal. Project managers’ skills are important tools that project managers apply to
different project phases for successful delivery of construction projects (El-Sabaa, 2001).
Critical review of the literature revealed various project managers’ skills set required for
managing projects in conformity with project goals and external stakeholders’ demands (El-
Sabaa, 2001; Goodwin, 1993). According to Goodwin (1993) and El-Sabaa (2001), effective
project managers skills are divided into four sections: conceptual skills, human skills,
negotiation skills and technical skills. These skills reflect social and technical elements of
project organization system. Katz (1991) substantiated the categorization of Goodwin (1993)
and El-Sabaa (2001) by suggesting that effective administration skills lie on human skills,
conceptual skills and technical skills, which is developed independently. In another context,
managing projects successfully needs a combination of skills, which include interpersonal
ability, technical competencies, cognitive attitude, human skills and appropriate leadership
behaviours (Strang, 2007).
While the potential of the skills in relation to performance has been explored extensively,
negative implications of poor skills with respect to project managers’ psychological health
received spare attention. Seeing mental health problems through the prism of skills would
challenge existing knowledge concentrated on task-level theoretical principles and
complement the strong argument of organizational-environment adaptation on mental
distress (Dollard et al., 2013). Inadequate skills for project management expose PMPs to work
stress due to complexity and difficulty involve in carried out project management activities
(Leung et al., 2005; Tijani et al., 2020a). Managing projects required PMPs to possess skills and
knowledge to reduce stressful conditions inherent in project management activities to
achieve project success (Gustavsson, 2016; Tijani et al., 2021). Confusion and frustration
antecedent to burnout occurred when project managers lacked required skills to undertake
the project management activities (Yang et al., 2017).
2.2.5 Mental health management indicators. Mental health management are organizational
systems developed to address the stressors or risks inherent in the working environment
leading to poor mental health (Leka and Cox, 2008; Leka et al., 2015). It is a proactive
mechanism for managing mental health risks, promoting mental health, monitoring
management strategies, and performance evaluation of developed interventions (Chan
et al., 2016). The functionality of mental health management relies of a set of indicators that
captures the dimensions of organizational system contributing to mental health. Without
indicators, it is difficult to operationalise mental health management that underpins
performance assessment of developed interventions. In several literature, the term mental
health management indicator is used interchangeably to represent workplace well-being
factors (Carvajal-Arango et al., 2021), management standard indicators (Edwards and
Webster, 2012), healthy work environment index (Lindberg and Ving
ard, 2012) and healthy
organizational indicators (Aronsson et al., 1999). The concept represents mental health
policies, strategies and practices contributing to the positive mental health of workers.
Examples of mental health management indicators include work-life balance policy, social
relationships and appropriate staffing (Areskoug Josefsson et al., 2018; Lindberg and
Ving
ard, 2012). They represent organizational level indicators that define an organisational
environment enhancing the positive mental health of workforce (Lindberg and Ving
ard, 2012;
Raya and Panneerselvam, 2013). These management indicators capture the primary source of
work stress and elucidate the characteristics of a workplace in which psychosocial risk have
been effectively managed (Edwards and Webster, 2012). Mental health management
indicators impede negative consequences affecting an individual’s health in workplace and Effect of
have a promotional impact on the mental health of workers (Lindberg and Ving
ard, 2012). project
This objective is achieved by tackling the work environment conditions producing work
stress; in this way, stress levels can be reduced, resulting in an improvement in the mental
organization
health of workers.
In application to project management, the identified indicators for mental health
management provides benchmark for performance assessment of the mental healthiness of
the operation of PBOs. Indicators, such as project leadership, social relationship, clear project
information and reasonable project workload illuminates the critical role of leadership,
project communication and resources management in promotion of mental health
(Gustavsson, 2016; Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006). The performance evaluation result of the
mental health management indicators provides information of dysfunction project
organizational elements contributing to poor mental health (Lindberg et al., 2015).
Psychosocial risks such as long working hours, poor social relationship and role
ambiguity emanated from project organizations’ operations are managed by indicators
through the prevention of the sources causing the risks in project environment (Pinto et al.,
2016). Moreover, the identified mental health management indicators from various sectors are
leading indicators because of their proactive characteristics in averting poor mental health in
a working environment and predictive capacity of dysfunction project organizations inimical
to the mental health of project workers (Yang et al., 2017). There is a paucity of research that
explore lagging indicators for mental health management, which prevented the evaluation of
the impact of poor mental health. The current mental health management indicators from
various industries lack capacity to assess the impacts of poor mental health on AEC projects.
Table 1 shows the list of the indicators.

Mental health management

Code definitions Relevant literature

MHI1 Effective project governance Yang et al. (2017)

MHI2 Project leadership Agervold (1991), Baptiste (2009), Kroth et al. (2007)
MHI3 Social relationship with colleagues Bergh et al., (2014)
MHI4 Relationship with project Aronsson et al. (1999), Unterhitzenberger et al. (2020),
stakeholders Wreder et al. (2008)
MHI5 Employee recognition in the Aronsson et al. (1999), Unterhitzenberger et al. (2020),
organization Wreder et al. (2008)
MHI6 Working time schedule is flexible Arwedson et al. (2007), Baptiste (2009), MacDermid et al.
(2008)
MHI7 Fairness in the organization Agervold (1991), Kroth et al. (2007), Quick (1989)
MHI8 Strong teamwork in the Agervold (1991), Baptiste (2009), Kroth et al. (2007)
organization
MHI9 Good reward system Baptiste (2009), Quick (1989)
MHM10 Good Upskilling Kroth et al. (2007)
MHI11 Effective project management Yang et al. (2017)
office
MHM12 Clear project information system Gustavsson (2016) Table 1.
MHMI13 Role clarity Kroth et al. (2007) List of mental health
MHM14 Appropriate staffing Arwedson et al. (2007), Kroth et al. (2007), Lowe and Bennett management
(2003) indicators with
MHM15 Project workload Arnetz and Blomkvist (2007) references
ECAM 2.3 Hypothesis development
2.3.1 Project governance, integrated project delivery and knowledge management. Although
this philosophical principle is scarce; nevertheless, extending the investigation to this
approach is pertinent to uncover structural elements shaping mental health practices.
Drawing on institutional theory, project governance impacts mental health outcomes in AEC
project organizations via internal regulations controlling the development of project
management competencies, project performance control, recruitment of project managers,
commitment of resources, decision making on project procedure and relation between parties
in a project (Yang et al., 2017). Combination of these governance activities encourages project
management activities that create work conditions, including availability of enough
resources, possession of relevant project skills, reasonable workload and good stakeholders’
relationships antecedents to mental health (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006). Project governance
impacts the mental health of PMPs through development of project management
competencies, management of project learning, provision of clear project direction and
commitment of enough project resources (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006). Adequate
competencies and clear project direction prevent skill discretion and role ambiguity
causing poor mental health among PMPs (Leung et al., 2005). Moreover, project learning
enhances the creation and sharing of knowledge within and across projects to mitigate poor
project knowledge imposing psychological strain on project managers (Kianto et al., 2016).
Commitment of enough resources by the project governance improves positive mental health
through prevention of project overload and work-life conflict. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:
H1. Project governance is positively related to mental health management indicators in
AEC project organizations.
Project governance shapes project delivery in complex projects by controlling, managing,
shaping and influencing the allocation of financial, staff and physical resources. Good project
governance imposes institutional regulation guiding collaboration between different project
teams, project goal definition, establishment of trust and sharing of risk in project delivery
process (Muller et al., 2019; Patel and Robinson, 2010). Governance assists in outlining and
understanding the relationships between all internal and external stakeholders in projects
(Patel and Robinson, 2010). These core components of project governance would ultimately
result in prevention of excessive burnout causing poor mental health in a project environment
(Yang et al., 2017). Hence, it can be hypothesized that:
H2. Project governance is positively related to integrated project delivery in AEC project
organizations.
Knowledge management processes, including knowledge acquisition, creation and retention,
are shaped by project governance structure in a PBO through business strategy that binds
remote offices, composition of project teams and task allocation across sites (Manteli et al.,
2011). Moreover, institutional theory substantiated the argument on the link between project
governance and knowledge management as it explains how institutional regulation can
influence management practices in organizations. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that.
H3. Project governance is positively related to knowledge management in AEC project
organizations.
2.3.2 Knowledge management and mental health management indicators. Recently, scholars
from various sectors other than construction have considered the extension of the application
of knowledge management to job satisfaction and mental health based on organizational
resources for competitive advantage in a dynamic environment (Alyoubi et al., 2018). The
knowledge management processes increase accessibility to project information,
identification of problem solving actions, provision of shared goals between inter- Effect of
organization, creation of innovative ideas and retention of knowledge (Sokhanvar et al., project
2014). Organization inherent knowledge management processes that induce mental health
management practices contribute to the positive mental health of workers (Kianto et al., 2016).
organization
Therefore, RBT proffers a broader theoretical explanation on the association between
knowledge management and mental health management outcome to underlay proposed
hypothetical relationships between knowledge management and mental health management
indicators in AEC project organization. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H4. Knowledge management is positively related to mental health management
indicators in AEC project organizations.
2.3.3 Integrated project delivery and mental health management indicators. Considerable
amount of studies has reported negative consequences of project delivery and competitive
tendering on the mental health of construction workforce (Haynes and Love, 2004; Sang et al.,
2007), making Love et al. (2010) and Sherratt (2017) advocate for consideration of project
delivery system in mental health research. Despite their suggestions, little is known on how
project delivery system in interorganizational settings positively influences the mental health
of PMPs. Integrated project delivery (IPD) is one of the appropriate delivery mechanisms to
tackle the problems of fragmentation through collaborative approach of aligning incentives
and goals of the project team.
Owing to the paucity of studies on project delivery on mental health, agency theory was
adopted to elucidate inter collaborative effects on mental health management. Agency theory
posits that a good relationship between agents and principals improve organizational
performance. This relationship is based on acting in the best interest of both parties, which
transcend to organizational goals. Strong collaboration between multiple organizations
involved in projects generates benefits to both parties, which in line with business goals (AIA
California Council, 2007). Effective collaboration between the organization and multiple
contractors can foster mental health in construction projects (Sang et al., 2007). Implication of
agency theory is that integrated project delivery system positively influences mental health
management indicators. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5. Integrated project delivery is positively related to mental health management
indicators in AEC project organizations.
2.3.4 Project management skills and mental health management indicators. Ineffective
employee skills to match external environmental demand can be detrimental to employees’
mental health (Gustavsson, 2016); nevertheless, proactive strategy underpinned by strong
theory is lacking in AEC project organizations. To address mental health problems from a
skill perspective, RBT is a strong theory for unpacking knowledge on how employee skills,
which represent organizational resources, can meet external environmental determinants,
which in turn promote mental health. The central ideas of RBT are the maintenance of
sustainable positive in a competitive environment through organizational resources (Barney,
1991). In regards to AEC project organizations, effective project management skills address
demand from external environment through managing project in line with stakeholders’
goals (Nachbagauer and Schirl-Boeck, 2019; Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006). Possession of
relevant and effective project management skills symbolize the presence of organizational
resources to cater for external demand, which transcends to good mental health. Borrowing
RBT to unpack mental health issues unravel the significance of organizational resources
among other components of an organization in defining the organizational system.
Given the theoretical concept, project management skills influence mental health
management in AEC project organizations. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
ECAM H6. Project management skills are positively related to mental health management
indicators in AEC project organizations.
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical model for this research.

3. Methods
3.1 Design
A deductive approach was chosen for a robust design that comprises both organizational
theories and new empirical evidence. Considering the objectivist, positivism and deductive
approach, a survey design was selected to gather quantitative data from various PMPs in
AEC firms to gain the widest coverage of the resulting organizational theory.

3.2 Data collection instrument

The questionnaire comprises three sections. The first section includes demographic
information (e.g. educational qualification, work experience, project-related experience) of
the respondents and characteristics of the given projects (e.g. project monetary value, type of
client, project duration). The remaining two questions covered information on five variables:
project governance, knowledge management, integrated project delivery, project
management skills and mental health management indicators.
To measure project governance, the questionnaire contained 13 measured items. The
questionnaire was developed from an extensive literature review (Aubry et al., 2010; Muller
et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2019). To measure knowledge management, the questionnaire contained
16 measured items. Literature review of previous studies underpins the development of the
questionnaire (Alyoubi et al., 2018; Kasvi et al., 2003; Khairi et al., 2019; Kianto et al., 2016).
Integrated project delivery (IPD) contained 8 measured items for development of the
questionnaire. The measured items were based on review of extant studies (AIA California
Council, 2007; Bilbo et al., 2015; Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010; Raisbeck et al., 2010).

Figure1.
Hypothesized
theoretical model
Questionnaire containing 11 measured items were used to measure project management Effect of
skills. The measured items were based on a critical literature review (Anderson, 1992; Edum- project
Fotwe and Mccaffer, 2000; El-Sabaa, 2001; Goodwin, 1993; Keil et al., 2013). To measure
mental health management indicators, the questionnaire contained 15 measured items. The
organization
questionnaire was developed based on an extensive review of literature review (Agervold,
1991; Aronsson et al., 1999; Baptiste, 2009; Bergh et al., 2014; Kroth et al., 2007).
Accordingly, a five-point Likert scale (between 1 5 strongly disagree and 5 5 strongly
agree) was adopted for all the constructs: project governance, knowledge management,
integrated project delivery and project management skills measuring scale through which
respondents were requested to show level of their agreement for each item found in
the section. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the survey and Appendix 2 for the respondents’
details.

3.3 Validity and reliability

Face validity of the data collection instrument was established via a pilot study in which the
drafted questionnaires were sent to experts through email (1) to confirm the clarity of
instructions, wordings and questions, (2) to estimate the time of completion, (3) the
appropriateness of the questions in relation to Australian AEC projects, and (4) to recommend
any additional questions to be added to the questionnaire. Seven experts with 12 years of
experience in AEC projects in Australia, two occupational and health safety professionals
and one Associate professor in construction project management with publications in mental
health in the construction industry were engaged in the pilot study. The questionnaire was
revisited to reflect project management and removal of ambiguous questions based on
experts’ feedback.
Reliability of the questionnaire can be established with all constructs Cronbach’s alpha
values greater than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). Reliability of measurement items was assessed and
generated Cronbach’s alpha value for the constructs: project governance (0.916), knowledge
management (0.936), integrated project delivery (0.918), project management skills (0.932)
and mental health management indicators (0.942) through SPSS 27 version. The statistical
values obtained established the reliability of measurement items.

3.4 Sampling and data collection

In this study, purposive sampling was embraced to collect information from PMPs regarding
AEC projects in Australia due to the lack of government or construction register on the
numbers of AEC firms in Australia.
In total, out of 360 online surveys distributed among 60 AEC firms within Australia, 90
responses were received with a response rate of 25%. The AEC firms were gathered through
the authors’ professional network with the Australian Institute of Project Management
(AIPM) and Project Management Institute (PMI) Australia because of their affiliations with
the project management professional bodies. The professional bodies house project
management professions working in PBOs; therefore, they represent project management
professionals experts capable of providing information on mental health management
practices in AEC project based organizations.
The completed surveys were critically reviewed to identify unreliable and invalid
responses, which were removed because of short response duration as shown by Qualtrics
survey software (5 questionnaires) and the same choices for all questions (3 responses).
Consequently, the information of 82 project management practitioners (PMPs) was input into
database. The sample size is sufficient based on established mathematical formular used by
Sunindijo and Kamardeen (2017) and Kamardeen (2021) for work stress in the construction
industry in Australia.
ECAM t 2 xs2
N¼
d2
N 5 sample size; t 5 value of significance level of 0.05, which is 5 1.96, s 5 estimated of
variance deviation for the scale used for data collection (5 point Likert scale used in this
study); d 5 number of points on the primary scale multiplied by the acceptable margin error
of 5%. The value of d is calculated by multiplying the number of points on the instrument
Likert scale by the marginal error.
1:962 x12
N¼ ¼ 61
ð5x 0:05Þ2

Minimum sample size of 61 PMPs that involved in AEC project is required based on the
calculation; nevertheless, this research used 82 samples, signifying the sufficiency of the
sample size.

3.5 Data analysis

Structural equation modelling (SEM) is considered as a path model that comprises a set of
multivariate statistical approaches to empirical data (e.g multiple regression, confirmatory
factors analysis, and path analysis) (Bowen and Guo, 2011). SEM has been used in several
mental health studies in the construction industry as an analytical tool for exploring
relationships between research variables (Bowen et al., 2014b; Leung et al., 2011; Yang et al.,
2017). In this study, SEM was applied to test the proposed hypotheses of interactive
relationships between project governance, knowledge management, integrated project
delivery, project management skills and mental health management indicators. Researchers
are allowed to select between two different types of SEM approaches: partial least square
SEM (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) (Hair et al., 2016). In this research,
PLS-SEM approach was deemed to be more appropriate than CB-SEM approach because it is
suitable for non-distribution data, theory development and smaller sample size (Hair et al.,
2012). The PLS-SEM analytical tool chosen was applied through Smart PLS 3.2.8 software as
it meets the requirement for this research (Hair et al., 2016).

4. Result
PLS-SEM is assessed in two phases: measurement model and structural model. Measurement
model refers to the evaluation of adequacy of individual measurement items in capturing
their related constructs through evaluating internal consistency, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity of the specified constructs. Structural model focuses on evaluation of
the relationships between constructs that formulated the models (Hair et al., 2016). Therefore,
this section presents demographic characteristics, results of the measurement model and
structural model.

4.1 Sample characteristics

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the demographic characteristics of the respondents and project
information of those that completed the questionnaire survey. Majority of the respondents
have work experience with range of 0–5 years (59.85%) and the least of them possessed
21 years above (6.1%). Most respondents possessed Bachelor degree (35.4%) and minority of
them had high school certificate (3.7%). The project value completed by majority of the
participants is A$1.6 million – A$25 million. Traditional method of procurement accounted
Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Effect of
project
Respondent experience in current company organization
0–5 years 49 59.8
6–10 years 12 14.6
11–15 years 9 11.0
16–20 years 7 8.5
21 years or above 5 6.1
Background education
High school 3 3.7
Diploma 8 9.8
Bachelor’s degree 29 35.4
Master’s degree 29 35.4
Doctoral degree 13 15.9
Respondents in project management
0–5 years 21 25.6
6–10 years 13 15.9
11–15 years 9 22.0
16 years or above 7 36.6
Project sector
Residential 38 20.7
Commercial 45 24.5
Urban development 14 16.7
Industrial 13 7.1
Infrastructural 38 20.7
Mining and resources 6 3.3
Professional bodies
Project Management Institute (PMI) 27 32.9%
Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) 21 25.6% Table 2.
Association for Project Management (APM) 4 4.9% Demographic
Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQSs) 21 25.6% profile of the
Australian Institute of Building (AIB) 9 10.9% respondents (N 5 82)

for the most completed project (36%). Majority of the respondents involved in the project
completed within the range of 12–24 months.

4.2 Measurement model evaluation

In assessing the measurement model, reliability and validity were first evaluated.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was adopted for assessing internal consistency
reliability, convergent reliability and discriminant validity of constructs to assess the
capacity of measurement items in capturing their constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988;
Hair et al., 2012).
4.2.1 Internal consistency reliability. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test is the method of
assessing internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951), and composite reliability (Werts et al., 1974).
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability and composite reliability values are within the range of 0 and
1; higher value shows higher reliability level. Acceptable threshold value for Cronbach’s
alpha reliability and composite reliability for this study will be 0.7 based on the
recommendation by (Hair et al., 2016). The items used in the model evaluation and their
individual composite reliability are shown in Table 4. All the constructs Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability are above 0.7, indicating that the indicator reliability is acceptable.
ECAM Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Project value
Less than A$0.2 million 3 3.7
A$0.2 million – A$1.5 million 15 18.3
A$1.6 million – A$25 million 24 29.3
A$26 million – A$50 million 10 12.2
A$51 million – A$150 million 9 11.0
A$151 million – A$500 million 7 8.5
More than A$500 million 14 17.1
Project duration
0–11 months 8 9.8
12–24 months 40 48.8
25–36 months 17 20.7
More than 36 months 17 20.7
Bidding type
Selective bidding 38 46.3
Open bidding 34 41.5
Negotiation bidding 10 12.2
Procurement methods
Traditional method 36 43.9
Design and build procurement 33 40.2
Table 3. Partnering procurement 3 3.7
Statistics of project Management procurement 6 7.3
information Others (hybrid and two stage management contracting) 4 4.9

4.2.2 Convergent validity. Outer loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to
evaluate convergent validity of this research. As illustrated in Table 4, the outer loading of
each indicator was above 0.4, which is the threshold to be retained from the constructs based
on the recommendation by (Hair et al., 2016). The AVE of each construct was above the
acceptable value of 0.500 (Kline, 2015). All these results show that the measurement model
complied with convergent validity rules.
4.2.3 Discriminant validity. Cross-loadings and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of
correlation is two measures for confirming discriminant validity of the constructs (Hair et al.,
2016; Henseler et al., 2015). Table 5 shows the results of the discriminant validity. The results
indicate that all the items loaded higher on the construct they were specified to measure when
compared to others in the theoretical model, establishing the discriminant validity of the
constructs. Moreover, HTMT was used to further confirm the discriminant validity of the
constructs. HTMT value for correlation between two constructs should be not greater than
0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015). Accordingly, the results presented in Table 6 confirmed that the
discriminant validity is satisfactory as HTMT values are less than 0.9 and that concepts of
project governance, knowledge management, integrated project delivery, project
management skills and mental health management indicators are different from each other.

4.3 Structural model evaluation

Bootstrapping that set samples at 5,000 times based on recommendation of Hair et al. (2016),
underpinned the results for assessment of the structural model. The results represent the
basis for testing the proposed hypotheses and strength of the effects of the exogenous
variable on endogenous variable. The path coefficients reflect the influence of the exogenous
variable on endogenous variable. The final results indicate that all the six hypotheses
proposed are significant (p < 0.001); see Table 7. R2 underlay the estimation of model’s
 Cronbach’s Composite
Effect of
Construct Measurement items Loading alpha reliability AVE project
Project governance PG1: Monitoring and control of project 0.672 0.913 0.921 0.510
organization
performance
PG2: Competency development for career 0.614
growth
PG3: Project management methodologies 0.811
implementation
PG4: Coordination of project and 0.724
resources strategic work
PG5: Organizational learning 0.585
management
PG6: Specialized tasks execution 0.649
PG7: Clear directions by project 0.756
governance
PG8: Project values are communicated 0.637
Project governance PG9: Commission of enough project 0.736
resources
PG10: Commitment of enough project 0.815
management practitioners
PG12: Effective project communication 0.694
PG13: Effective delegation of project 0.718
management responsibilities
Knowledge KM1: Project information was easily 0.576 0.934 0.935 0.528
management found
KM2: Project communication with project 0.779
stakeholders was efficient
KM3: Project colleagues are open and 0.721
honest with each other
KM4: Exchanged project ideas across 0.777
project
KM5: Mutual understanding between 0.759
project organization unit
KM6: Shared project information 0.637
KM7: Different project opinions are 0.737
respected
KM8: Provision of project information 0.666
KM9: Shared project knowledge by new 0.674
methods
KM10: Project leadership facilitate project 0.799
sharing
KM11: Learning groups for project 0.577
problems discussion
KM12: Project documents are easily 0.499
found
KM13: Appropriate and efficient project 0.678
information system
KM14: Efficiently explored project 0.742
information system
KM15: Easily available project 0.768
management solutions
KM16: Mentoring and coaching for 0.594
project tasks
Integrated project IPD1: Collaborative teamwork 0.761 0.916 0.918 0.587
delivery IPD2: Early involvement for decision 0.938
making Table 4.
Measurement model
(continued ) assessment results
ECAM Cronbach’s Composite
Construct Measurement items Loading alpha reliability AVE

IPD3: Early project goal definition 0.804

IPD4: Early contribution of project 0.871
management knowledge
IPD5: Trust and respect among project 0.744
management practitioners
IPD6: Joint decision making 0.658
IPD7: Collectively risk management 0.648
IPD8: Direct project communication 0.654
Project management PMSK1: Easy and effective 0.872 0.930 0.916 0.554
skills communication
PMSK2: Well understanding of project 0.730
stakeholders
PMSK5: Teamwork skills 0.611
PMSK6: Execution of project scheduling 0.606
using software
PMSK7: Organised productive and 0.643
effective project management meetings
PMSK8: Effective project budget 0.782
management
PMSK9: Proficient use of technology 0.885
PMSK10: Built relationship with project 0.859
stakeholders
PMSK11: Prioritised project management 0.639
works
Mental health MHI1: Effective project governance 0.806 0.940 0.941 0.520
management MHI2: Project leadership support 0.733
indicators MHI3: Social relationship among project 0.561
management practitioners
MHI4: Strong relationship between 0.805
stakeholders and project management
practitioners
MHI5: Project management practitioners 0.725
are highly recognized
MHI6: Flexible work time schedule 0.518
MHI7: Fair treatment 0.651
MHI8: Strong teamwork 0.719
Mental health MHI9: Good reward system 0.498
management MHI10: Good upskilling 0.688
indicators MH11: Effective project 0.762
management office
MH12: Clear project information system 0.817
MH13: Clear project role allocation 0.814
MH14: Appropriate staffing 0.796
Table 4. MH15: Reasonable project workload 0.807

predictive power. The R2 value of all the endogenous variables is higher than 0.50, indicating
that the theoretical model has higher explanatory power.
For robust assessment of the structural model, predictive accuracy of the specified
theoretical model was assessed using effective size ( f 2) and effect size by blindfolding (q2). As
shown in Table 8, the explanatory power of f 2 and q2 is greater than the threshold value of
0.02 (Hair et al., 2016), indicating that the theoretical model has explanatory power for the
relationship between the latent variables. As illustrated in Table 9, the blindfolding and
predictive relevance (Q2) value estimated by Blindfolding test represent the degree to which
the path model predicts the initial observation value. The Q2 values of all the four exogenous
variables are greater than zero, confirming the predictive relevance of the specified model.
 Integrated project Knowledge Mental health Project Project Effect of
delivery management management indicators governance management skills project
IPD1 0.761 0.660 0.551 0.603 0.587 organization
IPD2 0.938 0.741 0.666 0.756 0.593
IPD3 0.804 0.715 0.563 0.655 0.489
IPD4 0.871 0.708 0.634 0.686 0.454
IPD5 0.744 0.652 0.634 0.498 0.402
IPD6 0.658 0.617 0.483 0.516 0.452
IPD7 0.648 0.573 0.456 0.527 0.386
IPD8 0.654 0.559 0.505 0.488 0.498
KM1 0.535 0.576 0.463 0.491 0.325
KM10 0.559 0.799 0.646 0.677 0.310
KM11 0.460 0.577 0.430 0.524 0.22
KM12 0.407 0.499 0.395 0.431 0.421
KM13 0.559 0.678 0.498 0.623 0.582
KM14 0.590 0.742 0.541 0.685 0.486
KM15 0.679 0.768 0.605 0.667 0.449
KM16 0.594 0.595 0.485 0.500 0.257
KM2 0.638 0.779 0.631 0.659 0.485
KM3 0.643 0.721 0.591 0.603 0.458
KM4 0.672 0.777 0.636 0.652 0.605
KM5 0.605 0.759 0.609 0.649 0.426
KM6 0.614 0.637 0.574 0.485 0.412
KM7 0.683 0.737 0.592 0.627 0.456
KM8 0.538 0.666 0.499 0.602 0.371
KM9 0.647 0.674 0.557 0.560 0.490
MHI1 0.534 0.639 0.806 0.696 0.427
MHI10 0.500 0.540 0.688 0.637 0.202
MHI11 0.552 0.615 0.762 0.674 0.261
MHI12 0.557 0.645 0.817 0.699 0.422
MHI13 0.578 0.645 0.814 0.713 0.336
MHI14 0.610 0.657 0.796 0.648 0.304
MHI15 0.645 0.656 0.807 0.663 0.264
MHI2 0.604 0.562 0.733 0.576 0.330
MHI3 0.399 0.452 0.561 0.491 0.217
MHI4 0.603 0.622 0.805 0.676 0.372
MHI5 0.472 0.591 0.725 0.672 0.269
MHI6 0.393 0.398 0.518 0.469 0.159
MHI7 0.539 0.513 0.651 0.513 0.260
MHI8 0.544 0.573 0.719 0.586 0.326
MHI9 0.370 0.423 0.498 0.454 0.084
PG1 0.542 0.624 0.512 0.672 0.625
PG10 0.604 0.709 0.716 0.815 0.322
PG12 0.508 0.595 0.622 0.694 0.477
PG13 0.642 0.599 0.557 0.718 0.523
PG2 0.431 0.542 0.553 0.614 0.306
PG3 0.669 0.695 0.661 0.811 0.431
PG4 0.558 0.635 0.618 0.727 0.547
PG5 0.458 0.519 0.482 0.585 0.245
PG6 0.600 0.522 0.507 0.649 0.463
PG7 0.577 0.608 0.699 0.756 0.394
PG8 0.424 0.558 0.597 0.637 0.313
PG9 0.541 0.627 0.664 0.736 0.426
PMSK1 0.500 0.525 0.351 0.544 0.872
PMSK10 0.511 0.482 0.346 0.470 0.859
PMSK11 0.411 0.385 0.257 0.336 0.639
PMSK2 0.446 0.446 0.294 0.415 0.730
PMSK5 0.441 0.413 0.246 0.385 0.611
PMSK6 0.453 0.379 0.244 0.403 0.606
PMSK7 0.509 0.488 0.259 0.488 0.643 Table 5.
PMSK8 0.489 0.502 0.315 0.474 0.782 Cross loadings
PMSK9 0.486 0.487 0.356 0.493 0.885 analysis
ECAM Integrated Mental health Project
project Knowledge management Project management
delivery management indicators governance skills

Integrated project
delivery
Knowledge 0.853
management
Mental health 0.728 0.784
management
indicators
Project 0.773 0.856 0.848
governance
Table 6. Project 0.632 0.608 0.389 0.598
Heterotrait-monotrait management
(HTMT) analysis skills

Path Hypothesis
Hypothesis coefficient T statistics P values validation

H1: Project governance → Mental health 0.686 4.078 *** Supported

management indicators
H2: Project governance → Integrated project 0.779 12.937 *** Supported
delivery
H3: Project governance → Knowledge management 0.859 15.112 *** Supported
H4: Knowledge management Mental health 0.199 1.997 *** Supported
management indicators
H5: Integrated project delivery → Mental health 0.191 2.237 *** Supported
management indicators
Table 7. H6: Project management skills → Mental health 0.252 2.309 *** Rejected
Summary of management indicators
hypotheses Note(s): Significant at *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001

Path f2

Project governance → Mental health management indicators 0.545

Table 8. Project governance → Integrated project delivery 1.547
Predictive power from f Project governance → Knowledge management 2.813
square of the Knowledge management → Mental health management indicators 0.032
endogenous latent Integrated project delivery → Mental health management indicators 0.042
variables Project management skills → Mental health management indicators 0.168

SSO SSE Q2 (51-SSE/SSO)

Table 9. Integrated project delivery 656.000 448.450 0.316

Predictive power from Knowledge management 1312.000 895.750 0.317
the Q square of the Mental health management indicators 1230.000 773.922 0.371
endogenous latent Project governance 984.000 882.000 0.104
variables Project management skills 738.000 528.000 0.285
4.3.1 Relationship between project governance and mental health management indicators. The Effect of
association between project governance and mental health management indicators was project
tested using SEM model. The results indicate that there is a significant and positive
correlation between project governance and mental health management indicators (β 5 0.686,
organization
t-value 5 4.078, p 5 0.000). This means that project governance has positive implications on
mental health management indicators, which provides empirical evidence to support
hypothesis H1.
4.3.2 Relationship between project governance and integrated project delivery. SEM model
was used to test the link between project governance and integrated project delivery. The
results indicate that there is a significant and positive association between project
governance and integrated project delivery (β 5 0.779, t-value 5 12.937, p 5 0.000). This
indicates that project governance in AEC project organizations drives the operation of
integrated project delivery in the management of mental health of PMPs, which provide
evidence to support hypothesis H2.
4.3.3 Relationship between project governance and knowledge management. The
relationship between project governance and knowledge management was tested using
SEM model. The results show that interactive relationship between project governance and
knowledge management was significant and positive (β 5 0.859, t-value 5 15.112, p 5 0.000).
Therefore, hypothesis H3 is supported.
4.3.4 Relationship between knowledge management and mental health management
indicators. SEM model was adopted to test the relationship between knowledge management
and mental health management indicators. Knowledge management has significant and
positive effects on mental health management indicators (β 5 0.199, t-value 5 1.997,
p 5 0.000). Thus, hypothesis H4 is supported.
4.3.5 Relationship between integrated project delivery and mental health management
indicators. The link between integrated project delivery and mental health management
indicators was tested using SEM model. The results show that there is a significant and
positive correlation between integrated project delivery and mental health management
indicators (β 5 0.191, t-value 5 2.237, p 5 0.000). This means that integrated project delivery
shapes mental health management indicators in AEC projects. The result provides evidence
to support H5.
4.3.6 Relationship between project management skills and mental health management
indicators. The interactive relationship between project management skills and mental health
management indicators was tested via SEM model. Project management skills has significant
and negative effects on mental health management indicators (β 5 0.252, t-value 5 2.309,
p 5 0.000). Thus, hypothesis H6 is rejected. The final structural model is presented in Figure 2.

5. Discussion
Owing to the research question of this study, institutional theory, agency theory and
resource-based theory was integrated to develop a theoretical model showing relationships
between project governance, knowledge management, integrated project delivery, project
management skills and mental health management indicators. The SEM results show that
integration of institutional theory, agency theory and RBT explains how interactive
relationships between governance institution, resources element and project delivery element
of the PBO predict mental health management outcomes.

5.1 Impacts of project governance on mental health management indicators

As anticipated in hypothesis H1, the result confirmed that project governance is positively
related to mental health management indicators (β 5 0.686, t-value 5 4.078, p 5 0.000).
ECAM

Figure2.
Final structural model

This finding was explained by Carden et al. (2015) and Leleh and Sukkar (2021), which posited
that governance shapes stress management and occupational health safety. Governance
institutions develop policies guiding organization management practices, including
organizational learning, resources allocations, organization performance control,
competencies development and stakeholder engagement responsible for antecedents of poor Effect of
mental health (Yang et al., 2017; Yip et al., 2005). These organization management practices project
influence antecedents, including long working hours, poor communication, role ambiguity
and role overload, causing poor mental health (Bowen et al., 2014c; Love and Edwards, 2005).
organization
Governance emphasises on the organization management practices is an executive approach
to mitigate the precursors to poor mental health management activities at the lower
organizational level (Yang et al., 2017).
Moreover, this study’s finding indicates that developing effective project governance can
promote positive mental health through implementing project management practices that
prevent stressors causing poor mental health. Previous studies demonstrated that company
management system mitigates job burnout among project managers (Pinto et al., 2016; Yang
et al., 2017). We extended this body of literature by demonstrating that governance at the
project level significantly influences mental health. This finding is indicative of the
importance of project governance for positive mental health. The established positive link
between project governance and mental health management indicators in this study opens a
new scholarship on criticality of governance structure in reducing psychological distress.

5.2 Impacts of project governance on integrated project delivery

This research indicates that project governance is positively correlated with integrated
project delivery. This tends to support Patel and Robinson (2010), Aliza et al. (2011), and Otera
(2020) assertions that project governance assists the compliance of procurement delivery to
project goals. Project governance controls organisational activities to protect their integrity in
the face of other stakeholders (Otera, 2020). Good governance has been projected as the
solution to reduce the agency conflict in project delivery through the level of convergence in
the inherently divergent interest of management and stakeholders (Muller et al., 2019).
According to (Aliza et al., 2011), project governance provides the structure through which
project objectives are set, performance monitoring is established and project goals are
determined in project delivery. Operational mechanism of integrated project delivery is
inseparable from governance institutions of organizations because of contractual obligations
between multiple organizations controlled by governance. Good project governance
enhances proper risk allocation in procurement systems for better project performance
(Abednego and Ogunlana, 2006).
This study demonstrated the usefulness of project governance in realising the benefit of
integrated project delivery, especially in an AEC project. The finding demonstrated the
positive influence of project governance on integrated project delivery. Earlier research
suggested that project governance controls project delivery without distinguishing the
project delivery types. However, our study’s finding extends the body of knowledge by
explicitly confirming the positive association between project governance and integrated
project delivery. The established link between project governance and integrated project in
this study suggests that the inherent characteristics of project governance facilitate the
achievement of integrated project delivery characteristics in enhancing mental health.

5.3 Impacts of project governance on knowledge management

Consistent with previous studies (Manteli et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2009), that confirmed the
association between project governance and knowledge management, this study revealed
that project governance positively influences knowledge management. The result shows that
knowledge management process in a PBO is facilitated by a project management office
(PMO) inherited in project governance (Arbabi et al., 2020; Muller et al., 2019). Desouza and
Evaristo (2006) and Singh et al. (2009) argued that governance role in PMO advances
knowledge management in an organization by setting benchmarks and standards for
ECAM measuring project performance. Moreover, project governance through PMO supports and
improves knowledge sharing between projects within organizations (Johansson et al., 2013).
Knowledge management that promotes organizational learning is controlled by project
governance structures based on business goals and project stakeholders needs (Muller et al.,
2019). Project governance shapes knowledge management through project methodologies
and communication systems developed by the governance bodies to assist creation, sharing,
acquisition and transfers between different organizations (Johansson et al., 2013). When
knowledge management in a PBO is unguided by project governance framework, there is a
high probability of experiencing poor organizational learning that is inconsistent with
business goals (Desouza and Evaristo, 2006). Hence, the criticality of project governance in
implementing knowledge management processes that enhance organizational learning have
been established based on findings of the extant studies (Johansson et al., 2013; Manteli et al.,
2011; Singh et al., 2009).
As predicted, we found positive relation between project governance and knowledge
management in AEC projects, which extends previous studies that confirmed that PMO
promotes knowledge sharing. Our findings revealed that project governance shapes
knowledge management to improve mental health among project managers. Existing studies
suggested that governance improves knowledge management; however, its correlation to
mental health management remains underexplored. Hence, this study strengthened this body
of knowledge by confirming the positive impact of project governance on knowledge
management to promote positive mental health. Moreover, our finding further revealed that
the governance structure at project level controls organizational learning in AEC projects to
mitigate stressors causing poor mental health.

5.4 Impacts of knowledge management and mental health management indicators

Resources based theory was mirrored in mental health management to understand the
association between knowledge management and mental health management indicators. In
this study, knowledge management was positively correlated with mental health
management indicators in an AEC project organization. This finding is supported by
previous studies on the impact of knowledge management on mental health (Arif and
Rahman, 2018; Chumg et al., 2015; Kianto et al., 2016; Singh and Sharma, 2011). The findings
illuminate the critical role of knowledge management in establishing project related mental
health practices that contribute to positive mental health. The finding is interesting in that a
limited study explores knowledge management as a construct for driving mental health
management in a PBO.
The finding suggests that improving knowledge management in AEC projects can
promote positive mental health. This result confirms the importance of considering
organizational learning to improve mental health. Although the negative effects of poor
project information on mental health have been reported in previous research (Leung et al.,
2017; Tijani et al., 2020b; Yang et al., 2017), however, our study’s findings further revealed the
positive impact of knowledge management in enhancing project information to promote
positive mental health. That is, implementation of effective knowledge management in AEC
projects can control knowledge sharing, coding, storing and acquisition, enhancing project
managers’ mental health.

5.5 Impacts of integrated project delivery on mental health management indicators

Previous research (Conti et al., 2006; Huck-Fries et al., 2020; Stimec and Grima, 2019) indicates
a relationship between project delivery system and work stress. Our study reinforces those
findings, with integrated project delivery positively correlated with mental health
management indicators in AEC project organizations. Integrated project delivery reduces
fragmentation, competitive tendering, mistrust, poor teamwork and miscommunication that Effect of
contribute to poor mental health among project managers (Sang et al., 2007). Similarly, project
established impact of lean project delivery on work health Landsbergis et al. (1999), support
our finding on positive correlation between integrated project delivery and mental health
organization
management indicators. Similarities in the characteristics of integrated project delivery and
lean project delivery, which include integrated project team, trust, mutual respect and
collaboration Mesa et al. (2019), explain the analogy between our findings and influence of
lean project delivery on mental health management. Integrated project delivery modifies
project organization by enhancing interorganization collaboration, open communication,
early involvement of key parties and sharing of financial risk, which are linked to
psychosocial risks causing poor mental health (Sang et al., 2007).
This study confirmed the importance of integrated project delivery in promoting positive
mental health. The extant studies have suggested that project delivery fragmentation
contributed to the construction workforce’s poor mental health (Sang et al., 2007; Sherratt,
2017). Based on this assertion, we formulated a hypothetical relationship between integrated
project delivery and mental health management indicators due to unique characteristics of
integrated project delivery that support collaboration, trust, early involvement and direct
communication among project parties and stakeholders. Our finding shows that
implementing integrated project delivery would enhance positive mental health by
promoting collaboration, trust, good communication, early involvement and project goal
definitions. Additionally, we adopted the agency theory, which has been widely used in the
project management and economics to formulate the relationship between integrated project
delivery and mental health management indicators; thus, our study opens a new scholarship
for project management scholars in using the theory in exploring certain mental health
phenomenon. Moreover, our findings confirmed that project delivery method that encourages
collaboration should be selected in project management to prevent stressors causing mental
health.

5.6 Impacts of project management skills on mental health management indicators

Contrary to previous studies (Parslow et al., 2004; Rafferty et al., 2001) that found a positive
correlation between skills and work stress, this study found significant and negative
association between project management skills and mental health management
indicators. The findings of Rafferty et al. (2001) show that skill discretion is a source of
burnout among workers. Workers with adequate skills are immune from excessive stress
due to their ability to mitigate the sources of work stress in a work environment
(Landsbergis, 1988). It follows that current project managers skills need to be re-examined
to identify the conceptualization and operationalization that contribute to mental health
management practices in AEC project organizations. Inconsistency between our findings
and previous studies might be attributed to operationalization of project management
skills, i.e. using old measurement items to operationalize project management skills in an
AEC project organization that involve a network of multiple organizations with different
company goals. Another explanation for differences between the findings of this research
and extant studies can be related to the demographic nature of the respondents and project
information in this research. Rafferty et al. (2001) conducted their study among human
services officers and found that skill discretion predict burnout. Human services workers,
which include social workers, rehabilitation therapists, case aids and psychologists, are
frontline workers who do not involve in project management activities and receive stress
management training from their employers due to the stressful nature of their works.
Hence, it is expected that the study established negative correlation between skill
discretion and burnout.
ECAM 6. Implications and limitations
6.1 Theoretical implications
On the basis of integration of institutional theory, agency theory and RBT, this study
constructs a theoretical model of interaction between project governance, knowledge
management, integrated project delivery and mental health management indicators and
contributes to the AEC project management knowledge system. This research makes several
theoretical contributions to project management literature. First, this research extended
institutional theory to mental health management in a project environment by revealing the
positive impact of project governance on mental health management indicators. These
findings enhance the understanding of the influence of institutional pressure from the
governance structure on mental health management outcomes. Second, this study offers a
new understanding of how integrated project delivery can drive positive mental health
management practices in a project organization. This is an important finding because it
extended the application of project delivery system towards the mitigation of poor mental
health. Moreover, our findings further confirmed the mediating effect of integrated project
delivery on the relationship between project governance and mental health management
indicators to illuminate the critical role of integrated project delivery system in implementing
the institution forces for mental health management outcomes. However, if non-integrated
project delivery is adopted, the finding of this research that confirmed positive correlation
between integrated project delivery and mental health might change because of the absence
of indicators on collaboration and teamwork in other project deliveries that drives mental
health management practices. Uniqueness of integrated project delivery in tackling
fragmentation in PBOs contributed to the findings that confirmed the positive link
between the delivery system and mental health management indicators.
Third, this study contributes to RBT by highlighting how knowledge management
practices can assist AEC project based organizations in achieving positive mental health
management outcomes. This finding opens a new scholarship on the positive implication of
effective knowledge management on mental health management practices. Further, the
established moderating effects of knowledge management on relationship between project
governance and mental health management indicators show that knowledge management
assists project governance to exert institutional forces for positive mental health
management outcomes. Fourth, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by
revealing negative relationships between project management skills and mental health
management indicators, which challenges current studies on the positive impact of skills on
the mental health of workers. The findings informed further studies on the utilization of
current measurement items of project management skills for PBOs.

6.2 Managerial implications

This study provides several practical guidelines on mental health management of PMPs in
AEC project organizations. First, project governance can predict mental health management
outcomes directly and through the mediation of integrated project delivery and knowledge
management. The findings inform the design of the activities of project governance in AEC
projects. To design the project governance activities at the project level, corporate
governance must incorporate project management practices that contribute to positive
mental health management outcomes. In this way, proliferation of poor mental health among
PMPs can be mitigated.
Second, our findings demonstrate the role of integrated projected delivery in the
relationship between project governance and mental health management indicators.
Integrated project delivery facilitates the impact of project governance on mental health
management outcomes. Additionally, our finding offers the significance of integrated project
delivery in reducing poor mental health among PMPs. Adoption of integrated project delivery Effect of
for AEC projects serves as a proactive approach for preventing antecedents to poor mental project
health among PMPs.
Third, result of this study offers critical implications for knowledge management.
organization
Knowledge management can develop positive mental health management outcomes and
mediate the impact of project governance on mental health management indicators. Through
this, knowledge management can promote positive mental health among PMPs based on
mental health management practices. Moreover, the mediating effect of knowledge
management indicates that corporate governance in AEC firms should pay attention to
knowledge management in the implementation of practices that shape positive mental health.
Fourth, our finding that reveals the negative correlation between project management
skills and mental health management indicators offers greater insight into project
management skills. Through this, AEC firms can provide innovative competencies and
training capable of promoting positive mental health management outcomes as current
project management skills lack the capacity to reduce psychosocial risks and promote
positive mental health.

6.3 Limitations and future recommendation

Although this study has a robust theoretical model applied to the under-researched domain of
mental health management in AEC project organizations, and embraced rigorous
multivariance modelling empirical analysis, it also has limitation that offers a foundation
for future research. First, this study was undertaken within AEC project organization in
Australia in the context of PMPs; hence, generalization of findings to other industries is
limited. However, AEC firms across the globe are similar in operations; hence, our findings
are applicable beyond Australian AEC industries. Similar studies should be conducted in
other developed and developing countries to establish the research findings or reveal any
differences in findings.
Second, while this study presented interactive relationships between project governance,
knowledge management, integrated project delivery, project management skills and mental
health management indicators, our cross-sectional research design cannot prevent the
possibility of reverse causality. Even though this research was underpinned by strong
theoretical arguments for the proposed hypotheses, future research should adopt a
longitudinal research design to further develop interactive relationships between the
constructs. Third, the measurement of key latent variables was self-reported; therefore,
future studies should adopt mixed methods to obtain the opinion and experiences of PMPs in
AEC project organizations. A mixed method approach offers detailed insights into how
project governance, knowledge management, integrated project delivery, project
management skills shape mental health management indicators. Fourth, interesting
findings concerning the negative relationship between project management skills and
mental health management indicators call for future studies in other continents to explore the
rationale behind the negative impacts on mental health management indicators.

7. Conclusions
Understanding the impact of project organizational design on the mental health in AEC
projects is important in improving the well-being of PMPs, thereby necessitating research
question on interactive relationships between project organizational design elements:
project governance, integrated project delivery, knowledge management, project
management skills and mental health management indicators. Hence, this study
examined the relationship between project governance, knowledge management,
ECAM integrated project delivery, project management skills and mental health management
indicators in the context of Australian AEC project organizations. Based on integration of
institutional theory, agency theory and RBT, this study developed the hypotheses of the
relationship between the latent variables mentioned above. Deductive approach and
survey research design methods were employed to collect relevant information from PMPs
in AEC firms. The results showed project governance positively impact mental health
management indicators. It further established that project governance predicts mental
health management indicators through mediating effects of integrated project delivery
and knowledge management.
Our findings unfold insight into the positive effects of integrated project delivery and
knowledge management on mental health indicators. This research further shows that
project management skills negatively impact mental health management indicators. This
study’s major contribution lies in identifying the role of project governance, knowledge
management and integrated project delivery in mental health management outcomes in AEC
project organizations. Our findings bring novel evidence from mental health field that
questions the assumption made by the organizational design-mental health framework
(Carayon et al., 1999; Parker et al., 2001), by establishing the interactive relationships between
project organizational elements and mental health management indicators in AEC projects.
We hope that academics and practitioners can consider these findings in managing the
mental health of their PMPs.

References
Abednego, M.P. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2006), “Good project governance for proper risk allocation in
public–private partnerships in Indonesia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 622-634.
Agervold, M. (1991), “Healthy work in a psychosocial perspective”, Nordisk Psykologi, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 249-273.
AIA California Council (2007), Integrated Project Delivery: A Working Definition, The American
Institute of Architects, California Council, Sacramento.
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated
approach”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 7-35.
Aliza, A.H., Stephen, K. and Bambang, T. (2011), “The importance of project governance framework in
project procurement planning”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 1929-1937.
Alyoubi, B., Hoque, M.R., Alharbi, I., Alyoubi, A. and Almazmomi, N. (2018), “Impact of knowledge
management on employee work performance: evidence from Saudi Arabia”, The International
Technology Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Anderson, S. (1992), “Project quality and project managers”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 138-144.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411.
Arbabi, H., Salehi-Taleshi, M.-J. and Ghods, K. (2020), “The role of project management office in
developing knowledge management infrastructure”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 3261-3287.
Areskoug Josefsson, K., Avby, G., Andersson B€ack, M. and Kjellstr€om, S. (2018), “Workers’
experiences of healthy work environment indicators at well-functioning primary care units in
Sweden: a qualitative study”, Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 406-414.
Arif, F.N.T. and Rahman, S.A. (2018), “Knowledge management and job satisfaction”, International Effect of
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 266-274.
project
Arnetz, B. and Blomkvist, V. (2007), “Leadership, mental health, and organizational efficacy in health
care organizations”, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 242-248.
organization
Aronsson, G., Bejerot, E. and H€arenstam, A. (1999), “Healthy work: ideal and reality among public and
private employed academics in Sweden”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 197-215.
Arwedson, I., Roos, S. and Bj€orklund, A. (2007), “Constituents of healthy workplaces”, Work, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Ashcraft, H. (2014), “Integrated project delivery: optimizing project performance”, Construction
Industry Institute, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 16-21.
Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Muller, R. (2010), “Images of PMOs: results from a multi-phase research
program”, in Sandrino-Arndt, B., Thomas, R. and Becker, L. (Eds), Handbuch Project
Management Office, Symposion Publishing, Dusseldorf, pp. 301-321.
Baptiste, N. (2009), “Fun and well-being: insights from senior managers in a local authority”, Employee
Relations, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 600-612.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bendickson, J., Muldoon, J., Liguori, E.W. and Davis, P.E. (2016), “Agency theory: background and
epistemology”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 437-449.
Bergh, L., Hinna, S., Leka, S. and Jain, A. (2014), “Developing a performance indicator for psychosocial
risk in the oil and gas industry”, Safety Science, Vol. 62, pp. 98-106.
Bilbo, D., Bigelow, B., Escamilla, E. and Lockwood, C. (2015), “Comparison of construction manager
at risk and integrated project delivery performance on healthcare projects: a comparative
case study”, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 40-53.
Bowen, N.K. and Guo, S. (2011), Structural Equation Modeling, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Lingard, H. and Cattell, K. (2014a), “Workplace stress, stress effects, and coping
mechanisms in the construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 140 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Bowen, P., Govender, R. and Edwards, P. (2014b), “Structural equation modeling of occupational
stress in the construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 140 No. 9, pp. 1-14.
Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Lingard, H. and Cattell, K. (2014c), “Occupational stress and job demand,
control and support factors among construction project consultants”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 1273-1284.
Carayon, P., Smith, M.J. and Haims, M.C. (1999), “Work organization, job stress, and work-related
musculosketal disorders”, Human Factors, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 644-663.
Carden, L.L., Boyd, R.O. and Valenti, A. (2015), “Risk management and corporate governance: safety
and health work model”, Southern Journal of Business and Ethics, Vol. 7, p. 137.
Carvajal-Arango, D., Vasquez-Hernandez, A. and Botero-Botero, L.F. (2021), “Assessment of subjective
workplace well-being of construction workers: a bottom-up approach”, Journal of Building
Engineering, Vol. 36 No. 102154, pp. 1-10.
Chan, I.Y., Leung, M. and Liu, A. (2016), “Occupational health management system: a study of
expatriate construction professionals”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 93, pp. 280-290.
Chumg, H.-F., Cooke, L., Fry, J. and Hung, I.-H. (2015), “Factors affecting knowledge sharing in the
virtual organisation: employees’ sense of well-being as a mediating effect”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 44, pp. 70-80.
ECAM Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C., Faragher, B. and Gill, C. (2006), “The effects of lean production on
worker job stress”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26
No. 9, pp. 1013-1038.
Cronbach, L. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Crook, T.R., Todd, S.Y., Combs, J.G., Woehr, D.J. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2011), “Does human capital
matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, p. 443.
Currie, G. and Suhomlinova, O. (2006), “The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in
the UK NHS: the triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy”, Public
Administration, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
Dai, Y., Popp, D. and Bretschneider, S. (2005), “Institutions and intellectual property: the influence of
institutional forces on university patenting”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The
Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 579-598.
Delisle, J. (2020), “Working time in multi-project settings: how project workers manage work
overload”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 419-428.
Desouza, K.C. and Evaristo, J.R. (2006), “Project management offices: a case of knowledge-based
archetypes”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 414-423.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 147-160.
Dollard, M., Osborne, K. and Manning, I. (2013), “Organization–environment adaptation: a macro-level
shift in modeling work distress and morale”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 629-647.
Edum-Fotwe, F. and Mccaffer, R. (2000), “Developing project management competency: perspectives
from the construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 111-124.
Edwards, J.A. and Webster, S. (2012), “Psychosocial risk assessment: measurement invariance of the
UK health and safety executive’s management standards indicator tool across public and
private sector organizations”, Work and Stress, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 130-142.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001), “The skills and career path of an effective project manager”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Goodwin, R.S. (1993), “Skills required of effective project managers”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 217-226.
Gustavsson, T.K. (2016), “Organizing to avoid project overload: the use and risks of narrowing
strategies in multi-project practice”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 94-101.
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. and Mena, J. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, London.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2019), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Hampshire, Cengage Learning, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Hanson, M. (2001), “Institutional theory and educational change”, Educational Administration Effect of
Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 637-661.
project
Haynes, N.S. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), “Psychological adjustment and coping among construction
project managers”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
organization
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Huck-Fries, V., Prommegger, B., Wiesche, M. and Krcmar, H., “Agile and overworked? The role of
work overload and psychological detachment in agile information systems development
projects”, Proceedings of the 2020 on Computers and People Research Conference, pp. 133-134.
Jepson, J.M., Kirytopoulos, K. and London, K. (2017), “Exploring project managers’ perception of stress
when working in increasingly complex construction projects”, Construction Economics and Building,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 47-67.
Johansson, T., Moehler, R.C. and Vahidi, R. (2013), “Knowledge sharing strategies for project
knowledge management in the automotive sector”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 74, pp. 295-304.
Johnson, S.B. (2013), “Technical and institutional factors in the emergence of project management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 670-681.
Kamardeen, I. (2021), “Work stress related cardiovascular diseases among construction professionals”,
Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 12, pp. 223-242.
Kasvi, J.J., Vartiainen, M. and Hailikari, M. (2003), “Managing knowledge and knowledge competences
in projects and project organisations”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 571-582.
Katz, R. (1991), “Skills of an effective administer”, Harvard Business Review, Business Classics: Fifteen
Key Concepts for Managerial Success, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Keil, M., Lee, H. and Deng, T. (2013), “Understanding the most critical skills for managing IT projects:
a Delphi study of IT project managers”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 7,
pp. 398-414.
Kent, D. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010), “Understanding construction industry experience and attitudes
toward integrated project delivery”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 136 No. 8, pp. 815-825.
Khairi, S.M.M., Nor, N.M. and Rosnan, H. (2019), “The effect of knowledge management practices on
employee well-being in Malaysian private universities”, Insight Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 258-269.
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M. and Heilmann, P. (2016), “The impact of knowledge management on job
satisfaction”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 621-636.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Publications, New
York, NY.
Koch, J. and Schermuly, C.C. (2021), “Managing the crisis: how COVID-19 demands interact with agile
project management in predicting employee exhaustion”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1265-1283.
Kroth, M., Boverie, P. and Zondlo, J. (2007), “What managers do to create healthy work environments”,
Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Landsbergis, P.A. (1988), “Occupational stress among health care workers: a test of the job demands-
control model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 217-239.
Landsbergis, P.A., Cahill, J. and Schnall, P. (1999), “The impact of lean production and related new
systems of work organization on worker health”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 108.
Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer, New York.
ECAM Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Leka, S. and Cox, T. (2008), “PRIMA-EF-Guidance on the European framework for psychosocial risk
management: a resource for employers and worker representatives”, World Health
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Leka, S., Jain, A., Lavicoli, S. and Di Tecco, C. (2015), “An evaluation of the policy context on
psychosocial risks and mental health in the workplace in the European Union: acheivements,
challenges, and the future”, BioMed Researc International, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Leleh, R.N. and Sukkar, A.E. (2021), “Corporate governance and managing stress in the workplace”,
The International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9, pp. 2321-8916.
Leung, M.Y., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M. and Cheung, S.O. (2005), “Critical stressors influencing
construction estimators in Hong Kong”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Leung, M.Y., Liu, A.M.M. and Wong, M.K. (2006), “Impacts of stress-coping behaviours on estimation
performance”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Leung, M.Y., Zhang, H. and Skitmore, M. (2008), “Effects of organizational suports on the stress of
construction estimation participants”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 84-93.
Leung, M.Y., Chan, I.Y. and Dongyu, C. (2011), “Structural linear relationships between job stress,
burnout, physiological stress, and performance of construction project managers”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 312-328.
Leung, M.Y., Bowen, P., Liang, Q. and Famakin, I. (2015), “Development of a job-stress model for
construction professionals in South Africa and Hong Kong”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 141 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Leung, M.Y., Liang, Q. and Chan, I.Y. (2017), “Development of a stressors-stress-performance-outcome model
for expatriate construction professionals”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 143 No. 5, pp. 1-9.
Liang, Q., Leung, M.-y. and Zhang, S. (2021), “Examining the critical factors for managing workplace
stress in the construction industry: a cross-regional study”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 5, 04021045.
Lindberg, P. and Ving
ard, E. (2012), “Indicators of healthy work environments–a systematic review”,
Work, Vol. 41, Supplement 1, pp. 3032-3038.
Lindberg, P., Karlsson, T. and Ving
ard, E. (2015). "Determinants for positive mental health and
wellbeing at work–a literature review”, Proceedings of 19th Triennial Congress of the
International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2015), 9-14 August 2015, Melbourne.
Love, P.E. and Edwards, D.J. (2005), “Taking the pulse of UK construction project managers’ health:
influence of job demands, job control and social support on psychological wellbeing”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 88-101.
Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J. and Irani, Z. (2010), “Work stress, support, and mental health in
construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 6, pp. 650-658.
Lowe, R. and Bennett, R. (2003), “Exploring coping reactions to work-stress: application of an
appraisal theory”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3,
pp. 393-400.
MacDermid, J., Geldart, S., Williams, R., Westmorland, M., Lin, C.-Y. and Shannon, H. (2008), “Work
organization and health: a qualitative study of the perceptions of workers”, Work, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 241-254.
Manteli, C., Van Den Hooff, B., Tang, A. and Van Vliet, H., “The impact of multi-site software
governance on knowledge management”, Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Sixth International
Conference on Global Software Engineering, IEEE, pp. 40-49.
Mesa, H.A., Molenaar, K.R. and Alarcon, L.F. (2019), “Comparative analysis between integrated project Effect of
delivery and lean project delivery”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 395-409. project
Miles, J. (2012), Management and Organizational Theory, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
organization
Miterev, M., Turner, J.R. and Mancini, M. (2017a), “The organization design perspective on the project-
based organization: a structured review”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 488-498.
Miterev, M., Mancini, M. and Turner, R. (2017b), “Towards a design for the project-based
organization”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 479-491.
Morris, P.W. and Geraldi, J. (2011), “Managing the institutional context for projects”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 20-32.
Muller, R., Zhai, L., Wang, A. and Shao, J. (2016a), “A framework for governance of projects:
governmentality, governance structure and projectification”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 957-969.
Muller, R., Turner, R., Andersen, E.S., Shao, J. and Kvalnes, Ø. (2016b), “Governance and ethics in
temporary organizations: the mediating role of corporate governance”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 7-23.
Muller, R., Drouin, N. and Sankaran, S. (2019), Organizational Project Management : Theory and
Implication, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Nachbagauer, A. and Schirl-Boeck, I. (2019), “Managing the unexpected in megaprojects: riding the
waves of resilience”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 694-715.
Otera, G.L. (2020), Evaluation of the Impact of Corporate Governance Practices on Procurement
Compliance; Case of Safaricom PLC, Strathmore University.
Pak, K., Kooij, D.T., De Lange, A.H. and Van Veldhoven, M.J. (2019), “Human Resource Management
and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: a review of quantitative
studies”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 336-352.
Parker, S., Wall, T. and Cordery, J. (2001), “Future work design research and practice: towards an
elaborated model of work design”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 413-440.
Parslow, R.A., Jorm, A.F., Christensen, H., Broom, D.H., Strazdins, L. and D’Souza, R.M. (2004), “The
impact of employee level and work stress on mental health and GP service use: an analysis of a
sample of Australian government employees”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Patel, M. and Robinson, H. (2010), “Impact of governance on project delivery of complex NHS PFI/PPP
schemes”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 216-234.
Pinto, J. (2014), “Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 376-387.
Pinto, J.K., Patanakul, P. and Pinto, M.B. (2016), “Project personnel, job demands, and workplace
burnout: the differential effects of job title and project type”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 91-100.
Porter, M. (1981), “The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 609-620.
Quick, J. (1989), “Guest editorial: an ounce of prevention”, Stress Medicine, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 293-299.
Rafferty, Y., Friend, R. and Landsbergis, P.A. (2001), “The association between job skill discretion,
decision authority and burnout”, Work and Stress, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Raisbeck, P., Millie, R. and Maher, A. (2010), “Assessing integrated project delivery: a comparative
analysis of IPD and alliance contracting procurement routes”, Management, Vol. 1019, p. 1028.
ECAM Raya, R.P. and Panneerselvam, S. (2013), “The healthy organization construct: a review and research
agenda”, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 17 No. 3, p. 89.
Robinson, H., Carrillo, P., Anumba, C.J. and Patel, M. (2009), Governance and Knowledge Management
for Public-Private Partnerships, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Rumelt, R. (1974), Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Harvard University Press,
pp. 1-249.
Sang, K., Dainty, A. and Ison, S. (2007), “Warning: working in construction may be harmful to your
psychological well-being!”, People and Culture in Construction, Routledge, pp. 145-161.
Scott, W. (2013), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, Sage Publications,
Stanford.
Sherratt, F. (2017), “Shaping the discourse of worker health in the UK construction industry”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 141-152.
Singh, A.K. and Sharma, V. (2011), “Knowledge management antecedents and its impact on employee
satisfaction: a study on Indian telecommunication industries”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 115-130.
Singh, R., Keil, M. and Kasi, V. (2009), “Identifying and overcoming the challenges of implementing a
project management office”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 409-427.
Sokhanvar, S., Matthews, J. and Yarlagadda, P. (2014), “Importance of knowledge management
processes in a project-based organization: a case study of research enterprise”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 97, pp. 1825-1830.
Stimec, A. and Grima, F. (2019), “The impact of implementing continuous improvement upon stress
within a Lean production framework”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57
No. 5, pp. 1590-1605.
Strang, K. (2007), “Examining effective technology project leadership traits and behaviors”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 424-462.
Sunindijo, R. and Kamardeen, I. (2017), “Work stress is a threat to gender diversity in the construction
industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 10, pp. 1-11.
Tan, K.-L. and Yeap, P.F. (2021), “The impact of work engagement and meaningful work to alleviate
job burnout among social workers in New Zealand”, Management Decision, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 1-22.
Tijani, B., Jin, X. and Osei-kyei, R. (2020a), “A systematic review of mental stressors in the
construction industry”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 433-460.
Tijani, B., Osei-Kyei, R. and Feng, Y. (2020b), “A review of work-life balance in the construction
industry”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 1-16.
Tijani, B., Jin, X. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2021), “Theoretical model for mental health management of
project management practitioners in architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
project organizations”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Turner, R. and Miterev, M. (2019), “The organizational design of the project-based organization”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 487-498.
Unterhitzenberger, C., Wilson, H., Bryde, D., Rost, M. and Joby, R. (2020), “The stakeholder challenge:
dealing with challenging situations involving stakeholders”, Planning Production and Control,
Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 926-941.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Werts, C., Linn, R. and J€oreskog, K. (1974), “Intraclass reliability estimates: testing structural
assumptions”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Wreder, A., Gustavsson, M. and Klefsj€o, B. (2008), “Management for sustainable health: a TQM- Effect of
inspired model based on experiences taken from successful Swedish organizations”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 561-584. project
Yang, F., Li, X., Zhu, Y., Li, Y. and Wu, C. (2017), “Job burnout of construction project managers in
organization
China: a cross-sectional analysis”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 35
No. 7, pp. 1272-1287.
Yang, F., Li, X., Song, Z., Li, Y. and Zhu, Y. (2018), “Job burnout of construction project managers:
considering the role of organizational justice”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 144 No. 11, pp. 1272-1287.
Yip, B., Rowlinson, S., Kvan, T. and Lingard, H. (2005), “Job burnout within the Hong Kong
construction industry: a cultural perspective”, Proceedings of the CIB W92/T23/W107
International Symposium on Procurement Systems, pp. 8-10.
Zheng, J., Gou, X., Li, H., Xia, N. and Wu, G. (2021), “Linking work–family conflict and burnout from
the emotional resource perspective for construction professionals”, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 1093-1115.
Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundstr€om, P. and Engwall, M. (2006), “Project overload: an exploratory study of
work and management in multi-project settings”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 385-394.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

ECAM Appendix 1

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK IN

AEC PROJECT

Section A: General information

I. Personal Information

1.1 What is your highest level of educational qualification?

High school Vocational education Diploma Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree Doctoral degree

1.2 How many years have you been working in your current organization?
0- 5 years 6- 10 years 11- 15 years 16- 20 years 21 years or above

1.3 How many years have you involved in project management works?
0- 5 years 6- 10 years 11- 15 years 16 years or above

1.4 Which project management professional bodies are you affiliated?

PMI AIPM APM None
Others (Please specify)

1.5 In how many project have you been involved in the past?
1- 5 projects 6- 10 projects 11- 15 projects 16- 20 projects
21 projects or above

1.6 In which sector of construction industry do you involved?

Architecture Engineering Construction

1.7 In which project sector do you worked in?

Residential building Commercial building Urban development
Industrial Infrastructure Mining and resources
Petrochemical Institution Other (Please specify)

1.8 How many years have you involved in integrated project delivery method ?
0- 5 years 6- 10 years 11- 15 years 16 years or above
Please answer the below questions based on a project you have involved in Effect of
the past. project
organization

II. Project Information

2.1 What is the approximate monetary value of the project?

Less than A$0.2 million A$0.2 million- A$1.5 million A$1.6 million- A$25
million A$26 million- A$50 million A$51 million- A$150 million
A$151 million- A$500 million More than A$500 million

2.2 Which type of client is the project?

Private Public

2.3 Which type of project was the completed project?

Civil engineering Building construction Industrial construction
Others (Please specify)

2.4 What is the duration of the project?

0- 11 months 12 – 24 months 25- 36 months More than 36 months

2.5 What type of bidding adopted for the project?

Selective bidding Open bidding Negotiation bidding
ECAM
Knowledge management
Based on the knowledge management practices in this project, please specify the extent to
which you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking your responses using the
following scale:

1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) Project information needed for this project was easily found
from other contractors in the project.
(2) Project communication with other project management
practitioners and project stakeholders was efficient.
(3) My project management practitioners’ colleagues working are
open and honest with each other.
(4) Project management practitioners exchanged project ideas
widely across the project.
(5) There was a mutual understanding between various project
organizational units and functions in the project.
(6) Project management professionals from different contractors
shared project information and learn from each other.
(7) Different project opinions are respected and listen to in the
execution of the project.
(8) Project information about the status, results and problems of
previous projects was provided to assist the project management
practitioners in completing their work.
(9) Project knowledge are shared by new methods (i.e discussion
forum and meetings) to improve project knowledge sharing in this
project.
(10) Project leadership in this project facilitated sharing of project
knowledge.
(11) There are learning groups to discuss their work experience and
problems related to this project.
(12) I easily find the project documents and files needed for
management of the project.
 (13) There is an appropriate and efficient project information Effect of
system for sharing information. project
(14) Project information system in the project are exploited
organization
efficiently.
(15) Previously made project management solutions and documents
for project management practitioners are easily available in the
project.
(16) Mentoring and coaching are used to familiarized new project
management practitioners with their project tasks.

Project management skills

Based on project management skills applied in this project, please specify the extent to which
you agree or disagree with the following statements using the following scale:

1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) I communicated easily and effectively with project management
practitioners, project stakeholders and project teams working on the
project.
(2) I understood project management practitioners, project
stakeholders and project members very well in the project.
(3) I managed project stakeholders effectively without issues.
(4) I managed conflict from the project effectively.
(5) I worked as a team with other project team members working on
the project to achieve project goals.
(6) I carried out project scheduling including using scheduling
software such as Microsoft project efficiently.
(7) I conducted a productive and effective project management
meetings among stakeholders and project teams during the course
of the project.
(8) I managed the project budget effectively without hardship.
(9) I used technology for managing the project proficiently.
ECAM (10) I built relationships with project stakeholders and project
management practitioners in the project.
(11) I prioritized the project management works based on their
emergencies.

Project governance
Please answer the following set of questions based on the function of project governance in
this project using the following scale.

1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) Monitoring and control of project performance was carried out
effectively to achieve project goals.
(2) Project management competencies were developed to improve
career growth of project management practitioners in this project.
(3) Development and implementation of standard project
management methodologies for managing the project were
effective.
(4) Proper coordination of project and resources strategic work to
facilitate project management.
(5) Organizational learning was properly managed in promoting
project management knowledge across the project.
(6) Specialized tasks such as professional planning was executed
efficiently in the project.
(7) Project governance gave clear directions to project management
practitioners on procedures for managing the project.
(8) Project values were communicated to give clear direction on
how to management the project to generate value for clients.
(9) Those in governance committed enough project resources into
the project to facilitate project management.
(10) Those in governance involve enough project management
practitioners into the project to prevent project overload.
 (11) Project management practitioners were not punished for the Effect of
poor project result. project
(12) Those in governance ensure effective project communication
organization
among project members, project management practitioners and
project stakeholders.
(13) Those in governance delegate project management
responsibilities effectively to project management practitioners.

Integrated project delivery

Based on the project delivery method adopted in this project, please specify the extent to which
you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking your responses using the
following scale:

1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) Collaborative teamwork between project management
practitioners between different contractors to execute the project.
(2) Early involvement of multiple project management
practitioners from different contractors for decision making process
on how to design, manage and construct the project.
(3) Early project goal definition between multiple project parties
working on projects.
(4) Early contribution of project management knowledge and
expertise from project management practitioners from different
contractors working on the project.
(5) Trust and respect among project management practitioners
across different contractors working on the project.
(6) Joint decision making between project management
practitioners from different contractors on execution of the project.
(7) Risk are collectively managed and shared among the project
parties in the project
(8) Direct project communication among project management
practitioners from different contractors to execute the project.
ECAM Mental health management indicators
Based on your perception about the working environment of this project, please specify the
extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking your responses
using the following scale:

1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) The project has effective project governance for managing
project management practitioners.
(2) Project leadership in the project provides support for project
management practitioners in carrying out their works.
(3) There was social relationship among project management
practitioners working in the project.
(4) There is a strong relationship between stakeholders and project
management practitioners in the project.
(5) Project management practitioners are highly recognized in the
project.
(6) Work time schedule is flexible during the execution of the
project.
(7) Project management practitioners are treated fairly in the
project.
(8) There is a strong teamwork among project management
practitioners and other project teams in the project.
(9) Good reward system was offered in the execution of the project.
(10) There was good upskilling of project management practitioners
based on the training offered in the project.
(11) The project management office was effective in allocating
adequate project resources to the project.
(12) There was a clear project information system for sharing
information among project teams in the project
(13) Project roles allocated to project management practitioners
were cleared.
 (14) There was appropriate staffing of project management Effect of
practitioners in the project project
(15) Reasonable project workload was allocated to project
organization
management practitioners in the project.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your participation will assist in
contributing to understanding the mental health management of project management
practitioners in AEC project organization.

Please leave any comments on this survey and the associated research project
ECAM Appendix 2
Details of the respondents (N = 82)

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Respondent experience in current company

0–5 years 49 59.8
6–10 years 12 14.6
11–15 years 9 11.0
16–20 years 7 8.5
21 years or above 5 6.1
Background education
High school 3 3.7
Diploma 8 9.8
Bachelor’s degree 29 35.4
Master’s degree 29 35.4
Doctoral degree 13 15.9
Respondents in project management
0–5 years 21 25.6
6–10 years 13 15.9
11–15 years 9 22.0
16 years or above 7 36.6
Project sector
Residential 38 20.7
Commercial 45 24.5
Urban development 14 16.7
Industrial 13 7.1
Infrastructural 38 20.7
Mining and resources 6 3.3
Respondent experience in integrated project delivery
0–5 years 13 15.9
6–10 years 40 48.8
11–15 years 10 12.2
16–20 years 7 8.5
21 years or above 12 14.6
Professional bodies
PMI 29 35.4
AIPM 57 70.4
APM 4 4.9
None 0 0

Corresponding author
Bashir Tijani can be contacted at: 17872544@student.westernsydney.edu.au

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