Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Major challenges to the successful implementation

and practice of programme management
in the construction environment:
A critical analysis
Zayyana Shehu a,*, Akintola Akintoye b
a

School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, United Kingdom
b
School of Built and Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom
Received 10 October 2008; received in revised form 29 December 2008; accepted 5 February 2009

Abstract
For the construction industry to survive the current turbulence in the economic atmosphere, it has the option of integrating new initiatives to march the uncertainties. Programme management is seen as an ecient vehicle to successfully deliver the improvements and
changes. However, the implementation of any new system or change initiatives has always been a challenging task; some of these challenges can be faced during the implementation or at practice stage. Programme management is not exempt from such challenges, in order
to successfully implement and practice programme management, the knowledge of the major challenges associated to eective implementation and practice should not be left to serendipity or sagacity. Due to the lack of clarity surrounding programme management in the
construction industry, the understanding of these major challenges remains vague. To provide a deeper insight into the major challenges
to implementation and practice of construction programme management, this paper conducts both a pragmatic and theoretical study by
triangulating literature, industrial questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. The research was conducted in the UK construction industry and other programme management sectors to analyse and exploit the knowledge of these challenges for eective implementation and practice of construction programmes. A total of 119 usable questionnaires were received and 17 semi-structured interviews
were conducted, analysed and synthesised to provide a broader view on the major challenges and how to eectively implement and practice construction programmes.
2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Challenges; Implementation; Practice; Programme management

1. Introduction
There is indication that organisations are getting more
aware and interested in the discipline of programme management [1], but [2,3] explained that lack of clarity and
understanding has contributed to a lack of understanding
and interest in programme management. To fully comprehend, it is essential to give an overview of the term programme management. Many denitions of the term
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7729355179.

E-mail address: zayyana.shehu@gmail.com (Z. Shehu).

0263-7863/$36.00 2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.004

programme management exist, yet they all highlight common attributes of the selection, planning and overall management of a portfolio of projects to achieve a set of
business objectives. In addition, some of the denitions
also indicate the ecient execution of the portfolio of projects within a controlled environment [4,5], so that they realise maximum benet for the resulting business operations
[6]. In other words, [7] denes programme management as
the management of large capital projects. Lycett et al. [8]
dene programme management as the integration and
management of a group of related projects with the intent
of achieving benets that would not have been realised had

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

the projects been managed independently. While connected, this is distinct from portfolio management, whereas
[9] denes programme management as the management of
a portfolio of projects which call upon the same resources
and concentrates on the next stage of development it
involves planning each individual project planned and
resourced. In other words, programmes involve directing
a portfolio of projects, one huge project (mega project)
[9,10], and managing a series of projects for the same client
which benet from a consolidated approach.
The plurality and diversity of denitions for programme
management can be associated with its origin and lack of
understanding. Milosevic et al. [3] are condent that a fair
amount of confusion exists among organisations about
what programme management stands for, and lack sucient literature to accurately describe it. Subsequently,
[11] also observe that when individuals involved in programmes meet one another they spend time trying to
understand what the other means by the term programme
management. These ambiguities surrounding the nature
and practice of programme management remain, resulting
in diverse understandings and denitions.
Having seen how writers dene the term programme
management, this research understands that the maturity
of project management and its limitations gave birth to
the phenomenon of programme management as a de facto
means of aligning, coordinating and managing a portfolio
of projects to deliver benets which individual projects
would not have been able to deliver independently [12].
Hence denes programme management as an integrated,
structured-framework to co-ordinate, align, and allocate
resources, as well as plan, execute and manage a portfolio
of construction projects simultaneously to achieve optimum benets that would not have been realised had the
projects been managed separately.
2. Literature review
Young [13] asserts that todays construction industry
operates in a climate of widespread economic uctuations,
population and migration growth, and the growing pressure from global economic instability. He further stresses
that regions and economies of the world are increasingly
interdependent and new challenges arise every day that
lead to major shifts in the context of the market place.
Despite the changes and pressure, the UK construction
industry is ranked among the strongest in the world, with
its output classied in the global top-ten according [14,15].
A mass migration from project management to programme management becomes imminent [1,16] some major
challenges are inevitable and their knowledge will be essential. For programme management to be understood and
accepted in the construction industry, it would be benecial
if it were broken down (programme management) into
more comprehendible components. Hence, this research
explores and focuses on the challenges during the implementation and practice stages of construction programmes.

27

The thorough literature review in programme management

established some major challenges which include but is
not limited to the following.
3. Lack of commitment from business leaders
Among the many major challenges to the implementation and practice of programme management is the lack
of commitment from the business leaders. Martin and
Nicholls [17] dene commitment as willingness on the part
of individuals to contribute much more to the organisation
than their formal contractual obligation. MerriamWebster denes commitment as an act of committing to a
charge or trust.
Programme management can only be successfully
designed and implemented in any organisation if there is
commitment from the business leaders [18,19]. The top
management approach can be seen in the form of commitment and support, appropriate organisational policy that is
accepted by every employee in the organisation, and regular management reviews [20]. Fowler and Walsh [21] cited
[22] that if projects (in this case programme) aect a large
part of the organisational resources, the involvement of
senior management is crucial. Lack of interest and involvement among the business leaders can let other activities
take a priority attention that is not favourable to the programme. Hence, [18] believe that a lack of commitment
among business leaders is a major challenge to the successful practice of programme management.
4. Late delivery of projects, lack of cross-functional working,
lack of coordination between projects and lack of alignment
of projects to strategy
Abraham [23] believes that the traditional approach to
success in the construction industry places great emphasis
on the ability to plan and execute projects in time. Companies completing projects in a timely manner within an
established budget and meeting required quality considerations have been considered successful companies. Therefore, if a programme delivers the functional projects late,
this can result in a challenge to the practice of programme
management [3,18].
The alignment, planning, coordination and execution of
the functional projects in a programme are carried out with
a high level of precision, as a problem from one project is
likely to aect the other projects, which in turn can aect
the entire programme. With this level of synergy, a lack
of cross-functional working and coordination in any of
the projects will become a major challenge to the success
of the programme [3,18].
5. Lack of knowledge of portfolio management techniques,
risk management and nancial skills
According to [24] knowledge is an essential strategic
resource in order for a rm to retain sustainable competi-

28

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

tive advantage. As knowledge is created and disseminated

throughout the rm, it has the potential to contribute to
the rms value by enhancing its capability to respond to
new and unusual situations [25]. Lack of knowledge in
managing a portfolio of projects, risk management and
nancial skills is a major challenge to the success of implementing and practicing programme management in the
construction industry [9,18].
6. Lack of cross-functional communication
Generally, eective communication is about exchanging
meaningful information between groups of people with the
aim of inuencing beliefs or actions. OGC [26] states that
communication is central to any change process. The
greater the change, the greater the need for clear communication about the reasons and rationale behind it, the benets expected, the plans implemented and its proposed
eects. Programme management is no dierent; it is aimed
at exchanging timely and useful information with the stakeholders or team. Lack of cross-functional communication
is a major challenge to programme management [6,18,27].
7. Lack of an appropriate way to measure project benets,
lack of resources (human/nancial) to analyse project data
and people constraints
Organisations engage in programme management to
derive the benets that are not available in project management [3,2729]. Lack of appropriate measure or terms of
measurement of benet is a challenge that will face an organisation newly engaged in programme management.
Organisations will be required to establish what type of
benets they want to achieve in programme management.
Even if the benet measure has been established, the
organisation may be faced with the task of providing a sufcient amount of human and nancial resources to analyse
the programme data in view of making decisions.
8. Financial constraints and lack of relevant training
Reiss [9] highlights that putting together and operating a
programme management environment is not a cheap aair,
while [27] explains in the same direction that true cost of a
programme comprises of the cost of resources, infrastructures, materials, premises and equipments and risk exposure, which is only apparent at certain stage of the
programme. Williams and Parr [18] suggest that nancial
constraint may be encountered by the organisations operating programme management. Financial constraints to
procure and sustain a programme can be a major challenge
to its practice.
Programmes are quite complex structures with high level
of coordination and synergy among the cross-functional
projects with many stakeholders of conicting interest
[3,9,27]. Programme may only be successful if its management possess the relevant skills and competency for the

role. Training is essential for the programme members

which without, the organisation will have source and provide [30]. Hence, this research observes that lack of relevant
training can therefore be a major challenge to the practice
of programme management.
9. Research methods
The ndings in this research are through the triangulation of literature review, an industrial questionnaire survey
and semi-structured interviews in the construction industry. In the survey, 1380 postal questionnaires were sent to
the construction industry, using a convenience sampling,
as the target population was not known by the researcher
[3133]. A total of 119 usable completed questionnaires
were received and analysed, the number implies that
around 9% of the total sample contacted has participated
in the study. According to [31], a survey rarely achieves a
response from every contact made. Fellows and Liu [32]
explain that given the increasing number of research projects, collecting data is becoming progressively more dicult. The respondents are being targeted with many
requests for data and they are subsequently becoming
unwilling to spend a lot of time on them and ultimately
refusing to participate in academic surveys. Pathirage
et al. [34] assert that the dichotomy in allocating the blame
for the poor responses in academic surveys appears to be
cyclic and continuum between the academia and the industry. Olomolaiye [25] highlights that lack of understanding
of research area can also lead to poor participation; this
however indicates that there may be a lack of deeper understanding of the term programme management, hence may
justify the low response rate.
To increase the depth and breadth of programme management knowledge, responses were also collected, analysed and synthesised from other non-construction
programme management organisations in the semi-structured interviews. The sample of the population for the
semi-structured interview was acquired by providing a column in the questionnaire for participants willing to be
interviewed to provide their details; use of snowballing
approach [31] and referral by the programme management
experts [35].
The analysis of data for the semi-structured interview
was conducted using NVivo7. The data was coded using
conceptual approach. It has been indicated that the focus
in conceptual content analysis is based on looking at the
occurrence of selected terms within a text or texts, although
the terms may be implicit as well as explicit [3638]. At the
end of the interview sessions, a total 17 interviews were
conducted with programme management experts. All the
interviews selected, regardless of their sectors, demonstrated a reasonable level of understanding of the construction sector as a result of direct association, through their
stakeholders or colleagues.
The main focus of this research is the construction
industry, but due to a lack of availability of contextual pro-

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

gramme management knowledge and experience within

this sector, the research also took the opportunity to learn
from other sectors. It has been established that knowledge
sharing is essential to increase competitive advantage in the
construction industry [39,40]. The knowledge acquired
from other sectors was then synthesised to develop an
understanding of how to implement and practice programme management within the construction environment.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted to supplement the nding of the literature review and questionnaire survey [41], the other sectors contacted included IT,
telecoms and others as a result of study conducted by the
Association for Project Managers (APM), titled APM
introduction to programme management [1]. The report
indicates that programme management is more popular
in the government sector and in information technology
programmes. Whereas, the most common programmes
were operated in information technology, which constituted 54%, organisational changes 20%, civil engineering
8%, product development 5% and other types of programmes 12% of the overall total.
The semi-structured interview sample consists of a construction programme director working on a City Councils
school projects, overseeing a network of contractors
executing a six high school programme, while the three
programme managers are involved in residential construction, commercial construction and construction civil engineering projects. The other construction interviews
include two project managers working in a programme
management environment and a programme support manager (assisting a programme manager). This study contacted those who are involved with programmes in the
interviews as the programme management knowledge does
not solely lie with the programme managers.
10. Analysis of results
In the rst part, the analysis of results for the qualitative
data was conducted, presented and discussed to provide a
deeper insight into major challenges to the implementation
and practice of programme management, while the second
part presents the analysis of quantitative data analysis.
11. Major challenges to implementation
This section presents the analysis of the semi-structured
interviews data on major challenges to the implementation
of programme management. A question was asked regarding the major challenges facing organisations in implementing programme management and what is anticipated. In
the question, certain factors, such as lack of awareness of
programme management and its benets, convincing directors to implement programme management, organisational
challenges and other challenges have been established as
the sources of the challenges emerged.
It is not unusual to face certain challenges in the transition from one management approach to another [28]. Pro-

29

gramme management is not exempt, and the semistructured interviews revealed the possible major challenges that a potential programme management organisation could face in the process of adoption and
implementation. These challenges are awareness, organisational challenges, and other challenges, such as directors
acceptance.
Based on the conceptual content analysis conducted, on
the structured interviews data, lack of awareness, benets
and nature of programme management ranked among
the major challenges to the successful implementation of
programme management. However, this is not unexpected,
as discussed by [3]; they observed that a lack of knowledge
and awareness of programme management can be associated with its origin in US aerospace and intelligence agencies. Providing awareness may help the prospective
programme management organisations to fully understand
and gain cooperation from the members of the organisation to implement and practice programme management.
Awareness becomes a major challenge with 23 references
in 17 interviews conducted. To overcome lack of awareness
and understanding there is need for both academia and the
industry to provide detailed information on programme
management and its benets.
Having established that awareness is the highest challenge to the implementation of programme management,
the lowest challenge appeared to be getting the directors
to accept the validity of programme management. One of
the construction programme managers interviewed
observed that:
Implementation of programme management has to be
supported by the board of directors through continuous
communication (talks) (awareness) and follow ups, feedbacks from programme managers to the board of directors and clarifying the interfaces and the benets.
Some other challenges may emanate from other aspects,
such as lack of management maturity, stakeholders attitude, etc. while other challenges, such as recognising programme management as a profession, and fear of losing
power by some members of the organisation constitute
another challenge [42].
12. Major challenges to practice of programme management
Having seen the major challenges to implementation of
programme management, this section presents the quantitative data analysis. This section further examines the challenges to the successful practice of programme
management. The data for this was collected from the
UK construction industry using a questionnaire survey.
The total of 119 usable responses received were analysed
to make inferences. Some of the sectors are involved with
construction projects in the form of residential and commercial, civil engineering (road and others), services, etc.
[43,44].

30

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

The data for the major challenges was analysed using

criticality index to rank the challenges; t-test to compare
the responses from the organisations practicing and those
that are not practicing programme management in the
UK construction industry. Prior to proceeding with the
analysis, a Cronbach a reliability analysis was conducted.
The result of the test proves the reliability the data is
a P 0.7 as recommended by [45,46]. Nunnallys [47] suggests that in the early stages of research on predictor tests
or hypothesised measures of a construct, reliability of
a P 0.7 or higher will suce. In this case, a = 0.924.
The aim of conducting the analysis was to identify and
rank the major challenges to the successful practice of programme management in the construction industry criticality index has been widely used in research projects.
Abdul Kadir et al. [48] used the importance index approach
to evaluate the factors aecting construction labour productivity in Malaysian construction projects; [49] used relative importance index method of the attributes of clients
organisations, which may inuence project consultants
performance. Odeh and Bettaineh [50] also used importance to determine causes of construction delay in traditional contracts. Chan and Kumaraswamy [51] also
applied relative importance index in their comparative
study of the causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects, Cheng [52] used importance index in discussing technology foresight. As a result of its popularity,
reliability and eectiveness, this research adapts the
approach to rank the major challenges to the successful
implementation and practice of programme management.
This research uses the formula in [50] due to the clarity,
simplicity and applicability to its data, while the analysis
uses the weighting used by Cheng [52]. Cheng uses the
weighting of the importance from 0.00, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
and 1 to represent the value of the responses on the Likert
scale. In the approach, the weighting substitutes the position of the Likert scale. The maximum criticality index is
one, any skills and competencies with the highest value
between 0 P 1 is considered critical. In addition, this section will rank the major challenges according to their criticality. The relative criticality index is computed using the
formula below:
P5
i1 W i X i
C P
5
i1 X i
where C is the criticality index. i responses category index = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (position on the Likert scale). Wi is
the weight assigned to ith response = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
and 1, respectively [52]. Xi is the frequency of the ith response given as percentage of the total responses [40].
13. Mean and index analysis for major challenges
It has been observed that mean indexing has been repeatedly and widely used in presenting exploratory and descriptive data analysis and can provide support to the criticality

index in this research. Among many others, [53] use the

standard deviation and mean to discuss the severity diagnosis of productivity problems and analyse reliability.
Ogunlana et al. [54] used the standard deviation and mean
in evaluating the factors and procedures used in matching
project managers to construction projects in Bangkok.
Thite [55] used mean and standard deviation to analyse
the leadership styles in information technology projects.
Raz and Michael [56] used mean and standard deviation
to analyse use and benets of tools for risk management.
Akintoye and MacLeod [57] used mean and standard deviation in risk analysis and management in construction.
This research also uses the same approach to support criticality index to rank the major challenges, the questionnaire ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high), higher mean scores
reect responses that indicate the higher importance of
the respective challenge.

14. t-Test for major challenges

t-Test is appropriate when there is a dichotomous independence, and wishes to test the dierence of means in this
case, to test mean dierences between samples of the companies practicing and not-practicing programme management in the UK construction industry. As established, ttest may be used to compare the means of a criterion variable for two independent samples or for two dependent
samples, or between a sample mean and a known mean
(one-sample t-test) [58,59]. t-Test analysis has also been
used in many research projects to compare dierent means
of dierent groups. Papastathopoulou et al. [60] used the
approach in evaluating the success of new-to-the-market
versus me-too retail nancial services.
Prior to the analyses of the responses, a t-test was conducted to compare the responses of the organisations practicing programme management and those that are not
practicing programme management to detect any discrepancies. This research employed t-test to compare the means
of the organisations practicing and not practicing programme management. Based on the results of the t-test,
there is no statistical variation in the responses of those
organisations practicing and those not practicing programme management, hence the data was analysed as a
homogeneous set of data. Table 1 presents the exploratory
and inferential data collected.
According to [19], in t-test, if signicance level (q) is
below 0.05 indicates a high degree of dierence of opinion
between groups on that factor (in this case, those practicing
and not-practicing programme management). Pallant [46]
asserts that if q P 0.05, (e.g., 0.06, 0.10), there is no significant dierence between the two groups. There are no signicant statistical variations between the responses of the
group practicing and those who are not practicing programme management; the challenges to the implementation and practice of programme management have been
ranked in the order of their criticality.

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

31

Table 1
Major challenges to successful practice of programme management in the UK construction industry.
Major challenges to programme/multiple projects management

Lack of commitment from business leaders

Late delivery of projects
Lack of knowledge to evaluate risks
Lack of understanding of the role of programme
management in the organisation
Dening clear mission for the programme
Frequent projects scope changes
Conicting project objectives
Lack of cross-functional communication
Lack of programme delivery infrastructure
Lack of clear company strategy
Financial constraints
Lack of coordination between projects
Lack of relevant training
People constraints
Lack of alignment of projects to strategy
Lack of cross-functional working
Initial funding and ongoing operational costs to the organisation
Lack of appropriate way to measure projects benets
A perception among the project community that the programme
will serve as an obstacle to the timely accomplishment of project management
Lack of nancial skills of project/other sta
Lack of understanding of the value proposition that programme management provides
Lack of awareness and associated benets
Lack of resources (human/nancial) to analyse project data
Resistance to organisational change
Lack of knowledge of portfolio management techniques
Disappointment with nal project benets
Too many unrelated projects
Presenting a detailed description of the intended roles of a PMO in the organisation

Total results

Practicing and not-practicing

programme management t-test

CI

Mean

Mean
Practice

Not-practice

0.789
0.772
0.759
0.726

4.155
4.086
4.034
3.905

4.087
4.000
4.022
3.913

4.209
4.149
4.060
3.910

0.4571
0.356
0.821
0.987

0.722
0.722
0.711
0.690
0.684
0.681
0.678
0.670
0.668
0.664
0.660
0.646
0.641
0.638
0.623

3.887
3.888
3.845
3.759
3.737
3.724
3.713
3.681
3.672
3.655
3.640
3.583
3.565
3.552
3.491

3.933
3.783
3.870
3.783
3.689
3.848
3.689
3.717
3.761
3.630
3.689
3.711
3.622
3.652
3.614

3.881
3.970
3.791
3.716
3.758
3.642
3.716
3.627
3.627
3.642
3.621
3.507
3.537
3.478
3.385

0.763
0.299
0.631
0.694
0.708
0.2081
0.885
0.614
0.3641
0.9471
0.706
0.250
0.614
0.283
0.249

0.622
0.622
0.611
0.604
0.593
0.583
0.578
0.567
0.544

3.487
3.487
3.442
3.414
3.371
3.333
3.313
3.267
3.176

3.457
3.511
3.400
3.409
3.326
3.356
3.311
3.261
3.310

3.515
3.463
3.492
3.415
3.388
3.333
3.328
3.254
3.111

0.739
0.786
0.627
0.975
0.717
0.902
0.926
0.968
0.287

Sig.(q)

CI, criticality index; SD, standard deviation; Sig.(q), signicance level; and 1, equal variance not assumed.

Hence the analysis of the results indicate that the major

challenge to the practice of programme management is
lack of commitment from business leaders with criticality
index of 0.789 whereas presenting a detailed description
of the intended roles of a programme management oce
(PMO) in the organisation is the lowest challenge to practicing programme management in the UK construction
industry with 0.544 criticality index. Based on the results
from the criticality ranking of the major challenges of
adoption, the implementation and practice of programme
management in the UK construction industry, commitment from senior management (directors) is crucial to the
success of practicing construction programme management. It is advisable that if the implementation idea did
not come from the management level, there would be a
need to provide a detailed business case for practicing programme management, in order to convince the directors to
accept the idea. This can be in the form of programme
management versus project management challenges; or
short term versus long-term benets. Most of the time,
the directors would want to see the projected benets
before they buy into the idea and support it. It would
not be dicult to secure the support, as long as business

leaders are comfortable with the idea and the projections

are viable and achievable.
In many cases, the business case would have to demonstrate improvement and the justication for the investment;
as programmes are capital and human resource intensive.
In contrast, comparing programme and project management may come out as a choice between long and short
term benets [42]. Some of the benets of programme
management are not immediate and may not directly translate into nancial benets [61]. However, the directors are
expected to weigh the options of short-term benets
against long-term benets within the organisational goals
and objectives. To eectively address this major challenge,
an IT programme director advised that, It is encouraged
that a programme manager should be a senior member of
the organisation who will always have access to the senior
management (directors), and has the seniority to inuence
their decision. Hence, having a programme manager who
is a middle or junior manager will have a seniority barrier
to inuence the company directors.
The second major challenge to the practice of construction programme management is the late delivery of projects. This is no doubt a problem due to the synergistic

32

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

nature of programme management. According to [3], programmes are highly integrated endeavours in which the
action of one project aects the rest of the projects in a programme. The indication in this challenge is the need for
real-time proactive planning; properly planned projects
transcend into an ecient programme. Eective planning
is one of the prerequisites of programme management
and its importance cannot be overemphasised.
The second to last major challenge to the practice of
construction programme management is too many unrelated projects in a programme. This is, however, not surprising, as in reality, the relationship of construction
projects is relative to the planning and other factors, such
as the sharing of resources, facilities and infrastructures
[26,30]. The relationship can be established in multiple facets: planning, supply chain management, resources, funding, execution, etc. The respondents, however, do not see
connecting (relating) projects as a challenge. Whereas the
most insignicant (minor challenge) to practicing programme management is presenting a detailed description
of the intended roles of programme management oce
(PMO) in the organisation as the least of the listed challenges. PMO is the centre of control of programme management, it acts as the centre of planning and
coordination of the activities of the functional projects in
a programme; hence the description of its roles will be relatively easy to make and understand.
To proceed to the next level of reducing the factors for
the benets of trainer or educators by reducing the major
challenges into more manageable components, factor analysis will be conducted.
15. Factor analysis for major challenges to the practice of
programme management
To reduce the list of major challenges into more manageable numbers for support or CPD purposes, factor
analysis was conducted into the major challenges. Prior
to the factor analysis, Bartletts test of sphericity and a
KaiserMeyerOlkin (KMO) test were conducted to help
assess the factorability of the data. Bartletts test of sphericity should be p < .05 to be signicant; whereas KMO index
ranges from 0 to 1 with .6 as a minimum value for a good
factor analysis.
The value of the KMO statistic is 0.863, which, according to [62], is satisfactory for factor analysis. Bartletts test
of sphericity tests the hypothesis that the correlation matrix
is an identity matrix. In this case, the value of the test statistic for sphericity is large (Bartletts test of sphericity = 378) and the associated signicance level is small
(p = 0.000), which suggests that there is no need to eliminate any of the variables for the principal component
analysis.
Having conducted the factorability analysis, factor
extraction tests using Kaisers criterion and Scree plot analysis were conducted. Factor extraction is the determination
of the number of factors necessary to represent the data

[63]. Kaisers test is one of the most commonly used techniques, otherwise known as eigenvalue rule. Using this rule,
only the factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more are
retained for further investigation [46]. Whereas the Scree
test involves plotting each of the eigenvalues of the factors
and inspecting the plot to nd the point at which the shape
of the curve changes direction to become horizontal. Cattell [64] recommends retaining all factors above the elbow
or break in the plot, as these factors contribute to the
explanation of the variance in the data set. The combination of these two techniques was employed in a complementary manner in this research.
Appendix 1 presents the initial and rotated factor matrix
of major challenges to the practice of programme management, the eigenvalues for all the factors in major challenges
to the eective practice of programme management. In the
table, the rst column represents the 28 major challenges
listed; the second column represents the initial eigenvalues
of the respective components (total variance, percentages
and cumulative percentages). Whereas the extraction sums
of square loadings columns represent the factors with more
eigenvalue of 1.0 and above. The factors with eigenvalue of
1.0 and above will proceed to further examination.
Naming the principal factors was done in line with [65]
recommendations, which suggests that the factor names
should be brief (one or two words) and communicate the
nature of the underlying construct. This was done by looking for patterns of similarity between items that load on a
factor. In addition, looking at what items do not load on a
factor, to determine what that factor is not. Also, try
reversing loadings to get a better interpretation [66].
By looking for patterns of similarity between items that
load on a factor, particularly when seeking to validate a
theoretical structure, it is possible to use the factor names
that already exist in the literature. Otherwise, names that
will communicate conceptual structure to others are used.
Looking at what items do not load on a factor to determine
what that factor is not [65]. In line with recommendation of
[65], to name the factors for this research, a questionnaire
was sent to ve programme management experts to validate the naming of the principal factors. The respondents
of the naming survey all agreed with the names as the suitable representation of the principal factors. Takim [67]
observes that there is no rule of thumb in making factors
to fall within the same group as this taken care of by the
rotation technique used.
16. Principal factors
Often, using Kaisers criterion, many components are
extracted. It is important, therefore, to also check the Scree
plot to select and retain factors for the components above
the shoulders of the curve [46,66]; in this case six factors are
identied as shown in Appendix 1 using Kaisers criterion.
Sixty-two (62%) of the total variance is attributable to the
rst six factors; the remaining 22 factors together account
for only 38% of the variance as assessed by [68]. In other

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

words, 61.845% of the common variance shared by the 28

variables can be accounted for by the rst six factors, thus,
a model with six factors adequately represents all of the
factors.
Pallant [46] and Field [66] highlight that, once the numbers of factors have been determined, the next step is to
rotate and interpret the results. In this case, six components
were extracted and rotated. Varimax rotation was used,
which assumes that the factors are not related, and tends
to be easier and cleaner to interpret [46,63]. The rotation
does not aect the goodness of t of a factor solution.
Hence, the cumulative percentages of the six main components remain equal after rotation. However, the eigenvalue
and percentage of variance accounted for each factor does
change. The factor grouping based on Varimax rotation is
shown in Appendix 2. Each variable weighs heavily on only
one of the factors, while the loading on each factor exceeds
0.30. Below are the extracted principal factors and their
discussion.
17. Strategy focus
This principal factor accounts for 16.483% of the total
attractive variances and contains seven factors. The seven
factors constitute the programme strategy focus challenges
to the eective practice of programme management. The
factors are: lack of cross-functional working, lack of alignment of projects to strategy, lack of coordination between
projects, conicting project objectives, dening clear mission for the programme, lack of programme delivery infrastructure and lack of relevant training.
Li [68] discussed the higher and the lower loadings under
each principal factor of the components, to provide a deeper
insight; this research discusses the two higher and lower
loadings. Under strategy focus, higher loadings were made
by lack of cross-functional working and lack of alignment
of projects to strategy (Sig. = 0.740 and 0.729, respectively).
This indicates that lack of cross-functional working is the
most critical challenge in programme management strategy
focus component. However, it does not contradict the result
on the criticality of major challenges, but when rotated, it
appeared to have the highest loading. On both occasions,
the ranking of the factor remained high. According to Chittenden [73], there should be eective cross-functional working and alignment in order for the programme to succeed.
Hence, a lack of cross-functional working will constitute a
major challenge to the successful practice of programme
management in the construction industry.
The second highest loading factor under this component
is lack of alignment of projects to strategy (Sig. = 0.729); it
is not surprising that this factor ranks as the second major
challenge under strategy focus. OGC [74] indicates the
importance of integrating programme and project structures; hence, a lack of alignment of projects to strategy constitutes a major challenge, as no organisation can succeed
without fully bringing the projects of the programme
together in the planning of the expected benets. Blomquist

33

[69] states that all projects in a programme should be

aligned and consistent towards the objectives of the programme, failure to align them can cause diculty in realising the programmes benets.
The second lowest loading in this group is lack of programme delivery infrastructure (Sig. 0.578). This indicates
that if the programme has not set in place a delivery infrastructure (supply chain management, procurement systems,
communication systems, etc.), it will be dicult for the
stakeholders and programme team to interact and play
their part to ensure the successful delivery of the programme. Hence, the lack of a programme delivery infrastructure is a major challenge to the success of practicing
programme management. Subsequently, lack of relevant
training was the lowest factor (Sig. 0.424). Despite the
importance of continuous support and training in programme management, this factor emerged as the lowest
in this group. The factor ranked high in the criticality
assessment, but it loaded low under this principal factor.
The indication is that, to an experienced construction programme manager, training is essential, but on-the-job experience can replace any other form of training.
18. Human factor and communication
Principal factor 2 accounts for 10.130% of the total
attractive variance, and consists of ve human and communication factor challenges: a perception among the project
community that the programme will serve as an obstacle to
the timely accomplishment of project management, resistance to organisational change, people constraints, lack of
knowledge of portfolio management techniques and lack of
resources (human/nancial) to analyse project data. All of
these components are associated with the major human
and communication challenges to the successful implementation and practice of programme management.
Higher loadings are a perception among the project
community that the programme will serve as an obstacle
to the timely accomplishment of project management and
resistance to organisational change. The former is considered critical in the criticality ranking and regarded as one
of most critical factors for adopting and practicing programme management in the UK construction industry.
Lycett et al. [8] warned that some project management
organisations view programme management as additional
bureaucracy to curtail project mangers power to make
decisions and get on with their jobs. In the semi-structured
interviews, one of the programme managers in the public
sector observed that people resist changes for fear of losing their power and relevance in the organisation if new
systems are implemented.
The lower loadings are lack of knowledge of portfolio
management techniques (Sig. = 0.601) and lack of
resources (human/nancial) to analyse projects data
(Sig. = 0.471). Programmes entail managing a portfolio
of projects; where an organisation lacks the knowledge
regarding how to manage a group of projects, practicing

34

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

programme management will be dicult [30]. Hence,

organisations that do not have knowledge of managing a
portfolio of projects, may nd the implementation of programme management a huge challenge. In terms of lack of
resources (human/nancial) to analyse projects data,
according to Thomsen [42], programmes generate enormous data to communicate, absorb, document, integrate,
store and retrieve. It requires informing managers, enhancing collaboration, improving designs, defending claims and
reporting governance. On the other hand, it has also been
proven that programmes have the tendency to generate
huge amount of data [9] which require analysis to understand whether the programme has achieved its objectives
[27,70]. Based on the loading on this principal factor, a lack
of resources to analyse data is considered the lowest human
and communication factor. This position does not contradict the criticality ranking.
19. Financial factors
Principal factor 3 accounts for 10.012% of the total
attractive variance, and consists of four nancial aspect
challenges: initial funding and ongoing operational costs
to the organisation, lack of nancial skills of project/other
sta, nancial constraints, lack of clear company strategy
and lack of appropriate way to measure projects benets.
These factors are associated with the nancial constraints of programme management. Higher loadings are
initial funding and ongoing operational costs to the organisation (Sig. = 0.774) and lack of nancial skills of sta
(Sig. = 0.722). Initial funding and ongoing operational costs
to the organisation is regarded as one of most critical nancial factors for implementing and practicing programme
management in the UK construction industry. It has been
established that programmes are cost and capital intensive
[27,61], and therefore for organisations to commit
resources to programmes will certainly constitute a nancial challenge. This can explain why nancial constraints
and initial funding and ongoing operational cost top the list
under this principal factor.
Similarly, two lower loadings are lack of clear company
strategy (Sig. = 0.560) and lack of appropriate way to measure projects benets (Sig. = 0.342). Both challenges ranked
low in the criticality analysis and the components loading
in factor analysis. This implies that lack of appropriate
way to measure projects benets in programmes was the
lowest nancial challenge in the practice of construction
programme management. As a result, organisations may
have to devise an in-house method of assessing and measuring their programme benets.

from business leaders, late delivery of projects and lack of

cross-functional communication. These components are
associated with the leadership and commitment of major
challenges to the successful implementation and practice
of programme management.
Higher loadings are lack of knowledge to evaluate risks
(Sig. = 0.692) and frequent projects scope changes
(Sig. = 0.664) is regarded as one of most important factors
for adopting and practising programme management in the
UK construction industry. According to Kangari and Riggs [71], constructions projects consist of many risks, and
Williams and Parr [18] also conrm that programmes face
risk, but if properly identied and managed can translate
into opportunities. In addition, [42] highlights that, clients
transfer their risks to programme managers, and that if he/
she lacks the knowledge to identify, evaluate and manage
risks; the programme is likely to fail. Lack of knowledge
to identify, evaluate or manage risks can leave a programme vulnerable to failure. The two highest loading factors in this component ranked as highly critical major
challenges in the criticality ranking. According to [7], eective scope management is one of the key factors determining project success; whereas if the projects in a programme
are successful, they will, in turn, contribute to the success
of that programme. Therefore, a frequent scope change
constitutes a major challenge to a programmes success.
The two lower loadings are by late delivery of projects in
the programmes (Sig. = 0.556) and lack of cross-functional
communication (Sig. = 0.545). Abraham [23] states that,
the traditional approach to success in the construction
industry, places great emphasis on the ability to plan and
execute projects on time. The organisations that complete
projects in a timely manner within an established budget
and quality considerations are considered successful.
Therefore, if a programme delivers the functional projects
late, this results in a major challenge to the practice of programme management [3,18].
The second lower loading lack of cross-functional communication, contradicts the reality of successful programmes. Timely and eective communication between
teams and across the organisational boundaries is essential
to programme management success. Programme management survives on the exchange of timely and useful information between the stakeholders and programme team.
Lack of cross-functional communication is, therefore, a
major challenge to the practice of programme management
[6,27,69]. It is clear that lack of cross-functional communication can lead to the late delivery of a project, which will
in turn aect the timely delivery of a programme [70].
21. Strategy and awareness

20. Leadership and commitment

Principal factor 4 accounts for 8.926% of the total
attractive variance, and consists of ve leadership and commitment factor challenges: lack of knowledge to evaluate
risks, frequent projects scope changes, lack of commitment

Principal factor 5 accounts for 8.724% of the total

attractive variance, and consists of four programme understanding factor challenges: too many unrelated projects,
disappointment with nal programme benets, presenting a
detailed description of the intended roles of a PMO in the

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

organisation and lack of understanding of the value proposition that programme management provides.
Higher loadings are too many unrelated projects,
(Sig. = 0.752) and disappointment with nal programme
benets, 0.686. These major challenges too many unrelated
projects are considered as highly critical in the criticality
analysis, and this factor emerged strongly under strategy
and awareness. Programme management brings benets
through aligning, coordinating and executing multiple projects along the organisational objectives, more especially if
the organisation operates a myriad of small projects [2,72].
OGC [26] warned about lumping projects together in the
name of a programme. This research recommends that caution must be exercised in selecting the right projects, and
not bring projects that are not compatible to the programme [26]. Too many unrelated projects can be a major
challenge to construction programme management.
The lower loading is on lack of understanding of the
value proposition that programme management provides.
OGC [26] maintains that it is essential for an organisation
to set out the aim of operating programme management,
rather than doing it for the sake of fashion. Hence a lack
of clear value proposition is detrimental to the success of
any programme. One of the programme directors interviewed advised that organisations should be very clear
of what they want to achieve before implementing programme management. The values and benets expected
should be reected in the programmes business case [73].
22. Benets understanding
Principal factor 6 consists of two factors and accounts
for 7.570% of the total attractive variance: lack of understanding of the role of programme management in the organisation and lack of awareness of associated benets. These
factors are associated with the benets of understanding
programme management. There is a strong need for understanding what programme management stands for and
what it will contribute to the organisation [8,30,74]. In connection with the lack of understanding of the role of programme management in the organisation, an IT
programme managers who was interviewed, stated that:
Programme management is not an end in itself, but
rather a means to an end and is a means of delivering
long-term benets to the organisation that they could
not otherwise achieve. Therefore, where a company
determines that they lack long-term vision, programme
management cannot do anything for them. The start
point of a programme is where you want to get to. If
they get a long-term vision and they can see the means
within the context of their organisation for delivering
that, programme management would not ll that vacuum. If by any other means the company can deliver
their vision, then programme management is not for
them. If a company has a long-term vision but they do

35

not know how to deliver that long-term vision, then programme management would oer a solution to them.
On the benets of programme management, Reiss [61]
emphasised the importance of establishing ecient ways
to understand and measure the nancial and non-nancial
benets realised in programmes. The expected benets
should be carefully established and evaluated [70]. Organisations increasingly recognise that achievement of their
strategic objectives, including maintaining and improving
their competitive advantages, are dependent on both tangible and intangible assets [75]. Thus; a lack of awareness of
the associated benets is a major challenge to construction
programme management.
23. Successful implementation of programme management
In his work, [16] proposed a validated framework for
eective adoption and implementation of programme management into UK construction industry. The framework
consists of six trac colour coded progressive stages which
were developed based on the triangulation ndings from
literature review, questionnaire survey and semi-structured
interviews. The stages of the framework include: unawareness to awareness, understanding, programme planning,
piloting, implementation and customisation and
consolidation.
Associated with every stage of the framework are the
types of support required to overcome any challenges that
may be encountered in progression through the stages of
the framework as shown in Fig. 1.
The framework seeks to serve as an adaptable guide, it
should by no means be considered as the only means
through which organisations can be guided into the implementation and practice of programme management. In

Fig. 1. Framework for eective implementation of programme management [16].

36

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

addition to stages of the framework, on various occasions,

the participants of the semi-structured interviews all indicated that the implementation process should be in an evolutionary that will gradually become part of the system
and not in a big bang manner. Some of the recommendations are as follows:
Organisations that have been more successful in implementing programme management are those that implemented it in an evolutionary manner (Project
Manager, Construction).
Organisations should implement programme management in an evolutionary manner, realising benets at
each stage and do it against a structured maturity models; that denes what you need to do to achieve each
level of maturity (Programme Manager, Public Sector).
However, the literature also advised that organisations
should implement programme management in an evolutionary fashion:
Lycett et al. [8] assert that It is unrealistic to expect that
the programme approach can be introduced in a big
bang fashion due to the level of organisational change
mandated by its introduction. Consequently, it is more
fruitful to accept that organisational sophistication in
programme management will evolve and that it will
not be possible to apply some of the more advanced features of programme management unless appropriate
foundations exist.
The support required at the initial stage will predominantly be the combination of the support items listed above
from either the internal support system or external experts
in programme management [42].
24. Conclusion
Programme management, like any other management
approaches, faces challenges in the process of adoption,
implementation and practice. However, this research views
these challenges at two dierent levels. The rst level is at
the implementation stage, and the second level occurs after
the successful implementation and during the practice
stage. Challenges exist during the implementation stage:
the point when an organisation is in the process of transition from projectication to programmication. At this
stage, the most common challenges faced or anticipated
by the programme management organisations include: lack

of awareness, organisational, other challenges, and persuading directors to accept programme management as
the way forward.
The major challenges facing programme management
include: lack of commitment from business leaders (the
highest challenge in practicing programme management)
and presenting a detailed description of the intended role
of a programme management organisation (PMO) in the
organisation. However, the results provide a conicting
fact that, at the implementation stage, the major challenge
is lack of awareness, while at the practice stage, the challenge involves the lack of commitment from business leaders (directors). Whereas the directors buy-in does not
constitute any of the major challenges at the implementation stage. Regardless of the position, it is quite obvious
that a lack of awareness can constitute a problem with buying-in the directors and, in summary, directors cooperation is essential to the successful implementation and
practice of programme management.
With the data ranked, factor analysis was sorted to
reduce the major challenges to benet the planners and
implementers in categorising factors under certain components to eciently deliver them to programme managers
(or prospective programme managers). Factor analysis
was conducted, and the major challenges were reduced into
three factor using Scree plot and variables with eigenvalues
more than one. The factors were named as programme
control, human aspects, and political aspects. These factors
constitute the group of challenges that organisations may
face in practicing programme management.
Due to its complexity and the synergy of the functional
projects, programme management is an eective and proactive planning oriented discipline; in conclusion, high level
planning is required. This is essential to the successful
implementation and practice of programme management
in the UK construction industry. The organisations are
advised to cultivate planning and support their managers
to ensure the eective delivery of programmes. Training
can be provided in the form of CPD, workshops, or other
means of exchanging or fostering knowledge.
For the potential programme management organisations, it has been proposed that adequate caution should
be exercised in the process of implementation; a six-stage
approach has been proposed to progressively usher the
organisation into implementation and practice. The stages
include awareness, understanding, planning, piloting,
implementation and consolidation and customisation.

Appendix 1
Initial and rotated factor matrix of major challenges to practice of programme management.
Component

1
2

Initial eigenvalues

Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total

Variance (%)

Cumulative (%)

Total

Variance (%)

9.604
2.191

34.298
7.823

34.298
42.122

4.615
2.836

16.483
10.130

Cumulative (%)
16.483
26.613
(continued on next page)

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

37

Appendix 1 (continued)
Component

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Initial eigenvalues

Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total

Variance (%)

Cumulative (%)

Total

Variance (%)

Cumulative (%)

1.943
1.313
1.154
1.113
.995
.893
.809
.794
.688
.664
.643
.595
.540
.500
.485
.442
.381
.337
.330
.305
.291
.263
.242
.208
.145
.134

6.939
4.689
4.120
3.976
3.555
3.190
2.890
2.836
2.456
2.371
2.295
2.123
1.928
1.787
1.734
1.579
1.361
1.204
1.178
1.090
1.038
.938
.863
.742
.518
.478

49.061
53.750
57.870
61.845
65.400
68.590
71.480
74.316
76.772
79.144
81.439
83.562
85.490
87.277
89.011
90.590
91.951
93.155
94.332
95.422
96.461
97.398
98.261
99.004
99.522
100.000

2.803
2.499
2.443
2.119

10.012
8.926
8.724
7.570

36.625
45.551
54.276
61.845

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

Appendix 2
Rotated factor matrix (loading) of major challenges.
Major challenges to the practice of programme management

Component
1

Strategic focus

Lack of cross-functional working

Lack of alignment of projects to strategy
Lack of coordination between projects
Conicting project objectives
Dening clear mission for the programme
Lack of programme delivery infrastructure
Lack of relevant training

Human and
communication

A perception among the project community that the programme will serve as an obstacle to
the timely accomplishment of project management
Resistance to organisational change
People constraints
Lack of knowledge of portfolio management techniques
Lack of resources (human/nancial) to analyse projects data

Financial factors

Initial funding and ongoing operational costs to the organisation

Lack of nancial skills of project/other sta
Financial constraints
Lack of clear company strategy
Lack of appropriate way to measure projects benets

Leadership and
commitment

Lack of knowledge to evaluate risks

Frequent projects scope changes
Lack of commitment from business leaders
Late delivery of projects
Lack of cross-functional communication

.740
.729
.719
.699
.627
.578
.424
.667
.648
.644
.601
.471
.774
.722
.698
.560
.342
.692
.664
.568
.556
.545

38

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

Appendix 2 (continued)
Major challenges to the practice of programme management

Component
1

Strategy and
awareness

Too many unrelated projects

Disappointment with nal programme benets
Presenting a detailed description of the intended roles of a PMO in the organisation
Lack of understanding of the value proposition that programme management provides

Benets
understanding

Lack of understanding of the role of programme management in the organisation

Lack of awareness of associated benets

.752
.686
.615
.411
.683
.513

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Rotation converged in seven iterations.

References
[1] Rayner P. APM introduction to programme management. Association for Project Management; 2007.
[2] Ferns DC. Developments in programme management. Int J Proj
Manage 1991;9(3):14856.
[3] Milosevic DZ, Martinelli RJ, Waddell JM. Program management for
improved business results. John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2007.
[4] Turner JR, Speiser A. Programme management and its information
systems requirements. Int J Proj Manage 1992;10(4):196206.
[5] Martinsuo M, Lehtonen P. Role of single-project management in
achieving portfolio management eciency. Int J Proj Manage
2007;25(1):5665.
[6] CCTA. Management of programme risk. HSMO; 1995.
[7] Burke R. Project management planning and control techniques.
Wiley; 2003.
[8] Lycett M, Rassau A, Danson J. Programme management: a critical
review. Int J Proj Manage 2004;22:28999.
[9] Reiss G. Programme management demystied: managing multiple
projects successfully. Spon Press; 2003.
[10] GAPPS. Dening programme types, <http://www.globalpmstandards.
org/program-manager-standards/general/dening-program-types/>;
2008 [accessed 09 October 2008].
[11] Pellegrinelli S, Partington D, Hemingway C, Mohdzain Z, Shah M.
The importance of context in programme management: an empirical
review of programme practices. Int J Proj Manage 2007;25(1):4155.
[12] Partington D, Pellegrenelli S, Young M. Attributes and levels of
programme management competence: an interpretive study. Int J Proj
Manage 2005;23:8795.
[13] Young NW. Key trends in the European and US construction
marketplace. SmartMarket report. Design and construction intelligence. Supported by CIOB, in Partnership with University of
Reading and CRC; 2008.
[14] DTI. The UK construction industry, <http://www.dti.org.uk/publications/construction_industry.pdf>; 2006 [accessed 20 November
2006].
[15] NAO. Modernising construction, <http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/00-01/000187es.pdf>; 2008 [accessed 20 June
2008].
[16] Shehu Z. The framework for eective adoption and implementation
of programme management in the UK construction industry. In:
Built and natural environment. PhD thesis. Glasgow Caledonian
University: Glasgow; 2008.
[17] Martin P, Nicholls J. Creating a committed workforce. IPM
Publication; 1987.
[18] Williams D, Parr T. Enterprise programme management: delivering
value. Pelgrave MacMillan; 2006.
[19] Black C, Akintola A, Fitzgerald E. An analysis of success factors and
benets of partnering in construction. Int J Proj Manage
2000;18(6):42334.

[20] Sambasivan M, Yun Fei N. Evaluation of critical success factors

of implementation of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy
process (AHP): a case study from Malaysia. J Cleaner Prod
2007;16:142433.
[21] Fowler A, Walsh M. Conicting perceptions of success in an
information systems project. Int J Proj Manage 1999;17(1):110.
[22] Cash C, Fox R. Elements of successful project management. J Syst
Manage 1992;43(9):102.
[23] Abraham G. Critical success factors for the construction industry. In:
Proc, construction research congress in construction wind of change:
integration and innovation (CD-ROM). Construction Institute,
Construction Research Council, ASCE, University of Colorado at
Boulder; 2003.
[24] Choi B, Poon SK, Davis JG. Eects of knowledge management
strategy on organizational performance: a complementarity theorybased approach. Int J Manage Sci 2007;36:23551.
[25] Olomolaiye A. The impact of human resource management on
knowledge management for performance improvements in construction organisations. In: Built and natural environment. PhD thesis.
Glasgow Caledonian University; 2007.
[26] OGC. Programme and project management and careers, <http://
www.ogc.gov.uk/programme_and_project_management_and_careers.asp>; 2007 [accessed 04 June 2007].
[27] Bartlett J. Managing programmes of business change. 1st ed. Project
Manager Today; 2002.
[28] OGC. Managing successful programmes. TSO; 2003.
[29] Thiry M. For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process. Int
J Proj Manage 2004;22(3):24552.
[30] Reiss G, Anthony M, Chapman J, Leigh G, Payne A, Rayner P.
Gower handbook of programme management. Gower Publications;
2006.
[31] Denscombe M. The good research guide for small-scale social
research projects. Open University Press; 2007.
[32] Fellows R, Liu A. Research methods for construction. Blackwell
Science; 1997.
[33] Bryman A, Bell E. Business research methods. University of Oxford
Press; 2003.
[34] Pathirage CP, Amaratunga RDG, Haigh RP. The role of philosophical context in the development of theory: towards methodological
pluralism. Built Hum Environ Rev 2008;1(1):110.
[35] Wisker G. The postgraduate research handbook. 2nd ed. Palgrave
Publication; 2008.
[36] Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unbstrusive
measures: nonreactive measure in social sciences Chicago. Rand
McNally; 1966.
[37] Palmquist M. Content analysis, <http://www.colostate.edu/
Depts/WritingCenter/references/research/content/page2.htm>; 2001
[accessed 29 January 2008].
[38] Busch C, De Maret PS, Flynn T, Kellum R, Le S, Meyers B, Saunders
M, White R, Palmquist M. Content analysis. Writing@CSU.

Z. Shehu, A. Akintoye / International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 2639

[39]

[40]
[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]
[45]

[46]
[47]
[48]

[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

Colorado State University Department of English, <http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/>; 2005 [accessed 29 January

2008].
Fernie S, Green SD, Weller SJ, Newcombe R. Knowledge sharing:
context, confusion and controversy. Int J Proj Manage
2003;21(3):17787.
Egan J. Rethinking construction: the report of the construction task
force. HMSO; 1998.
Dainty A. A call for methodological pluralism in built environment
research. In: PRoBE conference. Glasgow Caledonian University,
Scotland, UK; 2007.
Thomsen C. Program management: concepts and strategies for
managing capital building programs. Construction Management
Association of America Foundation; 2008.
Adamson DM, Pollington AH. Change in the construction industry:
an account of the UK construction industry reform movement 1993
2003. Routledge Publishing; 2006.
Morton R. Construction UK: introduction to the industry. Blackwell
Publications; 2002.
Yang J, Peng S. Development of a customer satisfaction evaluation
model for construction project management. Build Environ
2008;43(4):45868.
Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. John Wiley Publications; 2001.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1978.
Abdul Kadir MR, Lee WP, Jaafar MS, Sapuan SM, Ali AAA.
Factors aecting construction labour productivity for the Malaysian
construction projects. Struct Surv 2005;23(1):4254.
Kometa ST, Olomolaiye PO, Harris FC. Attributes of UK construction clients inuencing project consultants performance. Constr
Manage Econom 1994;12:43343.
Odeh AM, Bettaineh HT. Causes of construction delay: traditional
contracts. Int J Proj Manage 2002;20(1):6773.
Chan WM, Kumaraswamy MM. A comparative study of causes of
time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects. Int J Proj Manage
1997;15(1):5563.
Cheng J. Discussion of importance index in technology foresight.
National Centre for Science and Technology for Development Ministry
of Science and Technology of the People Republic of China; 2002.
Kamin PF, Holt GD, Kometa ST, Olomolaiye PO. Severity diagnosis
of productivity problems a reliability analysis. Int J Proj Manage
1998;6(6):107113.
Ogunlana S, Siddiqui Z, Yisa S, Olomolaiye PO. Factors and
procedures used in matching project managers to construction
projects in Bangkok. Int J Proj Manage 2002;20(5):385400.

39

[55] Thite M. Leadership styles in information technology projects. Int J

Proj Manage 2000;18(4):23541.
[56] Raz T, Michael E. Use and benets of tools for risk management. Int
J Proj Manage 2001;19(1):917.
[57] Akintoye A, MacLeod MJ. Risk analysis and management in
construction. Int J Proj Manage 1997;15(1):318.
[58] Gardner PL. Scales and statistics. Rev Educ Res 1975;45:4357.
[59] Sapsford R, Jupp V. Data collection and analysis. The Open
University Press; 1996.
[60] Papastathopoulou PG, Gounaris SP, Avlonitis GJ. Successful to newto-the-market versus me-too retail nancial services. Int J Bank Mark
2006;24(1):5370.
[61] Reiss G. Benets management a paper for congress, http://www.
e-programme/uploads/articles; 2000 [accessed 30 June 2008].
[62] Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometika
1974;39:316.
[63] Cookes SJ, Steed LG. SPSS analysis without anguish. 2nd ed. John
Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 2001.
[64] Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav
Res 1966;1(2):24576.
[65] Hart GW. Multivariate statistics: factor analysis, <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Flynn/factor.htm>; 2008 [accessed
23 February 2008].
[66] Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publication; 2005.
[67] Takim R. A framework for successful construction performance. In:
Built and natural environment. PhD thesis submitted to Glasgow
Caledonian University: Glasgow; 2005.
[68] Li B. Risk management of construction public and private projects.
In: Built and natural environment. PhD thesis. Glasgow Caledonian
University; 2003.
[69] Blomquist T. Middle managers in programme and project portfolio
management: practices, roles and responsibilities. PMI; 2006.
[70] OGC. Project management, <http://www.ogc.gov.uk/delivery_lifecycle_project_management.asp>; 2007 [accessed 10 June 2007].
[71] Kangari R, Riggs LS. Portfolio management in construction. Constr
Manage Econom 1988;6:1619.
[72] Pellegrinelli S. Shaping the context: the role challenge for programmes. Int J Proj Manage 2002;20(3):22933.
[73] Chittenden J. A management guide programme management based
on MSP: best practice. Van Haren Publishing; 2006.
[74] OGC. Managing successful programmes. TSO; 2007.
[75] Nogeste K. Driving project performance with a collaborative
denition of KM. Paper based on doctoral degree at RMIT
University, Australia; 2004 [accessed 10 July 2008].