Project Management Framework through Critical Success Factors for Delivering Power

Transmission Construction Project

Abstract:
The critical factors assured the project that supports project success outcomes. The study aims to
make a project management framework based on project CSFs precisely. Power Transmission
construction projects are often influenced by numerous critical success factors which can support
to EPC ventures to reach their intended goals with immense efficiency. Total 46 critical success
factors are considered such as factors related to strategy, factors related to risk, factors related to
the contract, factors related to stakeholder and factors related to ERP Application, became
perceptible from this study. The outcome of statistical analysis reveals that Project success
(dependent variable) has a relation with strategy (independent variable) and risk, stakeholder, and
ERP application (mediator variables). This model will support project success to align
organizational goals.
Key Words: Power Transmission (PT), Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC), Strategy,
Critical Success Factors (CSFs), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Right of way (ROW), Sobel
test.
1. Introduction:
Power sector projects play very vital roles in infrastructure to thrive in the other industry. Power
Transmission project is the main tank of power sectors. PT projects set-up through many activities
of different phases, countless ways, and immense concurrence of dissimilar stakeholders with the
foremost aim being to communicate the conclusion of with conclude the successful project. Power
Transmission construction projects are unique and temporary. The project necessities and purposes
differ from project to project and person to person.
1.1 Critical Success Factors:
D. Ronald of McKinsey & Company created the word “success factors” in 1961, and, and further,
its John F Rockart redefined into critical success factors in 1981. The term Critical Success Factors
(CSF) is as “those things support the company to be successful that” and it is quantifiable and
controllable (Ingram et al., 2000). The CSFs of projects are not to all projects. CSF varies project
to project have different sets of CSFs, suggesting the focus on the reliant method of the theory and
practice of project management (Dvir et al., 1988).
1.2 Project Management
The technical aspect of project management has been reflected through numerous efforts to
achieve project success Recognized project management has subsisted for over 50 years; though,
large historical construction projects such as the Great Pyramids, Tajmahal, and many canals,
bridges, cathedrals, temple, and other infrastructure projects confirmed the history of management
practices(Cleland and Ireland, 2007). Project Management stands for the implementation of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project actions to meet a project necessity (PMBOK
Guide 2013). Success criteria and factors connected with each type of the project and their
outcomes confirm that a different success “framework” applied to every kind of project, that
approach should be employed to project management (Dvir et al., 1998).
1.3 Characteristic Power Transmission Projects
The current research is navigated to categorize the effects of critical success factors (CSFs) and
their relevant aspects in the Indian power transmission construction projects. Station/substation
construction of PT projects and non-power construction projects have some similar crucial
features, such as a control room building, pump houses, generator rooms, converter rooms (for
high-voltage direct current transmission), guardrooms, dormitory buildings, and worker residence
building. PT projects and non-power (building projects) construction projects have some similar
indistinguishable critical success factors which influence project success. Some similar CSFs like
ROW (right of way) are valid for highway projects, underground pipeline projects, and oil and gas
projects as PT line and substation underground cabling work. Land acquisition, land development,
building construction, equipment installation, which is similar CSF in power generation, and PT
projects. PT project execution consists of starting from land acquisition, tower foundation (tower
& equipment), control building, staff quarter, pump houses, cable trenches, road, drain, tower, and
special equipment erection etc.’, as some activities belong to power plant project, road project,
building construction, hydrocarbon project and another infrastructure project. Substations and
distribution lines are on a smaller scale at power distribution projects like PT projects
stations/substations and TL/TLs (Transmission line /transmission lines).
1.4 Indian Power Transmission Sector
The Indian powers transmission sectors was a robust growth of the last five years. State, and center
utilities, and the private company was mainly dominated the power transmission sector, while at
this time the private sector presently controls only 3-4% of the total transmission capacity. The
investment would be made INR 2.6 lakh crore between FY 18 and FY 22, by the end of the 13th
five-year plan the investment for the 100,000-circuit km of transmission lines and 2, 00,000 MVA
transformer capacities of substations at 220 kV and above voltage (CEA, Opportunities for
investments, 2018).
The growing emphasis on the progress of energy from the Indian government and the international
community, this research provides an idea to articulate effective strategies to maximize
productivity from power transmission projects.
2. Related Studies:
There are many numbers of academics who highlight on enhancing the practice of success factors
in the different construction projects. This part of the study inspects a thorough analysis of previous
empirical researches on critical success factors (CSFs) domain, which support the present study to
conclude the success factors for the power transmission projects. Success factors are called those
efforts to the management framework that leads directly or in a way to the success of the projects
(Cookie-Davies, 2002).
According to the Indian “Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation's latest report for
March 2019”, the cost overruns Rs 3.3 lakh crore due to delays and other happen from the
approximately 340 infrastructure projects, each worth of Rs 150 crore or more. The total original
cost of execution of the 1,405 projects was Rs 18,09,681.47 crore, and their predicted completion
cost is probable to be Rs 21,39,924.38 crore, which replicates overall cost overruns of Rs
3,30,242.91 crore (18.25% of original price),"
2.1 Project Success:
Nearly all project management content links the dimension of project success directly to the so-
called ‘iron triangle’ of time, cost, and scope. So many years, the project success measuring
criteria was only ‘Iron Triangle’ factors. “Success means different belongings to dissimilar people,
like visual appearance before architects, technical ability before an engineer, dollars consumed
within budget before an accountant, employee satisfaction before human resources manager and
stock market before chief executive officers” (Freeman and Beale, 1992). Project success is three
different sets of objectives like as; project objectives (the iron triangle of cost, time, and scope),
Business objectives (owner’s expectation), and Social and environmental objectives (local
community’s expectation) (De Wit, 1988, Cooke-Davies, 2002 and Rolstadas, 2008). Project
success factors identify, through analyzes and compare from several outcomes from the earlier
studies that the top six factors are: 1) planning 2) monitoring and control, team selection, and
technical performance; 3) communication, leadership, strategic direction, and team development;
4) monitoring and control (risk), organizational support, and stakeholder management; 5)
organizational structure; and 6) project definition and stakeholder management (client) (Crawford,
2002).
2.2 Identified Critical Factors:
A construction project is customarily accepted as successful when it is completed on time, within
budget, in agreement with the specifications, and to stakeholders’ consummation (Majid 2006).
EPC contractor tries to make their maximum revenue and profit from the infrastructure projects
market demand. To realize this goal, it is vital for contractors to prudently recognize the factors
that affect the success of the project and evaluation of their impacts at the bidding stage.
The purpose of critical success factors is highly significant in real-world as the concerned authority
can implement these factors to recognize the success of any project (Françoise et al., 2009). The
project success related to two components, efficiency, and effectiveness and it is determined by
how well the project contributes to the achievement of the organization's strategic objectives
(effectiveness) and how well the project has been carried out (efficiency) (Patah, 2010). Strategy,
sustainability, and safety will be the measuring criteria for the success of future projects (Toor and
Ogunlana, 2010). Project strategy consists of perspective, position, and plan (guidelines)
(Patanakul et al., 2012).
Twenty-three (23) risk factors identified from the project and country levels lead to cost overrun
risk out of this, nine (9) factors were affecting country risk, and fourteen (14) factors were causing
project risk (Han, 2005 and Dikmen et al. 2007). Environmental risk, financial risk, legal risk,
construction risk, political risk, design risk, environmental risk, and contractual risk are the eight
groups of recognized risks (L.Y. Shen, 2001).
Twenty problems into five categories fall into government contracting which are in that: 1)
contractual issues, 2) communication issues, 3) contractor internal management issues, 4)
government contract management issues, and 5) Environment or external matters (Cohen and
Eimicke, 2008). Contract disagreements happen to different project characteristics, which included
people, process, and project aspects (Poon, J. et al. 2001).
Fifteen (15) attributes are identified and group them in three (3) significant categories critical
success factors which are managing stakeholders with social responsibilities (economic, legal,
environmental and ethical), reconnoitering the stakeholders’ and appropriately engaging
stakeholders (Jing Yang et al., 2009).
Eleven(11) factors are associated with the success ERP implementation including "ERP
communication and composition; program and culture of change management ; support of top
management; business plan and vision; business process; project management; monitoring and
evaluation of project performance; effective communication; development of software, testing and
troubleshooting; project champion; appropriate business and IT legacy systems’ ( Fui-Hoon Nah
et al., 2001).
After extensive literature reviews, identification, and categorization of critical factors by the
synthesis of the existing literature are as follows:
1). ‘Project success’: based on reviews, researchers have identified eight (8) factors for project
success,
2). ‘Strategy’: Several studies have shown that strategy is one of the significant variables for
project success, and based on reviews, researchers has identified nine (9) factors for strategy.
3). ‘Risk’: several studies have shown that risk management handling has a key significant role for
project success, and based on reviews, researchers have identified nine (9) factors for risk.
4). ‘Contract’: several studies have shown that contract management is one of the variables for
project success, and based on reviews, researchers have identified nine (9) factors.
5). ‘Stakeholder’: several studies have shown stakeholder is a significant variable to make project
success and based on reviews, researchers have identified six (6) factors and,
6). ‘ERP application’: several studies have identified ERP application assist any organization in
making project success, and based on reviews, researchers have found five (5) factors.
2.3 Casual model and Hypothesis:
Six CSFs of project success of power transmission projects have been identified after literature
review and based on studies the following hypothesis has been drawing for testing analysis.
 Null Hypothesis (HA₀): Strategy has no significant relation to Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HA₁): Strategy has significant relations to Project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HB₀): Risk variable has no significant relation to Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HB₁): Risk variable has significant relations to Project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HC₀): Contract variable has no significant relation to Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HC₁): Contract variable has significant relations to Project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HD₀): ERP application has no significant relation to Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HD₁): ERP has significant relations to Project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HE₀): Stakeholder has no significant relation to Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HE₁): Stakeholder has significant relations to Project Success.
The strategy is translated into project level goals. This strategy would lead to better business
outcomes of effective project management (Shenhar & Poli, 2003). Moreover, strategy
demonstrates the factors which may have an effect on the project success including; risk, contract,
stakeholder, and ERP Application. So, considering the diffusion innovation theory (Rogers 1976),
researchers hypothesize the mediating effect of risk, contract, stakeholder, and ERP Application
in between strategy and project success. The diffusion innovation theory assists the innovation and
entrepreneurship, mainly depends on human capital. Since the construction of power transmission
project is an entrepreneurial activity, accordingly the development of a conceptual model
determining CSFs for power transmission projects heavily depends on diffusion innovation theory.
According to the method, innovations should be widely adopted to attain development and
sustainability. Thus:
 Null Hypothesis (HF₀): Risk variable does not mediate the relationship between strategy and
project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HF₁): Risk variable mediates the relationship between strategy and
project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HG₀): Contract variable does not mediate the relationship between strategy
and project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HG₁): Contract variable mediates the relationship between strategy
and project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HH₀): ERP application variable does not mediate the relationship between
strategy and Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HH₁): ERP application variable mediates the relationship between
strategy and Project Success.
 Null Hypothesis (HI₀): Stakeholder variable does not mediate the relationship between
strategy and Project Success.
 Alternative Hypothesis (HI₁): Stakeholder variable mediates the relationship between strategy
and Project Success.
 Risk

Contract

Strategy Project
Performance

Stakeholder

ERP
Application

Direct

Mediator

Figure 1: Useful Framework for Project Success

3. Research Objective:
As the factors selected from literature, which mostly catered to the studies in the context of
developed nations it was decided for:
 To find the critical success factor for power transmission projects.
 Developing a framework for power transmission construction project through critical success
factors.
4. Research Methodology:
To find the CSFs to select construction professionals as part of a pilot survey to get the feedback
on attributes. The researchers prepared a list of 46 attributes based on the feedback on the pilot
survey. Although the list of 46 attributes cannot be called complete due to the immense magnitude
and dynamic nature of the power transmission construction industry. A questionnaire was then
prepared to measure the impact on the above attributes on the six groups. Responses from the
extent of effects of these attributes on success were sought on a five-point ordinal scale: “1”
referring to “adverse delay,” “2” to “significant delay,” “3” to “marginal delay,” “4” to “No effect,”
and “5” to “helps speeding up progress.” The questionnaire is not appended here due to space
constraint.

Figure 2, Research Methodology Flow Chart

Total 270 questionnaires were sent to 47 top and medium-size companies in India who are working
in Power Transmission projects as an EPC contractor. The details of the respondent’s profiles are
given in Table-1. Out of 270 questionnaires, 207 valid responses were received, giving a response
rate of approximately 77%. The responses were analyzed using SPSS software. Mean responses
to the attributes can be considered as the indicators of the effectiveness of the attributes. In the
present study it is assumed that if the mean score of responses for any attribute is significant >4.5,
that attribute contributes extremely for the success of the project, if mean is 3.5 to 4.5 then it
contributes for project success, if mean is 2.5 to 3.5 it marginally contribute for project success,
if mean is 1.5 to 2.5 the contribute low for project success.
 Table- 1, Respondent’s Profile, Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Analysis, 2019.
Characteristics Category No. of respondents Percentage
Male 192 93%
Gender
Female 15 7%
1-5 years 10 5%
6-10 years 21 10%
11-15 years 30 14%
Experience 16-20 Years 35 17%
21-25 years 44 21%
26-30 years 41 20%
Above 30 26 13%
Strategy 61 29%
Function
Operation 146 71%

5. Data Analysis:
5.1 Ranking Factor:
To experimental ascertain the influence factors considered for power transmission projects in
India, both by itself and in combination with the other factors, the relative importance index was
employed. Relative Importance Index (RII) method is applied to determine the relative importance
of the impact which factors in Power Transmission Projects in India, as shown in Table 3.
RII = Σ W / (N * A) ---- (1)
Where W = weights of each factor by the respondents and will span of 1 to 5
A = the highest weight (i.e., 5 in this case), and
N = total number of respondents
Table- 2, Factor Ranking through RII, Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Analysis, 2019
Sl. No Group of Factors Factor Code Mean of Group RII of Group
1 PSCF1
2 PSCF2
Project Success 4.14 0.83
3 PSCF3
4 PSCF4
5 PSCF5
6 PSCF6
7 PSCF7
8 PSCF8
9 SCF1
10 SCF2
11 SCF3
12 SCF4
13 Strategy SCF5 4.03 0.81
14 SCF6
15 SCF7
16 SCF8
17 SCF9
18 RCF1
19 RCF2
20 RCF3
21 RCF4
22 Risk RCF5 3.89 0.78
23 RCF6
24 RCF7
25 RCF8
26 RCF9
27 CCF1
28 CCF2
29 CCF3
30 CCF4
Contract 3.87 0.77
31 CCF5
32 CCF6
33 CCF7
34 CCF8
 35 CCF9
36 ITCF1
37 ITCF2
38 ERP Application ITCF3 3.87 0.77
39 ITCF4
40 ITCF5
41 SHCF1
42 SHCF2
43 SHCF3
Stakeholder 3.81 0.76
44 SHCF4
45 SHCF5
46 SHCF6

From the Table 2, the highest-ranking factor is project Success (RII=0.83), means this factor is
important for the project and after this important factors Strategy (RII=0.81), Risk (RII=0.78),
Contract (RII=0.77), ERP Application (RII=0.77) and Stakeholder (RII=0.76).
5.2 Regression Analysis:
The multiple regression analysis was applied to examine the relationship between the extracted (i)
project success and strategy, (ii) Project success and risk, (iii) project success and contract, (iv)
Project success and EP Application, and (v) project success and stakeholder. In the regression
model, the dependent variables are a linear combination of the independent variables. The
independent variables are the attributes, which contribute to the project success, and the dependent
variable is the resulting project success.
Table-3, Multiple Regression Analysis, Source: Researchers Survey Field Analysis, 2019
Model Summary
R Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R
Square Square Estimate
1 0.637 0.41 0.39 0.39
Predictors: (Constant), Strategy, Risk, Contract, ERP Application and Stakeholder
Coefficients
 β SE t p Tolerance VIF
Constant 1.20 0.27 4.50 0.00
Strategy 0.17 0.07 2.34 0.020 0.57 1.75
Risk 0.18 0.08 2.26 0.025 0.56 1.79
Contract 0.12 0.09 1.40 0.162 0.42 2.36
ERP Application 0.16 0.06 2.55 0.011 0.52 1.93
Stakeholder 0.13 0.06 2.01 0.046 0.53 1.88
Dependent Variable: Project Success
Table-3 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis. The findings of the regression
analysis showed that the majority of control of the success depends on the factors relating to
Strategy, risk, ERP Application, and stakeholder.
Represent the aggregate relation of independent variables on dependent variable project success.
One unit change of project success by effect of strategy, risk ,ERP Application and stakeholder
17%, 18%, 16 % and 13% respectively at [t (201) = 2.34, p=0.02<0.05], [t (201) =2.26, p=
0.03<0.05], [t (201) =2.55, p= 0.011<0.05], and [ t (201) =2.01, p=0.046<0.05) respectively.
Y= β₀ + β₁ X1 + β₂ X2 + β₃ X3+ β₄ X4+ β₅ X5+€₀
Y=1.20+0.17 X1+ 0.18 X2 + 0.12X3 + 0.16 X4+ 0.13 X5+0.27
The independent variable strategy and mediator variables risk, contract, ERP Application and
stakeholder all put together impact 41% (R²=0.41) on dependent variable project success.
Table 3, show VIF of all variables (Strategy, Risk, Contract, ERP Application, and Stakeholder)
are between 1.75 and 2.36 below the threshold of 10 for obvious concern (Myers,1990) and
Tolerance value of all variables are between 0.42 and 0.57. As there is no variable with VIF more
than 3 and tolerance value below 0.2, we can conclude there is no multicollinearity between
independent variables in this regression model and model is a good fit.
5.3 Hypothesis Discussion:
 HA0: Null hypothesis rejected
 HA1: Significant value p=0.021 (<0.05). So, it determines Strategy has a significant impact on
project success.
 HB0: Null hypothesis rejected
 HB1: Significant value p=0.025 (<0.05). So, it determines the risk variable has a significant
impact on project success.
 HC0: Null hypothesis accepted.
 HC1: Significant value p=0.162 (>0.05). So, it determines contract variable has no significant
direct impact over project success.
 HD0: Null hypothesis rejected.
 HD1: Significant value p= 0.011(<0.05). So, it determines ERP Application has a significant
impact over project success.
 HE0; Null hypothesis rejected
 HE1: Significant value p=0.046 (<0.05). So, it determines the Stakeholder variable has a
significant impact over project success.
Table-4, Andrew F. Hayes Mediation Process Analysis-Regression Based Approach:
Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Analysis, 2019
OUTCOME VARIABLE: Risk
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
0.50 0.25 0.34 69.17 1 205 0.00
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.03 0.23 8.93 0.00 1.58 2.48
Strategy 0.46 0.06 8.32 0.00 0.35 0.57
OUTCOME VARIABLE: Contract
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
0.58 0.34 0.34 106.12 1 205 0.00
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.57 0.23 6.96 0.00 1.13 2.02
Strategy 0.57 0.06 10.30 0.00 0.46 0.68
OUTCOME VARIABLE: ERP Application
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
 0.53 0.28 0.57 81.34 1 205 0.00
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.26 0.29 4.26 0.00 0.67 1.84
Strategy 0.65 0.07 9.02 0.00 0.51 0.79
OUTCOME VARIABLE: Stakeholder
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
0.54 0.29 0.50 84.61 1 205 0.00
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.32 0.28 4.77 0.00 0.77 1.86
Strategy 0.62 0.07 9.20 0.00 0.49 0.75
OUTCOME VARIABLE: Project Success
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
0.64 0.41 0.33 27.42 5 201 0.00
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.21 0.26 4.60 0.00 0.69 1.73
Strategy 0.17 0.07 2.34 0.02 0.03 0.31
Risk 0.18 0.08 2.26 0.03 0.02 0.33
Contract 0.12 0.09 1.40 0.16 -0.05 0.29
ERP Application 0.16 0.06 2.55 0.01 0.04 0.28
Stakeholder 0.13 0.06 2.01 0.05 0.00 0.26

Sobel test (1982) provides whether a mediator variable significantly conveys the influence of an
independent variable to a dependent variable; i.e., whether the indirect effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable over the mediator variable is significant.
Table-5, Sobel test for Mediation factors, Source: Researcher’s Field Survey Analysis, 2019
 Path β Value SE t Statistics SE p Value
Strategy - Risk 0.46 0.06
2.16 0.04 0.03
Risk - project Success 0.18 0.08
Strategy - Contract 0.57 0.06
1.65 0.04 0.10
Contract - Project Success 0.12 0.09
Strategy-ERP Application 0.65 0.07
2.56 0.04 0.01
ERP Application - Project Success 0.16 0.06
Strategy - Stakeholder 0.62 0.07
2.10 0.04 0.04
Stakeholder - Project Success 0.13 0.06

 HF₀: Null hypothesis rejected.

 HF₁: Significant value (p=0.03< 0.05 at t=2.16). So, Risk variable mediates the relationship
between strategy and project Success.
 HG₀: Null hypothesis accepted.
 HG₁: Significant value (p=0.10>0.05, at t=1.65). So, Contract variable does not mediate the
relationship between strategy and project Success.
 HH₀: Null Hypothesis rejected.
 HH₁: Significant value (p=0.01<0.05, at t=2.56). So, ERP Application variable mediates the
relationship between strategy and Project Success.
 HI₀: Null Hypothesis rejected.
 HI₁: Significant value (p=0.04<0.005, at t=2.10). So, Stakeholder variable mediates the
relationship between strategy and Project Success.
 RCF1
RCF2 CCF1
RCF3 CCF2
RCF4 CCF3
RCF4 CCF4
RCF5 Contract CCF5
RCF6 Risk CCF6
RCF7 CCF7
RCF8 CCF8
RCF9 CCF9
SCF1 PSCF1
SCF2 PSCF2
SCF3 PSCF3
SCF4 PSCF4
Strategy Project
SCF5 PSCF5
Success
SCF6 PSCF6
SCF7 PSCF7
SCF8 PSCF8
SCF9

SHCF1 ITCF1
SHCF2 ITCF2
SHCF3 ERP ITCF3
SHCF4 Stakeholde ITCF4
Application
SHCF5 ITCF5
SHCF6

Figure 2, Impact relationship map of the main Critical Success

6. Conclusion:
This study had offered the relationship and impact of critical factors vis-à-vis project success in
power transmission construction projects. The present study was the very first effort in research to
present a causal framework for defining critical CSFs in power transmission construction projects.
Grouping the critical success factors (CSFs) in independent, mediator and dependent variable in
power transmission construction projects, and defining noteworthy factors in all the relevant
variable categories were the significant contribution of the current study. Several influence factors
had been identified via literature review and survey questionnaire with professionals and experts
of power transmission construction projects. Further, these influence factors were evaluated,
coded, and finally classified into six significant influence CSFs categories: 1) project success,2)
Strategy, 3) Risk, 4) Contract, 5) ERP Application, and 6) Stakeholder.
A significantly positive association was verified through multiple regression analysis and Sobel
test mediation factors among project influence CSFs and project success of power transmission
construction projects. From the above results, the conclusion was the strategy, risk, ERP
application, and stakeholder have a straight direct relation with project success. Also, mediator
factors risk, ERP Application, and stakeholder have a direct relationship with strategy. The
Contract has not directed link with project success and strategy. However, the study has given
about projected to a broad parameter to any professional to choose a suitable factor for
improvement of the desired level of project success. Though the critical factors are determined for
power transmission projects and their association is analyzed with project success. Still the study
is not without limitations.
This study is a working paper, and it is proposed that qualitative, in-depth reviews can be carried
out through case studies to evaluate in detail how these CSFs drive the performance of the power
transmission projects. Also, future researches can be carried out at other industries and countries
to recognize differences in between different business backgrounds and in different social
implications upon these critical factors. So, project performances may be wide-ranging in multiple
states.
6. Acknowledgment:
The authors would like to thank to Galgotias University and the respondents involved in this study.

Reference:
1. Ahiaba-Dagbui, D. D., Love, P. E. D., Smith, S., and Ackermann, F. (2017). “Toward a
systemic view to cost overrun causation in infrastructure projects, a review and implications for
research”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 88–98.
2. Alfen, A. W. H. W. (2015), “Government-led critical performance factors in PPP infrastructure
development”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 121 -134,
DOI.org/10.1108/BEPAM-03-2014-0016.
3. Albert, A., and Hallowell, M. R. (2013), “Safety risk management for electrical transmission and

distribution line construction”, Safety Science Vol. 51, pp. 118–126,

DOI.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.011.
4. Aziz, R. F. (2013), “Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian
revolution”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 387–406,
DOI.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.03.002.
5. Bhattacharya, T. (2016), “An analysis of ERP implementation performance factors in Indian
power distribution companies (discoms)” International Journal of Commerce, Business and
Management (IJCBM), Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 148-157.
6. Bala, K. (2014), Supply Chain Management: Some Issues and Challenges - A Review,
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.2, pp. 946-953.
7. Balamurali, G., Thanushkodi, K. (2013), “Transmission system expansion planning for Indian
states: a proactive and realistic approach”, IOSR Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 28-37.
8. Bharath, J. R. (2013), “Analysis of critical causes of delays in Indian infrastructure projects”,
International Journal of Innovative Research & Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 251-263.
9. Chiu, B. W. Y., and Lai, J. H. K. (2017), “Project delay: key electrical construction factors in
Hong Kong”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23, No.7, pp. 847–857,
DOI.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1319410.
10. Cullen, M., Calitz, A. P., and Nel, N. (2015), “Project management for strategic management
implementation in the energy sector”, 9th International Business Conference (IBC 2015), pp. 1-
19.
11. Charoenngam, P. A. C. (2015), “Sustainability factors affecting local infrastructure project: the
case of water resource, water supply, and local market project in Thai communities”, Facilities,
Vol. 33, No. ½, pp. 119 – 143, DOI.org/10.1108/F-01-2013-0005.
12. Cakmak, E., and Cakmak, P. I. (2014), “An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction
industry using analytical network process”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 109,
pp. 183 – 187, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.441.
13. Choudhury, D. K. (2014), “Project management information system for construction of thermal
power plant: a case study with special reference to national thermal power corporation limited,
India”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, No.3, pp.
2352-2377.
14. Ciupuliga, A. R., and Cuppen, E. (2013): “The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of
transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project”, Energy Policy Vol. 60,
pp. 224-233, DOI.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.028.
15. Demirkesen, S., and Ozorhon, B. (2017), “Impact of integration management on construction
project management performance”, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 35, pp.
1639–1654, DOI.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.09.008.
16. Dubey, D. K. (2015), “Issues and challenges in electricity sector in India”, The Business &
Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 132-139.
17. Davis, S. (2015), “Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Expansion: A Federal,
State for Regional Approach?” The Electricity Journal Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 28-35,
DOI.org/10.1016/j.tej.2015.04.005.
18. Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K. C., and Rentala, S. (2012), “Analyzing factors affecting delays
in Indian construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.
479–489, DOI.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.10.004.
19. Garibaldi, G. A., Romero, P. C., and Expósito, A. G. (2018), “Future power transmission:
visions, technologies and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 94, pp.
285–301, DOI.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.004.
20. Guo, S. and Zhao, H. (2014), “Risk Evaluation on UHV Power Transmission Construction
Project Based on AHP And FCE Method, Mathematical Problems in Engineering”, Vol. 2014, No.
1, pp. 1-14, DOI.org/10.1155/2014/687568
21. Gharaibeh, H. M. (2013), “Managing the cost of power transmission projects: lessons learned”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.139, No. 8, pp. 1063-1067,
DOI.org/10.1061.
22. Gündüz, M., Nielsen, Y., and Mustafa Özdemir, M. (2013), “Quantification of Delay Factors
Using the Relative Importance Index Method for Construction Projects in Turkey”, Journal of
Management in Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 133-139, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000129
23. Gupta, A., Gupta, M. C., and Agrawal, R. (2012), “Identification and ranking of critical
performance factors for BOT projects in India”, Management Research Review, Vol. 36, No. 11,
pp. 1040-1060, DOI.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2012-0051.
24. Gupta, J. P. and Sravat, A. K. (1998), “Development and project financing of private power
projects in developing countries: a case study of India”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 16, No.2, pp. 99-105, DOI.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00030-6.
25. Hairat, M. K., and Ghosh, S. (2017), “100 GW solar powers in India by 2022-a critical review”,
Renewable and Sustainable energy Reviews, Vol. 73, pp. 1041-1050, DOI:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.012.
26. Hietajärvi, A. M., Aaltonen, K., and Haapasalo, H. (2017), “Opportunity management in large
projects: a case study of an infrastructure alliance project”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 17, No.
3, pp. 340-362, DOI.org/10.1108/CI-10-2016-0051.
27. Haseeb, M., Xinhai-Lu, Bibi, A., Maloof-ud-Dyian, and Rabbani, W., (2011), “Problems of
projects and effects of delays in the construction industry of Pakistan”, Australian Journal of
Business and Management Research, Vol.1, No. 5, pp. 41-50.
28. Islam, M. S., and Nepal, M. (2016), “A Fuzzy-Bayesian Model for Risk Management in Power
Plant projects”, Procedia Computer Science Vol. 100, pp. 963–970,
DOI.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.259.
29. Ikediashi, D. I., Ogunlana, S. O. and Alotaibi, A. (2014), “Analysis of project failure factors for
infrastructure projects in Saudi Arabia: a multivariate approach”, Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 35–52.
30. Jain S, Jain N K, and Vaughn, W. J. (2018), “Challenges in meeting all of Indian’s electricity
from solar: an energetic approach”, Renewable & Sustainable energy reviews, Vol. 82, pp. 1006-
1013, DOI.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.099.
31. Iyer, K. C., and Rajbanshi, A. (2017), “Evaluation of schedule performance of Indian highway
projects”, Project Management Research and Academia, pp. 265-283.
32. Kirana, T. S., and Reddy, A. V.(2019), “Critical success factors of ERP implementation in
SMEs”, Journal of Project Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 267–280,
DOI: 10.5267/j.jpm.2019.6.001
33. Khan, A. H., Islam, A., Islam, M., Nur, T. E., and Ghose, S. (2015), “A Review on Electricity
Generation and Transmission in Bangladesh”, Energy and Power, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 10-16,
DOI:10.5923/j.ep.20150501.02.
34. Kumar, S., Bhattacharyya, B., and Gupta, V. K. (2014), “Present and future energy scenario in
India”, The Institution of Engineers (India), DOI 10.1007/s40031-014-0099-7.
35. Maqbool, R., and Sudong, Y. (2018), “Critical performance factors for renewable energy
projects: empirical evidence from Pakistan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 991-
1002, DOI.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.274.
36. Mohan, A., and Topp, K. (2018), “India’s energy future: contested narratives of change”,
Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 44, pp. 75–82, DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.040.
37. Maqbool, R., Rashid, Y., Sultana, S., and Sudong, Y. (2018), “Identifying The Critical
Performance Factors and Their Relevant Aspects for Renewable Energy Projects; An Empirical
Perspective”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 223–237,
DOI.org/10.3846/jcem.2018.1691.
38. Maghsoudi, S., Duffield, C. and Wilson, D. (2016), “Innovation in infrastructure projects: an
Australian perspective”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 113-132,
DOI.org/10.1108/IJIS-06-2016-008.
39. Misic, S., and Radujković, M. (2015), “Critical drivers of megaprojects performance and
failure”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 71 – 80, DOI.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.009.
40. Masroma, M. A. N., Rahima, M. H. I. A., Mohameda, S., Chena, G. K., and Yunusb R (2015),
“Successful criteria for large infrastructure projects in Malaysia”, Procedia Engineering Vol. 125,
pp. 143 – 149, DOI.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.021.
41. Memon, A. H., Rahman, I. A., Akram, M. and Ali, N. M. (2014), “Significant Factors Causing
Time Overrun in Construction Projects of Peninsular Malaysia”, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 8,
No. 4, pp.16-28, DOI: 10.5539/mas. v8n4p16.
42. Mishra, S. (2013), “A Comprehensive Study and Analysis of Power Sector Value Chain in
India”, Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 25-
40.
43. Megha, D., and Rajiv, B. (2013), “A Methodology for Ranking of Causes of Delay for
Residential Construction Projects in Indian Context”, International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 396-404.
44. Muller, R. and Turner, R. (2007), “The influence of project managers on project success criteria

and project success by type of project”, European Management Journal, vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 298–
309, DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2007.06.003.
45. Mukhopadhyay, S. (2004), “Power generation and transmission planning in India –
methodology, problems and investments”, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
DOI: 10.1109/PES.2004.1373074.
46. Ninan, J., and Mohalingam, A. (2017), “Influence Tactics in Infrastructure Megaprojects
Direction for Research”, Project Management Research and Academia Conference, pp. 439-446.
47. Niekerk, S. V. and Steyn. H. (2011), “Defining ‘Project Success’ For A Complex Project –The
Case Of A Nuclear Engineering Development”, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 123-136, DOI: 10.7166/22-1-38.
48. Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A. P. C., and Ameyaw, E. E. (2016), “A fuzzy synthetic evaluation
analysis of operational management critical performance factors for public-private partnership
infrastructure projects”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 2092-2112,
DOI.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2016-0111.
49. Olaniran, O. J., Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D., Olatunji, O. A., and Matthews, J. (2015), “Cost
overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects: a critical review and implications for research”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 126–138, DOI.org/10.1002/pmj.21556.
50. Osorio, P. C. F., Quelhas, O. L. G., Zotes, L. P., Shimoda, E., and França, S. (2014),” Critical
Success Factors in Project Management: An Exploratory Study of an Energy Company in Brazil”,
Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management,
Vol.14, No. 10, version1.0, pp. 39-50.
51. Omer, A., Ghosh, S., and Kaushik, R. (2013), “Indian power system: issues and opportunities”,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation
Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1089-1093.
52. Odimabo, O. O., and Oduoza, C. F. (2013), “Risk Assessment Framework for Building
Construction Projects’ in Developing Countries”, International Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 143-154, DOI: 10.5923/j.ijcem.20130205.02.
53. Palit, D., and Bandyopadhyay, K. R. (2017), “Rural Electricity Access in India in Retrospect:
A Critical Rumination”, Energy Policy, Vol. 109, pp. 109–120, DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.025.
54. Pall, G. K., Bridge, .A J., Skitmore, M., and Gray, J. (2016), “Comprehensive review of delays
in power transmission projects”, IET Generation Transmission & Distribution, Vol. 10, No. 14,
pp. 3393 – 3404, DOI.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2016.0376.
55. Pawar, C. S., Jain, S. S., Patil, J. R. (2015), “Risk Management in Infrastructure Projects in
India”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), Vol, 2I,
No. 4, pp. 172-176.
56. Rathore, P. K. S., Rathore, S., and Singh, R. P. (2017), “Solar Power Utility Sector in India:
Challenges and Opportunities”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 81, No. P2, pp.
2703-2713, DOI.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.077.
57. Sahoo, N. R., Mohapatra, P. K. J., and Mohanty, B. (2017), “Compliance choice analysis for
Indian’s thermal power sector in the market-based energy efficiency regime”, Energy Policy, Vol.
108, pp. 624-633, DOI.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.012.
58. Shah, M. N., Nagaroje, S., Patel, K., and Desai, H. (2017), “Land acquisition risks in real estate
development projects in urban areas” Project Management Research and Academia Conference,
pp. 389-399.
59. Sanchez-Cazorla, A., Alfalla-Luque, R., and Irimia-Dieguez, A. I. (2016), “Risk identification
in megaprojects as a crucial phase of risk management: a literature review”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 75–93.
60. Sovacool, B. K., Gilbert, A., and Nugent, D. (2014), “Risk, innovation, electricity infrastructure

and construction cost overruns: testing six hypotheses”, Energy, Vol. 74, pp. 906-917,
DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.070.
61. Shebob, A., Dawood, N., Shah, R. K. and Xu, Q. (2012), “A comparative study of delay factors
in Libyan and UK construction industry”, Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 688-712, DOI.org/10.1108/09699981211277577.
62. Thapar, S., Sharma, S., and Verma, A. (2018), “Analyzing solar auctions in India: identifying
key determinants”, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 45, pp. 66–78, DOI:
10.1016/j.esd.2018.05.003.
63. Upreti, N., Sunder, R. G., Dalei, N. N., and Garg, S. (2018), “challenges of India’s power
transmission system”, Utilities Policy, Vol. 55, pp. 129-141, DOI.org/10.1016/j.jup.2018.10.002.
64. Williams, T. (2016), “Identifying Performance Factors in Construction Projects: A Case Study”,

Project Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 97–112, DOI.org/10.1002/pmj.21558.

65. Xiong, W., Zhao, X., Yuan, J. F., and Luo, S. (2017), “Ex post risk management in public-
private partnership infrastructure projects”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 76–
89, DOI: 10.1177/875697281704800305.
66. Xu, X. (2017), “Research on Cost Control and Management in High Voltage Transmission Line
Construction”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1839, pp. 020043-1-4,
DOI.org/10.1063/1.4982408.
67. Zakaria, S. F., Zin, R. M., Mohamad, I., Balubaid, S., Mydin, S. H. and Rahim, E. M. R. M.
(2017), “Critical Performance Factors in Infrastructure Projects”, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Construction and Building Engineering 1903, 070017, pp. 1-8, DOI:
10.1063/1.5011586.
68. Zhao, H. and Li, N. (2015), “Risk Evaluation of a UHV Power Transmission Construction
Project Based on a Cloud Model and FCE Method for Sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 7, pp.
2885-2914, DOI: 10.1177/875697281704800305.
69. Zwikael, O., Globerson, S. (2006), “From critical success factors to critical success processes”
International Journal of Production Research, Vol.44, No.17, pp. 3433–3449,
Doi.org/10.1080/00207540500536921.