Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder Management:

Construction Practitioners’ Perspectives

Jing Yang1; Geoffrey Qiping Shen2; Derek S. Drew3; and Manfong Ho4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Although various factors have been identified as important for accomplishing successful stakeholder management, few studies
appear to have undertaken a comparative analysis of practitioners’ views on the relative importance of critical success factors 共CSFs兲 for
stakeholder management in construction projects. In an attempt to fill this research gap, a questionnaire survey was conducted in Hong
Kong to collect the opinions of construction practitioners regarding the relative importance of CSFs for stakeholder management. Findings
from this study show that all 15 selected CSFs are regarded as critical by most respondents for the success of stakeholder management in
construction projects. The factor regarding social responsibilities is considered most important for managing stakeholders. Although
correlations between CSFs and types of projects and organizations were statistically significant, these were not particularly strong. Also,
even though there is a general consensus on the rankings of the CSFs among different respondents, the detailed pairwise comparisons
actually show the existence of a few differences in perceptions on the relative importance of the CSFs. Therefore, the working priorities
of project managers for managing stakeholders are context specific, depending on the nature, client sector, and cost of the project, and also
on their organizations and management levels in the organization. These findings should help project managers become more aware of
their responsibilities and the relative importance of issues for management stakeholders.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CO.1943-7862.0000180
CE Database subject headings: Construction industry; Owners; Comparative studies; Hong Kong.
Author keywords: Critical success factors 共CSFs兲; Stakeholder management; Comparative analysis; Construction; Hong Kong.

Introduction on CSFs preference of construction practitioners have been un-

The study of critical success factors 共CSFs兲 is regarded as an
effective way to identify the essentials for “management success”
共Boynton and Zmud 1984兲. In the field of stakeholder manage-
ment, Cleland and Ireland 共2002兲 consider it important that the
project team should know whether or not it is successfully “man-
aging” the project stakeholders. Factors underpinning the success
of stakeholder management in construction projects, such as com-
municating with stakeholders, and analyzing stakeholders’ needs,
can be identified from previous studies 共e.g., Landin 2000; Winch
2002; Bakens et al. 2005; Young 2006; Aaltonen et al. 2008兲.
Although researchers have used different terminologies to indi-
cate the CSFs, various factors have been identified as important
for accomplishing successful stakeholder management.
However, it seems that, from a consideration of the literature
regarding CSFs for stakeholder management, few investigations
1
Research Student, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong
Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong. E-mail: 06902079r@polyu.edu.hk
2
Chair Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong Poly-
technic Univ., Hong Kong 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: bsqpshen@
polyu.edu.hk
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong. E-mail: dereksdrew@hotmail.com
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong. E-mail: bscrysta@polyu.edu.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 17, 2009; approved on
December 14, 2009; published online on December 16, 2009. Discussion
period open until December 1, 2010; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Con-
struction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, No. 7, July 1, 2010.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2010/7-778–786/$25.00.
dertaken. Jergeas et al. 共2000兲 point out that matching project type
to stakeholder management will help to move away from “a one-
size-fits-all approach” to managing project stakeholders. Ridley
and Jones 共2002兲, El-Gohary et al. 共2006兲, and Ward and Chap-
man 共2008兲 also assert that there is dissimilar focus between dif-
ferent project types. For example, the private sector projects focus
on being competitive in the market, whereas the public sector
projects value the process of participation for the ethical issues of
equity and empowerment of citizens 共INVOLVE 2005兲. Accord-
ingly, it is crucial to examine the similarities and differences in
the relative importance of CSFs based on different types of
projects and organizations.
This paper concentrates on a comparative analysis of views of
construction practitioners regarding the relative importance of
CSFs for stakeholder management through a questionnaire sur-
vey. The questionnaire survey was carried out in Hong Kong in
August 2008 to collect the opinions of construction practitioners
on CSFs for stakeholder management, which were synthesized
and developed by a literature review and six interviews with con-
struction professionals. The similarity and differences on the
scores of the CSFs by different construction practitioners are
compared with the aid of the Statistical Package for Social Sci-
ences 共SPSS 11.5兲.
Identification of CSFs
Many scholars have proposed a number of success factors for
stakeholder management. Landin 共2000兲 considers that “the long-
term performance of any construction and its ability to satisfy
stakeholders” depends on decisions made and the care taken by

778 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 1. Literature Identifying CSFs for Stakeholder Management
Critical success factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Savage et al. 共1991兲 冑 冑 冑
Mitchell et al. 共1997兲 冑 冑 冑 冑
Rowley 共1997兲 冑 冑
Svendsen 共1998兲 冑 冑 冑
Cleland 共1999兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Frooman 共1999兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Landin 共2000兲 冑
Jergeas et al. 共2000兲 冑 冑
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Elias et al. 共2002兲 冑 冑 冑 冑

Karlsen 共2002兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Winch 共2002兲 冑 冑
Olander 共2006兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Phillips 共2003兲 冑
Leung et al. 共2004兲 冑 冑 冑
Bakens et al. 共2005兲 冑
Bourne 共2005兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Bourne and Walker 共2006兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Cova and Salle 共2006兲 冑 冑 冑
El-Gohary et al. 共2006兲 冑 冑
Friedman and Miles 共2002兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Loosemore 共2006兲 冑 冑 冑
Young 共2006兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Freeman et al. 共2007兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑
Aaltonen et al. 共2008兲 冑
Jepsen and Eskerod 共2008兲 冑 冑 冑 冑
Olander and Landin 共2008兲 冑 冑 冑 冑
Walker et al. 共2008兲 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑 冑

decision makers in stakeholder communication. Similarly, Jergeas
et al. 共2000兲 used interviews to identify two aspects of improve-
ments for managing stakeholders, namely, 共1兲 communication
with stakeholders and setting common goals, and 共2兲 objectives
and project priorities. Bakens et al. 共2005兲 and Young 共2006兲 also
point out that the key to good stakeholder management is effec-
tive communication. In addition, Winch 共2002兲 believes an im-
portant part of stakeholder management is to find ways of
changing opponents to supporters by offering appropriate changes
to the project mission, and preventing possible supporters defect-
ing to the opposite camp. Aaltonen et al. 共2008兲 state that the key
issue in project stakeholder management is managing the relation-
ship between the project and its stakeholders. These proposed
factors may be the CSFs for stakeholder management in construc-
tion projects, but the relative importance of these factors do not
appear to have been tested and compared according to different
types of projects in any published work.
It appears that the only comparative study directly related to
CSFs for stakeholder management was conducted by Olander and
Landin 共2008兲. They compared two railway development projects
in Sweden, and identified five different factors that could explain
the different outcomes of the stakeholder management process.
Olander and Landin’s study is useful in understanding the success
factors of stakeholder management in construction projects. How-
ever, the particularity and the small sample size in Olander and
Landin’s study limit the universality of their findings. The short-
age of comparative studies on CSF preference causes difficulties
for project managers aiming to identify the working priorities for
effectively managing stakeholders. Therefore, it is crucial to dis-
cover whether differences in opinions regarding the relative im-
portance attached to the CSFs exist between the construction
practitioner groups.
Based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature on
stakeholder management in general and construction projects in
particular, an initial list of 15 CSFs were compiled and synthe-
sized for this study. These 15 CSFs comprise of the following:
1. Undertaking social responsibilities;
2. Defining project missions;
3. Identifying stakeholders;
4. Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests;
5. Exploring stakeholders’ needs and constraints to projects;
6. Assessing stakeholders’ behaviors;
7. Predicting the influence of stakeholders;
8. Assessing attributes of stakeholders;
9. Analyzing conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders;
10. Compromising conflicts;
11. Promoting a good relationship among stakeholders;
12. Formulating appropriate strategies;
13. Predicting stakeholders’ reaction;
14. Analyzing the change of stakeholders; and
15. Ensuring effective communication.
These factors have been referred to by many researchers in the
field. Table 1 lists the key publications reviewed.
The selected CSFs were listed for representativeness and com-
pleteness in the context of the local construction industry by un-
dertaking six interviews with industrial professionals. Table 2
shows that the participants were from different client, consultant,
or contractor organizations with an average experience of about
14 years in stakeholder management in construction. They were
asked to express their opinion on the selected factors in the local

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 779

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 2. Expert Profiles Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Projects Referred to by Respondents
Role in Experience Percentage
Expert projects Position 共years兲 Project Frequency 共%兲
1 Client Chief project manager 21 By “Project nature” PN1: building work 115 62.8
2 Client Senior project manager 15 PN2: civil work 68 37.2
3 Consultant Site project manager 12 By “Client sector” PS1: public 124 67.8
4 Client Site project manager 15 PS2: quasi-public 23 12.5
5 Contractor Senior project manager 13 or regulated private
6 Contractor Site project manager 11 PS3: private 36 19.7
By “Project cost” PC1: 艌HK$200 million 118 64.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PC2: ⬍HK$200 million 26 14.2

context and to indicate whether they are critical and complete. All
interviewees agreed with the 15 CSFs. Although they did not
propose any other factors, they did provide valuable comments on
the scope and language, for example, the first factor was changed
from “Undertaking social responsibilities” to a more detailed de-
scription “Managing stakeholders with social responsibilities
共economic, legal, environmental, and ethical兲.” These comments
were useful for questionnaire development since they promoted a
description of the factors for better comprehension. Based on the
input from those interviewees, the final list of CSFs selected in
this study is shown in Table 3 关for detailed explanations of each
of the 15 CSFs, please refer to Yang et al. 共2009兲兴.
Survey Design and Administration
A questionnaire was designed based on the identified CSFs. It was
piloted with two project managers to check its adequacy and
minor modifications, including the format of the questionnaire.
Their suggestions were incorporated into the final version of the
questionnaire. Respondents were requested to answer the ques-
tionnaire with reference to a particular project they had been in-
Table 3. CSFs Selected in This Study
Number CSFs
C1 Managing stakeholders with social responsibilities
共economic, legal, environmental, and ethical兲
C2 Formulating a clear statement of project missions
C3 Identifying stakeholders properly
C4 Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests
C5 Exploring stakeholders’ needs and constraints to
projects
C6 Assessing stakeholders’ behaviors
C7 Predicting the influence of stakeholders accurately
C8 Assessing attributes 共power, urgency, and proximity兲
of stakeholders
C9 Analyzing conflicts and coalitions among
stakeholders
C10 Compromising conflicts among stakeholders
effectively
C11 Keeping and promoting a good relationship
C12 Formulating appropriate strategies to manage
stakeholders
C13 Predicting stakeholders’ reaction for implementing the
strategies
C14 Analyzing the change of stakeholders’ influence and
relationships during the project process
C15 Communicating with and engaging stakeholders
properly and frequently
and ⬎HK$100 million
PC3: 艋HK$100 million 39 21.3
volved in. Background information was sought about their
organizations and the project they chose. The main part of the
questionnaire rated their degree of agreement against each of the
identified CSFs according to a five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
The full-scale survey was conducted in Hong Kong in August
2008, and its respondents were project managers from different
organizations in the construction industry. The personal informa-
tion about project managers, including name, phone, e-mail, and
mail address, was collected randomly from Internet information,
newspapers, magazines, membership lists of two institutes 共i.e.,
the Association for Project Management Hong Kong, and the
Hong Kong Construction Association兲, and registered lists 共in-
cluding the Authorized Architects’ register, the Authorized Engi-
neers’ register, the Authorized Surveyors’ register, and the
General Building Contractors’ register兲 published by the Build-
ings Department of Hong Kong.
A total of 654 copies of the questionnaire were delivered to
potential respondents. Most of the copies were sent out by mail,
and for those potential respondents whose mailing address was
unknown, copies were sent out by e-mail. About 3 weeks were
given for the respondents to complete and return the question-
naire. The ways for returning the questionnaire comprised of
mail, e-mail, and fax. One hundred eighty-three completed copies
of the questionnaire were received. The response rate was 28%,
which was consistent with “the norm of 20–30% with most ques-
tionnaire surveys in construction industry” 共Akintoye 2000兲.
Sample Characteristics
The analysis in this study is based on the 183 respondents. The
respondents were project managers working as consultants with
contractors or with client organizations. Projects referred to by
respondents were grouped in Table 4 in terms of project nature,
client sector, and project cost. Most of the particular projects were
building works 共62.8%兲 and public works 共67.8%兲, and 64.5% of
the particular projects cost more than HK$200 million.
Table 5 shows descriptive statistics for respondent back-
ground. In terms of organizations, 44.3% respondents were from
client organizations, with the remainder from either consultant
共31%兲 or contractor 共25%兲 organizations. In terms of respondents’
position, site project managers accounted for 47.5%, which means
that about half of the respondents were at the lower management
level.

780 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics on Respondent Background
Respondent background
By “Roles played by organizations of respondents”
By “Respondents’ position in the organization”
RP2: chief project manager/architect/engineer
RP3: senior project manager/architect/engineer
RP4: project manager/architect/engineer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Reliability of the CSFs
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to examine internal consis-
tency of the scales under the headings of the CSFs. Alpha values
greater than 0.7 are regarded as sufficient 共Pallant 2001兲. The
results of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha 共Table 6兲 in this survey
ranged between 0.8625 and 0.8763. This provides evidence that
all the factors have high internal consistency and considered reli-
able.
Comparative Analyzes of the CSFs across Group
Types
With a view to get an answer to the following questions, different
statistical analysis methods were used. The questions were:
1. What is the ranking of the CSFs in each project type and
respondent group?
2. Is there a general consensus on the rankings of the CSFs
across groups?
3. Is there any correlation between the score values of CSFs
and group types?
4. What are the true differences in perceptions on the relative
importance of CSFs across groups?
The answers and findings to the above questions will be dis-
cussed in detail in the “Rankings of the CSFs” to “True Differ-
ences in Perceptions on the Relative Importance of CSFs across
Groups” sections, respectively. Purposes and outcomes of differ-
ent statistical analysis methods are summarized in Table 7.
Rankings of the CSFs
This section focuses on the ranking of the CSFs. The ranking of
CSFs was carried out on the basis of their mean values. The
higher the mean value is, the higher the rank will be and vice
versa. Tables 8 and 9 show the rankings of the CSFs of different
types of projects and respondents, respectively. As shown, all the
mean values are more than 3, which indicate that all these CSFs
are regarded as critical for the success of stakeholder management
in construction projects by all the groups.
From these two tables, an apparent finding is that no matter
what type of projects and respondents, Factor C1 “Managing
stakeholders with social responsibilities 共economic, legal, envi-
ronmental, and ethical兲” was usually ranked the highest among all
Table 6. Results of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha
CSFa C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Alpha 0.8721 0.8763 0.8673 0.8645 0.8674 0.8684 0.8625
a
All CSFs are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 3.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 781
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786
Percentage
Frequency 共%兲
RO1: client 81 44.3
RO2: contractor 45 24.6
RO3: consultant 57 31.1
RP1: project director 41 22.4
12 6.6
43 23.5
87 47.5
the CSFs. This means that most project managers consider this
factor as the most important factor for successful stakeholder
management. This finding is in line with several researchers’
statements. Wood and Gray 共1991兲 believe that stakeholder theory
is the theory most often associated with corporate social respon-
sibility, as stakeholders are central to the very concept of corpo-
rate social performance. Similarly, Carroll 共1991兲 suggests that
there is a natural fit between the ideas of corporate social respon-
sibility and an organization’s stakeholders, as the stakeholder con-
cept personalizes social responsibilities by delineating the specific
groups or persons that business should consider in its corporate
social responsibility orientations and activities. Hence, social re-
sponsibilities are important when managing stakeholders and suf-
ficient attention should be paid to them.
It is also notable that respondents of most groups have highly
ranked C3 “Identifying stakeholders properly,” C4 “Understand-
ing area of stakeholders’ interests,” and C5 “Exploring stakehold-
ers’ needs and constraints to projects.” These findings, based on
this sample of respondents, indicate that project managers in
Hong Kong are aware of the importance of the information input
for stakeholder management. The information includes not only
the list of stakeholders, but also their interests and needs. Another
highly ranked factor is C15 “Communicating with and engaging
stakeholders properly and frequently.” This finding coincides with
the findings of a number of former researchers such as Jergeas et
al. 共2000兲 and Olander and Landin 共2008兲. They consider that
communication is essential for maintaining the support and com-
mitment of all stakeholders.
Among the relatively low ranked factors, C6 “Assessing stake-
holders’ behaviors” and C13 “Predicting stakeholders’ reaction
for implementing the strategies” are noteworthy. About five or six
groups ranked these two factors lowest; most of the groups
ranked them at the bottom few. This reflects the view of most of
the respondents that, based on the information about stakeholders’
interests and needs, stakeholders’ behaviors and their reactions to
the strategies can be easily assessed or predicted.
The results from the descriptive statistics tests showed the
ranking of the CSFs in each project type and respondent group. It
is noted that most CSFs have been ranked differently by different
types of respondents and in different projects, with a few excep-
tion. This suggests that the descriptive statistics tests cannot indi-
cate whether there is any general consensus on the rankings of the
C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15
0.8714 0.8662 0.8693 0.8667 0.8651 0.8662 0.8642 0.8741
 Table 7. Methods of Statistical Analysis
Method Purpose of the method Outcomes
Descriptive statistics—frequencies Ranking the relative importance of the CSFs The rankings of the CSFs according to different
共means兲 types of projects and respondents
Correlation 共Spearman rank Describing the strength and direction 共a兲 The similarity on the rankings of CSFs across
correlation coefficient兲 of the correlation between two variables the different groups;
共b兲 The correlation between CSFs and group types
Nonparametric test—2-independent Investigating the difference between two The true differences in perceptions on the relative
samples 共Mann-Whitney test兲 independent groups on the scores of the CSFs importance of CSFs across groups
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 8. Ranking of the CSFs according to Project Type

Project nature Client sector Project cost
b b b b b b
PN1 PN2 PS1 PS2 PS3 PC1 PC2b PC3b
CSFa Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
C1 4.40 1 4.49 1 4.44 1 4.65 1 4.25 1 4.40 1 4.25 1 4.57 1
C2 3.79 11 4.00 12 3.83 15 4.09 10 3.86 9 3.83 13 3.88 7 3.98 12
C3 4.11 5 4.38 4= 4.27 4 4.17 7 4.03 4 4.22 4 4.13 5 4.22 7
C4 4.12 4 4.40 3 4.29 3 4.22 4= 4.00 5= 4.21 5 4.19 2= 4.26 6
C5 4.18 3 4.38 4= 4.32 2 4.39 3 3.97 8 4.25 3 4.19 2= 4.30 4
C6 3.74 12 3.91 15 3.86 13= 3.57 15 3.78 10 3.80 14 3.19 15 4.02 10=
C7 3.90 8= 4.21 8 4.07 7 4.13 8= 3.75 11 4.02 7 3.69 9= 4.11 8
C8 3.90 8= 3.93 14 3.92 12 3.70 14 4.00 5= 3.92 10 3.69 9= 3.96 13=
C9 3.96 7 4.19 9 4.04 8 4.13 8= 4.00 5= 3.98 8 3.69 9= 4.33 3
C10 3.79 13 4.03 10= 3.94 10 3.78 13 3.72 12 3.90 11 3.31 14 4.02 10=
C11 4.07 6 4.34 2 4.19 6 4.22 4= 4.08 3 4.15 6 4.00 6 4.28 5
C12 3.81 10 4.25 7 4.01 9 4.22 4= 3.69 13 3.95 9 3.81 8 4.09 9
C13 3.70 15 4.03 10= 3.93 11 3.91 12 3.42 15 3.86 12 3.56 13 3.83 15
C14 3.73 14 3.99 13 3.86 13= 4.04 11 3.56 14 3.79 15 3.69 9= 3.96 13=
C15 4.24 2 4.31 6 4.24 5 4.43 2 4.22 2 4.26 2 4.19 2= 4.30 2
a
All CSFs are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 3.
b
All project types are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 4.

Table 9. Ranking of the CSFs according to Respondent Type

Roles played by organizations of respondents Respondents’ position in the organization
b b b b
RO1 RO2 RO3 RP1 RP2b RP3b RP4b
CSFa Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
C1 4.60 1 4.18 2 4.39 1 4.34 2 4.75 1 4.42 1 4.44 1
C2 4.00 9= 3.64 14 3.86 11 3.88 13 3.75 14 3.88 12= 3.87 10
C3 4.37 3 3.96 6 4.19 4= 4.15 7 4.25 3= 4.35 3 4.17 3
C4 4.35 4 4.04 3 4.19 4= 4.24 3= 4.58 2 4.28 5 4.14 5
C5 4.40 2 3.89 8 4.35 2 4.22 5= 4.25 3= 4.33 4 4.24 2
C6 3.84 15 3.80 9= 3.75 14= 3.93 11 3.92 13 3.86 14 3.70 15
C7 4.00 9= 3.98 4= 4.07 7 4.22 5= 4.00 10= 3.95 9 3.95 8
C8 3.89 14 3.80 9= 4.02 9 3.95 10 4.00 10= 3.77 15 3.94 9
C9 4.09 8 3.98 4= 4.04 8 4.10 8 4.08 9 4.05 8 4.01 7
C10 3.99 11 3.80 9= 3.79 12 3.90 12 3.92 12 3.88 12= 3.86 12=
C11 4.30 5 3.93 7 4.18 6 4.24 3= 4.25 3= 4.23 6 4.09 6
C12 4.11 7 3.71 12 3.98 10 4.02 9 4.17 7= 4.07 7 3.87 11
C13 3.98 12 3.62 15 3.77 13 3.63 15 4.17 7= 3.91 10= 3.83 14
C14 3.95 13 3.69 13 3.75 14= 3.73 14 3.58 15 3.91 10= 3.86 12=
C15 4.26 6 4.29 1 4.25 3 4.37 1 4.25 3= 4.37 2 4.16 4
a
All CSFs are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 3.
b
All types of respondents are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 5.

782 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 10. Spearman Rank Correlation Matrix
Roles played
by organizations Respondents’ position
Project nature Client sector Project cost of respondents in the organization
PN1/ PS1/ PS1/ PS2/ PC1/ PC1/ PC2/ RO1/ RO1/ RO2/ RP1/ RP1/ RP1/ RP2/ RP2/ RP3/
Typea PN2 PS2 PS3 PS3 PC2 PC3 PC3 RO2 RO3 RO3 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP3 RP4 RP4
r 0.842b 0.838b 0.635b 0.596b 0.832b 0.843b 0.685b 0.624b 0.893b 0.803b 0.796b 0.799b 0.851b 0.860b 0.804b 0.858b
r2 0.709 0.702 0.403 0.355 0.692 0.711 0.469 0.389 0.797 0.645 0.634 0.638 0.724 0.740 0.646 0.736
a
All types are numbered in the sequence as cited in Tables 4 and 5.
b
Correlation is significant at 0.05 level 共2-tailed兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CSFs among different respondents. To address this issue, another
set of tests 共correlation tests兲 were used. The findings are reported
in the next section.
Similarity on the Rankings of CSFs
In order to examine the general similarity on the rankings of CSFs
among different respondents, the Spearman’s rank correlation test
was used to show whether or not the similarities are significant.
The results of this test were interpreted by correlation coefficients
共r兲 and coefficient of determination 共r2兲. The value of correlation
coefficients 共r兲 indicates the strength of the correlation between
two variables. If r is significant at 5% level, this means the two
variables have a strong correlation. Table 10 shows the correlation
coefficients 共r兲 of different pairs of groups, i.e., r is 0.842 be-
tween building work 共PN1兲 and civil work 共PN2兲. Since many
scholars suggest that statistical significance is strongly influenced
by the size of the sample, the focus should be directed at the
amount of shared variance 共Pallant 2001兲. Coefficient of determi-
nation 共r2兲 explains “how far variation in one variable is ac-
counted for by the other” 共Pallant 2001兲. The higher the r2 value
is, the more amount of shared variance will be 共Pallant 2001兲.
Coefficient of determination 共r2兲 is also shown in Table 10. The r2
value of 0.34 is considered by Pallant 共2001兲 as a reasonable
amount of variance explained for research conducted in the social
sciences. In this survey, all correlation coefficients 共r兲 are signifi-
cant at 5% level, and all coefficient of determination 共r2兲 are
higher than 0.34. These statistical results indicate a general con-
sensus on the rankings of the CSFs for different types of projects
and among different groups of respondents; therefore, no matter
what type of respondents, they rank the 15 CSFs similarly in
general.
Although these results suggest the similarity on the rankings of
CSFs, the results cannot indicate the correlation between the
score of CSFs and group types. This issue will be covered in the
next section.
Correlations between CSFs and Group Types
In order to analyze the correlations between CSFs and group
types, values were assigned to the different group types. Table 11
shows the values used during the analysis process. Basically, in
the five classifications, namely, “Project nature,” “Client sector,”
“Project cost,” “Roles played by organizations of respondents,”
and “Respondents’ position in the organization,” the sequence of
values follows the characteristics of the different groups. For ex-
ample, regarding “Project cost,” the table shows that the higher
the cost, the lower the corresponding value.
Spearman’s rank correlation is calculated based on the values
of the groups and the scores of the CSFs aiming to explore the
correlations between CSFs and group types. The value of Spear-
man’s rank correlation 共r兲 ranges from ⫺1.00 to 1.00 共Pallant
2001兲: if the r value is negative, this means there is a negative
correlation between the two variables, i.e., high scores on one are
associated with low scores on the other; the absolute value of r
indicates the strength of the correlation between the two vari-
ables, that is, a correlation of 0 indicates no relationship at all, a
correlation of 1.0 indicates a perfect positive correlation, and a
value of ⫺1.0 indicates a perfect negative correlation. Table 12
shows the results of Spearman’s rank correlations between the
CSFs and group types.
As shown in Table 12, there are correlations between the CSFs
and project classification. In terms of “Project nature,” all the
correlation values are positive. In particular, C9 “Analyzing con-
flicts and coalitions among stakeholders” and C10 “Compromis-
ing conflicts among stakeholders effectively” have a relatively
strong correlation with the value of “Project nature.” Such results
indicate that respondents consider more effort should be paid on
civil projects than building projects. On the contrary, regarding
“Client sector,” most of the correlation values are negative, so
basically, project managers in public sector projects are more con-
cerned about stakeholder management, particularly about C13
“Predicting stakeholders’ reaction for implementing the strate-
gies.” In the case of “Project cost,” most of the correlation values
are positive, viz. the lower the project cost, the lower score of the
CSFs is assigned to by project managers in Hong Kong. This
indicates that the higher the project cost, the more attention
should be paid by project managers.
Regarding the correlations between the CSFs and respondent
type, most of the correlation values in Table 12 are negative. This
seems to suggest that client organizations and project directors

Table 11. Values Assigned to the Groups of Projects and Respondents

Roles played
by organizations Respondents’ position
Project nature Client sector Project cost of respondents in the organization
Typea PN1 PN2 PS1 PS2 PS3 PC1 PC2 PC3 RO1 RO2 RO3 RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4
Value 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
a
All types are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 4 and 5.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 783

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 12. Spearman’s Rank Correlations between the CSFs and Group Types
Roles played
by organizations Position in
Project nature Client sector Project cost of respondents the organization
CSFa r r2 r r2 r r2 r r2 r r2
C1 0.058 0.003 ⫺0.074 0.005 ⫺0.006 0.000 ⫺0.189b 0.036 0.021 0.000
C2 0.115 0.013 0.045 0.002 ⫺0.125 0.016 ⫺0.093 0.009 0.007 0.000
C3 0.210 0.044 ⫺0.135 0.018 ⫺0.086 0.007 ⫺0.156b 0.024 ⫺0.057 0.003
C4 0.218 0.048 ⫺0.173 0.030 ⫺0.041 0.002 ⫺0.130 0.017 ⫺0.125 0.016
C5 0.120 0.014 ⫺0.162 0.026 0.109 0.012 ⫺0.051 0.003 ⫺0.005 0.000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C6 0.130 0.017 ⫺0.094 0.009 ⫺0.073 0.005 ⫺0.064 0.004 ⫺0.135 0.018
C7 0.205 0.042 ⫺0.132 0.018 ⫺0.026 0.001 0.033 0.001 ⫺0.136 0.018
C8 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.000 ⫺0.048 0.002 0.073 0.005 0.002 0.000
C9 0.178b 0.032 ⫺0.002 0.000 ⫺0.055 0.003 ⫺0.043 0.002 ⫺0.058 0.003
C10 0.168b 0.028 ⫺0.116 0.013 0.008 0.000 ⫺0.141 0.020 ⫺0.022 0.000
C11 0.219 0.048 ⫺0.055 0.003 ⫺0.215 0.046 ⫺0.122 0.015 ⫺0.114 0.013
C12 0.313 0.098 ⫺0.114 0.013 ⫺0.031 0.001 ⫺0.109 0.012 ⫺0.120 0.014
C13 0.263 0.069 ⫺0.280b 0.078 ⫺0.078 0.006 ⫺0.166b 0.028 0.062 0.004
C14 0.198 0.039 ⫺0.129 0.017 0.052 0.003 ⫺0.143 0.020 0.075 0.006
C15 0.088 0.008 0.027 0.001 0.017 0.000 ⫺0.025 0.001 ⫺0.171b 0.029
a
All CSFs are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 3.
b
Correlation is significant at 0.05 level 共2-tailed兲.

focus more on stakeholder management than the other groups of
respondents. Considering the significant level, compared to con-
tractors and consultants, clients have a preference for C1 “Man-
aging stakeholders with social responsibilities 共economic, legal,
environmental, and ethical兲,” C3 “Identifying stakeholders prop-
erly,” and C13 “Predicting stakeholders’ reaction for implement-
ing the strategies.” Project directors have more responsibilities on
communication than the others at more junior positions.
Pallant 共2001兲 states that the r2 value more than 0.34 is con-
sidered as a reasonable amount of variance explained for research
conducted in the social sciences. However, in Table 12, all values
of coefficients of determination 共r2兲 are much less than 0.34.
Therefore, though there are certain correlations between the CSFs
and the groups, and six r values are significant at 5% level, the
correlations between CSFs and group types are not particularly
strong.
True Differences in Perceptions on the Relative
Importance of CSFs across Groups
Although there is a general consensus on the rankings of the CSFs
among different respondents 共explained in the “Similarity on the
Rankings of CSFs” section兲, and the correlation between CSFs
and group types are not so strong 共explained in the “Correlations
between CSFs and Group Types” section兲, differences on the
rankings and scores of the CSFs factually exist, which can be
identified from Tables 8 and 9 in the “Rankings of the CSFs”
section. The results from the above three sections cannot clearly
indicate which CSF measures are significantly different from each
other across group types. This section will focus on investigating
the true differences in perceptions on the relative importance of
CSFs by pairwise comparisons.
The comparisons were performed by using nonparametric
共Mann-Whitney兲 tests on the survey data. This test is considered
useful for comparing differences on the relative importance of
CSFs between two independent samples 共Pallant 2001兲, and the
results were interpreted by the probability value 共p-value兲. If the
p-value is less than 0.05, there is a significant difference between
the groups. Table 13 shows the probability values of Mann-
Whitney test on the CSFs. The last row and column in Table 13
are the number of significant p-values for each factor and each
pair of groups.
Among the 15 CSFs, it is notable that all group types have
consensus on the importance of C6 “Assessing stakeholders’ be-
haviors” and C8 “Assessing attributes 共power, urgency, and prox-
imity兲 of stakeholders.” This indicates that the respondents in this
sample consider the relative importance of these two factors do
not vary with the different types of projects, nor with the types of
respondents. It seems also interesting to find that, although C1
“Managing stakeholders with social responsibilities 共economic,
legal, environmental, and ethical兲” was ranked highly by most
respondents, the scores of this factor are significantly different for
a number of pairs. For example, the respondents scored higher
importance of this factor for quasi-public or regulated private
projects compared with private projects. One possible reason
could be that quasi-public or regulated private projects normally
draw more attention from the government and the public than that
of private projects, so project managers of this kind of project are
more cautious to ensure decisions are fairly and ethically made.
Similarly, project managers from client organizations, who at-
tached more important value to this factor, perceive it signifi-
cantly different to those managers from contractor and consultant
organizations, so that this could be attributed to more responsi-
bilities that clients undertake in comparison to the others.
The results in Table 13 also highlight that the pairs of PS1/PS2
共public projects and quasi-public or regulated private projects兲,
RP1/RP3 共project directors and senior project managers兲, and
RP2/RP3 共chief project managers and senior project managers兲
have no significant difference on the importance value of the all
15 CSFs. This indicates that regarding stakeholder management,
project managers in this survey consider public projects and
quasi-public or regulated private projects have a similar nature,
and the project managers at higher management levels have
agreement on scores of the CSFs.
The major different views of respondents on the relative im-

784 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 Table 13. Probability Values in Mann-Whitney Test on the CSFs
CSFa
Typeb C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 Number
c c c c c c c c c
PN1/PN2 0.431 0.120 0.005 0.003 0.105 0.080 0.006 0.836 0.016 0.023 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.233 9
PS1/PS2 0.126 0.219 0.556 0.500 0.737 0.066 0.635 0.247 0.529 0.280 0.944 0.176 0.860 0.304 0.185 0
PS1/PS3 0.062 0.881 0.059 0.016c 0.007c 0.512 0.017c 0.557 0.745 0.182 0.373 0.015c 0.000c 0.012c 0.862 6
PS2/PS3 0.007c 0.336 0.447 0.184 0.025c 0.268 0.092 0.216 0.462 0.993 0.447 0.005c 0.007c 0.009c 0.248 5
PC1/PC2 0.041c 0.100 0.777 0.333 0.098 0.743 0.084 0.564 0.688 0.542 0.249 0.260 0.217 0.800 0.158 1
PC1/PC3 0.428 0.206 0.223 0.820 0.315 0.320 0.249 0.319 0.495 0.894 0.004c 1 0.487 0.357 0.386 1
PC2/PC3 0.021c 0.610 0.485 0.476 0.524 0.611 0.012c 0.184
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.856 0.533 0.284 0.329 0.570 0.319 0.090 2

RO1/RO2 0.000c 0.050c 0.001c 0.014c 0.002c 0.634 0.805 0.657 0.367 0.211 0.002c 0.003c 0.001c 0.028c 0.947 9
RO1/RO3 0.038c 0.303 0.087 0.130 0.824 0.383 0.618 0.257 0.633 0.061 0.207 0.228 0.053 0.089 0.705 1
RO2/RO3 0.055 0.331 0.089 0.261 0.009c 0.793 0.484 0.153 0.653 0.740 0.051 0.029c 0.170 0.616 0.697 2
RP1/RP2 0.027c 0.663 0.852 0.119 0.697 0.991 0.380 0.946 0.918 0.972 0.896 0.551 0.016c 0.871 0.794 2
RP1/RP3 0.475 0.912 0.312 0.872 0.588 0.704 0.071 0.230 0.669 0.898 0.960 0.774 0.070 0.235 0.909 0
RP1/RP4 0.375 0.998 0.734 0.324 0.870 0.121 0.027c 0.785 0.462 0.779 0.187 0.256 0.088 0.286 0.054 1
RP2/RP3 0.095 0.613 0.586 0.115 0.893 0.786 0.861 0.310 0.837 0.972 0.875 0.692 0.209 0.391 0.865 0
RP2/RP4 0.067 0.645 0.630 0.015c 0.694 0.299 0.850 0.787 0.697 0.894 0.369 0.141 0.069 0.452 0.144 1
RP3/RP4 0.982 0.903 0.079 0.202 0.633 0.215 0.983 0.150 0.753 0.876 0.213 0.126 0.565 0.766 0.042c 1
Number 6 1 2 4 4 0 4 0 1 1 3 5 5 4 1
a
All CSFs are numbered in the sequence as cited in Table 3.
b
All types of respondents are numbered in the sequence as cited in Tables 4 and 5.
c
The probability value is significant at 0.05 level 共2-tailed兲.

portance of CSFs are among pairs of PN1/PN2 共building works
and civil works兲, PS1/PS3 共public projects and private projects兲,
PS2/PS3 共private projects and quasi-public or regulated private
projects兲, and RO1/RO2 共client organizations and contractor or-
ganizations兲. For the pair “PN1/PN2,” the respondents attached
more importance values to civil works, especially when consider-
ing the nine factors, viz., C3, C7, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, and
C14 共details shown in Table 3兲. A possible reason for this could
be that normally civil works are more complex than building
works. Pertaining to “Client sector,” namely, PS1, PS2, and PS3,
it is notable that, while project managers of public projects and
quasi-public or regulated private projects have a great consensus,
they have several significant differences from those project man-
agers of private projects on the importance values of CSFs. This
finding is in line with the statements of Ridley and Jones 共2002兲
and Ward and Chapman 共2008兲. They clarified the dissimilar fo-
cuses of these types of projects. This finding also indicates that
public projects and quasi-public or regulated private projects have
the similar characteristics comparing to private projects. Regard-
ing RO1/RO3 共client organizations and contractor organizations兲,
project managers from client organizations assigned more value
to most of the factors than those from contractor organizations.
This result shows that client organizations are more concerned
about stakeholder management compared to contractor organiza-
tions.
In this section, the true difference in perceptions on the rela-
tive importance of CSFs across groups can be seen in Table 13.
Based on these results, project managers could know the working
preference for stakeholder management in different types of
projects, and also project managers from different organizations
and at different management levels could be more aware of their
responsibilities regarding managing stakeholders.
Conclusions
Since few studies appear to have undertaken a comparative analy-
sis of construction practitioners’ opinions on the preference of
CSFs for stakeholder management, this paper presents the results
of a questionnaire survey to explore the similarities and differ-
ences in the relative importance of the CSFs for stakeholder man-
agement in construction projects of Hong Kong between different
types of projects and respondents.
A total of 15 CSFs were synthesized in the survey, which was
shown to be reliable. Data were collected from project managers
of different organizations in the construction industry of Hong
Kong. Findings from the study show that all the CSFs are re-
garded as critical for the success of stakeholder management in
construction projects by most respondents. No matter what type
of projects and respondents, social responsibilities, comprising
economic, legal, environmental, and ethical responsibilities are
considered most important for managing stakeholders. Project
managers in Hong Kong also have a keen awareness of the im-
portance of the information input for stakeholder management.
Respondents in this survey assigned relatively low important to
the CSFs pertaining to “Assessing stakeholders’ behaviors” and
“Predicting stakeholders’ reaction” for several types of projects,
for example, respondents consider “Assessing stakeholders’ be-
haviors” as the least importance for civil works, private projects,
and medium cost projects.
The results of the Spearman’s rank correlation test indicate
that there is a general consensus on the overall rankings of the
CSFs among different respondents. A notable result is that the
CSFs basically have positive or negative correlations with group
types, but these correlations are not particularly strong.
Even though there is a general consensus on the rankings of
the CSFs among different respondents, the detailed pairwise com-
parisons actually show the existence of a few differences in per-
ceptions on the relative importance of the CSFs. The results of the
nonparametric test indicate that respondents in this survey con-
sider the relative importance of only two factors, namely, “As-
sessing stakeholders’ behaviors” and “Assessing attributes
共power, urgency, and proximity兲 of stakeholders,” do not vary
with the different types of projects, nor with the types of respon-
dents. Only three pairs of groups 共public projects and quasi-public

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 785

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786

 or regulated private projects, project directors and senior project
managers, and chief project managers and senior project manag-
ers兲 have no significant difference on scores of the all 15 CSFs.
The major difference on views of the relative importance of CSFs
are between pairs of building works and civil works, public
projects and private projects, private projects and quasi-public or
regulated private projects, and client organizations and contractor
organizations.
Overall, the results reflect that, though the respondents share a
certain degree of commonality with respect to the relative impor-
tance of the CSFs, their working priorities for managing stake-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
holders are context specific, depending on the nature, client
sector, and cost of project, and also on the nature of their organi-
zations and the project manager’s level in the organization hier-
archy. These findings should be useful to construction
practitioners when engaging the various stakeholders throughout
the entire project management process.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was supported by the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University and the Research Grants Council of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 共PolyU
Grant No. 52644/06E兲. Special gratitude is also extended to those
industrial practitioners who have responded to and contributed
their valuable input in completing the questionnaire.
References
Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., and Tuomas, O. 共2008兲. “Stakeholder salience
in global projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 26共5兲, 509–516.
Akintoye, A. 共2000兲. “Analysis of factors influencing project cost esti-
mating practice.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 18, 77–89.
Bakens, W., Foliente, G., and Jasuja, M. 共2005兲. “Engaging stakeholders
in performance-based building: Lessons from the performance-based
building 共PeBBu兲 network.” Build. Res. Inf., 33共2兲, 149–158.
Bourne, L. 共2005兲. “Project relationship management and the Stakeholder
Circle™.” Ph.D. thesis, RMIT Univ., Australia.
Bourne, L., and Walker, D. H. T. 共2006兲. “Visualizing stakeholder
influence—Two Australian examples.” Proj. Manage. J., 37共1兲, 5–22.
Boynton, A., and Zmud, R. 共1984兲. “An assessment of critical success
factors.” Sloan Manage. Rev., 2, 17–27.
Carroll, A. B. 共1991兲. “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.” Bus.
Horiz., 34共4兲, 39–48.
Cleland, D. I. 共1999兲. Project management strategic design and imple-
mentation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cleland, D. I., and Ireland, R. L. 共2002兲. Project management: Strategic
design and implementation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cova, B., and Salle, R. 共2006兲. “Communications and stakeholders.” The
management of complex projects: A relationship approach, S. Pryke
and H. Smyth, eds., Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H., and Ei-Diraby, T. E. 共2006兲. “Stakeholder
management for public private partnerships.” Int. J. Proj. Manage.,
24共7兲, 595–604.
Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., and Jackson, L. S. 共2002兲. “Stakeholder
analysis for R&D project management.” R & D Manage., 32共4兲, 301–
310.
786 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JULY 2010
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2010, 136(7): 778-786
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., and Wicks, A. C. 共2007兲. Managing for
stakeholders—Survival, reputation, and success, Yale University
Press, New Haven, Conn.
Friedman, A. L., and Miles, S. 共2002兲. “Developing stakeholder theory.”
J. Manage. Stud. (Oxford), 39共1兲, 1–21.
Frooman, J. 共1999兲. “Stakeholder influence strategies.” Acad. Manage.
Rev., 24共2兲, 191–205.
INVOLVE. 共2005兲. People and participation: How to put citizens at the
heart of decision-making, INVOLVE, London.
Jepsen, A. L., and Eskerod, P. 共2008兲. “Stakeholder analysis in projects:
Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 4共2兲, 1–9.
Jergeas, G. F., Williamson, E., Skulmoski, G. J., and Thomas, J. L.
共2000兲. “Stakeholder management on construction projects.” Trans.
Am. Assn. Cost. Eng., 12, 1–5.
Karlsen, J. T. 共2002兲. “Project stakeholder management.” Eng. Manage.
J., 14共4兲, 19–24.
Landin, A. 共2000兲. “Impact of quality management in the Swedish con-
struction process.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Construction Management,
Lund Univ., Lund, Sweden.
Leung, M. Y., Chong, A., Thomas, S., and Cheung, M. 共2004兲. “Demys-
tifying stakeholders’ commitment and its impacts on construction
projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 22共7兲, 701–715.
Loosemore, M. 共2006兲. “Managing project risks.” The management of
complex projects: A relationship approach, S. Pryke and H. Smyth,
eds., Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. 共1997兲. “Toward a theory of
stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who
and what really counts.” Acad. Manage. Rev., 22共4兲, 853–887.
Olander, S. 共2006兲. “External stakeholder management.” Ph.D. thesis,
Lund Univ., U.K.
Olander, S., and Landin, A. 共2008兲. “A comparative study of factors
affecting the external stakeholder management process.” Constr. Man-
age. Econ., 26共6兲, 553–561.
Pallant, J. 共2001兲. SPSS survival manual, Open University Press, Buck-
ingham, U.K./Philadelphia.
Phillips, R. 共2003兲. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics, Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Ridley, J., and Jones, L. 共2002兲. User and public involvement in health
services: A literature review, Partners in Change, Edinburgh, U.K.
Rowley, T. J. 共1997兲. “Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of
stakeholder influences.” Acad. Manage. Rev., 22共4兲, 887–910.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., and Blair, J. D. 共1991兲.
“Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders.”
Acad. Manage. Exec., 5共2兲, 61–75.
Svendsen, A. 共1998兲. The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collabora-
tive business relationships, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Walker, D. H. T., Bourne, L. M., and Rowlinson, S. 共2008兲. “Stakeholder
and the supply chain.” Procurement systems: A cross-industry project
management perspective, D. H. T. Walker and S. Rowlinson, eds.,
Taylor and Francis, London.
Ward, S., and Chapman, C. 共2008兲. “Stakeholders and uncertainty man-
agement in projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 26共6兲, 563–577.
Winch, G. 共2002兲. Managing construction projects: An information pro-
cessing approach, Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Wood, D. J., and Gray, B. 共1991兲. “Toward a comprehensive theory of
collaboration.” J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 27共2兲, 139–162.
Yang, J., Shen, Q. P., Ho, M. F., Drew, S. D., and Chan, A. P. C. 共2009兲.
“Exploring critical success factors for stakeholder management in
construction projects.” J. Civil Eng. Manage., 15共4兲, 337–348.
Young, T. L. 共2006兲. Successful project management, 2nd Ed., Kogan
Page, London.