Review Jurnal Pengaruh Manajemen Proyek Terhadap Kesuksesan Konstruksi

RIVIEW JURNAL INTERNASIONAL
3 JURNAL INTERNASIONAL
“PENGARUH MANAJEMEN PROYEK TERHADAP KESUKSESAN PRYOYEK

KONTRUKSI”
Diajukan Untuk Memenuhi Salah Satu Tugas Manajemen Operasi
Disusun Oleh:
Nesha Yama Ramadhani
(21911025)
PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER MANAJEMEN
FAKULTAS BISNIS DAN EKONOMIKA
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA
2021/2022
A. Latar Belakang
Pada era globalisasi, perkembangan dunia konstruksi semakin pesat, baik dalam
segi teknologi, kapasitas proyek, maupun dana yang diperlukan. Perkembangan jasa
kontruksi di Indonesia terlihat dari banyaknya proyek berskala besar yang dibangun oleh
pemerintah dan swasta. Bisnis konstruksi memiliki peluang dan tantangan bagi masyarakat
dunia usaha, oleh karena itu diperlukan adanya manajemen proyek penting dalam
pelaksanaan konstruksi. Manajemen proyek kontruksi merupakan metode pengelolaan
yang dikembangkan secara ilmiah dan intensif sejak pertengahan abad ke-20 untuk
menghadapi kegiatan khusus yang berbentuk kontruksi. Keberhasilan proyek merupakan
sasaran utama bagi perusahaan-perusahaan yang bergerak di bidang jasa kontruksi. Sebuah
proyek dikatan berhasil apabila proyek tersebut mampu diselesaikan dengan biaya yang
kompetitif, tepat waktu atau selesai lebih awal, dan mutu yang berkualitas. Setiap pihak
yang terlibat harus memiliki strategi tertentu terhadap kesuksesan proyek yaitu dengan
mengetahui apa saja saja atau strategi manajemen proyek dalam pelaksanaan konstruksi.
Pengabaian pengembangan dan indentifikasi faktor keberhasilan telah banyak
menyebabkan kegagalan proyek sehingga banyak peneliti yang telah berusaha untuk
menentukan faktor keberhasilan tersebut. Keberhasilan proyek bergantung pada banyak
faktor dan mungkin berbeda dalam hal ukuran proyek, jenis, lingkungan, dan spesifikasi.
Sebuah proyek kontruksi dengan skala besar biasanya melibatkan kontraktor,
pemilik proyek, konsultan prencana, dan konsultan pengawas yang saling terkait dalam
sebuah perjanjian atau kontrak kerja. Diharapkan konstruksi bangunan memiliki umur
yang panjang dan kokoh. Kriteria dan karaktersitik bangunan dipengaruhi oleh proses yang
mendukung pelaksanaannya termasuk manajemen proyek kontruksi. Manajemen proyek
berupa perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan pengawasan. Perencanaan proyek menyakut semua
faktor yang terkandung di dalam sebuah proyek seperti waktu, biaya, pengalokasian tenaga
kerja dan juga aktivitas-aktivitas. Dalam melakukan pembangunan suatu proyek,
perencaan harus dilakukan dengan matang, apabila tidak maka akan menimbulkan biaya
yang lebih besar karena pengalokasian tenaga kerja yang ada tidak optimal
penggunaannya. Seringkali ditemui dibeberapa kontruksi proyek membutuhkan proses
yang lama dan melebihi dari waktu perencanaan. Berdasarkan permasalahan tersebut
penulis tertarik untuk menganalisa “Pengaruh Manajemen Proyek Terhadap
Keberhasilan Proyek Konstruksi”.
B. Rangkuman Jurnal
1. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Contruction Project Management
(Murat Gunduzo and Muhammad Almuajebh), 2020.
Tujuan penelitian ini adala mendefinisikan pemangku kepentingan proyek
kontruksi, hasilnya mengategorikan faktor keberhasilan proyek dan mengukur efek
dari setiap kategori dengan mempertimbangkan efisiensi dan kemajuan proyek.
Kinerja merupakan perhatian kritis dan keberhasilan proyek kontruksi menghadapi
beberapa tanyangan selama proyek berlangsung. Penelitian ini juga mengidentifikasi
CSF yang berkontribusi pada keberhasilan proyek. Menurut penelitian sebelumnya
adanya berbagai presepsi yang berbeda mengenai proyek yang baik atau proyek yang
gagal sehingga penelitian menjadi sulit. Kuesiner disebarkan dan dievaluasi oleh para
profesional di industru kontruksi dan analisis yang digunakan adalah SEM. Faktor
keberhasilan yang signifikan dilakukan menggunakan RII dan AHP. Tujuan bagi
semua pemangku kepentingan adalah menyelesaikan proyek secara efektif. Hasil dari
CSF yang paling signifikan menurut RII adalah (1) efektivitas pengambilan
keputusan/ manajemen proyek, (2) dana atau sumber daya proyek yang memadai, (3)
dukungan manajemen puncak, (5) koodinasi antara semua perserta.
Penelitian ini memadukan metode penelitian kualitiatif dan kuantitatif dan
didasarkan pada KBT (Knowledge-Based Theory) 3 langkahnya adalah
mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi keberhasilan proyek, survei dan
analisis RII serta AHP. Sebanyak 148 survei kepada responden dikumpulkan
kemudian menentukan indeks kepentingan relatif dan proses hirarki analitik sebagai
alat statistik dalam peringkat CSF. Survei menggunakan alat online untuk membantu,
mengatur, mendistribusikan, mengumpulkan tanggapan dan mengkategorikan melalui
situs web SurveyMonkey. Hirarki melalui analisis AHP menghasilkan struktur faktor
keselurahaan AHP (faktor sukses kritis), sebagai berikut:
1. Faktor terkait objek
Seperti lokasi objek, ukuran benda, tujuan realistis, sumber daya yang
memadai dari proyek, metode pengadaan dan tender yang efektif.
2. Faktor kegunaan dan lingkungan kerja
Seperti lingkungan ekonomis, lingkungan sosial, lingkungan politik, dan
lingkungan persetujuan.
3. Faktor klien
Seperti pengaruh klien, pengalaman klien dalam kontruksi, dan mekanisme
pembayaran finansial.
4. Faktor manajemen proyek
Seperti sistem komunikasi yang efektif, mekanisme umpan balik dari
karyawan dan pihak lain, mekanisme perencanaan pemantauan dan
pengendalian, efektivitas pengambilan keputusan, struktur organisasi yang
sesuai, keselamatan yang efektif, program jaminan yang efektif, identifikasi
dan alokasi resiko, proses penyelesaian sengketa secara formal, motivasi tim
proyek, dan dukungan manajemen operasi.
5. Faktor tim desain
Seperti pengalaman tim desain, kompleksitas desain, kesalahan/ kesalahan
desain, kontribusi tim desain untuk kontruksi, dan kecukupan rencana dengan
spesifikasi.
6. Faktor kontraktor
Seperti kekuatan finansial kontraktor, kapasitas teknis kontraktor, koordinasi
sub kontraktor yang efektif, alokasi dan kontrol tenaga kerja yang efektif, dan
ketersediaan manajer berpengalaman dan tenaga kerja terampil.
7. Faktor manajer proyek
Seperti pengalaman manajer proyek, keterampilan manajer proyek, koordinasi
antara semua peserta, komitmen untuk memenuhi tujuan kualitas, biaya, dan
waktu, keterlibatan awal dan keberlanjutan manajer dalam proyek,
kemampuan beradaptasi manajer proyek terhadap perubahaan dalam rencana
proyek, dan kemampuan manajer proyek untuk mendelegasikan weweang.
2. The Impact of Project Management Implementation on the Successful
Completion of Project in Construction (Assem Al-Hajj and Mario M. Zraunig),
2018.
Belum ada nilai tambah yang terukur dengan menerapkan taktik manajemen
proyek terbaik berdasarkan konsep menajemen proyek kontemporer karena tidak
memiliki landasan teoritis dan didasarkan pada teori yang sempit dan implisit yang
masih membutuhkan pengembangan lebih lanjut. Proyek adalah proses unik yang
terdiri dari serangkaian kegiatan yang terkordinasi dan terkendali dengan tanggal mulai
dan selesai untuk mencapai tujuan dengan persyaratan khusus termasuk kendala
waktu, biaya, dan sumber daya. Proyek memiliki karakteristik tertentu dibandingkan
dengan pekerjaan operasional, organisasi ini sementara mengakibatkan tim juga
bersifat sementara, berlebihan atau ditugaskan kembali setalah penyelesaian proyek.
Dalam prakteknya manajemen proyek memiliki kombinasi dengan faktor lain yang
mempengaruhi keberhasilan proyek tetapi tidak semua alat dan teknik manajemen
secara langsung terkait dengan keberhasilan proyek. Untuk kerangka kerja asumsi
berikut dibuat adalah:
1. Proyek yang berhasil disampaikan menggunakan alat dan teknik praktik
manajemen proyek.
2. Kegagalan proyek memiliki pola terkait dengan metode yang diadopsi untuk
penerapan alat dan teknik manajemen proyek.
3. Manajer proyek yang kompeten memiliki perintah yang kuat dari alat dan teknik
manajemen proyek, yang relevan untuk menghasilkan hasil fase siklus hidup
proyek. Dengan demikan manajer proyek yang terlatih dengan baik memiliki
pengaruh pada keberhasilan proyek.
Melampaui kepuasan kepentingan: aspek pemenuhan standar kualitas proyek

dipilih responden berasal dari Asia dengan 19,6% dalam pernyataan “kualitas luar
biasa lebih dari yang dibutuhkan”. Seorang manajer proyek tidak boleh memberikan
tambahan kepada pelanggan dan hanya akan memberikan apa yang diperlukan untuk
memenuhi tujuan proyek. Bagi pemangku kepentingan di Cina hubungan dengan
pelanggan menjadi sesuatu yang sangat penting sebagai ukuran keberhasilan proyek.
Pemangku kepentingan Asia berusaha untuk membina hubungan dengan melampaui
kewajiban kontrak yang disepakati. Pada peserta lain 47,1% memberikan respon
menginginkan proyek sesuai dengan syaray dan ketentuan dikontrak. Kompetensi
manajer proyek: kompetensi yang dimiliki manajer proyek seperti sifat sebagai
seorang manajer yang baik. Ciri-ciri manajer proyek adalah ability to trade-off, ability
to delegate authority, ability to cordinate, commitment, dan competence. Sifat
manajemen proyek: seorang manajer harus memiliki pelatihan yang tepat serta
sertifikat profesional. Mayoritas manajer proyek yang berpartisipasi memasuk profesi
manajer proyek melalui pengalaman daripada melalui proses sertifikasi profesional.
Sebanyak 60,9% responden tidak memiliki pelatihan manajemen proyek yang tepat
padahal kompetensi dapat dipenuhi dengan proses sertifikasi profesi. Pemanfaatan
alat dan teknik: 9,8% responden menganggap perencanaan dan pengendalian proyek
adalah hal yang penting, sedangkan 19,5% menunjukkan bahwa mereka jarang
menggunakan EVA untuk mewakili konflik. Untuk Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) 16,7% responden tidak menggunakan dan 16,7% juga jarang
menggunakannya. Menilai perencanaan dan pengendalian proyek yang efektif
merupakan faktor penting karena akan mengarah ke keberhasilan proyek.
3. Project Management Practice and It’s Effects on Project Success in Malaysian

Construction Industry (N. A. Haron., P. Devi., S. Hassim., A. H. Alias., M. M
Tahir., and A. N. Harun), 2017.
Saat ini proyek lebih rumit daripada sebelumnya karena investasi modal besar,
merangkul bebarapa disiplin ilmu, peserta proyek yang tersebar luas, jadwal yang
ketat, standar kualitas yang ketat, biaya yang meningkat, guncangan lingkungan,
pengikatan kekuatan pemangku kepentingan dan kemajuan dalam TIK. Keberhasilan
proyek dapat diartikan dengan seberapa baik produk atau layanan yang dihasilkan
mendukung tata kelola organisasi. Penting bagi manajer untu mengetahui tata kelola
perusahaan atau organisasi. Faktor keberhasilan penting yang diidentifikasi (CSF)
adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Tujuan manajemen proyek yang jelas

2. Dukungan manajemen puncak
3. Informasi / komunikasi efektif
4. Keterlibatan klien
5. Kompetensi tim proyek
6. Wewenang manajer/ pemimpin proyek
7. Perkiraan waktu dan biaya yang realistis
8. Kontrol proyek yang memadai
9. Kemampuan pemecahan masalah
10. Kinerja dan kualitas proyek
11. Sumber daya yang memadai
12. Perencanaan yang efektif
13. Pantau kinerja dan umpan balik
14. Misi proyek/ tujuan bersama
15. Kecukupan rencana kontijensi
16. Kepuasan pelanggan
17. Spesifikasi yang ditata dengan baik
18. Pemilihan/ penggunakan teknologi yang efektif
Mengembangkan kerangka kerja yang lebih komprehensif sangat penting
untuk meningkatkan tingkat keberhasilan proyek karena diharapkan dapat mencapai
keunggulan kompetitif. Kerangka kerja manajemen proyek sangat komprehensif
harus mempertimbangkan elemen-elemen seperti unsur budaya, struktural, praktis dan
personel. Banyaknya tanyangan di industri ini maka tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah
mengidentifikasi dan menilai faktor-faktor penentu keberhasilan (CSF) dan praktik
manajemen proyek saat ini yang memperngaruhi keberhasilan proyek dalam bentuk
implementasi. Setiap perusahaan konstruksi harus memilih praktik manajemen proyek
yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan proyek dan keberhasilannya bergantung pada seberapa
baik praktik yang digunakan selama tahap implementasi. Untuk menilai sejauh mana
penggunaan standar manajemen proyek, metode, metodelogi, alat, dan teknik yang
banyak digunakan maka penelitian mengenai tingkat penggunaan praktik manajemen
proyek menggunakan 23 variabel. Hubungan antara manajemen proyek terdapat
mengukuran yang signifikan lemah hingga sedang dan tidak signifikan karena
beberapa variabel tergantung pada ukuran dan kompleksitas proyek.
Peneliti mengambil 5 faktor teratas yang mempengaruhi keberhasilan proyek

termasuk kepuasan pelanggan, perencanaan dan pengendalian efektif, atribut
keuangan, estimasi biaya dan waktu realistis, dan kompetensi tim proyek. Menerapkan
praktik manajemen proyek menjadi isu penting di negara maju karena efektvitasnya
telah terbukti dalam mencapai tujuan dan sasaran proyek. Mesikpun sifatnya berisiko
dan memakan banyak sumber daya, industri kontruksi membutuhkan penerapan
dalam pemanfaatan yang lebih baik dari praktif manajemen proyek yang efektif dan
efisien. CBA, Gantt Bar Chart dan CPM adalah beberapa alat dan teknik manajemen
proyek yang banyak diterapkan karena sederhana dan mudah digunakan.
C. Pembahasan Review Jurnal Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Contruction

Project Management (Murat Gunduzo and Muhammad Almuajebh), 2020.
Proyek merupakan suatu kegiatan yang kompleks sifatnya tidak rutun, memiliki
keterbasan terhadap waktu, anggaran, sumber daya dan memiliki spesifikasi tersendiri
atas produk yang dihasilkan. Praktik manajemen proyek berupaya menyelesaikan
proyek dengan cara yang efisien dengan meminimalkan biaya untuk mencapai tujuan
ekstenal yang terkait dengan kebutuhan pelanggan (Al-Hajj dan Zraunig, 2018:1).
Dalam penyelenggaran suatu proyek kegiatan yang dihadapi sangat kompleks sehingga
memerlukan suatu manajemen yang baik sehingga pada akhir proyek dapat berjalan
sesuai rencana. Manajemen proyek adalah seperangkat orang, proses dan prosedur yang
terorganisir yang bekerja bersama untuk menyediakan pengiriman tepat waktu, sesuai
anggaran dari tujuan yang dinyatakan dengan kualitas tinggi dan sponsor yang puas.
Pemimpin proyek harus memahami kriteria keberhasilan proyek yang dilakukan.
Menurut Hoasaini et al., (2021: 89) terdapat beberapa karakteristik proyek yang
sukses adalah tepat waktu, sesuai anggaran, kualitas tinggi, tujuan tercapai, pelanggan
yang puas, dan hasil yang dicapai. Penelitian bertujuan mengidentifikasi faktor
manajemen proyek yang berpengaruh terhadap keberhasilan proyek kontruksi.
Pedoman utama pembahasan bersumber dari penelitian yang dilakukan oleh Gunduz
dan Almuajebh pada tahun 2020 yang berjudul Critical for Susatinable Contruction
Project Management, jurnal pendukung, dan buku literatur. Pada jurnal utama
dijelaskan bahwa penelitian ini berbeda dari studi yang lain karena mempertimbangkan
pengaruh pemangku kepentingan pada faktor keberhasilan proyek. Penelitian dilakukan
untuk mengetahui CSF (Critical Success Factors) dengan langkah sebagai berikut:
1. Mengevaluasi dan mengurutkan atribut pola keberhasilan dalam industri
konstruksi melalui analisis faktor dan pendekatan fuzzy.
2. Menyiapkan survei dengan mempertimbangkan biaya, waktu, keamanan, kualitas
untuk menilai CSF.
3. Menggunakan AHP untuk menentukan pringkat CSF untuk proyek konstruksi
4. Memberi peringkat 20 CSF dalam industri konstruksi Cina menggunakan
berbagai teknik statistik.
5. Permodelan persamaan struktural (SEM) digunakan untuk memeriksa hubungan
antara 7 faktor keberhasilan dan dan 5 faktor kinerja untuk menilai efektivitas
organisasi.
Dalam manajemen strategi, perusahaan akan memperhatikan faktor-faktor yang

akan menentukan keberhasilan implementasi strategi perusahaan. Critical Succes
Factor merupakan istilah manajemen untuk elemen yang diperlukan suatu organisasi
atau proyek untuk mencapai misinya. CSF mewakili area manajerial atau perusahaan
yang harus mendapat perhatian khusus dan terus menerus agar menghasilkan kinerja
yang tinggi. CSF mencakup isu-isu yang penting bagi aktivitas operasi organisasi saat
ini dan kesuksesan masa depannya. CSF adalah faktor-faktor yang harus berjalan
dengan baik untuk menjamin bagai manajemen atau perusahaan. Manajemen harus
memberikan perhatian khusus agar perusahaan mempunyai kinerja yang tinggi. Pada
CSF ini perusahaan akan membahas hal-hal apa yang bisa membuat perusahaan
menang dalam persaingan dan terus bertumbuh. Dari 40 CSF (Critical Success Factors)
yang telah dijelaskan di jurnal utama diolah menjadi 7 kategori berdasarkan
karakteristik dan diskusi peneliti dengan profesional dibidang kontruksi. Faktor-faktor
tersebut yaitu faktor terkait proyek, faktor terkait bisnis dan lingkungan kerja, faktor
terkait klien, faktor terkait manajemen proyek, faktor terkait tim desain, faktor terkait
kontraktor, dan faktor terkait hubungan manajer proyek. Faktor manajemen proyek ini
didukung oleh pernyataan jurnal pendukung yang mengatakan bahwa 12 CRF beraitan
dengan keberhasilan implementasi proyek dan dikategorikan ke dalam 3 bidang utama
yaitu keberhasilan manajemen proyek, keberhasilan, proyek individu, dan keberhasilan
perusahaan (Haron et al., 2017: 2).
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ketujuh faktor berpengaruh signifikan terhadap

keberhasilan konstruksi melalui analisi RII (Relative Importance Index) dan AHP
(Analytic Hierarchy Process). RII adalah indeks kepentingan relatif yang dihitung
untuk CSF. Menurut Gunduz dan Almuajebh (2020: 6) terdapat 5 CSF yang paling
signifikan menurut RII, yaitu efektivitas pengambilan keputusan (terkait manajemen
proyek), dana atau sumber dana proyek yang memadai (terkait proyek), dukungan
manajemen puncak (terkait manajemen proyek), ketersediaan manajer berpengalaman
dan tenaga kerja terampil (terkait kontraktor), dan koordinasi antara semua peserta
(terkait dengan manajer proyek). Hasil CSF ini didukung oleh jurnal pendukung yang
mangatakan bahwa 12 dari 15 CSF memengaruhi keberhasilan proyek dilihat dari 5
skor tertinggi yaitu kepuasan pelanggan, perencanaan dan pengendalian yang efektif,
atribut keuangan, estimasi biaya dan waktu realistis dan kompetensi tim proyek (Haron
et al., 2017: 5). Hasil CSF ini juga didukung oleh hasil analisis jurnal pendukung (Al-
Hajj dan Zraunig, 2018:23) yaitu skor tertinggi pada kualitas luar biasa melebihi yang
diinginkan konsumen (kepuasan pemangku kepentingan, skor tertinggi pada
kompetensi (manajer proyek), sifat manajemen proyek, dan skor tertinggi pada
perencanaan dan kontrol proyek yang efektif.
AHP adalah analisis untuk membangun struktur hirarki berdasarkan tanggapan

peserta dengan nilai. Pada 5 variabel teratas masing-masing hasil CSF untuk klien,
konsultan desain, konsultan supervisi, konsultasn proyek, dan kontraktor pengawasan,
memperoleh hasil sebagai berikut:
1. CFS (Critical Success Factors) untuk pemilik yang tertinggi adalah pengaruh dari
klien memiliki skor tertinggi 0,76 diantara persetujuan lingkungan, ketersediaan
pengalaman manajer, dana proyek yang memadai dan desain.
2. CFS (Critical Success Factors) untuk konsultan desain adalah dana proyek yang
cukup memiliki skor tertinggi 0,764 diantara pengaruh klien, keterampilan manajer
proyek, pengelolaan yang mendukung dan pengalaman proyek.
3. CFS (Critical Success Factors) untuk konsultan supervisi adalah pengelolaan yang
mendukung memiliki skor tertinggi 0,701 diantara dana proyek yang memadai,
desain, keterampilan manajer proyek, dan pengalaman manajer proyek.
4. CFS (Critical Success Factors) untuk konsultan proyek adalah proyek yang
memadai memiliki skor tertinggi proyek 0,658 diantara pengelolaan yang
mendukung, tim desain berkontribusi untuk konstruksi, program jaminan kualitas
efektif, dan menghapus realistis tujuan.
5. CFS (Critical Success Factors) untuk kontraktor pengawasan adalah mendukung
manajemen puncak memiliki skor tertinggi 0,701 diantara pengaruh klien,
perencanaan, pemantauan, dan mengendalikan mekanisme, jelas dan realistsi
tujuan, dan tim desain berkontribusi untuk konstruksi.
Terdapat seperangkat ukuran keberhasilan proyek yang universal yang berlaku

untuk semua proyek industri konstruksi, hal tersebut disebabkankarena informasi yang
dikumpulkan berasal dari proyek-proyek yang tersebar di 10 negara. Data menampilkan
kesamaan signifikan yang mewakili wawasan baru sedangkan literatur menunjukkan
bahwa masing-masing proyek memiliki ukuran keberhasilan proyek tertentu.
Mesikipun data menunjukkan bahwa praktisi proyek tidak menggunakan alat dan teknik
manajemen proyek dengan sempurna tetapi sebagian besar proyek menerapkan
metodologi manajemen proyek. Praktek dan teknik manajemen banyak digunakan
dalam proyek yang sukses, oleh karena itu manajemen proyek secara positif
memengaruhi keberhasilan proyek (Al-Hajj dan Zraunig, 2018:23).
D. Kesimpulan
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian 3 jurnal yang telah dibahas terdapat pengaruh yang
signifikan antara manajemen proyek dengan keberhasilan proyek. Manajemen proyek
merupakan salah satu faktor CSF (Critical Success Factors) dalam mengelola organisasi
yang ada disuatu proyek. Pada faktor manajemen proyek terdiri dari sistem komunikasi
yang efektif, mekanisme umpan balik dari karyawan dan pihak lain, mekanisme
perencanaan pemantauan dan pengendalian, efektivitas pengambilan keputusan,
struktur organisasi yang sesuai, keselamatan yang efektif, program jaminan yang
efektif, identifikasi dan alokasi resiko, proses penyelesaian sengketa secara formal,
motivasi tim proyek, dan dukungan manajemen operasi. Praktik manajemen proyek
masih kurang dimanfaatkan masyarakat karena kurangnya pengetahuan dan paparan
berdasarkan studi kasus yang berhasil. Penggunaan praktik manajemen proyek terbaik
adalah dengan melihat ukuran dan kompleksitas proyek serta memilih praktik yang
tepat akan memandu perusahaan konstruksi untuk mencapai tujuan. Proyek yang
berbeda akan memiliki kriteria keberhasilan yang berbeda pula tetapi penelitian terbaru
mengungkapkan bahwa kebangsaan dan budaya yang berbeda akan membuat
perbedaan cara pandang keberhasilan proyek. Mempelajari penggunaan standar,
metode, metodologi, alat dan teknik manajemen proyek dapat berfungsi sebagai acuan
pembuatan keputusan dalam perencanaan yang efektif. Manajer dan kontraktor dapat
memaksimalkan penggunaan alat dan teknik manajemen proyek seperti CBA, Gantt
Bar Chart, dan CPM karena sifatnya sederhana dan mudah digunakan. Kurangnya
pengetahuan dan keahlian mengenai alat dan teknik manajemen proyek sehingga
karyawan harus melakukan pelatihan guna mencapainya keberhasilan manajemen
proyek kontruksi.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Hosaini, Hartono, Afiana, Charles Darwin Sitidaon, Lina Saptaria, Rudi, Ni Luh Sri Kasih,
Maisaroh Choirotunnisa, Siti Mardiana, Hari Nugroho, Edison Hatoguan Manurung,
dan Retna Kristiana. 2021. Manajemen Proyek. Bandung: Widina Bhakti Persada
Bandung.
Al-Hajj, Assem dan Mario M. Zraunig. 2018. The Impact of Project Management
Implementation on the Successful Completion of Project in Construction.
International Journal of Innovation, Management, and Technology, volume 9, No. 1.
Gunduz, Murat dan Mohammed Almuajebh. 2020. Critical for Susatinable Contruction Project
Management. Sustainbility, volume 12, Issue 5 (1-17).
Haron, N. A., P. Devi., S. Hassim., A. H. Alias., M. M Tahir dan A. N. Harun. Project
Management Practice and It’s Effects on Project Success in Malaysian Construction
Industry. International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, volume
291, Issue 1, pp. 012008.
sustainability
Article
Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Construction
Project Management
Murat Gunduz 1, * and Mohammed Almuajebh 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar
2 Engineering Management Program, College of Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar;
ma1200822@student.qu.edu.qa
* Correspondence: mgunduz@qu.edu.qa

Received: 31 December 2019; Accepted: 14 February 2020; Published: 5 March 2020
Abstract: It is necessary to identify critical success factors (CSFs) that affect the construction process.
This paper’s aim is to define the CSFs considering views of all construction project stakeholders.
The contribution of this paper is to categorize project success factors into categories and quantify
the effect of each category taking into account the effect of all stakeholders on project efficiency and
progress. To achieve this objective, a comprehensive literature review was carried out. After literature
review, 40 success factors were compiled into seven categories: project-related factors, company- and
work-related factors, client-related factors, project management factors, design-team-related factors,
contractor-related factors, project-manager-related factors. Consequently, a survey including these
listed success factors was prepared and distributed to various experts in the construction field to be
ranked; 148 responses were received. Employing the Relative Importance Index (RII) and traditional
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method with Saaty random index that prioritizes these CSFs, the
collected data were analyzed after receiving responses. Even though there were disagreements in
stakeholders’ views and their goals, significant areas have been identified as project financial issues,
managerial aspects, and authorities’ approval mechanism. The outcome of this paper would be used
by construction industry professionals to support, evaluate, and measure the success of projects for
better allocation of resources.
Keywords: project success factors; project management; sustainable construction; analytical hierarchy
process; planning; productivity
1. Introduction
Performance is a critical concern and the success of the construction projects will face several
challenges during project delivery. A lot of researchers in the project management area have studied
critical success factors (CSFs) in projects [1–5]. However, the concept of project success and performance
metrics is still ambiguous, and this is due to variations in expectations of project success among
stakeholders of various projects in a project. Therefore, there is a gap in studying all relevant factors
that affect performance of projects considering the perception of success by project stakeholders.
The main objective of this paper is to identify the CSFs that contribute to the project success. The
major contribution of this paper is to categorize project success factors into categories and quantify
the effect of each category on project performance and success considering all project stakeholders.
This study is different from the others in the literature because it considers the effect of project
stakeholders on project success. Factors from past research were gathered and compiled under
seven categories, namely, project-related factors, business- and work-environment-related factors,
client-related factors, project management factors, design-team-related factors, contractor-related
factors, and project-manager-related factors. A survey including these listed success factors was
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1990; doi:10.3390/su12051990 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1990 2 of 17
prepared and distributed to various experts in the construction field to be ranked. These factors
and their relevant categories were used to gather perceptions of the owners, contractors, and design,
supervision, and project management consultants about project success. The effect of each category on
project success was quantified with the help of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A list of prioritized
factors is provided with the help of AHP and Relative Importance Index (RII). This prioritization would
result in a suitable allocation of limited project resources such as money, manpower, and equipment.
This prioritization would lead to sustainable construction management practices. The discussion of
results provided industry with recommendations on the basis of priority values.
2. Literature Review
Many studies attempted to capture success factors for the construction industry. According to
research, due to different interpretations of success or failure by different participants in construction
projects, classification of a project into a good project or a failure project is difficult. Literature review
was carried out to capture these various perceptions by different researchers. Wide-ranging studies
were performed by researchers to capture CSFs. [1] evaluated and ranked the attributes of success
patterns in the construction industry through factor analysis and fuzzy approaches. [4] prepared
a survey considering cost, time, safety, and quality to assess CSFs. [3] used AHP to rank CSFs for
Lithuanian construction projects. [2] ranked 20 CSFs in the Chinese construction industry using various
statistical techniques. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used by [5] to check the relationship
between six success factors and five performance factors to assess organizational effectiveness.
An extensive checklist for CSFs was prepared through an extensive literature review. Table 1
presents the seven categories and 40 CSFs with the relevant references. The seven categories
are developed based on their characteristics and discussion with professionals in the construction
management field.
Table 1. Seven categories and 40 critical success factors (CSFs) with respect to their relevant references.
I. Project-Related Factors Reference No.

1-Project’s Location [6–8]
2-Project’s Size [8,9]
3-Clear and realistic goals/objectives [10,11]
4-Project’s adequate funds/resources [12–14]
5-Effective procurement and tendering methods [15–19]
II. Business- and Work-Environment-Related Factors
6-Economical environment [20,21]
7-Social environment [22–24]
8-Political environment [9,16,25]
9-Statutory approvals environment [26,27]
III. Client-Related Factors
10-Influence of client/client’s representative [25,28]
11-Client’s experience in construction field [16,25]
12-Mechanism of financial payments [26,29,30]
IV. Project Management Factors
13-Effective communication systems [16,31,32]
14-Feedback mechanism from employees and other parties [33,34]
15- Planning, monitoring, and controlling mechanism [16,25]
16-Decision-making effectiveness [35,36]
Table 1. Cont.
I. Project-Related Factors Reference No.

17-Appropriate organizational structure [24,34,37]
18-Implementing an effective safety program [35,38–40]
19-Implementing an effective quality assurance program [41,42]
20-Risk identification and allocation [16,43]
21-Formal dispute resolution process [44,45]
22-Project team motivation [16,25,46]
23-Top management support [16,47]
V. Design-Team-Related Factors
24-Design team experience [48,49]
25-Design complexity [49,50]
26-Design errors/mistakes [49–51]
27-Design team’s contribution to construction (constructability review,
[16,52,53]
value engineering, etc.)
28-Adequacy of plans and specifications [16,28,46]
VI. Contractor-Related Factors
29-Contractor financial strength [16,54]
30-Contractor’s technical capacity [16,54]
31-Effective subcontractor coordination [55,56]
32-Effective allocation and control of manpower [13,24]
33-Availability of experienced managers & skillful workforce [31,57]
VII. Project-Manager-Related Factors
34-Project manager’s experience [57–59]
35-Project manager skills [34,57,59]
36-Coordination between all participants [34,37,48]
37-Commitment to meet quality, cost, and time objectives [16,28,32,46]
38-Project manager’s early and continued involvement in project [10,18,34]
39-Project manager’s adaptability to changes in project plan [57,59]
40-Project manager’s ability to delegate authority [57,59]
A questionnaire was developed based on the CSFs gathered and the CSFs are evaluated by
professionals in the construction industry. By this way, significant success factors were captured
through RII and AHP. The contrary or competing points of view will be captured by the ranking of
CSFs through the questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to get the RII rankings, which later
established the basis for the AHP analysis.
This work leads to the collection and study of the project success factors with the integrated AHP.
This study tried to overcome the assessment of project critical success factors by AHP. This research
is distinct from the others in the literature because it takes into consideration the impact of project
stakeholders on project performance.
3. Methodology
This research mixes qualitative and quantitative research methods. This method is based on KBT
(Knowledge-Based Theory) and it has three steps: (1) identification of factors that affect project success,
(2) survey, and (3) RII and AHP analyses. KBT is embedded and carried through multiple entities
including organizational identities, systems, and employees with the tool of the literature review and
a questionnaire. A questionnaire was designed for the business professionals‘ opinions of the CSFs.
The first section of the questionnaire includes questions on respondents’ background. Categorizing
respondents on the basis of their type of organization would also give an idea of the understanding of
CSFs by each category. The 40 factors listed in this section have been grouped into seven groups based
on literature review, with different success factors in each category. The weighting scale was designed
and consisted of 1 to 9 ratings, where 1 was the project’s no significant impact on project success and 9
was the project’s highest impact on project success.
In order to measure the significance of different factors, the relative importance index formula was
used. Then, the ranking values obtained from RII were used for the AHP analysis. This is a new way of
use of AHP by transferring values from RII to AHP. Due to its great flexibility and broad applicability,
AHP has been extensively implemented for the last 20 years [60]. The study by [61] reviewed 77
AHP-based papers published in eight peer-reviewed journals in order to better identify and delineate
AHP implementation areas and problem-solving decision-making within the field of construction
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17
management. The study revealed that AHP is versatile and can be used either as a stand-alone tool or
construction management. The study revealed that AHP is versatile and can be used either as a stand‐
in combination with other tools to solve problems in building decision-making. Several authors have
alone tool or in combination with other tools to solve problems in building decision‐making. Several
used AHP for the coordination and review of complex decisions [62–64]. This study tried to overcome
authors have used AHP for the coordination and review of complex decisions [62–64]. This study
the decision-making of assessment of project critical success factors by AHP. The methodology can be
tried to overcome the decision‐making of assessment of project critical success factors by AHP. The
seen in Figure 1 below.
methodology can be seen in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Research methodology. RII: Relative Importance Index; AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Figure 1. Research methodology. RII: Relative Importance Index; AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process.
A total
A total of
of 148
148 complete
complete surveys
surveys were
were collected. Relative importance
collected. Relative importance index
index and
and Analytical
Analytical
Hierarchy Process were used as statistical tools to rank CSFs. Recommendations were given
Hierarchy Process were used as statistical tools to rank CSFs. Recommendations were togiven
industry
to
professionals to achieve better project success based on the rankings received.
industry professionals to achieve better project success based on the rankings received.
4. Data Characteristics
4. Data Characteristics
The questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed
was designed using an online
using tool totool
an online helpto
organize, distribute,distribute,
help organize, collect responses,
collect
and categorize the collected data. The data were collected from construction professionals worldwide
responses, and categorize the collected data. The data were collected from construction professionals
with the help of the website SurveyMonkey. The emails of the respondents were gathered from
worldwide with the help of the website SurveyMonkey. The emails of the respondents were gathered
the network of the research team and the literature review. The questionnaire was sent to 250
from the network of the research team and the literature review. The questionnaire was sent to 250
participants. 201 responses
participants. 201 responses were
were received.
received. Only
Only148
148 respondents
respondents fully
fully completed
completed the the survey,
survey, and
and
these fully completed responses were considered for analysis. Owners make up 52% of
these fully completed responses were considered for analysis. Owners make up 52% of the responses the responses
with 77
with 77 respondents. Contractors, supervision
respondents. Contractors, supervision consultants,
consultants, and
and Project
Project Management
Management Consultants
Consultants
(PMC) make up 19%, 18%, and 9% of the responses, respectively and 85% of the respondents work
(PMC) make up 19%, 18%, and 9% of the responses, respectively and 85% of the respondents work
with an organization that has more than 300 employees, whereas only 9% of the respondents work
with an organization that has more than 300 employees, whereas only 9% of the respondents work
with an
with an organization
organization that
that has
has less
less than
than 100
100 employees. Most of
employees. Most of the
the responses
responses come
come from
from project
project
management team members, 61% (91 responses). Moreover, 19% and 11% of the respondents
management team members, 61% (91 responses). Moreover, 19% and 11% of the respondents are are
from design/engineering
from design/engineering and
and project
project control
control departments, respectively. The
departments, respectively. The rest
rest of
of the
the data
data were
were
from finance and contracts departments. Participants who are project managers make
from finance and contracts departments. Participants who are project managers make up 41%. Site up 41%. Site
engineers and operational/general managers make up 11% and 8% of the data,
engineers and operational/general managers make up 11% and 8% of the data, respectively. respectively.
5. Data Analysis
The main goal for all stakeholders in any construction project is to effectively complete the
project. This paper mainly aims at defining, examining, and evaluating the CSFs that can affect the
performance of any project. The list of 40 factors was established in the same area by analyzing the
5. Data Analysis
The main goal for all stakeholders in any construction project is to effectively complete the project.
This paper mainly aims at defining, examining, and evaluating the CSFs that can affect the performance
of any project. The list of 40 factors was established in the same area by analyzing the literature of
relevant articles, cases, and studies. The evaluation was carried out through a survey filled out by
experts from the construction industry. The questionnaire asked participants to define the effect of
each factor on performance of a project on the basis of a 9-point scale. The effect of each factor on
project performance was asked to be determined by the experts from the construction industry. After
collection of data from construction industry professionals, RII and AHP were carried out, respectively.
The outputs of these analyses are presented in the coming sections.
5.1. Relative Importance Index (RII)

Researchers used the RII to rate factors [16,65,66]. The RII is shown as:
P
W
RII (%) = ∗ 100 (0 ≤ RII ≤ 100) (1)
(A ∗ N )
Where:
W: the weight given to each attribute by the respondents differs between 1 and 9
A: the maximum weight (nine for this study)
N: the total number of participants
As example, the RII value for the 1st factor, which is project location, was calculated as follows:
X
W = 421, A = 9, N = 77 (2)
P
W 421
RII (%) = = ∗ 100 = 60.75 (3)
(A ∗ N ) 9 ∗ 77
Table 2. below shows RII values calculated based on the responses from the industry professionals.
Table 2. RII (%) factors for CSFs.
Factor Number RII Value (%)

1 60.75
2 64.09
3 82.85
4 84.77
5 80.41
6 71.25
7 60.88
8 64.46
9 76.34
10 78.60
11 75.62
12 76.97
13 79.51
14 73.74
15 83.19
16 85.67
Table 2. Cont.
Factor Number RII Value (%)

17 75.48
18 78.02
19 78.71
20 78.04
21 74.36
22 80.15
23 84.58
24 80.89
25 73.69
26 79.00
27 77.49
28 79.76
29 78.36
30 81.79
31 79.90
32 80.90
33 84.12
34 83.08
35 82.67
36 83.44
37 83.01
38 79.34
39 79.02
40 80.91
From Table 2, it can be observed that the top most significant CSFs according to RII are:
(1) Decision-making effectiveness (project-management-related); (2) Project’s adequate funds/resources
(project-related); (3) Top management support (project-management-related); (4) Availability of
experienced managers and skillful workforce (contractor-related); (5) Coordination between all
participants (project-manager-related).
5.2. AHP Analysis

AHP’s first step was to establish a hierarchical structure for the analysis. The hierarchical structure
can be seen in Figure 2. The first level are the CSFs in the study. The second level includes seven
categories as listed earlier.
F1-Project’s Location
F2-Project’s Size
Project Related
F3-Clear and realistic goals/objectives
Factors
F4- Project’s adequate funds/ resources
F5-Effective procurement and tendering methods
F06- Economical environment
Business and F07- Social environment

Work Environment
Related Factors F08- Political environment
F09- Statutory approvals environment
F10- Influence of client/client’s representative
F11- Client’s experience in construction field

Client Related
Factors F12- Mechanism of financial payments
F13- Effective communication systems
F14- Feedback mechanism from employees and other parties
F15- Planning, monitoring and controlling mechanism
F16- Decision making effectiveness

Project
F17- Appropriate organizational structure
Management
Factors F18- Implementing an effective safety program
AHP OVERALL RANKING OF PROJECT
F19-Implementing an effective quality assurance program

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
F20- Risk identification and allocation
F21- Formal dispute resolution process
F22- Project team motivation
F23- Top management support
F24- Design team experience
F25- Design complexity
F26- Design errors/mistakes

Design Team-
Related Factors F27- Design team’s contribution to construction
F28- Adequacy of plans and specifications
F29- Contractor financial strength
F30- Contractor’s technical capacity
Contractor-Related F31- Effective subcontractor coordination

Factors
F32- Effective allocation and control of manpower
F33- Availability of experienced managers & skilful workforce
F34- Project manager’s experience
F35- Project manager skills
F36- Coordination between all participants
Project Manager F37- Commitment to meet quality, cost and time objectives
Related Factors
F38- Project manager’s early & continued involvement in project
F39- Project manager’s adaptability to changes in project plan
F40- Project manager’s ability to delegate authority
AHP GOAL CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES
Figure 2. AHP hierarchy figure of criteria and alternatives for project success factors.
Figure 2. AHP hierarchy figure of criteria and alternatives for project success factors.
The next step in AHP was to produce matrices of comparison on a pair basis that are a very
important part of the AHP research. The data collected include levels provided to each factor by each
participant based on the literature’s suggested 9-point scale. Then, for use in a pair-wise comparison
procedure, the average values were determined.
To determine the commitment of each organization to the success of the project, a pair-wise matrix
was developed. The data collected include levels provided to each factor by each participant based on
the literature’s suggested 9-point scale (Table 3). Then, for use in a pair-wise comparison, the average
values were determined.
Table 3. Pair-wise comparison matrix for organizations.
Interested Party Owner Design Consultant Supervision Consultant PMC Contractor

Owner 1 2 4 9 9
Design
1/2 1 3 9 8
Consultant
Supervision
1/4 1/3 1 6 5
Consultant
PMC 1/9 1/9 1/6 1 1/2
Contractor 1/9 1/8 1/5 2 1
PMC: Project Management Consultant.
The next step was to divide each value in every column by the total sum of each column to find the
normalized weight. Consequently, average value of each row was calculated and this value becomes
the priority weight. Normalized weights and priority weights are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Normalized and priority weights for organizations.
Design Supervision Priority

Interested Party Owner PMC Contractor
Consultant Consultant Weight
Owner 0.51 0.56 0.48 0.33 0.38 0.45
Design Consultant 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.31
Supervision Consultant 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.22 0.21 0.15
PMC 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.035
Contractor 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.052
Sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
The consistency ratio for the pairwise comparison was also compared and calculated to be 0.03.
This value is less than 0.1 and is acceptable.
The subsequent move is to replicate the same between seven groups and each success factor listed
under each of the seven groups. This requires developing many matrices. As a sample, Tables 5 and 6
list normalized weights and priority weights matrices for owner and project-related factors for the
owner for illustrative purposes.
Table 5. Normalized and priority weights for seven groups (Owner).
Owner PRF BRF CLRF PMRF DTRF CORF PMRF PW

PRF 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.050
BRF 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.023
CLRF 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.084
PMRF 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.118
DTRF 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.150
CORF 0.30 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.40 0.37 0.45 0.337
PMRF 0.25 0.21 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.22 0.238
Table 6. Normalized and priority weights for project-related factors (Owner).
Clear and Project’s Effective

Project- Related Project’s Project’s Realistic Adequate Procurement Priority
Factors Location Size Goals/ Funds/ and Tendering Weight
Objectives Resources Methods
Project’s Location 0.036 0.022 0.030 0.050 0.027 0.033
Project’s Size 0.071 0.044 0.038 0.056 0.031 0.048
Clear and realistic
0.321 0.311 0.266 0.224 0.377 0.300
goals/objectives
Project’s adequate
0.321 0.356 0.533 0.447 0.377 0.407
funds/resources
Effective procurement
0.250 0.267 0.133 0.224 0.188 0.212
and tendering methods
Where: PRF, BRF, CLRF, PMRF, DTRF, CORF, PMRF and PW are project=related factors, business-
and work-environment-related factors, client-related factors, project-management-related factors,
design-team-related factors, contractor-related factors and project-manager-related factors and priority
weight, respectively.
The cumulative weight of each performance metric was calculated by multiplying the
corresponding weight of each criteria (this weight is calculated for each organization separately.
As a sample, the calculation for owner is shown in Table 6) within its organization and the weight of
each organization type. This will lead to the finalized AHP weights for each CSF as listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Overall AHP ranking for CSFs.
Critical Success Factor Overall Score Rank

Statutory approvals environment 0.592 1
Influence of client/client’s representative 0.493 2
Availability of experienced managers and skillful workforce 0.422 3
Mechanism of financial payments 0.396 4
Project’s adequate funds/resources 0.369 5
Design team experience 0.338 6
Clear and realistic goals/objectives 0.299 7
Adequacy of plans and specifications 0.275 8
Project manager’s experience 0.272 9
Economical environment 0.252 10
Effective procurement and tendering methods 0.242 11
Decision-making effectiveness 0.241 12
Design errors/mistakes 0.219 13
Coordination between all participants 0.201 14
Contractor’s technical capacity 0.198 15
Project manager skills 0.189 16
Contractor financial strength 0.170 17
Top management support 0.166 18
Commitment to meet quality, cost, and time objectives 0.153 19
Planning, monitoring, and controlling mechanism 0.128 20
Design team’s contribution to construction (constructability review,
0.113 21
value engineering, etc.)
Table 7. Cont.
Critical Success Factor Overall Score Rank
Top management support
Client’s experience in the construction field 0.1120.166 18
22
Commitment to meet quality, cost, and time objectives 0.153 19
Effective subcontractor coordination 0.110 23
Planning, monitoring, and controlling mechanism 0.128 20
Political environment
Design team’s contribution to construction 0.107 24
0.113 21
Effective allocation and control of manpower
(constructability review, value engineering, etc.) 0.100 25
Client’s experience in the construction field
Project manager’s ability to delegate authority 0.0960.112 22
26
Effective subcontractor coordination 0.110 23
Implementing an effective safety program 0.091 27
Political environment 0.107 24
Implementing an effective quality assurance program 0.078 28
Effective allocation and control of manpower 0.100 25
Project manager’s adaptability to changes in project plan
Project manager’s ability to delegate authority 0.0730.096 29
26
Implementing an effective safety program
Project team motivation 0.0700.091 27
30
Implementing an effective quality assurance program
Effective communication systems 0.0680.078 28
31
Project manager’s adaptability to changes in project plan 0.073 29
Project’s Size 0.057 32
Project team motivation 0.070 30
Design complexity
Effective communication systems 0.0540.068 33
31
Risk identification and allocation
Project’s Size 0.0520.057 34
32
Design complexity
Social environment 0.0490.054 33
35
Risk identification and allocation 0.052 34
Project manager’s early and continued involvement in project 0.043 36
Social environment 0.049 35
Feedback mechanism from employees and other parties 0.038 37
Project manager’s early and continued involvement in project 0.043 36
Appropriate organizational structure
Feedback mechanism from employees and other parties 0.0350.038 38
37
Appropriate organizational structure
Project’s Location 0.0330.035 38
39
Project’s Location
Formal dispute resolution process 0.0280.033 39
40
Formal dispute resolution process 0.028 40
6. Discussion of Results and Recommendations to Industry Based on Results

6. Discussion of Results and Recommendations to Industry Based on Results
Based on the participants‘ responses, variables were rated using AHP. The overall score for each
Based on the participants‘ responses, variables were rated using AHP. The overall score for each
factor is presented in Table 7. Further detail for each criteria for the AHP review will be discussed in
factor is presented in Table 7. Further detail for each criteria for the AHP review will be discussed in
the section below for the list of top five variables. Figures 3–7 below show the most significant CSFs
the section below for the list of top five variables. Figures 3–7 below show the most significant CSFs
for client, PMC, supervision consultant, design consultant and contractor, respectively.
for client, PMC, supervision consultant, design consultant and contractor, respectively.
Owner
0.8 0.76
0.7 0.66
0.6 0.55
0.5 0.41 0.39
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Influence of Statutory Availability of Project’s Design
client/client’s approvals experienced adequate funds/ errors/mistakes
representative environment managers and resources
skillful workforce
Figure 3. CSFs (AHP) for owner.

Figure 3. CSFs (AHP) for owner.
It is found that the most significant CSF is based on the influence of the owner with a score of
0.76. This is anticipated as the client being the largest player in the project. The statutory approval
environment (0.66) is the second most important element. The availability of experienced managers
and skilled workforce became the third most significant factor. The project’s adequate
It is found that the most significant CSF is based on the influence of the owner with a score of
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
0.76. This is anticipated as the client being the largest player in the project. The statutory approval 11 of 17
environment (0.66) is the second most important element. The availability of experienced managers and
funds/resources and design errors/mistakes are considered as the next significant, with scores of,
skilled workforceand
funds/resources became the errors/mistakes
design third most significant factor. Theas
are considered project’s adequate
the next funds/resources
significant, with scores andof,
respectively, 0.41 and 0.39.
design errors/mistakes
respectively, 0.41 and 0.39. are considered as the next significant, with scores of, respectively, 0.41 and 0.39.
At the planning stage, the owner should use a very professional designer. This will ensure
At the
At planning
the planning stage, thethe
stage, owner should
owner use ause
should very professional designer. This will ensure accurate
accurate project cost estimates and minimal design a errors
very professional designer.
and/or changes. This
Moreover, will ensure
a complex
project
accurate cost estimates
project cost and minimal
estimates and design
minimal errors and/or
design changes.
errors Moreover,
and/or changes. a complex
Moreover, framework
a complex
framework to promote the issuance of appropriate approvals is recommended for the relevant
to promote the
framework issuance the
to promote of appropriate
issuance of approvals
appropriate is recommended for the relevant
approvals is recommended for governmental
the relevant
governmental authorities. This can be achieved by good interagency cooperation.
authorities. This can be achieved by good interagency cooperation.
governmental authorities. This can be achieved by good interagency cooperation.
Design Consultant
Design Consultant
0.9
0.9 0.764
0.8 0.764
0.8
0.7
0.572
0.7
0.6 0.572
0.6
0.5 0.445 0.419
0.445 0.391
0.5
0.4 0.419 0.391
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0 Project’s Influence of Project manager Top Project
Project’s
adequate Influence of
funds/ client/client’s Projectskills
manager Top
management Project
manager’s
adequate funds/ representative
resources client/client’s skills management
support manager’s
experience
resources representative support experience
Figure 4. CSFs (AHP) for design consultant.
As design consultants, the findings of the ranking indicate that the main concerns of the
As design
As design consultants, thethe
consultants, findings of the
findings of ranking indicate
the ranking that thethat
indicate main
the concerns of the designers
main concerns
designers were about the sufficient funding/resources of the project besides the legislative approvals. of the
were about the sufficient funding/resources of the project besides the legislative approvals.
designers were about the sufficient funding/resources of the project besides the legislative approvals. Such
Such two variables, respectively, had ratings of 0.76 and 0.57. The third, fourth, and fifth critical two
variables,
Such two respectively,
variables, had ratings
respectively, of
had 0.76 and
ratings 0.57.
of The
0.76 third,
and fourth,
0.57. The and fifth
third, critical
fourth, factors
and include
fifth
factors include the competence of project managers (0.445), top management support (0.419), and critical
the competence
factors of project
include the managers
competence (0.445),
of project top management
managers support
(0.445), top (0.419), and
management project
support
project manager experience (0.391). The designers found that one of the significant CSFs was the top manager
(0.419), and
experience (0.391). The designers found that one of the significant CSFs was the
project manager experience (0.391). The designers found that one of the significant CSFs was the top
management support. In order to increase efficiency and motivation, top management must provide top management
support. In order to increase efficiency and motivation, top management must provide additional
management support. In order to increase efficiency and motivation, top management must provide
additional resources to their employees. In addition, training support will improve the design team’s
resources to their employees. In addition, training support will improve the design team’s performance.
additional resources to their employees. In addition, training support will improve the design team’s
performance.
performance.
Supervision Consultant
Supervision Consultant
0.8
0.701
0.8
0.7 0.701
0.7 0.544
0.6 0.533
0.544 0.498
0.6 0.533
0.5 0.498 0.413
0.5 0.413
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0 Top Project’s Design Project manager Project
Top
management Project’s
adequate Design
funds/ errors/mistakes Projectskills
manager Project
manager’s
management
support adequate funds/ errors/mistakes
resources skills manager’s
experience
support resources experience
Figure 5. CSFs (AHP) for supervision consultant.
The highest scored factor for the supervision consultants is the top management support (0.701).
During the construction phase, the supervision consultant needs full support to make the necessary
decisions. Consequently, project adequate funds (0.544) is the second important factor. The
decisions.
consultant Consequently,
assumed in the project adequate
third position funds
that (0.544)
reducing is the
design second important
error/errors factor.
would impact The
project
decisions. Consequently, project adequate funds (0.544) is the second important factor. The consultant
assumed in the third position that reducing design error/errors would impact project performance (0.533).
The remaining two variables are project manager skills (0.5) and project manager’s experience (0.413).
PMC
0.7 0.658
0.577
0.6
0.47 0.456
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Project’s Top Design team’s Implementing an Clear and
adequate management contribution to effective quality realistic
funds/resources support construction assurance goals/objectives
(constructability program
review, value
engineering, etc.)
Figure 6. CSFs (AHP) for supervision PMC.
Figure 6. CSFs (AHP) for supervision PMC.
The
The PMC considered the
PMC considered the project’s
project’s adequate
adequate funds,
funds, top
top management
management support,
support, and
and the design
the design
team’s contribution to construction to be the most significant factors with scores of 0.658, 0.557, and
team’s contribution to construction to be the most significant factors with scores of 0.658, 0.557, and
0.47, respectively. Notwithstanding these reasons, the PMC claimed that in project performance the
0.47, respectively. Notwithstanding these reasons, the PMC claimed that in project performance the
successful quality assurance system is very critical (0.456). The fifth critical factor with a score of 0.4
successful quality assurance system is very critical (0.456). The fifth critical factor with a score of 0.4
is the clear and realistic goals/objectives. This aspect ensures that modifications, disagreements, and
is the clear and realistic goals/objectives. This aspect ensures that modifications, disagreements, and
disputes are reduced during project lifetime.
disputes are reduced during project lifetime.
Most of the PMC’s CSFs have to do with project funds, top management funding, and design
team involvement. The quality assurance program was also considered by the PMC to be one of the
critical factors. Such
critical factors. Such standards
standards include
include projectproject documentation
documentation for management
for management of material,of material,
production,
production, and workforce.
and workforce.
The
The top two important
top two important factors,
factors, according
according to
to the contractor’s responses
the contractor’s responses in
in Figure
Figure 6,
6, are
are top
top
management support (0.701) and client/client representative influence (0.606).
Respondents stressed that the process for organizing, tracking, and managing is a significant factor
(0.594). The last two most important factors are, respectively, clear and realistic goals/objectives (0.401)
Contractor
and the commitment of the design team to construction (0.399). The clear and practical goals/objectives
0.8
were identified as 0.701
being a top CSF for contractors. Changes in construction projects is one of the causes
of failure
0.7for any project. For disputes mitigation, the client must devote sufficient time for planning
0.606 0.594
before construction.
0.6 Contractors are also advised during the bid to carefully review the specifics of the
project documents.
0.5
This study categorized project success factors into categories0.41and quantified0.399
the effect of each
0.4
category on project performance and success considering all project stakeholders. This study differs
0.3
from others by quantifying the effect of project stakeholders on project success.
0.2
0.1
0
Top management Influence of Planning, Clear and realistic Design team’s
support client/client’s monitoring and goals/objectives contribution to
representative controlling construction
mechanism (constructability
review, value
engineering, etc.)
critical factors. Such standards include project documentation for management of material,
production, and workforce.
The top
Sustainability 2020,two important factors, according to the contractor’s responses in Figure 6, are
12, 1990 top
13 of 17
Contractor
0.8
0.701
0.7
0.606 0.594
0.6
0.5 0.41 0.399
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Top management Influence of Planning, Clear and realistic Design team’s
support client/client’s monitoring and goals/objectives contribution to
representative controlling construction
mechanism (constructability
review, value
engineering, etc.)
Figure 7. CSFs (AHP) for supervision contractor.
Figure 7. CSFs (AHP) for supervision contractor.
7. Conclusions
This paper aimed at assessing and prioritizing CSFs in the construction industry. A list of
40 CSFs was generated by reviewing literature and related studies to achieve this aim. Under
seven major groups, the variables were grouped. Construction industry professionals evaluated
the impact level of each factor through a questionnaire. From 148 different construction experts
from various types of organizations, responses were received. Employing the Relative Importance
Index (RII) and traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method with Saaty random index, the
CSFs were prioritized according to seven categories, namely, project-related factors, company- and
work-related factors, client-related factors, project-management-related factors, design-team-related
factors, contractor-related factors, project-manager-related factors, taking into account the effect of all
stakeholders on project efficiency and progress.
The results indicate that the majority of the significant factors were about financial problems
(Mechanism of financial payments, project’s adequate funds/resources), administrative aspects
(Influence of client/client’s representative, availability of experienced managers and skillful workforce),
and the authorities’ approval mechanisms (statutory approvals environment).
8. Recommendations for Future Study

Combining two or more multiple-criteria decision-making or other methods (i.e., fuzzy AHP, etc.)
for validation and ranking of alternatives will gain more robust results.
9. Data Availability
Data and models generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author
by request.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.G. and M.A.; Methodology, M.G. and M.A.; Software, M.A.;
Validation, M.G. and M.A.; Formal analysis, M.G. and M.A.; Investigation, M.G. and M.A.; Resources, M.A.; Data
curation, M.A.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.G. and M.A.; Writing—review and editing, M.G. and M.A.;
Visualization, M.A.; Supervision, M.G.; Project administration, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The publication of this article was funded by the Qatar National Library.
Acknowledgments: The authors particularly thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their
supportive comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
CSFs Critical Success Factors
RII Relative Importance Index
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
KBT Knowledge-Based Theory
PMC Project Management Consultant
PRF Project-Related Factors
BRF Business- and Work-Environment-Related Factors
CLRF Client-Related Factors
PMRF Project-Management-Related Factors
DTRF Design-Team-Related Factors
CORF Contractor-Related Factors
PMRF Project-Manager-Related Factors
PW Priority Weight
References
1. Tripathi, K.K.; Jha, K.N. Application of fuzzy preference relation for evaluating success factors of construction
organisations. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 758–779. [CrossRef]
2. Liu, H.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Wang, M. Identification and hierarchical structure of critical success factors for
innovation in construction projects: Chinese perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 401–416. [CrossRef]
3. Gudiene, N.; Banaitis, A.; Podvezko, V.; Banaitiene, N. Identification and evaluation of the critical success
factors for construction projects in Lithuania: AHP approach. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 350–359.
[CrossRef]
4. Maghsoodi, A.I.; Khalilzadeh, M. Identification and Evaluation of Construction Projects’ Critical Success
Factors Employing Fuzzy-TOPSIS Approach. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1593–1605. [CrossRef]
5. Tripathi, K.K.; Jha, K.N. Determining Success Factors for a Construction Organization: A Structural Equation
Modeling Approach. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04017050. [CrossRef]
6. Sharma, S.; Bansal, V.K. Location-based planning and scheduling of highway construction projects in hilly
terrain using GIS. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 45, 570–582. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, S.; Migliaccio, G.C.; Zandbergen, P.A.; Guindani, M. Empirical assessment of geographically based
surface interpolation methods for adjusting construction cost estimates by project location. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2014, 140, 4014015. [CrossRef]
8. Oechler, E.; Molenaar, K.R.; Hallowell, M.; Scott, S. State-of-practice for risk-based quality assurance in state
departments of transportation. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 958–970. [CrossRef]
9. Chan, A.P.C.; Scott, D.; Chan, A.P.L. Factors affecting the success of a construction project. ASCE J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 153–155. [CrossRef]
10. Rogulj, K.; Jajac, N. Achieving a Construction Barrier-Free Environment: Decision Support to Policy Selection.
J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018020. [CrossRef]
11. Cheung, S.O.; Zhu, L.; Wai Lee, K. Incentivization and Interdependency in Construction Contracting.
J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018010. [CrossRef]
12. Kim, D.Y.; Persad, K.R.; Harrison, R.; Loftus-Otway, L. Assessing the direct employment impact of federal
economic stimulus funds on construction projects in Texas. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 04014010. [CrossRef]
13. Podolski, M. Management of resources in multiunit construction projects with the use of a tabu search
algorithm. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 263–272. [CrossRef]
14. Pournader, M.; Tabassi, A.A.; Baloh, P. A three-step design science approach to develop a novel human
resource-planning framework in projects: The cases of construction projects in USA, Europe, and Iran. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 419–434. [CrossRef]
15. Mitkus, S.; Trinkūnienė, E. Reasoned decisions in construction contracts evaluation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ.
2008, 14, 402–416. [CrossRef]
16. Gunduz, M.; Yahya, A.M.A. Analysis of Project Success Factors in Construction Industry. Technol. Econ. Dev.
Econ. 2018, 24, 67–80. [CrossRef]
17. Nguyen, P.H.D.; Lines, B.C.; Tran, D.Q. Best-Value Procurement in Design-Bid-Build Construction Projects:
Empirical Analysis of Selection Outcomes. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018093. [CrossRef]
18. Sackey, S.; Kim, B.-S. Development of an Expert System Tool for the Selection of Procurement System in
Large-Scale Construction Projects (ESCONPROCS). KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 4205–4214. [CrossRef]
19. Stanford, M.S.; Molenaar, K.R. Influence of Simplified Procurement Methods on Competition for Public
Sector Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04017105. [CrossRef]
20. Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, J. Reciprocal relations between official development assistance recipient and donor
countries: Case of South Korean overseas construction business and southeast Asian Countries’ economy.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 2274. [CrossRef]
21. Chancellor, W.; Abbott, M. The Australian construction industry: Is the shadow economy distorting
productivity? Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 176–186. [CrossRef]
22. Xiahou, X.; Tang, Y.; Yuan, J.; Chang, T.; Liu, P.; Li, Q. Evaluating social performance of construction projects:
An empirical study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2329. [CrossRef]
23. Tang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, F.; Yoon, Y.; Song, Y.; Sharma, R.S. Social Media Data Analytics for the U.S.
Construction Industry: Preliminary Study on Twitter. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04017038. [CrossRef]
24. Choi, B.; Lee, S.H. Role of Social Norms and Social Identifications in Safety Behavior of Construction Workers.
II: Group Analyses for the Effects of Cultural Backgrounds and Organizational Structures on Social Influence
Process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016125. [CrossRef]
25. Tabish, S.Z.; Jha, K.N. Success traits for a construction project. ASCE J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138,
1131–1138. [CrossRef]
26. Sha’ar, K.Z.; Assaf, S.A.; Bambang, T.; Babsail, M.; Fattah, A.M.A.E. Design-construction interface problems
in large building construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2017, 17, 238–250. [CrossRef]
27. Cheung, S.O.; Wong, W.K.; Yiu, T.W.; Kwok, T.W. Exploring the influence of contract governance on
construction dispute negotiation. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2008, 134, 391–398. [CrossRef]
28. Jha, K.N.; Iyer, K.C. Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007,
25, 527–540. [CrossRef]
29. Agyekum Mensah, G. The degree of accuracy and factors that influence the uncertainty of SME cost estimates.
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 19, 1–14. [CrossRef]
30. Andalib, R.; Hoseini, A.; Gatmiri, B. A stochastic model of cash flow forecasting considering delays in owners’
payments. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2018, 36, 545–564. [CrossRef]
31. Yang, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Drew, D.S.; Ho, M. Critical success factors for stakeholder management: Construction
practitioners’ perspectives. ASCE J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 778–786. [CrossRef]
32. Doloi, H.; Sawhney, A.; Iyer, K.C.; Rentala, S. Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian con-struction
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 479–489. [CrossRef]
33. Haussner, D.; Maemura, Y.; Matous, P. Exploring Internationally Operated Construction Projects through the
Critical Incident Technique. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018025. [CrossRef]
34. Clevenger, C.M. Development of a Project Management Certification Plan for a DOT. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34,
06018002. [CrossRef]
35. Nnaji, C.; Lee, H.W.; Karakhan, A.; Gambatese, J. Developing a Decision-Making Framework to Select Safety
Technologies for Highway Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018016. [CrossRef]
36. Antoniou, F.; Aretoulis, G. A multi-criteria decision-making support system for choice of method of
compensation for highway construction contractors in Greece. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 19, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
37. Cao, D.; Li, H.; Wang, G.; Luo, X.; Tan, D. Relationship Network Structure and Organizational Competitiveness:
Evidence from BIM Implementation Practices in the Construction Industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018005.
[CrossRef]
38. Gunduz, M.; Birgonul, T.; Ozdemir, M. Fuzzy Structural Equation Model to Assess Construction Site Safety
Performance. ASCE J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016112. [CrossRef]
39. Gunduz, M.; Laitinen, H. A 10-step Safety Management Framework for Construction SMEs. Int. J. Occup.
Saf. Ergon. (JOSE) 2017, 3, 353–359. [CrossRef]
40. Gunduz, M.; Laitinen, H. Observation based safety performance indexing method for construction
industry-Validation with Turkish SMEs. KSCE 2018, 22, 1–7. [CrossRef]
41. Lin, Y.-C.; Chang, J.-X.; Su, Y.-C. Developing construction defect management system using BIM technology
in quality inspection. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 903–914. [CrossRef]
42. Ma, Z.; Cai, S.; Mao, N.; Yang, Q.; Feng, J.; Wang, P. Construction quality management based on a collaborative
system using BIM and indoor positioning. Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 35–45. [CrossRef]
43. Yun, S.; Jung, W.; Han, S.H.; Park, H. Critical organizational success factors for public private partnership
projects-a comparison of solicited and unsolicited proposals. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 131–143. [CrossRef]
44. Lee, C.K.; Yiu, T.W.; Cheung, S.O. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Alternative Dispute
Resolution Selection and Use in Construction Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2018, 10,
04518003. [CrossRef]
45. Ojiako, U.; Chipulu, M.; Marshall, A.; Williams, T. An examination of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘justice’ implications
in Online Dispute Resolution in construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 301–316. [CrossRef]
46. Kog, Y.C.; Loh, P.K. Critical success factors for different components of construction projects. ASCE J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 520–528. [CrossRef]
47. Zou, W.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Chung, J.; Wong, J. Identifying the critical success factors for relationship
management in PPP projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 265–274. [CrossRef]
48. Tabassi, A.A.; Ramli, M.; Roufechaei, K.M.; Tabasi, A.A. Team development and performance in construction
design teams: An assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating effect of compensation. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 2014, 32, 932–949. [CrossRef]
49. Golabchi, A.; Guo, X.; Liu, M.; Han, S.; Lee, S.; AbouRizk, S. An integrated ergonomics framework for
evaluation and design of construction operations. Autom. Constr. 2018, 95, 72–85. [CrossRef]
50. Lin, E.T.A.; Ofori, G.; Tjandra, I.; Kim, H. Framework for productivity and safety enhancement system using
BIM in Singapore. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24. [CrossRef]
51. Carretero-Ayuso, M.J.; García-Sanz-Calcedo, J.; Rodríguez-Jiménez, C.E. Characterization and Appraisal
of Technical Specifications in Brick Façade Projects in Spain. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2018, 32, 04018012.
[CrossRef]
52. Chua, D.K.H.; Loh, P.K.; Kog, Y.C.; Jaselskis, E.J. Neural networks for construction project success. Expert
Syst. Appl. 1997, 13, 317–328. [CrossRef]
53. Sanvido, V.; Parfitt, K.; Guveris, M.; Coyle, M. Critical success factors for construction projects. ASCE J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 1992, 118, 94–111. [CrossRef]
54. Alzahrani, J.I.; Emsley, M.W. The impact of contractors’ attributes on construction project success: A post
construction evaluation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 313–322. [CrossRef]
55. Tang, Y.; Wang, G.; Li, H.; Cao, D. Dynamics of Collaborative Networks between Contractors and
Subcontractors in the Construction Industry: Evidence from National Quality Award Projects in China.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 05018009. [CrossRef]
56. Abbasianjahromi, H.; Rajaie, H.; Shakeri, E.; Kazemi, O. A new approach for subcontractor selection in the
construction industry based on portfolio theory. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 346–356. [CrossRef]
57. Shurrab, M.; Abbasi, G.; Al Khazaleh, R. Evaluating the effect of motivational dimensions on the construction
project managers in Jordan. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 412–424. [CrossRef]
58. Yuan, H.; Wu, H.; Zuo, J. Understanding Factors Influencing Project Managers’ Behavioral Intentions to
Reduce Waste in Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018031. [CrossRef]
59. Wang, C.M.; Xu, B.B.; Zhang, S.J.; Chen, Y.Q. Influence of personality and risk propensity on risk perception
of Chinese construction project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1294–1304. [CrossRef]
60. Ho, W.; Ma, X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2018, 267, 399–414. [CrossRef]
61. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of application of
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 19, 1–17. [CrossRef]
62. Jain, V.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Sakhuja, S.; Thoduka, N.; Aggarwal, R. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and
TOPSIS: A case study in the Indian automotive industry. Neural Comput. Appl. 2018, 29, 555–564. [CrossRef]
63. Beltrão, L.M.P.; Carvalho, M.T.M. Prioritizing Construction Risks Using Fuzzy AHP in Brazilian Public
Enterprises. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 05018018. [CrossRef]
64. Kim, S.-Y.; Nguyen, V.T. An AHP Framework for Evaluating Construction Supply Chain Relationships.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1544–1556. [CrossRef]
65. Atuahene, B.T.; Baiden, B.K. Organizational culture of Ghanaian construction firms. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
2018, 18, 177–188. [CrossRef]
66. Alaghbari, W.; Al-Sakkaf, A.A.; Sultan, B. Factors affecting construction labour productivity in Yemen. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 2017, 19, 1–13. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323539612
The Impact of Project Management Implementation on the Successful

Completion of Projects in Construction
Article · March 2018

DOI: 10.18178/ijimt.2018.9.1.781
CITATIONS READS
10 7,163
1 author:
Assem Al-Hajj
Al Khawarizmi Holding Company/Al Khawarizmi International College
58 PUBLICATIONS 482 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Organizations Performance View project
Sustainable Practices in Facilities Management industry View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Assem Al-Hajj on 03 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 2018
The Impact of Project Management Implementation on

the Successful Completion of Projects in Construction
Assem Al-Hajj and Mario M. Zraunig
 available, the complex question about the contribution of

Abstract—Although project success is the most discussed project management toward project success remains
topic of project management, little is known about the unanswered. To some extent, the corner stones of project
influence of project management success on the success of success achieve general agreement, whereas others have
projects. Despite the vast array of project management
massive disagreements [4]. Apparently, scholars,
literature and trainings available, project management
methodologies fail to deliver consistent project success. researchers and practitioners fail to agree on the influence of
Accordingly, there is a need to decode the role of successfully project management on project success and a lot of ground
applied project management methodologies on project success. is yet to be explored.
This paper examines the current status of project management
methodologies and their influence on the elements of project
success. Although projects are managed since ancient times, a
II. WHAT IS A PROJECT?
thorough literature review reveals that the theoretical
cornerstones of project management methodologies are not yet The BS ISO 10006:1997 defines a project as: “a unique
agreed upon. Project success depends on project management process consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled
success and the success of the end-product. This represents the activities with start and finish dates, undertaken to achieve
micro and macro perspective of project success, the boundary
an objective conforming to specific requirements, including
of which inspires polarized reactions. Project success is
influenced by many different factors, outside the control of constraints of time, cost and resources” [5]. Projects have
project management. This research analyses the data of specific characteristics and rules in comparison to
project practitioners, scattered over ten nations. The collected operational work [6]. Contemporary literature outlines such
data suggests that the majority of successful projects findings and offers ample definitions, highlighting the
implement, but do not fully utilize contemporary project uniqueness of every project. Projects are temporary
management tools and techniques to their capabilities. The
organisations, established to achieve desired goals and
influence of project management tools and techniques on
project success depends on the practitioners’ training, the objectives [7], resulting in project teams being also
timing and level of implementation achieved, whereas the temporary, redundant or reassigned after the completion of
human factor plays an essential part for achieving project the project. A major drawback in temporary organisations is
success. This research concludes that project management that project teams know that their contribution is only
success represents one of two essential ingredients for required for a limited period of time. Shenhar (2001) [8]
achieving project success, therefore, positively influencing
places emphasis on the common misconception that projects
project success.
are alike and argues that one of the reasons why projects fail
Index Terms—Project management, project success, tools is that project managers are using the same tools and
and techniques, success factors and criteria. techniques for all projects similarly. Projects are unique and
demand distinctive judgment. Therefore, it appears difficult
to implement a static management methodology capable of
I. INTRODUCTION successfully managing projects on a consistent level as the
Projects have been realised since ancient times [1], which “unique", “particular aim” and the individual project
leads to the assumption that its theories have matured into “objectives” point towards aiming at a moving target.
solid practices. Koskela and Howell (2002) [2] argued that
as of yet, there is no measurable value added by
implementing best practices of project management based III. MANAGEMENT OF PROJECTS
on the notion that contemporary concept of project Project management practices attempt completion of the
management lacks theoretical foundation and is based on a project as intended; getting it done most efficiently by
narrow and implicit theory that requires further development minimizing cost and achieving external goals related to
and enrichment. Traditional project management, however, customer needs [2]. Goals appear straightforward and
causes self-inflicted problems impacting project achievable, however, projects continue to run late, exceed
performance negatively or worse, causing projects to fail [2]. their budgets or fail to meet project objectives [9]. Modern
Recent studies point towards the lack of clear definitions of project management was introduced during the Manhattan
project management and project success [3]. project in the early 50‟s [10], but certainly, projects have
Despite the vast array of project management literature been realised before that time. It is accepted that Henry
Gantt developed the nowadays commonly used bar chart in
1916 [11]. Further review into the literature revealed that
Manuscript received October 14, 2017; revised December 18, 2017.
Assem Al-Hajj is with the Applied Science University, UK (e-mail: the Swiss Engineer Hermann Schuerch used a similar tool in
assem.al-hajj@asu.edu.bh). 1912, developing and successfully utilizing the bar chart as
Mario M. Zraunig is with the Heriot-Watt University Dubai Campus, a scheduling tool on a bridge project leading to the
UK (e-mail: mariozraunig@gmx.at).
doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2018.9.1.781 21
conclusion that the inception of modern project management concentrates on long-range customer satisfaction [22]. Such
was established approximately 40 years earlier than broadly a concept is an analogue to De Wit‟s (1988) [24] distinction
perceived. Project management is a newly developed between project success and project management success.
concept and thus, its literature is relatively young lacking in De Wit (1988) highlights that project success is measured
concepts and theoretical basis [12]. It can be however against the overall project objectives following project
argued that project management methodologies date back as completion.
far as 2550 BCE and that the Pyramids were delivered by
following an approach featuring a project charter and a TABLE I: LITERATURE SUMMARY OF PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA.
PARTIALLY (ADAPTED OF WESTHUIZEN, D. AND FITZGERALD E., 2005)
business justification, incorporated into a life cycle [15]
approach [1].
Projects are better designed to respond to expected
uncertainties [13], whereas project tasks demand proper
planning and may be more challenging to project teams,
Marchewka 2003
when compared to routine work. In addition, the PMBOK®
Wateridge 1998
Baccarini 1999
Thomsett 2002
Kerzner 2002
Guide (2000) points out that its project management
Booch 1996
mythology is only “…applicable to most projects most of
the time”. This leads to the questions “what” shall be used PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA
“when?” Most surprisingly, these questions remain
Quality of Project management
unanswered [14]. X X X
process
Project management methodologies are not designed to
Within time X X X X X X
be generic but applicable to all projects at any given time, as Within budget X X X X X X
they need to be adapted to individual project objectives, in Specified quality X X X X X X
order to achieve consistent project management success. Specified service quality X X X
Therefore, it appears that either PM methodologies are Project stakeholder satisfaction X X X X X
wrongly applied or project management does not directly User satisfaction X X X X X X
influence the success of projects.
Net benefits X X X X
IV. PROJECT SUCCESS Nevertheless, project management success is measured

during the project life cycle via the classic performance
The ultimate purpose of implementing project
measures [24]. Milosevic and Srivannaboon (2006) [25]
management practices is to achieve consistency in project
focus on the link between project management and the
success. Yet, there is no agreed definition of project success,
which only further complicates the achievement of such. projects final product as the new dimension for achieving
Table I shows a summary of literature on the criteria of project success, whereas project success is not achieved by
success for management of projects. completing the project within its constraints, but only after
The experience of the project manager directly influences achieving end-user satisfaction [25], [26]. Even so, this
the success of projects [16], [17]. Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) approach may intend to deliver individual business
[18] highlight that project management has its role in outcomes, rather than managing project activities
achieving project success, but several other factors beyond successfully for achieving successful project completion
the control of project management, also affect project [26]. Moreover, other researchers highlight that measuring
success. Peters and Horner (1997) [19] argue that project success shall be done from the perspectives of the individual
management does not possess the power to control time, owner, developer, contractor, end-user as well as the general
cost or quality. These measures are traps, purely to be seen public [22], [27]. Thus, it is broadly accepted that different
as either self-created or imposed, but rarely objective projects may have individual success factors [28]. Liu (1999)
yardsticks. Some projects miss all three parameters and are [29] highlights that every project may even have its unique
still hugely successful. Also Dvir et al. (2006) [20] highlight set of success measures. Apparently, this complicates
that traditional project success measures are incomplete and deriving an agreed definition of project success.
may be misleading. Although all three constraints are met as Interestingly, stakeholder satisfaction is commonly agreed
planned, a project may not meet the sponsor requirements to be a valuable addition to the iron triangle whereas a
[20]. Such findings lead Baccarini (1999) [21] to conclude successful project shall also satisfy its stakeholders [21].
that only the combination of project management success Kam and Müller (2005) [23] argue that if the end product of
with product success will create project success, whereas the project does not perform to customer satisfaction,
Lim and Mohamed (1999) [22] suggest that a project is only although the project is delivered within the time, cost and
successful, when achieving its objectives. Typically, project quality constraints, the project appears successful from the
success is perceived as a single measure, either the project project management perspective, but the product could
was a success or it failed [23]. Lim and Mohamed (1999) result in a failure. They further highlight this contradiction
[22] introduced the micro and macro perspective that looks with their statement “The operation was a success, but the
at project success from a different perspective. The micro patient died”. Therefore, in simplistic terms, project success
view focuses and assesses project management success at comprises of two main ingredients, project management
project completion, whereas the macro perspective success as well as product success [21]-[23].
incorporates the operational aspect of projects and
22
V. REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY PROJECT MANAGEMENT to project failure.

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES According to Globerson and Zwikael (2002) [40], the
There are no agreed definitions for the success of projects project manager is fully accountable for the success of the
and project management [3] and based on Dvir et al.‟s project. The project manager is ultimately responsible for
observation, there are no universal project success factors to developing the project execution strategy, which shall align
all projects and different projects have different project with the parent organisations primary strategy [40],
success factors [28], resulting in that contemporary research highlighting the importance of properly trained project
lacks in sufficient hard evidence, for justifying the positive managers. Eventually, Turner and Müller (2003) [13]
influence of project management on project success [14]. conclude that the title “Project Manager” shall be restricted
Nevertheless, in project management there is emphasis on to individuals, possessing professional certificates for
the successful application of tools and techniques against creating more confidence and trust to principals or sponsors,
project activities to achieve project success. Due to the rich during the process of selecting competent project managers
variety of different tools and techniques, which are [13], [41]. Further studies suggest that competence is
applicable to different project life cycle phases, it seems of essential to achieve project success, but does not guarantee
utmost importance to apply the right tool and technique at project success [13], [42]. Such studies partially align with
the right time. Zeitoun (1998) [30] suggests that the the micro and macro perspective for project success of Lim
influence of the tools and techniques depends on the and Mohamed (1999) [22] in that project management
practitioners training as well as the implementation process. success does not necessarily translate into project success.
Hence, several success factors relate to human influenced Nevertheless, the competence of the project manager plays a
factors, the so-called soft project management [31] and do vital role in choosing the right tools and techniques to
not relate directly to tools and technique of the hard project deliver the necessary project life cycle deliverables.
management. Other researchers namely Nguyen et al. 2004 According to Dvir et al. (2004) [43] “Plans are nothing,
[32]; Scott-Young and Samson 2004 [33]; Kloppenborg and changing plans is everything”. Certainly, it is unlikely to
Opfer (2002) [31] partially confirm these findings. Based on plan every activity exactly in the exact way it shall be
a study of Thamhain (1999) [34], only 50% of project accomplish. Project management practices need to cope
managers are familiar with project management tools and with the ever-changing internal and external factors,
techniques, whereas only 28% implement them effectively. influencing project success. Thus, it is important to
In a study Al-Hajj & Sayers (2014) [35] concluded similarly appreciate the competence of the project manager. Turner
that around 42% of UAE practitioners do not utilize the and Müller (2003) [13] confirm this point, which leads to
WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) in their projects and the conclusion that proper project management training is a
around 48% do not feature an OBS (Organisation predecessor to the top-ranked project success factors.
Breakdown Structure). Nevertheless, the investigated
projects achieve a success rate (time, cost and quality) of
around 66%. Such findings are surprising findings and one VI. LINK BETWEEN PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT
may conclude that project management tools and techniques SUCCESS
are not directly influencing project success. Project management practices, in combination with
On the other hand, several studies conclude [36]-[39] that several other factors, influence project success and not all
properly and timely applied project management tools and project management tools and techniques are directly
techniques may lead to project success. It involves a associated with project success. Nevertheless, even a
sensitive decision-making process to choose the right tools thorough literature review could not identify any
or technique for the specific project life cycle phase, in successfully completed project, without having utilized
order to produce the demanded deliverables. Moreover, basic project management practices. Thus, many researchers
wrongly used project management tools and techniques may [36]-[39] highlight that correctly applied tools and
trigger the contrary [10], [37], [38], which could even lead techniques may positively contribute to project success.
TABLE II: PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Source: compiled from Ashley et al. 1987 [47]; Nguyen et al. 2004 [32]; Rohaniyati 2009 [51]; Toor et al. 2008 [52].
Rank Ashley et al. (1987) Nguyen et al. (2004) Rohaniyati (2009) Toor et al. (2008)
1 Organisational planning Competent project manager Project manager's capabilities and Effective project planning and
effort experience control
2 Project manager goal Having adequate funding until Clarity of project scope and work Sufficient resources
commitment project completion definition
3 Team motivation and goal Multidisciplinary/competent Organisational Planning Clear and detailed written
orientation project team contract
4 Scope and work definition The commitment to project The use of a control systems Clearly defined goals and
priorities of all stakeholders
5 Project manager capability Availability of resources Project manager's goal commitment Competent project manager
and experience
6 Control system Top management support Project team motivation and goal Adequate communication
orientation among related parties
7 Safety Awarding bids to the right Safety precaution and applied Competent team members
designer/contractor procedures
23
The contemporary literature refers to project management VIII. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS — PROJECT SUCCESS
practices, as the combination of concepts, processes, tools Findings from the survey show that 86.3% of the clients
and techniques. Besner and Hobbs (2004) highlight the and 89.9% of contractors were satisfied with the work
difference of applying tools and techniques, and using completed on projects. Considering that one-third of the
generic concepts and procedures with the metaphor “An surveyed project managers failed to keep their projects
experienced cook can give details about his recipe, but it is within the iron triangle shows that stakeholder satisfaction is
really looking at him in the kitchen, using his tools…” [48]. perceived independently. Hence, this finding may indicate
The metaphor illustrates the importance of correct that project management success influences perceived
implementation of generally available tools and techniques, project success. As at the time of the survey, the majority
rather than generic concept and procedures, which are (78.4%) of the projects were still in execution – monitor and
partially also applicable in operational management. control phase, it is doubtful that the project product success
Although, the traditional iron triangle seems outdated, it influences the rating of the stakeholder satisfaction, a
is still the broadly agreed measure for project management finding which contradicts the observation of previous
success. The arguments, whether the project product success researchers [21]-[23], who widely agree that project success
influences project success are also associated with the is a combination of project management success and
macro and micro perspective. However, in the long run it is product success. Moreover, it appears that projects failing in
unlikely that a project is considered successful when the traditional measures may still satisfy stakeholders.
project's product encounters failure. Hence, product success Most interestingly, 42.9% of unsatisfied stakeholders are
is an essential part of project success [21]-[24]. Table II reporting their project being on time, 71.4% are within the
shows the ranking of project success factors appearing in the budget and 28.6% deliver the project as per contract terms
literature. and conditions. Demonstrating the iron triangle of Atkinson
does not necessarily fully serve as an appropriate success
measurement. None of the unsatisfied stakeholders work for
VII. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY a client organisation, whereas 50% of the respondents work
for a contractor. Although, the overall result illustrates
This research aimed for collecting hard facts. The
projects with satisfied stakeholders, the above finding aligns
literature review revealed interesting facts, supporting the with the reviewed project management literature. Nowadays,
conclusion that project management positively influences considering time, cost and quality, as primary success
project success. A project may have individual sets of measures appears insufficient to assess the success of a
success criteria and factors. Thus, it is recommended project. Therefore, as already suggested in the literature,
initiating studies on a global scale, for identifying a possible additional parameters shall also be considered for evaluating
generic set of project success parameters. project success. The survey findings also show that the
Quantitative data was collected in a survey via a web- majority of projects respondents working on are within the
based questionnaire, featuring 20 Questions sent to 142 planned time (66.7%), within the agreed budget (72.5%) and
selected project managers. Participants were selected based comply or exceed quality requirements (66.7%). The
on their background, geographical location and their analysis unambiguously demonstrates that around two thirds
employment position. The quality of data received, by of the surveyed projects operate within the iron triangle and
having more than 75% of the respondents occupying a achieved stakeholder satisfaction. These projects achieve the
managerial position, has achieved the aim of this survey. broadly agreed definition for project management success.
The questionnaire features closed and five point Likert scale In contrary, merely 47.8% of the respondents predict their
project successful completion and only 19.6% of
questions in combination with matrix ratings, based on
practitioners are confident in achieving project success.
findings from the literature review.
Based on the respondents‟ opinions, the adequate funding
For the framework, the following assumptions were made:
until project completion strongly influences the success of a
 Successfully delivered projects utilize tools and
project. However, market or industry fluctuations, on a
techniques of project management practices. global scale, may have influenced such rating. Nevertheless,
 Project failures have patterns related to methods
it is apparent that even global changes may influence an
adopted to the implementation of project management individual project success, a finding that consolidates the
tools and techniques. micro and macro perspective of project success.
 Competent project managers have a strong command Nonetheless, a project does not operate in a vacuum.
of project management tools and techniques, relevant
to produce the project life cycle phase deliverables.
Thus, properly trained project managers have influence
on project success.
These assumptions are partially based on Turner and
Müller (2003) [13] conclusions that the certification of
project managers is essential for high performance.
Nevertheless, different projects have different success
criteria or success factors [28], [36], whereas recent research Fig. 1. Project success status.
[46] revealed that different nationalities and cultures
perceive project success differently. A. Beyond Stakeholder Satisfaction
Fig. 2 shows that, 19.6% of respondents replied with
24
“Excellent quality – better than required.” Interestingly, 70% practitioners perceive that gaining competence can be
of these answers originate from Asia, mainly Singapore. professional certification process, which around 20% have
Although Ashley et al. (1987) [47] emphasised that success an affiliation to a professional project management
is only achieved with delivering “results much better than organisation. Such results indicate that practitionaers
expected” this does neither align with advanced quality perceive that gaining competence can be achieved without
management thinking, nor with good project management obtaining professional training or through professional
practices. Wang (2006) also highlights this phenomenon in certification process, which contradicts the literature. More
his research earlier. Chinese stakeholders rate the than three-quarters of participants occupy a manager
position, wherein 22.2% of the respondents are senior
importance of relationships over the iron triangle as a
project managers or project directors. The age range of the
measurement for project success. Also Shenhar et al. (1997)
participants is between 25 and 65 years, where the majority
[53] rank stakeholder satisfaction before time, cost and of participants (55.6%) have a bachelor‟s degree or higher,
quality. Such practice may not be recommended by some with only one-third of practitioners having less than five-
professional institutions and be coined as “gold plating”. A year project management experience. Nevertheless, the
project manager shall not deliver extras to customers and affiliation to internationally recognised Project Management
shall only deliver what is necessary to meet the project organizations reveals that most of the respondents do not
objectives. The response to this question would partially have any recognized project management training.
indicate that Asian stakeholders attempt to foster Therefore, based on the collected data one may conclude
relationships by going beyond the contractual agreed that specific project management training is not necessarily
obligations. Nevertheless, 47.1% of the participants deliver related to project success. The majority of participating
their projects as per contract terms and condition (see Fig. 2). project managers entered the project management
profession through experience rather than through a
professional certification process, a finding that contradicts
Turner and Müller‟s position in that the title “Project
Manager” shall be restricted to individuals, having obtained
professional certificates [13].
Fig. 2. Project quality standards compliance.
B. Project Manager Competence

Fig. 3 shows that Competence as a trait of project
managers is the most important trait of a good project
manager. This finding contradicts what Turner and Muller
(2005) [49] who concluded that, there is no impact of the
Fig. 4. Professional affiliations.
leadership style and competence of the project manager on
project success.
D. Utilisation of Tools and Techniques
The ranking of tools and techniques in the literature
broadly agreed that project success factors show certain
similarities to the ranking of this survey. Effective project
planning and control achieved a rating of 4.78 out of 5,
whereas respondents rank a competent project manager
within the top eight success factors, indicating that there
could be a universal set of factors leading projects to
success, see Fig. 5.
Evidently, this finding contradicts with the observations
of Dvir et al. (1998) [28] and Liu (1999) [29], as they argue
that individual projects may have individual success factors
[28], [29]. The majority (78.4%) of the surveyed projects
Fig. 3. Traits of project managers. are in the execution, monitor and control phase, which may
have limited the responses to tools and techniques only
C. Project Management Traits applicable for this project phase. Nevertheless, 9.8% of the
A competent project manager should have a proper respondents, perceiving effective project planning and
training as well as a professional certificate [13]. control as most important, also rate Earned Value Analysis
Surprisingly, 60.9% of respondents stated that they do not (EVA) as very important, whereas 19.5% report that they
have proper project management training, whereas only that rarely use EVA, representing a conflict, see Fig. 6. EVA is
25
an essential tool for performance measurement and control cost, time and quality criteria remain as the preferred
of projects [50]. Most interestingly, 16.7% do not use and method to measure projects‟ success it does not guarantee
16.7% rarely use a work breakdown structure (WBS). These, stakeholders‟ satisfaction.
in sum 33.4% of participants, rate effective project planning Project success is a perceived measure, irrespective of the
and control as the most important factor leading to project individual success criteria and factors. None of the surveyed
success, representing another contradiction in that the WBS projects indicate the achievement of project success, without
is of utmost important for performing project planning and utilizing project management tools and techniques.
control. Moreover, the respondents rank clear objectives and There exists a universal set of project success measures,
scope only on sixth rank of the project success factors. A applicable to all projects in the construction industry. This is
finding which partially aligns with the responses of EVA due to the fact that information collected originates from
and WBS in that it appears that contemporary project projects scattered over ten nations. The data features
practitioners perceive project planning and control as significant similarities representing a new insight whereas,
independent tool and technique, rather than integrated the literature suggests that individual projects have project
concept, leading to the assumption that practitioners do not specific success measures.
fully appreciate project management tools and techniques, Although, data indicates that the project practitioners do
indicating a lack of professional training of the surveyed not utilize project management tools and techniques
practitioners. perfectly, the vast majority of project managers implement
project management methodologies.
Project management practices and techniques are widely
used in successful projects and therefore, project
management positively influences project success. The
majority of surveyed projects are successful.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Hollan, The history of project management-project management
across 4,500 years. Lessons from History. [Online]. Available:
http://lessons-from-history.com/node/44
[2] L. Koskela and G. Howell, “The underlying thoery of project
management is obsolete,” in Proc. of the Project Management
Institute Research Conference, 2002, pp. 293-302.
[3] A. J. Shenhar and M. Wideman. (2000). Optimizing project success
by matching PM style with project type. [Online]. Available:
http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/success/success.pdf
[4] T. Cooke-Davies, “The „real‟ success factors in projects,”
International Journal of Project Management, vol. 20, pp. 185-190.
[5] Project management, Part 1: Principles of guidelines for the
management of projects, BS6079-1:2010.
[6] J. R. Tuner and A. Keegan, “Mechanisms of governance in the
Fig. 5. Project success factors from data. project based organization: Roles of the broker and steward,”
European Management Journal, vol. 19, pp. 254-267.
[7] J. R. Turner, Project Success Criteria, pp. 32-33, 2002.
[8] A. J. Shenhar, “One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical
contingency domains,” Management Science, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 394-
414, 2001.
[9] I. Hyvari, “Success of projects in different organizational conditions,”
Project Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 31-41, 2006.
[10] H. Kerzner, “In search of excellence in project management,” Journal
of Systems Management, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 30-40, 1987.
[11] P. Weaver. (2006). A brief history of scheduling — Back to the future.
Mosaic published and white papers. Mosaic Project Service Pty Ltd.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P042_History%20of
%20Scheduing.pdf
[12] A. J. Shenhar and D. Dvir, “Toward a typological theory of project
management,” Research Policy, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 607-632, 1996.
[13] J. R. Turner and R. Muller, “On the nature of a project as a temporary
organization,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2003.
[14] P. Patanakul, B. Iewwongcharoen, and D. Milosevic, “An empirical
study on the use of project management tools and techniques across
project life-cycle and their impact on project success,” Journal of
General Management, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 41-65, 2010.
[15] D. Westhuizen and E. P. Fitzgerald. (2005). Defining and measuring
project success. Department Information Systems, Faculty of Business,
Fig. 6. Use of project management tools and techniques. University of Southern Queensland — Wide Bay Campus, Hervey
Bay, Queensland, Australia. [Online]. Available:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/346/1/DependentVariableArticleV8.pdf
IX. CONCLUSION [16] I. M. Rubin and W. Seeling, “Experience as a factor in the selection
and performance of project managers,” Trans Engineering
There is a strong correlation between project management Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 131-135, 1967.
success and successful projects. Although, the traditional
26
[17] W. Belassi and O. I. Tukel, “A new framework for determining [41] J. Thomas, C. L Delisle, K. Jugdev, and P. Buckle, “Mission possible:
critical success/failure factors in projects,” International Journal of Selling project management to senior executives,” Project
Project Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 141-151, 1996. Management Network, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59-62, 2001.
[18] A. K. Munns and B. F. Bjeirmi, “The role of project management in [42] B. Hobbs, N. Pettersen, and H. Guerette, “Building, validating and
achieving project success,” International Journal of Project implementing a PM competency model: The experience of one
Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 81-87, 1996. aerospace company. In first to the future,” in Proc. the PMI
[19] L. A. Peters and L. J. Horner “It‟s not time, cost or quality that Symposium, 2001.
ensures project success: Learn fundamentals and core project [43] D. Dvir and T. Lechler, “Plans are nothing, changing plans is
processes which keys to project success,” presented at the Project everything: The impact of changes on project success,” Research
Management Institute S28th Symposium, 1997. Policy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2004.
[20] D. Dvir, A. Sadeh, and A. M. Pines, “Projects and project managers: [44] J. T. Karlsen, J. Andersen, S. L. Berkely, and Ødegård, “An empirical
The relationship between project managers‟ personality, project types study of critical success factors in IT projects,” International Journal
and projects success,” Project Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 297-
36-48, 2006. 311, 2006.
[21] D. Baccarini, “The logical framework method for defining project [45] X. Wang and H. Jing, “The relationships between key stakeholders,
success,” Project Management Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 25-32, project performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese
1999. construction supervising engineers,” International Journal of Project
[22] C. S. Lim and M. Z. Mohamed, “Criteria of project success: An Management, vol. 24, pp. 253-260, 2006.
exploratory re-examination,” International of Project Management, [46] D. B. Ashley, C. S. Lurie, and E. J. Jaselski, “Determinants of
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 243-248, 1999. construction project success,” Project Management Journal, vol. 18,
[23] J. Kam and R. Müller, “A retrospective look at our evolving no. 2, pp. 69-79, 1987.
understanding of project success,” Project Management Institute, vol. [47] C. Besner and J. B. Hobbs, “The initiation phase of projects in
36, no. 4, pp. 19-31, 2005. practice: A survey investigation,” in Proc. ProMAC 2004 2nd
[24] A. De Wit, “Measurement of project success,” Project Management International Conference on Project Management, Tokyo, Japan: The
Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 164-170, 1988. Society of Project Management, 2004.
[25] D. Z. Milosevic and S. Srivannaboon, “A theoretical framework for [48] J. R. Turner and R. Müller, “The project manager‟s leadership style
aligning project management with business strategy,” Project as a success factor on projects: A literature review,” Project
Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 98-110, 2006. Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 49-61, 2005.
[26] A. J. Shenhar, Z. H. Aronson, and R. R. Reilly, “Project spirit and its [49] S. Nagrecha. (2002). An introduction to earned value analysis. Earned
impact on project success,” in the Human Side of Project value analysis 2. [Online]. Available:
Management: Newton Square, R. Reilly, Ed. Project Management http://www.pmiglc.org/COMM/Articles/0410_nagrecha_eva-3.pdf
Institute, 2007. [50] S. Rohaniyati, “Critical success factors of project management for
[27] M. Freeman and P. Beale, “Measuring project success,” Project Brunei construction projects: Improving project performance,”
Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 8-17, 1992. Doctor thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2009.
[28] D. Dvir, S. Lipovetsky, A. J. Shenhar, and A. Tishler, “In search of [51] S. Toor and S. Ogunlana, “Critical COMs of success in large-scale
project classification: A non-universal approach to project success construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry,”
factors,” Research Policy, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 915-935, 1998. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 420-
[29] A. Liu, “A research model of project complexity and goal 430, 2008.
commitment effects on project outcome,” Engineering Construction [52] A. J. Shenhar, O. Levy, and D. Dvir, “Mapping the dimensions of
and Architectural Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 105-111, 1999. project success,” Project Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 5-
[30] A. Zeitoun, “Raising the bar in project management awareness and 13, 1997.
application,” in Proc. the 31st Annual PMI Seminars and Symposiums,
Houston, TX: Newtown Square, Project Management Institute, 1998. A. Al-Hajj was born in Anout, Lebanon on 28
[31] T. J. Kloppenborg and W. A. Opfer, “The current state of project December 1963. He has obtained the following degrees:
management research: Trends, interpretations, and predictions,” PgCert, Tertiary Level Teaching, The Robert Gordon
Project Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 5-18, 2002. University, Aberdeen, UK, 1997; Ph.D, construction
[32] D. L. Nguyen, S. Ogunlana, and D. T. Lan, “A study on project management and building economics, University of
success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam,” Dundee, Dundee, UK, 1992; M.Sc construction
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 11, no. management, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK,
6, pp. 404-413, 2004. 1987; BEng civil engineering, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon,
[33] C. Scott-Young and Samson, “Project success and project team 1985; Assem has 25-year career spanning the UK, Africa and the MENA
human resource management: Evidence from capital projects in the region. He is currently the vice president for academic affairs and
process industries,” in Proc. the PMI Research Conference, London, development at Applied Science University in Bahrain. Prior to joining
2004. ASU, Assem worked as: academic head, director of studies, research,
[34] H. J. Thamhain, “Emerging project management techniques: A recruitment, project and programme director, lecturer and researcher and as
managerial assessment,” in Proc. Portland International Conference training consultant.
on Management of Engineering and Technology, 1999. Assem has more than 60 publications including: A. Al-Hajj and K.
[35] A. Al-Hajj and A. Sayers, “Project management performance in the Hamani, “Material Waste in the UAE Construction Industry: Main Causes
UAE construction industry,” in Proc. ASCE/CIB Conference, 2014. and Minimisation Practices”, International Journal of Architectural
[36] J. K. Pinto and D. P. Slevin, “Project success: Definitions and Engineering and Design Management, 7(4), 2011; M. Kishk, A. Al-Hajj, R.
measurement techniques,” Project Management Journal, vol. 19, no. Pollock, G. Aouad, N. Bakis and M. Sun, “Whole-Life Costing in
1, pp. 67-72, 1988. Construction - A State of The Art Review”, The RICS Research Paper
[37] C. Cash and R. Fox, “Elements of successful project management,” Series, 4 (18), 2003; A. Al-Hajj and R.M.W. Horner, “Modeling the
Journal of Systems Management, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 10-14, 1992. Running Costs of Buildings”, Construction Management and Economics,
[38] M. Hatfield, “Managing to the corner cube: Three-dimensional 16(4), pp. 459-470, 1998; Assem‟s interest in research is in project
management in a three-dimensional world,” Project Management management particularly construction sustainability and lean applications.
Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13-20, 1995. Dr. Al-Hajj is a senior fellow of HEA, a fellow of CIOB, and AIQS. He
[39] D. Milosevic and L. Inman, “Impact of project management was selected by the FM Middle East magazine as one of the 50 most
standardization on project effectiveness,” Engineering Management influential professionals in the facilities management industry in the Middle
Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 9-16, 2001. East in 2012 to 2014. He is the winner of MBM research and teaching
[40] S. Globerson and O. Zwikael, “The impact of the project manager on award at the AIQS Australia.
project management planning process,” Project Management Institute,
vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 58-64, 2002.
27
View publication stats

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Prioritising critical success factors of TQM
Project management practice and its effects on in Malaysia aerospace industry using fuzzy
AHP
project success in Malaysian construction industry Faridah Abdul Halim, Adillah Azman and
Muhammad Rozi Malim
- A Review on Critical Success Factors of

To cite this article: N A Haron et al 2017 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 291 012008 Governance towards Sustainable Campus
Operations
Abd Halid Abdullah, Ruzaimah Razman
and Rahmat Muslim
- Critical success factors (CSFs) influencing

View the article online for updates and enhancements. the implementation of industrialized
building Systems (IBS) in Nigeria
D O Nduka, O I Fagbenle, A Ogunde et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 117.20.48.189 on 20/01/2022 at 11:26

International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ICACE 2017) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 291 (2017) 012008 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/291/1/012008
1234567890
Project management practice and its effects on project success

in Malaysian construction industry
N A Haron1, P Devi1, S Hassim1, A H Alias1, M M Tahir1, and A N Harun2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
2
Department of Management of Technology, Malaysia-Japan International Institute of
Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
(nuzul@upm.edu.my, mtahir1129@gmail.com, aidihizami@upm.edu.my)
Abstract: The rapid economic development has increased the demand for construction of
infrastructure and facilities globally. Sustainable development and globalization are the new
‘Zeitgeist' of the 21st century. In order to implement these projects successfully and to meet the
functional aim of the projects within their lifetime, an efficient project management practice is
needed. The aim of this study is to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) and the extent of use
of project management practice which affects project success, especially during the
implementation stage. Data were obtained from self-administered questionnaires with 232
respondents. A mixed method of data collection was adopted using semi-structured interview and
questionnaire approach. The result of the analysis of data obtained showed that new and emerging
criteria such as customer satisfaction, competency of the project team, and performance of
subcontractors/suppliers are becoming measures of success in addition to the classic iron triangle’s
view of time, cost and quality. An insight on the extent of use of different project management
practice in the industry was also achieved from the study.
Keywords: CSFs; Project Management practices; Project success.
1. Introduction
The construction industry is vital since rapid economic development has increased the demand for
construction of infrastructure and facilities around the globe. The construction industry also provides the
basic living conditions for the sustainability and development of human life on the earth. To cope with an
ever-increasing population, pressure on land, and growing economic activity, construction projects are in
increasing demand and activities are booming in many countries [26]. More also, projects and initiatives
are implemented to ensure sustainable growth of nation economy and to create extensive linkages within
the economy. To implement these projects successfully and to meet the functional aim of the projects
within their service time, an efficient PM practice needs to be adopted from the planning stage to end.
Frequently, those that are involved in the project handling, fail to take a proactive approach to
overcoming the uncertainties [18, 19]. As a result of this, project delays and budget overruns are usually
encountered due to an overlook of potential risk. Insufficient information and ineffective management of
project not only caused project cost overrun, completion delays but also termination before completion
and negatively impact the project team's reputation. To improve the chance of success and reduce the
potential failures, the success criteria, and uncertain factors should be carefully identified, assessed and
monitored [14].
The Malaysian construction industry plays a vital role in the country’s economy, yet it has been
plagued with bad publicity of cost overruns, uncontrolled and unrealistic schedules, accidents, poor
workmanship, conflict among project team members, abandoned and unfinished private and public
construction projects [21]. It is now common to see structures collapsing, roads cracking, bridges toppling
and what could be next, show some down pit situations for the construction industry in Malaysia as has
left a bad impression on the minds of the public. There is a need and urgency to prevent the failure of
projects especially due to poor project management practice in the industry.
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
1234567890
Nowadays, projects are far more complicated than ever before due to large capital investments,
embrace several disciplines, widely dispersed project participants, tighter schedules, stringent quality
standards, escalating cost, environment shocks, increasing stakeholders’ power and advancement in ICT
[2]. Project success may be judged on the basis of how well the resultant product or service supports
organizational governance. It is important for the project manager to be knowledgeable about
corporate/organizational governance policies and procedures pertaining to the subject matter of the
product or service. To ensure the success of the project, the project manager must have the requisite
knowledge of project management.
The 12 CSFs commonly related to the implementation of project success identified from a study on
136 European projects that were executed between 1994 and 2004 are categorized into 3 major areas:
project management success, individual project success, and corporate success [6]. Table 1 shows some
critical factors for successful project accomplishment from the perspective of authors in their studies.
Table 1: Identified Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Critical Success Factor Authors
Clear project management Al-Tmeemy, et al. (2011); Zhang, et al. (2013); Fortune & White (2006);
objectives Joyce et al. (2011); Karen, et al. (2010); Khang, et al. (2008); Ofori, (2013).
Top management support Fortune & White (2006); Hyvari, (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Khang, et al.
(2008); Ofori, (2013); Turner & Muller (2005); Verburg et al. (2013).
Information/ effective Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011); Hyvari, (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Ofori, (2013);
communication Verburg et al. (2013).
Client involvement Fortune & White (2006); Hyvari, (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Khang, et al.
(2008); Turner & Muller (2005).
Competency of project team Zhang, et al. (2013); Fortune & White (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Ofori,
(2013); Verburg et al. (2013).
Authority of the project Zhang, et al. (2013); Fortune & White (2006).
manager/leader
Realistic cost and time estimates Abu Hassan et al. (2009); Akewushola et al. (2012); Al-Tmeemy et al.
(2011); Fortune & White (2006).
Adequate project control Fortune & White (2006).
Problem solving abilities Zhang, et al. (2013); Hyvari, (2006).
Project performance and quality Akewushola et al. (2012); Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011); Karen et al. (2010).
Adequate resources Abu Hassan et al. (2009); Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011); Hyvari, (2006); Joyce
et al. (2011); Khang, et al. (2008).
Effective planning Fortune & White (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Khang, et al. (2008); Turner &
Muller (2005).
Monitor performance and Fortune & White (2006); Hyvari, (2006); Joyce et al. (2011); Turner &
feedback Muller (2005).
Project mission/common goals Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011); Hyvari, (2006); Khang, et al. (2008); Turner &
Muller (2005); Verburg et al. (2013).
Adequacy of contingency plan Joyce et al. (2011); Ofori, (2013).
(Risk management)
Customer satisfaction Abu-Hassan et al. (2009); Akewushola et al. (2012); Al-Tmeemy et al.
(2011); Zhang, et al. (2013); Ofori, (2013).
Well-laid out specification Joyce et al. (2011); Ofori, (2013).
Effective selection/use of Joyce et al. (2011); Verburg et al. (2013).
technology
Developing a more comprehensive framework is essential to improve the success rate of projects since
more organizations are expected to manage multiple projects in order to achieve competitive advantages
[22]. A very comprehensive project management framework should consider other elements to include
cultural, structural, practical, and personnel [3]. Due to the myriad challenges faced by this construction
2
1234567890
industry. The aim of the study is to identify and assess the critical success factors (CSFs) and the current
practice of project management that affects project success at the implementation stage.
2. Methodology
A mixed method of enquiry was adopted for a better understanding of the behavior of Malaysia
construction industry in managing a project. Data were collected using a quantitative approach, where a
systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical or
computational techniques [27] involved. A questionnaire comprising 16 closed ended questions were
developed with a mixture of multiple choices, five-point Likert scale options [14].
After finalizing the questionnaire, a pilot test was undertaken with 30 targeted respondents to ensure
that respondents would understand the questions and identify possible problems with the completion of
the questionnaire. The widely acceptable response rate in the construction industry for electronic
questionnaire is 20 – 30% [4, 7]. The respondents were drawn from the G1 to G7 construction companies
in Klang Valley in Selangor state in Malaysia. A total of 378 questionnaires were administered, and only
232 were returned, which represented 61.4% of the expected population. The questionnaire comprised of
four sections.
3. Results
In this research, Statistical Package of Social Sciences-SPSS 20 software was utilized for both
quantitative and qualitative methods, with cross-tabulations to clarify the relationships between the
variables [16]. Basic descriptive analysis was conducted to find the standard deviation of the variable.
The aim is to find the most relevant variables in the specified category. Furthermore, the results use as a
baseline for comparing independent variables.
The reliability of multiple Likert scale questions was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha
value obtained was 0.928 which shows a high level of internal consistency for the scale with this specific
sample. Goodman and Kruskal’s λ was also run to determine whether the three (3) related variables could
better predict by class of contractors and the findings shown in Table 2. The Goodman and Kruskal’s λ
were 0.110 for the maturity level of PM, 0.057 for organization support and 0.175 for project success.
These indicate that there are some proportional reduction in errors in predicting the followed dependent
variables when taking into account the class of contractor as an independent variable. However, there was
no statistically significant decrease in the proportion of errors due to the tested dependent variables as
predictors of the class of contractor.
This indicates that any scale of construction firms should choose appropriate PM practice based on
project needs, and its success relies on how well the practices being utilized during the implementation
stage. Based on Table 2, the maturity level of project management identified is at “defined level” and the
project success rate is average to more successful.
Table 2: Level of Project Management Practice, Organization Support and Rate of Project Success
Variable Nominal by Nominal: Lambda
Dependent Variable Value Asymp. Std. Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Error
Maturity level of PM 0.110 0.074 1.408 0.159
Organization support 0.057 0.040 1.406 0.160
Rate of project success 0.175 0.055 2.945 0.003
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Contractors’ Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Critical Success Factors N of Mean Std. Symmetric Rank
(CSFs) Valid Dev. Measures
cases Value Approx.
Sig.
Financial attributes (Turnover 223 4.36 .754 -0.08 0.366 3
3
1234567890
history, credit history, etc.)
Effective planning and 222 4.38 .683 0.022 0.808 2

controlling
Realistic cost and time 223 4.32 .626 -0.051 0.571 4
estimation
Competency of project team 223 4.30 .702 -0.037 0.672 5
Adequacy of resources (Labour, 221 4.26 .670 -0.09 0.322 7
plant, etc.)
Contractual awareness 221 4.16 .681 0.05 0.579 10
Past projects' experience and 222 3.99 .751 0.083 0.323 13
performance records
Organization attributes (Image, 222 3.76 .781 0.09 0.274 15
length of time in business, etc.)
Top management support 222 4.21 .717 0.131 0.119 8
Performance of 222 4.29 .717 0.205 0.016 6
subcontractors/suppliers
Total quality management 220 4.17 .724 -0.016 0.851 9
Environmental, health and 223 4.09 .775 -0.161 0.054 11
safety attributes
Customer satisfaction 223 4.44 .669 -0.106 0.23 1
Managing new technologies 223 3.86 .694 -0.003 0.968 14
Mutual learning/knowledge 223 4.03 .677 -0.051 0.581 12
sharing
A total of fifteen (15) CSFs for project implementation were identified for this study. The targeted
respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance for each factor as shown in Table 3. The
response rate for each CSFs (220 – 223 responses or 94.83 – 96.12%). Goodman and Kruskal’s was run
to determine the association between a list of critical factors and class of contractor. The results in Table 2
showed a weak association between the critical success factors and class of contractor, which were not
statistically significant (P > 0.0005). This indicates the representative respondents from the various class
of contractor do not affect in choosing CSFs that can contribute to the success of the project. Table 3
shows the mean and standard deviation values for each CSFs. The twelve (12) CSFs had a mean average
between 4.03 to 4.44, this indicates that the mean responses to this questions were Important, with the
exception of C7, C8, and C14, which had average mean values of 3.99, 3.76 and 3.86which are also
moderately important.
In order to assess the extent of use of the project management standards, methods, methodologies,
tools, and techniques that are widely used, questions were asked in order to measure the extent of use for
twenty-three (23) research variables which grouped into four (4). This is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Extent of Use of PM Practices

Item No of Mean Std. Symmetric Measures
Valid Dev. Value Approx.
Cases Sig.
Project Management Institute (PMI) 215 2.91 1.151 0.264 0.000
International Project Management Association 214 2.79 1.219 0.327 0.000
Competence Baselines (IPMA)
Projects in Controlled Environments 215 2.82 1.201 0.302 0.000
(PRINCE/ PRINCE2)
ISO10006.2003 215 3.02 1.298 0.338 0.000
In-house project management methods 220 3.34 1.079 0.289 0.000
Other project management methods 160 2.71 1.355 0.224 0.006
Cost benefit analysis (CBA) 218 3.61 .909 0.128 0.114
4
1234567890
Decision analysis (DA) 216 3.42 1.004 0.171 0.039

Sensitivity analysis (SA) 217 3.24 1.046 0.25 0.001
Expressed preferences 218 3.27 1.043 0.178 0.023
In house decision making techniques 219 3.48 1.085 -0.025 0.771
Other decision making techniques 157 2.82 1.346 -0.003 0.972
Critical Path Method (CPM) 217 3.37 1.198 0.296 0.000
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 214 3.33 1.159 0.253 0.001
Gantt bar chart 216 3.44 1.148 -0.397 0.000
Project management software 215 3.21 1.202 0.323 0.000
In-house project management tools 217 3.32 1.164 0.212 0.008
Other project management tools 156 2.58 1.344 0.045 0.580
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) 215 3.09 1.144 .333 0.000
Event tree analysis 214 3.02 1.150 .227 0.002
Probability Analysis (PA) 214 3.01 1.190 .304 0.000
In-house risk assessment tools 217 3.19 1.156 .156 0.047
Other risk assessment tools 158 2.59 1.302 .046 0.581
The association between the tested PM practices was ranging from weak to moderate and not all the
variables were statistically significant. These indicate that the usage of some variables depends on size
and complexity of projects. Choosing appropriate variables, guide the organization to achieve their goals
easily. Meanwhile, the extent of usage of each variable ranges from “rarely" to "occasionally", which
shows that the industry less utilized PM practice for project implementation due to lack of knowledge and
exposure based on real successful case studies. The best use of PM practice associated with the size and
complexity of projects and choosing appropriate practices, guide the construction firms to achieve their
goals easily.
4. Discussion of Result
There is a more considerable dispute about PM practice and its contribution towards project success. Any
agreement has not been reached, even the topic has discussed for an extended period. The study identified
the top five factors that influence the project success to include customer satisfaction, effective planning
and controlling, financial attributes, realistic cost and time estimation, and competency of the project
team. The concept of CSFs presents a smarter way to identify certain factors which could be possible to
make the project successful.
Applying PM practice has become important issues in many developed countries due to its
successful application in various industries and its proven effectiveness and flexibility in attaining project
goals and objectives. Due to its nature with high risk and consuming many resources, construction
industry requires better application and utilization of efficient and effective PM practice. Studying the use
of PM standards, methods, methodologies, tools and techniques that widely applied in this industry,
serves as eye openers to the contractors and another decision maker to better plan their effort toward the
efficient application of PM practice. If properly utilized, PM practice would result in concrete benefits in
all aspects of project implementation.
The result from the study showed that the limited use of PM practice, an ad hoc approaches were
preferred due to high cost, lack of expertise in PM and difficulty in real world modeling. CBA, Gantt Bar
Chart, and CPM are some of the most widely applied PM tools and techniques by the respondents
because of their simple and user-friendly nature. To tackle these crucial obstacles, the respondents stated
that adequate training should be given to the employee in the art of PM and on real successful case
studies. However, contractors are main players related to construction projects and their success rely on
the actual work of the project accomplished. The findings from this study provide a clear understanding
of contractors' role and potential construction project success.
5
1234567890
5. Conclusion and Recommendation

The following are the conclusions and recommendation for proper application of PM practice in
Malaysian construction industry in general:
x PM tools and techniques should be applied gradually especially in small-scale firms. The drastic
use should be avoided so as not to lead to a disruptive change in their business.
x Adequate PM training or courses should be conducted in higher education institutions, to
increase the knowledge of practitioners about different PM tools and techniques available for
appropriate choice at the early stage.
x The government should step up its commitment in applying PM practice in all governments’
projects, so as not to become inefficient and unproductive. A special allocation should be
prepared to enhance the efficient and effective application of PM tools and techniques among
contractors.
x The undertaking of construction projects in metropolitan regions is a risky competitive and
dynamic due to their surrounding environments, which are complicated in term of transportation,
the number of direct and indirect stakeholders involvement and the handling of existing facilities
[14].
x The lack of documentation on project management in construction industry reduced the data
available that could have incorporated into the study.
x The study only focused on the extent of use of the most common PM practice that used for
project implementation in this country.
x The construction activity has a greater impact on the environment than other industries, an
urgent need to apply sustainable development principles to construction industry practices [26].
Meanwhile, further study can be carried out in the same context by including other variables for
project implementation or applying for different phases of the industry that might have a
significant effect on the project success.
References
[1] Abu Hassan et al. (2009). Project Management Success Factors for Sustainable Housing: A
Framework. Retrieved.
[2] Adeyemi, I. (2013). Effects of Project Management on the Performance of a Construction Firm
in Nigeria. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 3(6), 54-58.
[3] Akewushola et al. (2012). Effect of Project Management on Project Success. Australian Journal
of Business and Management Research, 2(3), 1–11.
[4] Akintoye, A. (2000). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice.
Construction Management and Economics, 18 (1), pp 77-89.
[5] Al-Tmeemy, Abdul-Rahman, & Harun, (2011). Future criteria for success of building projects
in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 337–348.
[6] Bash, Eleanorv (2015). The project success rate and standard project management methodology
in Malaysia. PhD Proposal.
[7] Dulami, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Bajracharya (2003). Organisational motivation and inter-
organisational interaction in construction innovation in Singapore. Construction Management
and Economics, 21 (3), pp.307-318.
[8] F. Zhang, Zuo, & Zillante (2013). Identification and evaluation of the key social competencies
for Chinese construction project managers. International Journal of Project Management 31,
748– 759.
[9] Fortune & White (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.
[10] Hyvari, I. (2006). Success of Projects in Different Organizational Conditions. Project
Management Journal, 37(4), 31–41.
6
1234567890
[11] Joyce et al. (2011). Looking again at current practice in project management, International
Journal of ManagingProjects in Business, 4 (4), 553 – 572.
[12] Karen et al. (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project
success?, International Journal of Project Management, 28 (7) 650–662.
[13] Khang, D.B., Moe, T.L., 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development
projects: a life-cycle-based framework. Project Management Journal 39 (1), 72–84.
[14] Kuo, Y.-C., & Lu, S.-T. (2013). Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to
enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(4), 602–614.
[15] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978
[16] Ofori, D. F. (2013). Project Management Practices and Critical Success Factors–A Developing
Country Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(21), 14–32.
[17] Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows (Version 10-11). Buckingham: Open University Press.
[18] Project Management Institute [PMI]. (2006). A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge. USA: Project Management Institute (PMI).
[19] Project Management Institute [PMI]. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge. USA: Project Management Institute (PMI).
[20] Takim, R. (1999). Analysis of Effectiveness Measures of Construction Project Success in
Malaysia, 4(7), 74–91.
[21] Ting, S., Khoo, H., & Wong, S. (2009). Project Management Development in Malaysia: A Case
Study. Department of Civil Engineering, University Malaysia.
[22] Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1382–
1394.
[23] Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The Project Manager's Leadership Style as a Success Factor
on Projects: A Literature Review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61.
[24] Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie, (2013), Research Methods for business: A skill-building
approach, 6th edition, Wiley.
[25] Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success
factors for project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(1), 68–79.
[26] Zhang, X., Wu, Y., Shen, L., & Skitmore, M. (2014). A prototype system dynamic model for
assessing the sustainability of construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(1), 66–76.
[27] Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage
Publications.

Review Jurnal Pengaruh Manajemen Proyek Terhadap Kesuksesan Konstruksi

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Review Jurnal Pengaruh Manajemen Proyek Terhadap Kesuksesan Konstruksi

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RIVIEW JURNAL INTERNASIONAL

“PENGARUH MANAJEMEN PROYEK TERHADAP KESUKSESAN PRYOYEK

Diajukan Untuk Memenuhi Salah Satu Tugas Manajemen Operasi

Nesha Yama Ramadhani

PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER MANAJEMEN

FAKULTAS BISNIS DAN EKONOMIKA

UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA

Melampaui kepuasan kepentingan: aspek pemenuhan standar kualitas proyek

3. Project Management Practice and It’s Effects on Project Success in Malaysian

1. Tujuan manajemen proyek yang jelas

Peneliti mengambil 5 faktor teratas yang mempengaruhi keberhasilan proyek

C. Pembahasan Review Jurnal Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Contruction

Dalam manajemen strategi, perusahaan akan memperhatikan faktor-faktor yang

Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ketujuh faktor berpengaruh signifikan terhadap

AHP adalah analisis untuk membangun struktur hirarki berdasarkan tanggapan

Terdapat seperangkat ukuran keberhasilan proyek yang universal yang berlaku

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1990; doi:10.3390/su12051990 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

I. Project-Related Factors Reference No.

I. Project-Related Factors Reference No.

5.1. Relative Importance Index (RII)

Table 2. RII (%) factors for CSFs.

Factor Number RII Value (%)

Factor Number RII Value (%)

5.2. AHP Analysis

F5-Effective procurement and tendering methods

F06- Economical environment

Business and F07- Social environment

F09- Statutory approvals environment

F10- Influence of client/client’s representative

F11- Client’s experience in construction field

F13- Effective communication systems

F14- Feedback mechanism from employees and other parties

F15- Planning, monitoring and controlling mechanism

F16- Decision making effectiveness

F19-Implementing an effective quality assurance program

F20- Risk identification and allocation

F21- Formal dispute resolution process

F22- Project team motivation

F23- Top management support

F24- Design team experience

F25- Design complexity

F26- Design errors/mistakes

F28- Adequacy of plans and specifications

F29- Contractor financial strength

F30- Contractor’s technical capacity

Contractor-Related F31- Effective subcontractor coordination

F33- Availability of experienced managers & skilful workforce

F34- Project manager’s experience

F35- Project manager skills

F36- Coordination between all participants

F39- Project manager’s adaptability to changes in project plan

F40- Project manager’s ability to delegate authority

AHP GOAL CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES

Table 3. Pair-wise comparison matrix for organizations.

Interested Party Owner Design Consultant Supervision Consultant PMC Contractor

Table 4. Normalized and priority weights for organizations.

Design Supervision Priority

Table 5. Normalized and priority weights for seven groups (Owner).

Owner PRF BRF CLRF PMRF DTRF CORF PMRF PW

Table 6. Normalized and priority weights for project-related factors (Owner).

Clear and Project’s Effective

Table 7. Overall AHP ranking for CSFs.

Critical Success Factor Overall Score Rank

6. Discussion of Results and Recommendations to Industry Based on Results