INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria

a,* b,1
David James Bryde , Lynne Robinson
a
School of Management, Faculty of Business and Law, Liverpool JM University, John Foster Building, 98 Mount Pleasant,
Liverpool L3 5UZ, United Kingdom
b
Berrybridge Housing, Riverside Group, 46 Wavertree Road, Liverpool, L7 1PH, United Kingdom

Received 11 February 2005; received in revised form 12 April 2005; accepted 17 May 2005

Abstract

There are case studies that suggest an obstacle to effective client–contractor working relationships is a failure to agree on mea-
sures of success and a failure by the client to consider the needs of stakeholders, though there has been little systematic research in
this area. The aim of this paper is to report the findings of an empirical study that compares the measures of success emphasised as
important by client and contractor organisations and the extent to which differences of emphasis is translated into project manage-
ment practice. The results show that contractors put more emphasis on minimizing project cost and duration, whilst clients put more
emphasis on satisfying the needs of other stakeholders. However, in their project management practice clients show no stronger
focus on meeting stakeholder needs than contractor organisations. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of pos-
sible barriers to effective client–contractor working relationships.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Success and Strategy; Stakeholders

1. Introduction per meets this need by reporting the findings of

A strand of project management research has been to
explore the working relationship between clients and
contractors to construction projects. Research to date
has focused on the nature, feasibility, benefits and prob-
lems of establishing a relationship that has a long-term
commitment on the part of the client and contractor
organisations based upon cooperation and trust [1,2].
There have been some quantitative survey-based studies
(see [3–5,1,6,7]) and analysis of either single cases [8–12]
or comparative cases [2,13,14]. However it has been sta-
ted in the project management literature [2] that there is
still a need for systematic research in the area. This pa-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)151 231 3353; fax: +44 (0)151
707 0423.
E-mail addresses: d.j.bryde@livjm.ac.uk (D.J. Bryde), lynne.
robinson@berrybridge.org.uk (L. Robinson).
1
Tel.: +44 (0)151 222 8027; fax: +44 (0)151 776 6030.
an empirical study into how different perspectives on
project success criteria between project staff in Housing
Associations (who fulfil the role of client on con-
struction projects) and project staff in construction
companies (who fulfil the role of contractor) can
hinder or help the development of an effective working
relationship.
2. Perspectives on project success criteria
Research has focused on identifying the critical suc-
cess factors (CSFs) for effective working relationships
between client and contractor organisations, identifying
such diverse factors as culture [15–17], commitment
[18,19], ethics [20] and communications [21]. A study
by the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Office of
Government Commerce (OGC) [22], which examined
performance on a number of large-scale Private Finance

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.003
 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
Initiative (PFI) projects (involving public/private sector
partnerships) – identified a failure of clients and contrac-
tors to agree measures of success (project success crite-
ria) as a key CSF. However, the findings of the NAO/
OGC study are based on analysis of a small number
of cases and there is need for further investigation as
to whether such a lack of agreement is a widespread
problem and, hence, a major obstacle to the develop-
ment of effective working relationships between clients
and contractors.
To meet this need for further study, we explored the
level of agreement in project client–contractor relation-
ships as to which project success criteria ought to be
emphasised. Prior project management research has
analysed the emphasis given to project success criteria,
in terms of cost, time, and quality – the iron triangle
of project management [23] and other criteria, such as
overall customer satisfaction (e.g., [24–31]). Each piece
of research has added to the body of knowledge con-
cerning the topic of project success criteria, yet there
has been limited research that explicitly delineates the
roles of client and contractor when studying project suc-
cess criteria. We posit that by comparing the emphasis
placed on project success criteria between client and
contractor organisations an insight will be given into a
potential problem that organisations face in developing
new relationships. Therefore we developed the following
research question and hypothesis:
 What project success criteria are given emphasis by
client and contractor organisations in project
environments?
H1: Differences exist in the emphasis placed on project
success criteria between respondents involved in projects
as client and those involved as contractor.
The project management literature identifies two
requirements for an effective client–contractor relation-
ship. Firstly, contractor organisations must be cus-
tomer-focused, in terms of understanding and fulfilling
the expectations of the client [32]. This customer-focus
has been stated as a precursor to success [33]. Secondly,
client organisations must be focused on understanding
and accommodating the expectations of all stakeholders
in the supply chain, such as contractors, sub-contractors,
suppliers and other team members [1], with ‘‘project
stakeholders’’ defined as ‘‘people or organisations who
have a vested interest in the environment, performance
and/or outcome of the project [34]. This focus on
other stakeholders will create ‘‘win-win’’ situations [35]
through trust, openness, teamwork and shared goals
[36].
One issue is the extent to which client and contractors
both accept these remits and translate that acceptance
into project management practice. Although the theoret-
623
ical benefits of being customer and stakeholder-focused
have been highlighted in the literature, evidence of prior
study suggests that the requisite levels of customer and
stakeholder focus may be absent in practice, with a par-
ticular problem being an unwillingness on the part of the
client to commit to a relationship with contractors base
upon openness and trust [14,19]. A survey of client–
contractor relationships attributes this failure to commit
in part due to commercial pressures to get projects com-
pleted as cheaply and quickly as possible [1]. This sug-
gests that there may be a difference between what the
clients believes they should do and what they actually
do in practice, which has been conceptualised in the lit-
erature on stakeholder management as a lack of norma-
tive/empirical integration [37]. To analyse whether such
a lack of integration characterises current project envi-
ronments we investigated the levels of stakeholder-focus
of project management practices for clients and contrac-
tors, with an expectation being that although clients
might recognise the theoretical importance of stakehold-
ers (through the emphasis given to project success crite-
ria) this emphasis would not necessarily translate into
project management practice. Therefore we developed
a second research question and hypothesis:
 How are differences in the emphasis given to project
success criteria reflected in project management
practice?
H2: A greater theoretical emphasis by clients (compared
with contractors) on satisfying stakeholders will result in
a higher level of stakeholder-focus in their project man-
agement practice.
3. Method
To investigate the two research questions we surveyed
staff involved in projects representing contractor and cli-
ent organisations in the UK. To represent contractors
we chose to survey organisations providing construction
services. To represent clients we chose to survey not-for-
profit social housing providers (housing associations).
The client group was selected for two reasons. Firstly,
one of their main services is to acquire and maintain
housing stock. Therefore, in their dealings with con-
struction companies they fulfil the client role. Secondly,
there are external pressures on housing associations to
develop more effective client–contractor relationships.
In 1999, The Housing Corporation, which provides cap-
ital grants to the housing associations, stated that hous-
ing associations would have to sign a Construction
Clients Charter. This requires housing associations to
commit to a program of continuous improvement.
Failure to sign would result in the withholding of fund-
ing for new-build projects. In addition, the Housing
624 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
Corporation, mirroring the NHS approach described
previously, decided to reduce the number of housing
associations that would qualify for capital grants for
new builds from approximately 350 to between 30 and
40 preferred suppliers; and one requirement of preferred
suppliers is the production of a five year action plan for
improvement and evidence of progress against the plan.
One of the issues we wished to consider was the valid-
ity of making meaningful comparisons of attitudes and
experiences if respondents were providing generalised
comments that were either not specific to a particular
project or not linked to a particular stage in a projectÕs
life. Therefore, in order to obtain contemporaneous
data, the first part of the questionnaire asked people
to select a particular project, which could be either
ongoing or completed, and to then base their responses
solely on this project.
In designing our questionnaire, we drew from the
work of Tukel and Rom [29], in terms of developing
appropriate survey instruments for measuring project
success criteria. The first part of the questionnaire asked
respondents to indicate their perception of the emphasis
that should be placed on the four project success criteria
of minimizing cost, satisfying customerÕs needs, mini-
mizing project duration, and meeting the technical spec-
ification (which were used in Tukel and RomÕs 2001
study). We also asked respondents about an additional
high-level project success criteria, satisfying other stake-
holdersÕ needs. Participants were asked to use a 7-point
Likert scale, where 7 = strong emphasis and 1 = weak
emphasis.
In the questionnaireÕs final section, we sought more
detail about the focus of project management practice.
Tukel and Rom developed and validated a construct
indicating preferences towards the degree of customer,
time, cost, technical specification, and rework focus.
We adapted this framework to enable us to also measure
the degree of focus on stakeholders. A review of the lit-
erature highlighted the importance of psycho-social fac-
tors related to team members and staff, such as
opportunities to learn and develop [35] and of satisfying
all stakeholders [38] therefore we devised four state-
ments to measure the emphasis placed on stakeholders
linked to these issues. The level of focus associated with
each item was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (see
Appendix Afor extract of questionnaire). The validity of
the construct was examined using CronbachÕs alpha test.
The internal consistency for the amended part of the
construct, namely the addition of stakeholder focus, is
strong (alpha value 0.72), suggesting that the construct
is a valid measure.
After piloting the questionnaire in three companies, it
was sent to a total of 1200 UK organisations. To obtain
data from people involved in project management in
housing associations, 350 members of the National
Housing Federation (NHF) were randomly selected
from NHFÕs Directory of Members. Only organisations
with up to 400 employees were sent the questionnaire.
Fifty-three members (15%) returned completed ques-
tionnaires. Construction companies were selected from
the Fame database of organisations. Questionnaires
were mailed to 200 organisations in the Fame database
were randomly selected from those categorised as con-
struction companies with between 200 and 400 employ-
ees. Of the 200, 38 (19%) returned their questionnaire. A
control group were chosen at random from organisa-
tions categorised as having 200–400 employees and hav-
ing one of the following business codes, which were
randomly selected from the business codes listed in the
Fame database:
 manufacture of food products and beverages,
 manufacture of chemicals and chemical products,
 electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply,
 computer and related activities,
 research and development,
 public administration and defence, compulsory social
security,
 health and social work.
Six hundred and fifty questionnaires were mailed to a
random selection of organisations with these business
codes. 85 (13%) were returned completed. In total, 176
(15%) usable responses were received from the 1200
questionnaires posted.
4. Results
Thirty-eight (22%) of the respondents had the job ti-
tle of project manager. Hundred and thirty-eight (78%)
did not. However, another 81 (46%) respondents stated
they were involved in the management of projects, de-
spite not having a formal job title of project manager.
In all, 119 (68%) respondents worked in the managing
of projects. The other 57 (32%) respondents held related
project management positions, such as sponsor and pro-
ject team member. In order to test for representative bias
t-tests were used to compare the emphasis placed on
project success criteria between (a) those with the job ti-
tle of project manager (38) and the remainder of the
respondents (138) and (b) those involved in managing
a project (119) and those involved in another capacity
(57). The t-tests revealed no significant difference in
the emphasis placed on project success criteria (at the
5% level).
In terms of the research hypotheses, the following
was found:
H1: Differences exist in the emphasis placed on project
success criteria between respondents involved in
projects as client and those involved as contractor.
 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629 625

The mean scores for the 5 project success criteria of
respondents working for construction companies were
compared with those working for housing associations
and those working for companies from a variety of
business sectors (control group). The One Factor
between Subjects (One Way) ANOVA test was used
to investigate whether the mean scores between the
three groups were statistically significant. One of the
assumptions of the ANOVA test is that the values in
each sample vary about the same amount and that
the ANOVA procedure is much less sensitive to viola-
tions of this requirement when samples of equal size
are used. Therefore, the 38 respondents from construc-
tion companies and 76 respondents randomly selected
from each of the two other groups (38 from the hous-
ing associations and 38 from the control group) were
selected for analysis. The results are shown in Table 1.
For the project success criteria of ‘‘satisfying the cus-
tomerÕs needs’’ and ‘‘meeting the technical specification’’
the significance (p-value) is >0.05 in each case, suggesting
that there is no difference in the emphasis placed on these
project success criteria between those in construction
companies and those in housing associations.
For the project success criteria of ‘‘minimizing project
cost’’, ‘‘minimizing the project duration’’, and ‘‘satisfy-
ing the needs of stakeholders (other than the customer)’’,
the significance (p-value) is <0.05 in each case, suggesting
that the difference between the means is significant.
The Duncan post hoc test has previously been used to
analyse in more detail variances between different sub-
ject groups [39]. Therefore having determined that differ-
ences exist between the means for the three project
success criteria the Duncan post hoc test was applied
to further determine which means differed. Table 2
shows the results.
The Duncan post hoc analysis identifies homogenous
subsets that are not significantly different from each
other (at the 5% significant level). The test shows that
for the minimizing project cost and project duration,
both housing associations and construction companies
give them similar emphasis as the control group, but
construction companies give them more emphasis than
housing associations. In terms of satisfying the needs
of other stakeholders, housing associations and the con-
trol group gave this criterion similar and greater empha-
sis than the construction companies. Therefore the
Duncan post hoc analysis suggests that there is a differ-
ence in the emphasis placed on these project success
criteria between those involved in project management
in construction companies and those in housing
associations.
To investigate the remaining hypotheses, a distinction
was made between the respondents who had above aver-
age other-stakeholder-focus, and those who had an
average or below average focus. To make this distinc-
tion, the mean score for the four statements relating
to other stakeholder focus was calculated and those
from the complete sample of 176 respondents with
scores below the mean were classed as above average
and those with scores at or below the mean were classed
as average or below (after Tukel and Rom [29]). The
results were as follows:
H2: A greater theoretical emphasis by clients (compared
with contractors) on satisfying stakeholders will
result in a higher level of stakeholder-focus in their
project management practice.
The Chi Square test results shown in Fig. 1
(p = 0.489) do not support the hypothesis that those

Table 1
ANOVA – Emphasis on project success criteria by the business sector
Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value p-value
Minimizing project cost Between groups 11.421 2 5.711 4.252 0.017*
Within groups 149.079 111 1.343
Total 160.500 113
Satisfying the customerÕs needs Between groups 0.860 2 0.430 0.573 0.565
Within groups 83.211 111 0.750
Total 84.070 113
Minimizing the project duration Between groups 17.053 2 8.526 5.436 0.006*
Within groups 174.105 111 1.569
Total 191.158 113
Meeting the technical specification Between groups 4.228 2 2.114 1.859 0.161
Within groups 126.237 111 1.137
Total 130.465 113
Satisfying the needs of stakeholders Between groups 17.965 2 8.982 4.351 0.049*
(other than the customer) Within groups 229.158 111 2.064
Total 247.123 113
*
p-value is <0.05 therefore the results are significant at the 5% level.
626 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629

Table 2 the cost and time success criteria than housing associa-
DuncanÕs post hoc test for emphasis on project success criteria tions. Second, construction companies put less emphasis
Business sector N Subset for on meeting the needs of other stakeholders than do
alpha = 0.05 housing associations.
1 2 In terms of the first of these findings, the difference
Minimizing project cost in emphasis on cost and time probably reflects the tra-
Housing associations 38 5.16 ditional project management relationship between the
Other (control group) 38 5.42 5.42 housing association (as client) and the construction
Construction 38 5.92
Sig. 0.324 0.063
company (as contractor). Cost and time are twin
imperatives to the housing associations, which are un-
Minimizing the project duration
der pressure to provide timely, value-for-money solu-
Housing associations 38 4.68
Other (control group) 38 5.16 5.16 tions in order to ensure future funding from the
Construction 38 5.63 Housing Corporation, which is their primary customer
Sig. 0.102 0.102 in relation to these types of project. The contractor rec-
Satisfying the needs of other stakeholders (other than the customer) ognize these imperatives and take responsibility for
Construction 38 4.68 their management, through the production of the pro-
Housing associations 38 5.53 ject budgets and project schedules at the start of the
Other (control group) 38 5.53 project and the monitoring and updating of these bud-
Sig. 1.000 1.000
gets and schedules as the project progresses. Indeed,
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed; uses har- contractors would regard it as their main responsibil-
monic mean sample size = 38.
ity, along with delivering the project to specification,
in order to satisfy the client. Therefore, the difference
in emphasis involving time and cost would merely re-
flect the natural order of things, with the contractorÕs
Organisation

Construction 47.4 52.6 perception of a key part of their role to keep the client
Type of

happy by bringing the project in within budget and on

Above Average schedule.
Housing 54.7 45.3 Average or Below
Assoc. On a project that is progressing well and meeting its
objectives, as well as providing satisfaction to the key
0% 50% 100%
stakeholders, such a difference in emphasis on the cost
Percent
Chi Square = 0.479 1df **p=0.489 n = 176
and time success criteria is clearly not an issue. How-
**p-value is >0.05, so results are not significant at the 5% level ever, lending weight to the findings of prior case stud-
ies [22], the difference in emphasis may be symptomatic
Fig. 1. Influence of customer/supplier relationship on stakeholder-
focus.
of a deeper malaise on failing projects, in which the
contractor has not been paying enough attention to
all the stakeholders with interests in the project. This
working in housing associations are more likely to leads to the second significant finding regarding the dif-
be focused on stakeholders in the actual management ference in emphasis on satisfying other stakeholders.
of a project than those working in construction The fact that the contractors put significantly less
companies. emphasis on satisfying the needs of other stakeholders
besides the customer – in comparison to both the
housing associations and the control group (which
comprised sundry manufacturers and service providers)
5. Discussion – provides some confirmation of previous studies, such
as Zika-Viktorsson et al. [40]. The lack of emphasis on
To discuss the implications of the results we return to meeting the needs of all the stakeholders to the project
each of our two research questions. may be a particular failing when cost and time objec-
tives are not being met. There may be very good rea-
 What project success criteria are given emphasis by sons for budget and schedule over-runs, but in these
client and contractor organisations in project situations the negative impact on satisfaction ratings
environments? can be minimised, if the project manager has posi-
tioned themselves close to the client group [41]. Such
The significant findings in relation to the emphasis positioning requires the contractor project manager,
placed on project success criteria between housing asso- to understand not only the cost and time imperatives,
ciations and construction companies are as follows. but also the other measures of success used by all
First, construction companies put more emphasis on stakeholders. By developing a relationship with all
 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
the stakeholders in order to better understand these
measures, the contractor will be better positioned to
minimize or overcome the negative impact of not com-
ing in within cost and time. Clearly, the lack of empha-
sis placed on meeting stakeholder needs by the
contractor might be indicative, on the problem pro-
jects, of a failure to engage in a stakeholder manage-
ment process.
 How are differences in the emphasis given to project
success criteria reflected in project management
practice?
There are two explanations for the failure of housing
associations, as clients, to exhibit a higher degree of
stakeholder focus on projects than the contractors, gi-
ven that they put more theoretical emphasis on meeting
the needs of stakeholders than do contractors (as dis-
cussed above). Firstly, it confirms that, as highlighted
in the stakeholder management literature, project envi-
ronments are often characterised by a difference between
what people think they should do and what they do in
practice [37] and additionally, that project management
processes for managing stakeholders could be poorly
understood or ignored [42]. Secondly, it may confirm
prior study that highlighted the failure on the part of cli-
ents to commit to the principles of openness and trust in
their dealings with contractors due to other pressures,
such as commercial imperatives [1]. Indeed, in the case
of housing associations, at the same time as being under
pressure to develop long-term relationships with con-
tractors, there is also pressure to make efficiency savings.
Therefore the survey results may reflect the pragmatism
of having to emphasis the traditional success criteria,
such as meeting time and cost, over what is perceived
Appendix A. Extract from questionnaire – the focus of project management practice
Customer-focus
Fully satisfying the customerÕs needs takes precedence over other objectives
Measuring overall customer satisfaction
Making prompt responses to customer requests
Taking corrective action to meet customer requirements
Stakeholder-focus
Providing development opportunities for project team members
Providing organisation learning
Fully satisfying stakeholdersÕ needs (other than the customer) taking precedence
over other objectives
Measuring overall stakeholder (other than the customer) satisfaction
627
to be important, but more long-term goals, of satisfying
all stakeholders.
6. Conclusions
The study reported in this paper makes two distinct
contributions to project management knowledge.
Firstly, based on establishing the theoretical emphasis
given to project success criteria by those from client
and contractor organisations, this paper establishes
that a failure to agree the priority of measures of suc-
cess is likely to be commonplace. Such a failure has
been shown in prior case study research to be a
characteristic of failed projects and hence a barrier
to effective client–contractor working relationships
[22]. Secondly, the paper goes beyond the common ap-
proach of previous studies of project success criteria,
which have tended to be focused on establishing nor-
mative models by asking respondents how they think
projects ought to be measured, and through empirical
study explores the extent to which the theoretical
emphasis of measures of success is reflected in actual
practice. This exploration shows that from the client
perspective there is a potential mismatch between the
theoretical importance given to satisfying the needs of
other stakeholders and the importance attached to this
criterion as exhibited by project management practice.
This mismatch confirms that the concept of a lack of
normative/empirical integration, which has been re-
ported in stakeholder management literature in relation
to operational environments [37], also applies to some
project environments, and it provides further evidence
of a second barrier to effective client–contractor work-
ing relationships.
Strong Weak
emphasis emphasis
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
(continued on next page)
628 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
Appendix A (continued)
Time-focus
Evaluating suppliers/subcontractors based on how well they meet schedules
Making additional resources available to meet project milestones and deadlines
Taking corrective action to control progress against the project schedule
Minimizing the project duration precedence over other objectives
Cost-focus
Taking corrective action to control project costs
Relaxing deadlines to fully meet costs
Evaluating suppliers/subcontractors based on how well they meet the agreed
budget
Minimizing the project cost taking precedence over other objectives
Technical-focus
Evaluating suppliers/subcontractors based on how well they meet technical
specifications
Taking corrective action to control conformance to technical requirements
Relaxing other constraints to meet technical specifications
Meeting the technical specification precedence over other objectives
(Adapted for Tukel and Rom [29]).
References
[1] Chan APC, Chan DWM, Ho KSK. Partnering in construction:
critical study of problems for implementation. J Manage Eng
2003;19(3):126–35.
[2] Bresnen M, Marshall N. Building partnerships: case studies of
client–contractor collaboration in the UK. Constr Manage Econ
2000;18(7):819–32.
[3] Black C, Akintoye A, Fitzgerald E. An analysis of success factors
and benefits of partnering in construction. Int J Project Manage
2000;18(6):423–34.
[4] Boddy D, Macbeth D. Prescriptions for managing change: a
survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative
working between organisations. Int J Project Manage
2000;18(5):297–306.
[5] Campbell A, Cooper RG. Do customer partnerships improve new
product success rates. Ind Market Manage 1999;28(5):507–19.
[6] Kadefors A. Trust in project relationships – inside the black box.
Int J Project Manage 2004;22(3):175–82.
[7] Wong PS, Cheung S. Trust in construction partnering: views from
parties of the partnering dance. Int J Project Manage
2004;22(6):437–46.
[8] Bayliss R, Cheung S, Suen HCH, Wong S. Effective partnering
tools in construction: a case study on MTRC TKE contract 604 in
Hong Kong. Int J Project Manage 2004;22(3):253–63.
[9] Cheung S, Hg TST, Wong S, Suen HCH. Behavioral aspects in
construction partnering. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(5):333–43.
[10] Packham G, Thomas B, Miller C. Partnering in the house
building sector: a subcontractorÕs view. Int J Project Manage
2003;21(5):327–32.
[11] Sarshar M, Haigh R, Amaratunga D. Improving project process:
best practice case study. Constr Innov 2004;4(2):69–82.
[12] Smith A, Reney M. The mating dance: a case study of local
partnering processes in developing countries. Eur Manage J
1997;15(2):174–82.
Strong Weak
emphasis emphasis
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
[13] Koraltan SB, Dikbas A. An assessment of the applicability of
partnering in the Turkish construction sector. Constr Manage
Econ 2002;20(4):315–21.
[14] Ng ST, Rose TM, Mak M, Chen SE. Problematic issues with
project partnering – the contractor perspective. Int J Project
Manage 2002;20(6):437–49.
[15] Cheng EWL, Heng L, Love P, Irani Z. A learning culture for
strategic partnering in construction. Constr Innov 2004;4(1):53–65.
[16] Koraltan SB, Dikbas A. An assessment of the applicability of
partnering in the Turkish construction sector. Constr Manage
Econ 2002;20(4):315–21.
[17] Kwan AY, Ofori G. Chinese culture and successful implementa-
tion of partnering in SingaporeÕs construction industry. Constr
Manage Econ 2001;19(6):619–32.
[18] Fisher RB. Partnering construction contracts: a conflict avoidance
process. Trans AACE Int 2004:1–10.
[19] Dainty ARJ, Briscoe GH, Millett SJ. Subcontractor perspectives on
supply chain alliances. Constr Manage Econ 2001; 19(8):841–8.
[20] Wood G, McDermott P, Swan W. The ethical benefits of trust-
based partnering: the example of the construction industry.
Business Ethics: Eur Rev 2002;11(1):4–13.
[21] Davey CL, Lowe DJ, Duff AR. Generating opportunities for
SMEs to develop partnerships and improve performance. Build
Res Inform 2001;29(1):1–11.
[22] NAO/OGC. Common causes of project failure http://www.ogc.
gov.uk/sdtkdev/centexcel/ 2004. Common Causes of Failure
Appendix A.pdf. [Retrieved 24.08.04].
[23] Atkinson R. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, itÕs time to accept other success
criteria. Int J Project Manage 1999;17(2):337–42.
[24] Kerzner H. Systems project management: A case study at the IRS.
Syst Project Manage 1989;40(1):7–9.
[25] Might RJ, Fischer WA. The role of structural factors in
determining project management success. IEEE Trans Eng
Manage 1985;32(2):71–7.
 D.J. Bryde, L. Robinson / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 622–629
[26] Pinto JK, Prescott JE. Planning and tactical factors in the project
implementation process. J Manage Stud 1990;3:305–27.
[27] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project
management. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34(1):22–7.
[28] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy O, Maltz AC. Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann
2001;34:699–725.
[29] Tukel OI, Rom WO. An empirical investigation of project
evaluation criteria. Int J Oper Product Manage 2001;21(3):
400–416.
[30] Wateridge J. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success. Int
J Project Manage 1998;16(1):59–63.
[31] White D, Fortune J. Current practice in project management – An
empirical study. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):1–11.
[32] Winch G, Usmani A, Edkins A. Towards total project quality: a
gap analysis approach. Constr Manage Econ 1998;16(2):193–207.
[33] Egan J. Rethinking construction. London: Department of the
Environments Transport and the Regions, HMSO; 1998.
[34] APM, Glossary of Project Management Terms. London: Asso-
ciation of Project Management, 2000.
629
[35] Boehm BW, Ross R. Theory-W software project management:
principles and examples. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1989;15(7):
902–916.
[36] Uher TE. Partnering performance in Australia. J Constr Pro-
curement 1999;5(2):163–76.
[37] Trevino LK, Weaver GR. The stakeholder research tradition:
convergent theorists – not convergent theory. Acad Manage Rev
1999;24(2):222–7.
[38] Mallak LA, Patzak GR, Kursted Jr HA. Satisfying stakeholders
for successful project management. Comput Ind Eng 1991;21(14):
429–433.
[39] Padula RS, Coury HJCG. Sagittal trunk movements during load
carrying activities: a pilot study. Int J Ind Ergonom 2003;32:181–8.
[40] Zika-Viktorsson A, Hovmark S, Nordqvist S. Psychosocial aspects
of project work: a comparison between product development and
construction projects. Int J Project Manage 2003;21(8):563–9.
[41] Wright JN. Time and budget: the twin imperatives of a project
sponsor. Int J Project Manage 1998;15(3):181–6.
[42] Maylor H. Beyond the Gantt chart: project management moving
on. Eur Manage J 2001;19(1):92–100.