158

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

8.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusion of the study in several sections. The first section

summarises the findings of the study in relation to the objectives. The second section

discusses the managerial implications of this study while the third section provides

recommendations. The fourth section highlights the limitations of the study and

finally, the last section suggests future research directions.

8.1 A snapshot of summary findings

The purpose of the current study was to develop a performance evaluation framework

for assessing performance amongst public sector construction projects in developing

countries. In order to realise this objective, the researcher first conducted an extensive

review of the relevant literature in order to identify the existing body of knowledge in

the domain of performance measurement of construction projects. Based on the

review, performance indicator variables and the variables that influence project

success were identified and discussed with the experts in the area of construction

management. The variables were refined and a survey instrument was designed. This

was subsequently administered to clients, consultants and contractors who had been

involved in the CDF projects in the Western province, Kenya. The demographic

statistics regarding project characteristics and respondents’ profile were analysed

using Chi-square test of independence and one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

The relevance of the performance indicator variables and success related variables

amongst CDF construction projects in Kenya was established through EFA, CFA and

SEM.

The study resulted in a set of KPIs that reflect the economic, social and environmental

dimensions of public sector construction projects. Further, the study identified and

confirmed a set of CSFs based on the KPIs which would enable the projects to

achieve performance on the identified KPIs. Finally, based on the two scales, one for

KPIs and the other for CSFs, a performance evaluation framework was developed.

The relationships on the developed framework were hypothesised and analysed using

SEM.

159

These ensured that all the research objectives are addressed. A snapshot of summary

findings in relation to the objectives is given below.

The occurrence of time overrun, cost overrun and quality defects does not vary

on the basis of the type of CDF construction projects. All types of projects are

prone to these problems pointing towards the need for other factors to be

considered.

Respondents’ experience has no relationship with the occurrence of time

overrun, cost overrun and quality of defects on CDF construction projects.

Most of these projects are characterised by standard procedures which guide

the construction process.

The occurrence of time overrun and quality defects on CDF construction

projects does not vary with the project procurement method. However, the

occurrence of cost overrun varies across different procurement approaches.

This is because different procurement approaches have implications on how

project costs are computed and appropriated amongst different parties who are

responsible for undertaking construction.

Project performance of CDF construction projects are evaluated on the basis

of six KPIs namely project time, cost, quality, safety, site disputes and

environmental impact. These KPIs address the economic, social and

environmental dimensions of public sector construction projects.

Whilst not all the KPIs are significant in terms of their relationship with

project performance, there is significant evidence and support for

measurement of project performance on the basis of time, cost, quality and site

disputes.

There are six CSFs that influence success of public sector construction

projects: project-related factor, client-related factor, consultant-related factor,

contractor-related factor, supply chain related factor and external

environment-related factor.

All these six CSFs assessed are significant, providing empirical support for

considering them as factors that influence success of public sector construction

projects.

160

The external environment related factor does not mediate the influence of the

remaining CSFs on project success.

Client related and project related factors; client related and consultant related

factors; and contractor related and supply chain related factors are inter-

correlated.

Success of public sector construction projects has a significant positive

association with overall project performance on the various KPIs. This

supports inclusion of the two concepts in the performance evaluation

framework for assessing performance of public sector construction projects.

These findings are briefly described in the following sections.

8.1.1 Summary findings regarding the relationship between projects’

characteristics, respondents’ profile and occurrence of time overrun, cost

overrun and quality defects.

In the exploratory study, it was found that majority of the projects funded under CDF

were Educational in nature followed by Health Care facilities while the number of

Industrial Estates and Agricultural Markets turned out to be the same. Most of these

projects were found to have been procured through the negotiated general contract

approach. With regard to cost overrun, time overrun and quality defects, it was found

that majority of projects got delayed but in most cases they met budgetary allocations

and quality specifications. With regard to respondents’ profile, majority of the

respondents were clients owing to their number in the target population, followed by

contractors and then consultants. Most of these respondents were found to posses

several years of experience in which they worked on relatively large projects as

evidenced by the value of the projects. These findings were confirmed in the study in

phase II, except that unlike in the exploratory study where the number of projects

under Industrial Estates and Agriculture was the same, the number of Industrial

Estates came out to be the least.

While examining the occurrence of time overrun, cost overrun and quality defects

across different types of projects in Phase II, it was found that the extent of

occurrence of cost overrun, time overrun and quality defects did not differ across the

161

different types of projects. Similarly, it was found that project procurement approach

did not have any effect on the occurrence of time overrun and quality defects.

However, the occurrence of cost overrun was found to be dependent on the type of

project procurement approach. While examining the relationship between

respondents’ experience and the incidences of time overrun, cost overrun and quality

defects, the results show that respondents’ experience has no effect on the occurrence

of any of the three indicators of project performance.

8.1.2 Summary findings regarding KPIs

The KPIs of overall project performance of CDF construction projects were assessed

at three levels. First, based on literature review and discussion with experts, a list of

35 performance related variables (shown in table 8.1) was identified. At the second

level, performance measurement variables were refined through EFA. This resulted in

27 performance variables which loaded into six dimensions of overall project

performance namely time, cost, quality, safety site disputes and environmental impact

as can indicated in table 8.1. The empirical findings of the study and the subsequent

analyses suggest that the performance of public sector construction projects does not

merely depend on the traditional internal criteria of time, cost and quality. It also

depends on another internal measure, safety and two external measures namely site

disputes and environmental impact. At the exploratory level, it was found that project

time is the most important KPI followed by cost while safety comes last in the order

of importance.

In the third step, the 27-variable six-factor of KPIs scale was further analysed using

CFA. The analyses resulted in a 17-item six construct measurement scale for CDF

construction projects. Test statistics of both first order and second order measurement

models are acceptable for performance measurement amongst CDF construction

projects. Table 8.1 summarises the findings of the three steps used in assessing KPIs.

162

Table 8.1: Summary of the dimensions of KPIs and performance measurement variables in both survey I and survey II Literature review and discussion with experts (Performance variables)

Exploratory Study (Phase I) Confirmatory Study (Phase II)

PV1: There has not been any increase in the cost of raw materials during construction of this project. PV2: Labour costs more or less remained stable over the period of construction of the current project. PV3: The project experienced minimum variations and hence hardly any additional cost attributable to variations was incurred. PV4: The required equipments were available at pre budgeted rates. PV5: The amount/quantity of different type of resources required during the implementation phase matched with those estimated during planning stage. PV6: There were no incidences of fraudulent practices and kickbacks during project execution. PV7: There were no incidences of agitation by the trade unions in the current project. PV8: There were no serious dispute between the client and contractor due to non adherence to the specifications. PV9: Disputes were observed due to the frequent changes in the design of the current project. PV10: Dispute resolution meetings were often held during project execution. PV11: At time of project completion, there were no financial claims that remained unsettled from this project. PV12: This construction project has adversely affected the quality of groundwater level. PV13: All required resources for the project were delivered on time during execution of this project. PV14: A clear plan was formulated and an efficient planning and control system was designed to keep the current project up-to-date. PV15: No changes were introduced in the designs of the current during project execution. PV16: Harmonious relationship between labour and management existed in the project site and hence no work disruptions were reported during project

Dimension Items Dimension Items Time Performance (7)

TPV1: Timely delivery of resources TPV2: Harmonious relationship on site. TPV3: A clear plan was formulated. TPV4: No delays in securing funds. TPV5: No effect of weather and climatic conditions. TPV6: No design changes. TPV7: At handover there were no apparent defects

Time Performance (3)

TPV1: Timely delivery of resources TPV2: Harmonious relationship exists on site TPV4: No delays in securing funds

Cost Performance (6)

CPV1: Equipments at pre budgeted rates. CPV2: Stable labour costs CPV3: No increase materials cost CPV4: Minimum variations co CPV5: Adverse effect on quality of groundwater level. CPV6: No financial claims at completion.

Cost Performance (3)

CPV1: Equipments available at pre budgeted rates CPV2: Stable labour costs CPV3: No increase in materials cost

Site Disputes DPV1: No serious dispute Site Disputes DPV1: No serious

163

execution. PV17: This project has led to air pollution in the adjoining areas. PV18: This project has led to depletion of the precious natural and mineral resources in the surrounding areas. PV19: There has been an increase in solid waste due to the construction of the current project. PV20: Accidents were often reported during project construction. PV21: Near misses occurred quite often during construction. PV22: Fatalities did occur on this project during construction. PV23: The construction work utilised environmentally friendly technology. PV24: This project has led to the increased release of toxic material. PV25: No delays were experienced in securing funds during project implementation. PV26: At the time of handover, the current project was free from apparent defects PV27: The project contractors were often called back during the Defects Liability Period to repair defects. PV28: Weather and climatic conditions did not have much impact on delaying the project. PV29: The current project has utilised reusable and recyclable materials in construction work. PV30: The right material was used for the construction work. PV31: Employees working in the current project possessed requisite skills and most of them had worked on similar kinds of projects in the past. PV32: A sound quality management system was strictly adhered to during project execution phase of the current project. PV33: Training was imparted to the workers in order to develop a positive attitude and also to enable them to apply the right method of work. PV34: All stakeholders associated with the current project supervised the quality of the project in all its phases. PV35: Proper medical facilities were available for people working on the project

Performance (4)

due to specifications. DPV2: Disputes due to the frequent changes DPV3: No incidences of trade union agitation DPV4: Dispute resolution meetings

Performance (3) protests by the community due to the nature of the project DPV2: Disputes due to frequent changes in designs DPV3: No incidences of trade union agitation

Environmental impact Performance (4)

EPV1: Project has led to air pollution. EPV2: Increased solid waste. EPV3: Utilised environmentally friendly technology. EPV4: Project has led to depletion natural resources.

Environmental impact Performance (3)

EPV1: Project has led to air pollution EPV2: Project has given rise to increase in solid waste EPV3: Utilised environmentally friendly technology

Quality Performance (3)

QPV1: Right material was used for the construction work. QPV2: A sound QMS adhered to. QPV3: Workers were trained on positive attitudes

Quality Performance (3)

QPV1: Right material was used for the construction work QPV2: A sound QMS was adhered to QPV3: Workers were trained on positive attitudes

Safety Performance (3)

SPV1: Accidents were reported. SPV2: Fatalities did occur. SPV3: Near misses occurred.

Safety Performance (2)

SPV1: Accidents were reported SPV2: Fatalities did occur.

164

The results show that the cost construct has positive correlation with time construct

and negative correlation with quality construct. However, quality performance

deteriorates when cost performance improves. The second order measurement model,

shows that the quality constructs possesses the maximum explanatory power. It is

also the most reliable amongst the KPIs. However, all the other KPIs were also found

to have adequate explanatory power of overall project performance. This indicates

that the measurement items across all constructs may be considered as valid and

reliable which may be successfully utilized by the project managers while evaluating

construction projects. The CFA findings of the second order measurement model

reveal that cost is the most important followed by quality whereas safety comes last.

8.1.3 Summary findings regarding CSFs

The procedure of identifying and confirming CSFs was also carried out in three

stages, (literature review, exploratory phase and confirmatory phase), similar to the

stages enumerated in section 8.1.2. A list of 30 variables (shown in table 8.2)

influencing project success was identified based on literature review and discussion

with experts. These variables were subjected to EFA which yielded 27 success

variables loading in six components representing project success namely project

related, client related, consultant related, contractor related, supply chain related

and external environment related factors. Out of the six success factors, client

related, consultant related and contractor related factors are stakeholder based

whereas project related factor is based on project features and characteristics. Supply

chain related factor is based on management processes in terms of sourcing and

delivering of right materials and components in time and external environment

related factor addresses all environmental issues that affect project success. The

relative importance of the six CSFs varies. The results reveal that project related

factor is the most important factor followed by client related factor while contractor

related factor turns out to be the least in order of importance.

The 27-item six factor scale of CSFs was further analysed using CFA which resulted

in 17 item six construct scale of CSFs for CDF construction projects. Table 8.2

summarises the findings of the qualitative analysis, exploratory analysis and the

confirmatory analysis.

165

Table 8.2: Summary of the CSFs and success variables in both survey I and survey II. Literature review and discussion with experts (Success Variables)

Exploratory Study (Phase I) Confirmatory Study(Phase II)

SV1: The location and Site conditions did not affect the construction of this project. SV2: Design Complexity of project (Type, size, nature and number of floors) has influenced the project cost and time. SV3: Project planning, Scheduling and control were adequately done on this project SV4: The client secured necessary funds for the project and hence there were no delays in material acquisition and payments to contractor. SV5: The client got the design documents approved on time for this project. SV6: The client had adequate experience on similar kind of projects. SV7: Information sharing and collaboration among project participants were adequate in the current project. SV8: The construction work adhered to the requisite Quality standards. SV9: Continuous monitoring of actual expenditures and project schedules and their comparison with the budget was done regularly. SV10: There was a formal organization structure for dispute resolution within the project organization. SV11: Site Managers possessed requisite skills necessary for the kind of projects executed. SV12: The contractor had adequate technical skills and experience on similar type of projects. SV13: The contractor used latest construction methods in the project. SV14: The community did not raise any social, political or cultural issues against construction of the current project. SV15: The project execution was adversely affected by the surrounding weather and climatic conditions. SV16: Macro- economic conditions (such as interest rates, inflation) did not

Dimension Items Dimension Items Project Related Factor (7)

PSV1: Influence of Design Complexity PSV2: Adhered to the requisite Quality standards. PSV3: Continuous monitoring of actual expenditures. PSV4: Formal dispute resolution structures. PSV5: Effect of location and Site conditions. PSV6: Adequate Information sharing and collaboration. PSV7: Adequate Project planning and, Scheduling.

Project Related Factor (4)

PSV1: Influence of Design Complexity PSV2: Adhered to the requisite Quality standards PSV3: Continuous monitoring of actual expenditures PSV4: Formal dispute resolution structures

Client related factor(5)

CSV1: Adequate experience on similar projects. CSV2: Cheap materials were used. CSV3: Project funds secured on time. CSV4: Client’s emphasis on time rather than quality. CSV5: Design documents approved on time.

Client related factor (3)

CSV2: Cheap materials were used CSV4: Client’s emphasis on time rather than quality CSV5:Design documents approved on time

External environment related factor (6)

ESV1: Community had no issues against the project. ESV2: Adversely affected by the surrounding weather.

External environment related factor (3)

ESV1: Community had no issues against the project ESV2: Adversely

166

significantly affect the execution of this project. SV17: The project was affected by the Governance policy of the relevant government agencies which affects project success. SV18: The consultant was highly committed to ensuring construction work according to design specifications. SV19: There were adequate designs, specifications and documentations for the use of contractor. SV20: The client emphasized on completing the current project very fast without any reference to quality. SV21: The client tended to purchase construction materials at cheaper rate which led to the dilution of other project objectives. SV22: No variations in original design took place in the current project during construction phase. SV23: The level of technological sophistication considered in the project was satisfactory. SV24: There were no incidences of disagreements resulting from industrial relations prevailing at the time of project implementation. SV25: The physical and ecological conditions surrounding the project were favourable to project execution. SV26:There were very few internal procurement challenges SV27: The client’s decisions were timely and objective. SV28: Right equipments were available in the construction site of this project. SV29: The project faced stringent insurance and warranty contractual requirements. SV30: Working capital was adequate.

ESV3: Effect of the Governance policy. ESV4: Favourable physical and ecological conditions. ESV5: Effect of Macro- economic conditions. ESV6: No incidences industrial unrests.

affected by the surrounding weather ESV3: Effect of the Governance policy

Supply chain related factor (3)

LSV1:Few internal procurement challenges LSV2: Right equipments were available. LSV3: Effect of stringent insurance/warranty rules.

Supply chain related factor (3)

LSV1: Few internal procurement challenges LV2: Right equipments were available LSV3: Effect of stringent insurance/warranty rules

Consultant related factor (3)

SSV1: No variations were incorporated. SSV2: Adequate designs/specifications and documentations. SSV3: Adequate consultant committed to project.

Consultant related factor (2)

SSV1: No variations were incorporated SSV2: Adequate designs/specifications and documentation

Contractor related factor (3)

RSV1: Site Managers possessed requisite skills. RSV2: Contractor had adequate technical skills. RSV3: Contractor used latest construction methods.

Contractor related factor (2)

RSV1: Site Managers possessed requisite skills RSV2: Contractor had adequate technical skills.

167

Testing of the first order measurement model and the second order measurement

model (that includes mediation of external environment related factor) through

appropriate test statistics indicate that both models are acceptable. In the first order

model, some constructs are found to be positively correlated while others are

negatively correlated. For instance, project related construct has positive correlation

with client related construct and negative correlation with environment construct. This

probably indicates that the positive influence of project related factor is accompanied

by the positive influence on client related factor and vice-versa. However, the

influence of project related factor on environment is negative.

The first order model further shows that the project related construct possesses the

maximum explanatory power followed by consultant related construct while the

environment related construct has the minimum explanatory power. Further project

related construct is also has the highest reliability. Similarly the remaining five

constructs were also found to posses adequate scale reliability. This indicates that the

measurement items across all constructs may be considered as valid and reliable

which may be successfully utilized by the project managers for evaluating CSFs of

construction projects.

The second order construct and its relationships with the first order constructs enables

project managers to view the project success at a higher level. Due to this, the model

could reveal patterns of relationships among the constructs which are otherwise not

visible in the first order model. The second order model shows that all the six CSFs

are important in determining the success of CDF construction projects, as shown

through the standardised second order loadings. The external environmental related

factor possess the most influence on project success followed by project related factor

while supply chain related factor has the least influence.

8.1.4 Summary findings regarding the Performance Evaluation Framework

A SEM was developed to evaluate the impact of CSFs on project success. Further, it

was hypothesised that project success is positively associated with overall project

performance which is again expressed in terms of time, cost, quality, safety, site

disputes and environmental impact. The reliability of the twelve constructs and of the

168

model was found satisfactory. The GOF indices of the structural model were also

found quite satisfactory. However, not all the path coefficients were significant.

The influence of CSFs on project success

The results indicate that all the CSFs are appropriate success factors for CDF

construction projects since they have high factor loadings that are significant

at 5%. Based on the loadings of these CSFs on project success, it can be stated

that the most important CSF is project-related factor, followed by consultant-

related factor, client-related factor, contractor-related factor, supply chain-

related factor and external environment-related factor in descending order of

importance.

The results of the SEM model also suggest that mediation of external

environment related factor into the relationships between project success and

each of the CSFs is not fully supported.

The association between project success and overall project performance

Given that all the CSFs were found to influence the success of CDF

construction projects, the main challenge facing these projects is still

construction management which is undertaken by the client, consultants and

contractors. The success of construction management is reflected through

overall project performance. The association of project success and overall

project performance was found to be significant and positive indicating that

the two concepts are related in the assessment of project performance.

The relationship between overall project performance and KPIs

Results of SEM indicate that “cost” is the predominant indicator of overall

project performance followed by “quality”, “time” and “site disputes” in that

order. Three of these indicators cost, time and quality are well represented in

the literature on the “iron triangle” and have not been contradicted in the

current study. “Site disputes” being a contemporary measure of performance,

is an addition to the iron triangle emerging from the current study which seeks

to ensure harmony at the construction site (David, 2009; Tabish & Jha, 2011).

169

The remaining two performance indicators, safety and environmental impact

were not significant. The reason for this insignificant relationship of safety

with overall project performance seems to be its intangibility. Further, the

outcome of environmental impact of a project becomes evident long after the

construction process is completed. Because of this, it may not occur to the

project stakeholders that a project may have some adverse environmental

impact.

Whereas cost and time performances were positively related to overall project

performance, quality and site disputes performance were negatively related.

8.2 Managerial implications of the findings

The findings of the current study have several implications to the managers and

stakeholders involved in the implementation of public sector construction projects.

Below is a brief description of these implications.

The findings of the study on project characteristics and respondents’

demographic profile imply that some of the project procurement approaches

are more cost effective than others.

The findings of KPIs imply that public sector construction projects can be

evaluated on the basis of six KPIs namely cost, time, quality, site disputes,

safety and environmental impact. The positive and negative relationships

among the KPIs give important insights to the managers to the fact that when

performance on one KPI improves, the performance on the other KPIs might

improve or deteriorate.

The final findings of KPIs also imply that while measuring performance of

public construction projects, project cost is the most important performance

indicator, followed by time, quality and site disputes.

Findings reveal that cost and time performance are positively related to overall

project performance whereas quality and site disputes are negatively related to

overall project performance. This implies that improvement in cost and time

performance will improve overall project performance whereas insistence on

quality and site dispute resolution could undermine overall project

170

performance. Therefore project stakeholders consider pursuance of quality as

an effort that requires additional cost and time thereby impacting negatively

on overall project performance.

Further, the findings also imply that while implementing public sector

construction projects, there are six CSFs that influence the success of public

sector construction projects. Project success can therefore, be evaluated on the

basis of each individual success variables which may be used as a check list to

pinpoint areas of weaknesses which may need to be corrected in case of

unsatisfactory performance on a particular item.

Project related factor is relatively more important on success of public sector

construction projects implying that project characteristics are likely to have

significant impact on the project than the remaining factors. Therefore, the

findings provide insights to the managers in terms of how to monitor the

progress of public construction projects based on CSFs.

Further, the inter-correlations amongst three pairs of CSFs imply that project

stakeholders should take a holistic view of CSFs while determining their

influence on project success as one CSF is likely to be associated with another

CSFs

Similarly, the findings imply that project success and overall project

performance are distinct components of a performance evaluation framework.

They are however associated although each is captured through different

constructs.

8.3 Recommendations

The project stakeholders can use this performance evaluation framework to clarify

their understanding of performance of public sector construction projects during

construction and be able to take corrective action in order to improve overall

performance. It is therefore, recommended that project stakeholders should

Consider using those project procurement approaches which are cost effective

in order to avoid cost overrun on the projects.

171

Understand the needs of the community through proper involvement of the

representatives of the community and other stakeholders and accordingly

select suitable projects which would cater to their needs.

Understand the urgency of evaluating public sector construction projects on

multi-dimensional performance measures incorporating economic, social and

environmental aspects. Develop appropriate operational metrics to reflect the

three broad dimensions of performance of public sector construction projects.

Develop a holistic performance evaluation framework of public sector

construction projects consisting of the six KPIs with the help of 17 observable

performance related variables.

Allocate considerable amount of resources into the issues relating to project

time, cost, quality and site disputes of public construction projects. This is

because cost, time, quality and site disputes were relatively more important.

On the basis of KPIs, identify the CSFs that are appropriate for attainment of

success on the various KPIs and consider monitoring the progress of public

sector construction projects on the basis of CSFs.

Put more emphasis on project characteristics as they ranked higher in

importance among the CSFs influencing project success. However, the

contractors play an important role in the day-to-day management of the

construction activity. Thus even though the other factors were not ranked as

high as the project related factor, the managers should allocate sufficient

resources to the remaining factors as well which would enable them to

achieve satisfactory success on these CSFs for public sector construction

projects.

Distinguish between successful project implementation and overall project

performance and utilize the framework developed to compare success of

different types of construction projects on different CSFs. Similarly, project

managers could compare overall project performance of different projects

based on specific performance indicators.

8.4 Limitations of the study

The current study suffers from the following limitations

172

The responses to the questionnaire were based on perceptions of respondents

regarding the performance measurement variables and project success

variables. However, the frame of mind of the respondents may differ, and

hence, the responses provided are fraught with some element of subjectivity.

Secondly, the study was based on the perceptions of clients, consultants and

contractors but left out the community which actually benefits from the public

sector construction projects and for whom the projects are expected to be

relevant. The study did not consider community satisfaction with project

implemented though this is one of the desired outcomes of public construction

projects.

Further, there could be direct interactions between CSFs and the various KPIs.

The scope of the current study could not allow the researcher to examine such

direct relationships.

Similarly, the data for the development of the measurement instrument was

gathered in one province in Kenya. The prevailing circumstances in Western

province, Kenya could be different from the circumstances in other provinces

in Kenya and other developing countries.

Further these projects are characterized by the involvement of many

stakeholders with varying interests, numerous bureaucratic hassles and of

course, varying political interests, which facilitates corruption. Corruption

which includes bribery, embezzlement, kickbacks and fraud in construction

projects undermines the delivery of infrastructure services. These practices can

lead to increases in cost, extension of time and poor quality of constructed

facilities. The element of corruption has not been included in the present

study.

8.5 Directions for Future Research

This section recommends some potentially useful future research that can address

some of the limitations of this study.

Researchers could undertake a study in performance evaluation from the

perspectives of the community which constitutes the actual beneficiaries of the

173

projects. In such a study, the level of community satisfaction with the projects

implemented can be addressed.

Further future studies can attempt to identify the direct relationship between

the CSFs and KPIs through empirical studies. Also, future studies may

examine moderating factors that may have an effect on the relationship

between CSFs and project success.

Future researchers could advance the current construction project performance

evaluation scale and test its applicability within the context of other

constituencies in different regions in Kenya and those projects in other

developing countries. There is, therefore, an important need to undergo cross-

cultural validation of the instrument using data gathered from other provinces

of Kenya and other developing countries as well in order to enhance the

generalization of items.

Finally, a study incorporating the effect of corruption in performance

evaluation of public sector construction projects is of great importance. This is

because the intended objectives of public sector construction projects can be

properly realised in a corruption free environment. It is a well known fact that

these kinds of projects are severely affected by the scams prevalent in many

countries.

REFERENCES

Aaltonen, K., & Jaakko, K., (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder

influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management

(2010) 26, 381—397.

Abidin, A., (2007). The Profile of Construction Disputes. Unpublished Masters

Dissertations, Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia, Skudai

Abdul R. R., Taib W. B., Ahmad M. A., Nasid, N. A., & Zainordin Z.M. (2006).

Effect of procurement systems on the performance of construction projects.

International Conference on Construction Industry, Padang, Indonesia, 21-25th

June.

174

Abdul-Kadir, M. R., & Price, A. D. F., (1995). Conceptual phase of construction

projects International Journal of Project Management, Volume 13, Issue 6,

December 1995, Pages 387–393

Abdullah, M. R., Abdul, A. A. A., & Abdul, R.I., (2009). Potential effects on large

MARA projects due to construction delay. International Journal of Integrated

Engineering (Issue on Civil and Environmental Engineering) 1(2): 53-62.

Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T., Butt, S., & Shaar, A., (2006). An investigation of

management’s commitment to construction safety. International Journal of

Project Management, 24(2), pp. 167-174.

African Economic Outlook, (2012). Kenya Macroeconomic Policy. Retrieved from

www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en..

Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P.O., (2008). Critical success criteria

for mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of

Project Management, 26 (6), 675–687.

Ahsan, K., & Gunawan, I., (2010). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of

international development projects, Original Research Article. International

Journal of Project Management, Volume 28, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 68-78.

Alba F., Miquel, C., Marta, G., Nuria F., Marcel M., & Xavier R., (2013). An

Environmental Impact Causal Model for improving the environmental

performance of construction processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52

(2013).

Al Haadiri, S., & Panuwatwanich, K., (2011). Critical Success Factors for Safety

Program Implementation among Construction Companies in Saudi Arabia.

Procedia Engineering Volume 14, (2011), Pages 148-155.

Ali, A.S., & Rahmat, I., (2010). The performance measurement of construction

projects managed by ISO-certified contractors in Malaysia. Journal of Retail &

Leisure Property (2010) 9, 25–35.

Ali, A.S., & Kamaruzzaman, S.N., (2010). Cost Performance for Building

Construction Projects in Klang Valley. Journal of Building Performance, 1 (1),

110 - 118.

Al-Momani, A.H., (2000). Construction delay: A quantitative analysis, International

journal of Project Management, 18 (2000) 51-59.

175

Alwaer, H. & Clements-Croome, D.J., (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and

priority setting in using the multi attribute approach for assessing sustainable

intelligent buildings, Building and environment 45 (2010) 799-807.

Al-Kharashi, A., & Skitmore, M., (2008). Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public

sector construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1).

pp. 3-23.

Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Harun, Z., (2011). Future criteria of

success of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project

Management, 29 (3), 337-348.

Alwi, S., Hampson, K., & Mohamed, S., (2002). Waste in the Indonesian

Construction Project. Proceedings of the 1st International Conferences of CIB

W107 – Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries,

11-13 November 2002, South Africa, ISBN: 0-7988-5544-4, pp. 305-315.

Alzahrani, J. I., & Emsley M. W., (2013). The impact of contractors’ attributes on

construction project success: A post construction evaluation. International

Journal of Project Management, 31 (2013) 313–322.

Ameh, O.J., Soyingbe, A.A., & Odusami, K.T., (2010). Significant factors causing

cost overrun in telecommunication projects in Nigeria. Journal of Construction in

Developing Countries, 15 (2), 49-67.

Ankrah, N. A., & Proverbs, D (2005). A framework for measuring construction

project performance:overcoming key challenges of performance measurement.

In: Khosrowshahi, F (Ed.), 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September

2005, SOAS, University of London. Association of Researchers in Construction

Management, Vol. 2, 959-69.

Assaf, S.A., & Al Hejji, S., (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects.

International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, pp. 349-361.

Atkinson, R., (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses

and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International

Journal of Project Management 17, 337–342.

Awiti, V.P., (2008). An Assessment of the use and management of Development

Funds. The case of Constituencies Development Fund in Kenya. Unpublished

176

masters dissertation submitted to the institute of Social Studies for MA in

Development Studies, Hague, Netherlands.

Azhar, S., Ahmed, S.M., & Ahmad, I., (2002). Supply chain management in

construction scope, benefits and barriers. Delhi Business Review Vol. 3, No. 1,

January - June 2002.

Azhar,N., Farooqui, R.U., & Ahmed, S.M., (2008). Cost overrun factors in

construction industry in Pakistan. First International Conference on Construction

in Developing countries (ICCIDC-I, advancing and integrating construction

education, research and practice).

Barasa, R. M., (2010). Review of Constituencies Development Fund Projects A North

Rift Case Study, October 2010 3rd Draft No.37. www.afrepren.org/Pubs/

WorkingPapers/wpp378_ sum.htm Accessed on 15/05/2012

Barclay, C., Osei-Bryson, K.M., (2010). Project performance development

framework: an approach for developing performance criteria & measures for

information systems (IS) projects. International Journal of Production Economics

124, 272–292.

Basheka, B. C., & Tumutegyereize, M., (2012). Measuring the performance of

contractors in government construction projects in developing countries:

Uganda’s context. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(32), pp.

9210-9217, 15 August, 2012.

Baskin, M., (2010). Constituency Development Funds (CDFs) as a tool of

Decentralised Development. 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference,

Nairobi, Kenya, 10th-19th September.

Bassioni, H., Price, A., & Hassan T., (2004). Performance Measurement in

Construction. Journal of Management Engineering, 20(2), 42-50.

Beck, T., (2006). Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria: An

ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies. London, UK: Overseas Development

Institute.

Billy, H., Cameron, I., & Duff, A.R., (2006). Exploring the integration of health and

safety with pre-construction planning. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 13(5): 438-450.

177

Blake, D.W., (2008). Scope for Improvement: A Survey of Pressure Points in

Australian Construction and Infrastructure Projects. A Report Prepared for the

Australian Constructors Association by Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers,

Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http: //www.constructors.com.au/

publications/sfi_2008/ACA_ Scope_for_Improvement_2008.pdf.

Blindenbach-Driessen, F., (2006). Innovation management in project-based firms,

Doctoral thesis, School of Management Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the Brief for Better Design. Spon,

London.

Bon-Gang H., Xianbo Z., & Si Yi N., (2013). Identifying the critical factors

affecting schedule performance of public housing projects. Habitat

International 38, 214-221Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013.

Bordoli, D.W. & Baldwin, A.N., (1999). A methodology for assessing construction

project delays. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 327-37.

Borvorn I.N. A., (2011). Common disputes related to public work projects in

Thailand. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 33 (5), 565-573,

Sep. - Oct. 2011.

Briscoe, G., & Dainty, A., (2005). Construction supply chain integration: an elusive

goal? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss: 4,

pp.319 – 326.

Bryde, D. J., & Robinson, L., 2005. Client versus contractor perspectives on project

success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622—629.

Cao, Q., & Hoffman .J .J. (2011). A case study approach for developing a project

performance evaluation system. International Journal of Project Management 29

(2011) 155–164.

Chalabi, F.A. & Camp, D., (1994). Causes of delays and overrun of construction

projects in developing countries, CIB Proceedings, no. 2, pp. 723-34.

Chan, A. P.C., (2001). Design and build project success factors: multivariate analysis,

Journal of construction engineering and management 93–100 Mar/Apr.

Chan, A.P.C., & Chan, A.P.L., (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring

construction success. Benchmarking: An international journal 11, 203–221.

178

Chan, A.P.C., & Tam, C.M., (2000). Factors affecting the quality of building projects

in Hong Kong. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17

(4/5), 423 – 442.

Chan, D. W. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M., (1997). A comparative study of causes of

time overrun in Hong Kong construction projects,’ International Journal of

Project Management, 15(1), 55–63.

Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., & Riley, D. R.,(2010). Sustainable performance criteria for

construction method selection in concrete buildings, Automation in Construction

Article in Press, Corrected Proof, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004.

Chianca, T., (2008). The OECD/DAC Criteria for International Development

Evaluations: An Assessment and Ideas for Improvement. Journal of Multi-

Disciplinary Evaluation 2008; 5(9): 41-51.

Cooke-Davis, T., (2002). The ‘real’ success factors on projects. International Journal

of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp 185-190.

Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act, (2003), Republic of Kenya.

Construction users roundtable (CURT), ( September, 2005 report). Construction

Measures: Key Performance Indicators. UP-101. Retrieved from

http://www.nwoglca.org/PDF_Files/Construction%20Measures_Key%

20Performance%20Indicators.pdf

Costa, D. B. & Formoso, C. T. (2004). Evaluating performance measurement systems

for construction companies, In: Aouad, G., Amaratunga, D., Kagioglou, M.,

Ruddock, L.and Sexton, M. (Eds.), The International Salford Centre for Research

and Innovation(SCRI) Research Symposium.

Coursaris, C.K., Sweirenga, S.J., & Watrall, E. (2008). An Empirical Investigation of

color Temperature and Gender Effects on Web Aeshetics. Journal of Usability

Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3, May 2008, pp. 103-117.

Datta, M., (2004). Challenges Facing the Construction Industry in Developing

Countries. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.194.6404

accessed 07/06/2013.

David, W., (2009). Public-Sector Project Management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hoboken, New Jersey.

179

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D., (2005). The success of international development projects,

trust and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of

Project Management, 23(3), 237—252.

Ding, G.K.C., (2005). Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of

sustainable performance. Building Research & Information, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3-

16.

Enshassi, A.,Mohamed, S., and Ekarriri, A., (2009). Essential Skills and Training

Provisions for Building Project Stakeholders in Palestine. Journal of

Construction in Developing Countries, 14 (1), 31- 50.

Eriksson, P.E., & Westerberg, M., (2011). Effects of cooperative procurement

procedures on construction project performance: A conceptual framework.

International Journal of Project Management, 29 (2), 197-208.

Essam, K.Z., (2006). Construction claims in United Arab Emirates: Types, causes,

and frequency. International journal of Project Management vol. 24, no.5 pp

453-459, 2006.

Field, P.A., (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS, 2nd Edition. London. Sage.

Fortune, J & White, D., (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a

systems model. International journal of Project management 24(2006) 53-65.

Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. & Crawford, L., (2003). Causes of delays and cost overrun

construction of groundwater projects in developing countries, Ghana as a case

study, Journal of project management, 21, 321-326.

Gangolells M, Casals M, Gassó S, Forcada N, Roca X, & Fuertes A., (2009). A

methodology for predicting the severity of environmental impacts related to the

construction process of residential buildings. Building and Environment 2009;

44(3)

Gangolells M, Casals M, Gassó S, Forcada N, Roca X, & Fuertes A., (2011).

Assessing concerns of interested parties when predicting the significance of

environmental impact related to construction process of residential buildings.

Building and environment 46 (2011) 1023-1037.

Gardiner, K. S., (2000). Revisiting the Golden Triangle of Cost, Time, and Quality:

the Role of NPV in Project Control, Success, and Failure. International Journal

of Project Management 18 (4), 251-256.

180

Gemunden H., Salomo S. & Krieger A., (2005). The influence of project autonomy

on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23 (2005), pp

366-373.

Global construction 2020, (2011). A report of Global construction perspectives and

Oxford Economics. www.globalconstruction2020.com (Accessed 27/03/2012).

Grace, F.M., (2010). Types of Construction Projects Article Source:

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Grace_F._M. Accessed o7/06/2013.

Halpin, D.W., & Woodhead, R.W., (2006). Construction management. 3rd Ed. New

York ; Chichester : Wiley.

Hamad A., & Sangwon H. (2013). Analysis of Causes of Construction Defects Using

Fault Trees and Risk Importance Measures. Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management 139:7, 870-880.

Harrison, P. (2007). Can measurement error explain the weakness of productivity

growth in the Canadian construction industry? International Productivity

Monitor, 14 (Spring): 53–70.

Haslama, R.A., Hidea, S.A., Gibbb, A.G.F., Gyia, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinsona, S., &

Duff, A.R. (2005). Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied

Ergonomics 2005; 36:401–15.

Henricsson, P. & Ericsson, S. (2005). Measuring Construction Industry

Competitiveness: A Holistic Approach. Proceedings: The Queensland University

of Technology Research Week International Conference. Brisbane,Australia, 4–8

July.

Ibnu, A.M., 2006. Causes and Effects of delays in ACEH Construction Industry.

Unpublished MSc Thesis in construction management, Faculty of Civil

Engineering, University Technology Malaysia.

Ika L.A., Diallo A., & Thuiller D., (2012). Critical success factors for World Bank

projects. An Empirical Investigation. International journal of project

Management 30 (2012) 105-116.

ILO, (2001). The construction industry in the twenty first century: Its image,

employment prospects and skill requirements. International Labor Office,

Geneva.

181

Jahmane, A., Van Hoorebeke, D., & Louart, P., (2011). The link between financial

performance and the voluntary departure of personnel through a measurement

scale. Business and Management Review Vol. 1(6) pp. 48 – 61.

Jha N. K., & Iyer C.K., (2006). What attributes should a project coordinator possess’?

Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 24 (9), 977-988.

Jin X.H., Doloi, H., & Gao, S.Y. (2007). Relationship-based-determinants of building

project performance in China. Journal of Construction Management and

Economics, 25, 297–304.

Kaliba, C., Muya, M., & Mumba, K. (2009). Cost escalation and schedule delays in

road construction projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project

Management, 27 (5), 522-531.

Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., & Harris, F. C., (1997). Factors

influencing construction time and cost overrun on high-rise projects in Indonesia.

Construction. Management Economics, 15(1), 83–94.

Kamrul, A. & Indra, G., (2010). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of

international development projects Original Research Article, International

Journal of Project Management, Volume 28, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 68-78.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), (2010), Republic of Kenya.

Kerzner H., (2006). Project Management; A Systems Approach to Planning,

Scheduling, and Controlling, Ninth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New

Jersey.

Khan R.A., (2008). Role of Construction Sector in Economic Growth: Empirical

Evidence from Pakistan Economy. Proceedings of the first International

Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I) titled

‘Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice’,

August 4-5, Karachi.

Khosravi, S. & Afshari, H., (2011). A success measurement model for construction

projects. International conference on Financial management and economics

IPEDR Vol, 11 (2011) IACSIT Press Singapore www.ipedr.com vol.11/36-

wooo14.pdf. accessed 10/08/2012.

Kimani F., Nekesa P., & Ndung’u B., (2009). Best practices in Constituency

Development Fund (CDF). A paper prepared for the collaborative centre for

182

Gende and Development and International Development Research. Available:

www.ccentregd.org. Accessed 23/08/2012.

Kimenyi K. M., (2005). Efficiency and Efficacy of Kenya’s Constituency Development

Fund: Theory and Evidence. University of Connecticut, Department of

Economics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 2005-42 April 2005.

Koushki P.A., Al-Rashid, K., & Kartam N. (2005). Delays and cost increases in

construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Journal of Construction

Management and Economics, 23(3), 285-294.

Kratzer J. Leenders R. & Van Engelen J. (2005). Informal contacts and performance

in innovation teams. International Journal of Manpower, 26 (6), pp. 513-528.

Kylindri, S., Blanes, G., Henriksen, L., & Tanev S., (2012). Measuring Project

Outcomes: A Review of Success Effectiveness Variables. Accessed 06/06/2012.

Available http://mibes.teilar.gr/proceedings/2012/ oral/Kylindri-Blana-

Henriksen-Tanev.pdf)

Leenders, R., Th. A. J., Van Engelen, J.M.L., & Kratzer J. (2003). Virtuality,

communication, and new product team creativity: social network perspective.

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, pp. 69-92.

Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y.D., & Lee, J.Y. (2008). Delay and cost overrun in Vietnam large

construction projects: A comparison with other selected countries. Journal of

civil engineering; 12(6): 367-377.

Lim, C.S. & Mohamed, M.Z., (1999). Criteria for project success, an exploratory re-

examination. International Journal of Project management volume 17 no. 4 pp

243-248.

Litsikakis, D., (2009). Analysis of Project Success Criteria and Success Factors: How

to maximise success in your projects using meaningful criteria and factors.

Accessed on April 23, 2011. http://knol.google.com/k/dimitrios-litsikakis/

analysis-of-project-success-criteria/3ib8exvrc87n4/4.

Long, N.D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T., & Lam K.C., (2004). Large construction

projects in developing countries: a case study from Vietnam. International

Journal of Project Management, 22 (7), 553–561.

183

Love P.E.D, Edwards, J.D., Watson, H & Davis, P., (2010). Rework in Civil

Infrastructure Projects: Determination of Cost Predictors, Journal of construction

Engineering and management, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp. 275-282 (March 2010).

Love, P.E.D., Iran, Z. & Edwards, J.D.A. (2004). Rework Reduction Model for

Construction Projects, IEEE transactions on engineering management, vol. 51,

no. 4, November 2004.

Malhotra, N.K. & Dash, S., 2011. Marketing research: An applied orientation. 6th

edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Mapesa, B. and Kibua, T., (2006). An Assessment of the Management and Utilization

of the Constituency Development Fund in Kenya. Discussion Paper No.076/2006.

IPAR Discussion Paper Series.

Marosszeky, R.T.M., Karim, K., David, S. & McGeorge, D., (2002). The importance

of project culture in achieving quality outcomes in construction. Paper presented

at the IGLC, Brazil, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/

publication/ 228796833_ The_ importance_ of_project_culture_in_achieving_

quality_outcomes_in_construction.

Medineckiene, M ,Turskis, Z. & Zavadskas, E.K., (2010). Sustainable construction

taking into account the building impact of the environ, Journal of environmental

engineering and landscape management 18 (2), 118-127.

Memon, F.H., Ismail A. R., & Ade A. A. A., (2012). Time and Cost Perfomance in

Costruction Projects in Southern and Cenrtal Regions of Penisular Malaysia.

International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences, Vol.1, No.1, March

2012, pp. 45~52.

Miles R.L., Greer, L., Kraatz, D. & Kinnear, S., (2008). Measuring community

wellbeing: A central Queensland case study. Australasian Journal of Regional

Studies, Vol. 14 No.4.

Murali, S., & Yau Wen, S., 2007. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian

construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 25 517–526.

National Construction Corporation (NCC) Act, (1972, Republic of Kenya.

National Taxpayers Association, (2010). Citizen’s Constituency Development Fund

Report Card for Aldai Constituency, Nandi North District. DfID, March 10,

2009, pg. 22. 07/29/2010.

184

Ngacho, C., & Das, D., (2013a). A performance evaluation framework of public

construction projects: An Empirical study of Constituency Development Fund

(CDF) Projects in Kenya, International Journal of Project Management (Under

final revision for publication).

Ngacho, C., & Das, D., (2013b). A performance evaluation framework of construction

projects: insights from literature. International Journal of Project Organisation

and Management, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx (Accepted for publication).

Ngacho, C., & Das, D., (2012). Development of a Performance Measurement

Framework for Evaluating Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Projects in

Kenya using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. XVI Annual International

Conference of the Society of Operations Management (SOM) on Advances in

Operations and Supply chain Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi,

India, December 21-23, 2012.

Ngacho, C., & Das, D., (2011). Development of a Theoretical Framework for

Performance Evaluation of Construction Projects in Developing countries. XV

Annual International Conference of the Society of Operations Management

(SOM) on Sustainable Operations Management, Indian Institute of Management

Calcutta, India, December 16-18, 2011.

Ngacho, C., Das, D., & Makori, J., (2012). Evaluation framework for construction

projects performance in Developing countries-Development from Literature

Review. African International Business and Management (AIBUMA 2012)

Conference, University of Nairobi, School of Business, July 12-13, 2012.

Ngowi, A. B., (2000). Impact of culture on the application of TQM in the construction

industry in Botswana, International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management,

17, 442-452(11).

Nidumolu, (1996). Standardization, requirements, uncertainty and software project

performance, Information & Management, Vol.31, no. 3, pp. 135-150.

Nurul, I. A. & Poh K. N. (2011). The Role of Time, Cost and Quality in Project

Management. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM),

IEEE International Conference on Date of Conference: 6-9 Dec. 2011.

185

Odeh, A.M., & Battaineh, H.T.,(2002). Causes of construction delay: traditional

contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 67-73.

Ofori, G., (2000). Challenges for construction industries in developing countries.

Proceedings, Second International Conference of the CIB Task Group

29,Gaborone, Botswana, November, pp. 1-11.

Ogano, N. O., & Pretorius, L., (2010). Quality performance: the case of construction

projects in the electricity industry in Kenya. South African Journal of Industrial

Engineering May 2010.

Okpala D.C., & Aniekwu, A.N., (1988). Causes of high costs of constructionin

Nigeria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114 (2), 233-

244.

Olawale, Y., & Sun, M., (2010). Cost and time control of construction projects:

Inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice. Construction Management

and Economics, 28 (5), 509 – 526.

Omoregie, A., & Radford, D., (2006). Infrastructure delays and cost escalation:

causes and effects in Nigeria. 3rd International Built a. Human Environment

Research Week, (), 03 Apr 2006 - 07 Apr 2006.

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/icconda/CIB8964.pdf accessed 01/05/2013.

Ortega, I., (2000). Systematic prevention of construction failure. Quality Management

and Technology 2000, 9:1-13.

Ortiz, O., Castells, F. & Sonnemann, G., (2009). Sustainability in the construction

industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and

Building Materials, 23(1), 28-39.

Othman A. A, Torrance, J. V. & Hamid A., (2006). Factors influencing the

construction time of civil engineering projects in Malaysia. Engineering,

construction and Architectural management Vol. 13 No. 5 2006 pp 481-501. pp.

171-181.

Ozorrhon, B., Arditi, D., Dikmen I., & Birgonul M. T., (2007). Effect of host country

and project conditions in international construction joint ventures. International

Journal of Project Management, 25 (2007), 799-806.

186

Palaneeswaran, E Ramanathan, M. & Tam, C., (2007). Rework in Projects: Learning

from Errors, Surveying and Built Environment Vol 18 (2), 47-58 December 2007

ISSN 1816-9554.

Patanakul, P & Milosevic, D., (2009). The Effectiveness in Managing a group of

Multiple Projects: Factors of influence and Measurement Criteria. International

Journal of Project Management. 2009, 27, 216-233.

Patrick X. W. Z., (2011). Fostering a Strong Construction Safety Culture Leadership.

Journal of Management Engineering volume 11.

Pheng, L. S.; Chuan, Q. T. (2006). Environmental factors and work performance of

project managers in the construction industry. International Journal of Project

Management 24: 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.001.

PMI, (2008). Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project

Management Institute, New Square, PA, USA.

Poli, M. Cosic I. & Lalic B., (2010). Project Strategy: Matching Project Structure to

Project Type to Achieve Better Success. International Journal of Industrial

Engineering and Management 1(1), pp. 29-40.

Puspasari, T.R., (2006). Factors causing the poor performance of construction

project. Masters thesis, Universiti Technologi Malaysia, Faculty of Civil

Engineering.

Ratnasabapathy, S., (2008). Exploratory Study of External Environmental Factors:

Influencing the Procurement Selection in Construction. Viewed April 27, 2011,

<http://www.bear2008.org/post/49.pdf >.

Romero, G., (2009). Decentralization, Accountability and the MPs Election. The case

of the Constituency Development Fund in Kenya. A paper publishe in Publication

for improving Institutions for the Pre-Poor growth, University of Oxford.

Accessed 23/08/2012. Available www.iig.ox.ac.uk.

Salleh, R., (2009). Critical success factors of project management for Brunei

construction projects. Improving project performance. Unpublished PhD thesis,

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University of

Technology.

187

Saparauskas, J. & Turskis, Z., (2006), Evaluation of construction sustainability by

multiple criteria methods, Technological and Economic development of Economy,

12: 4, 321-326.

Saqib, M., Farooqui, R.U., and Lodi, S.H. (2008).Assessment of Critical Success

Factors for Construction Projects in Pakistan. First International Conference on

Construction In Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I) “Advancing and Integrating

Construction Education, Research & Practice” August 4-5, 2008, Karachi,,

Pakistan

Segersted, A & Olofsson, T., (2010). Supply chains in the construction industry,

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15 (5), 347-353.

Shao, J. & Müller, R., (2011). The development of constructs of program context and

program success: A qualitative study. International Journal of Project

Management, Dec 2011, Volume: 29 Issue: 8 pp.947-959.

Shen, L., Tam, V., Tam, L., & Ji, Y., (2010). Project feasibility study: the key to

successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction

management practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (3), 254-259.

Shenhar, A. J., Asher, T., Dov, D., Stanislav, L., & Thomas, L., (2002). Refining the

search for project success factors: A multivariate typological approach. R & D

Management, 32(2), 111–126.

Shenhar, A.J., (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical

contingency domains. Management Science, 47 (3), 394-414.

Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D., (1997). Mapping the Dimensions of Project

Success, Project Management Journal 28, no. 2 (1997): 5-13.

Skene, M. and Shaban, R., (2002). Strategies to Avoid and Resolve Construction

Disputes. Prepared for a conference held in Vancouver, B.C. hosted by Pacific

Business & Law Institute, March 6, 2002.

Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A., & Shboul, A., (2007). Delays in construction

projects: The case of Jordan. International Journal of Project Management, 26,

665–674.

Syed, M.A. Salman,A. Pragnya, K., & Dharam G., (2003). Delays in Construction: A

Brief Study of the Florida Construction Industry. Florida International University

Miami, FL, 2003.

188

Tabish, S.Z.S., & Jha, K.N., (2011). Analysis of irregularities in public procurement

in India. Journal of Construction Management and Economics. 29(3): 261-274.

Tae- Hong, C., Sangyoon, C., Su-Won, Y., & Soon-Wook, K. (2011). A service-

oriented integrated information framework for RFID/WSN-based intelligent

construction supply chain management. Automation in Construction Volume 20,

Issue 6, October 2011, Pages 706–715.

Takim, R., Akintoye A. & Kelly J., (2004). Analysis of measures of construction

project success in Malaysia. Association of Researches in Construction

Management, Vol.2, No.9, pp. 1123-113.

Takim, R & Akintoye, A., (2002). Performance indicators for successful construction

project performance. In: Greenwood, D (Ed.), 18th Annual ARCOM Conference,

2-4 September 2002, University of Northumbria. Association of Researchers in

Construction Management, Vol. 2, 545-55.

Tan, Y Shen,L.,& Yao, H., (2011). Sustainable construction practice and contractors’

competitiveness. A preliminary study, Habitat international 35 (2011) 225-230.

Toor, S.R. &, Ogunlana S.O., (2010). Beyond the iron triangle, Stakeholder

perception of Key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector

development projects. International journal of project management 28 (2010)

228-236.

Tsoulfas, G.T. & Pappis, C.P., 2008. A model for supply chains environmental

performance analysis and decision making, Journal of cleaner production 16

(2008) 1647-1657.

Tyson Building Corporation, (2005). Selecting Project Delivery

www.tysonbuilding.com /images/SelectingProjectDelivery.pdf. Accessed

10/03/2012.

Walker, D.H.T., (1995). An investigation into construction time performance.

Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 263-74.

Wang, X. & Huang, J., (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders' project

performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising

engineers. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, PP. 253-260.

189

Wang, Y., Wang, H. & Shee, D.Y., (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in

an organisational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in

Human Behaviour 23 (2007) 1792-1808.

Wanjiru G., (2008). The CDF Social Audit Guide, a Handbook for Communities,

Open Society Initiative of East Africa, February 2008. http://www.soros.org/

initiatives/ osiea/articles_publications/ publications/cdf_20080201/resource_

20080808.pdf accessed 23/10/20.

Wells, J., (1986). Construction Industry in Developing Countries: Alternative

Strategies for Development. London: Croom Helm.

Westerveld, E. (2002). The project Excellence Model®

: linking success criteria and

critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 6: 411-

418.

Willard, B.K., (2005). Project success-a different view. Accessed May 23, 2012 from

http:// maxwideman.com/guests/ metrics/view.htm.

Williams, T., (2003). Assessing Extension of Time delays on major projects Original

Research Article, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 21,

Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 19-26.

Willis, C.J. & Rankin, J.H., (2011). Measuring the Performance of Guyana’s

Construction Industry Using a Set of Project Performance Benchmarking Metrics

Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 16(1), 19–40, 2011

Xiao, H. & Proverbs, D. (2003) Factors influencing contractor performance: an

international investigation, Engineering Construction and Architectural

Management, 10 (5), 322-332.

Xue, X., Wang, Y., Shen, Q., & Yu, X., (2007). Coordination mechanisms for

construction supply chain management in the Internet environment. International

Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 150–157.

Yakubu, D.M., & Bakri I.M. (2013). Evaluation of Safety and Health Performance on

Construction Sites (Kuala Lumpur). Journal of Management and Sustainability;

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013.

Yu J.H., & Kwon H.R., (2011). Critical Success Factors for Urban Regeneration

Projects in Korea. International Journal of Project Management. 29: 889‐899.

190

Yu, A. T. W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K., (2006). Investigation of critical

success factors in Construction project briefing by way of content analysis.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 132(11), 1178-

1186.

Yung, P. & Yip, B., (2010). Construction quality in China during transition: A review

of literature and empirical examination. International Journal of Project

Management, 28 (1), 79-91.

Zhao, Z, Zuo, J, Zillante, G, & Wang, X., (2010). Critical success factors for BOT

electric power projects in China: Thermal power versus wind power. Renewable

Energy 35 (2010) 1283–1291.

Zhu, O.J., Sarkis, L., & Lai, K., (2008). Confirmation of a Measurement Model for

Green Supply Chain Management Practices & Implementation. International

Journal of Production Economics, (111), pp. 261-273.

Zuo, P.X.W., Zhang, G & Wang, J., (2007). Understanding the key risks in

construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management. 25

(6), 601-614.