ChapterPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The literature demonstrates a lack of consensus and consistency to identify critical success factors (CSFs) for different construction operations. Therefore, the objectives of the study are to: (1) identify and categorize CSFs from literature; (2) examine the limitations of the current practices; and (3) recommend future studies. CSFs from the existing literature were categorized according to their emphasis on project outcomes, delivery methods, project types, and partnering processes. Upper management support, commitment, constructability reviews, teamwork, communication, and building trusts emerged as they shared key elements of success in most construction activities. Previous studies’ major limitation lays in the emphasis on experts’ subjective prioritization of CSFs and the limited number of empirical studies. The results of the study also demonstrate that there is a great potential for investigating CSFs for emerging delivery methods, and for exploring the causality relationships between CSFs and project success.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Esmaeili, Behzad 1; Pellicer, Eugenio 2; Molenaar, Keith R. 3
1 University of Nebraska at Lincoln, 2 Universitat Politècnica de València, 3 University of
Colorado at Boulder
The literature demonstrates a lack of consensus and consistency to identify critical succes
factors (CSFs) for different construction operations. Therefore, the objectives of the study are
to: (1) identify and categorize CSFs from literature; (2) examine the limitations of the current
practices; and (3) recommend future studies. CSFs from the existing literature were
categorized according to their emphasis on project outcomes, delivery methods, project
types, and partnering processes. Upper management support, commitment, constructability
reviews, teamwork, communication, and building trusts emerged as the shared key elements
of success in most construction activities. Previous studies‘ major limitation lays in the
emphasis on experts‘ subjective prioritization of CSFs and the limited number of empirical
studies. The results of the study also demonstrate that there is a great potential for
investigating CSFs for emerging delivery methods, and for exploring the causality
relationships between CSFs and project success.
Keywords: Success Factors; Project Delivery Methods; Partnering
La literatura existente demuestra que existe una falta de consenso y consistencia para
identificar los factores críticos de éxito (CSFs) de diferentes actividades de la construcción.
Por lo tanto, los objetivos de este estudio son: (1) identificar y categorizar CSFs de la
literatura; (2) examinar las limitaciones de las prácticas existentes; y (3) recomendar futuros
estudios. Se categorizan los CSFs obtenidos de la literatura según los resultados del
proyecto, estrategias de contratación, tipos de proyectos, y procesos de colaboración. El
apoyo del personal directivo, el compromiso, la constructibilidad, el trabajo en equipo, la
comunicación y la generación de confianza emergen como los elementos compartidos de
éxito en la mayoría de las actividades de la construcción. Las mayores limitaciones de los
estudios previos se encuentran en la priorización subjetiva de los CSFs y en el limitado
número de estudios empíricos. Los resultados del estudio también demuestran que hay un
gran potencial para investigar los CSFs relativos a las nuevas estrategias de contratación
colaborativa, así como para explorar las relaciones causales entre CSFs y el éxito del
Palabras clave: Factores Críticos; Métodos de Contratación; Colaboración
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
1. Introduction
Critical success factors (CSFs) in the context of project management were first defined by
Rockart (1982) as the limited number of factors that should be satisfied to ensure successful
completion of a project. Since then, a considerable amount of research has been focused on
exploring CSFs for construction projects (e.g. Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Li et al., 2005). These
studies gained attention, because identifying CSFs helps practitioners allocate their limited
resources to a manageable number of factors that contribute to project success. Although
researchers often develop metrics for CSFs -such as mutual trust, effective communication,
and adequacy of resource-, there is lack of consensus among researchers regarding the
most critical factors, and there is little consistency in their definition and use of language.
Therefore, exploring the evolution pattern of CSFs in the construction literature and
predicting the future trajectories would be rewarding. To answer this knowledge gap, the
current literature study was conducted to: (1) identify and categorize CSFs according to
different project outcomes, delivery methods, project types, and partnering processes; (2)
examine the limitations of the current practices; and (3) provide suggestions for future
potential studies. To achieve these objectives, a large number of research papers were
reviewed; their salient results are summarized in the following sections. The results of the
study are the first step towards developing universal CSFs for construction projects to help
practitioners create high performance teams.
2. CSF for Different Project Outcomes
Each project team member might pursue different or even contradictory objectives in a
project. For example, a contractor may consider construction speed and profitability as the
most important measures of success, while an owner may emphasize on-budget completion
or quality of construction. These conflicting views of success can result in poor overall project
performance if expectations are not communicated. In response to these divergent priorities,
most of the previous literature identified CSFs for shared objectives among different team
members; these factors included cost, time, and quality.
In one of the early studies, Jaselskis and Ashley (1991) investigated different key success
factors that assist project managers to allocate their limited resources in such a way as to
achieve a high level of construction performance. After analyzing data from 75 construction
projects, they found that the following factors improve the likelihood of achieving outstanding
project performance: reducing team turnover, providing a constructability program for
contractor organization, and increasing number of construction control meetings for the
contractor organization. Furthermore, they found that the success factors affected project
outcomes differently. For instance, ―reducing team turnover‖ had more impact on improving
budget performance than emphasizing schedule or overall project performance.
In another study, Chua et al. (1999) identified CSFs for different project objectives, including
budget, schedule, and quality. They identified sixty-seven factors and grouped them into four
main classes: project characteristics, contractual agreements, project participants, and
interactive processes. Chua et al. (1999) then distributed a survey questionnaire among
experienced practitioners to make pairwise comparisons and determine the relative
importance of the various CSFs. They found that regardless of project objective, adequacy of
plans, specifications, and constructability are the most important factors characterizing
successful projects.
In one of the empirical studies, Cooke-Davies (2002) conducted a detailed analysis on 136
projects executed between 1994 and 2000 and identified 12 factors that were critical to
project success. They found that although in some cases schedule delay and cost escalation
correlated in an individual project, only a small amount of the cost escalation was accounted
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
for by schedule delay. Their results indicated that the following practices correlate with on-
time performance: adequacy of company-wide education on the concepts of risk
management; maturity of an organization‘s processes for assigning ownership of risks;
adequacy with which a visible risk registers is maintained; adequacy of an up-to-date risk
management plan; adequacy of documentation regarding organizational responsibilities on
the project; and keeping the project (or project stage duration) less than 3 years, with
benefits evident among projects closer to 1 year in length. On the other hand, the following
practices correlate with on-cost performance: only allowing changes to scope through an
established scope-change control process; and maintaining the integrity of the performance
measurement baseline. In addition to the above factors that contributed to project
management success, the existence of an effective benefits delivery and management
process involving the mutual co-operation of project management and line management
functions were critical for overall project success.
3. CSFs for Different Project Delivery Methods
Project delivery systems determine the sequencing of design, procurement, and
construction, and define the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in a project.
Common delivery methods include design-bid-build (DBB), construction management at risk
(CMR), design-build (DB). However, some governments‘ financial constraints paved the way
for innovative methods of development and the financing of public facilities and services via
the private sector. Two prominent examples of such methods that have been adopted
extensively across the globe are build-operate-transfer (BOT), and public-private-partnership
(PPP). A summary of CSFs for different project delivery methods is provided below.
3.1. Common Delivery Methods (DBB, CMR, and DB)
DBB is the traditional project delivery method in the US characterized by two separate
contracts for design and construction (Bearup et al., 2007). In this method, the owner hires a
designer to provide complete design documents and then selects a contractor based upon a
fixed price bid to build the project according to the completed drawings (Touran et al,. 2009).
One of the disadvantages of this delivery method is that the owner has to contract two
different entities, and the construction cannot be started until the design is complete. To
answer this limitation, CMR evolved from the traditional project delivery system as a method
to obtain significant constructability input during the design phase of the project by
overlapping the design and construction phases (Bearup et al. 2007). While the CMR
approach provides some benefits for overlapping design and construction, the owner still has
to manage two separate contracts. To answer this limitation, DB delivery system was
introduced to help the owner contract a single entity. In fact, any delivery method in which
one party is held responsible for the design and construction services is called DB (Songer,
Due to its numerous advantageous, DB became a popular delivery method in the past
decades, with several studies conducted to facilitate successful completion of these projects.
For example, Chan et al. (2001) investigated public sectors DB projects to identify a set of
project success factors and to determine their relative importance. They analyzed survey
responses from 53 participants using multiple statistical techniques, such as factor analysis,
stepwise multiple regression, two independent sample t-test, and bivariate correlation. Six
project success factors were extracted, including project team commitment, contractors‘
competencies, risk and reliability assessment, client‘s competencies, end-users‘ needs, and
constraints imposed by end-users. They found that project team commitment, and
contractor‘s and client‘s competencies are the most influential factors for project success.
The results of the study suggested practitioners focus on team work and partnering to make
a project successful.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
In another study, Ling et al. (2004) collected empirical data from 87 DBB and DB projects to
search for explanatory variables that significantly affect project performance. They
catalogued 59 potential factors affecting project performance (e.g. cost growth) and
conducted multivariate data analysis to investigate their underlying relationship. It was found
that construction speed of DBB projects is determined by gross floor area and the adequacy
of contractor‘s plant and equipment; however, for DB projects, the extent to which contract
period is allowed to vary during bid evaluation is more crucial. In a similar study, Lam et al.
(2008) investigated determinants of successful DB projects to set a benchmark for
comparing project performance. They developed a project success index and distributed a
questionnaire among DB participants in the Hong Kong construction industry to investigate
the casual relationship between the project success index and the key project performance
indicators of time, cost, quality, and functionality. Then, factor analysis and multiple
regressions were used to analyze data; they found that the project‘s nature, the effective
project management action, and the adoption of innovative management approaches are the
most critical success factors for DB projects. It is important to note that the nature of the
project is determined by the extent of contractor‘s input, attractiveness of the project, and the
complexity of the project. On the other hand, project management actions can be described
by up-front planning efforts, effectiveness of communication, control and management
systems, and organizational structure. Furthermore, it was suggested that adopting
innovative management approaches -such as value management and partnering- can
increase the chance of success in a DB project.
3.2. Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
In a BOT contract, the private sector is financing the project and furnishing design and build.
More importantly, after completion of project, the private sector manages and operates the
facility for a specified concession period and then transfers the asset to the host government.
While, the BOT model of project development provided tremendous opportunities for both
governments and contractors, winning a BOT contract is not easy and the negotiation
process is complex, time-consuming, and expensive business (Tiong, 1996). Therefore,
several studies conducted to shed light on the road to winning a BOT contract. For example,
Tiong et al. (1992) conducted an in-depth analysis of nine major BOT projects and
interviewed their entrepreneurs, project sponsors, and government officials. They identified
six CSFs in winning BOT contracts: entrepreneurship and leadership, right project
identification, strength of the consortium, technical solution advantage, financial package
differentiation; and differentiation in guarantees. In a follow up study, Tiong (1996) quantified
the relative importance of different factors and found that the strength of consortium and
financial package differentiation are the most important factors in winning a BOT tender.
3.3. Public-Private-Partnership (PPP)
PPP, or P3, is defined as a contractual agreement between the public agency and private
entity that enables the private sector to finance and deliver public projects (Ke et al., 2009).
Some of the perceived benefits of PPP projects for public sector are: enhanced government
capacity; innovation in delivering project services; reduction in time and cost of project
delivery; and transferring the majority of the risk to a private party to secure taxpayers‘ value
(Li et al., 2005). Based on the allocation of resources, risks, and rewards, different types of
PPP projects have emerged (Li et al., 2005). As PPP projects are characterized with a broad
range of risks, uncertainties, and the involvement of multiple participants, it is important to
develop an efficient procurement protocol to improve practices in these projects (Zhang,
In one of the prominent studies, Li et al. (2005), identified 18 CSFs for PPPs and evaluated
their relative significance in the United Kingdom. By obtaining the ranking of perceived
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
importance of different CSFs, the following factors emerged as being the most important
considerations: (1) a strong private consortium; (2) appropriate risk allocation; and (3) the
available financial market. They also conducted factor analysis and grouped CSFs into
effective procurement, project implementability, government guarantee, and favorable
economic conditions. Likewise, Zhang (2005) identified 47 critical success factors for PPPs
and categorized them into five groups: favorable investment environment, economic viability,
reliable concessionaire consortium with strong technical strength, sound financial package,
and appropriate risk allocation via reliable contractual arrangements. He also measured the
relative significance of sub factors by distributing a worldwide questionnaire survey. A
summary of CSFs different project delivery methods is shown in Table 1.
While the growing market of construction projects in China absorbed large number of
international firms, there was no robust method for predicting the outcome of these projects.
To answer this gap in knowledge, Ling et al. (2008) conducted a study to predict project
success in China based upon the project management practices implemented by the
company. They obtained data from 33 projects to identify different project management (PM)
practices as explanatory variables of each project‘s performance. They also used multiple
linear regressions to develop five models to predict the probability of project success. The
results indicated that a firm‘s response to perceived change orders is the most important PM
practice. In addition, they found that the overall project performance was largely affected by
upstream activities, such as managing project scope. The main contribution of the model is
to help project personnel to predict project success potential based upon the project
management practices used. Lu et al. (2008) used a similar approach to identify CSFs for
competitiveness of contractors in China. The relative importance of factors was also obtained
thorough survey and questionnaire. The top three factors proved to be bidding strategy, an
explicit competitive strategy, and relationships with government departments.
4. CSFs for Partnering Process
A construction project typically requires collaboration between multiple parties with diverse
organizational objectives and culture. It is proven that a clash of values and the existence of
complex relationships between team members have an impact on project performance
(Anvuur & Kumaraswamy, 2007). For example, little cooperation, lack of trust, and inefficient
communication can cause adversarial relationships between parties and lead to project
delays, difficulty in resolving claims, cost overruns, litigation, and a win-lose climate (Moore
et al., 1992). One of the widely practiced management strategies that is intended to improve
interorganizational relations is partnering.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
Table 1: Summary of CSFs for different project delivery methods
Common Delivery
Methods (DBB, DB
and CMR)
Ling et al. (2004)
Adequacy of contractor‘s plant and equipment
Chan et al.
Project team commitment
Contractor‘s competencies
Risk and reliability assessment
Client‘s competencies
End-users‘ needs
Constraints imposed by end-users
Ling et al. (2004)
The extent to which contract period is allowed to
varied during bid evaluation
Lam et al. (2008)
Project nature
Effective project management action
Adoption of innovative management approaches
Transfer (BOT)
Tiong et al.
(1992), and
Tiong (1996)
Entrepreneurship and leadership
Right project identification
Strength of the consortium
Technical solution advantage
Financial package differentiation
Differentiation in guarantees
Partnership (PPP)
Li et al. (2005)
A strong private consortium
Appropriate risk allocation
Available financial market
Zhang (2005)
Favorable investment environment
Economic viability
Reliable concessionaire consortium with strong
technical strength
Sound financial package
Appropriate risk allocation via contractual
Partnering is defined as cooperative strategy that aims to bridge organizational boundaries
and create an environment in which team members can openly interact and perform
(Crowley & Karim, 1995). The fundamental principles of partnering are commitment, trust,
respect, communication, employee involvement, and equality (Construction Industry Institute
[CII], 1991; Cowan et al., 1992; Sanders & Moore, 1992; Uher, 1999). Indeed, the partnering
process is designed in a way to transform the traditional and adversarial approach into a
highly communicated network of construction parties (Cheng & Li, 2002). It provides several
benefits to a project and team members, such as effective framework for conflict resolution,
improved communications, reduced litigation, lower risk of cost overruns and delays, and
increased opportunities for innovation (Abudayyeh, 1994; Harback et al., 1994; De Vilbiss &
Leonard, 2000; Black et al., 2000). Partnering makes all of these possible by re-orientating
project participants toward a ‗‗win-win‘‘ approach and by fostering a teamwork environment.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
Several studies examined the best way of implementing partnering. For example, Cheng et
al. (2000) developed a framework to identify CSFs that contribute to the successful use of
partnering in projects. The authors claimed that to have an effective partnering, there should
be specific management skills and contextual characteristics. While management skills are
necessary to initiate, form, and facilitate interorganizational relationships, one should prepare
a favorable context before starting the partnering process. After reviewing literature, effective
communication and conflict resolution were considered as the critical management skills, and
adequate resources, management support, mutual trust, long term commitment,
coordination, and creativity were classified as critical contextual factors. They also suggested
a list of measures to monitor and control partnering performance by targeting both short- and
long-term objectives. Short-term objectivessuch as cost variation and the rejection of
workwere mainly related to an individual project while long-term goals were concerned with
the perceived satisfaction of partners‘ expectations.
Black et al. (2000) analyzed several companies with and without partnering experience to
investigate the importance of CSFs toward partnering success. They obtained the opinion of
clients, consultants, and contractors in the UK regarding the success factors and benefits of
partnering. They found that the following requirements should be met to implement
partnering successfully: trust, communication, commitment, a clear understanding of roles,
and consistency and flexible attitude. The results also indicated that clients and contractors
are more supportive towards the partnering process than consultants.
Cheng and Li (2002) took a different approach by identifying CSFs for different stages of
partnering: formation, application, and reactivation. The factors were prioritized using an
analytical hierarchy process. The results indicated that some of the CSFs influence the whole
partnering process, while there are some CSFs for individual process stages. The common
CSFs for whole partnering process are top management support, open communication,
effective coordination, and mutual trust; CSFs at the stage of partnering formation are team
building, facilitator, and partnering agreement; CSFs of partnering application are joint
problem solving, adequate resources, and partnering goals‘ achievement. Finally, partnering
experience, continuous improvement, learning climate, and long-term commitment are
important in the partnering reactivation phase. The study is creative in developing a
customized CSFs model; however, due to the low number of responses (9 filled-in
questionnaires), it should be considered as an exploratory study.
One of the issues that can affect the partnering process is cultural differences (Cheng & Li,
2002). Therefore, as adopting partnering becomes a common practice across the world,
researchers attempt to identify partnering CSFs based upon local characteristics for a
specific country. For example, to understand the ingredients of successful partnering in the
Hong Kong construction industry, Chan et al. (2004) identified critical success factors for
partnering projects by obtaining the opinions of various parties, such as clients, contractors
and consultants. They used factor analysis and multiple regressions to investigate the
relationship between the perception of partnering success and a set of success factors. The
results showed the following requirements are necessary for successful partnering: the
establishment and communication of a conflict resolution strategy, a willingness to share
resources among project participants, a clear definition of responsibilities, a commitment to a
win-win attitude, and regular monitoring of partnering process.
A summary of CSFs for the partnering process is provided in Table 2. One should note that
only papers that focused on critical factors contributing to successful implementation of
partnering were reviewed. There are several studies that examined the impact of partnering
on projects success (e.g. Larson, 1997) that are out of scope of this study.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
Table 2: Summary of CSFs for partnering process
Cheng et al.
Management skills:
Conflict resolution
Contextual factors:
Mutual trust
Long term
Black et al.
Cheng and
Li (2002)
Top management
Mutual trust
Open communication
Effective coordination
Team building
Partnering agreement
Top management
Mutual trust
Joint problem
Partnering goals‘
Adequate resources
Top management
Mutual trust
Learning climate
Joint problem
Chan et al.
5. Conclusions
Success in a construction project is repeatable, and there is a great value in developing a
protocol to improve practices in construction activities. The identification of CSFs can furnish
project participants with an indicator to attain success in delivering a project or implementing
a process. Moreover, CSFs can provide participants with a focus of what they should be
aware of in order to ensure the success of a project. Such an improved understanding can
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
be exploited by project managers to select efficient strategies to alleviate the root causes of
poor performance.
To shed light on current practices, this study conducted a comprehensive investigation of
literature on CSFs. The results of this study contribute to the practice by providing a list of
CSFs for various construction operations, and academia can benefit from identifying the
potential topics for future studies. It was found that upper management support, commitment,
constructability reviews, teamwork, communication, and building trust are the key elements
of success in most construction projects. While the contribution of previous studies in the
area of CSFs is significant, there are several limitations related to these studies. First, most
of the previous studies rely on obtaining ratings from experts; providing empirical evidence
based upon completed projects is rare. Since experts‘ judgment is subjected to various
cognitive biases, the results can be misleading (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Second, most
of CSFs identified in previous literature (e.g. trust) are subjective, and it is very difficult to
measure them during a real construction operation.
There are several research topics related to CSFs that can be further investigated. For
example, new project delivery systems, such as integrated project delivery (IPD), are gaining
traction in recent years, and determining CSFs for them is rewarding. Kent and Becerik-
Gerber (2010) described the common principals of IPD, including a multiparty agreement,
shared risk and rewards, and early involvement of all parties. Establishing these principles is
not an easy task, and finding a concise number of factors that should be given special and
continued attention to increase the chances of a successful outcome is important.
Furthermore, one may explore the casual relationships between CSFs and project success
based upon empirical evidence.
6. References
Abudayyeh, O. (1994). Partnering: A team building approach to quality construction
management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(6), 2629.
Anvuur, A., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2007). Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(3), 225234.
Bearup, W., Kenig, M., & O‘Donnell, J. (2007). Alternative delivery methods: A primer.
Proceedings, ACI-NA Project Delivery Summit II, Airport Board Members and
Commissioners Annual Conference. Airports Council International-North America,
Chicago, IL.
Black, C., Akintoye, A., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). An analysis of success factors and benefits
of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 18(6), 423
Chan, A.P.C., Ho, D.C.K., & Tam, C.M. (2001). Design and build project success factors:
Multivariate analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(2),
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Chiang, Y.H., Tang, B.S., Chan, E.H.W., & Ho, K.S.K. (2004).
Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management,130(2), 18898.
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., & Love, P.E.D. (2000). Establishment of critical success factors for
construction partnering. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(2), 8492.
Cheng, E., & Li, H. (2002). Construction partnering process and associated critical success
factors: Quantitative investigation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(4), 194
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C., & Loh, P.K. (1999. Critical success factors for different project
objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 142-160.
CII - Construction Industry Institute (1991). In search of partnering excellence. Special
Publication No. 17-1, Partnering Task Force of CII, Austin, Texas.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
Cooke-Davies T. (2002). The ‗real‘ success factors on projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(3), 18590.
Cowan, C., Gray, C., & Larson, E. (1992). Project partnering. Project Management Journal,
22(4), 512.
Crowley, L.G., & Karim, M.A. (1995). Conceptual model of partnering. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 11(5), 3339.
DeVilbiss, C.E., & Leonard, P. (2000). Partnering is the foundation of a learning organization.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(4), 4757.
Harback, H.F., Basham D.L., & Buhts R.E., (1994). Partnering paradigm. Journal of
Management in Engineering,10(1), 2327.
Jaselskis, E.J., & Ashley, D.B. (1991). Optimal allocation of project management resources
for achieving success. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(2),
Ke, Y.J., Wang, S.Q., Chan, A.P.C., & Cheung, E. (2009). Research trend of public-private-
partnership (PPP) in construction journals. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 135(10), 10761086
Kent, D., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010). Understanding construction industry experience and
attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136(8), 815825.
Lam, E.W.M., Chan, A.P.C., & Chan, D.W.M. (2008). Determinants of successful design-
build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(5), 333341.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). Critical success factors for
PPPs/PFI projects in the U.K. construction industry. Construction Management and
Economics, 23, 459471.
Ling, F.Y.Y., Chan, S.L., Chong, E., & Ee, L.P. (2004). Predicting performance of design-
build and design-bid-build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 130(1), 7583.
Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q., & Egbelakin, T., (2008). Models for predicting project
performance in China using project management practices adopted by foreign AEC
firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(12), 983990.
Lu, W., Shen, L., & Yam, M.C.H. (2008). Critical success factors for competitiveness of
contractors: China study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
134(12), 972982.
Moore, C., Mosley, D., & Slagle, M. (1992). Partnering: Guidelines for win-win project
management. Project Management Journal, 22(1), 1821.
Rockart, J.F. (1982). The changing role of the information systems executive: A critical
success factors perspective. Sloan Management Review, 24(1), 313.
Russell, J.S., Jaselskis, E.J., & Lawrence, S.P. (1997). Continuous assessment of project
performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(1), 6471.
Sanders, S.R., & Moore, M.M. (1992). Perceptions on partnering in the public sector. Project
Management Journal, 22(4), 1319.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Critical success factors
for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
118(1), 94111.
Songer, A.D. (1992). Knowledge-based advisory system for public-sector design-build.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 6(4), 456-471.
Tiong, R.L.K., Yeo, K.T., & McCarthy S.C. (1992). Critical success factors in winning BOT
contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(2), 217228.
Tiong, R.L.K. (1996). CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(3), 205211.
Touran, A., Gransberg, D.D., Molenaar, K.R., Ghavamifar, K., Mason, D.J., & Fithian, L.A.
(2009). A guidebook for the evaluation of project delivery methods. Rep. No. TCRP
Report 131, Transportation Research Board.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Uher, E.T. (1999). Partnering performance in Australia.‘ Journal of Construction
Procurement, 5(2), 163176.
Zhang, X. (2005). Critical success factors for public-private partnerships in infrastructure
development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(1), 314.
18th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Alcañiz, 16-18th July 2014
... Project delivery systems determine the sequencing of design, procurement, and construction, and define the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in a project. (Esmaeili, Pellicer, & Molenaar, 2014) This is mainly why in each project there may be different organizations involved and that is why it is important to clarify at this point that it will be the organization in which the project is carried out that will be the first one interested in the success of the project. ...
... These studies gained attention, because identifying CSFs helps practitioners allocate their limited resources to a manageable number of factors that contribute to project success there is lack of consensus among researchers regarding the most critical factors, and there is little consistency in their definition and use of language. (Esmaeili, Pellicer, & Molenaar, 2014) In the literature, there appeared the first lists of critical factors, one of the earliest and most representative is that of the authors Pinto and Slevin between 1987-1989. 1990s.The concepts are already established, there is much more experience in project management and in dealing with these types of factors. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
When a project generates a positive impact on both; clients and organization that develops it, satisfies the requirements and has done an excellent job, the project is considered a success. However, this is not always achieved. Traditionally, success has been measured by quantitative results, with tools such as the time-cost-scope triangle. Going deeper in the knowledge, it is easy to see that the concept is much more subtle and depends on other factors like Stakeholder perception. As a result of experience and lessons learned, lists of factors emerge, those factors properly addressed, might improve significantly the chances of project success, the so-called Critical Success Factors (CSFs). The approach of this study has a double motivation. First, based on the literature review, a summary list of 25 critical success factors is drawn up, they are very relevant factors in international architecture projects. On the other hand, understanding the fundamental role of the Stakeholders, a classification of these factors according to the groups with which they are most connected is proposed.
... J.Z & Mohamed F.E, 2011;Gudienė et al., 2014;Gunduz & Yahya, 2018;Hwang & Lim, 2013;Nilashi et al., 2015;Shahu et al., 2012;Yang et al., 2009) Application of Innovative Technologies(Belay et al., 2021) Availabilityof Adequate Funding (Derrick J.Z & Mohamed F.E, 2011; Ejaz et al., 2013; Gudienė et al., 2014; Hwang & Lim, 2013; Mathar et al., 2020; Shahu et al., 2012) Project Size (Al-Ageeli & Alizobaee, 2016; Koops et al., 2016; Kulatunga et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2004; Ramlee et al., 2016; Salleh, 2009a)Project Management Team-Related FactorsTop Project Management Team Commitment(Esmaeili et al., 2016a;Hwang & Lim, 2013;Inayat et al., 2015;Saqib et al., 2008;Shahu et al., 2012;Silva et al., 2015;Tabish & Jha, 2011;Toor & Ogunlana, 2009;Yang et al., 2009) PM Team's Past Experience(Gudiene et al., 2013;Kog & Loh, 2012;Nilashi et al., 2015;Shahu et al., 2012;Yang et al., 2009;Yong & Mustaffa, 2013b) Communication Skill of the top management Team(Ejaz et al., 2013;Esmaeili et al., 2016b;Gunduz & Yahya, 2018;Hwang & Lim, 2013;Maghsoodi & Khalilzadeh, 2018) ...
Full-text available
The study presents analytical data-based multi-criteria approach of critical success factors of infrastructure construction projects analyzed in the Ethiopian construction industry. This multi-criteria technique helps to improve the decision capabilities and ultimate performance of construction processes in various low-income countries of the East African region. The aim of this paper is to establish a logical relationship and interdependencies of success-related factors for enhancing decision making for various project teams and identify priorities while taking into account all known construction organizational constraints. A structured hierarchical matrix was developed based on a pre-identified success-related factors, and initially evaluated by experienced professionals as part of a content validation of the survey. Different professionals working in various construction organizations in Ethiopia were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey. All the required data analysis, including sensitivity performance, was conducted through Expert Choice© 11. Further, Kendall's coefficient of concordance was conducted to examine and compare multiple expert responses. Based on the findings, the top success-related factors that affect decision making in construction projects are Adequate Goals/Objectives, Consultant's Competency, Prior Experience of Consulting Firms, Consulting Firm's Willingness and Cooperation, and Financial Standing of Contractor. The results are based on their global priority weights in the hierarchical model. The findings highlighted that there is disagreement between the major stakeholders involved in the construction process.
... Therefore, an integrated methodology of FAHP and FDEMATEL is a powerful tool to identify key factors. The integrated methodology has been adopted in many academic fields, such as identifying success factors of construction projects (Esmaeili et al. 2016), identifying key factors of private science parks (Weng et al. 2019), identifying critical factors in new product development (Yeh et al. 2014), and evaluating the criteria of human resources for science and technology (Chou et al. 2012). ...
Full-text available
Construction land reduction (CLR) is an important instrument for achieving environmental sustainability by reducing intensive land use, controlling the unrestrained extension of construction land, and ensuring a balance between construction and arable lands in China. Existing studies on key factors of CLR projects are rare, lacking comprehensive and systematic understanding. In this study, the fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-DEMATEL methods were used to obtain the comprehensive causality and centrality values, whereby factors with a comprehensive causality value larger than 0 and a comprehensive centrality ranking in the top 20% were identified as key success factors (KSFs). Results indicate that KSFs include the presence of a supportive policy for CLR, coordination with the original landowner, coordination with the surrounding residents, a diversity of enterprises participating in the CLR, a legal environment, and land acceptance and testing standards. This paper lays a theoretical foundation for CLR projects and provides guidelines for achieving successful project implementations.
... Among the series of events, the particular ones which have the most critical influence on achieving a successful construction project are defined as critical success factors (CSFs) [14][15][16][17][18]. CSFs which have a risk management nature [19] is initially proposed by Rockart [20] as the group of special events that contribute to project success. Thereafter, a large body of studies [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] have investigated CSFs for construction projects. These prior studies have provided some new perspectives for the scholars in the research field of project management and participants involved in construction project practice to allocate the limited resources of a project to a certain number of factors [30,31] which promote construction project success by the process of investigation and identification of CSFs. ...
Full-text available
Construction activities taken place in ecologically fragile regions (EFRs) of China are facing a series of environmental obstacles. Studying critical success factors (CSFs) to arrive at the sustainable objectives for construction project in EFRs is needed. Understanding the interrelationships of these CSFs is one of the vital ways to achieve this. This paper identifies and analyzes 18 CSFs for construction projects in EFRs through a literature review from a multi-perspective and a case study of Korla City in China. The causal relationship between each CSF is obtained by pairwise comparisons and thereafter, an ISM (Interpretative Structural Modeling) method is employed to study the hierarchical structuring of the CSFs. As a result, we established a five-level ISM. Subsequently, an MICMAC (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification) approach is implemented to partition and classify each CSF into four quadrants (independent, linkage, autonomous, and dependent) according to their driver and dependence powers. Through the implementation of an MICMAC approach, the degrees of relationship between each CSF is gained. The findings reveal that the studied 18 CSFs have a strong hierarchy and interrelationship. The project manager’s leadership style and economic viability are the root source of project success and has the highest influence, which is supported by the result of MICMAC analysis. CSF planning and implementation of sustainable strategies are more dependent and are influenced by others. The CSFs on the top level of ISM: conflict resolution, planning and implementation of sustainable strategies and resources of water play a significant role in arriving at the project success, and has a great potential for future study. The approaches implemented in this paper can be helpful for decision-makers and managers of construction projects in comprehending the interrelationships and the degrees of CSFs for construction projects in EFRs and for efficiently achieving the project success.
... Esmaeiliet. al. [11],present a summary of critical success factors for different project delivery methods. Time performance of DB projects was a good, more than 75% completed on time, or ahead of schedule [12]. ...
Full-text available
Projects delivering on time and budget is still complex. This study presents actual project performance comparisons of the Design-Bid-Build " DBB " and Design-Build " DB " systems into Libyan projects. By analyzing 124 projects delivered by two methods and two types of companies (local and foreign) to provide objective comparison of cost and schedule performance. The results show that average DB cost was about 1.45 times larger than DBB. The project achieved by local and foreign companies, average cost overrun for DBB was 34%, and 26% respectively, Whilst only 10% and 0% for DB for local and foreign companies. The average time extension by local and foreign companies for DBB was 39.8%, and 43%, whilst only 32% and 0% for DB for local and foreign companies. DB projects executed by foreign company had little change order than DBB. This paper compares two project delivery systems, namely Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build, as well as two types of construction companies, local and foreign. Data for 124 projects were collected from Libyan Audit Bureau. In terms of the construction time and cost, the paper concludes that the foreign companies did a better job than the local companies. Also, provides quantitative data to support the delivery system selection with understanding its performance criteria.
Full-text available
Coopetition is a revolutionary mindset that combines competition and cooperation. This paper aims to determine and to explore the critical factors affecting contractors’ coopetition relationship (CR) in international construction projects (ICPs). In order to improve CR between international contractors in ICPs, a comprehensive literature review was performed to identify the potential variables affecting the CR. A questionnaire survey of 151 professionals in both academia and industry, which included 53 variables, was conducted to explore the critical factors affecting international contractors’ CR in ICPs. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to evaluate the multivariate interrelationships among those variables. As a result, nine underlying factors, including six internal factors and three external factors, were extracted and interpreted. The findings can help international contractors to understand more accurately how the coopetition relationship between contractors is affected and can provide a basis for follow-up research on how to evaluate the coopetition status of contractors and the coopetition strategies adopted in ICPs.
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. In general, the heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. This chapter describes three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty. The first is representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event belongs to a class or event. The second is the availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development, and the third is adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
Design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) are two principal project delivery systems used in many countries. This paper reports on models constructed to predict performance of DB and DBB projects on 11 areas, using project-specific data collected from 87 building projects. The study included collecting, checking, and validating industry data, and the statistical development of multivariate linear regression models for predicting project performance. Robust models are developed to predict construction and delivery speeds of DB and DBB projects. Gross floor area of the project is the most significant factor affecting speed. Besides this, for DBB projects, contractors' design ability, and adequacy of plant and equipment would ensure speedy completion of the projects. For DB projects, if the contract period is allowed to vary during tender evaluation, this would slow down the project. Robust models to predict turnover and system quality of DB projects are also constructed. A DB contractor's track record is an important variable. They must have completed past projects to acceptable quality and have ability in financial, health and safety management.
A simple model of an implementation strategy for cultivating a Learning Organization culture is `Transformational Leadership+Group Process = Learning Organization.' This article presents the four key dimensions of Partnering, the Partnering Effectiveness Model, and Principles of Productive Partnering as the basis, or foundation, for following this implementation strategy. Honoring the structure and operating principles of this scientific understanding of Partnering creates a cultural orientation that fosters individual and team learning. Many organizations and their leaders are well intended, yet lack an understanding of the unconscious beliefs, behaviors, and cultural influences that impede learning. Using the implementation process presented, we take a step-by-step approach to systematically exploring what is actually going on now, and how we want things to be. Then, recognizing the need for developing new skills, and change processes, it is a straightforward approach to execute an improvement plan that ensures success.
The main objective during a construction project is to deliver a quality product in a timely, cost-effective, and safe manner. However, due to the risky and competitive nature of construction contracting, conflicting objectives among the different parties involved in a contract are bound to occur. In many instances this leads to expensive claims and litigation. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has adopted an approach called ''partnering'' to define its relationship with its contractors in an attempt to reduce or eliminate claims and litigation. The partnering approach relies on the fact that the best conflict-resolution strategy is one that prevents conflicts from occurring. Therefore, the main objective of partnering is to encourage all parties of a contract to change their relationships from adversarial to cooperative, by building a friendly environment with all parties acting as members of one team. This change in relationships requires changes in attitudes to achieve mutual trust, respect, and open communication among all parties involved. The paper presents and describes the partnering process as implemented by Caltrans. It also presents, as an example, a complete partnering agreement between Caltrans and one of its contractors.
A building project is completed as a result of a combination of many events and interactions, planned or unplanned, over the life of a facility, with changing participants and processes in a constantly changing environment. This paper defines a set of conditions or factors that, when thoroughly and completely satisfied on a project, ensures the successful completion of the facility. Success on a project means that certain expectations for a given participant were met, whether owner, planner, engineer, contractor, or operator. These expectations may be different for each participant. The factors that predicate success were initially derived from the Integrated Building Process Model developed at Penn State by Sanvido in 1990. These factors were then tested on sixteen projects and the results showed excellent correlation between project success and achievement of the factors. Finally, the four factors most critical to success are presented.
Gaining or maintaining a "contractor's" competitive advantage is not easy as it is determined by a large number of factors. Identification of critical success factors CSFs allows one to reduce the vast number of factors to some manageable few but vital ones. Based on the CSFs, contractors' limited resources such as money and manpower can be allocated and aligned appropriately for yielding a maximum outcome of overall competitiveness. This paper describes the CSFs identified from a survey study carried out in Mainland China. The ranking analysis of the survey results shows that 35 factors are rated as critical for determining the competitiveness of a contractor. Factor analysis reveals that the 35 CSFs identified can be grouped into eight clusters, namely, project management skills, organization structure, resources, competitive strategy, relationships, bidding, marketing, and technology. The CSFs in this study provide a vehicle for guiding a contractor in managing its resources in order to improve competitive advantage. The study also provides insights into the management of competitiveness for contractors that are operating in the particular context of the Chinese construction industry.