Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2023.2193609 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Ranking and grouping of critical success factors for stakeholder management in construction projects a b a c,d,e Abdul Rafeh , Mohsin Usman Qureshi , Asif Hameed and Ali Murtaza Rasool a b Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan; Faculty of Engineering, Sohar c d University, Sohar, Oman; Structural Engineering Division National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK), Lahore, Pakistan; Civil Engineering Department, University of Central Punjab (UCP), Lahore, Pakistan; Department of Architecture, National College of Arts (NCA), Lahore, Pakistan ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 October 2022 Diverse sets of critical success factors (CSFs) have been proposed in the literature, emphasising Accepted 17 March 2023 various facets of stakeholder management. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the ranking and groupings of these factors. This paper seeks to uncover CSFs related to stakeholder KEYWORDS management in construction projects in Pakistan and explore their ranking and underlying Ranking and grouping; relationship. A literature study revealed the existence of 18 CSFs. A questionnaire comprising critical success factors; these 18 CSFs was distributed to construction professionals in Pakistan, and 89 completed stakeholder management; surveys were recouped. “Formulating the project mission”, “Communicating with stakeholders construction projects properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)”, and “Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders” were identified as the top three ranking factors for stakeholder management. Utilizing factor analysis and considering the significance of the factor “Formulating the project mission”, the 18 CSFs were organized into four categories: Stakeholder Interests and Relationships, Refining Goals and Managing Stakeholder Needs, Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders, and Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. A framework is proposed for successful stakeholder management in construction projects incorporating these four components and their relationships. These findings elucidate thigh priority aspects and may also be utilized as a tool for evaluating the success of stakeholder management, hence facilitating the identification of areas for improvement. previous researchers (Pouloudi and Whitley 1997; 1. Introduction Loosemore 2006; Bourne and Walker 2006). To resolve A stakeholder cares about how a project goes or what these issues, project teams must understand the fun- happens at the end of it (Fewing, 2005). Construction damentals of managing stakeholders (Cleland and project management usually includes any or all of the Ireland 2002). People involved in a construction project following people as stakeholders: the client, contrac- significantly impact how well the project works and tors, designers, subcontractors, and people who work successfully ends as they communicate and work on the project. Numerous studies (Newcombe 2003; together. Many studies have shown that managing Olander and Landin 2005; El-Gohary, Osman, and El- project stakeholders are critical (El-Gohary, Osman, Diraby 2006) have highlighted the significance of sta- and El-Diraby 2006). Since a project can be thought keholder management in building projects. of as a coalition of stakeholders working together to Construction projects cannot be realized without the form a project, stakeholder management is an impor- involvement of stakeholders (Olatunde, Ogunsemi, tant concern to address in project management and Oke 2017; Olatunde and Odeyinka 2021). (Srinivasan and Dhivya 2020). Organizational planning Unfortunately, due to the complexity and unpredict- and execution are the pillars of successful manage- ability of projects, the construction sector has a poor ment by a group of individuals (Saraph, Benson, and track record in stakeholder management (Loosemore Schroeder 1989). 2006). Inadequate engagement of stakeholders, pro- This study employs the Critical Success Factors ject managers with unclear objectives of stakeholder (CSFs) methodology to uncover the essentials of management, difficulty identifying the “invisible” sta- stakeholder management. Using the CSF strategy keholder, and insufficient communication with stake- was initially created by Rockart (1979). CSFs can be holders are among the many problems of stakeholder characterized as “areas in which, if adequate out- management in construction projects identified by comes are achieved, the organization will achieve CONTACT Ali Murtaza Rasool firstname.lastname@example.org University of Central Punjab (UCP) and National College of Arts (NCA), Lahore, Pakistan © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and Architectural Society of China. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. 2 A. RAFEH ET AL. competitive success” (Rockart 1979). According to essential CSFs reflecting a broad range of difficulties Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder (1989), they are may be identified. “those important areas of managerial planning and One of the most significant issues confronting con- action that must be practised to attain effective - struction projects is the negative impact of stake- ness.” CSFs are those significant managerial planning holders’ behavior, which, if left uncontrolled, and activity areas that must be exercised to fulfil becomes a risk issue. Many studies have been con- effectiveness. (Mashali et al. 2020) Numerous ducted on stakeholders and their impact on projects. researchers (C, K, and M 2001; Jefferies, Gameson, According to Loosemore (2006), one of the roots of the and Rowlinson 2002; W et al. 2006) have utilized this problem is that the construction industry has had technique to enhance the effectiveness of the man- a poor track record of stakeholder management during agement process. According to (Sunny and P 2018), the last decades due to the complexity and uncertainty identifying and establishing a shared aim and target of construction projects. for the project is the most crucial vital success The current study expands and incorporates the aspect affecting the Stakeholder Management pro- project stakeholder management studies from cess on construction projects. In the realm of stake- Karlsen (2002) and Yang et al. (2009). Yang et al. holder management, Cleland and Ireland (2002) (2009) advised that a comparative study be carried deem it essential for the project team to know out in a different culture to comprehend the dynamics whether or not the project stakeholders are being of stakeholder management in construction. The “managed” effectively. In this study, CSFs are con- scope of the sample size of earlier research (Jergeas sidered the actions and procedures that must be et al. 2000; Olander and Landin 2008) identifying cru- addressed to guarantee effective stakeholder man- cial success variables for stakeholder management agement. Stakeholder management is essential to were both constrained. Yang et al. (2009) compiled a project’s success. People engaged in a project a thorough list of critical success factors influencing will naturally strive to alter it to meet their objec- stakeholder management. However, Yang et al. (2009) tives (Olander and Landin 2008). It is thus critical to advised that case studies with specifics that might be manage the interests of project stakeholders to pre- provided should be used further to confirm their vent problems and maximize benefits while still study’s validity based on surveys. Therefore, in this meeting the project’s objectives (Olander and study, it was assessed whether Yang et al. (2009)“s Landin 2008). However, it hasn’t worked out well in comprehensive list of CSFs for efficient stakeholder the last several years because of the project’s com- management is applicable in the construction industry plexity and unpredictability, poor stakeholder parti- of Pakistan. Data from various stakeholders practising cipation, and construction managers who don’t in Pakistan was collected to analyse the various critical know what to do with stakeholders (Loosemore success factors affecting stakeholders” management. 2006). This study aims to determine different factors that Varied sets of critical success factors (CSFs) for sta- can be beneficial in managing the different stake- keholder management have been suggested in the holders. Objectives of this study comprise; 1) To iden- past literature in different countries and periods. The tify and rank the different success factors for literature study indicated that several CSFs are critical stakeholder management. 2) To determine the rela- to the successful implementation of stakeholder man- tionship and grouping of different success factors by agement. Jergeas et al. (2000) defined two character- factor analysis. The findings assist in clarifying the istics of improved stakeholder management as priority aspects of stakeholder management and can “communication with stakeholders” and “defining be utilized for evaluating the success of stakeholder common goals, objectives, and project priorities.” management, hence assisting in uncovering areas for According to Landin (2000), “the long-term success of improvement. Furthermore, the study also contributed any construction and its ability to satisfy stakeholders” to the knowledge of project management by provid- is contingent on decision-makers’ care in stakeholder ing insight into the CSFs for stakeholder management communication. According to Aaltonen, Jaakko, and in the Pakistani context to focus on project goals. Tuomas (2008), the most important aspect of mana- ging project stakeholders is managing the connection 2. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of between the project and its stakeholders. These construction projects recommended factors may be the most important success factors for stakeholder management in con- According to Kerzner (1987), crucial success factors are struction projects. However, most of the research is those elements that must be present for consistent descriptive reviews that lack quantitative analysis and and effective project management. Typically, client fail to rank the importance of these success factors. In happiness is regarded as the most significant compo- addition, as stated by Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008), nent in determining a project’s success. Frequently, these variables should be categorized such that few construction projects are influenced by variables that JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 3 help everyone involved achieve their objectives more 3. Methodology swiftly and effectively. The quantitative research method was used for the Several researchers have already identified sev- research. The research incorporated concepts from eral Critical Success Factors for stakeholder manage- Smith, Love, and Wyatt (2001) and Jergeas et al. ment. Waghmare, Bhalerao, and Wagh (2016) (2000). The approach used was a systematic question- investigated Critical Success Factors affecting stake- naire survey of Pakistan’s construction industry, with holder management in construction projects. The a particular emphasis on the Punjab Region. study classified 30 elements influencing the success The questionnaire was divided into four (4) sections: of SM using the six primary groups proposed by Al- general information, organizational culture, support Deen et al. (2015). Researchers found gaps and identification of the stakeholders, and identification devised appropriate strategies and factors to resolve of the critical success factors. The poll targeted con- issues of ineffective stakeholder management in tractors, clients, and consultants from various con- construction projects. Eyiah-Botwe, Aigbavboa, and struction-related organizations. Thwala (2016) investigated Critical Success Factors This study employs a cross-sectional methodology for improved Stakeholder Management in Ghana. to provide a “snapshot” of practitioner perceptions. In The study identifies and evaluates 35 CSFs from cross-sectional research, it is common to use a survey- the literature using a questionnaire survey. based methodology or short-term interviews. The Identification of the CSFs could have only been questionnaire was utilized as a research instrument, possible if an in-depth analysis of the prior studies a structured method for gathering primary data. Most had been carried out. To grasp various terminolo- of the questionnaire consisted of closed-ended items gies and factors relating to stakeholder manage- (Multiple-choice, numeric scale, dichotomous and ment, a pile of research papers, articles, and Likert scale) designed to examine respondents’ atti- theses was narrowed down with the help of 3 tudes and perceptions on various aspects of stake- research engines (Google Scholar, Microsoft holder management in construction projects. The Academic, and Core). Publications were sorted findings of the descriptive statistics analysis of the based on the keywords (Stakeholder Management, data were presented as frequency tables and percen- CSFs for stakeholders’ management, Stakeholders). tages. Out of the 400 questionnaires provided through Links between different publications were gener- email and site visits, 89 were duly completed and ated with the help of 3 websites (Research Rabbit, returned. Twenty-five were collected manually by visit- Connected Papers, and Litmaps). A publication by ing the construction sites 64 were collected online. Yang et al. (2009) was used as a parent research The collected data was transformed into the neces- paper, and all the research papers before and after sary information by interpreting and comprehending 2009 were further rooted down based on correla- the questionnaire responses. During the data analysis tions between them in terms of factors affecting phase, descriptive statistics provided general informa- stakeholder management. Major contributions to tion in simple forms to comprehend and interpret. The the identification of CSFs for stakeholders’ manage- relative importance index (RII) was used to determine ment were made by Yang et al. (2009), (Al-Deen the importance of the Critical Success Factors (CSF). It et al. 2015; El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015; Nauman is determined by the following formula (Leung et al. and Piracha 2016; Amoatey and Hayibor 2017), 2004; Jha and Iyer, 2006; Ugwu and Haupt 2005): (Oyeyipo, Opeyemi; Odeyinka, Henry; Owolabi, James; Afolabi, Oyeyipo et al. 2019), (Ola-Awo, RII ¼ Alayande, and Olarewaju 2021; Mashali et al. 2022). A� N Publications were then reviewed extensively to Where: postulate CSFs that can auspiciously affect stake- N = the total number of respondents, A = the great- holder management in construction projects in est weight Pakistan. Similitude in CSFs was found in various Factor analysis was used to reduce data and identify publications. Most of them implemented CSFs any interrelationships between factors in terms of their devised by (Yang et al. 2009) to corroborate their importance. Factor analysis is a technique used to findings in their respective regions. Comprehensive reduce a large number of variables into fewer numbers literature inferred diversified findings of researchers of factors. Factor analysis was carried out in three after implications. After reviewing CSFs proposed by stages: Based on the correlation coefficients of each (Yang et al. 2009) and several researchers, 18 critical variable, a correlation matrix was created; next, factors success factors for stakeholder management in con- were identified and rotated to optimize the correlation struction projects in Pakistan were proposed. Table 1 between a specific variable and a particular factor. shows a complete list of 18 identified CSFs, as well Another statistical test for variables is the Bartlett as their descriptions sphericity criterion, which was used to determine 4 A. RAFEH ET AL. Table 1. Identification of CSFs. Code Critical Success Factors (CSFs) Description CSF- 1 Formulating the project mission Formulating a clear statement entails identifying the project’s mission at various phases and developing a better grasp of the tasks and goals at a given stage of the project lifecycle, including concerns with cost, schedule, and budget. CSF-2 Considering corporate social responsibilities (paying The prerequisite step for stakeholder management is the deliberation of attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethical economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and cultural responsibilities, which issues) also play a significant part in effective stakeholder management. CSF- 3 Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders Identifying the potential stakeholders and classifying them so they may be managed appropriately. CSF- 4 Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of There are many stakeholders with varied interests; since construction projects interest in the project are complex, thus they should be handled appropriately. CSF- 5 Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) the For effective stakeholder management, the project goals and mission should be project mission refined. CSF- 6 Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently Effective, frequent, and well-planned communication is required. (instituting feedback mechanisms) CSF- 7 Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions Project managers should look for potential coalitions in addition to analyzing among stakeholders disputes and coalitions among stakeholders, as this is a crucial step in managing stakeholders. CSF- 8 Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively As there are many stakeholder conflicts, the project manager must decide how to resolve them, as there may be a positive correlation between conflict resolution and stakeholder satisfaction. CSF- 9 Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project It is crucial to consider how stakeholders might influence the project, how likely they will utilize their influence, and how each stakeholder is positioned concerning the project. CSF- 10 Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the Promoting positive relationships between stakeholders and the project is stakeholders crucial for successful project delivery and meeting stakeholders’ expectations. CSF- 11 Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage Successful stakeholder management requires strategies for responding to the different stakeholders requests made by the stakeholders. CSF- 12 Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence The influence of stakeholders changes throughout time-based on the strategic issue under consideration. Stakeholder uncertainty may encompass who they are, their impact, their requirements, and the ramifications of their interactions. CSF- 13 Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors Prediction of stakeholders’ behaviors which can be supportive, opposing as well (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.) as neutral toward the project’s success CSF- 14 Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects All stakeholders’ needs should be addressed during the project process to achieve realistic solutions to the difficulties. CSF- 15 Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions to implementing It’s crucial to consider stakeholders’ responses when project managers project decisions deliberate on stakeholder management strategies. CSF- 16 Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method Using a promising procurement method can effectively lead to a project’s success CSF- 17 Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests Stakeholders’ interests are dynamic, and they vary with time, so appropriate strategies should be formulated for managing the change in stakeholders’ interests CSF- 18 Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes The power, urgency, validity, and proximity of stakeholders must be evaluated to comprehend their needs better. whether there are any variables in a correlation matrix. experience. If respondents with more than five years of A KMO of 0.5 is acceptable for further testing, with experience in construction work are deemed experi- values ranging from 0 to 1. Bartlett’s test must be enced, then 60.7% of the respondents are experienced, significant to be considered suitable. while 39.3% are less experienced. These characteristics Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was used, imply that the respondents have sufficient expertise to and extraction using Unweighted Least Square. The provide considerable information that could assist in Varimax rotation was shown to be the most effective drawing conclusions and deductions on CSFs for stake- rotation method for the data utilized in the study after holder management. Furthermore, results showed that various rotation technique tests had been conducted. 47.2% of respondents are Contractors, 18% are Consultants, and 34.8% are Clients, all from different types of organizations. 4. Results and discussions After performing the test, Cronbach’s Alpha value for Data collection began on 11 November 2021, and con- CSFs was ascertained to be 0.918, which reveals that the tinued until 10 June 2022. The questionnaires were sent collected data is reliable enough to be used for the to the contractors, clients, and consultants via emails research. Table 4 shows the Relative Importance Index, obtained from the Pakistan Engineering Council- Mean Score, Standard Deviation, and Rankings of the 18 approved list. Four hundred questionnaires were distrib- identified Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder uted, and 89 responses were received. Table 2 outlines Management. Major respondents who contributed to CSFs in the light of previous studies. Respondent’s the ranking of CSFs were Contractors, Consultants and General information is summarized in Table 3. Analysis Clients. Results demonstrate that mean scores range from of the Respondent’s general information proclaimed that 4.15 to 4.72. The difference in means score manifests the majority (57.3%) have 5 to 15 years of professional variation in the Relative Importance of CSFs. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 5 Table 2. Critical success factors in the light of previous studies. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Savage et al. (1991) ✔ ✔ ✔ Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Rowley (1997) ✔ ✔ ✔ Svendsen (1998) ✔ ✔ ✔ Cleland (1999) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Frooman (1999) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Landin (2000) ✔ Jergeas et al. (2000) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Elias, Cavana, and Jackson (2002) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Karlsen (2002) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Winch (2002) ✔ ✔ Thomson et al. (2003) ✔ Akintoye et al. (2003) ✔ Phillips (2003) ✔ Leung et al. (2004) ✔ ✔ Bakens, Foliente, and Jasuja (2005) ✔ Bourne (2005) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Olander (2006) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Bourne and Walker (2006) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Friedman and Miles (2006) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cova and Salle (2006) ✔ ✔ ✔ El-Gohary, Osman, and El-Diraby (2006) ✔ ✔ Pajunen (2006) ✔ Loosemore (2006) ✔ ✔ Young (2006) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks (2007) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Walker, Bourne, and Rowlinson (2008) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Aaltonen, Jaakko, and Tuomas (2008) ✔ Atkin and Skitmore (2008) ✔ Chinyio and Akintoye (2008) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Olander and Landin (2008) ✔ ✔ ✔ Mathur, Price, and Austin (2008) ✔ Yang et al. (2009) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Aaltonen and Kujala (2010) ✔ ✔ ✔ Rwelamila (2010) ✔ El-Sawalhi and Hammad (2015) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ El-Sawalhi and Hammad (2015) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Nauman and Piracha (2016) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Forsman (2017) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Amoatey and Hayibor (2017) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Nwachukwu, Udeaja, Chileshe and E. Okere (2017) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Oyeyipo et al. (2019) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju (2021) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Mashali et al. (2022) ✔ ✔ Table 3. Respondent’s General Information. Characteristics Frequency Percent Experience in Construction Industry 35 39.3 (1) Less than 5 Years 51 57.3 (2) 5–15 years 3 3.4 (3) More than 15 years Type of Organization 42 47.2 (1) Contractor 31 34.8 (2) Client 16 18 (3) Consultant 4.1. Discussions and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)” (MS = 4.33) and Respondents had consented that “Formulating the “Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas project’s mission” (MS = 4.72) “Communicating with of interest in the project” (MS = 4.30) were ranked th th th stakeholders properly and frequently” (MS = 4.44) as 4 , 5 , and 6 respectively in Pakistan. The and “Carefully identifying and listing the project seventh factor was “Exploring stakeholder needs stakeholders” (MS = 4.43) are the top 3 factors and constraints to projects” (M = 4.30), while deemed as critical for stakeholder management in “Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on construction projects within the Pakistani context. the project” (M = 4.29) was placed eighth. On the other hand, “Resolving conflicts among “Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests” stakeholders effectively” (MS = 4.38), “Predicting (M = 4.28), “Identifying and analyzing possible 6 A. RAFEH ET AL. Table 4. Rankings of CSFs. Code Critical Success Factors Mean Rank S.D RI st CSF-1 Formulating the project mission 4.72 1 0.500 0.966 nd CSF-6 Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms) 4.44 2 0.656 0.908 rd CSF-3 Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders 4.43 3 0.705 0.906 th CSF-8 Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively 4.38 4 0.666 0.897 th CSF-13 Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.) 4.33 5 0.687 0.885 th CSF-4 Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project 4.30 6 0.714 0.880 th CSF-14 Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects 4.30 7 0.681 0.880 th CSF-9 Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project 4.29 8 0.801 0.878 th CSF-17 Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests 4.28 9 0.757 0.877 th CSF-7 Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders 4.27 10 0.670 0.874 th CSF-5 Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission. 4.24 11 0.769 0.867 th CSF-10 Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders 4.24 12 0.658 0.867 th CSF-16 Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method 4.23 13 0.769 0.866 th CSF-18 Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes 4.22 14 0.739 0.864 th CSF-11 Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders 4.22 15 0.670 0.864 th CSF-15 Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions 4.20 16 0.694 0.860 th CSF-2 Considering corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues) 4.18 17 0.614 0.855 th CSF-12 Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence 4.15 18 0.762 0.848 Table 5. Rankings in different countries. Gaza (El- Egypt Hong Kong Ghana Nigeria (Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju 2021), (Oyeyipo, Sawalhi and (Mashali (Yang et al. (Amoatey and Opeyemi; Odeyinka, Henry; Owolabi, James; Afolabi, Oyeyipo Hammad et al. Code Mean Pakistan 2009) Hayibor 2017) et al. 2019) 2015) 2022) st th rd th st CSF-1 4.72 1 12 3 4 1 − nd nd st st nd rd CSF-6 4.44 2 2 1 1 2 3 rd th nd nd rd CSF-3 4.43 3 5 2 2 3 − th th th th th CSF-8 4.38 4 11 15 5 8 − th th th CSF-13 4.33 5 15 8 − − − th th th th th CSF-4 4.30 6 4 6 7 4 − th nd th rd nd CSF-14 4.30 7 2 11 23 2 − th th th rd CSF-9 4.29 8 8 − 16 3 − th th CSF-17 4.28 9 − − 4 − − th th th th CSF-7 4.27 10 7 5 19 − − th CSF-5 4.24 11 − − − − − th th th rd th CSF-10 4.24 12 6 4 3 9 − th th CSF-16 4.23 13 − − 8 − − th th th th CSF-18 4.22 14 10 10 12 − − th th th th rd CSF-11 4.22 15 9 9 6 3 − th th th CSF-15 4.20 16 13 13 − − − th st th nd th CSF-2 4.18 17 1 − 11 2 8 th th th CSF-12 4.15 18 13 12 − − − conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders” (M = 4.2. Comparison of CSFs in other countries 4.27) and “Involving relevant stakeholders to rede- The CSF rankings were compared to research con- fine (refine) project mission” (M = 4.24) were ranked ducted in Hong Kong, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, and th th th as 9 , 10 and 11 respectively by the respon- Gaza. Some CSFs differed significantly from the other dents. Furthermore, respondents considered some countries, revealing that some CSFs are given less factors as less significant, which were “Keeping and importance in Pakistan than others. “Formulating the promoting positive relationships among the stake- project mission” was ranked first by respondents, and holders” (M = 4.24), “Ensuring the use of “Communicating with stakeholders properly and fre- a favorable procurement method” (M = 4.23) and quently (instituting feedback mechanisms)” was “Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes” ranked second. Table 5 elucidates the comparison of th th th (4.22) and they were ranked as 12 , 13 and 14 the identified CSFs rankings in various countries. This respectively. The result data also showed that research’s findings inferred that some factors were in “Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/ line with the findings of other researchers. Formulating engage different stakeholders” (M = 4.22), the project mission was ranked first by (El-Sawalhi and “Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for imple- Hammad 2015). On the other hand, (Amoatey and menting project decisions” (M = 4.20), “Considering Hayibor 2017) and (Ola-Awo, Alayande, and corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, Olarewaju 2021) ranked it third and fourth, respec- environmental, and ethical issues)” (M = 4.18) and tively, while (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) and (Yang et al. “Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence” 2009) ranked it ninth and twelfth respectively. (M = 4.15) were the four least significant CSFs for A comparison of the countries reveals that CSF-6 refer- stakeholder management in Pakistan. ring to Communicating with stakeholders properly and JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 7 Table 6. Correlations among critical success factors. CSFs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 1 2 .018 1 3 .441** .136 1 4 .305** .056 .530** 1 5 .234* .391** .545** .448** 1 6 .414** .282** .671** .344** .311** 1 7 .331** .157 .475** .445** .470** .348** 1 8 .292** .303** .544** .447** .554** .367** .250* 1 9 .349** .216* .622** .480** .588** .511** .423** .406** 1 10 .169 .260* .319** .451** .428** .232* .344** .259* .386** 1 11 .428** .205 .468** .450** .359** .420** .420** .340** .448** .162 1 12 .348** .186 .559** .482** .522** .348** .367** .493** .507** .339** .313** 1 13 .170 .210* .507** .375** .498** .410** .473** .445** .465** .230* .283** .407** 1 14 .353** .167 .461** .393** .448** .386** .317** .443** .398** .270* .442** .439** .223* 1 15 .330** .261* .472** .471** .378** .452** .517** .274** .465** .442** .463** .309** .504** .229* 1 16 .263* .319** .399** .365** .366** .311** .360** .399** .514** .338** .381** .561** .455** .317** .378** 1 17 .189 .253* .445** .507** .368** .311** .246* .362** .458** .225* .407** .437** .383** .554** .211* .388** 1 18 .212* .131 .459** .423** .421** .323** .490** .438** .478** .282** .443** .523** .541** .398** .504** .461** .424** 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 8 A. RAFEH ET AL. Table 7. KMO and Bartlett's test. fourteenth by project professionals. As a result, we Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling believe that project managers must keep an eye on Adequacy 0.854 this overlooked component and appropriately Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi- 744.966 appraise the stakeholders’ attributes. Correctly asses- Square df 153 sing stakeholder influence would allow the project Sig. 0.000 manager to aim his efforts toward dispute resolution. It would also help in convincing other stakeholders. The foundation of effective stakeholder management frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms), was is a well-defined communication plan. One of the ranked with a slight difference among different coun- knowledge areas required for effective project man- tries. Findings were totally in line with (Yang et al. agement is project communications management. 2009) and (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015) as they Understanding a project in its early stages is only also ranked it second while it was ranked first possible through excellent communication with pro- (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Oyeyipo et al. ject stakeholders, which project experts identify as 2019). Furthermore, (Mashali et al. 2022) ranked it the second most important component. A project third. This shows that effective communication is vital manager must develop an efficient communication for stakeholder management in construction projects. strategy to gain the support of all stakeholders and CSF-3 was ranked the same by (El-Sawalhi and keep them informed. This plan should ensure that all Hammad 2015). (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and project stakeholders have access to real-time informa- (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) ranked it second while it was tion, decreasing decision-making delays. Although it is ranked fifth in Yang (2009) findings. CSF-8 was ranked critical to understand how stakeholders influence your fifth by (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) with a minor difference. project, this element is placed tenth. This suggests that Moreover, (Yang et al. 2009) and (El-Sawalhi and the project manager may lack sufficient knowledge of Hammad 2015) ranked the factor CSF-4 as fourth the stakeholders’ interests and influence. Furthermore, while (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Oyeyipo managing stakeholder impact and relationship change et al. 2019) ranked it sixth and seventh respectively. as the project progresses would be tough. This also Findings advocate that the most important aspect of serves as justification for project managers to establish effective stakeholder management is “Formulating the productive approaches for influencing and interacting project mission” The study, however, demonstrates with stakeholders. These tactics would thus assist them that “Managing stakeholders with social responsibil- in managing the stakeholders amicably throughout ities” is not given ample attention. Therefore, we can the project. All these findings demonstrate that there conclude that to accomplish economic, legal, environ- were similarities as well as differences in CSFs rankings mental, and ethical goals in Pakistan’s project environ- in various countries. Although research was carried out ment, stakeholder management requires crucial in different regions yet some CSFs rankings were in line attention in this area. “Carefully identifying and listing with the previous studies. the project stakeholders” was the third highly priori- tized factor. Furthermore, the three CSFs, “Resolving 4.3. Correlation conflicts among stakeholders effectively”, “Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, Table 6 shows the correlation between the identified opposition, neutral, etc.)” and “Identifying and under- CSFs and reveals that the factors have a positive corre- standing stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project” lation. None of the factors had a negative correlation. are also critical for effective stakeholder management in construction projects. Analyzing current or antici- 4.4. Factor analysis pated conflicts between various stakeholders can assist mitigate situations that could harm the project. Initially, 18 elements were used for factor analysis to Conflicts can be either substantive or emotional, and determine the most relevant stakeholder management both are extremely common in Pakistan’s construction factors in Pakistani construction projects. Numerous projects. Different parties have varying interests in the tests are required to establish if factor analysis is sui- project. Managing stakeholders competently would table for extracting and rotating key factors. Initially, thus be impossible without understanding their inter- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was utilized to determine ests and behaviors. As a result, stakeholder profiling the sample size. Table 7 shows that the initial KMO and prior understanding of a stakeholders’ behavior value obtained was 0.854, which was greater than 0.5, and interest in various contexts can substantially aid in indicating the acceptability of the sample. creating an effective stakeholder management plan. The null hypothesis that the initial correlation Though assessing stakeholders’ attributes can assist matrix was identical, ensuring no link between vari- project professionals completely comprehend the ables, was tested using Bartlett’s test for sphericity. The dynamics of a project, this element was ranked table shows that Bartlett’s sphericity statistic is JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 9 relatively high (Chi-Square = 744,966), which indicates method, and a significant factor of 0.04. “Predicting that the population correlation matrix is not an identity stakeholders’ potential influence on the project” and matrix and has no correlations between components. “Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement As a result, the obtained results show that the data is method” were the only factors that failed the loading reliable and appropriate for conducting factor analysis test. Variables CSF-4, CSF-7, CSF-10, CSF-13, and CSF- in accordance with Pallant (2020) 15 are correlated as they load onto Component 1: Furthermore, the maximum number of compo- Stakeholder Interests and Relationships. Correlations nents to maintain was determined using the scree were also discovered between variables CSF-5, CSF- plot test and the eigenvalues criteria. The number of 8, CSF-12, CSF-14, and CSF-17, which loaded onto components to maintain and the rotation were Component 2: Refining Goals and Managing determined using the principal component matrix, Stakeholder Needs. Variables CSF-1, CSF-3, CSF-6, the orthogonal varimax rotation, the factor loading and CSF-11 positively correlate because they were of 0.4, and the initial Eigenvalue larger than 1 criter- loaded onto Component 3: Identifying and Engaging ion, in accordance with (Hair et al. 2014). According Stakeholders. Only variable CSF-2 was loaded onto to the scree plot criterion and initial Eigenvalue Component 4: Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. greater than one, as shown in Figure 1, four factors Four components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (components) account for a cumulative variation of were found using Unweighted Least Square (ULS), almost 62 percent of the overall variance. Figure 1 the standard for factor extraction, which is in accor- illustrates the scree plot, which comprises the dance with the sample adequacy condition of Eigenvalues. In addition, the outcome of the screen greater than 50 percent. test is utilized to validate the eigenvalue retention Factor analysis conducted on the discovered CSFs threshold for key elements. So, the eigenvalue criter- for stakeholder management, shows the four emer- ion is confirmed. ging factors and explained about 62 percent of the The scree plot in Figure 1 and Table 9 confirms the overall variance. These factors include Stakeholders’ retention of four components, of which component Reactions and Relationships, Refining goals and one (Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships) Managing Stakeholders’ Needs, Identifying and accounts for 42.174% of the total variance; component Engaging Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Social two (Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Responsibilities. The results of this study are consis- Needs), 7.032%; component three (Identifying and tent with Ola-awo, Alayande, Olarewaju, and Engaging Stakeholders), 6.669%; component four Oyewobi’s findings from their study published in (Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities), 5.664%. 2021, which identified the critical success factors Table 8 shows the correlation between compo- for effective internal construction stakeholder man- nents and variables after rotation based on agement in Nigeria. Seven factors were identified in Principal Component Analysis, orthogonal varimax their investigation that together accounted for rotation using Kaiser Normalization rotation 66.596 percent of the total variation. Figure 1. Scree test plot. 10 A. RAFEH ET AL. Table 8. Total variance explained. Component Factors 1 2 3 4 Component-1 Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships CSF- Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions 0.746 CSF-7 Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders 0.695 CSF- Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.) 0.661 CSF- Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes 0.619 CSF- Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders 0.579 CSF-4 Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project 0.508 Component-2 Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs CSF- Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests 0.758 CSF- Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects 0.704 CSF- Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence 0.663 CSF-8 Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively 0.624 CSF-5 Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission. 0.503 Component-3 Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders CSF-1 Formulating the project mission 0.773 CSF-6 Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms) 0.726 CSF- Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders 0.614 CSF-3 Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders 0.573 Component-4 Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities CSF-2 Considering corporate social responsibilities (a business has a responsibility to the society paying attention to 0.915 economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues) 4.4.1. Component-1: Stakeholders’ reactions and (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.) has a loading of relationships 0.661; Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes has This component was comparatively more essential a loading of 0.619; Keeping and promoting positive than the other three, accounting for 42.174% relationships among the stakeholders 0.579 and (Table 9) of the total variations between critical success Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of factors. It revealed that contractors, consultants, and interest in the project has a loading of 0.508. For clients in Pakistan regard stakeholder reactions and effective stakeholder management, predicting stake- relationships as necessary for stakeholder manage- holders’ reactions, resolving stakeholders’ conflicts, ment in construction projects. The data shows that and promoting good relationships, stakeholders’ beha- predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for imple- viors, attributes, and interests are crucial. When making menting project decisions has the highest loading decisions on interacting with stakeholders, project (0.746); Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts managers must consider the stakeholders’ reactions and coalitions among stakeholders has a loading of (Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks 2007). When (Dias 0.695; Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors 1999) used an approach that wasn’t obvious; she paid Table 9. Total variance explained. Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % Of Variance Cumulative % Total % Of Variance Cumulative % Total % Of Variance Cumulative % 1 7.591 42.174 42.174 `7.591 42.174 42.174 3.630 20.166 20.166 2 1.266 7.032 49.206 1.266 7.032 49.206 3.487 19.370 39.536 3 1.200 6.669 55.876 1.200 6.669 55.876 2.601 14.449 53.985 4 1.020 5.664 61.540 1.020 5.664 61.540 1.360 7.555 61.540 5 0.928 5.154 66.694 6 0.839 4.66 71.353 7 0.756 4.201 75.554 8 0.694 3.857 79.411 9 0.594 3.299 82.710 10 0.548 3.042 85.752 11 0.491 2.73 88.482 12 0.437 2.428 90.910 13 0.401 2.225 93.135 14 0.327 1.819 94.954 15 0.303 1.682 96.636 16 0.251 1.394 98.030 17 0.200 1.113 99.144 18 0.154 0.856 100.000 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 11 attention to how stakeholders would respond. completion. Furthermore, the professionals on the Stakeholder acceptability and feasibility were the contract must all be proficient communicators for focus of his research. Consequently, a project team construction projects to be appropriately handled should now focus on determining how stakeholders (Tipili, Ojeba, and Ilyasu 2014). All significant sta- will react to a plan being implemented (Cleland and keholders must therefore be able to communicate Ireland 2002). effectively to discuss project-related challenges and allow the sharing of ideas and aspirations. As 4.4.2. Component-2: refining goals and managing a result, risks are reduced, and a robust commu- nication system enhances the reputation of the stakeholders’ needs This component, which consists of five subfactors, parties to the contract. According to (Yang et al. accounts for 7.032% of the total variation. The data 2009), developing proper strategies for dealing with stakeholders is critical because it will influ - shows that Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests has the highest loading (0.758); Exploring ence how the project management team treats stakeholder needs and constraints to projects has different stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis’s first phase, according to (Jepsen and Eskerod 2009), is a loading of 0.704; Managing the change of stake- holders’ influence has a loading of 0.663; Resolving stakeholder identification. Since many parties are conflicts among stakeholders effectively has engaged in construction contracts, it is essential to correctly identify the major stakeholders at the a loading of 0.624 and involving relevant stake- beginning of the contract so that their responsibil- holders to redefine (refine) project mission has a loading of 0.503. According to (Freeman, Harrison, ities can be analyzed and their expectations and and Wicks 2007), evaluating stakeholders’ require- possible influence on the project can be understood. ments and expectations in projects entails examining stakeholders’ areas of interest and enumerating the specific challenges associated with the project. 4.4.4. Component-4: stakeholders’ social During the project’s development, each of the pro- responsibilities ject’s needs must be evaluated to develop This single factor accounts for 5.664% of the total a reasonable and practical solution to the problem. variance. Considering corporate social responsibilities Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) also explain the premises (a business has a responsibility to society by paying of essential projects stakeholder management, which attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethi- include managing stakeholders with liabilities, illus- cal issues) is the only item under this factor with trating and communicating a reasonable statement a factor loading of 0.857. Managing social responsibil- of project goals, forming the right ways to deal with ities involves legal, economic, environmental, and ethi- managing stakeholders, examining stakeholders’ cal challenges, all of which must be evaluated and requirements and imperatives in projects, and ensur- handled before the project begins. Thus, legal difficul - ing viable as well as sustainable outcomes. Project ties pose a significant challenge to construction orga- managers are responsible for resolving stakeholder nizations, and projects must verify that all legal criteria conflicts. Based on the knowledge regarding stake- are met before the commencement of the project. The holders, disputes and coalitions among stakeholders economic issue is important since, except for govern- could also be examined. ment projects, most projects are carried out for profit, and any delay in project completion represents an 4.4.3. Component-3: identifying and engaging additional expense to the owners. stakeholders Similarly, environmental responsibilities should Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders accounts also be carried out deliberately. Organizations for 6.669% of the total variance with four sub- must examine ethical concerns since they affect factors, where “Formulating the project mission” workers and communities. Project organizations has the highest loading of 0.773; Communicating must understand that, in addition to maximizing with stakeholders properly and frequently (institut- profits, project managers and team members must ing feedback mechanisms); 0.726, Formulating also meet their ethical and corporate social duties appropriate strategies to manage/engage different as decent citizens. stakeholders; 0.614 and Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders, 0.573. The project manager should understand every stage of the 5. Conclusions project’s life cycle, including concerns with cost, time, and budget (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015). Many academics and researchers have acknowledged They concluded that a project manager with these the value of stakeholder management. Different sets of qualities successfully manages stakeholder rela- CSFs have been proposed in the literature, focusing on tionships. This will support the project’s successful various facets of stakeholder management. 12 A. RAFEH ET AL. Investigating these components’ relative importance ranked second in Nigeria and Ghana, while it was ranked and factors groupings is essential. This article presents third in Pakistan and Gaza. It can be inferred from the the results of a questionnaire survey to identify CSFs implications that the results may be generalized to other related to stakeholder management in Pakistani con- regions under similar socioeconomic environments. struction projects and investigate their relative impor- tance and underlying relationships. Acknowledgements Scholars have identified CSFs for stakeholder man- agement in various nations, but for Pakistani construc- The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Civil tion projects, no specific research could be found before Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, for providing research and financial facil- this study. So, this study investigated an ordered and ities. Experts from National Engineering Services Pakistan grouped set of factors critical for stakeholder manage- (NESPAK) and Sohar University are also gratefully acknowl- ment in Pakistan. First, a literature review and edged for providing technical assistance. The Sohar a questionnaire were used to identify 18 CSFs. Then, University, Oman, is recognised for supporting the publica- the ranking of these CSFs was determined via tion of this work a questionnaire survey, clarifying the priority factors. According to the findings, the top five stakeholder man- agement related CSFs in Pakistani projects are; Disclosure statement Formulating the project mission; Communicating with No potential conflict of interest was reported by the stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feed- author(s). back mechanisms); Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders; Resolving conflicts among stake- holders effectively and Predicting and mapping stake- Funding holders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.). It was internally funded by the Civil Engineering Department, Through factor analysis, a total of 18 factors that are University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54000, crucial for stakeholder management in construction pro- Pakistan. jects were classified into four components: Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships, Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs; Identifying and Notes on contributors Engaging Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Social Mr. Abdul Rafeh is an undergraduate student at the Responsibilities. The study indicated that these four com- University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. ponents are critical for successful stakeholder manage- Dr. Mohsin Usman Qureshi has done Ph.D. Civil Engineering ment in the Pakistani construction sector and will favor and currently working as Associate Professor and Head of project performance if they are given specific attention. Research and Development at Sohar University, Oman. These findings could potentially be utilized as an assess- Dr. Asif Hameed has done Ph.D. Structural Engineering and ment tool to evaluate stakeholder management perfor- currently working as Professor at Civil Engineering mance and highlight areas for improvement. Department, University of Engineering and Technology This study has contributed to the expanding body Lahore, Pakistan. of knowledge on project management by providing Dr. Ali Murtaza Rasool has done Ph.D. Civil Engineering and insight into the CSFs for stakeholder management in currently working as a Senior Engineer in NESPAK. He has the Pakistani context to focus on project goals. The diversified experience of more than 16 years. He is actively findings will assist industrial decision-makers in under- involved in research and teaching activities. standing essential factors to prioritize when managing stakeholders. Since the findings in this research are References based on a questionnaire survey, respondents may have diverse interpretations of our assertions, which Aaltonen, K., K. Jaakko, and O. Tuomas. 2008. “Stakeholder may skew the CSFs rankings. Therefore, case studies Salience in Global Projects.” International Journal of Project Management 26 (5): 509–516. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008. should be used to validate this research’s conclusions 05.004. further. The outcomes of this study are compared to Aaltonen, K., and J. Kujala. 2010. “A Project Lifecycle findings from earlier studies conducted in comparable Perspective on Stakeholder Influence Strategies in Global socioeconomic conditions. Due to similar socioeco- Projects.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 26 (4): nomic conditions, the similarity between findings was 381–397. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.001. observed. CSF-1 ranked first in Pakistan and was also Akintoye, A., C. Hardcastle, M. Beck, E. Chinyio, and D. Asenova. 2003. “Achieving Best Value in Private ranked first in Gaza. Finance Initiative Project Procurement.” Construction In contrast, Ghana and Nigeria ranked third and Management and Economics 21 (5): 461–470. doi:10.1080/ fourth, respectively. Similarly, CSF-6 was ranked second in Pakistan and second by Gaza. Nigeria and Ghana Aksorn, T., and B. H. W. Hadikusumo. 2008. “Critical Success ranked it first, while Egypt ranked it third. CSF-3 was Factors Influencing Safety Program Performance in Thai JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 13 Construction Projects.” Safety Science 46 (4): 709–727. Fewings, P. 2005. Construction Project Management: An doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006. Integrated Approach. Abingdon: Taylor Francis. Al-Deen, A. G., O. El-Naway, I. Mahdi, and M. Badawy. 2015. Forsman, P. A. (2017). “A Study of Construction Project “Developing Methodology for Stakeholder Management to Stakeholders’ Management Methods and the Critical Achieve Project Success.” International Journal of Innovative Success Factors Essential for Successful Management in Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 4 (11): Stockholm Region” PhD. thesis work in 15 hp within the 10651–10660. doi:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0411046. masters programme project management and operational Amoatey, C., and M. V. K. Hayibor. 2017. “Critical Success development stockholm. Factors for Local Government Project Stakeholder Freeman, R., J. Harrison, and A. Wicks. 2007. “Managing for Management.” Built Environment Project and Asset Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success.” doi:10. Management 7 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-07- 12987/9780300138498. 2016-0030. Friedman, A. L., and S. Miles. 2006. Stakeholders Theory and Atkin, B., and M. Skitmore. 2008. “Editorial: Stakeholder Practice. UK: Oxford University Press. Management in Construction.” Construction Management Frooman, J. 1999. “Stakeholder Influence Strategies.” and Economics 26 (6): 549–552. doi:10.1080/ Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 191–205. doi:10. 2307/259074. Bakens, W., G. Foliente, and M. Jasuja. 2005. “Engaging Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2014. Stakeholders in Performance-Based Building: Lessons Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ., from the Performance-Based Building (PeBbu) Network.” USA: Pearson Education. Building Research & Information 33 (2): 149–158. doi:10. Jefferies, M., R. O. D. Gameson, and S. Rowlinson. 2002. 1080/0961321042000322609. “Critical Success Factors of the BOOT Procurement Bourne, L. 2005. “Project relationship management and the System: Reflections from the Stadium Australia Case Stakeholder CircleTM.”PhD Thesis, RMIT University, AU. Study.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Bourne, L., and D. Walker. 2006. “Visualizing Stakeholder Management 9 (4): 352–361. doi:10.1108/eb021230. Influence — Two Australian Examples.” Project Jepsen, A. L., and P. Eskerod. 2009. “Stakeholder Analysis in Management Journal 37 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1177/ Projects: Challenges in Using Current Guidelines in the Real World.” International Journal of Project Management Chinyio, E. A., and A. Akintoye. 2008. “Practical Approaches 27 (4): 335–343. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002. for Engaging Stakeholders: Findings from the UK.” Jergeas, G., E. Williamson, G. Skulmoski, and J. L. Thomas. Construction Management and Economics 26 (6): 591–599. 2000. “Stakeholder Management on Construction doi:10.1080/01446190802078310. Projects.” AACE International Transactions: 44th Annual C, C. A. P., H. D. C. K, and T. C. M. 2001. “Design and Build Meeting of AACE International, June 2000, Calgary, Project Success Factors: Multivariate Analysis.” Journal of Alberta, 1–5. Construction Engineering and Management 127 (2): 93–100. Jha, K. N., and K. C. Iyer. 2006. “Critical Factors Affecting doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:2(93). Quality Performance in Construction Projects.” Total Cleland, D. I. 1999. Project Management Strategic Design and Quality Management & Business Excellence 17 (9): Implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1155–1170. doi:10.1080/14783360600750444. Cleland, D., and L. Ireland. 2002. “Heterotopic Ossification Karlsen, J. T. 2002. “Project Stakeholder Management.” After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.” Clinical Engineering Management Journal 14 (4): 19–24. doi:10. Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 404: 208–213. 1080/10429247.2002.11415180. doi:10.1097/00003086-200211000-00034. Kerzner. 1987. “In Search of Excellence in Project Cova, B., and R. Salle. 2006. “Communications and Management.” Journal of Systems Management 38 (2): Stakeholders.” In The Management of Complex Projects: 30–39. info:doi/. A Relationship Approach, edited by S. Pryke and Landin, A. 2000. Impact of Quality Management in the Swedish H. Smyth, 131–146. Blackwell, UK. Construction Process. Lund, Sweden: Department of Dias, W. P. S. 1999. “SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACHES for Construction Management, Lund Institute of Technology. ANALYSING PROPOSED CHANGE and STAKEHOLDER Leung, M. -Y., A. Chong, S. T. Ng, and M. C. K. Cheung. 2004. RESPONSE - A CASE STUDY.” Civil Engineering and “Demystifying stakeholders’ Commitment and Its Environmental Systems 17 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/ Impacts on Construction Projects.” Construction Management and Economics 22 (7): 701–715. doi:10. El-Gohary, N., H. Osman, and T. El-Diraby. 2006. “Stakeholder 1080/0144619042000300736. Management for Public Private Partnerships.” International Loosemore, M. 2006. “Managing Project Risks. The Journal of Project Management - INT J PROJ MANAG 24 (7): Management of Complex Projects: A Relationship 595–604. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.009. Approach.” 187–204. Elias, A. A., R. Y. Cavana, and L. S. Jackson. 2002. “Stakeholder Mashali, A., E. Elbeltagi, I. Motawa, and M. Elshikh. 2020. Analysis for R&D Project Management.” R&D Management “Stakeholder Management: An Insightful Overview of 34 (2): 301–310. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00262. Issues.” Cic 217–231. doi:10.29117/cic.2020.0029. El-Sawalhi, N. I., and S. Hammad. 2015. “Factors Affecting Mashali, A., E. Elbeltagi, I. Motawa, and M. Elshikh. 2022. Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects in the “Stakeholder Management Challenges in Mega Gaza Strip.” International Journal of Construction Construction Projects: Critical Success Factors.” Journal of Management 15 (2): 157–169. doi:10.1080/15623599. Engineering, Design and Technology 21 (2): 358–375. doi:10. 2015.1035626. 1108/JEDT-09-2021-0483. Eyiah-Botwe, E., C. O. Aigbavboa, and W. D. Thwala. 2016. Mathur, V. N., A. Price, and S. Austin. 2008. “Conceptualizing Critical Success Factors for Enhanced Stakeholder Stakeholder Engagement in the Context of Sustainability and Management in Ghana. In Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach, edited by P. Fewings, Its Assessment.” Construction Management and Economics 153–170. Abingdon: Taylor Francis. 26 (6): 601–609. doi:10.1080/01446190802061233. 14 A. RAFEH ET AL. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. “Toward a Theory Rwelamila, P. D. 2010. Impact of Procurement on Stakeholder of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Management. In : E. Chinyio. “Impact of procurement on Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of stakeholder management.” In Construction Stakeholder Management Review 22 (4): 853–887. doi:10.2307/259247. Management, edited by Chinyio, E., P Olomolaiye, Nauman, S., and M. S. Piracha. 2016. “Project Stakeholder 193–215, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, United Kingdom. Management - a Developing Country Perspective.” Journal Saraph, J. V., P. G. Benson, and R. G. Schroeder. 1989. “An of Quality and Technology Management XII (Ii): 1–24. Instrument for Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Newcombe, R. 2003. “From Client to Project Stakeholders: Management.” Decision Sciences 20 (4): 810–829. doi:10. A Stakeholder Mapping Approach.” Construction 1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01421.x. Management and Economics 21 (8): 841–848. doi:10.1080/ Savage, G. T., T. W. Nix, C. J. Whitehead, and J. D. Blair. 1991. 0144619032000072137. “Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Nwachukwu, C. V., C. Udeaja, and N. Chileshe. (2017) The Stakeholders.” Academy of Management Executive 5 (2): critical success factors for stakeholder management in 61–75. doi:10.5465/ame.1991.4274682. the restoration of built heritage assets in the UK. Smith, J., P. E. D. Love, and R. Wyatt. 2001. “To Build or Not to International Journal of Building Pathology and Build? Assessing the Strategic Needs of Construction Adaptation Vol. 35(4), 304–331. Emerald Publishing Industry Clients and Their Stakeholders.” Structural Survey Limited. doi:10.1108/IJBPA-07-2017-0030. 19 (2): 121–132. doi:10.1108/02630800110393941. Ola-Awo, W., A. Alayande, and G. Olarewaju. 2021. “Critical Srinivasan, N. P., and S. Dhivya. 2020. “An Empirical Study on Success Factors for Effective Internal Construction Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects.” Stakeholder Management in Nigeria.” Acta Structilia Materials Today: Proceedings 21 (xxxx): 60–62. doi:10. 28 (1): 1–31. doi:10.18820/24150487/as28i1.1. 1016/j.matpr.2019.05.361. Olander, S. 2006. “External Stakeholder Management.”PhD Sunny, R., and A. P. 2018. “Factors Affecting the Stakeholder Thesis, Lund University, UK. Management Process in Construction Project.” International Olander, S., and A. Landin. 2005. “Evaluation of Stakeholder Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 7 (04): 271–274. Influence in the Implementation of Construction Projects.” Svendsen, A. 1998. The Stakeholder Strategy. US: Berrett- International Journal of Project Management 23 (4): 321–328. Koehler Publishers. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002. Thomson, D. S., S. A. Austin, H. Devine-Wright, and G. R. Mills. Olander, S., and A. Landin. 2008. “A Comparative Study of 2003. “Managing Value and Quality in Design.” Building Factors Affecting the External Stakeholder Management Research & Information 31 (5): 334–345. doi:10.1080/ Process.” Construction Management and Economics 26 (6): 0961321032000087981. 553–561. doi:10.1080/01446190701821810. Tipili, L. G., P. O. Ojeba, and M. S. ’. Ilyasu. 2014. “Evaluating Olatunde, N. A., and H. A. Odeyinka. 2021. “Factors Influencing the Effects of Communication in Construction Project Stakeholder Management in Building Projects Procured by Delivery in Nigeria 1.” Global Journal of Environmental Private Corporate Organisations.” Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology 2 (5): 2360–7955. Project, and Production Management 11 (1): 9–18. doi:10. Ugwu, O. O., and T. C. Haupt. 2005. “Key Performance 1108/BEPAM-05-2020-0102. Indicators for Infrastructure Sustainability – Olatunde, N. A., D. R. Ogunsemi, and A. E. Oke. 2017. “Impact a Comparative Study Between Hong Kong and South of Team members’ Composition on Construction Projects Africa.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology Delivery in Selected Higher Institutions in Nigeria.” Journal 3 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1108/17260530510815321. of Engineering, Design and Technology 15 (03): 355–377. Waghmare, Y. M., N. Bhalerao, and S. V. Wagh. 2016. “Analysis doi:10.1108/JEDT-04-2016-0028. of the Factors Affecting the Stakeholder Management Oyeyipo, O., H. Odeyinka, J. Owolabi, and A. Afolabi. 2019. Process in Building Construction Project.” International “Factors Inhibiting Stakeholder Management of Mega Journal of Innovative Studies in Sciences and Engineering Construction.“ International Journal of Civil Engineering Technology 2 (7): 48–56. and Technology 10 (03): 1261–1269. Walker, D. H. T., L. M. Bourne, and S. Rowlinson. 2008. Pajunen, K. 2006. “Stakeholder Influences in Organizational “Stakeholder and the Supply Chain.” In Procurement Survival.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (6): Systems: A Cross-Industry Project Management Perspective, 1261–1288. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00624.x. edited by D. H. T. Walker and S. Rowlinson, 70–100. UK: Pallant, J. 2020. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Taylor & Francis. Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. London, United Kingdom: Winch, G. 2002. Managing Construction Projects: An Routledge. Information Processing Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organisational Ethics. W, Y. A. T., S. Qiping, K. John, and H. Kirsty. 2006. “Investigation US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. of Critical Success Factors in Construction Project Briefing by Pouloudi, A., and E. A. Whitley. 1997. “Stakeholder Way of Content Analysis.” Journal of Construction Engineering Identification in Inter-Organizational Systems: Gaining and Management 132 (11): 1178–1186. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) Insights for Drug Use Management Systems.” European 0733-9364(2006)132:11(1178). Journal of Information Systems 6 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1057/ Yang, J., G. Q. Shen, M. Ho, D. S. Drew, and A. P. C. Chan. 2009. palgrave.ejis.3000252. “Exploring Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder Rockart, J. 1979. “Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Management in Construction Projects.” Journal of Civil Needs.” Harvard Business Review 57 (2): 81–93. Engineering and Management 15 (4): 337–348. doi:10. Rowley, T. J. 1997. “Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network 3846/1392-3730.2009.15.337-348. Theory of Stakeholder Influences.” Academy of Young, T. L. 2006. Successful Project Management. 2nd ed. Management Review 22 (4): 887–910. doi:10.2307/259248. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page.
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering – Taylor & Francis
Published: Nov 2, 2023
Keywords: Ranking and grouping; critical success factors; stakeholder management; construction projects
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.