This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]

On: 05 May 2015, At: 06:46

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Management Science and

Engineering Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmse20

The critical success factors influencing project

performance in Nigeria
a
Amaka Ogwueleka
a
Department of Quantity Surveying , University of Uyo , Uyo , PMB 1017 , Nigeria
Published online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Amaka Ogwueleka (2011) The critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria,
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6:5, 343-349

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2011.10671182

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 ISSN 1750-9653, England, UK
International Journal of Management Science
and Engineering Management, 6(5): 343-349, 2011
http://www.ijmsem.org/

The critical success factors influencing project

performance in Nigeria
Amaka Ogwueleka∗
Department of Quantity Surveying, University of Uyo, Uyo PMB 1017, Nigeria

(Received 2 September 2010, Revised 5 April 2011, Accepted 27 April 2011)

Abstract. Success factors are inputs to management system which can lead directly or indirectly to project success. This paper aims
to investigate the critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria. The objectives are to identify success factors
existing in projects and also to examine the important index of these success factors on project performance in Nigeria. Twenty-two
success factors were selected from the literature for the research with sample size of 188 professionals. The data obtained from the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

questionnaire are analyzed using frequency, severity and important indices. The reliability test on the data using Crobach’s alpha
displays, sixteen success factors were necessary for true satisfaction of successful project implementation in Nigerian Construction
Industry. Based on the result, objective management, management of design, technical factors, top management support and risk
management were selected as the most critical success factors in project performance. The findings are focused to assist practitioners’
gain better understanding on the key areas based on prioritized success factors in order to improve performance in project delivery.
Keywords: critical success factor, project performance, objective management, technical factors, top management support, market
intelligence

1 Introduction mission of fluctuation existing in the highly volatile world

oil market into economy. Instability in Nigerian economic
The management of projects has shifted from the use system is driven primarily by accumulating factor inputs
of hard system approach to soft factors (Litsikakis, 2008). (Adenikinju, 2005 [1]). These involve continued accumu-
Hard systems approach involves the adoption of mechani- lation of productive inputs and imports which have cre-
cal motions in project implementation (Major, 2005). Many ated negative impact on performance of Nigerian industries.
researchers have proved the approach to be faulty due to Krugman (1994) [17] emphasized that continued accumula-
the change in demand from conformance (specification) to tion of these inputs generate perspiration into an economy
performance (incorporating the voice of the customer). In which may not be sustainable in the long run. Developing
order to achieve performance in project delivery, soft fac- countries have higher rate of low project performance than
tors must be considered. Soft factors involve the develop- developed countries (Lim and Alum, 1995 [18]). Most re-
ment of a series of soft skills focusing on maximum cus- searchers discussed the increased challenges and decreasing
tomer delight. These soft factors are applied throughout performance of the construction industry (Casler and Gal-
the lifecycle of the project in order to enhance the success latin, 1997 [9]; Teicholz et al., 2001 [36]). The major indica-
of the project. Previous studies have revealed that soft fac- tors of performance in construction projects were identified
tors have been applied in project delivery in Nigeria but as time, cost and quality (Mckim et al., 2000 [23]; Atkin-
poor project performance has also been recorded. This has son, 1999 [5]). These indicators are driven by factors that
resulted to low productivity growth which runs across all can be used to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses in
industrial sectors including Nigerian Construction Indus- project performance (Marteralla, 2007 [21]). These factors
try (Adenikinju and Ayonrinde, 2001 [2]; Adenikinju and may be pitfalls or success factors. According to Olav et al.,
Soludo, 1997 [3]). Malladi (2007) [20] stipulated that en- (2007) [29], success factors were considered as opposite of
hancement of project performance will bridge productivity pitfalls. This research is focused on success factors influenc-
gaps. In enhancing project performance, there is a need ing project performance. Cooke-Davies (2002) [13] defined
to address the problematic issues restricting project perfor- project success factors as inputs to the management system
mance. However, many problems have arisen during project that lead directly or indirectly to the project success. The
implementations which are centered on overruns of project identification of these success factors has become critical
indicators. issues facing project managers (Motwani et al., 1995 [25]).
In recent years, Nigerian economy has grown up speed- Evidences have proved most construction projects in de-
ily. Nigeria operates mono-product economy with absolute veloping countries suffer overrun in cost and time. Iyer and
dependence on crude oil export. In 2001, crude oil export Tha (2006) [14] revealed that 40% of Indian Construction
was estimated 98.7% of foreign exchange earned. This im- projects are facing time overrun ranging from 1 to 252
pact has eased financial constraints to infrastructure devel- months. Ugandan Construction Industry experiences cost
opment and urbanization but has also created easy trans- and time overruns (Mubiru, 2001 [26]). Construction delay
∗ Correspondence to: E-mail address: [email protected].

©International Society of Management Science Published by World Academic Press,

and Engineering Management® World Academic Union
 344 A. Ogwueleka: The critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria

and cost overruns are cogitated as frequency project prob- Ogunlana (2009) [33] studied in critical success factors
lems in Vietnam government-related funded projects (Min- in large scale construction projects in Thailand. Their
istry of planning and investment, 2003). Adenikinju (2005) study emphasized that success factors vary across various
[1] graded productivity performance in Nigeria to be be- projects. Their findings revealed project planning and con-
low average. His findings revealed technically inefficiency trol, project personnel and involvement of client as criti-
as a major influence to the decline. The result showed that cal factors influencing project success. Ann et al. (2006)
technical efficiency declined by -1.29 percent per annum for [39] in their study, investigated on CSFs in construction
the period of 1962 ∼ 2000 while technical change declined project briefing. Briefing process is prerequisite to achiev-
by −1.01 percent annually over the same period. Most re- ing success in project performance. This process involves
searchers have studied critical project success factors in- the interpretation of clients’ actual views and requirements
fluencing projects in both developed and developing coun- to project participants. Their study considered open and
tries. Although Nigerian economic system possesses most effective communication, clear and precise briefing docu-
of the characteristics associated with developing countries, ments, clear intention and objectives of client and clear
the trend differs. Iyer and Tha (2006) [14] emphasized that project goal and objectives as critical success factors. Ugwu
project factors differ from one project to another. Nige- et al. (2007) [37] identified nine top critical success factors
rian Construction Industry has witnessed incline in diverse that would act as enablers for successful implementation
construction projects over the years, this research is lim- of ICT projects in construction as cost of development,
ited to large construction projects with minimum budget of top management support, availability of appropriate tools,
N100million. Following the definition of large construction development team knowledge and understanding of con-
projects by Long et al. (2004) [19], the selected large con- struction processes, ease applications, clear definition and
struction projects were projects with total budget of over $ understanding end user, clear communication, standardiza-
1million which is equivalent to over N140million. This re- tion issues and change management of organization level.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

search is aimed at investigating the critical success factors Marterella (2007) [21] reviewed over 50 business processes
influencing project performance in Nigeria. The following and disclosed eight critical sales success factors influenc-
objectives were adopted to achieve this aim: ing business performance as selection, performance manage-
ment, skills assessment, defined solution offerings, demand
• To identify success factors existing in projects; creation, qualifying, proposal clarity and existing client ex-
• To examine important index of these identified success pansion. Park (2009) [30] investigated a set of ten common
factors on project performance in Nigeria and to uncover factors and 188 individual factors influencing whole life per-
any underlying interrelationship existing between the suc- formance of South Korean projects.
cess factors.
The study was focused on identifying the most critical
According to Chua et al. (1999) [10], the identification of individual factor in each common factor. The result iden-
key project success factors of any project will enable appro- tified the following individual factors in each common fac-
priate allocation of limited resources. The main goal is to tor; clarity of contract, fixed construction period, precise
redirect the construction firms on how to build their capa- project budget estimate, material and quality, mutual and
bilities toward adopting the appropriate strategy based on trusting relationships, leadership and team management,
prioritized success factors in order to improve performance then finally management of work safety on site.
in project delivery.
Iyer and Tha (2006) [14] found out through a survey in
India that two most critical success factors are commitment
2 Critical success factors influencing of participants’ and owners’ competence. Executive sup-
project performance port, user involvement, experienced project manager, clear
business objectives, minimized scope, standard software
Success is defined in the context of project as the art of infrastructure, firm basic requirements, formal methodol-
gaining consensus from a group of people on the definition ogy and reliable estimates were found out as the nine
of good art (Jugder and Muller, 2005 [15]). Project success top success factors influencing project performance (Gart-
is the most debated topic in the management field, but also ner group, 2004). Belassi and Tukei (1996) [6] emphasized
the least agreed upon (Shenhar et al., 1997 [35]). The de- five critical success factors as the project manager, project
termination of project success may not even be unanimous team, project itself, organization and external environment.
among the team and client personnel (Rad and Ginger, 2002 Pinto and Kharbanda (1995) [31] identified early and con-
[32]). For example, an architect may consider success in tinual client consultation, technology, scheduling system,
terms of aesthetic appearance while an engineer may con- project team and top management support as the most
sider in terms of technical competence. The parameters for significant critical success factors. Project summary, oper-
measuring project success are mostly influenced by project ational concept, top management support, financial sup-
type and specifications. Rockart (1976) defined critical suc- port, logistic requirements, facility support, market intelli-
cess factors as areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, gence, project schedule, executive development and train-
will ensure successful competitive performance for organi- ing, manpower and organization, acquisition, information
zation. Maylor (2003) [22] viewed satisfaction as the differ- and communication channels and project review were iden-
ence between how the project is perceived or viewed by a tified as critical success factors influencing project perfor-
stakeholder and how they expect the project to perform. mance (Cleland and King, 1983 [12]). Leadership, partner-
Various project success factors have been identified by ship, proof and clarity of innovative concept, business plan-
different researchers in different projects around the world. ning and marketing, triple bottom line planning, short and
Community involvement, project objectives, technical in- long term benefits management, community engagement
novation, uncertainty, politics, schedule duration urgency, and risk management were also found out as critical suc-
financial contract, legal factors and implementation process cess factors in project implementation (Boyer et al., 2008
were established as the critical success factors in projects [7]).Communication, project planning and control, objec-
(Morris and Hughes, 1987 [24]). Shamas-ur-Rehman and tive management and project size and duration were clas-

IJMSEM email for contribution: [email protected]

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6(5): 343-349, 2011 345

Table 1 Summary of literature reviews on CSFs for project performance

Success Factors (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
Community Engagement X X
Objective management X X X X X X X X X
Technical factors
Uncertainty/risk management X X X
Commitment of participants X X X X
Financial support X X X X
Legal factors X
Interface towards surrounding projects X X
Top management support X X X X X X X X X X
Skill acquisition and availability of
X X X
manpower
Communication channels X X X X
Project organization X X X X X X
Performance management X X X
Demand creation X
Resolution X
Precise project budget estimate X X X
Nature and market conditions X
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

Stakeholder management X X X X X X X
Stable framework condition X X X
Design management
Project planning and control X X X X X X X X X
Environmental factors/politics X X X
Mutual relationship X X X X
Innovation concept X X X X
Contract strategy X X X X X
(1) Morris and Hughes (1987) [24], (2) Ugwu et al. (2007) [37], (3) Marterella (2007) [21], (4) Park (2009) [30], (5) Iyer and
Tha (2006) [14], (6) Belassi and Tukei (1996) [6], (7) Gartner group (2004), (8) Pinto and Kharbanda (1995) [31], (9) Cleland
and King (1983) [12], (10) Boyer et al. (2008) [7], (11) Clarke (1999) [11], (12) Cooke-davie (2002) [13], (13) Muller (2005)
[27], (14) Rockart (1979) [34], (15) Shamas-ur-rahman (2009) [33], (16) Ann et al. (2006) [39], (17) Arain (2007) [4].

sified as critical success factors in project implementation questionnaires were found effective because of the relative
(Clarke, 1999 [11]). ease of obtaining standard data appropriate for achieving
Cooke-Davie (2002) [13] identified the critical success fac- the objectives of this study. Kothari (2003) [16] stipulated
tors in project execution as objective management, moni- survey protocol of random sampling procedures allows a rel-
tor performance and feedback, teamwork, risk management, atively small number of people to represent a much larger
stakeholder management and project size and duration. population. Based on the literature cited, twenty-two suc-
Muller (2005) [27] found out the critical success factors cess factors were selected from projects relating to construc-
as selection criteria, commitment to project planning and tion and business performance. The CSFs identified in ICT
control, monitoring performance and feedback, mutual re- projects were considered not relevant for this study. Pilot
lationship and project ownership. Project goals and client studies were carried out to ensure the clarity and relevance
criteria, leadership style, clarity of scope and work defini- of the drafted questionnaire. The drafted questionnaire was
tion, project manager characteristic, client’s own organi- shown to four professionals in the research field to review.
zation, project teamwork, planning and programming tech- The two professionals were university professors and oth-
niques, the selection process of building team, project man- ers were researchers in the related field. Amendments were
ager’s authority and influence and project cost estimate made on the drafted questionnaire based on suggestions of
were suggested as the most important success factors fit the reviewers. The questionnaire required the respondents
within strategic, structural, technical and managerial sub- to rank their answers using five-point scale. For frequency
systems of any of Pakistan’s construction Industry (Arain, index, the values are represented as follows: 0 = No, 1 =
2007 [4]). Rockart (1979) [34] identified the major sources rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always while values
of critical success factors as environment factors, temporal assigned for ranking severity index are 0 = No, 1 = little,
factors, industry, competitive strategy, industry and man- 2 = moderate, 3 = very, 4 = extremely.
agerial positions. Tab. 1 shows the summary of literature
reviews on critical factors for project success. 3.2 Characteristics of respondents
The case study area (Nigeria) is grouped into four regions
3 Research methodology namely Southern, Eastern, Western and Northern parts.
3.1 Questionnaire design The study targeted 20 companies from each region in order
to obtain equal representation of the entire population. In
The research adopted field survey methodology to un- each region, the companies were randomly selected. This
cover critical success factors influencing project perfor- procedure was adopted in order to cover the entire case
mance in Nigerian Construction Industry. Surveys through study area using relative small population. The population

IJMSEM email for subscription: [email protected]

 346 A. Ogwueleka: The critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria

Table 2 Demographic data of respondent

Frequency Percent % Cumulative percent
Profession of Respondents (N = 188)
At least degree certificate in related fields 33 17.5 17.5
Diplomas or equivalent certificates 97 51.6 69.1
Tradesmen or technical vocational trainees 58 30.9 100
Years of working Experiences (N = 188)
1 ∼ 5 years 56 29.8 29.8
5 ∼ 10 years 95 50.5 80.3
Above 10 years 37 19.7 100
Type of projects involvement
Building and Industrial projects 105 49.3 49.3
Bridge and road projects 83 39.0 88.3
Both 25 11.7 100
Average Project Budget estimate (N = 80)
N100M ∼ N250M 15 18.8 18.8
N250M ∼ N500M 48 60.0 78.8
Above N500M 25 31.2 100
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

size of 80 companies fully registered with Federal Ministry 4.2 Discussion

of Works and Housing was selected. A total of 220 question-
naires were sent to construction professionals working with Assumption is made based on Pareto rule that the high-
the selected contractors. Face to face delivery is preferred est ranked has the greatest influence. The Tab. 3 shows
to promote respondents and raise the response rate. For the frequency, severity and important indices of twenty-
varied reasons, 32 did not participate in the research which two identified success factors. The results of the important
reduced sample size to 188. The response rate of 85.5% was index were ranked and the five highest scores were objec-
obtained. The survey was carried out within a period of tive management, management of design, technical factors,
five months from June to October, 2009. Tab. 2 reveals the top management support and risk management. The suc-
demographic data of respondents. This shows that 69.1% of cess factor of objective management is ranked first on im-
the respondents are generally well-educated and have am- portance index. The findings revealed that most stakehold-
ple experiences in the construction industry while 30.9% of ers always try to diversify their resources into profitable
the respondents comprise of either tradesmen or technical areas. Focusing on profitable areas is the proof of unwill-
vocational trainees. ingness to accept risk. Risk management practices are not
viable in Nigerian Construction Industry. Although, some
4 Results and discussion contractors claim that they practice them but evidences
have proved that risk response and implementation were
4.1 Data analysis and results recorded in their practices only. Most stakeholders are not
willing to accept risk rather they avoid or transfer it. Ob-
Evaluation of data was done through three types of in- jective management is recommended as a critical success
dices namely frequency, severity and importance indices. factor which can be properly managed to prevent project
The frequency index is calculated using formula: failure. This recommendation is in line with the findings
4 of Morris and Hughes (1987) [24], objective management
F.I = ∑ a1 n1 /4N, was disclosed as a control process in which sequential ac-
0 tion can be taken by project actors to establish performance
where, standards, measure and evaluate performance and also take
a : weight assigned; corrective actions where indicated. The adoption of objec-
n : frequency of each response; tive management strategies enables best results to be gen-
N : total number of responses. erated from available resources. Project productivity and
The severity index is computed using the formula: efficiency can be more effective through objective manage-
4 ment process, hereby enabling prompt corrective actions to
S.I = be taken in order to reduce wastage.
∑ a1 n1 /4N,
0 The success factor of management of design is rated sec-
where, ond according to important index. In construction projects,
a : weight assigned; design is the essential process of communicating the stake-
n : frequency of each response; holder’s requirements to other parts of the organization.
N : total number of responses. Most of the respondents considered changes in project defi-
The important index expresses the overview of the fac- nition to be inevitable part of the design process. The study
tors on both frequency and severity. It is calculated using disclosed variations occur most frequently in Nigerian con-
the formula: struction projects. Managing the process of design reitera-
tion is essential in order to adapt quickly to changes and
IMP.I = F.I × S.I. new information where required. The analysis exposed the
inability to manage design changes has resulted to poor

IJMSEM email for contribution: [email protected]

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6(5): 343-349, 2011 347

Table 3 Frequency, severity and importance indices of the success factors influencing project performance
s/n Success Factors Frequency index Severity index Importance Index Rank
1 Top management support 0.788 0.817 0.643 4
2 Objective management 0.819 0.842 0.690 1
3 Nature and market conditions 0.789 0.715 0.564 7
4 Stakeholder management 0.650 0.777 0.505 9
5 Project organization 0.556 0.700 0.389 13
6 Stable framework condition 0.478 0.679 0.325 17
7 Technical Factors 0.829 0.795 0.659 3
8 Management of Design 0.825 0.809 0.667 2
9 Interface towards surrounding projects 0.552 0.474 0.262 18
10 Project planning and control 0.526 0.790 0.416 12
11 Financial support 0.724 0.805 0.583 6
12 Communication channels 0.661 0.650 0.430 11
13 Precise project budget estimate 0.576 0.609 0.351 15
14 Legal factors 0.447 0.403 0.180 21
15 Environmental factors 0.474 0.487 0.231 19
16 Mutual relationship 0.518 0.414 0.214 20
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

17 Commitment of participants 0.626 0.717 0.449 10

18 Skills acquisition and availability of manpower 0.550 0.625 0.350 16
19 Innovative concept 0.610 0.636 0.388 14
20 Community engagement 0.404 0.401 0.162 22
21 Risk management 0.707 0.840 0.594 5
22 Contract strategy 0.642 0.807 0.519 8

project performance in Nigeria. Technical factor is ranked factor using Crobach’s α. The computation of Cronbach’s
third; the analysis disclosed that the availability of project α in measuring internal consistency of items in scale and/
actors with relevant skills and required technology is crit- or responses to question that were designed to represent a
ical for new projects. Although the demographic data re- construct (Garson, 1999 [8]), is given by the equation.
vealed 69.1 percent of the workers had at least diploma !
certificates in related fields. But the study disclosed insuffi- 
k
 k
2 2
cient availability of technical skills. Most of these skills can Crobach α = 1 − ∑ Si / S p ,
k−1
be acquired in technical institutions, the analysis showed i =1
below average percentage of workers to be tradesmen or where
technical vocational trainees which maybe the major cause K : number of items in scale;
of the insufficiency. The success factor of top management Si2 : variance of item I;
support is ranked fourth overall. The study revealed top S2p : variance of total score.
management team provides strong and consistent support The construct allows negative α to be detected and pos-
to finance, resources and leadership in projects. The im- itive α to be accepted ranging from 0 to 1.0. The cut-off
portance of top management support is found to be strong value is 0.70 that is for items to be used together as a scale,
factor that must be present to ensure a successful project the items must be above the cut-off value. If the alpha in-
outcome. Without top management support, the chances of creases over the current total scale when an item is deleted,
project success may be crippled. The top management sup- the rule of thumb is to delete the item unless it is theoret-
port is considered as critical success which is in line with the ically necessary for the analysis. The analysis of the reli-
findings of Ugwu et al. (2003) [38], Park (2009) [30], Pinto ability tests are tabulated in Tab. 4 showing the accepted
and Kharbanda (1995) [31], Cleland and King (1983) [12] positive α.
and Boyler et al. (2008) [7]. Table 3 ranked risk manage- The test result shows that the alpha scores for sixteen
ment as the fifth highest success factor. Risk management success factors were greater than 0.70 and less than 1.00.
resolves uncertainty relating to outcomes (Ogwueleka, 2009 Five factors scored outside the acceptable range, which
[28]). Uncertainties influence project performance, the abil- show they are not necessary for true satisfaction of success-
ity to analyze project uncertainties will enable mitigation ful project implementation in large Nigerian construction
measures to be taken and applied appropriately (Mendel, projects.
2005). The analysis disclosed risk management as critical
success factor influencing project performance in Nigeria in 5 Conclusion
line with the findings of Cooke-Davie (2002) [13] and Boyler
et al. (2008) [7]. The research survey demonstrated the operating envi-
ronment has a vital role in determining the critical success
4.3 Reliability analysis factors influencing project performance of a project. The re-
sult revealed six critical success factors which can influence
This analysis is aimed at testing if the results are reliable project performance in Nigeria. These factors were objec-
or not. The reliability tests were performed on scales of each tive management, management of design, technical factors,

IJMSEM email for subscription: [email protected]

 348 A. Ogwueleka: The critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria

top management support and risk management. The reli- environmental enterprises. International Institute for Sus-
ability test using Crobach’s α shows that the alpha scores tainable Development, SEED Initiative Research Program.
for sixteen success factors were greater than 0.70 and less [8] Garson, G. (1999). Reliability Analysis. PA 765 Quantita-
than 1.00 and five factors scored outside the acceptable tive Research on public adminstration. Retrieved on Apirl,
range. The analysis shows only the sixteen success factors 2008
are necessary for true satisfaction of successful project im- [9] Casler, S. and Gallatin, M. (1997). Sectoral contributions to
plementation. From the results, the taking up of these six total factor productivity: Another perceptive on the growth
identified critical success factors is essential for practition- shutdown. Journal of Macroeconomics, 19(3):381–393.
ers in order to reduce project failures and increase project [10] Chua, D., Kog, Y., and Loh, P. (1999). Critical success fac-
performance in Nigerian Construction Industry. The find- tors for different project objectives. Journal of Construc-
ings will enable practitioners to gain better understanding tion Engineering and Management, 125:142–150.
on the key areas to focus in order to obtain optimum results. [11] Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to
The research findings are not limited to only practitioners improve the effective of project management. International
in Nigeria but also other developing countries with simi- Journal of Project Management, 17(3):139–145.
lar features. I recommend the results from this study for [12] Cleland, D. and King, W. (1983). Systematic Analysis and
adoption in project delivery as crucial elements to facili- Project Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
tate performance. These results can also be used as input [13] Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real success factors in
variables in developing models for project success. projects. International Journal of Project Management,
6(3):164–170.
[14] Iyer, K. and Tha, K. (2006). Critical factors affecting
Table 4 Results of the accepted reliability tests schedule performance: Evidence from Indian construction
Success factors Cronbach α projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 132(8):871– 881.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

Top management support 0.98

[15] Jugder, K. and Muller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at
Objective management 0.97 our evolving understanding of project success. Project Man-
Nature and market conditions 0.99 agement Journal, 36(4):19–31.
Stakeholder management 0.99 [16] Kothari, C. (2003). Research Methodology, Methods and
Techniques. New Delhi: New Age Publications, 2rd edition.
Project organization 1.0
[17] Krugman, P. (1994). The myth of asia’s miracle. Foreign
Technical Factors 0.98 Affairs, 73(6):62–77.
Management of Design 0.97 [18] Lim, E. and Alum, J. (1995). Construction productivity: Is-
Project planning and control 1.00 sues encountered by contractors in Singapore. International
Journal of Project Management, 13(1):51–58.
Financial support 0.98
[19] Long, N., Ogunlana, S., and Lan, D. (2004). A study of
Communication channels 1.00 project success factors in a large construction projects in
Precise project budget estimate 1.00 Vietnam. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Ar-
chitectural Management, 11(6):404–413.
Commitment of participants 0.99
[20] Malladi, S. (2007). Enhancing project performance and
Skills acquisition and availability of manpower 1.00 productivity-addressing it in project management and be-
Innovative concept 1.00 yond, PM tips and techniques. PM World Today, 9(7).
Risk management 0.98 [21] Marteralla, J. (2007). The eight success factors of a high
performance sales and marketing organisation. A Chally
Contract strategy 0.99
Focus Article, Sales and Marketing: Executive Strategies
for Growth (electronic).
[22] Maylor, H. (2003). Project Management. UK: FT Prentice
References Hall, 3rd edition edition.
[1] Adenikinju, A. (2005). Productivity performance in devel- [23] Mckim, R., Hezagy, T., and Attala, M. (2000). Project per-
oping countries. Country case studies, Occasional paper, formance control in construction projects. Journal of Con-
Nigeria. struction Engineering and Management, 126(2):137–141.
[2] Adenikinju, A. and Ayonrinde, O. (2001). Ownership struc- [24] Morris and Hughes (1987). The anatomy of major projects:
ture, corporate governance and corporate performance. The a study of the reality of project management. Chichester:
case of Nigerian Quoted Companies, Nariobi: AERC. John Wiley and Sons, pages 21–38, 193–270.
[3] Adenikinju, A. and Soludo, C. (1997). Economic policy and [25] Motwani, J., Kumar, A., and Novakoski, M. (1995). Measur-
total factor productivity in Nigeria’s manufacturing sector, ing construction productivity: a practical approach. Work
mimieo. Paris: OECD Development Centre. Study, 44(8):18– 20.
[4] Arain, F. (2007). Critical success factors of project manage- [26] Muburi, F. (2001). Comparative analysis of bidding strate-
ment practices in Pakistan construction industry. Construc- gies of contractors in Uganda. M.Sc thesis, Makerere Uni-
tion Information Quarterly Journal of the Chartered Insti- versity, Kampala.
tute of Building (CIOB), CIQ Paper No. 224, 9(4):179–185. [27] Muller, R. and Turner, J. (2005). The project manager’s
[5] Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature
quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to ac- review. Project Management Journal, 36(2):49–61.
cept other success criteria. International Journal of Project [28] Ogwueleka, A. (2009). Value and Risk Management in Con-
Management, 17(6):337–342. struction Projects-smart strategy. Journal of Environmen-
[6] Belassi, W. and Tukei, O. (1996). A new framework for tal research and Policies, 4(1):89–93.
determining critical success/ failure factors in projects. In- [29] Olav, T., Kjell, A., and Wubishet, J. (2007). Critical suc-
ternational Journal of Project Management, 14(3):141–152. cess factors for project performance: a study from front-end
[7] Boyer, D., Creech, H., and Paas, L. (2008). Critical success assessments of large public projects in Norway. A Study Pa-
factors and performance measures for start-up social and per, New Delhi: New Age Publications.

IJMSEM email for contribution: [email protected]

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 6(5): 343-349, 2011 349

[30] Park, S. (2009). Whole life performance assessment: Crit- [36] Teicholz, P., Goodrum, P., and Haas, C. (2001). U.s con-
ical success factors. Journal of Construction Engineering struction labour productivity trends 1970-1998. Journal
and Management, 135(11):1146–1161. of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5):427–
[31] Pinto, J. and Kharbanda, O. (1995). Successful Project 429.
Mangers: Lending your team to success. New York: Van [37] Ugwu, O. and Kumaraswang, M. (2007). Critical success
Nostrance Reinhold. factor for construction ict projects — some empirical evi-
[32] Rad, P. and Ginger, L. (2002). The Advanced Project Man- dence and lessons for emerging economies. IT conference
agement office, A Comprehensive look at Function and Im- paper, 12:231–249.
plementation. Florida: St Lucie Press. [38] Ugwu, O., Ng, S., and Kumaraswang, M. (2003). Key en-
[33] Rehman, T. and Ogunlana, S. (2009). Construction profes- abler in it implementation — a hong kong construction in-
sionals’ perception of critical success factors for large-scale dustry perceptive in towards a vision for it in civil engineer-
construction projects. Construction Innovation: Informa- ing. 12. Conference Proceedings of 4th Joint symposium on
tion, Process, Management, 9(2):149–167. IT in Civil Engineering, IT conference.
[34] Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executives define their own data [39] Yu, A., Shen, Q., and et al. (2006). Investigation of critical
needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2):13, 81–93. success factors in construction project briefing of content
[35] Shenhar, A., Levy, O., and Doir, D. (1997). Mapping the di- analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
mensions of project success. Management Journal, 28(3):13. agement, 132(11):1178–1186.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 06:46 05 May 2015

IJMSEM email for subscription: [email protected]