Measuring Project Management Performance: Case of Construction Industry

Sevilay Demirkesen1*, Beliz Ozorhon2

1*
Corresponding Author: Post-Doctoral Researcher, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94704,

[email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul,

Turkey, [email protected]

Abstract: This study develops construction-specific determinants and indicators of project

management performance based on the fourteen knowledge areas of the project management

body of knowledge (PMBoK) Guide. Interrelations among the knowledge areas and influence

of these factors on performance are investigated. Data collected from 121 construction projects

are analysed using structural equation modeling. Research findings suggest that project

integration, communications, safety, risk, human resources, financial, and cost management

have a direct impact; whereas scope and time management have indirect effect on performance.

The findings reported in this study are expected to help construction project managers devise

and implement strategies and develop actions to improve project success. An engineering

manager might use the framework developed in this research to conceive the underlying factors

of efficient project management practices.

Keywords: Project management; engineering management; modeling; performance;

construction.

Introduction

Project management continues to be challenging for many industries. Hence, project managers

seek more efficient project management tools and techniques. A need exists for developing

efficient plans and systems to increase an organization's efficiency in executing projects.

Hence, organizations perform better with the better integration of engineering methods,

principles, and technologies into projects, products, and processes. To scrutinize the need for

more efficient engineering management tools, strategies, and methods, a considerable portion

of studies focus on management models and different approaches for measuring performance

in a wide spectrum of industries (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanov, 2003; Eastham, Tucker,

Varma, & Sutton, 2014; Nassar & AbouRizk, 2014; Mizell & Malone, 2007; Zanoni & Audy,

2004).

Considering the global economic impact of the construction industry, performance

measurement in construction is critical as well. Therefore, effective project management is

crucial for higher performance levels in construction. Performance measurement has been

reported to be critical in several research studies (Jin, Deng, & Skitmore, 2013; Kagioglou,

Cooper, & Aouad, 2001; Robinson, Carrillo, Anumba, & A-Ghassani, 2005).

Existing studies regarding performance measurement focus on key performance

indicators (Lin, Shen, Sun, & Kelly, 2011; Ngacho & Das, 2014; Skibniewski & Ghosh, 2009);

balanced scorecard (Halman & Voordijk, 2012; Wang, Lin, & Huang, 2010); maturity models

(Goh & Rowlinson, 2013; Meng, Sun, & Jones, 2011), and critical success factors (Kog & Loh,

2012; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Toor & Ogunlana, 2008).

A portion of the studies focused on project success for the assessment of performance.

For example, measuring success in construction was investigated by Hughes, Tippett, and

Thomas (2004); this study involved a survey to evaluate construction project success.

However, there has not been an agreed way of assessing performance in construction.

This study aims to develop a complete performance measurement model. In this

respect, project management knowledge areas of PMBoK Guide of Project Management

Institute (PMI, 2013) and its Construction Extension (PMI, 2005) are adopted as the main

determinants of performance in construction project management: (1) project integration

management; (2) project scope management; (3) project time management; (4) project cost

management; (5) project quality management; (6) project human resources management; (7)

project communications management; (8) project risk management; (9) project procurement

management; (10) project stakeholder management; (11) project safety management; (12)

project environmental management; (13) project financial management; and (14) project claim

management. Additionally, performance is measured in terms of project success. An extensive

literature review was conducted to identify the components relevant to determinants and

indicators of performance.

The study develops hypotheses regarding the interrelations among determinants and

their influence on performance. To test the hypotheses, data was collected through a

questionnaire survey. Structural Equation Modeling was used for the data analysis.

The main contribution of this study is that it enables engineering managers to develop

practices, acquire solid project management strategies, and benefit from the tools proposed in

the context of this research. Additionally, engineering managers may benefit from the

framework developed in this research to relate their projects to project management knowledge

areas and the components associated. The research extends the project management body of

knowledge by encouraging project managers to utilize the concepts and areas of the Project

Management Body of Knowledge Guide so as to enable them to devise better project

management solutions through the use of a project management framework. Within this

perspective, the model developed contributes to the body of knowledge by bringing up new

components to evaluate when managing practices in knowledge areas. It also introduces the

several relationships encompassing all knowledge areas, which have not been investigated in

previous studies.

This study first introduces previous literature in modeling project management

performance. Then, it presents indicators and determinants of performance, and indicates the
hypotheses constructed accordingly. It then follows the research methodology and presents

data analysis. Finally, it presents the findings of the study along with discussion and concludes

with the results.

Modeling the Project Management Performance

Various studies have been conducted on measuring and managing performance in construction

(Berssaneti & Carvalho, 2015; Chou, Irawan, & Pham, 2013; Doloi, Iyer, & Sawhney, 2011;

Egan, 1998; Jin et al., 2013; Kagioglou et al., 2001; Nudurupati, Arshad, & Turner, 2007).

Performance measurement in the construction industry has been investigated through the

adoption of key performance indicators, balanced scorecard, critical success factors, and

maturity models (Alzahrani & Emsley, 2013; Beatham, Anumba, Thorpe, & Hedges, 2004;

Chan, 2001; Chan, Scott & Chan, 2004).

To best manage projects, the PMBoK Guide (PMI, 2013) proposed ten knowledge areas

for project management and its Construction Extension (PMI, 2005) proposed four additional

ones. Most of the studies focused on individual knowledge areas such as safety management

(Cheng, Ryan, & Kelly, 2012), risk management (Zhao, Hwang, & Low, 2013), and

communications management (Albert, Hallowell, & Kleiner 2014). The effects of project

scope, time, quality, human resources, communication, risk, and procurement management on

project success using structural equation modeling was investigated in a recent study. The study

concluded that communication management is critical for promoting project success (Chou et

al., 2013).

In a recent study, project management competencies of building construction firms

were evaluated on a structural model. The results of the study indicated that project cost, risk,

and quality management skills are the most important factors affecting project success

(Attakora-Amaniampong, 2016). Moreover, contractors’ performance on project success was

assessed by a structural equation model. The results of the study prove that overall success
mostly relies on contractors’ technical ability in planning and controlling the project (Doloi et

al., 2011). A portion of the studies concentrated on the role of the project manager and top

management support in achieving higher project success (Ahmed & Mohamad, 2016;

Anantatmula, 2010).

Nine knowledge areas of PMBoK Guide were adopted to predict project performance

in the construction industry. The proposed model was proven to estimate project outcomes

with a level of accuracy (Ling, Low, Wang, & Egbelakin, 2008). The effects of project

characteristics on project performance in construction projects were also assessed based on a

structural equation model. The results of the study prove that project characteristics positively

influence cost management practices, where cost is a strong indicator of performance (Cho,

Hong, & Hyun, 2009).

However, these studies lack a complete analysis of the fourteen knowledge areas

available for construction. Therefore, this study attempts to fill this gap by first identifying

proper metrics for construction then investigating relationships between these, and quantifying

their influence on performance.

Indicators of Project Management Performance

Project management performance is measured by means of project success as suggested

previously in other studies (Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Wang & Huang,

2006). In terms of project success, a majority of the research studies focus on timely completion

(Chan, Scott, & Lam, 2002; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Egan, 1998; Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Rad,

2003), under budget completion (Berssaneti & Carvalho, 2015; Nudurupati et al. 2007; Papke-

Shields, Beise & Quan, 2010), meeting quality criteria (Chou et al., 2013; Rad, 2003; Tam,

Shen, & Kong, 2011), safely completed work (Almahmoud, Doloi, & Panuwatwanich, 2012;

Lim & Mohamed, 1999), and client satisfaction (Gayatri & Saurabh, 2013; Lim & Mohamed,
1999; Nassar & Abourizk, 2014). In the light of previous studies, this study also utilizes those

mostly cited indicators to measure construction project success.

Determinants of Project Management Performance

The framework proposed in this study involves fourteen knowledge areas of the PMBoK

Guide. In the initial step, a total of 76 components are derived regarding the knowledge areas.

After conducting pilot studies with three university professors and two industry practitioners,

some of the components were either combined or removed to best reflect their corresponding

knowledge areas. In the final step, a total of 58 components under 14 knowledge areas are

obtained. The underlying components of each knowledge area are identified (Exhibit 1).
 Exhibit 1. Components of Project Management Knowledge Areas

Knowledge Area Component Key references

Development of Project Charter Larson and Gray (2011); Mustaro and Rossi (2013); PMI (2013).
Carlile and Rebentisch (2003); Enberg (2012); Heising (2012); Mitropoulos and Tatum (2000); Song and
Knowledge Integration
Song (2010).
Project Integration Process Integration Birkinshaw, Bresman and Håkanson (2000); Mitropoulos and Tatum (2000).
Management Staff Integration Jonas (2010); Enberg (2012); Tiller (2012).
(F1) Ernst, Hoyer and Rübsaamen (2010); Enberg (2012); Gemunden et al. (1996); Henard and Szymanski
Supply Chain Integration
(2001).
Integration of Changes Hornstein (2015); PMI (2013); Turner and Muller (2005).
Project Scope Scope Planning Gumus, Ertas, Tate and Cicek, (2008); Nevo and Chan (2007); PMI (2013).
Management Scope Definition Abrantes and Figueiredo (2014); Hamilton and Jr (1996); Song and Abourizk (2005).
(F2) Scope Changes Abrantes and Figueiredo (2014); Ibbsand Nguyen (2007).
Activity Definition Love et al. (2002); Mustaro and Rossi (2013), PMI (2013).
Activity Sequencing Liberatore and Pollack-Johnson (2006); PMI (2013).
Project Time Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015); Brown, Adams and Amjad (2007); Cooke-Davies (2002); Guerrero,
Time Estimation
Management Villacampa and Montoyo (2014).
(F3) Development of Project Schedule Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015); Khamooshi and Golafshani, (2013).
Schedule Monitoring, Control and
Guerrero et al. (2014); Ibbs and Nguyen (2007); Meng, (2012).
Revision

Aibinu and Pasco (2008); Doloi (2011); PMI (2013); Yildiz, Dikmen, Birgonul, Ercoskun and Alten
Cost Estimation
Project Cost (2014).
Management
(F4)
Determination of Budget Ahsan and Gunawan (2010); Atkinson (1999); Doloi (2011); Kim, Kang and Hwang (2012); PMI (2013).
Atkinson, (1999); Jung and Gibson (1999); Jung and Woo (2004); Doloi (2011); Kim et al. (2012); PMI
Cost Control
(2013).
Qureshi, Warraich and Hijazi (2009); Marques, Gourc and Lauras (2011); Wanberg, Harper, Hallowell and
Project Quality Quality Definition
Rajendran (2013).
Management
Quality Standardization Qureshi et al. (2009); Marques et al. (2011).
(F5)
Quality Assurance and Control Aliverdi, Naeni and Salehipour (2013); Flyvbjerg (2014); PMI (2013); Wanberg et al. (2013).
 Belout and Gauvreau (2004); Buller and McEvoy (2012); Jiang, Klein and Discenza (2002); Khan and
Project Team Composition
Rasheed (2015); Tabassi and Bakar (2009).
Project Human Belout and Gauvreau (2004); Buller and McEvoy (2012); Jiang et al. (2002); Khan and Rasheed (2015);
Workforce Planning
Resource Tabassi and Bakar (2009).
Management Staff Training Belout and Gauvreau (2004); Huselid, Jackson and Schuler (1997); Jiang et al. (2002);
(F6) Performance Development Birasnav (2014); Buller and McEvoy (2012); Tabassi and Bakar, (2009).
Performance Evaluation Huselid et al. (1997); Youndt, Snell, Dean and Lepak (1996).
Badir, Büchel and Tucci (2012); Ochieng and Price (2010); Meng (2012); Senescu, Aranda-Mena and
Communication Strategies
Haymaker (2013); PMI (2013).
Project Communication Technology Arriagada and Alarcon (2014); Meng (2012); Zhang and Ng (2013).
Communications Arriagada and Alarcon (2014); Badir et al. (2012); Ochieng and Price (2010); Senescu et al. (2013); Zhang
Coordination and Collaboration
Management and Ng (2013).
(F7) Arriagada and Alarcon (2014); Badir et al. (2012); Meng (2012); Senescu et al. (2013); Zhang and Ng
Knowledge Sharing
(2013).
Multi-Cultural Communication Ochieng and Price (2010); Pheng and Leong (2000).
Liu, Zhang, Keil and Chen (2009); Sousa et al. (2014); Zou, Chen and Chan (2010); Zhao et al. (2013);
Risk Identification
Hwang, Zhao and Toh (2014).
Project Risk
Bakker, Boonstra and Wortmann (2010); Eybpoosh, Dikmen and Birgonul (2011); Liu et al. (2009); Zhi
Management Risk Analysis
(1995); Zou et al. (2010).
(F8)
Risk Allocation Hwang et al. (2014); Sousa et al. (2014); Zhao et al. (2013); Zou et al. (2010).
Risk Control Hwang et al. (2014); Liu et al. (2009); Sousa et al. (2014); Zhao et al. (2013); Zou et al. (2010).
Chen, Li and Hong (2004); Eriksson and Westerberg (2011); Ruparathna and Hewage (2014); Meng et al.
Supplier Selection
(2011).
Project Procurement Eriksson and Westerberg (2011); Meng et al. (2011); Ruparathna and Hewage (2014); Wardani et al.
Type of Contract
Management (2006);
(F9) Supply of Resources Chen et al. (2004); Eriksson and Westerberg (2011); Meng et al. (2011); Ruparathna and Hewage (2014).
Risk Management in the Supply
Chopra and Sodhi (2004); Zsidisin, Panelli and Upton (2000).
Process
Achterkamp and Vos (2008); Elias, Cavana and Jackson (2002); Jepsen and Eskerod (2009); Yang, Huang
Identification of Stakeholders
and Wu (2011); PMI (2013); Walker, Bourne and Shelley (2008).
Stakeholder Needs, Interests, and Jepsen and Eskerod (2009); Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida (2014); Mok, Shen and Yang (2015); Yang et
Influences al. (2011).
Jepsen and Eskerod (2009); PMI (2013); Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida (2014); Mok et al. (2015); Yang et
Project Stakeholder Stakeholder Engagement
al. (2011);
Management
Stakeholder Conflicts Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida (2014); Yang et al. (2011).
(F10)
 Cheng et al. (2012); Choudhry (2014); Hinze (1997); Mitropoulos, Cupido and Namboodiri, (2009);
Safety Awareness and Culture Molenaar, Park and Washington (2009); Sousa et al. (2014); Tappura, Sievänen, Heikkilä, Jussila and
Nenonen (2015).
Cheng et al. (2012); Choudhry (2014); Hinze (1997); PMI (2005); Mitropoulos et al. (2009); Molenaar et
Project Safety Safety Planning
al. (2009); Tappura et al. (2015).
Management
Cheng et al. (2012); Choudhry (2014); Sousa et al. (2014); Demirkesen and Arditi (2015); Mitropoulos et
(F11) Safety Training
al. (2009); Molenaar et al. (2009); Tappura et al. (2015).
Safety Implementation Cheng et al. (2012); Choudhry (2014); Mitropoulos et al. (2009); Sousa et al. (2014); Tappura et al. (2015).
Cheng et al. (2012); Choudhry (2014); Mitropoulos et al. (2009); Molenaar et al. (2009); Tappura et al.
Safety Inspection and Monitoring
(2015).
Environmental Implementation and
Project Chen et al. (2004); Fuertes et al. (2013); Shen, Wu and Zhang, (2011); Testa, Iraldo and Frey (2011).
Control Measures
Environmental
Environmental Impact Fuertes et al. (2013); Goh and Rowlinson (2013); Shen et al. (2011); Testa et al. (2011).
Management
Environmental Policies and Chen et al. (2004); Fuertes et al. (2013); Goh and Rowlinson (2013); PMI (2005); Shen et al. (2011); Testa
(F12)
Regulations et al. (2011).
Cash Flow Planning Boussabaine and Kaka (1998); Kaka and Price (1993); Pate-Cornell et al. (1990).
Project Financial
Cash Flow Analysis PMI, (2005); Maravas and Pantouvakis (2012).
Management
Foreign Exchange Risk He and Ng (1998); Kapila and Handrickson (2001).
(F13)
Cash Flow Monitoring and Control Bradley and Tomasides (1991); Gardiner and Stewart (2000); Kao, Pan and Lin (2009).
Abdul-Malak, El-Saadi and Abou-Zeid, (2002); PMI (2005); Vidogah and Ndekugri (1997); Zaneldin
Claim Identification
Project Claim (2006).
Management Claim Notification Kartam (1999); Kululanga, Kuotcha, Mccaffer and Edum-Fotwe (2001); PMI (2005).
(F14) Claim Resolution Abdul-Malak et al. (2002); PMI (2005); Vidogah and Ndekugri (1997).
Claim Prevention Kartam (1999); Kululanga et al. (2001); PMI (2005).
Considering the relations between knowledge areas and project management performance, and

interrelations among knowledge areas, a total of 30 hypotheses are developed. Among these,

14 hypotheses represent the relations between knowledge areas and project management

performance; whereas 16 of them represent the interrelations among the knowledge areas. To

best represent the model developed, a visual diagram for the initial model is provided along

with the hypotheses numbered (Exhibit 2). Following sections provide evidence from previous

research to indicate how each hypothesis was developed.

Exhibit 2. Project Management Performance Model with Hypotheses

Hypotheses for the Relationship between the Determinants and Performance Construct

PMBoK Guide lists project integration, scope, cost, time, quality, human resource,

communications, risk, procurement, and stakeholder management as the critical areas in

effective project management (PMI, 2013). The engineering management body of knowledge

(EMBoK) also defines competency areas that professionals should possess. EMBoK Guide

mentions eleven domains: introduction to engineering management, leadership and

organization management, strategic planning, financial resource management, project

management, operations and supply chain management, marketing and sales management in

engineering organizations, management of technology, research, and development, systems

engineering, legal issues in engineering management, and professional codes of conduct and

ethics (Shah, 2012).

One might relate EMBoK Guide to PMBoK Guide in that most of the areas mentioned

in PMBoK coincide with the areas in EMBoK Guide. EMBoK Guide also highlights that the

areas mentioned are crucial for better project management. Apart from those, previous research

also indicated the essential elements of project management.

For example, the critical role of integration in terms of project portfolio management was

highlighted (Heising, 2012). In addition, it was stated that degree of project integration affects

project performance (Mitropoulos & Tatum, 2000).

H1: Effectiveness of “project integration management” has a direct and positive effect on

“project management performance”.

It was reported that effective scope management has a direct impact on the project outcome

(Fageha & Aibinu, 2013).

H2: Effectiveness of “project scope management” has a direct and positive effect on “project

management performance.”

As previously conducted studies prove, effective time management provides enhanced project

management performance (Gayatri & Saurabh, 2013; Ngacho & Das, 2014).

H3: Effectiveness of “project time management” has a direct and positive effect on “project

management performance.”

Cost was also indicated among the most important attributes of a project management model

developed by Salazar-Aramayo, da-Silveira, de-Almeida, & de Castro-Dantas (2013).

H4: Effectiveness of “project cost management” has a direct and positive effect on “project
management performance.”

It was emphasized that quality of work done is among the most important attributes of project

performance measurement (Ali, Al-Sulaihi, & Al-Gahtani, 2013).

H5: Effectiveness of “project quality management” has a direct and positive effect on “project

management performance.”

Project performance and knowledge absorptive capacity of project teams are highly affected

by project human resource management practices (Popaitoon & Siengthai, 2014).

H6: Effectiveness of “project human resource management" has a direct and positive effect on

“project management performance.”

Communication is one of the key components of improved performance (Badir, Buchel, &

Tucci, 2012).

H7: Effectiveness of “project communications management” has a direct and positive effect

on “project management performance.”

It was demonstrated that effective risk management leads to enhanced project performance

(Hwang, Zhao, & Toh, 2014).

H8: Effectiveness of “project risk management" has a direct and positive effect on “project

management performance.”

It was shown that collaborative procurement practices have a positive influence on construction

project performance (Eriksson & Westerberg, 2011).

H9: Effectiveness of “project procurement management” has a direct and positive effect on

“project management performance.”

Stakeholder satisfaction is directly associated with the performance management in

construction (Kagioglu et al., 2001). Stakeholder attributes are among the success factors for

measuring performance (Takim & Akintoye, 2002, Rad, 2003, Bassioni, Price, & Hassan

2004). Project stakeholder management has a direct influence on project success (Freeman
Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & De Colle, 2010).

H10: Effectiveness of “project stakeholder management” has a direct and positive effect on

project management performance.

Construction Extension to A Guide to the PMBOK Guide of PMI (2005) indicates that safety,

environmental, financial, and claim management are among the most important attributes of

project management.

Successful safety management practices have a positive contribution to improved project

performance (Cheng et al., 2012).

H11: Effectiveness of “project safety management” has a direct and positive effect on “project

management performance.”

The strong link between the effectiveness of project environmental management and business

performance was provided (Montabon, Sroufe, & Narasimhan, 2007).

H12: Effectiveness of “project environmental management” has a direct and positive effect on

project management performance.

Financial attributes are highly effective on project performance (Akanni, Oke, & Akpomiemie,

2015).

H13: Effectiveness of “project financial management” has a direct and positive effect on

project management performance.

Effectiveness of claim management is essential in terms of successful completion of project,

which in turn leads to enhanced project performance (Vidogah & Ndekugri, 1997). It was

indicated that successful handling of claims is one of the most important components of

enhanced performance (Jastaniah, 1997).

H14: Effectiveness of “project claim management" has a direct and positive effect on project

management performance.
Hypotheses for the Interrelations among the Determinants of Project Management

Performance

Early studies show that integration management has a direct influence on scope management.

For instance, program or project directors, who use high levels of integration and scope

practices are more likely to be top performers (Crawford, 2005). Scope was listed as one of the

main functions of integration (Grant, 1996).

H15: Effectiveness of “integration management” has a direct and positive effect on “scope

management”.

It was indicated that scope management has a direct impact on the time, procurement,

risk, and quality management (Chou et al., 2013). Strong correlation was found between scope

and time management (Chou & Yang, 2012). The essential function of broadly defined scope

on procurement for achieving better procurement practices was emphasized (Schapper, Veiga,

Malta, & Gilbert, 2006). The critical importance of scope in risk management activities was

implied (Haimes, 2004). The clarity of scope is one of the most important elements of total

quality management (Arditi & Gunaydin, 1997).

H16: Effectiveness of “scope management” has a direct and positive effect on “time

management”.

H17: Effectiveness of “scope management” has a direct and positive effect on “procurement

management”.

H18: Effectiveness of “scope management” has a direct and positive effect on “risk

management”.

H19: Effectiveness of “scope management” has a direct and positive effect on “quality

management”.

The impact of time management on cost management was implied in different studies.

Time-cost trade off problems become a challenge for successful project management since
crashing an activity ensures time saving but increases the cost (Babu & Suresh, 1996). Early

completion of projects might be achieved through cost activities (Hu, Cui, Demeulemeester,

&Bie, 2016; Kerzner, 2009). Studies also emphasized the link between time and claim

management as well. It was provided that untimely notification of claims leads to difficulty

in handling construction claims (Sibanyama, Muya, & Kaliba, 2012).

H20: Effectiveness of “time management” has a direct and positive effect on “cost

management”.

H21: Effectiveness of “time management” has a direct and positive effect on “claim

management”.

The relationship between cost management and quality management was

demonstrated in different studies (Alshawi & Ingirige, 2003; Bowen, Cattel, Hall, Edwards &

Pearl, 2012), which reported that clients demand high quality and low cost at the same time.

H22: Effectiveness of “cost management” has a direct and positive effect on “quality

management”.

The effect of quality management on procurement management was emphasized in

several studies. It was indicated that quality management is strongly associated with

procurement management (Chou et al., 2013). Systems and processes for quality control are

listed as the key elements of a procurement management model to relate quality with

procurement (Yeo & Ning, 2002).

H23: Effectiveness of “quality management” has a direct and positive effect on “procurement

management”.

The link between human resource management and safety management practices was

implied in several studies. Human resource management department plays a critical role in

providing construction workers with feedback about unsafe behaviour and being sensitive

towards contract employment relationships for workplace safety (Kochan et al., 2003; Lai, Liu,
& Ling, 2011). The strong association between human resource management and cost

management was also indicated in several studies (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Singh, 2003) since

recruiting costs, cost of human capital, and training costs of employees are strongly linked to

the cost management processes.

H24: Effectiveness of “human resource management” has a direct and positive effect on

“safety management”.

H25: Effectiveness of “human resource management” has a direct and positive effect on “cost

management”.

Communications management is strongly related with project stakeholder

management. Liaising with stakeholders is critical in terms of effective communications

management (Baccarini, Salm, & Love, 2004). Stakeholder information, response and

involvement are very important for corporate social responsibility communication (Morsing &

Schultz, 2006). Communication is the key point for managing crises arising among

stakeholders and for achieving success (Ulmer, 2001). Improved communication leads to

higher project performance (Chang & Shen, 2009). There is a positive relationship between

communication among top management and project success (Ahmed & Mohamad, 2016).

H26: Effectiveness of “communications management” has a direct and positive impact on

“stakeholder management”.

Previous studies emphasized that risk management has a direct association with the

environmental management. Effective management of environmental risks is essential for the

successful execution of projects (Zhi, 1995). Environmental risks are among the most

important risk categories for construction projects (Al-Bahar & Crandall, 1990). The impact of

risk management on financial management was demonstrated in Odeyinka, Lowe and Kaka’s

(2008) study, which determined that risk factors have direct impact on cash flow forecasts.
H27: Effectiveness of “risk management” has a direct and positive impact on “environmental

management”.

H28: Effectiveness of “risk management” has a direct and positive impact on “financial

management”.

The relationship between environmental management and stakeholder management

was reported in previous studies. For example, it was indicated that stakeholder participation

should be institutionalized in terms of having a more comprehensive and systematic approach

for the solution to technical and environmental problems (Reed, 2008). It was implied that

stakeholders have a strong influence on conservation projects, where environmental factors are

evaluated (De Lopez, 2001).

H29: Effectiveness of “environmental management” has a direct and positive impact on

“stakeholder management”.

The link between financial management and cost management was also sought. For

example, it was mentioned that disclosure costs are important in the choice of financial

resources (Yosha, 1995). Financial objectives were defined in terms of total life cycle cost

(Jaafari, 2001).

H30: Effectiveness of “financial management” has a direct and positive effect on “cost

management”.

Research Methodology

Based on the proposed model, an online questionnaire was designed and administered to

project management professionals in Turkish construction firms. The questionnaires were sent

to key large-scale engineering, construction, and architecture firms. The firms are selected

based on their age, annual turnover and number of employees, which are the indicators of a

large firm. Exhibit 3 reflects the characteristic of responding firms. The targeted respondents

are among members of Turkish Contractors Association, Association of Turkish Consulting

Engineers and Architects, The Turkish Employers’ Association of Construction Industries, and

Architectural Archive of Turkey. A total of 99 online questionnaires were returned out of 508

sent out. To increase the response rate, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 22

professionals, where the same questionnaire items are verbally provided. Face-to-face

interviews are selected among the respondents who did not return the questionnaire in the first

hand and the return rate for face-to-face invitations was 100%. The total responses collected

resulted in 121 responses with a response rate of 24%. The respondents were asked to fill in

the questionnaires based on the project management performance of their completed projects.

The collected data represent 121 different construction projects that were undertaken by

82 different firms, where some of the firms provided multiple data. The survey includes two

main parts: (i) general information about the company, respondent and the project; and (ii)

variables for project management performance. The respondents were asked to evaluate their

project management performance based on the effectiveness of the listed variables using a 1-5

point Likert scale (1: very low, 2: low, 3: medium, 4: high, 5: very high). Additionally, they

evaluated the level of project management performance based on the specified project success

criteria. Exhibit 3 summarizes the characteristics of the respondents.

Exhibit 3. Characteristics of the Respondents

Respondent Firm Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Age of firm (years) 33 29 2 70
Total turnover
612 1.15 0.250 6500
(million dollars)
Number of
4563 100 8 22,000
Employees

The questionnaire also gathered information regarding project characteristics. Exhibit 4

summarizes project characteristics. According to Exhibit 4, most of the projects are building

projects, and contractors are the most numerous respondents in the survey. The average project

duration, based on the information provided, is 2.9 years. The average contracted duration is
2.4 years, indicating delays were common. The most common type of contract is unit price

contract. Finally, most of the projects’ budget lies between 400-600 million US dollars.
 Exhibit 4. Characteristics of the Projects

Project Completion
Project Type Role in the Project Contract Duration Contract Type Contractual Budget
Time
(Numbers) (Numbers) (Average Years) (Numbers) (Million dollars)
(Average Years)
Building (55) Contractor (57) Contractor (3.5) Contractor (2.6) Unit Price (70) 0-200 (13)
Structural Designer Structural Designer Structural Designer
Transportation (21) Turnkey (27) 200-400 (24)
(8) (2.7) (2.2)
Architectural Designer Architectural Designer Architectural Designer
Industrial (17) Lump Sum (16) 400-600 (37)
(6) (2.5) (1.8)
Infrastructure (12) Subcontractor (4) Subcontractor (3.3) Subcontractor (3.2) Cost Plus Fee (6) 600-800 (25)
Build-Operate-
Water Structures (11) Client (4) Client (2.6) Client (2.2) 800-1000 (15)
Transfer (2)
Other (5) Other (3) Other (2.8) Other (2.5) - +1000 (7)
Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using a software package called Analysis of Moment Structures, a

structural equation modeling tool. Structural equation modeling is a multivariate statistical

methodology that is used to analyze structural relationships, and it takes confirmatory approach

into account and tests hypothesis among observed and latent variables (Bollen & Long, 1993;

Byrne, 2012; Hoyle, 1995; Kline, 1998).

A typical structural equation model consists of two parts: the measurement model and

the structural model (Kline, 1998). The measurement model defines how the hypothetical

constructs are measured by means of the observed variables where the structural model

specifies the causal relationships among the latent variables (Byrne, 2012). In structural

equation modeling, the validity of the hypothesized constructs also needs to be tested. There

are two types of validity, namely the content and construct validity, which must be achieved in

a structural equation model.

In this study, research judgment and insight is applied for content validity since there

is no formal statistical test (Garver & Mentzer, 1999). The indicators of each proposed

construct were selected after an in-depth literature review and they were revised with the

contribution of two industry practitioners (one board member, one project manager) and three

university professors, who took part in the pilot studies for establishing the content validity of

the constructs.

Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability are the main elements of the

construct validity. Examination of factor loadings and goodness of fit indices is a method of

assessing convergent validity. Evaluation of inter-correlations between the measures of a

construct is a way of assessing discriminant validity (Byrne, 2012). Factor loadings are

important in confirmatory factor analysis since indicators which are not statistically significant
are deleted from the model. This operation helps improve the internal reliability and fit indices

as well.

Exhibit 5 represents the factor loadings corresponding to the latent and constituent

variables of the model. “F” label in Exhibit 5 represents factor and “V” label represents

variable. It is observed that all factor loadings are statistically significant at α=0.05. Hence,

there is no variable that need to be removed from the initial model.

Exhibit 5. Latent and Constituent Variables of the Model

Label Model Variables Factor Loadings

F1 Project Integration Management
V1 Development of Project Charter 0.761
V2 Knowledge Integration 0.834
V3 Process Integration 0.836
V4 Staff Integration 0.663
V5 Supply Chain Integration 0.710
V6 Integration of Changes 0.759
F2 Project Scope Management
V7 Scope Planning 0.831
V8 Scope Definition 0.810
V9 Scope Changes 0.732
F3 Project Time Management
V10 Activity Definition 0.835
V11 Activity Sequencing 0.800
V12 Time Estimation 0.763
V13 Development of Project Schedule 0.844
V14 Schedule Monitoring, Control and Revision 0.865
F4 Project Cost Management
V15 Cost Estimation 0.954
V16 Determination of Budget 0.890
V17 Cost Control 0.740
F5 Project Quality Management
V18 Quality Definition 0.861
V19 Quality Standardization 0.944
V20 Quality Assurance and Control 0.895
F6 Project Human Resource Management
V21 Project Team Composition 0.610
V22 Workforce Planning 0.651
V23 Staff Training 0.824
V24 Performance Development 0.901
V25 Performance Evaluation 0.817
F7 Project Communications Management
V26 Communication Strategies 0.816
V27 Communication Technology 0.778
V28 Coordination and Collaboration 0.892
V29 Knowledge Sharing 0.838
V30 Multi-Cultural Communication 0.708
F8 Project Risk Management
V31 Risk Identification 0.883
V32 Risk Analysis 0.925
V33 Risk Allocation 0.913
V34 Risk Control 0.900
F9 Project Procurement Management
V35 Supplier Selection 0.901
V36 Type of Contract 0.875
V37 Supply of Resources 0.859
V38 Risk Management in the Supply Process 0.760
F10 Project Stakeholder Management
V39 Identification of Stakeholders 0.872
V40 Stakeholder Needs, Interests and Influences 0.913
V41 Stakeholder Engagement 0.929
V42 Stakeholder Conflicts 0.860
F11 Project Safety Management
V43 Safety Awareness and Culture 0.910
V44 Safety Planning 0.928
V45 Safety Training 0.894
V46 Safety Implementation 0.934
V47 Safety Inspection and Monitoring 0.912
F12 Project Environmental Management
V48 Environmental Implementation and Control Measures 0.913
V49 Environmental Impact 0.959
V50 Environmental Policies and Regulations 0.954
F13 Project Financial Management
V51 Cash Flow Planning 0.904
V52 Cash Flow Analysis 0.917
V53 Foreign Exchange Risk 0.789
V54 Cash Flow Monitoring and Control 0.871
F14 Project Claim Management
V55 Claim Identification 0.822
V56 Claim Notification 0.856
V57 Claim Resolution 0.806
V58 Claim Prevention 0.773
F15 Project Management Performance
V59 Time 0.499
V60 Cost 0.500
V61 Quality 0.591
V62 Safety 0.634
V63 Client Satisfaction 0.656
 Exhibit 6 presents the reliability values and fit indices for the constructs of the model.

The reliability of the all constructs is satisfied when Cronbach’s ‘α’ coefficient is over 0.7 for

all the constructs (Nunnally, 1978). For testing goodness of fit, Chi-square (χ2) test was

assessed. The smaller the Chi-square value, the better fit is observed. In analysis of moment

structures, a ratio of Chi-square over degree of freedom is proposed as a fit measure. Although

there is no agreed consensus on Chi-square over degree of freedom value, a ratio lower than

5.0 is an acceptable range (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). Relative fit index (Bollen, 1986),

Comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990), and Tucker-Lewis index (Tucker and Lewis, 1973) are

measures for comparing the proposed model to the null or independence model. The values of

those indices lie between 0 and 1.0 where values approaching 1.0 indicate good fit.

The root mean square error of approximation (Steiger & Lind, 1980) is a parsimony-

adjusted index, which includes a built-in correction for model complexity. A threshold value

of root mean square error of approximation was previously proposed indicating that values less

than 0.1 shows acceptable fit (Kline, 1998). Exhibit 6 shows that the reliability of all constructs

and fit indices are in the acceptable ranges with a few exceptions in some of the indices.

However, the values of fit indices and root mean square error of approximation values are close

to the cut-off value of 0.9 for the fit indices and 0.1 for the recommended root mean square

error of approximation threshold.

Nonetheless, research studies have previously implied that these cut-off points are

subjective measures depending on the substantial amount of experience of the researchers

(Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Steiger, 1989). Moreover, a group of studies demonstrated that the

use of precise numerical cut-off values for root mean square error of approximation should not

be considered too seriously (Hayduk & Glaser 2000; Steiger 2000).

! 24!
 Exhibit 6. Reliability and Fit Indices for the Constructs of the Model

Recommended
Index F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15
Value
Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7 0.896 0.864 0.898 0.898 0.917 0.875 0.898 0.945 0.892 0.935 0.954 0.953 0.916 0.875 0.822

Chi Square/Degree of freedom < 5.0 1.834 1.345 1.472 1.778 1.158 1.482 1.746 1.557 1.782 3.662 2.016 1.989 1.543 1.391 4.607

Relative Fit Index > 0.9 0.932 0.978 0.964 0.980 0.988 0.959 0.956 0.981 0.970 0.954 0.972 0.985 0.977 0.971 0.841

Comparative Fit Index > 0.9 0.987 0.998 0.995 0.997 0.999 0.996 0.994 0.999 0.998 0.989 0.996 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.949

Tucker-Lewis Index > 0.9 0.968 0.994 0.988 0.991 0.998 0.986 0.981 0.993 0.987 0.966 0.986 0.993 0.992 0.992 0.871

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation < 0.1 0.084 0.054 0.063 0.081 0.036 0.064 0.079 0.068 0.081 0.150 0.092 0.091 0.068 0.057 0.174

! 25!
 Structural equation modeling tests the hypotheses between the validated constructs. In

the first step, the relationships among the determinants of project management performance

are assessed. Exhibit 7 presents the hypothesized relationships for project management

performance. The arrows represent the direction of influences between the parameters of the

model where the numbers on the arrows show the path coefficients. Path coefficients are the

equivalents of regression weights except that there is no intercept term in structural equation

modeling. An interpretation guideline adopted from Murari (2015) is used for evaluating the

strength of association between variables, where the path coefficient ranging from 0.1 to 0.3

shows weak; 0.3 to 0.5 moderate, and 0.5 to 1.0 strong association.

In the second step, the influences of each determinant on overall management

performance are assessed. A significant and moderate effect of “integration management” with

a path coefficient of 0.435 on “project management performance” is found. “Communications

management” (0.352) and “safety management” (0.323) are found to have a positive and

moderate effect on “performance”. “Human resource management” (0.275), “cost

management” (0.235), “risk management” (0. 234), and “financial management” (0.222) were

all found to have a positive and weak effect on “performance”. Unlike the above knowledge

areas, the influences of “environmental management” (0.015), “quality management” (0.062),

“stakeholder management” (0.084), “scope management” (0.113), “time management”

(0.128), “claim management” (0.142), and “procurement management” (0.141) on

“performance” are not found to be statistically significant.

The paths that are not statistically significant, represented by the dashed lines, are

eliminated from the initial model. The final path coefficients are shown in Exhibit 7.

! 26!
 Exhibit 7. Project Management Model

In some cases, both direct and indirect or only indirect effects are observed. For

example, scope management has an indirect effect on performance through risk management;

time management through cost management; risk management through financial management

in addition to its direct effect on performance; human resource management through cost

management in addition to its direct effect; and financial management through cost

management as well as its direct effect.

Exhibit 8 presents the reliability values and fit indices for the initial and modified

model. Cronbach’s Alpha values were found higher than 0.7 as recommended by Nunnally

(1978). Relative fit index, Confirmatory fit index and Tucker-Lewis index values were also

found around 0.9, which indicates good fit of the model to the data. Furthermore, root mean

square error of approximation values were found to be below the threshold value as

recommended by (Kline, 1998). Finally, the correlation matrices were calculated for all

constructs and the intercorrelations were all found below 0.90, which indicated that there is no

multicollinearity (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). Exhibit 8 shows that the fit indices

are slightly better in the final model. According to Exhibit 8, it is clear that model fit is ensured.

! 27!
 Exhibit 8. Reliability and Fit Indices

Index Recommended Value Initial Model Final Model

Cronbach's Alpha > 0.7 0.980 0.980

Chi square/Degree of Freedom < 5.0 1.682 1.566

Tucker-Lewis Index 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.847 0.901

Incremental Fit Index 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.859 0.911

Comparative Fit Index 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.857 0.909

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation < 0.10 0.072 0.058

Discussion of Findings

Among the 16 hypotheses developed in this study regarding the interrelations among the

knowledge areas, 15 were validated as suggested in the literature. However, the hypothesis

regarding the influence of cost management on quality management was rejected despite

several studies that found the link between cost and quality management (Alshawi & Ingirige,

2003; Bowen et al., 2012). This may be because contractors in Turkey are much more sensitive

about achieving under budget completion rather than ensuring the specified quality

requirements.

Among the 14 hypotheses related with project performance, seven were validated

whereas seven were rejected. This is mainly because the model involves a high number of

determinants and the magnitudes of influence of those determinants on performance are found

to be low compared to a model that involves a fewer number of constructs. The expected

positive effect of integration, cost, human resource, communications, safety, risk, and financial

management on performance was validated by the analysis as also provided in the literature. It

is also essential to note that the positive effects of these areas on performance are supported

with well-set practices such as incentive and reward mechanisms that intend to increase

employee performance on the project. These reward mechanisms might have a considerable

! 28!
impact on project success in that employees get motivated or work towards improving their

skills.

It is interesting to note that the positive influence of scope management on performance

was not validated despite the previous studies supporting the direct association between project

scope management and performance (Koskela & Howell, 2002). On the other hand, it is found

that scope management has indirect effects through risk and environmental management,

which proves its relative importance. The reason behind the low direct impact of scope

management on performance might be that firms do not indicate clear specifications, roles and

responsibilities of the project parties in defining the project scope, which in turn leads to poor

scope management.

Although researchers have previously indicated that effective project time management

contributes to enhanced project performance (Gayatri & Saurabh, 2013; Ngacho & Das, 2014),

positive effect of time management on performance was not validated by the analysis.

However, indirect effect of time management on performance through project cost

management was observed. This may be because construction firms in Turkey are more

sensitive to under budget completion rather than on time completion. Since owner expectations

mostly focus on the use of monetary resources, it is not surprising that many of the firms put

more focus on cost management. Moreover, it is worth noting the impact of ease of

measurement of cost on performance than time. Schedule is less clear in terms of considering

the exact project start and completion due to the subjectivity in deciding when the tasks are

100% done.

The expected effect of quality management on performance was rejected despite

several studies indicating the relationship between quality and performance (Atkinson, 1999;

Chua, Kog, & Loh, 1999; Westerveld, 2003). As indicated by Koskela & Howell (2002), the

! 29!
reason might be that the firms evaluate cost minimization as one of the priorities whereas

quality is regarded as one of the secondary objectives that must be achieved in the project.

Effect of procurement management on performance was found insignificant unlike the

previous research, which indicated strong effect of procurement management on project

performance (Eriksson & Westerberg, 2011; Ling, Low, Wang, & Lim, 2009). This may be

because some firms manage supply chain relations through subcontractors, and they do not set

up any project procurement management department.

Effect of stakeholder management on performance was also found insignificant despite

the studies supporting evidence of the relationship between stakeholder management and

performance (Atkinson, Crawford, &Ward, 2006; Rowlinson & Cheung, 2008). This may be

as attributed to the fact that stakeholder management is not as important as the other project

management areas such as cost and time management as mentioned in past studies (Rayner &

Reiss, 2001; Thiry, 2002).

Environmental management was not found to affect performance unlike previous

research (Chan & Chan, 2004; Montabon, Sroufe, & Narasimhan, 2007; Yang, Chen, & Wang,

2012). This may be because firms are more focused on short term profiting due to the fact that

environmental activities may bring extra costs.

Finally, the hypothesis regarding the influence of claim management on performance

was rejected even though several research studies indicated that claim management has a

considerable impact on performance (Nitithamyong & Skibniewski, 2006). The reason behind

this finding might be the higher influence levels of the other knowledge areas such as

integration, communications, safety, cost, and human resource management.

The impact of project characteristics on project success was also sought. The findings

indicate that water structures are completed with higher success rates compared to the other

project types such as infrastructure, building, and transportation. Small size projects are found

! 30!
to be more successful; longer durations lead to lower success rates; projects involving

consortiums are more likely to succeed; and cost-plus fee contracts are more advantageous over

other contract types.

Implications for Engineering Managers

Engineering managers are in charge of integrating engineering principles into business

practices. Hence, they need to work in close coordination with all members of the project. To

better manage projects, engineering managers are expected to be familiar with the concepts of

performance management. This study proposes a unique set of variables for project

management performance where core components of project management are presented in a

conceptual model. Moreover, the relations among the aspects of project management are

quantified. With the adoption of the model developed, engineering managers might better

coordinate projects by analyzing the metrics developed for aspects of project management and

integrate these into the projects so as to better coordinate and collaborate throughout the

project. This will also help engineering managers experience improved project performance,

which in turn results in trust for future projects. This study enables engineering managers to

benefit from increased awareness of the low performing areas, enabling them to adopt

appropriate strategies for improved performance. Based on the dominant impacts of project

integration, human resources, financial, and risk management, engineering managers can

become aware that innovative and integrative solutions are required to better perform in project

management. The model proposed in the study is also expected to encourage engineering

managers for successful project evaluation in the light of upper level executives’ perceptions

and devise strategies to motivate project members for improved performance.

Conclusions

! 31!
This study has proposed a project management performance model for construction firms. In

this respect, project management knowledge areas have been adopted as the key determinants

of performance. The model comprises a total of 63 components related to project management

performance, where 58 belong to knowledge areas and 5 belong to performance construct. Data

was collected from 121 projects through a questionnaire survey. Structural equation modeling

was used to validate the model and test the hypotheses.

Findings of the study reveal that project integration, human resource, financial, and risk

management contribute both directly and indirectly to improved performance. Project

communications, safety, and cost management are found to have direct impact on performance.

Project scope and time management are observed to affect performance indirectly over risk and

cost management. However, the effects of project claim, procurement, quality, stakeholder,

and environmental management on performance were not found to be significant. Apart from

the association between the determinants and performance, strong links were observed among

the determinants as well.

The following recommendations are provided to improve project management performance

within construction firms:

•! Based on the high influence of integration, human resource, financial, and risk

management on performance, firms are expected to focus on these areas. For more

effective integration management, they should prioritize key integration initiatives, develop

sound feasibility reports and tracking mechanisms, consider issue and change management,

and make accurate status reporting. In this respect, Integrated Project Delivery Systems,

Building Information Modeling, Radio Frequency Identification, and Enterprise Resource

Planning may be adopted as tools supporting integration in construction.

Regarding human resources, the following factors are considered to be critical:

determination of workforce, establishment of reward mechanisms for project personnel,

! 32!
 and performance development and evaluation. It is advised that firms evaluate their

financial viability and resources at the beginning of the projects, and establish financial

monitoring and controlling systems for improved performance in financial management.

Firms are encouraged to prioritize project risks, set up risk management procedures where

risks are identified, categorized, and allocated in an appropriate manner.

•! Based on the positive effect of communications, safety, and cost management on

performance, it is suggested that firms try to improve their capabilities in these areas. In

terms of communications, firms may benefit from project-based knowledge management

systems, web-based communication, and information communication technologies. They

are encouraged to organize frequent safety training sessions, establish incentive

mechanisms for safety personnel, enhance awareness for safety, set work safe procedures,

and adopt zero accident policies. They are also advised to enhance cost performance

through determining critical milestones and cost breakdown structures, developing

progress monitoring curves, conducting earned value analysis, and adopting lean

construction techniques for maximization of value whilst minimizing waste.

•! Based on the indirect impacts of scope and time management on performance, these areas

should not be ignored. Firms should pay attention to the existence of clear objectives,

expectations, definition of project scope and activities, and prioritization of stakeholders’

expectations. Additionally, they should focus extensively on prioritization of project

activities, accurate activity duration estimation, and accurate determination of milestones.

Contractors are encouraged to use the proposed model and its components to measure their

project management performance and benefit from its findings to improve low performing

areas. Findings show the importance of technology and therefore, firms should invest more on

learning advanced tools and concepts to enhance their performance. Although the model is

! 33!
based on completed project information, the study provides strategies that could be used both

at the pre-project phase and for on-going projects.

One of the limitations of this study is that the data was collected from Turkish contractors

and therefore it reflects their experiences and opinions. Data from different projects undertaken

by different companies might result in varying findings. However, the main contribution of the

study to the literature is that it provides construction specific measures for project management

performance. The proposed model could easily be used in other studies and the findings may

be used for comparison. This model may serve as the basis for developing an entirely

construction-specific model for measuring project management performance. As a future work,

a new set of knowledge areas might be composed along with tools and strategies to support

those areas.

Acknowledgement

This study This paper is produced based on a research project funded by Bogazici University

Research Fund (BAP) under the grant number 9180.

About the Authors

Dr. Sevilay Demirkesen is a post-doctoral scholar in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. She completed a doctoral

degree in Civil Engineering from Bogazici University. Her current research focuses on lean

construction, construction safety, and performance measurement.

Dr. Beliz Ozorhon has been working as a faculty member of Construction Management in

Civil Engineering department since 2010. She worked on performance modeling of

international construction joint ventures in her PhD study. She worked as a researcher in

Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey), Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago,

IL), and the University of Salford (Manchester, UK). Her research focuses on process and

! 34!
performance management, construction innovation, building information modeling, and

international construction.

References

Abdul-Malak, M. A., El-Saadi, M. M., & Abou-Zeid, M. G. (2002). Process Model for

Administrating Construction Claims. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(2), 84-94.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2002)18:2(84).

Abrantes, R., & Figueiredo, J. (2014). Feature based process framework to manage

scope in dynamic NPD portfolios. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 874-

884. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.014.

Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion

in project management literature, a meta-analysis. International Journal of Project

Management, 26(7), 749-757. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.001.

Ahmed, R. & Mohamad, A.N., (2016). Exploring the Relationship Between Multi-

Dimensional Top Management Support and Project Success: An International Study,

Engineering Management Journal, 28 (1), 54-67, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2015.1136525.

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

international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 68-

78. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.03.005.

Aibinu, A. A., & Pasco, T. (2008). The accuracy of pre!tender building cost estimates

in Australia. Construction Management and Economics, 26(12), 1257-1269.

doi:10.1080/01446190802527514.

Akanni, P.O., Oke, A.E., & Akpomiemie, A.O. (2015). Impact of Environmental

Factors on Building Project Performance in Delta State Nigeria. HBRC Journal, 11(1), 91-97.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.02.010.

! 35!
 Al!Bahar, J. F., & Crandall, K. C. (1990). Systematic Risk Management Approach for

Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(3), 533-

546. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1990)116:3(533).

Ali, M.A.E.H, Al-Sulaihi, A.I., & Al-Gahtani, S.K. (2013). Indicators for Measuring

Performance of Building Construction Companies in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of

King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, 25 (2), 125-134.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2012.03.002.

Albert, A., Hallowell, M. R., & Kleiner, B. M. (2014). Enhancing Construction Hazard

Recognition and Communication with Energy-Based Cognitive Mnemonics and Safety

Meeting Maturity Model: Multiple Baseline Study. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 140(2), 04013042. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000790.

Aliverdi, R., Naeni, L. M., & Salehipour, A. (2013). Monitoring project duration and

cost in a construction project by applying statistical quality control charts. International

Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 411-423. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.005.

Almahmoud, E. S., Doloi, H. K., & Panuwatwanich, K. (2012). Linking project health

to project performance indicators: Multiple case studies of construction projects in Saudi

Arabia. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 296-307.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.07.001.

Alshawi, M., & Ingirige, B. (2003). Web-enabled project management: An emerging

paradigm in construction. Automation in Construction, 12(4), 349-364. doi:10.1016/s0926-

5805(03)00003-7.

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

construction project success: A post construction evaluation. International Journal of Project

Management, 31(2), 313-322. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.006.

! 36!
 Anantatmula, V.S., (2010). Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project

Performance, Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13-22, doi:

10.1080/10429247.2010.11431849.

Arditi, D., & Gunaydin, H. M. (1997). Total quality management in the construction

process. International Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 235-243. doi:10.1016/s0263-

7863(96)00076-2.

Arriagada, D.R., & Alarcon C.L., (2014). Knowledge management and maturation

model in construction companies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

140(4), B4013006.

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

a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project

Management, 17(6), 337-342. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6.

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects

and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8),

687-698. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011.

Attakora-Amaniampong, E. (2016). Project management competencies of building

construction firms: A structural equation model approach. Architecture Research, 6(3), 68-79.

doi: 10.5923/j.arch.20160603.03.

Babu, A., & Suresh, N. (1996). Project management with time, cost, and quality

considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, 88(2), 320-327.

doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00202-9.

Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P.E.D., (2004). Management of risk in information

technology projects. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104 (4), 286-295.

Badir, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). A conceptual framework of the impact

of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An

! 37!
alliance case context. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 914-926.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.013.

Bakker, K. D., Boonstra, A., & Wortmann, H. (2010). Does risk management contribute

to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. International Journal of Project

Management, 28(5), 493-503. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.07.002.

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

Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(2), 42-50. 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-

597X(2004)20:2(42).

Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T., & Hedges, I. (2004). KPIs: A critical appraisal

of their use in construction. Benchmarking: An International Journal Benchmarking, 11(1),

93-117. doi:10.1108/14635770410520320.

Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: The impact of

human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-11.

doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(03)00003-6.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

Berssaneti, F. T., & Carvalho, M. M. (2015). Identification of variables that impact

project success in Brazilian companies. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3),

638-649. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.002.

Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the

service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional

leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1622-1629.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.006.

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Håkanson, L. (2000). Managing the Post-acquisition

Integration Process: How the Human Iintegration and Task Integration Processes Interact to

! 38!
Foster Value Creation. Journal of Management Studies, 37(3), 395-425. doi:10.1111/1467-

6486.00186.

Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett's nonnormed fit index.

Psychometrika, 51(3), 375-377. doi:10.1007/bf02294061.

Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park:

Sage Publications.

Boussabaine, A., & Kaka, A. (1998). A neural networks approach for cost flow

forecasting. Construction Management and Economics, 16(4), 471-479.

doi:10.1080/014461998372240.

Bowen, P., Cattel, K., Hall, K., Edwards, P., & Pearl, R. (2012). Perceptions of Time,

Cost and Quality Management on Building Projects. Australasian Journal of Construction

Economics and Building, 2(2), 48. doi:10.5130/ajceb.v2i2.2900.

Bradley, R. M., & Tomasides, C. H. (1991). Financial Management as Tool for

Management Development of Engineers. Journal of Management in Engineering, 7(2), 223-

236. doi:10.1061/(asce)9742-597x(1991)7:2(223).

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In:

Bollen, K.; Long, J., editors. Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage; Newbury Park, CA:

1993. p. 136-162.

Brown, A., Adams, J., & Amjad, A. (2007). The relationship between human capital

and time performance in project management: A path analysis. International Journal of Project

Management, 25(1), 77-89. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.011.

Buller, P. F., & Mcevoy, G. M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and

performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22(1), 43-56.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.002.

! 39!
 Byrne, B.M., (2012). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts,

Applications, and Programming. Taylor and Francis Group, New York, USA.

Carlile, P., & Rebentisch, E. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation

cycle. IEEE Engineering Management Review IEEE, 31(4), 67-67.

doi:10.1109/emr.2003.24940.

Chan, A. P. (2001). Time–cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia.

International Journal of Project Management, 19(4), 223-229. doi:10.1016/s0263-

7863(99)00072-1.

Chan, A. P., Scott, D., & Lam, E. W. (2002). Framework of Success Criteria for

Design/Build Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 120-128.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2002)18:3(120).

Chan, A. P., Scott, D., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a

Construction Project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management J. Constr. Eng.

Manage., 130(1), 153-155. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153).

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

construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal Benchmarking, 11(2), 203-221.

doi:10.1108/14635770410532624.

Chang, A. S., & Shen, F. (2009). Coordination Needs and Supply of Construction

Projects. Engineering Management Journal, 21(4), 44-57,

doi:10.1080/10429247.2009.11431844.

Chen, Z., Li, H., & Hong, J. (2004). An integrative methodology for environmental

management in construction. Automation in Construction, 13(5), 621-628.

doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2004.04.006.

! 40!
 Cheng, E. W., Ryan, N., & Kelly, S. (2012). Exploring the perceived influence of safety

management practices on project performance in the construction industry. Safety Science,

50(2), 363-369. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.09.016.

Cho, K., Hong, T., & Hyun, C. (2009). Effect of project characteristics on project

performance in construction projects based on structural equation model. Expert Systems with

Applications, 36, 10461-10470. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.032.

Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M.S., (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 (1), 53-62.

Chou, J., & Yang, J. (2012). Project Management Knowledge and Effects on

Construction Project Outcomes: An Empirical Study. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 47-

67. doi:10.1002/pmj.21293.

Chou, J., Irawan, N., & Pham, A. (2013). Project Management Knowledge of

Construction Professionals: Cross-Country Study of Effects on Project Success. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11), 04013015. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-

7862.0000766.

Choudhry, R. M. (2014). Behavior-based safety on construction sites: A case study.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 70, 14-23. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.007.

Chua, D. K., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. (1999). Critical Success Factors for Different

Project Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 142-150.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142).

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal

of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9.

Crawford, C. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position

on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6-16.

doi:10.1108/13673270510629927.

! 41!
 De Lopez, T. T. (2001). Stakeholder Management for Conservation Projects: A Case

Study of Ream National Park, Cambodia 1. Environmental Management, 28(1), 47-60.

doi:10.1007/s002670010206.

Demirkesen, S., & Arditi, D. (2015). Construction safety personnel's perceptions of

safety training practices. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1160-1169.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.007.

Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary Turnover, Social Capital, And

Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446-456.

doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4845830.

Doloi, H. K. (2011). Understanding stakeholders' perspective of cost estimation in

project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 622-636.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.001.

Doloi, H., Iyer, K., & Sawhney, A. (2011). Structural equation model for assessing

impacts of contractor's performance on project success. International Journal of Project

Management, 29(6), 687-695. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.05.007.

Eastham, J., Tucker, D., Varma, S., & Sutton, S. (2014). PLM Software Selection

Model for Project Management Using Hierarchical Decision Modeling With Criteria From

PMBOK® Knowledge Areas, Engineering Management Journal, 26(3), 13-24. doi:

10.1080/10429247.2014.11432016.

Egan, J., (1998). Rethinking construction, the construction task force, Rep. Prepared

for the Deputy Prime Minister, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D

project management. R&D Management, 32(4), 301-310. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00262.

! 42!
 Enberg, C. (2012). Enabling knowledge integration in coopetitive R&D projects — The

management of conflicting logics. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 771-

780. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.003.

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

procedures on construction project performance: A conceptual framework. International

Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 197-208. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.003.

Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, Marketing, and Research-

and-Development Cooperation Across New Product Development Stages: Implications for

Success. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 80-92. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.80.

Eybpoosh, M., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2011). Identification of Risk Paths in

International Construction Projects Using Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1164-1175. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-

7862.0000382.

Fageha, M.K., & Aibinu, A.A. (2013). Managing Project Scope Definition to Improve

Stakeholders' Participation and Enhance Project Outcome. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 74, 154-164. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.038.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An

Overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6-19. doi:10.1002/pmj.21409.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., & De Colle, S. (2010).

Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Presentation, Cambridge.

Fuertes, A., Casals, M., Gangolells, M., Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., & Roca, X. (2013).

An Environmental Impact Causal Model for improving the environmental performance of

construction processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 425-437.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.005.

Jastaniah, Y. (1997). Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking of Construction

! 43!
Industry Projects Using Data Envelope Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Southern Methodist

University.

Gardiner, P. D., & Stewart, K. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and

quality: The role of NPV in project control, success and failure. International Journal of

Project Management, 18(4), 251-256. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(99)00022-8.

Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T., (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing

structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1),

33-58.

Gayatri, V., & Saurabh, K., (2013). Performance indicators for construction project.

International Journal of Advanced Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 2(1), 61-66.

Gemunden, H. G., Ritter, T., & Heydebreck, P. (1996). Network configuration and

innovation success: An empirical analysis in German high-tech industries. International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(5), 449-462. doi:10.1016/s0167-8116(96)00026-2.

Goh, C. S., & Rowlinson, S. (2013). Conceptual Maturity Model for Sustainable

Construction. J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute

Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 5(4), 191-195. doi:10.1061/(asce)la.1943-

4170.0000129.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat. Mgmt. J.

Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110.

Guerrero, M. A., Villacampa, Y., & Montoyo, A. (2014). Modeling construction time

in Spanish building projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 861-873.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.009.

Gumus, B., Ertas, A., Tate, D., & Cicek, I. (2008). The Transdisciplinary Product

Development Lifecycle model. Journal of Engineering Design, 19(3), 185-200.

doi:10.1080/09544820701232436.

! 44!
 Haimes, Y.Y., (2004). Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, Hoboken, Wiley.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C., (1998). Multivariate Data

Analysis, Prentice Hall International, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Halman, J. I., & Voordijk, J. T. (2012). Balanced Framework for Measuring

Performance of Supply Chains in House Building. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 138(12), 1444-1450. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000553.

Hamilton, M. R., & Jr., G. E. (1996). Benchmarking Preproject Planning Effort.

Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(2), 25-33. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-

597x(1996)12:2(25).

Hayduk, L. A., & Glaser, D. N. (2000). Jiving the Four-Step, Waltzing Around Factor

Analysis, and Other Serious Fun. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,

7(1), 1-35. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0701_01.

He, J., & Ng, L. K. (1999). The Foreign Exchange Exposure of Japanese Multinational

Corporations. African Journal of Finance and Management, 7(2).

doi:10.4314/ajfm.v7i2.24347.

Heising, W. (2012). The integration of ideation and project portfolio management —

A key factor for sustainable success. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 582-

595. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.014.

Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why Some New Products Are More

Successful Than Others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362-375.

doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861.

Hinze, J.W., (1997). Construction Safety. Prentice Hall, Columbus.

Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational

change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2),

291-298. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.005.

! 45!
 Hoyle, R.H., (1995). The structural equation modeling approach. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),

Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, X., Cui, N., Demeulemeester, E., & Bie, L. (2016). Incorporation of activity

sensitivity measures into buffer management to manage project schedule risk. European

Journal of Operational Research, 249(2), 717-727. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.066.

Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D. D., & Thomas, W. K. (2004). Measuring Project Success in

the Construction Industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16(3), 31-37,

doi:10.1080/10429247.2004.11415255.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical And Strategic Human

Resources Management Effectiveness As Determinants Of Firm Performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 40(1), 171-188. doi:10.2307/257025.

Hwang, B., Zhao, X., & Toh, L. P. (2014). Risk management in small construction

projects in Singapore: Status, barriers and impact. International Journal of Project

Management, 32(1), 116-124. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.007.

Ibbs, W., & Nguyen, L. D. (2007). Schedule Analysis under the Effect of Resource

Allocation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(2), 131-138.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2007)133:2(131).

Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects:

Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89-101.

doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(99)00047-2.

Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in

using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4),

335-343. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002.

! 46!
 Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Discenza, R. (2002). Pre-project partnering impact on an

information system project, project team and project manager. European Journal of

Information Systems, 11(2), 86-97. doi:10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000420.

Jin, Z., Deng, F., Li, H., & Skitmore, M. (2013). Practical Framework for Measuring

Performance of International Construction Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 139(9), 1154-1167. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000718.

Jonas, D. (2010). Empowering project portfolio managers: How management

involvement impacts project portfolio management performance. International Journal of

Project Management, 28(8), 818-831. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.002.

Jung, Y., & Gibson, G. E. (1999). Planning for Computer Integrated Construction.

Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(4), 217-225. doi:10.1061/(asce)0887-

3801(1999)13:4(217).

Jung, Y., & Woo, S. (2004). Flexible Work Breakdown Structure for Integrated Cost

and Schedule Control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(5), 616-

625. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2004)130:5(616).

Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., & Aouad, G. (2001). Performance management in

construction: A conceptual framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), 85-

95. doi:10.1080/01446190010003425.

Kaka, A. P., & Price, A. D. (1993). Modelling standard cost commitment curves for

contractors' cash flow forecasting. Construction Management and Economics, 11(4), 271-283.

doi:10.1080/01446199300000027.

Kao, J., Pan, T., & Lin, C. (2009). An environmental sustainability based budget

allocation system for regional water quality management. Journal of Environmental

Management, 90(2), 699-709. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.003.

! 47!
 Kapila, P., & Hendrickson, C. (2001). Exchange Rate Risk Management in

International Construction Ventures. Journal of Management in Engineering J. Manage. Eng.,

17(4), 186-191. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2001)17:4(186).

Kartam, S. (1999). Generic Methodology for Analyzing Delay Claims. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 125(6), 409-419. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-

9364(1999)125:6(409).

Kerzner, H., (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling

and controlling, 10th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hooboken, New Jersey.

Khamooshi, H., & Golafshani, H. (2014). EDM: Earned Duration Management, a new

approach to schedule performance management and measurement. International Journal of

Project Management, 32(6), 1019-1041. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.11.002.

Khan, A. S., & Rasheed, F. (2015). Human resource management practices and project

success, a moderating role of Islamic Work Ethics in Pakistani project-based organizations.

International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 435-445.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.006.

Kim, J., Kang, C., & Hwang, I. (2012). A practical approach to project scheduling:

Considering the potential quality loss cost in the time–cost tradeoff problem. International

Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 264-272. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.004.

Kline, R. B., (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New

York: Guilford.

Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine,

D., Thomas, D., (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the

diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3-21.

doi:10.1002/hrm.10061.

! 48!
 Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. (2012). Critical Success Factors for Different Components of

Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(4), 520-

528. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000464.

Koskela, L., & Howell, G., (2002). The underlying theory of project management is

obsolete, Proceedings of PMI Research Conference, Seattle, USA, 293–302.

Kululanga, G. K., Kuotcha, W., Mccaffer, R., & Edum-Fotwe, F. (2001). Construction

Contractors' Claim Process Framework. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 127(4), 309-314. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2001)127:4(309).

Lai, D. N., Liu, M., & Ling, F. Y. (2011). A comparative study on adopting human

resource practices for safety management on construction projects in the United States and

Singapore. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 1018-1032.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.11.004.

Larson, E.W. and Gray, C.F. (2011). Project Management: The Managerial Process,

5th ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.

Liberatore, M. J., & Pollack-Johnson, B. (2006). Extending project time–cost analysis

by removing precedence relationships and task streaming. International Journal of Project

Management, 24(6), 529-535. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.04.004.

Lim, C., & Mohamed, M. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-

examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.

doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00040-4.

Lin, G., Shen, G. Q., Sun, M., & Kelly, J. (2011). Identification of Key Performance

Indicators for Measuring the Performance of Value Management Studies in Construction.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(9), 698-706.

doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000348.

! 49!
 Ling, F. Y., Low, S. P., Wang, S., & Egbelakin, T. (2008). Models for Predicting

Project Performance in China Using Project Management Practices Adopted by Foreign AEC

Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(12), 983-990.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2008)134:12(983).

Ling, F. Y., Low, S. P., Wang, S. Q., & Lim, H. H. (2009). Key project management

practices affecting Singaporean firms’ project performance in China. International Journal of

Project Management, 27(1), 59-71. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.004.

Liu, S., Zhang, J., Keil, M., & Chen, T. (2009). Comparing senior executive and project

manager perceptions of IT project risk: A Chinese Delphi study. Information Systems Journal,

20(4), 319-355. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00333.x.

Love, P., Holt, G., Shen, L., Li, H., & Irani, Z. (2002). Using systems dynamics to

better understand change and rework in construction project management systems.

International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 425-436. doi:10.1016/s0263-

7863(01)00039-4.

Maravas, A., & Pantouvakis, J. (2012). Project cash flow analysis in the presence of

uncertainty in activity duration and cost. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3),

374-384. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.005.

Marques, G., Gourc, D., & Lauras, M. (2011). Multi-criteria performance analysis for

decision making in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8),

1057-1069. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.10.002.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to

the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across

groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562.

! 50!
 Meng, X. (2012). The effect of relationship management on project performance in

construction. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 188-198.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.002.

Meng, X., Sun, M., & Jones, M. (2011). Maturity Model for Supply Chain

Relationships in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(2), 97-105.

doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000035.

Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management:

Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success. International Journal of

Project Management, 32(2), 202-217. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.012.

Missonier, S., & Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2014). Stakeholder analysis and engagement in

projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology.

International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1108-1122.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.02.010.

Mitropoulos, P., & Tatum, C., (2000). Management-Driven Integration. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 16(1), 48–58.

Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G., & Namboodiri, M. (2009). Cognitive Approach to

Construction Safety: Task Demand-Capability Model. Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management, 135(9), 881-889. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000060.

Mizell, C., & Malone, L., (2007). A Project Management Approach to Using

Simulation for Cost Estimation on Large, Complex Software Development Projects,

Engineering Management Journal, 19(4), 28-34, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2007.11431746.

Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega

construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project

Management, 33(2), 446-457. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.

! 51!
 Molenaar, K. R., Park, J., & Washington, S. (2009). Framework for Measuring

Corporate Safety Culture and Its Impact on Construction Safety Performance. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 135(6), 488-496. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-

9364(2009)135:6(488).

Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., & Narasimhan, R. (2007). An examination of corporate

reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 25(5), 998-1014. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.003.

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication:

Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European

Review Business Ethics, 15(4), 323-338. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x.

Murari, K., (2015). Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Empowerment, Partridge,

India.

Mustaro, N.P., & Rossi, R., (2013). Project management principles applied in academic

research projects. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 325-340.

Nassar, N., & Abourizk, S. (2014). Practical Application for Integrated Performance

Measurement of Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(6),

04014027. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000287.

Nevo, D., & Chan, Y. E. (2007). A Delphi study of knowledge management systems:

Scope and requirements. Information & Management, 44(6), 583-597.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.06.001.

Ngacho, C., & Das, D. (2014). A performance evaluation framework of development

projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) construction projects

in Kenya. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 492-507.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.005.

! 52!
 Nitithamyong, P., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2006). Success/Failure Factors and

Performance Measures of Web-Based Construction Project Management Systems:

Professionals’ Viewpoint. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(1), 80-

87. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:1(80).

Nudurupati, S., Arshad, T., & Turner, T. (2007). Performance measurement in the

construction industry: An action case investigating manufacturing methodologies. Computers

in Industry, 58(7), 667-676. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.005.

Nunnally, J.C., (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ochieng, E., & Price, A. (2010). Managing cross-cultural communication in

multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International Journal of

Project Management, 28(5), 449-460. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.001.

Odeyinka, H. A., Lowe, J., & Kaka, A. (2008). An evaluation of risk factors impacting

construction cash flow forecast. Journal of Financial Management of Property and

Construction, 13(1), 5-17. doi:10.1108/13664380810882048.

Papke-Shields, K. E., Beise, C., & Quan, J. (2010). Do project managers practice what

they preach, and does it matter to project success? International Journal of Project

Management, 28(7), 650-662. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.002.

Pate-Cornell, M., Tagaras, G., & Eisenhardt, K. (1990). Dynamic optimization of cash

flow management decisions: A stochastic model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 37(3), 203-212. doi:10.1109/17.104290.

Pheng, L. S., & Leong, C. H. (2000). Cross-cultural project management for

international construction in China. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 307-

316. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(99)00027-7.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P., (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement

techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-72.

! 53!
 PMI, (2005). Construction Extension to the PMBOK® Guide Third Edition, Project

Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

PMI, (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project

Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

Popaitoon, S., & Siengthai, S. (2014). The Moderating Effect of Human Resource

Management Practices on the Relationship Between Knowledge Absorptive Capacity and

Project Performance in Project-Oriented Companies. International Journal of Project

Management, 32(6), 908-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.002.

Qureshi, T. M., Warraich, A. S., & Hijazi, S. T. (2009). Significance of project

management performance assessment (PMPA) model. International Journal of Project

Management, 27(4), 378-388. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.001.

Rad, P.F. (2003), Project Success Attributes, Cost Engineering, 45 (4), 23-29.

Rayner, P., Reiss, G., (2001). The programme management maturity model. Wetherby:

The Programme Management Group.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A

literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.

Robinson, H., Carrillo, P., Anumba, C., & A-Ghassani, A. (2005). Review and

implementation of performance management models in construction engineering

organizations. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 5(4), 203-217.

doi:10.1108/14714170510815258.

Rowlinson, S., & Cheung, Y. K. (2008). Stakeholder management through

empowerment: Modelling project success. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6),

611-623. doi:10.1080/01446190802071182.

! 54!
 Ruparathna, R., & Hewage, K. (2015). Review of Contemporary Construction

Procurement Practices. Journal of Management in Engineering J. Manage. Eng., 31(3),

04014038. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000279.

Salazar-Aramayo, J., da-Silveira, R.R., de-Almeida, R.M., & de Castro-Dantas, T.

(2013). A Conceptual Model for Project Management of Exploration and Production in the Oil

and Gas Industry: The case of a Brazilian company. International Journal of Project

Management, 31 (4), 589-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.016.

Schapper, P.R., Veiga Malta, N.J., & Gilbert, L.D., (2006). An analytical framework

for the management and reform of public procurement, Journal of Public Procurement, 6 (1–

2), 1-26.

Senescu, R. R., Aranda-Mena, G., & Haymaker, J. R. (2013). Relationships between

Project Complexity and Communication. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29(2), 183-

197. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000121.

Shah, H. (2012). A Guide to the Engineering Management Body of Knowledge Third

Edition. American Society For Engineering Management.

Shen, L., Wu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2011). Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability

of Infrastructure Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(6), 441-

451. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000315.

Sibanyama, G., Muya, M., & Kaliba, C. (2012). An Overview of Construction Claims:

A Case Study of the Zambian Construction Industry. International Journal of Construction

Management, 12(1), 65-81. doi:10.1080/15623599.2012.10773185.

Singh, K. (2003). Strategic HR orientation and firm performance in India. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 530-543.

doi:10.1080/0958519032000057574.

! 55!
 Skibniewski, M. J., & Ghosh, S. (2009). Determination of Key Performance Indicators

with Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Engineering Construction Firms. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), 965-978. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-

9364(2009)135:10(965).

Song, L., & Abourizk, S. M. (2005). Quantifying Engineering Project Scope for

Productivity Modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(3), 360-

367. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:3(360).

Song, L. Z., & Song, M. (2010). The Role of Information Technologies in Enhancing

R&D-Marketing Integration: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 27(3), 382-401. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00723.x.

Sousa, V., Almeida, N. M., & Dias, L. A. (2014). Risk-based management of

occupational safety and health in the construction industry – Part 1: Background knowledge.

Safety Science, 66, 75-86. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.008.

Steiger, J. H., Lind, J. C., (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common

factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.

Steiger, J.H. (1989). Causal modeling: a supplementary module for SYSTAT and

SYGRAPH. SYSTAT; Evanston, IL: 1989.

Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point Estimation, Hypothesis Testing, and Interval Estimation

Using the RMSEA: Some Comments and a Reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(2), 149-162. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0702_1.

Tabassi, A. A., & Bakar, A. A. (2009). Training, motivation, and performance: The

case of human resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran. International

Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 471-480. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.002.

Takim, R., & Akintoye, A. (2002). Performance Indicators for Successful Construction

Project Performance. In U. of Northumbria (Ed.), 2, 545-55. 18th Annual ARCOM Conference.

! 56!
 Tam, V. W., Shen, L., & Kong, J. S. (2011). Impacts of multi-layer chain

subcontracting on project management performance. International Journal of Project

Management, 29(1), 108-116. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.005.

Tappura, S., Sievänen, M., Heikkilä, J., Jussila, A., & Nenonen, N. (2015). A

management accounting perspective on safety. Safety Science, 71, 151-159.

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.01.011.

Testa, F., Iraldo, F., & Frey, M. (2011). The effect of environmental regulation on

firms’ competitive performance: The case of the building & construction sector in some EU

regions. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(9), 2136-2144.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.039.

Thiry, M. (2002). Combining value and project management into an effective

programme management model. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 221-

227. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00072-2.

Tiller, S. R. (2012). Organizational Structure and Management Systems. Leadership

Manage. Eng. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 12(1), 20-23.

doi:10.1061/(asce)lm.1943-5630.0000160.

Toor, S., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). Construction professionals' perception of critical

success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction Innovation: Information,

Process, Management, 9(2), 149-167. doi:10.1108/14714170910950803.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood

factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. doi:10.1007/bf02291170.

Turner, J.R., & Muller, R., (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success

factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36 (2), 49–61.

! 57!
 Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective Crisis Management through Established Stakeholder

Relationships: Malden Mills as a Case Study. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4),

590-615. doi:10.1177/0893318901144003.

Vidogah, W., & Ndekugri, I. (1997). Improving Management of Claims: Contractors'

Perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(5), 37-44. doi:10.1061/(asce)0742-

597x(1997)13:5(37).

Walker, D. H., Bourne, L. M., & Shelley, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping

and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 645-658.

doi:10.1080/01446190701882390.

Wanberg, J., Harper, C., Hallowell, M. R., & Rajendran, S. (2013). Relationship

between Construction Safety and Quality Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management, 139(10), 04013003. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000732.

Wang, J., Lin, W., & Huang, Y. (2010). A performance-oriented risk management

framework for innovative R&D projects. Technovation, 30(11-12), 601-611.

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.07.003.

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

performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising engineers.

International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 253-260.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.006.

Wardani, M. A., Messner, J. I., & Horman, M. J. (2006). Comparing Procurement

Methods for Design-Build Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

132(3), 230-238. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:3(230).

Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model®: Linking success criteria and

critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411-418.

doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(02)00112-6.

! 58!
 Yang, L., Huang, C., & Wu, K. (2011). The association among project manager's

leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management,

29(3), 258-267. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006.

Yang, L., Chen, J., & Wang, H. (2012). Assessing impacts of information technology

on project success through knowledge management practice. Automation in Construction, 22,

182-191. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.016

Yeo, K., & Ning, J. (2002). Integrating supply chain and critical chain concepts in

engineer-procure-construct (EPC) projects. International Journal of Project Management,

20(4), 253-262. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00021-7.

Yildiz, A. E., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T., Ercoskun, K., & Alten, S. (2014). A

knowledge-based risk mapping tool for cost estimation of international construction projects.

Automation in Construction, 43, 144-155. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.010.

Yosha, O. (1995). Information Disclosure Costs and the Choice of Financing Source.

Journal of Financial Intermediation, 4(1), 3-20. doi:10.1006/jfin.1995.1001.

Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. J., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human Resource

Management, Manufacturing Strategy, And Firm Performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(4), 836-866. doi:10.2307/256714.

Zaneldin, E. K. (2006). Construction claims in United Arab Emirates: Types, causes,

and frequency. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 453-459.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.006.

Zanoni, R. & Audy, J., (2004). Project Management Model: Proposal for Performance

in a Physically Distributed Software Development Environment, Engineering Management

Journal, 16 (2), 28-34, doi:10.1080/10429247.2004.11415246.

! 59!
 Zhang, P., & Ng, F. F. (2013). Explaining Knowledge-Sharing Intention in

Construction Teams in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

139(3), 280-293. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000607.

Zhao, X., Hwang, B., & Low, S. P. (2013). Developing Fuzzy Enterprise Risk

Management Maturity Model for Construction Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management, 139(9), 1179-1189. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000712.

Zhi, H. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction projects. International

Journal of Project Management, 13(4), 231-237. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(95)00015-i.

Zou, P. X., Chen, Y., & Chan, T. (2010). Understanding and Improving Your Risk

Management Capability: Assessment Model for Construction Organizations. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 854-863. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-

7862.0000175.

Zsidisin, G. A., Panelli, A., & Upton, R. (2000). Purchasing organization involvement

in risk assessments, contingency plans, and risk management: An exploratory study. Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(4), 187-198.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540010347307.

! 60!