See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354842865

Making the Management of a Project Successful: Case of Construction Projects

in Developing Countries

Article in Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · September 2021

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002196

CITATIONS READS
8 236

3 authors:

Armstrong Amoah Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent

Ghana Technology University College Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
12 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS 144 PUBLICATIONS 3,566 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Frederic Marimon
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
184 PUBLICATIONS 4,593 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Armstrong Amoah on 12 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Making the Management of a Project Successful:
Case of Construction Projects in Developing Countries
Armstrong Amoah, Ph.D. 1; Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent 2; and Frederic Marimon 3

Abstract: Many developing countries (DCs) are currently spending on construction projects due to the high demand resulting from rapid
urbanization. However, the results of these projects in terms of time, cost, and quality do not tend to meet the expectations of the stakeholders.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Despite the relevance and high visibility of this situation in many DCs, this topic has received little research attention. This study examines the
combined effect of six factors that are commonly signaled in the project management literature as determinants of successful project man-
agement in construction projects. Our ultimate goal is to identify the extent to which traditional factors play a role in project management in
DCs because recent studies have highlighted the uniqueness of project management in these countries, therefore requiring specific analysis
within this context. To empirically address this goal, we rely on an ad-hoc survey that collected the responses from 120 project management
practitioners in Ghana. First, building upon existing works, we construct and validate a scale that evaluates project management practices in
DCs. Next, we use qualitative comparative analysis to scrutinize which combinations of the aforementioned six factors lead to successful
project management in construction projects. The findings support the initial intuition about the existence of distinct pathways, suggesting
that there is no unique formula, but that different situations (i.e., combinations of factors) might require the adoption of diverse project
management practices. The primary contribution of this research stems from adding to the project management body of knowledge the
understanding of how a combination of factors can assist construction engineers and project managers to plan and implement successful
construction projects in DCs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002196. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction projects; Projects management; Success factors; Qualitative comparative analysis.

Introduction they are managed and controlled; however, the way in which these
projects are managed by most project-oriented organizations in
Construction projects are organized efforts to construct a building DCs do not always ensure success (Alias et al. 2014). Common
or a structure. In the fields of civil engineering and architecture, problems found in the project management in construction projects
construction projects involve the process of tangibly assembling in DCs involve (1) poor planning, (2) project execution and imple-
an infrastructure or building. These projects tend to involve differ- mentation inaccuracies, (3) cost overruns, and (4) not meeting
ent contractors with connected agendas and tasks to be completed project schedule and quality thresholds (Alias et al. 2014).
(Jenkins and Wallace 2016). There is no doubt that the provision of appropriate infrastruc-
The management of construction projects plays a major role in tures such as hospitals, educational facilities, roads, latrines, and
the economy of many developing countries (DCs). Due to the rel- others are important duties of every government in DCs. Not sur-
evance of construction projects to the very existence of society, prisingly, governments in these countries are currently spending
many countries are spending a lot of resources in ensuring the suc- on construction projects such as schools, bridges, rail, roads, and
cessful project management of construction projects (Kandelousi others due to the high demand resulting from rapid urbanization.
et al. 2011). A successfully managed construction project is the However, it is very common to find many of these state-resourced
one that meets the project objectives in a safe manner and within projects abandoned in many DCs (Rasul and Rogger 2016). As
agreed time, cost, and quality criteria (Radujkovića and Sjekavicab Ofori-Kuragu et al. (2016) highlighted, in many DCs, the results
2017). The success of construction projects greatly depend on how of their construction projects in terms of time, cost, and quality
do not meet the objectives set by the project team members. Factors
1
Lecturer, Faculty of IT Business, Ghana Communication Technology that are commonly attributable to this mismatch include culture,
Univ., Takoradi Campus, P.O. Box MC 3262, Takoradi, Ghana (corre- partisan politics, the public administration system, low level of
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2621-7040. Email:
project management knowledge, inadequate resources, and corrup-
[email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Economy and Business Organization,
tion (Transparency International 2015; Amponsah 2010; Amoako
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/Immaculada, 22, Barcelona 08017, and Lyon 2014; Asunka 2016; Damoah and Akwei 2017).
Spain. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-2179. Email: jberbegal@ Although in most DCs, their constitution asks newly elec-
uic.es ted governments to complete projects started by the previous
3
Full Professor, Dept. of Economy and Business Organization, Univer- administration, this seldom happens (Ofori 2013). News on aban-
sitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/Immaculada, 22, Barcelona 08017, doned construction projects are commonly reported in these coun-
Spain. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-7341. Email: fmarimon@ tries (Ahadzie and Amoa-Mensah 2010). Bokor (2011) stated that a
uic.es
number of construction projects are started in many DCs without
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 20, 2021; approved
on August 5, 2021; published online on September 22, 2021. Discussion proper planning. This creates a situation where numerous projects
period open until February 22, 2022; separate discussions must be sub- are uncompleted, many of them left to the mercy of the weather to
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construc- rot, whereas others become white elephants, especially in periods
tion Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364. of regime change (Williams 2016). The construction sector of many

© ASCE 04021166-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 DCs still face setbacks such as high utility and material costs, cur- contractor satisfaction, and project manager/team satisfaction. This
rency fluctuations, high interest rates, and land litigation (Damoah latter list of factors is somewhat related to the iron triangle, that is,
and Akwei 2017; Darko and Löwe 2016). Despite the relevance cost, quality, and schedule, which are commonly used as the bench-
and high visibility of this situation in many DCs, this topic has re- mark for measuring how a project has been successfully managed
ceived little research attention. (Walker and Shen 2002; Lapinski et al. 2006; Chau et al. 2012).
In this regard, Venter (2005) highlighted that previous studies In the specific context of DCs, Odeh and Battaineh (2002) iden-
examining the factors shaping project management success have tified obstruction from project owners, financial management, com-
largely concentrated on developed countries, inferring their find- petence of contractors, payments methods, planning, effectiveness
ings to the context of DCs. Although this strategy (i.e., inferring of team members, management decision making, and management
the results) might be suitable under certain conditions, consistent of contractors and materials accessibility as crucial elements for
with recent studies (e.g., Bond-Barnarda et al. 2018; Ofori 2013; project management success. Building on that study, Fugar and
Yanwen 2012), we posit that the factors influencing project man- Agyakwah (2010) investigated the factors associated with project
agement in construction projects in DCs are multifaceted and in- management success in Ghana, listing a total of 32 possible causes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

terdependent in nature, therefore requiring alternative analytical that were further categorized into nine major groups: materials, per-
methods to able to scrutinize how these factors interact with each sonnel, equipment, funds, environmental changes, government in-
other in the specific context of DCs. terventions, contracts, scheduling, and control techniques. Recent
The method that better suits this research objective is the quali- works include those of Amoatey et al. (2015) and Damoah and
tative comparative analysis (QCA). By assuming complex causality, Kumi (2018), who focused more on economic and management/
and based on the principles of set-theoretic methods, QCA focuses administrative factors.
on asymmetric relationships that detect configurations (or strategies) As discussed in the previous paragraphs, there is no agreement
that are minimally necessary and/or sufficient for obtaining a specific on what these success factors are and how they should be classified.
outcome (Schneider and Wagemann 2012). In the specific case of For the purpose of this study, we draw upon the recent work of
project management in DCs, these characteristics of QCA are par- Alashwal et al. (2017), which resulted from a study of construc-
ticularly suitable because previous studies stressed the complex and tion projects of a developing country. Accordingly, we distinguish
peculiar nature of project management in these countries (Jugdev and among six categories, which are discussed in the sections that
Muller 2005; Yanwen 2012), calling for the application of alternative follow.
analytical tools that are able to capture the multiple determinants that
vary among cases.
The contributions of this study are therefore geared toward Human-Related/Project Team Factors
(1) identifying the factors that capture project management behav-
Human-related factors (HRFs) in project management can be de-
iors in construction projects in DCs, (2) employing a qualitative
fined as a set of human characteristics impacting on the results of
comparative analysis approach to unveil which combinations of
a project. Ciccotti (2014) defined HRFs as the actions of various
the selected factors influence project management in construction
groups of people, with different orientations and experience, from
projects in DCs, and (3) based on these, drawing policy guidelines
different functional areas, sometimes with different objectives, who
with a special focus for DCs.
have come together to ensure the successful management of a
This study provides a summary of the theoretical underpinnings
project.
supporting this research. Next, the methodologies used in this study
According to Rodney et al. (2009), current studies have been
are explained. The results from the analysis of the data collected
from respondents are also presented, followed by the discussions paying attention to the contribution of human resources in the
and the implications of the findings. The paper ends with the con- achievement of construction project’s objectives. Nguyen et al.
cluding remarks, limitations, and suggestions for future research. (2004) found that in all construction projects, human resources
are the backbone of almost all its activities. In this regard, various
authors included aspects that relate with having a competent proj-
ect team as key factors influencing construction projects (Shokri-
Factors Shaping Project Management
Ghasabeh and Kavousi-Chabok 2009). Additionally, commitment
in Construction Projects
among project participants is a highly desirable quality that plays a
According to Sanvido et al. (1992), success factors in project man- role in successful management of a construction project (Belout
agement can be defined as those factors that determine the success and Gauvreau 2004). A coordinated effort by all factions in a
or failure of a project management activity. They include compo- contract—owner, architect, construction manager, contractor, and
nents that should be brought together to guarantee a successful subcontractors—is also deemed as a vital component for the suc-
project delivery (Alias et al. 2014). Various authors have suggested cessful implementation of a construction project (Hassan 1995).
a list of relevant factors—most of them being obtained either from When investigating the dimensions or subfactors that can be used
experience or research—for construction projects (Fortune and to operationalize HRFs, we found that Chan et al. (2004) considered
White 2006). Notwithstanding, coming out with these factors has the nature of customers, project managers’ competence and skills,
always been an ongoing challenge for scholars, mainly due to the project managers’ commitment on schedule, budget, and quality, proj-
fact that the factors change from country to country and from sit- ect manager’s adaptability, and working relationships and competence
uation to situation (Frefer et al. 2018). of the project team members. Ahmed and Mohamad (2016) added to
The study of De Wit (1988) is one of the earliest works that this list of relevant subfactors: clients’ commitment, competency, and
researched this topic and found that planning, competence of the commitment of construction project team, and the effectiveness of the
project manager, commitment to project objectives, motivation of construction project manager. Other subfactors commonly used in the
the project team, definition of the scope of the project, and project literature on construction projects include commitment, communi-
monitoring and control are important in achieving project success. cation, competency, coordination, trust, subcontractors’ competency
His study further revealed other success criteria such as budget per- (Alashwal et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2010), project team coordination, and
formance, schedule performance, client satisfaction, functionality, the project manager’s power (Ofori 2013).

© ASCE 04021166-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Project-Related Factors coordination among project participants has been found to be critical
for project management success (Lester 2007; Phua 2004).
Within the context of construction project management, project-
When assessing the management of construction projects, PP
related factors (PRFs) can be defined as those aspects related with
factors that are typically taken into account include procurement
the very nature and other characteristics of a project to be under-
procedures, tendering method, and contracting method (Chan et al.
taken, including the type, size and scope of the project, its level
2004). A different approach is that proposed by Dang et al. (2012).
of complexity, and the risks associated with the project (Chan
Those authors suggested measuring PP using market exploration
et al. 2004).
research/market surveys prior to funding or taking part in the
According to Belassi and Tukel (1996), project characteristics
project, comprehensive pretender site investigations, a reasonable
such as the magnitude and merit of a project, distinctiveness of its
tendering system, and comprehensive contract documentation, and
activities (versus standard ones), depth of the project network, its
Cserháti and Szabó (2014) added subfactors such as project con-
life cycle, and the seriousness of the outcome have a significant
tract initiation and planning, project contract administration, and
impact on how a project is managed. In construction projects—
the procurement method to the previous list.
especially in large ones—having a well-defined objective, scope,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and planning, together with a thorough understanding of the project

complexity provides a clear direction toward the successful man- Project Management Factors
agement of the project (Songer and Molenaar 1997).
In addition, an accurate definition of the project budget helps to Project management factors (PMFs) include those factors that
achieve a well-managed project devoid of cost overruns (Molenaar relate to the use of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to man-
and Songer 1998). Projects that tend to exceed their deadlines result age project activities to meet the project specification (PMI 2017).
in monetary penalties and loss of credibility. If the duration of the The use of management tools by project managers to address
project is used as a benchmark to assess the performance of the challenges associated with the cost, scope, schedule, quality, com-
management of the project, the size of the project should be taken plexity, and others of a construction project—as highlighted in the
into consideration. O. I. Tukel and W. O. Rom, (“Analysis of the Project Management Institute (PMI) definition—is what PMFs ac-
characteristics of projects in diverse industries,” working paper, tually have in common.
Cleveland State University, Cleveland) argued that the density of PMFs have been found to be relevant for the successful manage-
a project—defined as the ratio of the total number of precedence ment of construction projects because they provide the tools project
relationships to the total number of activities—influences how a managers will use in the planning, executing, and monitoring of their
project is managed, mainly due to resource allocation and worker construction projects in an attempt to increase the success rate of
hours. Complex projects—projects that involve many teams and their projects (Doloi and Lim 2007). In this regard, project man-
stakeholders, numerous moving parts, unclear project timeline agement tools such as Gantt charts, S-curves, precedence diagram
and budget—might require the use of overtime, which jeopardizes method, earned value management, work breakdown structures, cash
budget performance and the overall management of the project flow analysis, project chart, quality function deployment, and other
(Pinto and Slevin 1989). project management techniques are inherently value-oriented instru-
From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that PRFs ments and, if correctly used, can positively influence the successful
have been operationalized in different ways. Most common ap- management of the intended project (Besner and Hobbs 2006).
proaches include accounting for project size and value, project ob- Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the use of these tools
jectives and scope, project type, and project complexity (Chan et al. require that project managers possess the relevant knowledge,
2004; Khang and Moe 2008). Notwithstanding, there is another competencies, and skills for the specific purpose of the project
strand of authors that use other measures that are more oriented (Radujkovića and Sjekavicab 2017).
toward capturing the rationale behind the project (project mission) When investigating the factors that influence project management
and its urgency (Beleiu et al. 2015; Jelodar et al. 2016). success, it is possible to observe that PMFs have been operational-
ized covering three main areas: the knowledge required to use project
management tools, the skills needed to apply these tools effectively,
Project Procedures and the use of the tools per se. For instance, Besner and Hobbs
Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999) defined project procedures (2006) focused on the tools, whereas Ling et al. (2008) and Cleland
(PPs) as the method used to bring about, acquire, or obtain a con- and Gareis (2006) looked at both the tools and the knowledge
struction project. This definition entails considering the specific requirements. A more comprehensive approach was observed by
practices and methods that will be followed over the entire life Radujkovića and Sjekavicab (2017), who considered indicators that
cycle of the project—in a logical sequence—in order to produce cover all three dimensions. The use of this combined (or holistic)
the final the result (or expected outcome). Said differently and us- approach is also found in the works of Chan et al. (2004), Khang
ing a more contemporary definition, PPs can be defined as series of and Moe (2008), Nguyen et al. (2004), and Ihuah et al. (2014).
steps that are to be taken over the course of a project (PMI 2017).
Project procedures are expected to provide a standard and repeat-
Project Support Factors
able method. If properly designed, they can help to reduce project
cost overruns and ease the execution of the construction project, thus Project support factors (PSFs) are factors related to the extent to
impacting on the management of the project (Dissanayaka and which opinion leaders, top management, and senior executives in-
Kumaraswamy 1999). According to Shokri-Ghasabeh and Kavousi- terpret how vital a construction project is and are willing to provide
Chabok (2009), examples of critical procedures in construction the necessary resources to carry it out and to meet the project ob-
projects include the procurement method (which involves how the jectives (Kandelousi et al. 2011; White and Fortune 2002).
company to design and construct the project is selected), the tender- Project support is particularly critical during the early stages of
ing method (which involves the strategy used to select the team and the life cycle of a project. At this stage, the access to resources—
the substantive contractor for the project), and the processes used to mainly in the form of finance and human capital as well as materi-
award procurement contracts. For instance, a project procurement als or equipment—are paramount to ensure project completion
contract awarded using a justifiable procedure that encourages (Kandelousi et al. 2011; Ofer 2007). Other areas in which support

© ASCE 04021166-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 from top management is needed include collating project documen- At this stage it is important to point out that the aforementioned
tation and keeping all stakeholders informed so they are all aware factors have been extracted from existing works that review prac-
of how the project is developing. If top management participates in tical examples of either developed and developing countries. In
these tasks, it is easier to have all parties committed to it. In this fact, as discussed in the introduction, previous studies in DCs have
regard, project support activities are aimed at building and sus- basically relied in the findings of developed countries; therefore, it
taining an effective working relationship with a network of internal is not surprising that the factors described in the preceding subsec-
and external stakeholders to help deliver effective project manage- tions can also be applied to territories with a wealthier economic
ment services. development. In this regard, our work contributes to the existing
In terms of operationalizing this construct, Alashwal et al. (2017) body of knowledge in two main ways: (1) the six aforementioned
and Khang and Moe (2008) measured PSFs by looking at support factors have been operationalized taking into account the particu-
from top management, client, and government, the existence of suf- larities of DCs; and (2) given the limited resources of DCs and the
ficient project funding, and the effectiveness of consultation. Other specificities that each construction project might entail, we expect
authors have considered the different types of resources from which to identify different combinations of factors—all of them equally
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

support is needed. In this regard, Nguyen et al. (2004) looked at the valid—that explain project management success in construction
availability of labor, materials, machinery, and equipment to measure projects in these countries. Meaning, different situations might re-
PSFs, and other authors also paid attention to the availability of fund- quire different actions.
ing (Cserháti and Szabó 2014). A mix of both approaches is used
in the work of Ofori (2013), who considered stakeholder involve-
ment, executive commitment, top management support, and financial Ghanaian Context
resources. Ghana is a country that is currently investing in schools, roads,
housing, and other construction projects due to the increased de-
mand for these infrastructures resulting from urbanization (Oxford
External Environmental Factors
Business Group 2019). This phenomenon can be observed from the
External environmental factors (EEFs) refers to all external influ- increased expenditure for capital infrastructure in the 2019 budget
ences on a construction project process that are mostly beyond the of Ghana. Even though there has been some growth in the construc-
control of the project manager or the management team (Gudiené tion industry of the country for the last few years, there are still
et al. 2013). These might include not only the political, economic, several setbacks such as currency instability, land litigations, unfav-
and social situation of the territory, but also the level of technologi- orable interest rates, and an increase in the prices of utilities and
cal advancement or even factors related to the climate (Belassi and building materials, among others (Darko and Löwe 2016).
Tukel 1996). Several studies supported their impact on the manage- Both Ahadzie et al. (2012) and Amponsah (2010) observed that
ment of construction projects (Hwang and Lim 2013). many construction projects in Ghana are financed by either grants
The external environment influences how construction projects or credits. Currently, the country is accessing $547 million under
are managed at all stages of its life cycle. In some cases, EEFs the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). The problem is that
are so powerful that they can even cause the termination of a project after these funds are received, the country finds it difficult to use
at its implementation stage (Belassi and Tukel 1996). For the specific them efficiently to implement the intended construction projects.
case of DCs, the issue of culture is very important. Current research Ahadzie and Amoa-Mensah (2010) stated that inefficient manage-
on multicultural management postulates that understanding the cul- ment has, in most instances, been a major setback in the Ghanaian
ture and its impact on project management is crucial for a successful building industry, and by extension, the construction industry.
project execution in DCs (Ojiako and Chipulu 2014; Owusu-Ansah Studies on the construction industry in this country report a lot of
and Louw 2019). Likewise, political factors play a critical role. As incomplete and unsatisfactory projects that have not yielded any
highlighted by Chen et al. (2012) and Pugh (2001), political stability benefits to the citizenry (Konadu-Agyemang 2001; Kissi et al.
and government intervention can boost or inhibit the establishment 2015). Improper application of generally accepted project manage-
of an enabling environment, which can eventually influence the over- ment principles have led to the desertion of construction projects
all management of a construction project. (Ahadzie and Amoa-Mensah 2010).
Equally important are economic factors, which shape access to Developmental projects, which are part of the construction sec-
funding and the flow of funds. If the macroeconomic environment tor of the economy of Ghana, have been highlighted as a priority in
is strong, interest rates are low, credit facilities are accessible, and most of the budgets statements of the country (Damoah and Akwei
repayment periods are extended, project management success will 2017; Budget of the Republic of Ghana 2019). Notwithstanding, in
be achieved (Gudiené et al. 2013). In many DCs, where the major- most cases, the outcome obtained from the implementation of these
ity of the contractors rely on loans, it will be very difficult for projects has not met the goals set by clients and the project team
contractors to successfully manage a project if the economic envi- members themselves in terms of time, cost, and quality (Ofori-
ronment is unfavorable. Although not desirable, this is a common Kuragu et al. 2016). As Damoah and Kumi (2018) observed, many
situation. Finally, the state of the art of the technology—being up- construction projects in Ghana fail to achieve their anticipated
dated with current technological advancements—has also been objectives, and in some cases, they are totally abandoned. Research-
considered as a relevant factor that influences how a project is man- ers have often attributed these failures to culture, partisan politics,
aged (Hwang and Lim 2013). the public administration system, low level of project management
Consistent with the previous paragraphs, recurrent dimensions to knowledge, inadequate resources, corruption, obstruction by pol-
be examined when studying the impact of EEFs on project manage- iticians, late settlement, long protocols, improper monitoring, im-
ment success in construction projects include the four dimensions proper planning, initiating more than necessary projects, and regime
in the PEST analysis, namely the political, economic, social, and changes (Transparency International 2015; Amponsah 2010; Borkor
technological environments surrounding the project (Ofori 2013). 2011; Damoah and Akwei 2017).
Additional elements from the external environment that have also The aforementioned problems are not specific to Ghana, but are
been examined relate to cultural aspects, the physical environment, commonly shared by many DCs (Owusu-Ansah and Louw 2019).
and the industrial fabric (Chan et al. 2004). Despite the existence of a few studies highlighting project

© ASCE 04021166-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 management success in construction projects in DCs, there are still Measures
many issues to be addressed (Ofori 2013) in order to provide useful
The survey distributed to project management experts was designed
guidelines that policy makers can refer to and use proactively to
using the English language and was divided into two parts. Part one—
create the environmental conditions that enable an optimized use
including five items—requested respondents to provide demographic
of resources (including financial, worker power, time, and others)
information. Part two was made up of six factors (i.e., those discussed
required for successful project completion.
under the “Factors Shaping Project Management in Construction
Projects” section) that were operationalized through 24 items. Four
Data and Methodology additional items were included to capture information about the out-
come (i.e., project management success), making a total of 28 items.
A 5-point Likert scale format (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
Sample and Data Collection strongly agree) was used when asking respondents to express their
To capture project managers’ perceptions about the relevance of the level of agreement to each of the 28 statements included in the
factors—described under the “Factors Shaping Project Manage- questionnaire. At this stage, we relied on both the existing literature
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment in Construction Projects” section—that might shape the suc- on project management in DCs as well as on already validated
cess of project management in construction projects, an ad-hoc scales, adapting the items proposed by Chan et al. (2004) and
questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was targeted at Alashwal et al. (2017) to the context of this study. Table 1 presents
government officials, heads of public and private institutions and the six factors and their respective items.
civil servants who give project contracts, contractors and managers,
managers of nongovernmental organizations, employees of project-
Method
oriented organizations, and other individuals who are certified
project management practitioners in Ghana. The survey was admin- Because the items included in the survey were adapted from dif-
istered to the executives of the Project Management Institute (PMI) ferent previous works, as a first step, it was necessary to validate
in Ghana for onward distribution to their members in January 2020. whether the grouping of the items was appropriate. This implies
This was done after a letter of request explaining the objective of testing how suitable our data were for factor analysis. To this end,
the study and asking for their acceptance to take part in the survey the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity
was issued. In total, 120 questionnaires were distributed and were were carried out. Next, a principal component analysis was used
all returned after a month’s period. From them, 110 were dully as an exploratory tool to assist us in the grouping of the items
completed without errors and, as a result, were valid for analysis included in the survey into factors. These analyses were perfor-
in this study. med using SPSS for Windows version 25. To ensure an overall

Table 1. List of dimensions and items

Dimensions Item Description
Human-related factors (HRFs) HRF1 Project managers have the technical competence
HRF2 Project team members have the necessary competence
HRF3 Project participants are commitment
HRF4 There is project team coordination
Project-related factors (PRFs) PRF1 Cost of our projects are always reasonable
PRF2 Project quality levels are always acceptable
PRF3 Projects are always within schedule
PRF4 All our projects have a clear-cut mission
Project procedures (PPs) PP1 Proper procurement methods are followed
PP2 Contract administration is transparent
PP3 PM techniques are applied
Project management factors (PMFs) PMF1 Projects are properly planned
PMF2 There is adequate project communication
PMF3 There is periodic project monitoring and control
PMF4 Feedback is properly managed
Project support factors (PSFs) PSF1 There is top management support
PSF2 Government support is always available
PSF3 Project funding is always available
PSF4 Suppliers and contractors are credible
PSF5 There is always enough consultations during project execution
External environmental factors (EEFs) EEF1 Socio-cultural factors affects the execution of our project
EEF2 The economic environment affects the execution of our projects
EEF3 The Political environment affects our project execution
EEF4 Technological factors affects the management of our projects
Project management in construction projects (PMCPs) PMCP1 Completed construction projects generally meet the acceptable quality standards
PMCP2 Completed construction projects are generally within budget
PMCP3 Construction projects generally meet customer’s specifications
PMCP4 Construction projects are normally completed before deadline

© ASCE 04021166-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 consistency of our measures, the reliability analysis of the factors Table 2. Demographic information
obtained was vouched for using Cronbach alpha and composite Categories Number Percentage
reliability. By assessing if the interfactor correlations were less than
Gender
the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE), the dis-
Male 86 78.2
criminant validity analysis among these factors was conducted us- Female 24 21.8
ing standardized covariances between factors to help ascertain the Total 110 100.0
overall accuracy of our measures.
Once factors were established, we explored which combina- Age
tions of factors lead to project management success in construction 18–20 2 1.8
21–31 39 35.5
projects. QCA is the preferred method for addressing this type of
31–40 47 42.7
research question (Schneider and Wagemann 2012). QCA is a 41–50 18 16.4
hybrid method that combines the advantages of both qualitative >50 4 3.6
analysis (case-oriented research) and quantitative analysis (variable- Total 110 100.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

oriented research). QCA helps to explore equifinality, that is, the

PM certification
existence of different amalgamations of factors leading to the same
PMP 72 65.5
outcome (Ragin 2008). As a result, QCA highlights how multiple CAPM 2 1.8
causal paths underline a management phenomenon (Salam et al. PMI-RMP 1 0.9
2017). One of the distinctive features of this method is that it uses PMI-PBA 1 0.9
Boolean logic instead of the traditional correlation methods to set Other 34 30.9
causal conditions strongly related to a particular outcome (Ragin Total 112 100.0
2008). The technique relies on the analysis of sufficient and neces- Note: PMP = Project Management Professional; CAPM = Certified
sary conditions to produce an outcome and has strengths from small- Associate in Project Management; PMI-RMP = Project Management
to medium-level case studies. A condition is deemed as necessary if Institute-Risk Management Professional; and PMI-PBA = Project
it is present in all instances of the outcome, whereas a condition will Management Institute-Professional in Business Analysis.
be considered as sufficient if a particular outcome emerges whenever
the condition is present (Schneider and Wagemann 2012).
QCA is particularly relevant to the context of this study because Table 3. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
the factors explaining project management in construction projects Test Values
are multifaceted and complex in nature. This is due to the inherent
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.846
complexity a project entails and the presence of distinct participants Bartlett’s test of sphericity 1,605.480
in the construction process. Thus, studying the effects of these fac- 276
tors independently will not be enough to provide a clear under- 0.000
standing of the problem (Yanwen 2012; Ofori 2013). Instead of
assessing the influence of each condition on the outcome, we evalu-
ate cases as configurations of conditions (Ragin 2008). Another
freedom ðdfÞ ¼ 276, and p ¼ 0.000 < 0.05). This result authenti-
reason supporting the use of QCA is that this technique is better
cates a linear dependence among the variables and confirms that the
suited for conducting an assessment in a specific context, showing
how multiple causal recipes relate to a particular outcome and to database as good for further analysis (Pallant 2010).
help answer certain questions that could not be addressed via con- To validate the factor structure, factor analysis was conducted
ventional variable-oriented analyses (Ragin 2008). using principal components analysis and varimax rotation. The
QCA has two main variants: crisp-set qualitative comparative 24 items included in the survey were used at this step (the in-depth
analysis (csQCA) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis description of the items is presented in Table 1). To retain an item,
(fsQCA). For the purpose of this study we used fsQCA, with we imposed the following criteria: the item (1) loaded at 0.6 or
the aid of the fsQCA version 3.0 software. The greatest difference more on a factor, (2) did not load at greater than 0.5 on two factors,
between csQCA and fsQCA is that the former utilizes the tradi- (3) had an item-to-total correlation of greater than 0.5, and (4) had
tional aggregation concept using 0 (out of the set) and 1 (inside an eigenvalue greater than 1 (Ladhari 2012; Wolfinbarger and Gilly
the set), whereas fsQCA accounts for a varying degrees of member- 2003). In total, five factors emerged from our analyses with eigen-
ship between 0 (fully out of the set) and 1 (fully in), therefore, min- values greater than 1 (Kaiser 1960) explaining 68.258% of the vari-
imizing the loss of information. Because of the nuanced nature of ance in the sample, as indicated in Table 4.
the conditions influencing our outcome, fsQCA was selected over New labels were proposed after the groupings from the factor
csQCA (Choi 2009). analysis, given the relatively few overlaps with original dimensions:
external environmental factors (Factor 1), project management fac-
tors (Factor 2), project support factors (Factor 3), project procedures
Results (Factor 4), and human -elated factors (Factor 5).
To examine the unidimensionality of the newly obtained factors,
The analysis started with an exploration of the demographic five new independent factor analysis using an orthogonal rotation
features (Table 2) of the survey participants. Next, the Kaiser- method (varimax) were carried out. The independent analysis used
Meyer-Olkin test and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Table 3) only the newly obtained items in Table 4 for each factor. The results
were performed to validate the suitability of our data for factor extracted only one factor each, validating our approach. Table 5
analysis. Results from the analysis provided a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin presents the results for the new independent factor analysis includ-
test value of 0.846, greater than the threshold value of 0.60, thus, ing only the loadings of those items that significantly contribute to
indicating a good sampling adequacy and the suitability of the data explain each of the factors (loadings >0.6). The values for reliabil-
for factor analysis. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also pos- ity and convergent validity for the newly discovered factors are also
itive and significant at 0.05 (i.e., χ2 ¼ 1,605.480, deg ree of provided in Table 5. The high loads of the respective items confirm

© ASCE 04021166-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Table 4. Matrixes of the components extracted from the factor Table 6. Correlation matrix of factors
analysis (FA)
Dimensions EEF PMF PSF PP HRF
Items 1 EEF 2 PMF 3 PSF 4 PP 5 HRF
EEF 0.892 — — — —
EEF3 0.913 −0.075 −0.003 0.008 −0.130 PMF 0.033 0.833 — — —
EEF2 0.896 −0.012 −0.028 0.019 −0.081 PSF 0.017 0.576a 0.790 — —
PRF2 0.889 0.033 −0.009 0.035 −0.062 PP 0.119 0.420a 0.603a 0.807 —
EEF1 0.886 0.069 0.019 0.058 −0.115 HRF −0.307a 0.118 −0.053 −0.086 0.771
EEF4 0.878 0.051 −0.012 −0.041 0.025
Note: The main diagonal contains the square root of the AVE of each
PRF4 0.840 −0.006 0.034 0.089 −0.198
construct, indicated by bold.
PMF1 −0.090 0.830 0.083 0.215 0.065 a
Correlation significant at 0.01.
PMF2 0.119 0.819 0.201 0.108 0.055
PMF4 −0.039 0.745 0.339 −0.058 0.075
PMF3 0.108 0.719 0.077 0.383 0.044 suggest a removal of any item from each factor’s scale, and the
PSF3 −0.048 0.354 0.734 0.104 −0.046
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

overall corrected scales and the correlation figures for the relation-
PSF2 0.125 0.107 0.713 0.395 0.095
PSF1 −0.035 0.032 0.695 0.239 −0.089 ship between the items were greater than 0.5. In the case of HRF,
PSF4 −0.076 0.392 0.689 0.253 −0.019 we did not remove an item because, on the one hand, the difference
PRF3 0.009 0.540 0.619 0.129 −0.134 in the new Cronbach’s alpha did not change significantly and on the
PP2 0.136 0.115 0.255 0.784 0.129 other hand, important information about the construct (if deleting
PP3 0.091 0.014 0.451 0.641 0.020 the item) was lost. The loads for all the items were significant
PP1 0.014 0.319 0.179 0.626 −0.168 (t > 2.58), testifying the convergent validity for all the factors
HRF3 −0.119 0.431 0.235 0.555 −0.167 (Malhotra 1999).
PSF5 −0.016 0.472 0.434 0.511 −0.190
Results for the test for discriminant validity are given in Table 6.
HRF4 −0.348 0.186 −0.075 −0.118 0.776
HRF1 0.060 0.064 0.092 −0.250 0.774
Using the standardized covariances between latent factors, we as-
HRF2 −0.183 −0.016 −0.069 0.207 0.623 sessed the interfactor correlations to determine whether they were
PRF1 0.194 0.243 0.225 −0.051 −0.334 below the square root of the AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981). From
Amount of 20.77 15.21 13.21 10.98 8.09 Table 6, the off-diagonal elements show values below the square
variance (%) roots of each AVE. Thus, discriminant validity was also verified
(Hair et al. 2010).
Next, QCA was performed. The five factors that emerged from
their reliability. With the exception of HRF, whose Cronbach’s al- the factor analysis (Table 4) were treated as the antecedent condi-
pha was slightly below 0.7 (i.e., 0.651), the Cronbach’s alpha and tions, and project management in construction projects (PMCP)
the composite reliability of all the factors exceeded the benchmark was used as the outcome. Data were transformed (i.e., calibrated)
of 0.7 for internal consistency (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). into fuzzy-set terms, expressing the values of each observation ac-
The AVE for each of the individual factors was above 0.5, sat- cording to their degree of membership from 0 (full nonmember-
isfying the cutoff for the proposed threshold (Fornell and Larcker ship) to 1 (full membership), with 0.5 being the crossover point
1981). With the exception of HRF, the Cronbach’s alpha did not (Ragin 2008). The selection of the anchors was made based on

Table 5. Factor loads and their reliability statistics

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s alpha Total corrected scale Composite
Dimension Items Loads alpha if an item is deleted and correlations reliability AVE
EEF EEF1 0.899 0.948 0.933–0.942 0.805–0.885 0.959 0.795
EEF2 0.906
EEF3 0.923
EEF4 0.866
PRF2 0.890
PRF4 0.865
PMF PMF1 0.867 0.853 0.791–0.834 0.642–0.745 0.901 0.694
PMF2 0.856
PMF3 0.812
PMF4 0.796
PSF PSF1 0.669 0.847 0.796–0.848 0.521–0.724 0.892 0.624
PSF2 0.792
PSF3 0.824
PSF4 0.841
PRF3 0.812
PP PP1 0.766 0.726 0.585–0.697 0.504–0.601 0.848 0.651
PP2 0.814
PP3 0.838
HRF HRF1 0.773 0.651 0.395–0.679 0.371–0.575 0.813 0.594
HRF2 0.677
HRF4 0.852
Note: Loads are significant at p-value ¼ 0.01.

© ASCE 04021166-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Table 7. Calibration of the outcome and the antecedent conditions Another important step in QCA is to test whether antecedent
Membership threshold values conditions are necessary in the prediction of the desired outcome
(Meyer et al. 1993). Consistency scores higher than 0.9 indicate
Full Crossover Full
Condition nonmembership point membership
necessity (Ragin 2008). From Table 8, it can be concluded that
there is no antecedent condition that can predict the outcome alone,
EEF −1.00 −0.50 1.50 thus giving preliminary support to our initial intuition that the out-
PMF −1.30 0.00 1.30
come results from a conjunction of different factors.
PSF −1.20 0.00 1.50
PP −1.20 0.20 1.50 Next step consists of the creation of the truth table, which con-
HRF −1.00 −0.20 1.50 tains every logically plausible combination of conditions. The table
Outcome: PMCP −1.60 −0.10 1.40 is made up of 2k rows, with k being total causal conditions. For
all combinations with case membership scores above 0.5, those
cases are assigned to that combination. Finally, a reduced statement
is produced logically. In this process, rows are simplified using two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 8. Necessary conditions analysis

parameters: coverage (representing how vital a solution is empiri-
Antecedent conditions Consistency Coverage cally) and consistency (quantifying the degree to which cases shar-
EEF 0.5939 0.6668 ing comparable conditions have the same outcome). Both measures
∼EEF 0.5901 0.6528 range from 0 to 1. Recommended values for acceptable consistency
PMF 0.7434 0.8185 and coverage are of 0.75 and 0.45, respectively (Ragin 2008).
∼PMF 0.5495 0.6198 From Fig. 1, seven different recipes that lead to the desired out-
PSF 0.8047 0.8898 come are shown, verifying our initial hypothesis for the existence
∼PSF 0.5143 0.5776 of different successful combinations of factors. It is notable that
PP 0.7616 0.9173
∼PP 0.5481 0.5683
although all seven configuration are equally valid, the first three
HRF 0.5756 0.6792 (1a, 1b, and 1c) have the highest raw coverage values (0.422,
∼HRF 0.6161 0.6504 0.668, and 0.387, respectively), and therefore cover a greater pro-
portion of cases in the sample.
Note: The tilde represents the negation of the characteristic.
The distinction between core and peripheral conditions is used
to systematize the comparison of the solutions (Fiss 2011; Ragin
theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence. Specifically, we star- 2008). Core conditions represent the important causes that have a
ted by plotting the distribution of each of the factors. Based on these strong causal relation with the outcome of interest, whereas periph-
graphs we defined the qualitative anchor for the crossover point. eral conditions are those that are more expendable because they are
Given that we are using factors that emerge from a principal com- contingent on specific segments. The solution coverage is 0.835,
ponent analysis, the median was found to be a good proxy for and the solution consistency is 0.847. All the seven configurations
the point of maximum ambiguity (neither in nor out of the set). The also show acceptable consistency scores greater or equal to 0.871.
full-membership and nonmembership scores were computed using Raw coverage figures are notably high, depicting that the degree at
percentiles. Following a common approach in QCA studies (Ragin which each recipe explains the outcome is sound. However, unique
2008; Alrik and Duşa 2013), the 90th percentile was used to re- coverage figures are rather low, implying that the proportion of
present the threshold of 0.95 (full membership), and the 10th per- cases that can be exclusively explained by the configuration is
centile was used as the 0.05 cutoff point (full nonmembership). low. In other words, cases in the sample emerge from a combination
Table 7 displays the thresholds used for each factor. of different recipes.

Fig. 1. Sufficient configurations of antecedent conditions for project management of construction projects.

© ASCE 04021166-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Fig. 1 further shows that PSF is one of the major factors ac- the outcome of the project. The procurement and the tendering
counting for project management in construction projects in DCs. methods used before and during the execution and implementation
This factor appears in Configurations 1a, 1b, and 1c. Although it phases of a construction project significantly influence the success-
needs to be combined either with the absence of PP (1a), the pres- ful management of the project. It is remarkable that, in combination
ence of PMF (1b), or the presence of EEF and absence of HRF (1c), with the use of prescribed project procedures and practices, the
PSF stands as a core condition. This implies that with a favorable competence of the people who are in charge of the tendering, pro-
external environment—even when strict project procedures are curement, selecting, and giving the contract also influence the out-
missing or there is a limited skilled workforce (as in the case of come of the construction project. This combination still holds true
many DCs)—construction projects in DCs can still be managed even when there is inadequate project support, project management
successfully if people in authority provide the necessary support factors are poorly developed, and the external environment factors
to project managers to perform their functions efficiently. are unfavorable, as is the case of the management of construction
PP appears as a core condition in Configurations 4a and 4b. This projects in many DCs. This finding is aligned with the work of
factor merges with the presence of HRF and the absence of PMF. Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999), in which project proce-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Additional conditions shape these solutions. In the case of Configu- dures were found—using a different analytical approach—to be
ration 4a, the aforementioned factors are put together with the ab- a significant predictor of project management in construction
sence of PSF, but with the absence of EEF in Configuration 4b. projects.
These results suggest that despite project management factors being Another relevant finding arising from this study is that with
poorly developed, when project management procedures are ad- the right competences, commitment, and communication among
hered to and these are coupled with a good and determined project project managers and other stakeholders (e.g., clients, contractors,
team, it is likely that the management of the construction project consultants, subcontractors, suppliers, and manufacturers), coupled
will be a success even if the external environment is not that favor- with a favorable external environmental conditions, a construction
able or support for the project is limited. The rationale behind these project could be successfully managed even in the absence of strict
solutions lies in a motivated project team, who is able to overcome project procedures. It is, however, notable that in a situation where
obstacles. With a well laid down project procedure, too much effort the external environment is hostile, the competence of the human
would not be required of the project managers if they would follow resource is inadequate and the project procedures are unclear, how
the already laid down procedures. the project manager performs the job duties (e.g., cost and quality
Lastly, Configurations 2 and 3 reveal two additional patterns. control, schedule and feedback management, project communica-
Configuration 2 suggests the combination of EEF and HRF (both
tion management, project planning, safety and risk management,
appearing as core conditions) with the absence of PP. This solution
project policy and strategization, and client consultation) is deemed
can be interpreted by saying that with a favorable environment and
as crucial for a successful project management in construction proj-
the presence of a good project team, construction projects in DCs
ects in DCs. These findings add to those of Chan et al. (2004), who
can be managed even if the procedures to be used to manage the
found external environmental factors, human-related factors, and
project are unclear. On the contrary, the duty of the project manager
project management factors as relevant predictors of construction
in a construction project is deemed as crucial (i.e., core condition)
projects’ success in DCs.
in Configuration 3, compensating for a hostile external environ-
ment, a lack of human capital, and the existence of limited project
procedures.
Implications of Findings

Managerial and policy implications as well as several recom-

Discussion mendations can be drawn from the aforementioned findings. First,
The goal of this research is to assess the factors (and their combi- governments and top management need to provide the necessary
nations) that shape project management in construction projects in support that will help to successfully manage and implement con-
DCs, and based on the results, recommend policy guidelines that struction projects in DCs. They need to make sure that before the
help project managers to successfully manage construction projects initiation of these projects in DCs, project funds, material, and all
in these countries. other relevant resources are provided. In addition, the bureaucratic
The findings from this study suggest that the backbone of a suc- processes involved in obtaining this support should be reduced and
cessful project management in construction projects in DCs lies in simplified. The adoption of electronic systems can help in this di-
the ability of opinion leaders and stakeholders such as govern- rection because these systems help to eliminate corruption and the
ments, senior managers, and clients to provide the relevant assis- difficulty in obtaining necessary documents for a project as well as
tance in the form of systems and structures, finance, materials, promote monitoring and transparency.
worker power, and other physical resources for project managers Second, project procurement contracts must be awarded by
to operate effectively, while creating an enabling environment. It merit and through a justifiable system such as open tender to attract
is notable that when implementing a construction project, the man- competent contractors and agencies who qualify. Legislation to
agement of the cost, communication, quality, schedule, and risk force contractors to complete construction projects on time should
associated with the project should be carried out effectively to en- also be enacted and enforced to serve as deterrent to contractors.
sure a successful execution of the project activities and meet the Third, project team members need to embark on periodic training
objectives of the construction project even if strict project proce- to boost their competence levels. Project managers need to handle the
dures are missing. This finding supports those of Kandelousi et al. emotions of their team, motivate them when they get disappointed,
(2011), Ofer (2007), and Chan et al. (2004), who found empirical and ensure coordination among team members during difficult times.
support that senior management are vital in ensuring a successful Also, project managers need to have the required know-how that will
project management in construction projects. help them to execute and implement their project plans, which in-
The findings also reveal that the processes and procedure used to cludes how to obtain the relevant funding that will help to accom-
initiate, acquire, or obtain a construction project significantly affect plish the project within the stipulated time.

© ASCE 04021166-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Fourth, it might be useful for governments to have specific units projects in DCs, although having a similar structure and pattern,
within its ministries responsible for monitoring the progress of tend to be heterogeneous in nature and respond to different interests
awarded construction projects. These units should be empowered and needs.
to receive feedback from contractors and project managers and de-
velop the necessary strategies to deal with implementation chal-
lenges emanating from their monitoring activities. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Finally, political leadership and other opinion leaders who have
the capacity to obstruct construction project management success The results of this study cannot be generalized and are constrained by
in DCs are expected to create an enabling external project environ- some limitations. The empirical application of this study considered
ment. Specifically, parliaments in various DCs needs to enact leg- the case of only one country, Ghana. Future research might consider
islation that will empower technocrats carrying out government testing the scale in other DCs for better inferences, as well as com-
construction projects in order to avert political interference. In ad- paring the results among different countries or regions. Other re-
dition, specific banks should be established by legislation for con- search lines, such as the sustainability of construction project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

struction project purposes. This will help contractors to get access management in DCs and the moderating role of key performance
to credit in times of liquidity difficulties and avoid unnecessary indicators on the relationship between the factors discussed in this
delays. paper and construction management in DCs, are recommended.

Concluding Remarks Data Availability Statement

In recent years, various scholars have produced different lists of All the data, models, or code that support the findings of this
factors affecting project management in construction projects, with study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
many of these being applicable to both developed countries and request.
DCs. However, in accordance with the works of Jugdev and Muller
(2005), Lova et al. (2009), and Yanwen (2012), we posit in this
study that (1) project management success factors operationalize Acknowledgments
differently in construction projects in DCs, thus requiring the
This paper was written using responses from members of the
readjustment of the existing scales to measure them; and (2) these
Project Management Institute and other project management experts
factors might combine differently—depending on the specificities
in Ghana. The authors are grateful to them.
of the cases—making it possible to observe a set of equally valid
configurations (or patterns) leading to project management success.
Consequently, a cautious identification and study of these factors
References
and their combined effects on the management of several aspects of
construction projects in DCs is necessary for guaranteeing their Ahadzie, D., E. Kissi, and T. Adjei-Kumi. 2012. “The status of project man-
success and a sustainable use of the resources invested. agement practices in the Ghanaian construction industry.” Int. J. Project
Within this context, the original contribution of this study stems Plann. Finance 3 (1): 123–135.
from the use of a novel configurational approach to examine the Ahadzie, D. K., and K. Amoa-Mensah. 2010. “Management practices in the
factors that affect project management in construction projects in Ghanaian house building industry.” J. Sci. Technol. 30 (2): 62–75.
DCs. In doing so, the paper contributes to the existing body of https://doi.org/10.4314/just.v30i2.60533.
Ahmed, R., and N. A. Mohamad. 2016. “Exploring the relationship be-
knowledge on project management. Specifically, it adds to the
tween multi-dimensional top management support and project success:
existing literature new insights on how a combination of factors An international study.” Eng. Manage. J. 28 (1): 54–67. https://doi.org
can assist construction engineers and project managers in imple- /10.1080/10429247.2015.1136525.
menting successful projects in DCs. Alashwal, A. M., N. F. Fareed, and K. M. Al-Obaidi. 2017. “Determining
Results presented in this study are expected to help project man- success criteria and success factors for international construction proj-
agers, top managers, policy makers and other relevant stakeholders ects for Malaysian contractors.” Constr. Econ. Build. 17 (2): 62–80.
to appreciate the causal complexities of the factors shaping project https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v17i2.5319.
management in construction projects in DCs and the challenges and Alias, Z., E. M. Zawawi, K. Yusof, and N. M. Aris. 2014. “Determining
the risks associated with them. The technique used in this study— critical success factors of project management practice: A conceptual
QCA—provides a context-specific assessment, suggesting ways in framework.” Procedia Social Behav. Sci. 153 (Oct): 61–69. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041.
which multiple causal factors should be combined to explain a phe-
Alrik, T., and A. Duşa. 2013. Qualitative comparative analysis with R.
nomenon (i.e., project management in construction projects). This A user’s guide. New York: Springer.
approach complements existing works that only provided a partial Amoako, I. S., and F. Lyon. 2014. “We don’t deal with courts: Cooperation
view (i.e., looking at these factors independently). In addition, and alternative institutions shaping exporting relations of small and
by putting a spotlight on these factors and their combined effects medium-sized enterprise in Ghana.” Internal Small Bus. J. 32 (2):
on the management of construction projects, the complexities aris- 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613484778.
ing from project delivery in DCs could be better understood and Amoatey, C. T., Y. A. Ameyaw, E. Adaku, and S. Famiyeh. 2015. “Ana-
addressed. lysing delay causes and effects in Ghanaian state housing construction
The results obtained suggest that different pathways are envi- projects.” Int. J. Managing Projects Bus. 8 (1): 198–214. https://doi.org
/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2014-0035.
sioned, signaling that there is no unique strategy, but rather dif-
Amponsah, R. 2010. “Improving project management practice in Ghana
ferent routes that can be followed, all of them equally valid for with focus on agriculture, banking and construction sectors of the
ensuring project management success. Based on the resources and Ghanaian economy.” Ph.D. thesis. School of Property, Construction,
the capabilities of each project, project managers should select the and Project Management, RMIT Univ.
route that best fit with the specificities of each of their projects. Asunka, J. 2016. “Partisanship and political accountability in new democ-
These findings are of great importance because construction racies: Explaining compliance with formal rules and procedures in

© ASCE 04021166-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Ghana.” Res. Politics 3 (1): 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680 Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating structural equation models
16633907. with unobservable variables and measurement error.” J. Marketing Res.
Belassi, W., and O. I. Tukel. 1996. “A new framework for determining criti- 18 (1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
cal success/failure factors in projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 14 (3): Fortune, J., and D. White. 2006. “Framing of project critical success factors
141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X. by a systems model.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (1): 53–65. https://doi
Beleiu, I., E. Crisan, and R. Nistor. 2015. “Main factors influencing project .org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004.
success.” Interdiscip. Manage. Res. 11 (1): 59–72. Frefer, A. A., M. Mahmoud, H. Haleema, and R. Almamlook. 2018. “Over-
Belout, A., and C. Gauvreau. 2004. “Factors influencing project success: view success criteria and critical success factors in project manage-
The impact of human resource management.” Int. J. Project Manage. ment.” Ind. Eng. Manage. 7 (10): 244. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169
22 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00003-6. -0316.1000244.
Besner, C., and B. Hobbs. 2006. “The project management tools and tech- Fugar, F. D. K., and A. B. Agyarkwa. 2010. “Delays in building construc-
niques: The portrait of current professional practice.” Project Manage. tion in Ghana.” Aust. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 10 (1–2): 103–116. https://
J. 37 (3): 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700305. doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v10i1/2.1592.
Bokor, M. J. K. 2011. “The dirty politics of development project hurts.” Gudienė, N., A. Banaitis, and N. Banaitienė. 2013. “Evaluation of critical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accessed March 5, 2020. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHome success factors for construction projects: An empirical study in Lithuania.”
Page/features/artikel.php?ID=215290. Int. J. Strategic Property Manage. 17 (1): 21–31. https://doi.org/10.3846
Bond-Barnard, T. J., L. Fletcher, and H. Steyn. 2018. “Linking trust and /1648715X.2013.787128.
collaboration in project teams to project management success.” Int. J. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate
Managing Projects Bus. 11 (2): 432–457. https://doi.org/10.1108 data analysis. 7th ed. New York: Pearson.
/IJMPB-06-2017-0068. Hassan, A. Q. 1995. “Don’t burn that bridge.” J. Manage. Eng. 11 (6): 22.
Budget of the Republic of Ghana. 2019. “Budget highlights: A stronger https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:6(22).
economy for jobs and prosperity.” Accessed February 18, 2020. Hwang, B. G., and E. J. Lim. 2013. “Critical success factors for key project
https://www.pwc.com/gh/en/assets/pdf/2019-budget-highlights.pdf. players and objectives: Case study of Singapore.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
Chan, A. P. C., D. Scott, and A. P. L. Chan. 2004. “Factors affecting the age. 139 (2): 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
success of a construction project.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (1): .0000597.
153–155. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153). Ihuah, P. W., I. I. Kakulu, and D. Eaton. 2014. “A review of critical project
Chau, N. D., L. Long, and D. L. Young. 2012. “Critical success factors management success factors for sustainable social housing in Nigeria.”
of large design-build projects in Vietnam.” J. Constr. Eng. Project Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 3 (1): 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Manage. 2 (3): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2012.2.3.030. .ijsbe.2014.08.001.
Chen, Y. Q., Y. B. Zhang, J. Y. Liu, and P. Mo. 2012. “Interrelationships Jelodar, M. B., T. W. Yiu, and S. Wilkinson. 2016. “A conceptualisation of
among critical success factors of construction projects based on the
relationship quality in construction procurement.” Int. J. Project Man-
structural equation model.” J. Manage. Eng. 28 (3): 243–251. https://
age. 34 (6): 997–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.005.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000104.
Jenkins, Q. C., and A. Wallace. 2016. Construction bonds: What every con-
Choi, Y. J. 2009. “Application of fuzzy-set theory in social sciences.”
tractor and owner should know. Vancouver, Canada: Jenkins Marzban
J. Governmental Stud. 15 (3): 307–336.
Logan LLP Lawyers.
Ciccotti, K. 2014. “The human factor in project management.” In Proc.,
Jugdev, K., and R. Muller. 2005. “A retrospective look at our evolving
PMI® Global Congress 2014—North America. Newtown Square,
understanding of project success.” Project Manage. J. 36 (4): 19–31.
PA: Project Management Institute.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600403.
Cleland, D. I., and R. Gareis. 2006. Global project management handbook:
Kaiser, H. F. 1960. “The application of electronic computers to factor
Planning, organizing and controlling international projects. 2nd ed.
analysis.” Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20 (1): 141–151. https://doi.org/10
New York: McGraw-Hill.
.1177/001316446002000116.
Cserháti, G., and L. Szabó. 2014. “The relationship between success
criteria and success factors in organizational event projects.” Int. J. Kandelousi, N. S., J. Ooi, and A. Abdollahi. 2011. “Key success factors for
Project Manage. 32 (4): 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman managing projects international.” J. Econ. Manage. Eng. 5 (1): 11–23.
.2013.08.008. Khang, D. B., and T. L. Moe. 2008. “Success criteria and factors for
Damoah, I. S., and C. Akwei. 2017. “Government project failure in Ghana: international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework.”
A multidimensional approach.” Int. J. Managing Projects Bus. 10 (1): Project Manage. J. 39 (1): 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20034.
32–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0017. Kissi, E., D. K. Ahadzie, and E. Badu. 2015. “Strategies for improving
Damoah, I. S., and D. K. Kumi. 2018. “Causes of government construction professional project management practices in the Ghanaian construction
projects failure in an emerging economy: Evidence from Ghana.” Int. J. industry.” NICMAR-J. Constr. Manage. 30 (2): 5–9.
Managing Projects Bus. 11 (3): 558–582. https://doi.org/10.1108 Konadu-Agyemang, K. 2001. “A survey of housing conditions and char-
/IJMPB-04-2017-0042. acteristics in Accra, an African city.” Habitat Int. 25 (1): 15–34. https://
Dang, C. N., L. Le-Hoai, and Y. D. Lee. 2012. “Critical success factors doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(00)00016-3.
of large design-build projects in Vietnam.” KICEM J. Constr. Eng. Ladhari, R. 2012. “The lodging quality index: An independent assessment
Manage. 2 (3): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2012.2.3.030. of validity and dimensions.” Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Manage.
Darko, E., and A. Löwe. 2016. Ghana’s construction sector and youth 24 (4): 628–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211217914.
employment. London: Overseas Development Institute. Lapinski, A., M. Horman, and D. Riley. 2006. “Lean processes for sustain-
De Wit, A. 1988. “Measurement of project success.” Int. J. Project Manage. able project delivery.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (10): 1083–1091.
6 (3): 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083).
Dissanayaka, S. M., and M. M. Kumaraswamy. 1999. “Evaluation of Lester, A. 2007. Project management: Planning and control. New York:
factors affecting time and cost performance in Hong Kong building Elsevier.
projects.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 6 (3): 287–298. https://doi.org Ling, F. Y., S. P. Low, S. Wang, and T. Egbelakin. 2008. “Models for
/10.1108/eb021119. predicting project performance in China using project management
Doloi, H., and M. Y. Lim. 2007. “Measuring performance in construction practices adopted by foreign AEC firms.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
projects—A critical analysis with an Australian perspective.” In Proc., 134 (12): 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)
Construction and Building Research Conf. of the Royal Institute of 134:12(983).
Chartered Surveyors. London: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Liu, Y. W., G. F. Zhou, and S. Q. Wang. 2010. “Many hands, much politics,
Fiss, P. C. 2011. “Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to multiple risks: The case of the 2008 Beijing Olympics stadium.” Aust. J.
typologies in organization research.” Acad. Manage. J. 54 (2): 393–420. Public Admin. 69 (Mar): S85–S98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120. .2009.00661.x.

© ASCE 04021166-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166

 Lova, A., P. Tormos, M. Cervantes, and F. Barber. 2009. “An efficient hy- Pugh, C. 2001. “The theory and practice of housing sector development for
brid genetic algorithm for scheduling projects with resource constraints developing countries.” Housing Stud. 16 (4): 399–423. https://doi.org
and multiple execution modes.” Int. J. Prod. Econ. 117 (2): 302–316. /10.1080/02673030120066527.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.11.002. Radujkovića, M., and M. Sjekavicab. 2017. “Project management success
Malhotra, N. K. 1999. Marketing research: An applied orientation. factors.” Procedia Eng. 196 (2017): 607–615.
London: Prentice-Hall International. Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond.
Meyer, A. D., A. S. Tsui, and C. R. Hinings. 1993. “Configurational Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
approaches to organizational analysis.” Acad. Manage. J. 36 (6): Rasul, I., and D. Rogger. 2016. “Management of bureaucrats and public
1175–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/256809. service delivery: Evidence from the Nigerian civil service.” Econ. J.
Molenaar, K. R., and A. D. Songer. 1998. “Model for public sector design- 128 (1): 7–9.
build project selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 124 (6): 467–479. Rodney, T., M. Ralf, and D. Vic. 2009. “Comparing the leadership styles of
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:6(467). functional and project managers.” Int. J. Managing Projects Bus. 2 (2):
Nguyen, L. D., S. O. Oguniana, and D. T. Xuan Lan. 2004. “A study on 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910949266.
project success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam.” Eng. Salam, M. A., M. Ali, and K. A. S. Kan. 2017. “Analyzing supply chain
Constr. Archit. Manage. 11 (6): 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1108 uncertainty to deliver sustainable operational performance: Symmetri-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARMSTRONG AMOAH on 09/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/09699980410570166. cal and asymmetrical modeling approaches.” Sustainability 9 (12):

Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. New York: 2217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122217.
McGraw-Hill. Sanvido, V., F. Grobler, K. Parfitt, M. Guvenis, and M. Coyle. 1992.
Odeh, A. M., and H. T. Battaineh. 2002. “Causes of construction delays: “Critical success factors for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Traditional contracts.” Int. J. Project Manage. 20 (1): 67–73. https://doi Manage. 118 (1): 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00037-5. (1992)118:1(94).
Ofer, Z. 2007. “Top management involvement in project management.” Int. Schneider, C. Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for
J. Managing Projects Bus. 1 (3): 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1108 the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis.
/17538370810883837. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ofori, D. F. 2013. “Project management practices and critical success fac- Shokri-Ghasabeh, M., and K. Kavousi-Chabok. 2009. “Generic project
tors: A developing country perspective.” Int. J. Bus. Manage. 8 (21): success and project management success criteria and factors: Literature
14–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n21p14. review and survey.” WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 8 (6): 56–59.
Ofori-Kuragu, J. K., D. Owusu-Manu, and J. Ayarkwa. 2016. “The case for Songer, A. D., and K. R. Molenaar. 1997. “Project characteristics for suc-
the Construction Industry Council, Ghana.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries cessful public-sector design-build.” J. Constr. Procur. 123 (1): 34–40.
21 (2): 131–149. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2016.21.2.7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:1(34).
Ojiako, U., and M. Chipulu. 2014. “National culture and perceptions of Transparency International. 2015. “Corruption perception index.” Accessed
success and failure in projects.” Manage. Procure. Law 167 (4): June 24, 2020. https://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table.
168–169. https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.13.00027. Venter, F. 2005. “Project management in Ghana: Expectations, realities and
Owusu-Ansah, M., and L. Louw. 2019. “The influence of national culture barriers to use.” J. Transdiscip. Res. Southern Afr. 1 (1): 20–96. https://
on organizational culture of multinational companies.” Cogent Soc. Sci. doi.org/10.4102/td.v1i1.305.
5 (1): 162–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1623648. Walker, D., and Y. Shen. 2002. “Project understanding, planning, flexibility of
Oxford Business Group. 2019. “Construction & real estate.” Accessed management action and construction time performance: Two Australian
April 9, 2020. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/ghana-2019/construction case studies.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 20 (1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10
-real-estate. .1080/01446190110089691.
Pallant, J. 2010. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data White, D., and J. Fortune. 2002. “Current practice in project management:
analysis using the SPSS program. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. An empirical study.” Int. J. Project Manage. 20 (1): 1–11. https://doi
Phua, F. T. T. 2004. “Modelling the determinants of multi-firm project .org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00029-6.
success: A grounded exploration of differing participant perspectives.” Williams, T. 2016. “Identifying success factors in construction projects:
Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (5): 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144 A case study.” Project Manage. J. 47 (1): 97–112. https://doi.org/10
619042000190243. .1002/pmj.21558.
Pinto, J. K., and D. P. Slevin. 1989. “Critical success factors in R&D Wolfinbarger, M., and M. C. Gilly. 2003. “eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, meas-
projects.” Res. Technol. Manage. 32 (1): 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1080 uring and predicting retail quality.” J. Retailing 79 (3): 183–198. https://
/08956308.1989.11670572. doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00034-4.
Project Management Institute. 2017. A guide to the project management Yanwen, W. 2012. “The study on complex project management in devel-
body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide). 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA: oping countries.” Procedia 25 (2012): 1547–1552. https://doi.org/10
Project Management Institute. .1016/j.phpro.2012.03.274.

© ASCE 04021166-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

View publication stats J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(12): 04021166