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

net/publication/273370651

Critical Criteria on Client and Customer Satisfaction for the Issue of Performance
Measurement

Article  in  Journal of Management in Engineering · January 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000183

CITATIONS READS

17 283

2 authors:

Pooria Rashvand Muhd.Zaimi Abd Majid

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
5 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    163 PUBLICATIONS   1,200 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WEIGHTAGE FACTOR FOR MALAYSIA GREEN HIGHWAY ASSESSMENT View project

slope stability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pooria Rashvand on 21 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Critical Criteria on Client and Customer Satisfaction for the
Issue of Performance Measurement
Pooria Rashvand 1 and Muhd Zaimi Abd Majid 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Successful performance measurement criteria cannot be limited to meeting just the three traditional criteria. Satisfaction is a
subjective and critical measurement for the stakeholder performance, but it has rarely been used as a criterion for the performance
measurement of project stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to establish the client and customer satisfaction criteria as the two
key stakeholders in construction project for the issue of performance measurement based on the reviewed data. The methodology of this
study is based on comprehensive literature review of performance measurements for client and customer whereby the data were analyzed,
using the metrics which are the aggregate number of each customer and client-satisfaction criteria occurring in previous study. From the
metric analysis, the common factors for customer and client satisfaction were ranked. From the analysis, it can be concluded that expectation
and perception are the two common critical satisfaction criteria for client and customer that must be considered where the satisfaction is
required. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000183. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Success criteria; Performance measurement; Satisfaction criteria.

Introduction factors (CSFs) for a mega construction project in Thailand.

Nevertheless, Elattar (2009) had developed a hierarchical model
Many researchers have tried to determine the critical factors for a framework to evaluate a construction project’s success which
successful project. There are four major groups of independent included three sets of SC that can be viewed from three perspec-
variables that have been identified, namely project-related factors, tives: owner, designer, and contractor. Meanwhile, Al-Tmeemy
contractual arrangement factors, interactive process factors, and et al. (2011) attempted to define SC through the contractor’s
human-related factors (Chua et al. 1999; Yu et al. 2006). Among perspective.
these factors, the human-related factors have been highlighted in Ogunlana (2009) illustrated that the stakeholder’s satisfaction is
many studies within the last decade as it has been confirmed that a key factor in project success, and a project cannot be deemed as
stakeholders are the main basis of uncertainties in projects. This successful until it is achieved. Identifying and satisfying the needs
calls for more effective stakeholder management by understanding of stakeholders is critical for the existence and competitiveness of
these sources of uncertainties and recognizing suitable manage- the global construction industry (Cheng et al. 2006). Dissatisfaction
ment strategies (Ward and Chapman 2008). However, determining is widely experienced by clients of the construction sector and may
the success of a project is much more difficult because a project be caused by many things, but is largely attributable to overrunning
may seem to be successful to the client, yet not successful to project costs, delayed completion, inferior quality, and incompetent
the contractors and end users, and vice versa (Cox et al. 2003; service providers including contractors and consultants (National
Bryde and Robinson 2005; Toor and Ogunlana 2008, 2010; Meng Audit Office 2000; Health and Safety Executive 2002; “Holyrood”
et al. 2011). In other words, the criteria that determine a project’s 2004). Therefore, to measure the satisfaction level of stakeholders,
success for each stakeholder are different. There are several success a performance measurement can be carried out. Performance
criteria (SC) and categorization models that have been introduced measurement is a process whereby an organization establishes
and studied to address the stakeholders issue in determining the the factors within which programs, investments, and achievements
success of a project. However, it seems from the literature regarding are reaching the desired results (Enterprise Architecture Program
SC for stakeholders, few investigations on the SC preference of 2007). Satisfaction is a subjective measurement, which is rarely
construction practitioners have been undertaken (Yang et al. used in the performance measurement of stakeholders. Many
2010a). For example, the study by Frodell et al. (2008) on SC researchers suggested that customer satisfaction (Pinto and Slevin
was limited to client’s perspectives while Toor and Ogunlana 1988), client satisfaction (Yeung et al. 2009), and overall satisfac-
(2008) studied project managers’ perceptions on critical success tion of stakeholders (Bryde and Brown 2004) should also be
considered in performance measurement criteria in addition to
1 the measure of time, cost, and quality. The purpose of this study
Ph.D. Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Univ. Teknologi
Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor 81310, Malaysia. E-mail: rpooria2@live is to establish the client and customer-satisfaction criteria on the
.utm.my issue of performance measurement based on the reviewed data.
2
Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. Teknologi Malaysia, UTM This study identifies the stakeholders’ orientations toward customer
Skudai, Johor 81310, Malaysia (corresponding author). E-mail: mzaimi@ and client satisfaction related to the issue of performance measure-
utm.my
ment. Customers, as one of the stakeholders in this study, are
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 11, 2012; approved on
January 24, 2013; published online on December 16, 2013. Discussion per-
described as external customers in project who are the potential
iod open until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for users of the facilities. The client is described as construction client
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in who develops a construction project from the inception to the
Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 1, January 1, 2014. © ASCE, ISSN 0742- commissioning and utilization. The duty is to make sure that the
597X/2014/1-10-18/$25.00. needs of the customers, the owner, and the community are met

10 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 (Bryde and Robinson 2005). Project stakeholders are groups or Project Participant Success Criteria
individuals who have a expectation of the project’s performance
and include clients, designers, project managers, suppliers, subcon- Pheng and Chuan (2006) argued that the measure of a
tractors, funding bodies, users, and the community at large project’s success can no longer be restricted to the traditional
(Newcombe 2003). The output of the study investigates the indicators—time, cost, and quality. The introduction of nonfinan-
criticality of the satisfaction criteria. The analysis of this study cial measures such as client satisfaction, business performance, and
is based on the role of stakeholders in the project. health and safety environment has led the research in project-
success criteria to move from the project level to company level
and the stakeholder’s level. However, few researchers already
considered the stakeholders in the categorization of success criteria
Project Success
in their studies. For instance, Lim and Mohamad (1999) had
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The determination of a project’s success remains somewhat of a categorized project success into the micro and macro level where
mystery (Pinto and Slevin 1988) because despite several studies, the micro viewpoint was related to the project or company goals
researchers have yet to come to an agreement on what are the such as time, cost, performance, quality, and safety while the macro
key factors that determine a project’s success (Brown and Adams viewpoint dealt with the users and stakeholders’ satisfaction.
2000; Dainty et al. 2003). To date, there are no consistent interpre- Meanwhile, Chan and Chan (2004) identified two groups of key
tations or standardized definitions of the term project success performance indicators for a construction project’s success: the
(Baccarini 1999). Nevertheless, Chua et al. (1999) had proposed first group was objective measures which included time, cost,
safety, and environment; and the second group consisted of
a hierarchical model that considered budget, schedule, and quality
subjective measures that comprised of quality, functionality, and
as the inputs that would contribute to a construction project’s
satisfaction of different project participants. Table 2 is the
success. At the top of the hierarchy are the four main project as-
collection of various studies conducted between 1981 and 2011
pects, namely contractual arrangements, project characteristics,
indicating the importance of stakeholder-satisfaction criteria for
project participants, and interactive process, jointly called the
project success.
CSFs. This term was first coined by Rockart (1982) and is defined
as those factors that can predict the success of a project (Sanvido
et al. 1992). Boynton and Zmud (1984) defined CSFs as those few
Performance Measurement in Stakeholder
things that must go well to ensure the success of a manager and an
Success Criteria
organization. The study done by Yu et al. (2006) showed that the
similar CSFs can be used for traditional construction success cri- The relationship amongst different contracting parties in the
teria. Like Chua et al. (1999), Yu et al. (2006) grouped the CSFs construction industry is complex, as it involves many project
into project-related factors, human-related factors, process-related stakeholders such as owners, consultants, and contractors. In a
factors, and input- and output-related factors. These factors have study of relationships between the stakeholders’ performance
been introduced earlier as the four major independent variables. and project success, Wang and Huang (2006) proved that the
Other researchers, on the other hand, focused more on the subcri- owner, supervisor, and contractor’s performances are significantly
teria of these main CSFs, for example Chan et al. (2001), Nguyen related to the success of a project. A performance measurement at
et al. (2004), and Fortune and White (2006). From various litera- the stakeholder level is used for measuring the overall project and
tures, it seems that some researchers have referred these sub-CSFs stakeholders’ individual performances as well as monitoring the
merely as CSFs as well. Therefore, it can also be concluded that project’s progress. In a study concerning performance measurement
CSF indicates any success factor or criterion that can determine criteria for construction project managers, Dainty et al. (2003) iden-
a project’s success. This is the reason that has led to little agreement tified the following criteria as the important ones to measure the
to form standard CSFs and many researchers continue to stress the project’s performance: team building; leadership; decision-making;
need to establish related issues in this area (Toor and Ogunlana mutuality and approachability; honesty and integrity; communica-
2008). Table 1 is the collection of various studies conducted tion; learning, understanding, and application; and self-efficacy and
between 1973 and 2010 on the various types of CSFs which were external relations. Ahmed and Kangari (1995), on the other hand,
highlighted on the study of Chua et al. (1999). identified six client-satisfaction factors; notably time, cost, quality,

Table 1. Review on Success Factor Criteria

References Main CSF
Schein (1980), World Bank (1986), Skitmore (1987), Bradach and Eccles (1989), Cook and Hancher (1990), Simon Contractual arrangement
(1991), Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Abudayyeh (1994), Hampson and Kwok (1997), Anderson and West (1998),
Kumaraswamy and Yogeswaran (1998), Thompson et al. (1998), Halman and Braks (1999), Drexler and Larson
(2000), Mitropoulos and Tatum (2000), Barlow (2000), Dubois and Gadde (2002), Chua et al. (2003), Chan and Suen
(2005)
Miller (1973), Morris and Hough (1987), Pinto and Slevin (1989), Chua et al. (1997), Tukel and Rom (1998), Chua Project characteristic
et al. (1999), Alshawi and Ingirige (2003), Nitithamyong and Skibniewski (2006)
Russell et al. (1994), Gugel and Russell (1994), Griffith and Sidwell (1995), Glavinich (1995), Fischer and Tatum Interactive process
(1997), Uhlik and Lores (1998), Jergeas and Van der Put (2001), Gray and Hughes (2001), Nima et al. (2002), Nguyen
et al. (2004)
Jeffery (1985), Kerzner (1987), Pinto and Slevin (1988), Jaselskis and Ashley (1991), Mohsini and Davidson (1992), Project participant
Belassi and Tukel (1996), Munns and Bjeirmi (1996), Songer and Molenaar (1997), Chua et al. (1999), Egbu (1999),
Nicolini (2002), Nguyen et al. (2004), Phua (2004), Belout and Gauvreau (2004), Yu et al. (2006), Fortune and White
(2006), Aaltonen et al. (2008), Yang et al. (2010b)

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 11

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 Table 2. Importance of Stakeholder Satisfaction Criteria for Project Success
References Category of stakeholder satisfaction
Essex et al. (1981), De Wit (1988), Ahmed and Kangari (1995), Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996), Alarcon Client satisfaction
and Ashley (1996), Lim and Mohamed (1999), Tang et al. (2003), Cheng et al. (2006), Takim and Adnan
(2008), Elattar (2009), Chen et al. (2010), Ling et al. (2009), Papke-Shields et al. (2010), Isik et al. (2010)
Kaplan and Norton (1992), Belassi and Tukel (1996), Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997), Landin (2000), Customer satisfaction
Torbica and Stroh (2001), Raz and Michael (2001), Shenhar et al. (2001), Tukel and Rom (2001), Zwikael
and Globerson (2004), Bryde and Robinson (2005), Milosevic and Patanakul (2005), Forsythe (2007), Yu
et al. (2007), Ahadzie et al. (2008a, b), Takim and Adnan (2008), Thomas and Fernandez (2008), Karna
et al. (2009), Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

client orientation, communication skills, and response to com- financial result, while Maloney (1990) regards profitability as
plaints; to conduct a survey for analyzing the client-satisfaction revenues generated by firm exceeding the cost of producing the
factors in the construction industry. They concluded that these revenues.
six factors are equally important. Tang et al. (2003) outlined eight In spite of the multidimensional nature of a project, cost and
factors (expressed in 29 indicators) to evaluate the overall client schedule performance measures are still among the most exten-
satisfaction in engineering consulting firms in Hong Kong. The sively used methods to evaluate a project’s performance by many
factors were: timeliness of service, professionalism of service, organizations (Project Management Institute 2004). Many organi-
competitiveness of service, degree of innovation, quality of design, zations do not clearly consider key input variables that add value
completeness of other considerations, availability of support for for the client (Farris et al. 2006). Here is some literature that
client, and supervision at implementation. In addition, in the study considered the satisfaction for stakeholder performance evaluation.
done by Leung et al. (2004a), 15 established and verified hypoth- Forsythe (2007) presented a conceptual framework describing
eses were used to measure participant satisfaction (inclusive of how customers potentially evaluate satisfaction in residential con-
client satisfaction) in the construction-management process. struction projects. It has been identified that the purchase decision
The study showed that it is the management mechanisms (e.g., com- process feeds into both prepurchase expectations and perceptions
munication, participation, and commitment) rather than particular during/after construction. This means that from the time when the
project goals (e.g., time, cost, and quality) that directly influence project is initiated until it is fully completed and handed over to the
participant satisfaction. Leung et al. (2004b) used web-based owner, a change in the way the service quality, price, and project
measurement and monitoring systems in which the project’s quality influence satisfaction can be observed. Yang and Peng
performance were measured by people, cost, time, quality, safety (2008) developed a novel customer-satisfaction evaluation model
and health, environment, client satisfaction, and communication. for construction project management (CPM) services in Taiwan.
For each of the performance-measurement categories, the corre- This model uses a questionnaire-based survey and statistical
sponding performance indicators and measuring methods were analysis to carry out the relevant evaluations, and it has become
established. The monitoring process was automated through the a good reference for evaluating and assessing CPM performance.
use of the World Wide Web and database technology; it was pre- In addition, Karna et al. (2009) put forth a tested model and frame-
pared to assist the project managers in better monitoring practices. work used to describe the structure and factors influencing
From the studies that focused on establishing relevant stake- customer satisfaction in the construction industry. It showed that
holders’ satisfactory measurements, it has been shown that consid- the interdependencies and relationships between the factors are
ering common satisfaction criteria can contribute to a project’s different. The model developed can also assist in perceiving various
success. These included expectation, competency, perception, direct and indirect relationships between the factors.
profitability, commitment, communication, and dispute reduction.
Expectation is defined as desires or wants of the consumers—what
they feel a service provider should offer (Lewis and Mitchell 1990). Research Methodology
Perception is defined as the stakeholder’s levels of awareness for
the project success. Competency is a technical ability of the stake- This review was conducted through several phases, namely litera-
holders that can be evaluated based on the plant and equipment ture review, data collection, data analysis, discussion, and conclu-
used and the personnel’s experience and ability to handle the sion. A literature review was conducted encompassing all means
project (Hatush and Skitmore 1997). Commitment, communica- available to obtain the widest range of the relevant information
tion, and dispute reduction concern the interpersonal relationship from books, journals, and websites related to performance meas-
skills of the stakeholders. Commitment is defined as “the totality urement for stakeholders. The journals, especially those in the
of normative pressure to act in a way which meets organizational following construction-management journals, were reviewed.
goals and interests” (Wiener 1982, p. 1). Communication is a cri- The top four referred journals with the number of references in this
terion that supports the improvement of confident relationship with study are as follows, with the number of articles from each in paren-
the stakeholder community and can also be used to influence atti- theses: International Journal of Project Management (23), Journal
tudes and behaviors within the broader environment. Dispute re- of Construction Engineering and Management (13), Journal of
duction refers to the ability to minimize the frequency of Management in Engineering (13) and Construction Management
dispute occurrence in the construction industry. Profitability has and Economics (11).
been defined in different ways by many researchers. According The data collection process was done in the following manner:
to Parfitt and Sanvido (1993), profitability measures the financial Firstly, the titles, keywords, and abstracts were scanned with the
success of the project. Norris (1990) measures profit as the incre- related keywords (i.e., SC, performance measurement, and satisfac-
ment by which revenues exceed costs. Chan et al. (2002) measures tion criteria). Secondly, the abstracts of related papers were then
profitability in the post-construction phase when the final account is read through to filter out the less-relevant papers. Finally, the study
settled and both the paying and the paid parties can be sure of the was scaled down to focus on papers published from 1973 to 2011.

12 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 This review stressed the researchers’ main ideas on a successful highlight the similarity and differences for client and customer
project and particularly highlighted on the important role of stake- satisfaction based on the frequency of satisfaction metrics. It is
holders in attaining project success. Nevertheless, it is important to crucial to note that the criteria that are known for all participants
express here that this review is not concerned with the related such as time, cost, and quality were excluded because, in compari-
frameworks. son, these are the causes that were noticeable as satisfaction factors
For data analysis, the criteria for client and customer satisfaction among the sectors. This study highlighted the criteria that have not
from different perspectives that were obtained from various studies been considered seriously in previous research for participant
between 1981 and 2011 are tabulated, and the present study tried to satisfaction in the project and did not mean to say time, cost,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study first stressed the Source of Literature

main concept of project • Books
success and highlighted the Literature review
• Journals
important role of
• Websites
stakeholders in attaining
project success.

Title, keywords and abstract were

scanned with the related keywords.
In the study of project Key words: Success Criteria,
participant success factor Performance Measurement and
client and customer Satisfaction Criteria.
satisfaction factor for the Data Collection Abstract: a brief review of the abstracts
project success were of the papers was conducted to filter out
highlighted. the least related papers.
The study scaled down the search by
focusing on papers published from
1973 to 2011
Performance measurements
based on the stakeholder’s
satisfaction are investigated.
The data analysis, the criteria for client
Data Analysis and customer's satisfaction from
different perspectives were obtained
from various studies between 1981 and
2011 are tabulated and the study try to
highlight the similarity and differences
Discussion and for the client and customer satisfaction
Conclusion based on the frequency satisfaction
metrics.

Fig. 1. Research methodology

Table 3. Review on Customer Satisfaction Criteria

Customer satisfaction Criterion
Reference Stakeholder category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Kaplan and Norton (1992) Project manager X X X X — — —
Belassi and Tukel (1996) Project manager — X X — X X —
Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) Customer X — X X X — —
Landin (2000) Client X X — X X X X
Shenhar et al. (2001) Project manager X X X X — — —
Tukel and Rom (2001) Project manager — X X — X X —
Raz and Michael (2001) Project manager — — — — — X —
Torbica and Stroh (2001) Customer X — — — — — —
Zwikael and Globerson (2004) Project manager X X X X — — —
Milosevic and Patanakul (2005) Project manager X — — X — — —
Bryde and Robinson (2005) Client X — X — — X —
Yu et al. (2007) Customer — X — X — — —
Forsythe (2007) Customer X — X X — — X
Thomas and Fernandez (2008) Customer X — X X — — —
Ahadzie et al. (2008b) Project manager — X — — — — X
Takim and Adnan (2008) Client X — — X X — —
Ahadzie et al. (2008a) Project manager X X X X — — —
Ahadzie et al. (2008a) Customer X X — X — X —
Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011) Contractor X — — X — X X
Aggregating the frequency of occurrence 14 10 10 13 5 7 4
Note: Criteria are defined as follows: 1 = expectation; 2 = competency; 3 = perception; 4 = profitability; 5 = commitment; 6 = communication; 7 = dispute
reduction.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 13

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 Table 4. Review on Client Satisfaction Criteria
Client satisfaction Criterion
References Stakeholder category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Essex et al. (1981) Client X — X — — — —
De Wit (1988) Client X — X X X — —
Ahmed and Kangari (1995) Client X — X — — X —
Alarcon and Ashley (1996) Client X — — — X — —
Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996) Project manager — — X — — X —
Lim and Mohamed (1999) Client X — X — X X X
Tang et al. (2003) Project manager X — — — — X —
— —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cheng et al. (2006); Consultant X X X X X

Takim and Adnan (2008) Contractor X — X X — — —
Chen et al. (2010) Client X — — — X X —
Elattar (2009) Contractor X — — X — X —
Ling et al. (2009) Contractor — X — X — X X
Isik et al. (2010) Contractor X — — X — X X
Papke-Shields et al. (2010 Project manager X — — — — X —
Aggregating the frequency of occurrence 12 2 7 5 4 10 4
Note: Criteria are defined as follows: 1 = expectation; 2 = competency; 3 = perception; 4 = profitability; 5 = commitment; 6 = communication; 7 = dispute
reduction.

and quality are more or less important than other criteria. From made according to the common high-ranking criteria. Nevertheless,
these analyses, a conclusion was drawn. The flow chart for the both pie charts showed that dispute reduction was the least-
research methodology section is shown in Fig. 1. interesting factor.
This study also used the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance
test to further investigate the agreement in criteria ranking.
Analysis and Discussion Kendall’s W (also known as Kendall’s coefficient of concordance)
is a non-parametric statistic which is also a normalization of the
A cross tabulation (Tables 3 and 4) was done to emphasize the Friedman statistical testcommonlyused for assessing agreement
factors related to satisfaction principles for two key stakeholders, among rankers. Kendall’s W ranges from 0 (no agreement) to 1
and for every stakeholder the preferences between these features (complete agreement). If W is 1, it means all the survey respondents
are recognized and judged with one another. have been unanimous and each respondent has assigned the same
Under the full citation of the customer satisfaction, which is order to the list of objects or concerns. If W is 0, it means there is
highlighted in Table 3, the highest-ranked cause belongs to expect- no overall trend of agreement among the respondents and their
ation, in contrast with other principles by 14 out of 19 authors.
responses may be regarded as essentially random. Intermediate
Profitability, as mentioned by 13 authors, was the next highest
values of W indicate a greater or lesser degree of unanimity
factor of satisfaction. Competency and perception are ranked third
among the various respondents (Kendall and Smith 1939). Table 5
with 10 citations. Communication is ranked fourth with seven
citations in the aforementioned table, and the least influential
factors were commitment and dispute reduction, which were cited
by five and four authors, respectively.
Expectation for client satisfaction was ranked highest by 12 out
of 14 authors considered. Communication was ranked second from
10 out of 14 citations. Perception was ranked third as cited by seven
authors. Profitability was ranked fourth (five citations), and the
least significant factors were commitment, dispute reduction (four
citations each), and competency (two citations).
For better interpretation of each criterion related to both groups
of stakeholders, this study employed a pie chart. In this way, the
total aggregate of client satisfaction or customer satisfaction cat-
egory was determined through each total criteria citation by the
authors. This was done to highlight the weight of each criterion.
The weight is different when one author highlighted one criterion
as a satisfaction criterion and another author emphasised up to
seven criteria in their study. Using the pie chart, the percentage
weight of each criterion could be indicated and easily compared.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, for both stakeholders, the expectation
factor was weighted 22 and 27% for customer and client satisfac-
tion, respectively. Perception had the same weight (16%) in both
pie charts. However, it seemed that communication was an impor-
tant factor to evaluate clients’ satisfaction, but not for the custom-
ers. On the contrary, profitability seemed to be an important factor
to evaluate customer’s satisfaction (21%), whereas it was less
Fig. 2. Priorities for client and customer satisfaction criteria
important for client’s satisfaction (11%). These comparisons were

14 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 Table 5. Summary for the Ranking of Client and Customer Satisfaction Criteria
Client and customer satisfaction criteria
Kendall’s coefficient of
Client satisfaction Customer satisfaction concordance test
Criteria Total authors 14 Rank Total authors 19 Rank Ri ðRi -R̄Þ2
Expectation 12 1 14 1 2 36
Communication 10 2 7 5 7 1
Perception 7 3 10 3.5 6.5 2.25
Profitability 5 4 13 2 6 4
Commitment 4 5.5 5 6 11.5 12.25
Dispute reduction 4 5.5 4 7 12.5 20.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Competency 2 7 10 3.5 10.5 P 6.25

ðRi − R̄Þ2 ¼ 82

12 × S
W¼ ð4Þ
m2 ðn3− nÞ

Kendall’s W was then calculated as follows:

R̄ ¼ 0.5
2ð7 þ 1Þ ¼ 8

S ¼ 82

W ¼ ð12
82Þ=4ð73 − 7Þ

Fig. 3. Similarities and differences for the client and customer W ¼ 0.732
satisfaction criteria
As can be seen, W was very close to 1. Thus it was concluded
that both groups had been unanimous and each group had assigned
shows the client and customer-satisfaction criteria ranked accord- almost the same ranking to the list of satisfaction criteria. This was
ing to this statistical test. further confirmed with the morphological box test (Fig. 3). The
The criterion was the rank ri;j by respondent number j, where morphological box test was used to show the similarities and differ-
there are in total n objects and m respondents. Then the total rank ences between the client and customer-satisfaction criteria. As can
(Ri ) given to criterion i is be seen in Fig. 3, among the seven criteria for customer and client
X
m
satisfaction, expectation, perception, and commitment were simi-
Ri ¼ ðri;j Þ ð1Þ larly ranked. Communication and competency were the two criteria
i¼1
that had significant differences in ranking.
and the mean value of these total ranks (R̄) is Based on the analysis of this study, it seems that to achieve
1 higher satisfaction level, more consideration must be given in
R̄ ¼ mðn þ 1Þ ð2Þ making sure that the project meets the clients and customers’
2
expectations and perceptions. Nevertheless, further study must
The sum of squared deviations, S, is defined
be conducted more extensively on the subcriteria related to
X
n the evaluation of clients and customers’ expectation and perception
S¼ ðRi − R̄Þ2 ð3Þ level.
i¼1 As can be seen in Tables 3 and 4, different stakeholders are
and then Kendall’s W is defined as investigated for client and customer satisfaction. Customer

Fig. 4. Respondent’s perspectives on (a) customer satisfaction criteria; (b) client satisfaction criteria

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 15

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 satisfaction based on two stakeholders, including project managers Alarcon, L. F., and Ashley, D. B. (1996). “Modeling project performance
and customer, was investigated [see Fig. 4(a)]. Client’s and contrac- for decision making.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
tor’s opinions based on the limited respondents were not included 9364(1996)122:3(265), 265–273.
in the analysis. The analysis indicated that while the project man- Alshawi, M., and Ingirige, B. (2003). “Web-enabled project management:
An emerging paradigm in construction.” Autom. Constr., 12(4),
agers responded on competency and perception of stakeholders as
349–364.
the two important criteria for customer satisfaction, the customer’s Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H. M., abdul-Rahman, H., and Harun, Z. (2011).
opinions were on expectation and profitability. Competency and “Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia.” Int. J.
perception are the third and fourth ranked from the customer opin- Project Manage., 29(3), 337–348.
ion. It is clear that customer and project managers have different Anderson, N. R., and West, M. A. (1998). “Measuring climate for work
opinions on the customer-satisfaction criteria. Project managers group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate in-
may look into the factors that are necessary for the project success ventory.” J. Organ. Behav., 19(3), 235–258.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from the early stage of the project and consider customer needs and Baccarini, D. (1999). “The logical framework method for defining project
satisfaction in the latest phases of the project. success.” J. Project Manage. J., 30(4), 25–32.
On the client-satisfaction criteria, clients and contractors were Barlow, J. (2000). “Innovation and learning in complex offshore construc-
investigated [see Fig. 4(b)]. Project managers and consultant’s tion projects.” Res. Policy, 29(7–8), 973–989.
opinions were based on the limited respondents and were not in- Belassi, W., and Tukel, O. L. (1996). “A News Framework for determining
critical success/failure factors in projects.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
cluded in the analysis. For the client satisfaction, clients’ emphasis
14(3), 141–151.
was on the expectation, perception, and commitment, whereas Belout, A., and Gauvreau, C. (2004). “Factors influencing the project
contractor emphasis fell on the profitability. Contractors high- success: The impact of human resource management.” Int. J. Project
lighted the expectation and communication as the second priorities Manage., 22(1), 1–11.
for client satisfaction. Clients and contractors have different Boynton, A. C., and Zmud, R. W. (1984). “An assessment of critical
opinions for the client satisfaction. success factors.” MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., 25(4), 17–27.
This study did not consider the data which has limited numbers Bradach, J. L., and Eccles, R. G. (1989). “Price, authority and trust: From
of respondents. More studies must be conducted on stakeholders’ ideal types to plural forms.” Ann. Rev. Sociol., 15(1), 97–118.
satisfaction from different perspectives. Studies needed to highlight Brown, A., and Adams, J. (2000). “Measuring the effect of project
the similarity and differences from different opinions for the stake- management on construction outputs.” a new approach.” Int. J. Project
holders’ satisfaction. Manage., 18(5), 327–335.
Bryde, D. J., and Brown, D. (2004). “The influence of a project perfor-
mance measurement system on the success of a contract for maintaining
motorways and trunk roads.” Project Manage. J., 35(4), 57–65.
Conclusion Bryde, D. J., and Robinson, L. (2005). “Client versus contractor perspec-
tives on project success criteria.” Int. J. Project Manage., 23(8),
This study is the combination of direct and indirect studies on client 622–629.
and customer-satisfaction criteria. The criteria highlighted in this Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, A. P. L. (2004). “Key performance indicators for
study were the most common criteria found in earlier studies. measuring construction success.” Benchmark. Int. J., 11(2), 203–221.
Results indicated that both clients and customers had assigned Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., and Tam, C. M. (2001). “Design and build
almost the same ranking to the list of satisfaction criteria. The project success factors: multivariate analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
ability to align a project’s outcomes with customers’ and clients’ 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:2(93), 93–100.
expectations and perceptions is the most ideal situation in measur- Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., and Lam, E. W. M. (2002). “Framework of
Success Criteria for Design/Build Projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10
ing the project’s success. For long-term competitiveness, a com-
.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:3(120), 120–128.
pany must ensure that current stakeholders are satisfied by
Chan, E. H., and Suen, H. C. (2005). “Dispute resolution management for
consistently measuring their level of satisfaction. In the construc- international construction projects in China.” Manage. Decision, 43(4),
tion field, satisfaction or dissatisfaction is often known only late in 589–602.
the project when most parts of the project have been completed. It is Chen, W. T., Liao, S. L., Lu, C. S., and Mortis, L. (2010). “Evaluating
hoped that the findings of this study can offer an insight to project- satisfaction with PCM services for school construction: a case study
oriented companies for future strategies and guidelines regarding of primary school projects.” Int. J. Project Manage., 28(3), 296–310.
project-effectiveness measures. Cheng, J., Proverbs, D. G., and Oduoza, C. F. (2006). “The satisfaction
levels of UK construction clients based on the performance of consul-
tants.” Eng. Construct. Architect. Manage., 13(6), 567–583.
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., and Loh, P. K. (1999). “Critical success factors
References for different project objectives.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142), 142–150.
Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., and Tuomas, O. (2008). “Stakeholders’ salience
Chua, D. K. H., Loh, P. K., Kog, Y. C., and Jaselskis, E. J. (1997). “Neural
in global projects.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(5), 509–516.
networks for construction project success.” Expert Syst. Appl., 13(4),
Abudayyeh, O. (1994). “Partnering: A team building approach to quality
317–328.
construction management.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)9742-
Chua, D. K. H., Wang, Y., and Tan, W. T. (2003). “Impacts of obstacles in
597X(1994)10:6(26), 26–29. East Asian cross-border construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10
Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., and Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008a). “Critical .1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(131), 131–141.
success criteria for mass house building projects in developing coun- Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). (1993). “Construction
tries.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(6), 675–687. industry development board Malaysia.” Construction Statistics, Kula
Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., and Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008b). “Towards Lumpur, Malaysia.
developing competency-based measures for construction project Cook, E. L., and Hancher, D. E. (1990). “Partnering: Contracting for the
managers: Should contextual behaviors be distinguished from task future.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1990)6:4(431),
behaviors.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(6), 631–645. 431–446.
Ahmed, S. M., and Kangari, R. (1995). “Analysis of client-satisfaction Cox, R., Issa, R., and Aherns, D. (2003). “Management’s perception of key
factors in construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) performance indicators for construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10
0742-597X(1995)11:2(36), 36–44. .1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(142), 142–151.

16 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M. I., and Moore, D. R. (2003). “Redefining Jergeas, G., and Van der Put, J. (2001). “Benefits of constructability on
performance measures for construction project managers: an empirical construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
evaluation.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 21(2), 209–218. 0733-9364(2001)127:4(281), 281–290.
De Wit, A. (1988). “Measurement of project success.” Int. J. Project Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (1992). “The balanced scorecard: measures
Manage., 6(3), 164–170. that drive performance.” Harv. Bus. Rev., 70(1), 71–79.
Drexler, J. A., and Larson, E. W. (2000). “Partnering: Why project owner– Karna, S., Junnonen, J. M., and Sorvala, V. M. (2009). “Modeling structure
contractor relationships change.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/ of customer satisfaction with construction.” J. Facil. Manage., 7(2),
(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(293), 293–297. 111–127.
Dubois, A., and Gadde, L. E. (2002). “The construction industry as a Katzenbach, J. R., and Smith, D. K. (1993). “The discipline of teams.”
loosely coupled system: Implications for productivity and innovation.” Harv. Bus. Rev., 71(2), 111–120.
Constr. Manage. Econ., 20(7), 621–631. Kendall, M. G., and Smith, B. B. (1939). “The problem of m rankings.”
Egbu, C. O. (1999). “Skills, knowledge and competencies for managing Ann. Math. Stat., 10(3), 275–287.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

construction refurbishment works.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 17(1), Kerzner, H. (1987). “In search of excellence in project management.”
29–43. J. Syst. Manage., 38(2), 30–39.
Elattar, S. M. S. (2009). “Towards developing an improved methodology Kumaraswamy, M., and Yogeswaran, K. (1998). “Significant sources of
for evaluating performance and achieving success in construction construction claims.” Int. Constr. Law Rev., 15(1), 144–160.
projects.” Sci. Res. Essay, 4(6), 549–554. Kumaraswamy, M. M., and Thorpe, A. (1996). “Systematizing construction
Enterprise Architecture Program. (2007). Treasury IT performance project evaluations.” J. Manage. Eng, 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
measures guide, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), (1996)12:1(34), 34–39.
U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Landin, A. (2000). “Impact of quality management in the Swedish con-
Essex, D. W., Fox, J. A., and Groom, J. M. (1981). “The development, struction process.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Construction Management,
factor analysis, and revision of a client satisfaction form.” Community Lund Univ., Lund, Sweden.
Mental Health J., 17(3), 226–235. Leung, M. Y., Chong, A., Thomas, S. Ng., and Cheung, M. C. K. (2004b).
Farris, J., Groesbeck, R. L., Van Aken, E. M., and Letens, G. (2006). “Demystifying stakeholders’ commitment and its impacts on construc-
“Evaluating the relative performance of engineering design projects: tion projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 22(7), 701–715.
a case study using data envelopment analysis.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Leung, M. Y., Thomas, S. Ng., and Cheung, S. O. (2004a). “Measuring
Manage., 53(3), 471–482. construction project participant satisfaction.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
Fischer, M., and Tatum, C. B. (1997). “Characteristics of design-relevant 22(3), 319–331.
constructability knowledge.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/ Lewis, B. R., and Mitchell, V. W. (1990). “Defining and measuring the
(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:3(253), 253–260. quality of customer service.” Market. Intell. Plann., 8(6), 11–17.
Forsythe, P. J. (2007). “A conceptual framework for studying customer sat- Lim, C. S., and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). “Criteria of project success: an
isfaction in residential construction.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 25(2), exploratory reexamination.” Int. J. Project Manage., 17(4), 243–248.
171–182. Ling, F. Y. Y., Low, S. P., Wang, S. Q., and Lim, H. H. (2009). “Key project
management practices affecting Singaporean firms, project performance
Fortune, J., and White, D. (2006). “Framing of project critical success fac-
in China.” Int. J. Project Manage., 27(1), 59–71.
tors by a systems model.” Int. J. Project Manage., 24(1), 53–65.
Maloney, W. F. (1990). “Framework for analysis of performance.”
Frödell, M., Josephson, P. E., and Lindahl, G. (2008). “Swedish construc-
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1990)116:3(399),
tion clients’ views on project success and measuring performance.” J.
399–415.
Eng. Des. Technol., 6(1), 21–32.
Meng, X., Zhao, Q., and Shen, Q. (2011). “Critical success factors
Glavinich, T. E. (1995). “Improving constructability during design phase.”
for transfer-operate-transfer urban water supply projects in china.”
J. Archit. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(1995)1:2(73), 73–76.
J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000058, 243–251.
Gray, C., and Hughes, W. (2001). Building design management, Butter-
Miller, E. J. (1973). “Technology, territory, and time: The internal differ-
worth-Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
entiation of complex production systems.” Organizational systems,
Griffith, A., and Sidwell, T. (1995). Constructability in building and F. Baker, ed., R. D. Irwin, IL.
engineering projects, Macmillan, Wiltshire, U.K. Milosevic, D., and Patanakul, P. (2005). “Standardized project management
Gugel, J. G., and Russell, J. S. (1994). “Model for constructability approach may increase development projects success.” Int. J. Project Manage.,
selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994) 23(3), 181–192.
120:3(509), 509–521. Mitropoulos, P., and Tatum, C. B. (2000). “Management driven integra-
Halman, J. I. M., and Braks, B. F. (1999). “Project alliancing in the offshore tion.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:1(48),
industry.” Int. J. Project Manage., 17(2), 71–76. 48–58.
Hampson, K. D., and Kwok, T. (1997). “Strategic alliances in building Mohsini, R. A., and Davidson, C. H. (1992). “Determinants of performance
construction: A tender evaluation tool for the public sector.” J. Constr. in the traditional building process.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 10(4),
Procure., 3(1), 28–41. 343–359.
Hatush, Z., and Skitmore, M. (1997). “Assessment and evaluation of Morris, P. W., and Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects,
contractor data against client goals using PERT approach.” Constr. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Manage. Econ., 15(4), 327–340. Munns, A. K., and Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). “The role of project management
Health, and Safety Executive (HSE) Investigation Board. (2002). “Train in achieving project success.” Int. J. Project Manage., 14(2), 81–87.
derailment at Potters Bar 10 May 2002.” Progress Rep., Health and National Audit Office. (2000). “The Millennium Dome.” HC 936, Rep. by
Safety Executive, London. the Comptroller and Auditor General, The Stationery Office, London.
“Holyrood building four months late, and £30m over budget.” (2004). Con- Newcombe, R. (2003). “From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder
tract J., 〈http://www.contractjournal.com/home/Holyrood building four mapping approach.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 21(8), 841–848.
months late and £30m over budget.htm〉 (Apr. 4, 2004). Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., and Lan, D. T. X. (2004). “A study on
Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., and Birgonul, M. (2010). “Impact of resour- project success factors on large construction projects in Vietnam.”
ces and strategies on construction company performance.” J. Manage. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manage., 11(6), 404–413.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2010)26:1(9), 9–18. Nicolini, D. (2002). “In search of project chemistry.” Constr. Manage.
Jaselskis, E. J., and Ashley, D. B. (1991). “Optimal allocation of project Econ., 20(2), 167–177.
management resources for achieving success.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., Nima, M. A., Abdul-Kadir, M. R., Jaafar, M. S., and Alghulami, R. G.
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)117:2(321), 321–340. (2002). “Constructability concepts in west port highway in Malaysia.”
Jeffery, P. (1985). ‘‘Project managers and major projects.” Int. J. Project J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4
Manage., 3(4), 225–230. (348), 348–356.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 17

J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.

 Nitithamyong, P., and Skibniewski, M. J. (2006). “Success/failure factors Hennig-Thurau, T., and Klee, A. (1997). “The impact of customer satisfac-
and performance measures of web-based construction project manage- tion and relationship quality on customer retention: A critical reassess-
ment systems: Professionals’ viewpoint.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10 ment and model development.” Psychol. Market., 14(8), 737–764.
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(80), 80–87. Toor, S. U. R., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). “Critical COMs of success in
Norris, W. E. (1990). “Margin of profit: Teamwork.” J. Manage. Eng., 10 large-scale construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction
.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1990)6:1(20), 20–28. industry.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(4), 420–430.
Papke-Shields, K. E., Beise, C., and Quan, J. (2010). “Do project managers Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). “Construction professionals’ perception of critical
practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?” Int. J. success factors for large-scale construction projects.” Constr. Innov.
Project Manage., 28(7), 650–662. Inform. Process Manage., 9(2), 149–167.
Parfitt, M. K., and Sanvido, V. E. (1993). “Checklist of critical success Toor, S. U. R., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). “Beyond the iron triangle:
factors for building projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for
9742-597X(1993)9:3(243), 243–249.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA on 12/16/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

large-scale public sector development projects.” Int. J. Project Manage.,

Pheng, L. S., and Chuan, Q. T. (2006). “Environmental factors and work 28(3), 228–236.
performance of project managers in the construction industry.” Int. J.
Torbica, Z. M., and Stroh, R. C. (2001). “Customer satisfaction in home
Project Manage., 24(1), 24–37.
building.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)
Phua, F. T. T. (2004). “Modeling the determinants of multi-firm project
127:1(82), 82–86.
success: A grounded exploration of different participant perspectives.”
Tukel, O. I., and Rom, W. O. (1998). “Analysis of the characteristics of
Constr. Manage. Econ., 22(5), 451–459.
Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1988). “Project success: Definitions and project in diverse industries.” J. Oper. Manage., 16(1), 43–61.
measurement techniques.” Project Manage. J., 19(1), 67–71. Tukel, O. I., and Rom, W. O. (2001). “An empirical investigation of project
Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1989). “Critical success factors in R&D evaluation criteria.” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 21(3), 400–416.
projects.” Res. Technol. Manage., 32(1), 31–35. Uhlik, F. T., and Lores, G. V. (1998). “Assessment of constructability prac-
Project Management Institute. (2004).”A guide to the project management tices among general contractors.” J. Archit. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
body of knowledge.” ANSI/PMI 99-001-2004, Newton Square, PA. 1076-0431(1998)4:3(113), 113–123.
Raz, T., and Michael, E. (2001). “Use and benefits of tools for project risk Wang, X., and Huang, J. (2006). “The relationships between key stakehold-
management.” Int. J. Project Manage., 19(1), 9–17. ers’ project performance and project success: Performance of Chinese
Rockart, J. F. (1982). “The changing role of the information systems exec- construction supervising engineers.” Int. J. Project Manage., 24(3),
utive: a critical success factors perspective.” MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., 253–260.
23(3), 3–13. Ward, S., and Chapman, C. (2008). “Stakeholders and uncertainty manage-
Russell, J. S., Gugel, J. G., and Radtke, M. W. (1994). “Comparative ment in projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 26(6), 563–577.
analysis of three constructability approaches.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., Wiener, Y. (1982). “Commitment in organizations. A normative view.”
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:1(180), 180–195. Acad. Manage. Rev., 7(3), 418–428.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Pariff, K., Guvents, M., and Coyle, M. (1992). World Bank. (1986). The construction industry—Issues and strategies in
“Critical success factors for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. developing countries, Washington, DC.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:1(94), 94–111. Yang, H., Yeung, J. F., Chan, A. P., Chiang, Y. H., and Chan, D. W.,
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology, 3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, (2010a). “A critical review of performance measurement in construc-
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. tion.” J. Facil. Manage., 8(4), 269–284.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., and Maltz, A. C. (2001). “Project Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., and Drew, D. S. (2010b). “Critical success
success: A multidimensional strategic concept.” Long Range Plann., factors for stakeholder management: Construction practitioners’
34(6), 699–725. perspectives.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
Simon, H. A. (1991). “Organizations and markets.” J. Econ. Perspect., 7862.0000180, 778–786.
5(2), 25–44.
Yang, J. B., and Peng, S. C. (2008). “Development of a customer satisfac-
Skitmore, R. M. (1987). Construction price: The market effect, Univ. of
tion evaluation model for construction project management.” Build.
Salford, Civil Engineering Dept., Salford, U.K.
Environ., 43(4), 458–468.
Songer, A. D., and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). “Project characteristics for
successful public-sector design-build.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10 Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, D. W. M. (2009). “Developing a
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:1(34), 34–40. performance index for relationship-based construction projects in
Takim, R., and Adnan, H. (2008). “Analysis of effectiveness measures Australia: Delphi study.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-
of construction project success in Malaysia.” Asian Social Sci., 4(7), 597X(2009)25:2(59), 59–68.
74–91. Yu, A. T., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., and Hunter, K. (2006). “Investigation of criti-
Tang, S. L., Lu, M., and Chan, Y. L. (2003). “Achieving client satisfaction cal success factors in construction project briefing by way of content
for engineering consulting firms.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(11), 1178–1186.
0742-597X(2003)19:4(166), 166–172. Yu, L., Kim, K., Jung, Y., and Chin, S. (2007). “Comparable performance
Thomas, G., and Fernandez, W. (2008). “Success in IT projects: a matter of measurement system for construction companies.” J. Manage. Eng., 10
definition.” Int. J. Project Manage., 26(7), 733–742. .1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:3(131), 131–139.
Thompson, I., Cox, A., and Anderson, L. (1998). “Contracting strategies Zwikael, O., and Globerson, S. (2004). “Evaluating the quality of proj-
for the project environment.” Eur. J. Purchas. Supply Manage., 4(1), ect planning: A model and field results.” Int. J. Prod. Res., 42(8),
31–41. 1545–1556.

18 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

View publication stats J. Manage. Eng. 2014.30:10-18.