Interrelationships among Critical Success Factors

of Construction Projects Based on the Structural

Equation Model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Yong Qiang Chen1; Yang Bing Zhang2; Jun Ying Liu3; and Peng Mo4

Abstract: Clearly identifying the critical success factors (CSFs) of construction projects and a good understanding of the interrelationships
among CSFs will help project managers focus on the control of key factors and allow them to make reasonable resource allocations. To
explore the interrelationships among CSFs, this research established a CSFs system by first identifying 62 CSFs of construction projects
through a literature review, and then refining them to produce 46 CSFs by expert discussions. On the basis of the CSFs system, which
consisted of three categories and ten subcategories, this study applied the structural equation model (SEM) to explore the interrelationships
among the CSFs. One hundred twenty-four project data that were collected from a questionnaire survey were used to determine the hypo-
thetical model. A detailed evaluation and modification was then performed to revise the model. On the basis of the revised model, which was
verified through evaluating the goodness-of-fit (GOF) indexes, this paper makes a thorough discussion of the interrelationships among the
CSFs. Interrelationships that were identified and verified in the model reveal the influence mechanism among these CSFs. For example, the
factor “riot, revolution, and war” negatively influences the factor “price fluctuation of labor,” whereas the factor “price fluctuation of labor”
negatively influences the factor “time expectation.” Therefore, “riot, revolution, and war” can positively influence “time expectation.”
This indicates that if an owner’s time expectation is a determinant of the time performance of an emergency project, maintaining a
stable political environment would be a critical control point for accomplishing the project. Thus, the interrelationships discovered in this
paper will make it easier to take better control over CSFs and contribute to a project's success. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000104. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Construction management; Project management; Models.
Author keywords: Construction projects; Critical success factors; Interrelationship; Structural equation model.

Introduction of CSFs (Baker et al. 1983; Pinto and Slevin 1987) to the more
specific identification of CSFs (Terry 2002; Chan et al. 2004).
Various factors influence project performance to varying degrees, Research has been undertaken to generally identify CSFs for whole
with certain factors more critical to a project's success than others project success (Sanvido et al. 1992) to separating CSFs for differ-
(Sanvido et al. 1992). It is important for project managers to focus ent aspects of project performance (Chua 1999; Iyer and Jha 2005,
on these key factors so as to allocate more resources to them. The 2006; Aksorn and Hadikusumo 2008) or for projects of different
term “critical success factor ” (CSF) was first used in the context of types (Songer and Molenaar 1997; Ling et al. 2004; Li et al.
information systems and project management (Rockart 1982). 2005; Dvir et al. 2006; Chan et al. 2010). Since 2000, more and
Sanvido et al. (1992) then brought the term in to the construction more researchers have employed different statistical techniques
field. They defined CSFs as factors that could predict a project's to explore the correlations among CSFs (Li et al. 2005; Toor
success. The last two decades have witnessed a great development and Ogunlana 2008; Chan et al. 2010) or to explore the relation-
in CSFs. Relevant studies developed the conceptual definition ships between CSFs and project performance (Han et al. 2007;
1
Cho et al. 2009).
Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Tianjin Univ., Tianjin However, Fortune and White (2006) conducted a study of 63
300072, P. R. China. E-mail: symbolpmc@vip.sina.com
2
Research Student, Dept. of Construction Management, Tianjin
publications on CSFs and showed that little agreement on
Univ., Tianjin 300072, P. R. China. E-mail: zhangyangbing89@yahoo CSFs existed. This will lead to more repetitive work and inhibit
.com.cn more in-depth studies. In addition, because of the limitation of
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Tianjin many statistical techniques, the interrelationships among CSFs
Univ., Tianjin 300072, P. R. China (corresponding author). E-mail: are not easily identified (Li et al. 2005; Toor and Ogunlana 2008),
liujunying@tju.edu.cn
4
Graduate Student CRGP, Collaboratory for Research on Global
which makes it difficult for managers to take better control
Projects, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., over the CSFs. Therefore, this paper aims to (1) identify the
Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: mpmopeng@yahoo.com.cn CSFs comprehensively and systematically by putting forward
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 3, 2010; approved a relatively complete CSFs system for further study, and (2) ex-
on October 31, 2011; published online on November 3, 2011. Discus- plore the underlying interrelationships among CSFs for a
sion period open until December 1, 2012; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Man-
better understanding of the influence of mechanisms that are
agement in Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 3, July 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN at play and to encourage innovation in construction project
0742-597X/2012/3-243–251/$25.00. management.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 243

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 Methodology Walker and Vines 2000; Chan et al. 2004; Fortune and
White 2006).
The authors first undertook an extensive literature review to inden- Among the CSFs that were used in previous research, only the
tify the CSFs commonly considered in the construction field. To factors appearing more than two times were accepted into the au-
establish a relatively comprehensive and systematical CSFs system, thors' preliminary list for formulating the CSFs system. As a result,
the authors further refined and reworded a preliminary list through 62 CSFs were identified with 30 participant-related factors,
interviews with academic experts and practicing professionals in
12 project-related factors, and 20 environment-related factors.
the construction industry in China. On the basis of the CSFs sys-
Because the CSFs were identified through a literature review, it
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tem, the structural equation model (SEM) method was employed to

is possible that different authors described the same factors from
explore the interrelationships among the CSFs. To collect projects
different aspects with different words. It is also possible that some
information for the model, a questionnaire survey was distributed to
experienced contractors involved in various construction projects important CSFs were missed because only CSFs that appeared two
in China. The interrelationships discovered from the model are or more times in previous research were listed. Therefore, this pa-
analyzed in the Discussion section of this paper. per employed an expert discussion method to combine some CSFs
in the list and add some other CSFs to the list to establish a refined
CSFs system. Three academic experts with an abundant knowledge
Critical Success Factors of construction management and two practicing professionals with
a rich experience in the construction practice were involved in the
In the 1990s, Chan et al. (2004) summarized the research of CSFs discussion. After recombination and addition, 46 CSFs were gained
and divided 44 identified factors into five categories: project-related
and further divided into 10 subcategories to constitute the CSFs
factors; project procedures; project management actions; human-
system. Project-related factors were divided into two subcategories
related factors; and external environment. Li et al. (2005) studied
CSFs related to public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Eighteen as the project characteristics and project delivery characteristics.
factors were identified and classified into five categories: effective One was related to the inherent feature of a project and the other
procurement; project implement ability; government guarantee; was related to controllable factors in the process. Participant-related
favorable economic conditions; and available financial market. Iyer factors were first divided into three subcategories, according to the
and Jha (2006) identified 55 attributes responsible for schedule different subjects of “owner,” “contractor,” and “subcontractor.”
performance and grouped them into six critical success factors The three different aspects of the owner’s characteristics were then
and seven critical failure factors. The six CSFs were project man- further divided into independent subcategories because of the own-
ager’s competence; supportive owners and top management; mon- er’s great importance in project management. Environment-related
itoring, feedback, and coordination; favorable working condition; factors were divided into three subcategories on the basis of
commitment of all project participants; and owner’s competence. different types of environment (i.e., natural environment, political
Han et al. (2007) selected 64 CSFs and identified 14 groups, which environment, and economic environment). Table 1 shows the final
included contractors’ ability and experience, project condition, and CSFs system.
project environments. Lam et al. (2008) identified 42 CSFs that
were grouped into effectiveness of project management action,
nature of the project, and 10 other categories. Park (2009) identified Structural Equation Model
10 common factors such as the type of project and 188 individual
factors such as clarity of the contract, fixed construction period The structural equation model (SEM) is a multivariate technique
(in time), and precise project budget estimate (in cost). Chan et al. used to estimate simultaneously a series of interrelated dependent
(2010) identified 18 CSFs as necessary to conduct PPP projects relationships (Hair et al. 2006). It is superior to the multiple regres-
and from them they refined five underlying factors, which were sion method because it takes into account measurement errors
a stable macroeconomic environment, shared responsibility that occur when a large number of variables are involved (Molenaar
between public and private sectors, a transparent and efficient pro- et al. 2000). Furthermore, the SEM is more helpful in understand-
curement process, stable political and social environment, and ing performance algorithms because users can visually and
judicious government control.
systematically recognize complex relationships (Kim et al.
On the basis of an analysis of previous research, the authors
2009). Its ability to explore relationships, as several studies in
grouped CSFs into different categories. It was inappropriate to
follow a certain method of classification. This paper categorized construction management show, makes it the perfect choice for
the CSFs into participant-related factors, project-related factors, discovering the underlying interrelationships among CSFs
and environment-related factors because these three categories (Cho et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2009; Ng et al. 2010).
represent the three aspects of subject, object, and environment The SEM method consists of measurement components and
of a project. structural components (Byrne 1994). The former incorporates a
Project participants refer to the owner and the contractor, which confirmatory factor analysis that is concerned with how well latent
have been widely accepted as CSFs (Ling et al. 2004; Han et al. variables (which cannot be observed directly) are represented
2007; Cho et al. 2009), and the consultants, subcontractors, suppli- by the observed variables (which can be evaluated directly). The
ers and manufacturers, which more and more researchers are find- latter includes multiple regression analysis and path analysis,
ing have a great effect on project performance (Chua et al. 1999; and models the relationships among latent variables.
Ling and Liu 2004; Yu et al. 2006). Project-related factors reflect The SEM is usually developed in the following steps:
the characteristics of a project intrinsically and have always been 1. Define the structural and measurement components (e.g.,
deemed as critical factors for a project's success (Kumaraswamy measured variables and latent variables) to set up a hypothe-
and Chan 1999; Chan et al. 2004; Cho et al. 2009). Many scholars tical model;
believe that environment-related factors in the process of project 2. Assess the verification of hypothetical model and develop
construction may have a huge effect on project performance and it with modifications, if necessary; and
can also become CSFs (Kaming et al. 1997; Chua et al. 1999; 3. Assess the verification of the final model and interpret it.

244 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 Table 1. Critical Success Factors System for Construction Projects
Category Subcategory Critical success factor
Participant-related factors Owner’s ability Owner’s experience of similar projects
Ability of owner’s project manager
Ability of owner’s employees
Owner’s financial status
Ability of consultant
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cooperation experiences between owner and contractor

Cooperation experiences between owner and consultant
Owner’s preference Owner’s preference of involvement
Owner’s preference of risk sharing
Owner’s preference of utilizing own resources
Owner’s acceptable degree of change
Owner’s expectations Cost expectation
Time expectation
Quality expectation
Health, safety, and environment (HSE) expectation
Contractor’s characteristics Contractor’s experience of similar projects
Contractor’s financial status
Contractor’s reputation
Ability of contractor’s project manager
Ability of contractor’s employees
Contractor’s technique and equipment advancement
Cooperation experiences among contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers
Communication mechanism
Subcontractors’ characteristics Ability of subcontractors
Ability of material suppliers
Ability of equipment suppliers
Project-related factors Project characteristics Project nature
Project location
Project confidentiality
Design complexity
Construction complexity
Project delivery characteristics Project delivery system
Tendering method
Completion ratio of design before tendering
Completion ratio of design before construction
Number of contractors available in tender
Environment- related factors Economic environment Inflation
Price fluctuation of labor
Price fluctuation of material and equipment leasing
Adoption of new technology/technique/material
Political environment Laws, regulations, and tax policy
Trade union
Riot, revolution, and war
Trade sanction and embargo
Natural environment Weather condition
Geological condition

Establishment of a Hypothetical Model Three professionals in the construction management field were
interviewed on the basis of their knowledge (and because of pre-
To set up the hypothetical model, this study selected the 10 vious study on these factors) to make assumptions about the inter-
subcategories as the latent variables and the 44 CSFs as the relationships among the 10 subcategories. A series of literature
measurable variables. The measurable variables used in the analysis were conducted to improve the assumption-making pro-
SEM need to be continuous variables and easily measured. There- cess. Fifteen assumptions were used to construct the hypothetical
fore, the factors “project nature” and “project location” were not structural model in Fig. 1. The arrows represent the direction of the
adopted. hypothesized influence (Bollen and Long 1992; Hoyle 1995).

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 245

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 Data Collection

A questionnaire was designed to collect data for the model. Each

CSF was to be assessed on a nine-point Likert scale. Table 2 shows
an example of how the factors were scored in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire survey was first performed face to face for the
sake of a good response rate and quality. A postal questionnaire
survey was then conducted to get more data. Between April and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

June 2010, questionnaires were sent to 250 construction industrial

practitioners in companies that were derived from a list of the top
100 contractors in China; 149 replies were received. To ensure the
reliability of the received responses, the questionnaires were not
used from respondents with less than 5 years experience on proj-
ects. One hundred twenty-four valid questionnaires were ultimately
adopted and analyzed, and represented an overall response rate
of 49.6%.
Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was employed to analyze the
appropriateness of the grouping of the CSFs and the reliability
of the data (Peter 1979; Sharma 1996). The alpha value ranges
from 0 to 1. In reliability testing, values ranging from 0.6 to 0.7
are regarded as sufficient; a value more than 0.7 is regarded as good
(Sharma 1996). As Table 3 demonstrates, all groupings in the
Fig. 1. Hypothesized interrelationships among the CSFs subcategories hypothetical model have Cronbach’s alpha values greater than
0.6. This indicates that the internal consistency reliability of the
hypothetical model is sufficient.

For example, “project characteristics ” is believed to have a direct

influence on “owner’s preference.” Hence, the arrow originates
from “project characteristics” to “owner’s preference.” This Model Development and Verification
study hypothesized the following 15 relationships for the structural
The SEM is verified by evaluating its appropriateness. If its appro-
model:
priateness is not good, it needs to be developed and revised.
H 1 : Project characteristics have a direct influence on an owner’s
The appropriateness is assessed from the results of the covariance
preference;
structural analysis, which is indicated by the goodness-of-fit (GOF)
H 2 : Project characteristics have a direct influence on an owner’s
indexes. Various GOF indexes can measure the appropriateness of a
expectation;
model from different aspects. Four indexes were therefore used in
H 3 : Economic environment has a direct influence on an owner’s
this study to measure comprehensively the model's goodness of fit:
preference;
H 4 : Economic environment has a direct influence on an owner’s (1) the X 2 ∕df (degrees of freedom) index, which can compare the
expectation; observed covariance matrix with the covariance matrix estimated
H 5 : Owner’s ability has a direct influence on an owner’s by assuming that the tested model is true; (2) the nonnormal fit
preference; index (NNFI) or the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), which considers
H 6 : Owner’s ability has a direct influence on an owner’s a correlation for model complexity; (3) the comparative theit index
expectation; (CFI), which represents the relative improvement in the fit of the
H 7 : Political environment has a direct influence on an owner’s hypothesized model; and (4) the root-mean-squared error of
preference; approximation (RMSEA), which estimates the discrepancy be-
H 8 : Political environment has a direct influence on an owner’s tween the observed and the estimated covariance matrices in the
expectation; population. Hair et al. (2006) provide detailed information on
H 9 : Natural environment has a direct influence on an owner’s the GOF measures. Table 4 shows the results of GOF measures
preference; of the hypothetical model. The ratios for X 2 ∕df (which was
H 10 : Natural environment has a direct influence on an owner’s 1.735), TLI (0.644), CFI (0.621), and RMSEA (0.078) show that
expectation; the hypothetical model was not sufficiently appropriate to explain
H 11 : Owner’s preference has a direct influence on the project the interrelationships among the CSFs. Therefore, the hypothetical
delivery characteristics; model needed revision.
H 12 : Owner’s expectation has a direct influence on the project Two methods were used to revise the model. The first method
delivery characteristics; used the modification index provided by the computing tool
H 13 : Project delivery characteristics have a direct influence on Amos in SPSS (SPSS 18) to add the causal relationships among
the subcontractors’ characteristics; the CSFs; it is the most widely used method of refining the
H 14 : Project delivery characteristics have a direct influence on SEM (Molenaar et al. 2000; Wong and Cheung 2005; Islam and
the contractors’ characteristics; and Faniran 2005). The second method involved deleting the path
H 15 : Contractors’ characteristics have a direct influence on the showing a low causal relationship that had been statistically signifi-
subcontractors’ characteristics. cant in the parameter test. The hypothetical model was revised a
On the basis of the hypothetical structural model, the observed few times before it performed well with the GOF and the theoretical
variables, which were used to measure the latent variables, were expectations (Molenaar et al. 2000). Fig. 3 shows the revised
added to produce the hypothetical model (Fig. 2). model.

246 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Hypothetical model of the interrelationships among the CSFs

Table 2. Example of Scoring Instruction in the Questionnaire

Category Critical success factor Level (1–9)
Participant-related factors Owner’s experience of similar projects 1, Very little experience; 9, very much experience
Ability of owner’s project manager 1, Very low ability; 9, very great ability
Owner’s financial status 1, Very bad status; 9, very good status
Project-related factors Project confidentiality 1, No confidentiality required, 9, high confidentiality required
Design complexity 1, Very simple; 9, very complex
Construction complexity 1, Very simple; 9: very complex
Environment- related factors Adoption of new 1, The innovation is very easy to adopt; 9, the innovation
technology/technique/material has many difficulties
Laws, regulations, and tax policy 1, Legal environment is good for the project; 9, legal environment
is bad for the project
Riot, revolution, and war 1, Riot, revolution, and war are very much present; 9, riot, revolution,
and war are rare

Table 3. Results of Reliability Test Discussion

Cronbach’s alpha Number of items
In Fig. 3, the authors extracted the interrelationships among
Project characteristics 0.694 3 the CSFs subcategories and among the CSFs in Fig. 3. Figs. 4
Owner’s characteristics 0.646 15 and 5 show these separately.
Environment characteristics 0.721 10
Subcontractors’ characteristics 0.764 3 Interrelationships among the CSFs Subcategories
Contractor’s characteristics 0.838 8
Among the hypothesized relationships, five relationships were
Project delivery characteristics 0.674 5 confirmed, whereas the other 10 relationships were proved
as unacceptable. The data verified only the hypotheses that
“owner’s ability,” “economic environment,” and “political environ-
The last column in Table 4 shows that the model’s level ment” directly influence “owner’s expectations,” and that “natural
of appropriateness improved significantly with the ratios for environment” and “economic environment” directly influence
X 2 ∕df equal to1:450; TLI, 0.768; CFI, 0.786; and RMSEA, “owner’s preference.” The model denied the 10 hypotheses, which
0.061. This indicates that the improved model is relatively true were believed not true, or at least not consistent with the relation-
and acceptable for interpretation. ships underlying the collected data.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 247

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 Table 4. Results of GOF Measures
Goodness-of-fit (GOF) measure Recommended level of GOF measure Hypothetical model Revised model
X 2 ∕df Recommended level from 1 to 2 1.735 1.450
NNFI or TLI 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.644 0.768
CFI 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.621 0.786
RMSEA < 0:05, very good fit; 0.05–0.08, fairly good fit; 0.08–0.10, 0.078 0.061
acceptable fit; > 0:1, unacceptable fit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Revised model of the interrelationships among the CSFs

Furthermore, the authors discovered many other relationships

among the latent variables. “Owner’s ability” positively influences
“contractor’s characteristics.” This can be interpreted as better
owners have a greater chance in selecting a capable contractor.
“Owner’s expectations” positively influences “subcontractors’
characteristics,” which often happens when the owner appoints
the subcontractors. However, the model reveals that “natural envi-
ronment” has a positive influence on “owner’s preference.” This
indicates that as the natural environment worsens, the owner’s
preference for risk will be greater. This needs further study for
validation.
“Political environment,” “economic environment,” and “natural
environment” have positive correlations with one another. This can
lead to a situation in which an unsatisfactory natural environment
gives rise to the instability of a political environment and economic
environment. However, a stable political environment and eco-
nomic environment can alleviate the negative effects created by
an unsatisfactory natural environment. This suggests that a stable
political environment and economic environment can create a
virtuous cycle. “Project characteristics” and “owner’s ability” also
have a positive correlation because the nature of the project is
Fig. 4. Interrelationships among the CSFs subcategories
determined when the owner chooses the project. Therefore, the

248 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 owner’s experience and capability on such projects is relatively de- has a positive influence on “ability of consultant.” This shows that
termined. The correlation differs from a causal relationship because the experience of the owner and the consultant’s cooperation will
the change of one variable does not necessarily lead to a change in help the owner select a capable consultant. Therefore, “ability of
the other variable. consultant,” and “cooperation experiences among contractor, sub-
contractors, and suppliers,” have a positive influence on “ability of
Interrelationships among the CSFs subcontractors” because the subcontractors are often selected by
“Riot, revolution, and war” factor negatively influences the “price the owner with the help of the consultant or by the contractor
on the basis of the cooperation experiences.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fluctuation of labor” factor. This indicates that the labor price

increases as the political situation becomes less stable. “Price fluc- “Owner’s experience of similar projects” positively influences
tuation of labor” negatively influences “time expectation.” There- “contractor’s experience of similar projects” and negatively
fore, when the price of labor rises, the time expectation should influences “owner’s preference of utilizing own resources.” This
decrease accordingly, given that total cost is constant. “Time indicates that if owners have had a good experience on similar
expectation” has a negative influence on “tendering method,” This projects, they will be able to choose experienced contractors, and
indicates that the greater the time expectation, the greater will be the use less of their own resources. The latter needs further study for
possibility of the owner using limited competitive selected bidding confirmation.
to prevent wasting any time in the bidding procedure and to select a “Contractor’s reputation” is positively influenced by “contrac-
well-informed contractor that the owner believes has the capability tor’s financial status” but negatively influenced by “project confi-
to complete the project on time. “Tendering method” has a positive dentiality.” It is commonly accepted that a contractor’s reputation
influence on “number of contractors available in tender,” but it has a will be considered worse as the financial status worsens, with little
negative influence on “cooperation experiences between owner and or no guarantee that the contractor will complete the project
contractor.” This suggests that contractors can more greatly partici- satisfactorily. From the data, the model reveals that the lower
pate in the competition with a more open tendering method, but the the “project confidentiality,” the better will be the “contractor’s rep-
owner will have less of a chance to choose a familiar contractor. utation.” However, this needs further study for confirmation.
“Health, safety, and environment (HSE) expectation,” “design “Ability of equipment suppliers” can positively influence
complexity,” and “time expectation” have positive influences on “contractor’s technique and equipment advancement,” because a
“owner’s preference of involvement.” This suggests that with either capable equipment supplier is able to supply high-quality equip-
greater HSE expectation, a very complex project, or a tight time ment to the contractor and improve a contractor’s equipment
frame increases an owner's desire to get involved in the project advancement.
to have better control of the risks and to ensure that everything goes “Owner’s financial status” has a negative influence on “cost
according to expectation. expectation.” This shows that the worse the owner’s financial
“Adoption of new technology/technique/material” is positively status, the more demand the owner will make on cost control.
influenced by “law, regulation, and tax policy” and by “riot,
revolution and war,” but it is negatively influenced by “ability
of contractor’s employees.” This indicates that adopting new Conclusion
technology/technique/material is less needed when the law, regu-
lation, and tax policy is more favorable for the project, when This paper established a critical success factors system for construc-
the political situation gets more stable, and when the selected con- tion projects and explored some interrelationships among the CSFs.
tractor is more capable. The interpretation of this is that adopting The revised SEM developed in this paper verified five relationships
new technology/technique/material can bring new risks; therefore, and denied 10 relationships proposed in the hypothetical model. The
if the environment is favorable or the contractor is excellent, adopt- authors furthermore discovered many underlying relationships
ing new technology/technique/material may be unnecessary. This among the CSFs subcategories and among the CSFs such as “own-
finding still needs further validation, although it is statistically true. er’s ability” having a positive influence on “contractor’s character-
“Adoption of new technology/technique/material” has a negative istics” and “tendering method” having a positive influence on
influence on “owner’s preference of risk sharing,” which suggests “number of contractors available in tender” but a negative influence
that the risks increase when new technology/technique/material is on “cooperation experiences between owner and contractor.”
used and the owner tends to avoid such risks. Interrelationships identified and verified in the model reveal the
“Law, regulation, and tax policy” positively influences “quality mechanism of influence among these CSFs, making it easier to
expectation.” This indicates that the owner’s expectation will rise have greater control over the CSFs. For example, the revised model
as the law, regulation, and tax policy become more unfavorable for reveals that “riot, revolution, and war” negatively influences
the project. This relationship is drawn from the collected data the “price fluctuation of labor ,” whereas “price fluctuation of la-
of the surveyed projects; however, its universality still needs further bor” negatively influences “time expectation”; therefore, “riot, rev-
study for validation. “Project delivery system” is negatively influ- olution and war” can positively influence “time expectation.” If it is
enced by “construction complexity,” but positively influenced by proved that the owner’s time expectation is a determinant
“quality expectation.” This demonstrates that the traditional project of the time performance of a project, then maintaining a stable
delivery system is more suitable for simple projects, and that alter- political environment would therefore be a critical control point
native project delivery systems, such as design-build (DB) and for accomplishing an emergency project. Such relationships can
engineering-procurement-construction (EPC), are less reliable for be easily located in the path diagram in Fig. 5.
projects with a high-quality expectation. “Construction complex- This paper discovered some relationships that were not realized
ity” negatively influences “communication mechanism,” but “co- previously. The findings will draw new attention to these CSFs and
operation experiences among contractor, subcontractors, and their relationships, and may encourage innovation in related man-
suppliers” has the opposite effect. This suggests that communica- agement. For example, the authors discovered that “adoption of
tion will be worse when greater project complexity and a record of technology/technique/material” is negatively influenced by “ability
poor cooperation exist among a contractor, subcontractors, and sup- of contractor’s employees.” If its universality is proved with further
pliers. “Cooperation experiences between owner and consultant” study, this relationship could be used to control better the adoption

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 249

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Interrelationships among the CSFs

of new technology/technique/material through the selection of a Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., and Fisher, D. (1983). “Factors affecting
contractor. Validating such relationships can be a new research project success.” Chapter 35, Project management handbook, 2nd
topic in the future. Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 669–685.
This research developed a model for general types of construc- Bollen, K. A., and Long, J. S. (1992). “Tests for structural equation models:
Introduction.” Sociol. Methods Res., 21(2), 123–131.
tion projects because of the limited amount of sample data; there-
Byrne, B. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/ win-
fore, the accuracy of the model cannot be guaranteed. Despite the
dows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, Sage, Thousand
appropriateness of the revised SEM, the authors regarded all Oaks, CA.
environment-related factors as one (namely, the environment Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, D. W. M., Cheung, E., and Ke, Y. J.
characteristics) when conducting the Cronbach’s alpha reliabi- (2010). “Critical success factors for PPPs in infrastructure developments:
lity test. However, the factors belong to different subcategories Chinese perspective.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(5), 484–494.
in the SEM, some of which had values as low as 0.50 in the Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., and Chan, A. P. L. (2004). “Factors affecting the
Cronbach’s alpha reliability test. The same happened with the own- success of a construction project.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(1),
er’s characteristics. This can be regarded as a limitation of this 153–155.
study and could be improved by collecting more high-quality data. Cho, K. M., Hong, T. H., and Hyun, C. T. (2009). “Effect of project
Because of the limitation of the SEM method in its requirement of characteristics on project performance in construction projects
continuous variables, some CSFs such as the project type were not based on structural equation model.” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(7),
included in the model. 10461–10470.
Therefore, further research is required to develop a more appro- Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., and Loh, P. K. (1999). “Critical success
factors for different project objectives.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
priate SEM method that uses more sample data with higher quality
125(3), 142–150.
to explain better the interrelationships among the CSFs, and to Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). “The ‘real’ success factors on projects.” Int. J.
pay more attention to the interrelationships among the CSFs for Proj. Manage., 20(3), 185–190.
different project types. Dvir, D., Ben-David, A., Sadeh, A., and Shenhar, A. J. (2006). “Critical
managerial factors affecting defense projects success: A comparison be-
tween neural network and regression analysis.” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.,
Acknowledgments 19(5), 535–543.
Fortune, J., and White, D. (2006). “Framing of project critical success
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the factors by a systems model.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(1), 53–65.
National Natural Science Foundation of China, which funded Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., and Tatham, R. (2006). Multi-
project (Project Number 70772057), and all respondents of the variate data analysis, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
questionnaire survey. Han, S. H., Kim, D. Y., and Kim, H. (2007). “Predicting profit performance
for selecting candidate international construction projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 133(6), 425–436.
References Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and
applications, R. H. Hoyle, ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Aksorn, T., and Hadikusumo, B. H. W. (2008). “Critical success factors Islam, M. D. M., and Faniran, O. O. (2005). “Structural equation model
influencing safety program performance in Thai construction projects.” of project planning effectiveness.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(2),
Saf. Sci., 46(4), 709–727. 215–223.

250 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251

 Iyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2005). “Factors affecting cost performance: public-private partnerships in Hong Kong.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
Evidence from Indian construction projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 57(2), 310–322.
23(4), 283–295. Park, S. H. (2009). “Whole life performance assessment: Critical success
Iyer, K. C., and Jha, K. N. (2006). “Critical factors affecting schedule per- factors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(11), 1146–1161.
formance: Evidence from Indian construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Peter, J. P. (1979). “Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent
Manage., 132(8), 871–881. marketing practices.” J. Market. Res., 16(1), 6–17.
Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., and Harris, F. C. (1997). Pinto, J. K., and Slevin, D. P. (1987). “Critical factors in successful project
“Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise implementation.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., EM-34(1), 22–27.
projects in Indonesia.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 15(1), 83–94. Rockart, J. F. (1982). “The changing role of the information systems
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CEPT - Centre for Environmental Planning & Tech University on 11/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Kim, D. Y., Han, S. H., Kim, H., and Park, H. (2009). “Structuring executive: A critical success factors perspective.” Sloan Management
the prediction model of project performance for international construc- Review, 24(1), 3–13.
tion projects: A comparative analysis.” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(2), Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., and Coyle, M. (1992).
1961–1971. “Critical success factors for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., and Chan, D. W. M. (1999). “Factors facilitating
Manage., 118(1), 94–111.
faster construction.” J. Constr. Procurement, 5(2), 88–98.
Sharma, S. (1996). “Factor analysis.” Chapter 5, Applied multivariate tech-
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, D. W. M. (2008). “Determinants
niques, Wiley, New York, 116–123.
of successful design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(5),
Songer, A. D., and Molenaar, K. R. (1997). “Project characteristics for
333–341.
successful public-sector design-build.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., and Hardcastle, C. (2005). “Critical
success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry.” 123(1), 34–40.
Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(5), 459–471. SPSS 18 [Computer software]. SPSS, Inc., Chicago.
Ling, F. Y. Y., Chan, S. L., Chong, E., and Ee, L. P. (2004). “Predicting Toor, S. R., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). “Critical COMs of success in
performance of design-build and design-bid-build projects.” J. Constr. large-scale construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction
Eng. Manage., 130(1), 75–83. industry.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 26(4), 420–430.
Ling, F. Y. Y., and Liu, M. (2004). “Using neural network to predict per- Walker, D. H. T., and Vines, M. W. (2000). “Australian multi-unit residen-
formance of design-build projects in Singapore.” Build. Environ., tial project construction time performance factors.” Eng., Constr.
39(10), 1263–1274. Archit. Manage., 7(3), 278–284.
Molenaar, K., Washington, S., and Diekmann, J. (2000). “Structural equa- Wong, P. S. P., and Cheung, S. O. (2005). “Structural equation model
tion model of construction contract dispute potential.” J. Constr. Eng. of trust and partnering success.” J. Manage. Eng., 21(2), 70–80.
Manage., 126(4), 268–277. Yu, A. T. W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., and Hunter, K. (2006). “Investigation
Ng, S. T., Wong, Y. M. W., and Wong, J. M. W. (2010). “A structural of critical success factors in construction project briefing by way of
equation model of feasibility evaluation and project success for content analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(11), 1178–1186.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 251

J. Manage. Eng., 2012, 28(3): 243-251