Relationships between critical factors related to team behaviors and client satisfaction in construction project organizations

Relationships between Critical Factors Related to Team Behaviors and Client Satisfaction in Construction Project Organizations Luong Hai Nguyen, Ph.D.1 Abstract: Factors related to team

Relationships between Critical Factors Related to Team Behaviors and Client Satisfaction in Construction Project Organizations

Luong Hai Nguyen, Ph.D.1

Abstract: Factors related to team behaviors (TBs) have been recognized as critical success factors (CSFs) of a project Numerous studies

on the topic of CSFs have been conducted, but the results have rarely emphasized developing a TB framework for construction project organizations and examining its relationship with client satisfaction, a key criterion for measuring project success; these less-researched topics are the aims of this study TB attributes were first developed using questionnaires that collected data on 195 completed construction projects in Vietnam By performing a principal component analysis, these attributes were organized into a four-factor TB framework: (1) project planning and organizing emphasis (P&OE); (2) coordination emphasis (CE); (3) contractor assurance emphasis (CAE); and (4) empowerment assignment emphasis (EAE) The findings reveal that P&OE, CE, and CAE have significant effects on client satisfaction with project quality (SPQ), whereas CAE and EAE contribute to improved client satisfaction with project schedule (SPS) and project budget (SPB) In addition, CAE is shown to be a relatively significant influencing factor for all criteria within client satisfaction The study findings suggest a useful tool both for supporting the project management process of construction professionals and for improving client satisfaction

Author keywords: Team behaviors; Behavior influence; Project performance; Client satisfaction

Introduction

Over the years, a large body of work has emphasized identifying

critical success factors (CSFs), which are described as factors

in-volved in a project’s success (Fortune and White 2006;Kandelousi

2011) Baker et al (1983) identified (1) the project team’s

commit-ment to goals; (2) the project manager; (3) availability of project

funds; (4) capability of the project team; (5) accuracy of early cost

estimates; (6) planning and controlling methods; (7) task

orienta-tion; and (8) an absence of bureaucracy as factors that contribute

positively to the success of a project Other studies (Belassi and

into a consistent model for factors that affect project success

Belassi and Tukel (1996) classified CSFs into four groups of factors

related to project characteristics, project participants (i.e., project

manager and teams), organization, and external environment

Sim-ilarly, Lechler (1997) elaborated on a conceptual success factor

model in which the CFSs were classified into three main groups:

environment, contributors, and functions In relation to this

frame-work, Gemuenden and Lechler (1997) conducted an empirical

survey and identified the qualities of top management, the project

team, and communication as significant contributors to project

success Cooke-Davies (2002) identified real factors influencing

three separate aspects of project success, including the success of

project management, success of the project, and consistency of

project success Summarizing previous findings, Chan et al (2004)

suggested placing CSFs relevant to construction project manage-ment into five categories: project managemanage-ment mechanisms, project-related factors, the external environment, procurement approaches, and team-related factors Jugdev and Müller (2005) suggested four conditions that need to be met for a project to succeed: the success criteria alignment of participants before the start of a project, main-taining a cooperative relationship between client and project man-ager, empowering the project manager in terms of flexibility in exceptional circumstances, and the focus of the owner on project performance

Among these CSFs, the factor related to team behaviors (TBs) has been identified as an essential determinant of successful project implementation (Chan et al 2004;Chua et al 1999;Cserháti and

approach to project success has received substantial attention from academics in the literature and has been the subject of a variety of viewpoints in descriptions of its attributes in recent decades Chua

et al (1999) defined TBs as factors related to behaviors of project teams (i.e., project managers, clients, contractors, consultants, sub-contractors, suppliers, and manufacturers) as the key players in project success with respect to (1) the competency, commitment, and contribution of the project manager; (2) the active involvement and collaboration of other key members; (3) the level of support from top management; (4) the team turnover rate; (5) suppliers’ track records; and (6) suppliers’ levels of service Chan et al (2004) classified team factors into two sets The first emphasizes the client aspects, including the experience and capability of the client; the client’s nature; the client organization’s capacity; the client’s focus

on project cost, schedule, and quality; and the client’s contribution

to the project The second set of factors is related to the project team behavior in terms of its leadership experience and skills; the project team leaders’ commitment to project schedule, cost, and quality; the project team leaders’ contribution to the project; the project team leaders’ flexibility and working relationships; and the support

of the top management for the project teams

1 Lecturer, Univ of Transport and Communications, No 3 Cau Giay St.,

Lang Thuong Ward, Dong Da District, Hanoi City 100000, Vietnam.

Email: hainl@utc.edu.vn

Note This manuscript was submitted on March 12, 2018; approved on

September 6, 2018; published online on January 2, 2019 Discussion period

open until June 2, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for

indi-vidual papers This paper is part of the Journal of Construction

Engineer-ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.

Furthermore, several studies have provided evidence that a high

performance of TBs is associated with the success of a project

Behavioral management among construction project participants

related to project commitment and participation is likely related

to project participants’ satisfaction (Leung et al 2004) The

com-mitment, coordination, and competence of construction project

par-ticipants can support successful project performance (Jha and Iyer

2007) Likewise, in project management settings, human resource

management (Papke-Shields et al 2010), involvement of high-level

management (Kandelousi 2011), leadership of the project manager,

communication mechanisms, partnership, and cohesiveness of the

project teams (Yang et al 2011) can contribute to the success of

a project

However, the evolution of project organizational behavior

success frameworks has not yet clarified the nature and extent of

these frameworks’ impacts in terms of guaranteeing the project’s

objectives The literature has reported on critical problems related

to construction project performance, including poor quality, budget

overages, a lack of timeliness, unsafe construction, and client

dis-satisfaction (Ibrahim et al 2010; Kashiwagi et al 2012; Xiong

behavioral approach to the success or failure of a project; it is a

matter of which behavioral dimensions best explain project success

to specifically define each behavioral factor and examine how each

interacts with project success, a rare approach that has not been a

topic of focus in the previously mentioned literature

In addition, among numerous project performance measurement

indicators that have been recognized in the construction industry to

assess construction projects’ success, client satisfaction

measure-ment is a pervasive concern (Baloi and Price 2003;Leung et al

to investigating behavioral factors involved with client satisfaction

within the construction industry (Kärnä et al 2009) Although

multiple studies have mentioned TBs in construction, such research

has been disparate and rarely addressed the issues of explaining and

evaluating the relationships between TBs and client satisfaction

In addition, different perspectives result in significant differences

in views on behavioral success factors Currently, three groups of

key project participants—clients, contractors, and consultants—are

studied as the construction professionals’ assessments of

manage-ment practice, which regulate diverse relationships between project

success and behavioral factors

The aims of this study are not only to define the attributes of TBs

and develop a framework in construction projects but also to reveal

TBs’ links to project success with respect to client satisfaction This

approach is vital for project management practices by providing a

useful tool for supporting construction professionals in delivering

project management function, thereby contributing to the success

of construction projects The study design is structured into four

sections First, the study design is justified in terms of TBs and

client satisfaction in construction project organizations, and the

re-search hypothesis is developed Second, the rere-search methods and

methodology are introduced Third, in a key section of the paper,

the research results are presented with integrated interpretations

In the fourth and final section, conclusions are drawn

Justification for Study Design

Identification of Factors Related to Team Behaviors

An organization is defined as a deliberately coordinated social

en-tity in which a group of people gather to continuously work toward

achieving shared goals (Kinicki et al 2010) The core of all suc-cessful organizations is the effectiveness with which people work together, and the manner in which they interact is the key to meet-ing organizational objectives (Walker 2011) The study of TBs within organizations is part of the field study of organizational behavior (OB), in which the influence of individual and group behavior within organizations is investigated, applying such under-standing to improve an organization’s effectiveness Accordingly, team behaviors are concerned with how people interact at work and how their behavior influences the organization’s performance

2013) Specifically, the construction project organization (CPO) functions as a temporary entity-based contract in which diverse contracting organizations (i.e., project teams such as clients, con-tractors, and consultants) gather and set the pattern of interrelation-ships, ability, and responsibility to achieve the project’s goals and objectives (Walker 2015) within the project life cycle Thus, the typical CPO’s function must be designed for working extensively with organizations other than its own

In such circumstances, much of the authority and responsibility are conferred by contractual terms or the power of agency and therefore are less direct than those of an internal business affair

As a result, the understanding of TBs within a CPO is concerned with issues of project participants within different organizations (i.e., project teams’) collective behaviors and how their behavior affects the project performance as a whole Those collective behav-iors are expected to build an effective CPO by establishing shared project team expectations and a common understanding, promoting desirable behavior among project teams, and supporting project team members with behavior problems to get back on track and fulfilling the CPO’s self-management functions to fulfill the CPO’s objectives

In the domain of construction project management, factors related to managerial support, communication, commitment, coor-dination, and project team leaders’ performance (Chan et al 2004;

which may be viewed as the TBs’ manifestations related to project teams within CPOs that assess the patterns of project participants’ regular work behaviors over the course of a construction project

In this form, TBs are reflected in actions that characterize the in-teractions between project teams for achieving the project CPO’s effectiveness

This study therefore proposes that TBs can be identified by examining relevant work behaviors of project participants that re-flect the methods of implementation, explanation, or resolution for works and/or difficulties faced over the course of a construction project To develop each behavioral attribute, it was consequently relevant to study the sources of practice works and problems that project participants must resolve or for which they must clarify methods and solutions Building upon this approach of behavioral identification, examining project teams’ work behaviors is pivotal

to determining TBs within project organizations Measuring behav-ioral attributes is relevant to exploring the level of project teams’ work behaviors When examining the dimensions of the TBs of

a construction project, one could argue that a relevant source of knowledge should be obtained in consultation with key practi-tioners involved over the course of the project

Client Satisfaction Numerous performance measurement indicators have been used

to assess construction projects’ effectiveness and efficiency

with-in the construction with-industry Both early studies (Avots 1969;

Pinto and Slevin 1988;Shenhar and Dvir 2008) implicitly propose

that project success involved concern for the “iron-triangle” of

project quality, project time, and project budget In further

consid-eration of those specifications, the satisfaction of the client is

ad-vised as a significant supplementary aspect of this formula (Bedell

1983) In a further holistic investigation, Pinto and Slevin (1988)

highlighted the key areas related to the success of a project,

includ-ing projects (i.e., quality, time, and budget) and clients (i.e., use,

satisfaction, and effectiveness) The importance of measuring client

satisfaction within construction projects’ effectiveness was also

clarified by Baker et al (1983), who conducted an extensive survey

over 650 project managers Indeed, the study of customer

satisfac-tion was launched in the early 1980s, and this concept is commonly

applied in social fields such as psychology, business, marketing,

and economics (Liu and Leung 2002) Essentially, satisfaction is

the expression of the disparity between“How much is there?” and

“How much should there be?” (Wanous and Lawler 1972)

There-fore, it is relevant to apply the same to the measurement of

perfor-mance outcomes (Nerkar et al 1996)

Recently, satisfaction has become increasingly used, with an

emphasis showing a positive increasing shift from purely business

performance to more stakeholder performance (Love and Holt

2000) In the context of CPOs, in which different project

stakehold-ers may have different pstakehold-erspectives on project success because

of their different aims (Davis 2014), project teams are primarily

asked to coordinate to deliver value for the client Therefore,

mov-ing beyond the traditional measurement of project performance

outcomes in terms of time, cost, and quality, measuring satisfaction

has proved an effective alternative approach to improve

construc-tion projects’ effectiveness (Cheng et al 2006;Davis 2014;Ling

satisfac-tion in a construcsatisfac-tion context is perceived as a holistic entity

consisting of quality (Alias et al 2014; Baloi and Price 2003;

To measure how the customers of a business rate the service offered

to them, the Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model is commonly

used (Mauri et al 2013); this model measures customer satisfaction

with service quality (i.e., constructed facilities and construction

process) as the discrepancy between the client’s needs and

expectations versus their experiences (Omonori and Lawal 2014;

when the experience exceeds expectations, and it is low when

experiences of service quality are below expectations

As for construction projects’ setting, clients form their

percep-tions of project quality, schedule, and budget from their interacpercep-tions

with project participants (i.e., contractors, subcontractors, and site

supervisors) Clients’ opinions about quality, time, and cost are

formed by interrelating with behavioral aspects of project teams

over the course of project The sum total of all interactions

influ-ences their level of final satisfaction with the project’s overall

quality, time, and cost Barrett (2000) mentioned that construction

project quality can be viewed as the fulfillment (i.e., satisfaction)

of a set of performance criteria owned by a host with regard to

other related project stakeholders In this regard, expectations are

an effective measurement for determining client satisfaction The

strength of the client satisfaction approach is that it emphasizes

importance to clients rather than establishing specification-based

judgments that may be ambiguous (Kärnä 2004) Client satisfaction

thus approaches quality from a client’s perspective that is relatively

straightforward to measure

Research Hypotheses

In any generic business setting, there is relevant evidence that indi-viduals’ behaviors, which are viewed as numerous series of actions within an organization, are significantly connected to customer satisfaction (Kattara et al 2008;Oguz and Serkan 2014) However, construction projects involve the acquisition of a capacity to pro-duce rather than the mere purchase of a finished product (Leung

and diverse in terms of the project teams involved Therefore, the management of a construction project is not so much a process sim-ilar to the internal affairs of a single company as one of the organi-zational practices of coordinating and regulating all the elements needed to accomplish the job at hand

In addition, multiple individuals and groups with diverse back-grounds contribute to CPO, which results in different behaviors and different expectations for a project This practice requires project teams that present complicated behaviors and/or attitudes to work

in a highly collaborative manner to permit the accomplishment

of the common goals of the project Behavioral differences are also believed to be capable of generating conflicts related to com-munication, which decreases the CPOs’ capacity to accomplish the project objectives (Tijhuis 2011) In the practice of construction project management, TBs should be considered a significant con-tributor that helps improve overall client satisfaction with the project received Thus, factors related to TBs arguably positively influence client satisfaction TBs should be measured based upon how positively project participants’ behavior relates to client satisfaction Therefore, the main hypothesis of this study is that TBs can positively influence client satisfaction

Research Methods

Developing TBs’ Attributes within the Construction Project Organizations

Focus group studies (FGS), focal interviews, field studies, and

a literature review were the key approaches used to develop behav-ioral attributes FGS are considered a good approach to studying specific behaviors or beliefs, the circumstances in which they occur, and the diversity of experiences and perspectives on spe-cific issues (Hennink 2013) In the first step of TBs develop-ment, three FGS were conducted in the three biggest cities in Vietnam, where most big construction companies are situated and operate, namely, Ha Noi (the capital city, situated in the north),

Ho Chi Minh (the biggest city in terms of businesses, situated in the south) and Da Nang (the midland capital city), with one FGS in each city

The participants for each FGS were selected from among indus-try professionals within private and public clients, contractors, and consultants in the cities, with eight participants from each FGS The selected participants’ backgrounds included project managers, supervisory officers, and senior engineers This step ensured the customization of the initial list of identified behavioral attributes

in Step 1 Targeted professional interviewees with satisfactory ex-perience in managing construction projects were invited Overall,

19 experts were invited to participate in the interviews: five from clients, nine from contractors, and five from consultant firms A sample size of 19 interviewees is considered acceptable in a quali-tative study because it exceeds the minimum acceptable sample size

of 15 and 12 interviews suggested by Bertaux and Bertaux (1981) and Guest et al (2006), respectively All 19 interviews resulted in

a consistent verification of the results obtained from the FGS

In addition, field observations were conducted within 15 ongoing

construction projects in Vietnam to obtain a clear view of practices

related to the study’s data collection

The purpose of the FGS and focal interviews was to discuss

common problems in regard to the project delivery process and to

clarify the traits of the TBs over the course of a project Discussions

and interviews were semistructured, containing sequential

compo-nents: the introduction, opening questions, introductory questions,

transition questions, and closing questions (Hennink 2013) After

the participants provided a short description of their experiences,

the primary topics and associated inquiries were raised, and

addi-tional requests were then added as necessary In addition, the

par-ticipants and interviewees were initially provided with the current

literature on the definitions of TBs in terms of project success to

help clarify the notion of team behavioral attributes They were

then asked related questions about the study attentions A selection

of primary questions are as follows:

1 How do you understand the project management functions?

2 What common problems in terms of project management

func-tions occur over the course of a project?

3 Can you provide a detailed description of how project teams

address those problems?

4 What do you understand about team-related behaviors within

CPOs?

5 How would you describe team-related behavior?

6 What attributes should be measured in terms of project

partici-pants’ behaviors?

7 In your experience, what types of participant behaviors over the

course of a project lead to good or poor performance in terms of

quality, schedule, and budget?

8 How would you describe the client satisfaction with a complete construction project?

9 In your experience, who should assess these behaviors? The focal interviews and FGS with participants recommended that the aspects should measure behavioral attributes that reflect project teams’ managerial support, communication, commitment, coordination to management function practices with regard to project planning, project organizing, project leadership, and project control Hence, TBs should first pertain to project planning, which covers describing a project organization’s objectives, forming a comprehensive strategy for accomplishing those objectives, and de-veloping a comprehensive set of plans to integrate and coordinate activities (Martin and Miller 1982) Second, TB indicators should connect to project organizing, which includes defining project tasks, clarifying responsible stakeholders for those project tasks, establishing a communication mechanism over the course of the project, and determining the roles and duties of decision makers Third, TBs also involve project leading, which covers the project leaders’ function of directing project teams’ activities, motivating the project team and team members, coordinating all project teams and contributors, and/or resolving risks and conflicts during the project implementation (Robbins and Judge 2013) Finally, TBs should describe the capabilities of the project controller, which en-sures that project tasks are proceeding as planned; project manage-ment must monitor task performance and compare it with the baseline to detect any significant deviations or problems and take corrective action to get the project back on track (Pierce 2013) As a result, 23 attributes were compiled and suggested for measurement

as TB success factors (Table1)

Table 1 Attributes of team-related behavior

Clarification of project objectives TB1 Objectives and values of the project are clearly understood by project teams.

Project planning clarification by project teams TB2 Project teams clearly understand their required roles and duties on the project plan Ability of clients to define roles TB3 The client clearly understands and defines required roles and duties to project teams Mutual understanding TB4 All project teams concern each other ’s objectives, expectations and values.

Communicates about implementing project plan TB5 All project teams first look at how the project would be implemented effectively rather

than how they would benefit from the project.

Interactions at work TB6 Interrelated working relationships among the project teams are promoted in terms of

exploring innovative solutions and reducing costs and time spent.

Communicates with information TB7 Information is shared, transparent and available to project teams over the course of the

project.

Effective communication TB8 Project team leaders assist and clearly communicate with their subordinates and other

teams, ensuring accomplishment of project objectives.

Responsibility clarification TB9 Project participants are always ensured their responsibility over the course of project Mutual respect and openness TB10 The project teams are open and respectful of one another.

Idea exchange and support TB11 The project participants are encouraged to exchange ideas and to help one another Risk and conflict resolution TB12 All project teams are encouraged using “joint problem-solving” when things go wrong

over the course of a project.

Valuing project participants ’ contributions TB13 All project members are valued as significant participants in the success of the project Supports team members TB14 All project participants are encouraged to receive constructive feedback to enhance their

performance.

Promotes empowerment TB15 Project team leaders are authorized to make appropriate decisions by themselves Fosters motivation TB16 Project teams are always supported and encouraged to maintain a high level of motivation

over the course of the project.

Control of project quality by contractors TB17 Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for project quality Control of project schedule by contractors TB18 Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for project schedule Control of project budget by contractors TB19 Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for contract costs.

Encourages team decisions TB20 Project teams are respectfully encouraged to raise any question at every level Participation in decision making TB21 All project participants are encouraged to be involved in any decision making over the

course of the project.

Trust-sharing atmosphere TB22 There is an atmosphere of mutual reliance generated by project teams.

Direction by project leaders TB23 Project team leaders always ensure that their subordinates know what is expected of them.

Data Collection

Based on the literature and discussions with key project

stakehold-ers, case-specific data were collected by practitioners involved in

construction projects in Vietnam who served as project managers

for clients, contractors, and supervisors This approach was also

validated by consultations for a pilot study, which helped to clarify

that clients, contractors, and supervisors with responsibilities as

project team leaders or managing directors were the most

appro-priate survey respondents As a result, official questionnaires were

distributed to 239 randomly targeted participants who were asked

to answer specific survey inquiries based on the participants’

ex-periences with their most recently completed construction project

A final sample of 195 valid responses was obtained for

inves-tigation Among the final set of valid samples, 92 and 73 of the

respondents were clients and contractors, respectively, and the

re-maining 30 were supervision consultants Regarding respondents’

backgrounds, 100% of the respondents had held the position of

project managers during the project delivery, and 79% of them

had worked in the construction industry for over 10 years, with

a minimum of 5 years work involvement in construction project

management For the construction project categories, 106 of the

projects surveyed were infrastructure facilities, including roads,

bridges, and water supply structures; 62 of the projects surveyed

were residential and/or office buildings; and the remaining 27

proj-ects were manufacturing facilities Regarding the projproj-ects’ size, 48

were large-scale investments (national level), 111 were midrange

investments (budget> VND 15 billion), and 36 were small-scale

investments

Measures

The survey items were divided into two parts First, respondents

were asked to clarify their demographic characteristics and describe

the features of their projects, and the second part aimed to collect

data on behavioral attributes and client satisfaction aspects The

respondents were requested to specify their experience with a

re-cently completed construction project on a five-point Likert scale

of 1 (strongly disagree/not at all satisfied) to 5 (strongly agree/

extremely satisfied)

The principal component analysis (PCA) method is commonly

employed to examine the essential dimensions of multiple

indica-tors (e.g., collection of TB aspects) PCA is an effective tool for

principally diminishing a large set of observed variable factors

into its underlying components (Grimm and Yarnold 2000;Hair

eigen-value criteria are the most commonly used to eliminate or retain

the components extracted from the number of parameters (i.e., TBs

aspects) As a result, those extracted factors with eigenvalues

greater than or equal to 1 are retained, and conversely, those with

eigenvalues less than 1 are eliminated

Additionally, Cronbach’s α was analyzed as an integrated test to

evaluate the internal consistency of the factorized items (Sharma

higher theα coefficient, the more consistent the alignment of items

A Cronbach’s α value greater than 0.7 is considered acceptable in

internal consistency testing (Hinkin 1995; Pallant 2007; Sharma

The stepwise technique is the most commonly employed to

de-termine the set of predictors in a regression model (Ratner 2010)

and the extent to which predictors are properly integrated into the

fit model Although this selection method has the capability to

determine an explanatory subset among many variables based on

statistical criteria, the limitations of stepwise selection have been recently criticized because of the biasedR2and coefficient values,

generating a false confidence interval, severe problems with multi-collinearity, unstable selected variables, and a problem with redun-dant predictors (Prost et al 2008;Ratner 2010;Wang et al 2004;

aver-aging (BMA) technique BMA has ability to model uncertainty using the posterior probabilities as a goodness of fit assessment for numerous selected possible models to perform all inferences and predictions (Fragoso and Neto 2015;Xu et al 2012) BMA also provides a higher frequency of selection and lower standard deviations for estimated criteria than the stepwise technique (Prost

MATLAB, R, and PYTHON have been utilized Here, R was used

to analyze the study model

Results and Discussion Results of Factor Analysis on TBs’ Attributes PCA was employed to explore the principal factors from the set of

23 behavioral attributes The outcomes of the PCA (Table2) used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index test for sampling adequacy, which was relatively greater than the accepted threshold of 0.60

(p > 0.000) (Hair et al 1998), showing that the data were suitable for factor analysis Factor loadings above the 0.40 threshold were considered (Cserháti and Szab ´o 2014;Field 2000) The final results

of the PCA showed that the four behavioral components that were primarily extracted accounted for 59.19% of the total variance in the 23 behavioral attributes with an eigenvalue greater than 1, in-dicating that those extracted attributes can help clarify the four TBs The Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.704 to 0.871, which indicates that the internal consistency reliability of all the extracted components was acceptable (Cserháti and Szab ´o 2014)

Eight aspects were extracted as significant in Management factor 1: clarification of the project’s objectives (TB1); project plan-ning clarification by project teams (TB2); ability of clients to de-fine roles (TB3); mutual understanding (TB4); communicates with information (TB7); effective communication (TB8); responsibility clarification (TB9); and valuing project participants’ contributions (TB13) Taking into account the aspect explanations specified in Table2, aspects TB1, TB2, TB3, and TB4 reflect the effectiveness

of project planning clarification over the course of a project The remaining items in Behavioral factor 1 can be applied to assess the effectiveness of the project organization These results are con-sistent with the FGS findings that those eight TBs are grouped

in the detailed description of the first two project management functions: project planning and project organizing This behav-ioral factor is called project planning and organizing emphasis (P&OE)

Management factor 2 was composed of eight items: communi-cates with implementing project plan (TB5); interactions at work (TB6); openness and mutual respect (TB10); idea exchange and support (TB11); risk and conflict resolution (TB12); fostering motivation (TB16); trust-sharing atmosphere (TB22); and direction

by project leaders (TB23) The conceptualization of the aspects extracted in Factor 2 contributes to collaboration in the work envi-ronment, in which disparate project teams come together to create

a shared understanding to achieve project goals and objectives The results are also compatible with previous works suggesting that the coordination process primarily involves the creation, dis-semination, and processing of information in managing resources

efficiently (Hossain 2009) Thus, Cultural factor 2 is called

co-ordination emphasis (CE)

Three items were significantly organized in Management

fac-tor 3: control of project quality by contracfac-tors (TB17); control

of project schedule by contractors (TB18); and control of project

budget by contractors (TB19) These aspects reflect the degree

to which the contractor made efforts and took appropriate actions

to guarantee that the project remained on track This result is to be

expected based on the FGS findings that the controlling function

is essential to project management to help ensure the project is

pro-ceeding as planned Thus, this management factor is called

contrac-tor assurance emphasis (CAE)

The taxonomy of Factor 4 included four items: supports team

members (TB14); promotes empowerment (TB15); encourages

team decisions (TB20); and participates in decision making (TB21)

This cultural factor is called empowerment assignment emphasis

(EAE) because the items loaded reflect how team members are

em-powered to be involved in making decisions about achievement

of the project objectives

In summary, the PCA identified the following four factors of the

TBs for the CPOs: P&OE, CE, CAE, and EAE These factors are

suggested as the formulation of a TB framework for construction

project management in industry

Analysis of Variance

The ANOVA indicated that at a 99% confidence interval (Table3),

the mean scores of the four behavioral dimensions assessed

be-tween groups of respondents are similar This result specifies that

despite their association with different roles in the course of project, there was no significantly different assessment of TBs among the three types of professionals in the construction industry As such, the three groups of professionals are in agreement with the four factors identified by the PCA, which are valid measures of TBs

in the construction industry This result may well explain why, de-spite the fragmentation and complexity in the construction industry, the project participants appear more in agreement with the efforts of the project teams in project planning, organizing, directing, and controlling over the course of a project It can be inferred from this finding that there are no significant conflicts among stakeholders

in terms of contract terms under the dominance of the traditional procurement approach (Nguyen and Watanabe 2016)

In summary, the overall agreement among different project teams means that despite their diversely involved organizations, the three groups of project stakeholders (clients, supervisions, and contractors) had similar views of TBs within the industry

Table 2 Results of factor analysis on behavioral attributes

Behavior components

Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach ’s alpha) — 0.855 0.871 0.870 0.704 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.912

Bartlett ’s test of sphericity

Table 3 ANOVA in regard to respondents ’ professions Respondent Statistics P&OE CE CAE EAE Client Mean significant score 3.82 3.41 3.41 3.45

SD 0.49 0.62 0.75 0.55 Contractor Mean significant score 3.74 3.30 3.78 3.32

SD 0.53 0.69 0.64 0.59 Supervisory

consultant

Mean significant score 3.80 3.50 3.34 3.52

SD 0.56 0.66 0.86 0.63 Kruskal-Wallis

test

Chi-squared 1.537 2.132 4.671 3.442 P-value 0.463 0.344 0.0716 0.178

However, this finding differs from previous studies, which have

argued that the diverse contracting organizations within a CPO

have different backgrounds, business intentions, responsibilities,

and work patterns Thus, the different contracting organizations

may perceive TBs differently within CPOs (Ankrah and Langford

groups of respondents generally agree with the practices on

repre-sentativeness of the identified behavioral factors instead of their

conventional perceptions, which indicates the highly relevant

prac-tice pursuant to which contracting organizations can develop

common core values within a project

Impact of TBs on Client Satisfaction

Multiple regression analyses were performed to predict and explain

how the behavioral factors affect the project outcomes The

inde-pendent variables as predictors included the four dimensions of

TBs, whereas the dependent variables were client satisfaction

measured within three dimensions, including (1) satisfaction with

project quality (SPQ), (2) satisfaction with project schedule (SPE),

and (3) satisfaction with project budget (SPB) The BMA technique

was applied to select the set of predictors in the possible regression

models, and outputs were obtained (Table4) The results present

the goodness of fit of selected regression models; the highest value

of the Bayesian information criteria (BIC) and the highest absolute

value of postprobability (post prob) indicates a good fit with the

data among the possible models

Table4indicates that the three TB dimensions of P&OE, CE,

and CAE are conducive to increasing client SPQ The

recom-mended models explained 52% of the variation in SPQ (p < 0.000),

whereas CAE and EAE had a positive effect on client satisfaction

with project schedule and client satisfaction with project budget,

which collectively explained 40.3% and 28.5% of the variation

in SPS and SPB, respectively (p < 0.000) The ANOVA results also

clarified that the recommended models are able to significantly

(P < 0.000) improve the prediction of project performance

Addi-tionally, a variance inflation factor (VIF) test was carried out to

ensure that the issue of multicollinearity was ruled out in the

regression analysis The VIF values (all of which are below 2.25)

are much lower than the threshold of 10 (Hair et al 1998), which

implies no multicollinearity or small standard errors within the data

regres-sion models, analyses of residuals are commonly used The

histo-gram of standardized residuals of the models show a bell-shaped

distribution, indicating that the normal assumption has not been

violated In addition, the normal Q-Q plot of the models shows that

the observations plotted against a theoretical normal probability display points forming a roughly straight line, supporting the con-clusions regarding the normal assumption drawn from the histo-grams of standardized residuals

Three predictors—P&OE, CE, and CAE—have a positive influ-ence on SPQ, which may indicate that projects with higher levels of these predictors also have higher levels of project quality satisfac-tion The behavioral dimension of P&OE can be connected with the cultural trait of mission in the model of Denison (2000) The specific indexes in this cultural dimension clarify the goals and objectives, vision, and strategy that can offer project teams a clear working map, answering the questions “Where are they going?” and“How is their daily work?” that contribute to the achievement

of project goals This finding is also compatible with the work of Cheung et al (2011), who found that “goal setting and accom-plishment” were significant along with cultural dimensions in Hong Kong’s CPOs This finding clarifies the belief that a CPO

is recognized by its project participants’ behaviors, which in turn are formed by project aims that are established and manifested

by the activities implemented by the project members over the course of a project In other words, clear project objectives instruct the construction of a project plan and make its execution viable This primary project performance criterion can be accomplished only through a process of clarifying the project’s objectives and strategies, clearly assigning roles and responsibilities to the team members, and effective communication through which project par-ticipants clearly understand the requests and schedule and how they can obtain support for their work, which in turn enables them to fully contribute their joint efforts to the success of the project The behavioral dimension of CE refers to a coordination and integration culture with diverse participants and units of a project’s organization, which helps project participants understand the mu-tual influences of their actions and ensures that all project members work together toward common goals This result is to be expected The construction industry is characterized by its fragmented nature and temporary cooperation; as such, a high level of coordination characterized by a commitment to project benefits, promoting in-teractions at work, openness and mutual respect, idea exchange and support, risk and conflict resolution, and the clarification of responsibility among construction project participants all form

an essential foundation for the success of a project By offering coordination, project teams look forward to higher project qual-ity and shared project risks, contributing to higher client SPQ These findings are also consistent with those of Zou et al (2008), who revealed that overall project performance is enhanced by a cooperative environment Similarly, Leung et al (2004) found that behavioral management related to commitment, team involve-ment and shared goals can positively contribute to participant satisfaction

CAE also plays a vital role in all project outcomes This behav-ioral dimension was a relatively significant aspect, aptly reflecting the importance of contractors’ obligation to their contracts These findings are also consistent with previous studies, which found that the contractor significantly influences project performance (Chua

the fact that contractors are more concerned about reacting to and serving the client and constantly committing the capacity necessary

to satisfy the client’s future needs and expectations Moreover,

it is intriguing that factors of construction project performance such as poor quality, overspending, and time delays have been re-ported for years in developing countries such as Vietnam (Nguyen

ap-pear to prioritize contractors on site These findings also clarify

Table 4 Bayesian model averaging of selection

Model

Satisfaction with project quality

Satisfaction with project time

Satisfaction with project cost Intercept 0.566a −0.133 0.800a

F-statistic 69.11b 64.75b 38.59b

a p < 0.01.

b p < 0.05.

c p < 0.001.

contractors’ contributions to project success within the

environ-ment of traditional construction project procureenviron-ment

CAE and EAE enhanced client satisfaction with both project

schedules and budgets Unsurprisingly, the contractor plays a

sig-nificant role in ensuring the success of a project Furthermore,

these results were related to the variables included in the TBs of

EAE The behavioral dimension of EAE provides project members

with the requisite authority, initiative, capacity, and opportunities to

organize and oversee their responsibilities at work over the course

of a project These results are not surprising within the field of

con-struction project management Given the natural complexity and

uncertainty of construction project management, promoting an

em-powerment culture enhances the capacity to acquire feedback or

suggestions from project members at various levels of management

and the decision-making process, which is pivotal to reducing risks

and improving project performance Additionally, fostering this

behavioral culture generates a sense of ownership and

accountabil-ity for all project team members, promoting greater commitment

to the project’s objectives and goals For organizations in which

employees are encouraged to raise their voice and be heard, this

reflects that organizations are“using their greatest asset to its

high-est potential and, in return, are becoming more competitive in the

emerging global economy” (Maxwell 2005)

In summary, these results provide empirical evidence that TB

frameworks play vital roles in enhancing client satisfaction within

CPOs, at least to an extent Although this study used data collected

in Vietnam, the research claims (i.e., inferences, interpretations,

methodologies, and conclusions) were developed based on studies

that were conducted overseas The findings of this study will help

the construction industry and academia gain a deeper

understand-ing of the sources of critical success factor–related project TBs and

the influence of project TBs on project success For construction

professionals, this paper aims to provide guidance to practitioners

involved in project management activities by developing

measur-able controls for participant behavior and attitudes These controls

will enable practitioners to adjust their interactions with

partici-pants during the course of a project to achieve better project

out-comes In addition, the study aims to extend the body of knowledge

in project management by developing a project team behavior

framework and examining the influence of project team behavior

on project success with regard to client satisfaction

Conclusions

This study aimed to better define attributes of TBs and to detect

their framework in construction projects, which was characterized

by practices derived from specific CPOs In this respect, 23

attrib-utes of TBs were first derived through FGS, a literature review, and

focal interviews with practitioners in the industry Using Vietnam

as a case study, the TBs’ measurements were collected and then

used in PCA to classify these attributes into four factors of TB

The TB factors of P&OE highlight the importance of clarifying

project goals and a comprehensive plan in which all project

mem-bers are clearly provided direction and scope for their work over the

course of the project Additionally, the TB factor of CAE reflects

the culture of customer focus, within which contractors are the

piv-otal element to assure project performance The TB factor of CE

highlights the fragmented nature and diverse individuals involved

in a construction project This factor makes perfect sense in

con-struction project management because having a cooperative

atmos-phere ensures that all project members understand each other and

work well together toward common goals The EAE factor reflects

people-focused cultures within which leadership is viewed as the

most powerful Thus, project management invests more in leader-ship behaviors, and project members experience a greater feeling of ownership and accountability, which helps to promote effort and a capacity for autonomy to achieve a CPO’s goals and objectives The study identified no significant differences in the assessment

of the TB factors provided by project stakeholders The shared acceptance of these factors with moderate mean scores by the three groups of construction professionals suggests that core common values in projects can be generated by devoting efforts to derive project goals and objectives instead of individual benefits among contracting organizations The policy implication is that project stakeholders should place more emphasis on efforts to promote managerial practices that are deemed most behavioral in the con-struction industry, potentially contributing to the practice of effec-tive change in project management

These behavioral factors were then used to analyze the signifi-cant associations between behavioral dimensions and different aspects of client satisfaction These dimensions can be used to es-timate and explain project performance in terms of client satisfac-tion; these dimensions were developed through the three robust models presented in Table 4 The findings indicate that P&OE,

CE, and CAE contribute to better client SPQ Two behavioral di-mensions, CAE and EAE, can predict client SPS and project budget This study demonstrates that CAE plays the crucial role in interpreting all aspects of client satisfaction These judgments re-garding behavioral effects infer that TBs must be emphasized as a prioritized project management tool that contributes to project ac-complishment, suggesting that greater effort is needed to promote positive behavior among project teams as part of the project management

However, this study has to confront the limitation of collecting data only from practitioners in Vietnam; the data are therefore certainly valid for the specific case, but their applicability outside Vietnam is unclear In addition, this study was limited by a rela-tively small sample size; increasing the volume of data could offer

a comparative analysis based on data derived from separate project stakeholders, which would specifically evidence how diverse stake-holders view the common practices of project delivery

Data Availability Statement Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author by request Information about the Journal’s data-sharing policy can be found here:http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10

Acknowledgments The author expresses appreciation to the construction professionals

in Vietnam who kindly contributed their professional experiences and knowledge to this study

References

Alias, Z., E M A Zawawi, K Yusof, and N M Aris 2014 “Determining critical success factors of project management practice: A conceptual framework ” Procedia Soc Behvav Sci 153 (Oct): 61–69 https://doi org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041

Ankrah, N A., and D A Langford 2005 “Architects and contractors:

A comparative study of organizational cultures ” Constr Manage Econ 23 (6): 595 –607 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500126973 Avots, I 1969 “Why does project management fail?” Calif Manage Rev.

12 (1): 77 –82 https://doi.org/10.2307/41164208

Baccarini, D 1999 “The logical framework method for defining project

success ” Project Manage J 30 (4): 25–32 https://doi.org/10.1177

/875697289903000405

Baker, B., D Murphy, and D Fisher 1983 “Factors affecting project

success ” In Handbook of project management, edited by D Cleland

and W King, 902 –919 New York: McGraw-Hill.

Baloi, D., and A D Price 2003 “Modelling global risk factors

affec-ting construction cost performance ” Int J Project Manage 21 (4):

261 –269 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00017-0

Barrett, P 2000 “Systems and relationships for construction quality.” Int J.

Qual Reliab Manage 17 (4 –5): 377–392 https://doi.org/10.1108

/02656710010298409

Bedell, R J 1983 “Terminating R&D projects prematurely.” Res Manage.

26 (4): 32 –35 https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1983.11756785

Belassi, W., and O I Tukel 1996 “A new framework for determining

criti-cal success/failure factors in projects ” Int J Project Manage 14 (3):

141 –151 https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X

Belout, A 1998 “Effects of human resource management on project

effectiveness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework ” Int.

J Project Manage 16 (1): 21 –26 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263

-7863(97)00011-2

Bertaux, D 1981 “From the life-history approach to the transformation of

sociological practice ” In Biography and society: The life history

ap-proach in the social sciences, edited by D Bertaux, 29 –45 London:

Sage Publications.

Chan, A P C., D Scott, and A P L Chan 2004 “Factors affecting the

success of a construction project ” J Constr Eng Manage 130 (1):

153 –155 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153)

Cheng, J., D G Proverbs, and C F Oduoza 2006 “The satisfaction levels

of UK construction clients based on the performance of consultants:

Results of a case study ” Eng., Constr Archit Manage 13 (6):

567 –583 https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980610712373

Cheung, S O., P S P Wong, and A W Y Wu 2011 “Towards an

organi-zational culture framework in construction ” Int J Project Manage.

29 (1): 33 –44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.014

Chua, D K H., Y C Kog, and P K Loh 1999 “Critical success factors for

different project objectives ” J Constr Eng Manage 125 (3): 142–150.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142)

Cooke-Davies, T 2002 “The ‘real’ success factors on projects.” Int J.

Project Manage 20 (3): 185 –190 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863

(01)00067-9

Cserháti, G., and L Szab´o 2014 “The relationship between success criteria

and success factors in organisational event projects ” Int J Project

Manage 32 (4): 613 –624 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08

.008

Davis, K 2014 “Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of

project success ” Int J Project Manage 32 (2): 189–201 https://doi

.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.006

de Carvalho, M M., L A Patah, and D de Souza Bido 2015 “Project

management and its effects on project success: Cross-country and

cross-industry comparisons ” Int J Project Manage 33 (7): 1509–1522.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.004

Denison, D R 2000 “Organizational culture: Can it be a key lever

for driving organizational change ” In The handbook of organizational

culture, edited by S Cartwright and C Cooper, 347 –372 London:

Wiley.

Dozzi, S P., S M AbouRizk, and S L Schroeder 1996 “Utility-theory

model for bid markup decisions ” J Constr Eng Manage 122 (2):

119 –124 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:2(119)

Field, A P 2000 Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows:

Advanced techniques for the beginner London: Sage Publications.

Fong, P S., and C W Kwok 2009 “Organizational culture and knowledge

management success at project and organizational levels in contracting

firms ” J Constr Eng Manage 135 (12): 1348–1356 https://doi.org

/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000106

Fortune, J., and D White 2006 “Framing of project critical success factors

by a systems model ” Int J Project Manage 24 (1): 53–65 https://doi

.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004

Fragoso, T M., and F L Neto 2015 “Bayesian model averaging: A systematic review and conceptual classification ” Preprint, submitted September 29, 2015 http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08864

Gaddis, P O 1959 The project manager Boston: Harvard Univ Garbharran, H., J Govender, and T Msani 2012 “Critical success factors influencing project success in the construction industry ” Acta Structilia

9 (2): 90 –108.

Gemuenden, H G., and T Lechler 1997 “Success factors of project management: The critical few-an empirical investigation ” In Proc., Innovation in Technology Management —The Key to Global Leader-ship: Portland Int Conf on Management and Technology, 375 –377 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

Grimm, L G., and P R Yarnold 2000 Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statistics Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Guest, G., A Bunce, and L Johnson 2006 “How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability ” Field Methods 18 (1): 59 –82 https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 Hair, J F., W C Black, B J Babin, R E Anderson, and R L Tatham.

1998 Multivariate data analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hennink, M M 2013 Focus group discussions New York: Oxford University Press.

Hinkin, T R 1995 “A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations ” J Manage 21 (5): 967–988 https://doi.org/10.1177 /014920639502100509

Hossain, L 2009 “Communications and coordination in construction projects ” Constr Manage Econ 27 (1): 25–39 https://doi.org/10 1080/01446190802558923

Ibrahim, A., M Roy, Z Ahmed, and G Imtiaz 2010 “An investigation of the status of the Malaysian construction industry ” Benchmarking

17 (2): 294 –308 https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771011036357 Jha, K., and K Iyer 2007 “Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle ” Int J Project Manage 25 (5): 527–540 https://doi org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.009

Jugdev, K., and R Müller 2005 A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success Newton Square, PA: Project Manage-ment Institute.

Kandelousi, N S 2011 “Key success factors for managing projects.” World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Social Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng 5 (11): 1541 –1545.

Kärnä, S 2004 “Analysing customer satisfaction and quality in construction-the case of public and private customers ” Nordic J Surv Real Estate Res 2 (2): 67 –80.

Kärnä, S., J Junnonen, and V Sorvala 2009 “Modelling structure of cus-tomer satisfaction with construction ” J Facil Manage 7 (2): 111–127.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960910952505 Kashiwagi, D., J Kashiwagi, I Kashiwagi, and A Kashiwagi 2012.

“The source of degradation of the construction industry performance.”

J Adv Perform Inf Value 4 (2): 206 –222.

Kattara, H S., D Weheba, and O A El-Said 2008 “The impact of em-ployee behaviour on customers ’ service quality perceptions and overall satisfaction ” Tourism Hospitality Res 8 (4): 309–323 https://doi.org /10.1057/thr.2008.35

Kinicki, A., N Cole, V Digby, N Koziol, and R Kreitner 2010 Organizational behavior New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kinicki, A., and R Kreitner 2012 Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills & best practices, Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lechler, T 1997 Erfolgsfaktoren des Projektmanagements [Success factors of project management] Frankfurt, Germany: Lang Leung, M Y., S T Ng, and S O Cheung 2004 “Measuring construc-tion project participant satisfacconstruc-tion ” Constr Manage Econ 22 (3):

319 –331 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190320000000000 Ling, F Y., S P Low, S Wang, and T Egbelakin 2008 “Models for predicting project performance in China using project management practices adopted by foreign AEC firms ” J Constr Eng Manage.

134 (12): 983 –990 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008) 134:12(983)

Liu, A M., and M.-Y Leung 2002 “Developing a soft value management

model ” Int J Project Manage 20 (5): 341–349 https://doi.org/10

.1016/S0263-7863(01)00023-0

Liu, A M M 1999 “Culture in the Hong Kong real-estate profession: A

trait approach ” Habitat Int 23 (3): 413–425 https://doi.org/10.1016

/S0197-3975(99)00015-6

Love, P E., and G D Holt 2000 “Construction business performance

measurement: The SPM alternative ” Bus Process Manage J 6 (5):

408 –416 https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150010352417

Martin, M., and K Miller 1982 “Project planning as the primary

manage-ment function ” Project Manage Q 13 (1): 31–38.

Mauri, A G., R Minazzi, and S Muccio 2013 “A review of literature on

the gaps model on service quality: A 3-decades period: 1985-2013 ” Int.

Bus Res 6 (12): 134 https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v6n12p134

Maxwell, J R 2005 “Management of employee empowerment.” J Organ.

Cult Commun Confl 9 (1): 61.

Nerkar, A A., R G McGrath, and I C MacMillan 1996 “Three facets of

satisfaction and their influence on the performance of innovation

teams ” J Bus Venturing 11 (3): 167–188 https://doi.org/10.1016

/0883-9026(96)00002-X

Nguyen, L H., and T Watanabe 2016 “An investigation of the relationship

between project organizational culture and procurement approach of

construction project organizations ” Int J Soc Social Manage Syst.

1 (10): 50 –61.

Nguyen, L H., and T Watanabe 2017 “The impact of project

organi-zational culture on the performance of construction projects ”

Sustain-ability 9 (5): 781 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050781

Ogunlana, S O 2010 “Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception

of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector

de-velopment projects ” Int J Project Manage 28 (3): 228–236 https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005

Oguz, T., and S Serkan 2014 “Employee behaviors creating customer

satisfaction: A comparative case study on service encounters at a hotel ”

Eur J Tourism Hospitality Recreation 5 (2): 25 –46.

Omonori, A., and A Lawal 2014 “Understanding customers’ satisfaction

in construction industry in Nigeria ” J Econ Sustainable Dev 5 (25):

115 –120.

Pallant, J 2007 SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data

analy-sis using SPSS version 15 Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Papke-Shields, K E., C Beise, and J Quan 2010 “Do project managers

practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success? ” Int J.

Project Manage 28 (7): 650 –662 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman

.2009.11.002

Parasuraman, A., V A Zeithaml, and L L Berry 1988 “Servqual:

A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perc ” J Retailing

64 (1): 12.

Pierce, D., Jr 2013 Project scheduling and management for construction.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pinto, J K., and D P Slevin 1988 Project success: Definitions and

measurement techniques Newton Square, PA: Project Management

Institute.

Prost, L., D Makowski, and M.-H Jeuffroy 2008 “Comparison of

step-wise selection and Bayesian model averaging for yield gap analysis ”

Ecol Model 219 (1): 66 –76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008

.07.026

Ratner, B 2010 “Variable selection methods in regression: Ignorable prob-lem, outing notable solution ” J Targeting Meas Anal Marketing

18 (1): 65 –75 https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.26 Robbins, S P., and T Judge 2013 Organizational behavior Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Sharma, S., and S Mukherjee 1996 Applied multivariate techniques New York: Wiley.

Shenhar, A., and D Dvir 2008 “Project management research-the challenge and opportunity ” IEEE Eng Manage Rev 2 (36): 112–121.

https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2008.4534315 Thomas, G., and W Fernández 2008 “Success in IT projects: A matter of definition? ” Int J Project Manage 26 (7): 733–742 https://doi.org/10 1016/j.ijproman.2008.06.003

Tijhuis, W 2011 “Report-developments in construction culture research: Overview of activities of CIB W112 culture in construction ” J Quant Surv Constr Bus 1: 66 –76.

Todorovi´c, M L., D Č Petrovi´c, M M Mihi´c, V L Obradovi´c, and S D Bushuyev 2015 “Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management ” Int J Project Manage 33 (4):

772 –783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.009 Walker, A 2011 Organizational behaviour in construction New York: Wiley.

Walker, A 2015 Project management in construction New York: Wiley Wang, D., W Zhang, and A Bakhai 2004 “Comparison of Bayesian model averaging and stepwise methods for model selection in logistic regression ” Stat Med 23 (22): 3451–3467 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim 1930

Wanous, J P., and E E Lawler 1972 “Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction ” J Appl Psychol 56 (2): 95 https://doi.org/10.1037 /h0032664

Williams, B., A Onsman, and T Brown 2010 “Exploratory factor analy-sis: A five-step guide for novices ” Australas J Paramedicine 8 (3):

990399 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93 Williams, P., N J Ashill, E Naumann, and E Jackson 2015 “Relationship quality and satisfaction: Customer-perceived success factors for on-time projects ” Int J Project Manage 33 (8): 1836–1850 https://doi.org/10 1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.009

Xiong, B., M Skitmore, B Xia, M A Masrom, K Ye, and A Bridge.

2014 “Examining the influence of participant performance factors

on contractor satisfaction: A structural equation model ” Int J Project Manage 32 (3): 482 –491 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013 06.003

Xu, C.-J., A van der Schaaf, C Schilstra, J A Langendijk, and A A van ’t Veld 2012 “Impact of statistical learning methods on the predictive power of multivariate normal tissue complication probability models ” Int J Radiat Oncol 82 (4): 677 –684 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp 2011.09.036

Yang, L.-R., C.-F Huang, and K.-S Wu 2011 “The association among project manager ’s leadership style, teamwork and project success.” Int J Project Manage 29 (3): 258 –267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j ijproman.2010.03.006

Zou, J., G Zillante, and V Coffey 2008 “Project culture in the Chinese construction industry: Perceptions of contractors ” Constr Econ Build.

9 (2): 17 –28 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v9i2.3018