163 Chapter 6 Stakeholder Management Practice in Public Sector Projects in Nigeria 164 6.1 Understanding of the Concepts of Project and Stakeholder Management .... 65 Figure 3.2 Developm
Introduction
Background to the Research
Public sector involvement drives infrastructure development in developing countries such as Nigeria, but managing these projects presents significant challenges to achieving their goals Studies of public sector project management in Nigeria show that many projects are procured in environments of competing interests and multiple stakeholders, a dynamic that hampers progress at various stages of the project life cycle These governance and coordination issues must be addressed to improve the success rate of infrastructure initiatives in Nigeria and similar contexts.
Scholars have documented significant challenges in Nigerian public project management As Anago (2002), Ballard and Wang (2002), and Eneh (2009) report, numerous development plans, programmes, or visions aimed at expanding and improving infrastructure for economic growth have largely failed Public investment has been channeled into large public utilities spanning telecommunications, power, steel, petrochemicals, banking, small agricultural enterprises, manufacturing, education, and hotels, totaling about 1,500 public enterprises—roughly 600 under Federal Government control and 900 under State and Local Governments—driven by the oil revenue boom of the 1970s (Ballard and Wang, 2002) Additional investments are noted in River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs) (Kolawole).
1991; Priscolli and Wolf, 2009) and oil and gas and power and energy (Obadina, 1999a)
Although these projects and programmes were planned to succeed and substantial funds were invested, they have consistently failed at various stages of their life cycles (Obadina, 1999b; Ballard and Wang, 2002; Akinbade and Lalthapersad-Pillay, 2003; Stephen and Lenihan, 2007; Okereke, 2008; Eneh, 2009; Mobbs, 2009; Kolawole, 1991; Anago, 2002; Mohammed, 2002; Priscolli and Wolf, 2009) The dominant explanation, per Ballard and Wang (2002) and Stephen and Lenihan (2007), is the combined effect of the actions and inactions of political leaders and administrators, public service project managers, contractors, labour unions and other pressure groups, and local communities Political leaders often show a lack of commitment to implementing inherited projects from previous regimes; project managers, under collusion with contractors seeking perpetual enrichment, inadequately supervise projects across all life-cycle phases; labour unions and pressure groups exert unnecessary pressure on implementation; and local communities threaten to destroy projects during disputes or crises (Kubeyinje and Nezianya, 1999; Stephen and Lenihan, 2007; Okereke, 2008; Eneh, 2009; Mobbs, 2009; Priscolli and Wolf, 2009) Additionally, local communities around project sites frequently demonstrate little regard for the intended benefits, undermining project outcomes (Kubeyinje and Nezianya, 1999; Obadina, 1999a; Obadina, 1999b; Itsede, 2006; Stephen and Lenihan, 2007; Okereke, 2008; Eneh, 2009; Mobbs, 2009; Priscolli and Wolf, 2009).
An in‑depth examination of the project problems reveals issues inherently linked to project stakeholders, including cost and schedule overruns, corruption, political leadership lack of commitment, and weak supervision Consequently, effective stakeholder management, central to project success, sits at the core of these challenges Understanding stakeholder management helps explain how to engage stakeholders to achieve project success McElroy and Mills (2007) define stakeholder management as the ongoing development of relationships with stakeholders for the purpose of delivering a successful project outcome The Project Management Institute (2004) and the Association for Project Management (2008) define project stakeholder management as the systematic process of identifying, analyzing, and engaging stakeholders to support project objectives.
Stakeholder management involves the systematic identification, analysis, and planning of actions to communicate with, negotiate with, and influence stakeholders It is the process of engaging with people who have an interest in the project, with the aim of aligning their objectives with those of the project (Moodley, 2002; Moodley, 2008).
The concept of stakeholder management aims to analyse, understand, describe and manage stakeholders (Chinyio and Akintoye, 2008) According to Jepsen and Eskerod
Stakeholder management is a central element of project management because a project is a temporary coalition of stakeholders who must work together to create value The aim of stakeholder management is to increase the likelihood of project success by carrying out purposeful activities related to stakeholders, guiding them to participate effectively It is a vital part of the project management process in construction and other project types, and it aligns with the organisation’s strategic management process In construction project management, the focus is on planning and managing the activities required to deliver a project, while stakeholder management engages the project team in helping stakeholders identify, negotiate, and achieve their objectives through active participation Stakeholder management is also a skill for construction project teams, given stakeholders’ ability to influence the organisation Overall, it is a key process with a significant impact on project success The stakeholder management process aims to understand the project’s stakeholders, balance contribution and reward, manage stakeholder relationships, and involve stakeholders in determining the project’s goals and how success is measured.
2002) Several authors have proposed processes for the management of project stakeholders (Yang et al., 2011) These processes are proposed by Cleland (1986),
Across 2002 to 2013, a body of project management literature—including Cleland and Ireland (2002), Elias et al (2002), Karlsen (2002), Preble (2005), Bourne and Walker (2006), Young (2006), McElroy and Mills (2007), Walker et al (2008b), Jepsen and Eskerod (2009), Yang et al (2009), the British Standards Institute (2010), Luyet et al (2012), and the Project Management Institute (2013)—has shaped how practitioners identify, analyze, and engage stakeholders to drive project success The central thread is that effective stakeholder management—spanning identification, prioritization, engagement, and governance—significantly influences outcomes Foundational frameworks from Cleland & Ireland and PMI, complemented by empirical insights from Jepsen & Eskerod and Bourne & Walker, converge on the view that clear communication, stakeholder prioritization, and robust governance structures are essential Standardization efforts (BSI, 2010) provide practical guidance and benchmarks that practitioners can apply to real-world projects, while later work (Luyet et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2009) continues to refine our understanding of stakeholder impact and performance measurement.
This thesis contends that effective project stakeholder management is central to delivering success for public sector projects in Nigeria In this context, project success—defined by meeting cost, time, quality targets and achieving stakeholder satisfaction—is frequently hampered by cost escalations and schedule delays, issues largely influenced by the actions and inactions of stakeholders Consequently, robust stakeholder management and engagement throughout the project lifecycle can implicitly enable better outcomes by aligning expectations, improving communication, and supporting timely decision-making, thereby mitigating cost overruns and delays.
Aim and Objectives of the Research
The aim of this research is:
To develop an integrated framework to contribute to the improvement of stakeholder management in the public sector construction projects in Nigeria
To achieve the aim of the research, the following objectives were pursued:
(i) To develop a conceptual framework for project stakeholder management
Using the conceptual framework established in objective (i), this study evaluates the practice of stakeholder management in public sector construction projects in Nigeria Building on this evaluation, the analysis identifies the key strengths and weaknesses of stakeholder management within Nigeria’s public sector construction projects, offering actionable insights to improve engagement, coordination, and governance.
Building on objectives (i)–(iii), this study aims to develop and evaluate an integrated framework to enhance stakeholder management in Nigeria's public-sector construction projects The framework seeks to align stakeholders, improve coordination, and support more effective project delivery across public construction initiatives in Nigeria.
Outline of Methodology
This study adopted a multiple-case study design with a mixed-methods approach to meet its stated aim and objectives, and the research objectives were pursued through three distinct phases, namely Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.
During the exploratory phase, an in-depth literature review established the study's theoretical framework and informed the development of a conceptual model (Objective 1) This phase also included a pilot test to pre-test the data collection methods and instruments, ensuring their suitability for gathering the research data.
In the investigative phase, we evaluated the practice of project stakeholder management in Nigeria's public sector (Objective 2) by collecting empirical data from four case studies The cases were examined against the guidelines of the conceptual model, employing a mix of data collection methods—semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews, examination of project data and documents, and observations of ongoing projects The phase also analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of stakeholder management across the four cases (Objective 3) by comparing the empirical findings with the existing literature and body of knowledge.
During the synthesis phase, the integrated framework was developed and evaluated (Objective 4) by integrating insights from the exploratory and investigative phases and aligning them with Objectives 1–3 The framework was built on extant literature and project management best practice guides and methodologies to support its development Validation of the integrated framework was carried out through a questionnaire survey administered to selected experts from the empirical cases and senior academics familiar with the management of university projects.
Details of the justification for the research design and methods employed are described in Chapter 3.
Scope of the Research
Defining the scope clarifies the areas the research will cover, since it is impossible to exhaustively address every aspect in a single study A clear scope and explicit boundaries are essential for meaningful research, and this thesis is therefore confined within well-defined limits that specify what will be examined and what lies outside the inquiry.
Although the term project spans many fields and industries, the scope of this thesis and its arguments, along with any related research, is limited to construction projects and their management.
Research is inherently contextual, and this thesis is grounded in the organizational context of Nigeria's federal public universities While many principles discussed may be generic, applying other principles beyond the selected case studies requires caution to account for contextual variation.
The research is limited to stakeholders in construction projects initiated and managed in the client organisation
This thesis does not address the development or deployment of advanced information technology (IT) systems or decision-support software Instead, IT usage is confined to the application of existing software.
While the author does not make claims for the conclusions beyond these delimitations, implications of the findings beyond the delimitations are drawn in Chapter 8.
Limitations of the Research
Limitations of the study affect the generalizability of findings from a few cases to the broader engineering and construction industry The research confined itself to a single public-sector subsector—education—and, within that subsector, to four federal public universities in Nigeria While the federal universities interact with the private sector, the study only examined private-sector involvement as referenced, not as a separate entity Additionally, the project sample was not exhaustive; although sufficient data were collected, projects funded by philanthropists, corporate bodies, and alumni were excluded because they tend to be autonomous in administration, occur irregularly, and often fall outside the organizations’ formal investment plans.
Outline of Chapters in the Thesis
Section 1.1 presents the study background and context, while Section 1.2 outlines the thesis aims and objectives; the overall argument is organized according to Table 1.1, which provides a concise description of the contents of each chapter.
Chapter 1 This chapter provides an overview of the research, including the background to the study, highlighting the research problem, aim and objectives of the research, the scope of the study, and the limitations of the study Thus, the chapter sets the ground for the rest of the other parts of the thesis
Chapter 2 The chapter is a critical review of the concept of project management with emphasis on project success Issues considered important and related to project success such as project objectives, project stakeholders and project life cycle were reviewed In addition, the chapter reviews and describes the management of public projects in Nigeria, which shows that projects are poorly managed and unsuccessful It concludes that the lack of success is attributed to the poor management of the project stakeholders
Chapter 3 This chapter describes the research design and methods, as well as philosophies of research It shows the theoretical justifications and rationale for the methods chosen to achieve the objectives of this research The chapter also describes in detail, the strategies/approaches chosen, outlining the procedures followed to achieve the objectives of the research
Chapter 4 The chapter explains the “Conceptual Model” developed and used as a lens to view the practice of project stakeholder management in the case studies in the public sector in Nigeria Thus, the chapter describes the features of the conceptual model and how they were used to study the practice of project stakeholder management in the respective cases selected for the study
Chapter 5 This chapter presents the data from the empirical study The data which majorly were qualitative were also in small measure quantitative These data gathered based on the Conceptual Model developed in Chapter 4 and case study approach chosen in Chapter 3 were mainly from semi-structured interviews, project documents, and project observations Analysis of the data to determine the experience and qualifications of the research participants was undertaken Also, the understanding/knowledge of the concepts of project and stakeholder management by the research participants as well as the project characteristics was undertaken These analyses were critically interpreted to understand the practice of project stakeholder management
Chapter 6 This chapter presents the analysis of the practice of project stakeholder management to determine the project stakeholder management process and the strengths and weaknesses of the practice These were analysed by comparing the findings from the empirical studies with the extant literature and body of knowledge
Chapter 7 This chapter presents the developed integrated framework for the improvement of the management of project stakeholders in the case studies in the public sector in Nigeria It also shows the development of the framework, the nature of the framework and how it could improve the management of project stakeholders in the public sector Furthermore, the chapter presents the evaluation of the framework
Chapter 8 The chapter presents the conclusions of the thesis, stating what was set out to be done to achieve the objectives, what was done, how that was done, what was found, and the implications of the findings, and recommends areas for further research.
Nigerian Public Sector Project Management and the Concept
Public Sector Project Management in Nigeria
Public sector efforts in Nigeria to raise both the quality and quantity of public infrastructure have been documented (Anago, 2002; Ballard and Wang, 2002; Eneh, 2009) These initiatives are viewed as necessary for development and economic growth, especially since infrastructure was underdeveloped during the colonial era (Merna and Njiru, 2002) Spurred by the substantial oil revenues of the 1970s, these programs expanded into broad public investment across infrastructure, economic and social services, and major public utilities such as telecommunications, power, steel, petrochemicals, banks, small agricultural firms, manufacturing, services, hotels, health, and education (Ballard and Wang, 2002).
Across Nigeria, the financial stakes of large infrastructure and industrial projects have been enormous, yet many have encountered delays and cost overruns, with substantial sums unaccounted for Ballard and Wang (2002) note that successive governments spent roughly US$90 billion on public enterprises whose outcomes could not be fully accounted for A notable example is a US$3.8 billion LNG facility designed to produce 7.12 billion cubic meters per year, which was 80% complete and expected to resume exports in 1999 but failed to meet both schedule and budget targets (Obadina, 1999a) Expenditures on turn-around maintenance of Kaduna, Port Harcourt and Warri refineries have not translated into proportional capacity, leaving output well below potential From 2003 to 2007, an estimated US$10 billion was invested in National Integrated Power Projects (NIPP) that have not delivered electricity as anticipated (Okereke, 2008) The Ajaokuta steel complex, intended to anchor Nigeria’s steel industry, has faced massive cost overruns, rising indebtedness and delays and remains unfinished (Ballard and Wang, 2002) Meanwhile, the National Electric Power Authority—later PHCN—was once expected to generate about 6,000 megawatts but actually produced less than half, due to management shortcomings (Obadina, 1999b).
Several studies of public-sector projects in Nigeria—Boele et al (2001), Anago (2002), Ballard and Wang (2002), Okafor (2008), Okereke (2008), Eneh (2009), and Inokoba and Imbua (2010)—find that during project initiation and conceptualization public sector clients often overlook the involvement and impact on key stakeholders, particularly end users and host communities where projects are sited Consequently, these groups may oppose project execution or misuse the projects, because they do not perceive themselves as owners, even when the initiatives are intended for their benefit.
Despite substantial investments, conditions in the Nigerian oil and gas sector have worsened daily, driven by civil and criminal violence, inter-tribal conflicts in the Niger Delta, and rampant vandalism of pipelines for crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products (Mobbs, 2009) The scale of these disruptions is enormous and reverberates through private-sector production costs For instance, unreliable power supply added about US$1 billion to annual costs from 1998 to 2002 (Ballard and Wang, 2002), while civil unrest in 2006 alone reduced Nigeria’s revenue by US$4.47 billion (Mobbs, 2009).
Public sector projects underperform due to poor implementation driven by political leaders' lack of interest and commitment, alongside corruption, weak continuity, and limited private-sector support, with the absence of due process and ethnic/political divides also impeding economic development (Eneh, 2009; Stephen & Lenihan, 2007) Additional barriers include billions of dollars needed for repairs and replacement of aging facilities, misallocation of resources, outdated technology, inadequate maintenance, and the misuse of monopoly power across sectors, all contributing to unreliable services and widespread inefficiencies (Obadina, 1999b; Ballard & Wang).
Priscolli and Wolf (2009) contend that governance problems arise from unclear roles and responsibilities, communication gaps, a top-down approach to stakeholder engagement, stakeholders’ non-participation, and a lack of autonomy and continuity in government policies They also highlight the blending of regulatory and management functions, arbitrary policies and operating decisions, and poor resource allocation and management, among other contributing factors.
Many public sector projects remain unfinished at various stages because stakeholders are not sufficiently involved or engaged This pattern is particularly evident in the oil and gas sector, where failing to recognize local communities’ interests and to involve them in planning and execution often sparks resistance to project implementation (Boele et al., 2001; Inokoba and Imbua).
2010) However, where some stakeholders have been recognised and involved, it does not cover the wide scope of the stakeholders (Boele, 1995) According to Okereke
Project failures span the public sector, driven not only by contractor problems but also by weaknesses across the entire project life cycle—poor initiation, inadequate planning, flawed execution, weak monitoring and control, and ineffective closure To address these gaps, Okereke (2008) advocates establishing Project Management Offices (PMOs) to institutionalize modern, structured project management practices across projects and organizations.
The above presents the picture of the numerous problems associated with the management of public sector projects in Nigeria Therefore, it can be reasoned that public sector projects in Nigeria experience poor conception/initiation, execution and use/maintenance or management in general As such, the interpretation of the above situations reveals the complicity among various actors in the management of the public sector projects in Nigeria at different phases of the projects The following section reviews and presents the report of assessment of the conditions of physical infrastructure in Nigerian public universities with a view to appreciate the magnitude of the effect of the above problems on projects in a typical sub-sector of the public sector.
Physical Infrastructure Projects in Public Universities in Nigeria
The report of the Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Public Universities
(2012) reveal that, there are 701 physical development projects dotted across the universities in the country Of this number, 163 (23.3%) are abandoned projects, some abandoned for over 15 years and 538 (76.7%) are on-going projects
A comprehensive assessment evaluated the current state and the needs for transforming public universities in Nigeria, covering 61 institutions (27 federal and 34 state) out of 74 public universities then in existence (37 federal and 37 state) The review examined physical infrastructure essential for teaching and learning, including lecture theatres/auditoria, classrooms, laboratories, workshops/studios/gymnasia, libraries, staff offices, and students’ hostels, to identify gaps and inform transformation strategies.
The assessment report reveals inadequacies in facilities that are operating beyond their original carrying capacities For instance, many lecturers, including professors, share small offices The facilities are dilapidated, with poor ventilation, lighting, furnishings, and equipment In addition, there is overcrowding of lecture theatres, classrooms, laboratories, and workshops, shared by multiple programmes across faculties Furthermore, some spaces are improvised—open-air sports pavilions, old cafeterias, convocation arenas, unfinished buildings used for lectures, and workshops conducted under corrugated sheds.
Public universities are funded from several sources, with recurrent budget allocation accounting for 68%, internally generated revenue (IGR) 16%, capital allocation from the budget 7%, TETFund intervention 4%, research grants from the budget allocation 3%, service charges 2%, and donations/aid/endowment less than 1% Despite these planned funding streams, infrastructure projects often suffer abandonment, which can be traced to lack of interest and commitment by political leaders, corruption, poor governance, and lack of continuity among other issues; these problems lead to cost escalations and time delays that undermine the successful delivery of projects The following sections review the concepts of project management and project success, establish the link between them, and explore how public sector project success in Nigeria could be facilitated.
Concept of Project Management
Central to project management is achieving project success through the project and its stakeholders; therefore, before exploring project management and success, it helps to understand what a project is, since organisations use projects as vehicles for managing change (Buttrick, 2009) Although many authors have proposed definitions, there is no single universal definition of a project because its meaning varies by field and context due to its wide usage across industries Nevertheless, several definitions widely cited in project management literature capture the core ideas, reflecting the temporary nature of a project, its specific objectives or outcomes, and the involvement of stakeholders.
“A project is any new structure, plant, process, system or software, large or small, or the replacement, refurbishing, renewal or removal of an existing one” (Wearne, 1995; Bower, 2002; Smith and Bower, 2008);
A project is a unique set of coordinated activities with a definite start and finish, undertaken by an individual or organization to achieve specific objectives, guided by a defined schedule, cost, and performance parameters.
“A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result” (Project Management Institute, 2004);
“A project is a unique, transient endeavour undertaken to achieve a desired outcome” (Association for Project Management, 2006); and
A project is a unique series of activities with a clear start and end, undertaken by individuals or teams to achieve specific objectives It operates within defined constraints of time, cost, and performance, guiding planning, execution, and evaluation to deliver the intended results.
Advances in project management, especially around stakeholder engagement, reshape how we define a project A project both affects its stakeholders and is shaped by them; its success and the realized benefits depend on effective stakeholder management (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2013) Grounding this in the stakeholder concept, and drawing on the Project Management Institute’s (2004) and the Association for Project Management’s (2006) definitions, this study defines a project as an endeavor undertaken by a team to deliver a desired outcome that benefits stakeholders This interpretation broadens beyond traditional objectives-focused criteria, which often reduce success to time, cost, quality, and performance specifications While achieving these objectives matters, the emphasis here is on the final outcome and the acceptance and satisfaction of that outcome by the project’s stakeholders.
The contribution of project management to the development of the construction industry dates back to history The construction industry as a global industry (Moodley et al.,
According to Sweis et al (2008), the construction industry plays a major role in any economy by generating employment and wealth The sector's impact helps determine a nation's level of development, with developed status largely reflected in the quality and quantity of functional projects such as infrastructure and industrial facilities.
Project management is inherently challenging due to the complexity that arises from multiple interrelated activities, diverse interests, and various processes Each project has a unique goal, procurement method, set of stakeholders, environmental factors, and lifecycle phases, which together create multiple sources of uncertainty such as information gaps, ambiguity, stakeholder dynamics, and shifting agendas across stages Aligning these activities, interests, and processes to achieve the project’s objectives is difficult because project work unfolds within a broader environment that extends beyond the project itself, influenced by organizational, regulatory, and external factors that shape planning and execution.
Project management has emerged as a key driver of change, shaping how organizations navigate transformation and fueling widespread interest across all business sectors As a versatile change-management approach, it is applied in construction, information technology, engineering, energy, transport and defence, and extends to banking, entertainment, human resources, leisure, event management, retail supply, disaster recovery, product launches, political conferences, and legal processes By guiding planning, organizing, monitoring and controlling both people and resources throughout a project’s life cycle, project management aims to meet the goals of scope, cost, time, quality and performance.
Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements (Project Management Institute, 2004) It derives its definition from the concept of a project (Smith and Bower, 2008) and is often described as the art of directing and coordinating human and material resources through the project life cycle using modern management techniques to achieve predetermined goals of scope, cost, time, quality, and stakeholders’ satisfaction (PMI, 2004) The Association for Project Management (2006) expands this by defining project management as the planning, organizing, monitoring, and control of all aspects of a project and the motivation of all involved to achieve objectives safely within defined time, cost, and performance; while the British Standards Institution (2000) emphasizes planning, monitoring, and control to achieve objectives on time, cost, quality, and performance Consequently, this research adopts a blended definition—directing and coordinating human and material resources through the life of a project using management techniques to achieve desired outcomes for stakeholders—modified from PMI (2004) and APM (2006).
There are structures in project management for the delivery of projects The delivery of project, according to the Association for Project Management (2006) is achieved by:
clarifying the need, problem or opportunity of the project;
deciding the business case, success criteria and benefits of the proposed project;
knowing the scope, time, cost and quality of the product;
developing and implementing plan and ensuring that progress is maintained according to objectives;
ensuring that the sponsor is accountable for achievement of the defined benefits; and
using appropriate mechanisms, tools and techniques
In complex capital project management, the challenges extend beyond simply delivering on time, within budget, and to the required quality; they require the development of new models, philosophies, and frameworks that connect these delivery issues to external factors (Jaafari and Manivong, 2000).
Public sector organizations are increasingly pressed to achieve project success by boosting efficiency in service delivery through project-based management and formal project management methodologies (Crawford et al., 2003) This focus underpins the adoption of structured approaches to planning, executing, and controlling projects, and the section that follows outlines the main approaches applied to project management.
Project management literature often treats projects as fundamentally similar, but in practice they vary significantly and require distinct management styles (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Vaagaasar and Andersen, 2007) The varying contexts, diverse fields of application, and the unique characteristics of each project make a universal 'one size fits all' approach unattainable (Bower, 2002; Association for Project Management, 2006; Kwan and Leung, 2009) While construction project management has traditionally focused on planning and coordinating the complex set of activities needed for delivery (Morris, 1994), projects worldwide are increasingly centered on stakeholder management to support sustainable delivery (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008).
Several approaches are applied in project management Traditional project management, for instance, focuses on the delivery process—time, cost, and quality—taking a proactive stance in managing projects in practice It emphasizes planning and control of project processes, promoting the creation of plans at the project inception (Vaagaasar and Andersen, 2007) Practitioners and researchers view this approach as oriented toward achieving target objective functions, which form the basis for most capital projects (Jaafari and Manivong, 2000).
Conventional project management prioritizes operational planning and control while largely ignoring the sources of uncertainty that pervade projects and are difficult to quantify These uncertainties arise from estimation errors, the involvement of diverse project stakeholders, and the various stages of the project life cycle, but also from information gaps, ambiguity, and the differing agendas and trust–control dynamics among project parties Moreover, traditional approaches neglect the conception and end stages of the project life cycle and fail to address the flexibility and tolerance of vagueness required by “soft” projects, as well as the strategic dimension of projects, which can undermine effective management (Atkinson et al., 2006).
Modern project management, which began in the aerospace and defense sectors in the late 1950s and 1960s and later extended into construction in the 1970s, has come to regard professional competence certification programs as the standard for measuring capability (Chen et al., 2008) This shift is reflected in the PMI’s Project Management Professional (PMP) examination and certification program introduced in 2000 and the IPMA’s program launched in 2001 However, early management practices treated conditions as context-independent and universal, leading organizations to redirect attention toward the process of innovation (Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Leybourne, 2007).
Project management contingency theory offers a framework to assess the fit and misfit between project characteristics and management approaches, helping to explain why projects fail It provides a basis to decide whether a project should be launched or whether a troubled project can be steered back on track Although not new to organizational research, this approach deepens our understanding of project failure that stems from managerial reasons and shows how contingency thinking can be applied beyond traditional success and failure studies (Sauser et al., 2009).
Concept of Project Success in Project Management
The central focus of project management in theory and practice is the achievement of project objectives which are the measures of project success According to Bryde
Since 2008, project management has been grappling with what influences project success Traditional project management focuses on the delivery process—time, cost, and quality—and is often described as the delivery of an asset Yet for many capital projects, success is seen in achieving target objective functions, not just meeting schedule or budget De Wit (1988) notes that timely delivery within budget and adherence to quality or performance specifications remain major objectives, but true success also depends on technical performance, the mission to be accomplished, and high stakeholder satisfaction Moreover, the concept of success is typically assessed across the life of the project, while the project life cycle is only a subset of the broader product life cycle, which includes operations and decommissioning—the final phases of a product’s life cycle (PMI, 2000).
Recent challenges in project management show that projects worldwide are increasingly concerned with stakeholder management to ensure sustainable delivery This is because stakeholder influence varies across the stages of the project life cycle, requiring adaptive engagement strategies as the project evolves Meeting stakeholder expectations remains a central objective, guiding governance decisions and project outcomes toward long-term sustainability.
In construction project management, evidence indicates that effective management throughout the entire project life cycle is required for project success (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008) Therefore, to achieve success, objectives must incorporate stakeholders, and project success should be measured across both the project life cycle and the product life cycle The following sections examine how project objectives and project success are defined and assessed within the combined project and product life cycles in project management.
Project success is interpreted in multiple ways and is context-dependent (Jugdev and Muller, 2005) It is both subjective and objective, evolving across the project and product life cycle and involving a range of stakeholders (Morris and Hough, 1987) For sponsors, success equates to realizing the benefits outlined in the business case, while project managers view it through the lens of delivering the agreed scope, time, cost, and quality as defined in the project management plan The project management process treats time, cost, quality, technical and other performance parameters, along with legal and environmental constraints, as objectives of success Because a project can deliver the expected benefits but be judged a failure, or conversely be seen as successful yet fail to realize those benefits, the assessment of project benefits and success must be considered together (Association for Project Management, 2006).
Turner (2007) defines project success as two components: success criteria (the measures used to assess outcomes) and success factors (the project elements and management practices that can be influenced to improve results) The independent variables—success factors—consist of controllable project and management elements, while the dependent variables—success criteria—are the quantitative and qualitative measures used to judge outcomes Atkinson (1999) adds that project success can be viewed through process and system lenses: a process perspective emphasizes efficiency, while a system perspective emphasizes getting the right outcomes, meeting goals, and assessing overall effectiveness Doloi et al (2011) observe that although success definitions vary by organization, the most notable construction delivery measures are on-time delivery, on-budget delivery, acceptable quality outcomes, and overall cost savings Pinto and Prescott (1990) argue that project success is multidimensional and evolves over time across the project and product life cycles (Shenhar et al., 1997).
Jugdev and Muller (2005) show that the concept of project success has shifted from definitions confined to the project’s implementation phase to ones that appraise success across the project and product life cycles They also contend that a project is successful when the key stakeholders—the parent organisation, the project team, and end users—are satisfied with the outcome (de Wit, 1986; de Wit, 1988) This broader perspective extends the traditional focus on time, cost, and quality by incorporating stakeholder satisfaction and lifecycle outcomes into the measure of success.
2.4.1.1 Definitions and perspectives of project success
Project success is defined differently by various stakeholders, as shown by Freeman and Beale (1992), Liu and Walker (1998), and Chan and Chan (2004) Consequently, the extant literature contains multiple definitions of project success, reflecting a range of perspectives Hwang and Lim (2013) also note that the concept of project success has continued to evolve over time.
Project success means fulfilling stakeholder needs, judged by the initial success criteria agreed at the start of the project (Association for Project Management, 2008) Hartman (2000) adds that success is the degree to which stakeholders are satisfied with the project outcome Consequently, the definition of project success can be understood in terms of outcomes, benefits, or both Outcomes emphasize delivering the physical asset on time and cost and to the specified quality (Morris and Hough, 1987; de Wit, 1988; Pinto and Slevin, 1988a), while benefits relate to stakeholder satisfaction (de Wit, 1986) Jugdev and Muller (2005) observe that project managers should interpret project success in the context of the project and product life cycles.
Across the extant literature, multiple definitions of project success exist, but most converge on cost, schedule, and quality as the core determinants As summarized by Hwang and Lim (2013) in Table 2.1, these perspectives indicate that a project is considered successful when it meets targets for time, cost, and quality or specifications, and when stakeholder satisfaction is achieved.
Table 2.1 Other perspectives of project success
Source(s) Definition of success de Wit (1986) A project is considered an overall success if it:
Meets the technical performance specifications or mission to be performed
Results in high level of satisfaction concerning project outcome among: Key people in parent organization
Key people on the project team and key users or clients of the project effort are critical stakeholders whose involvement drives outcomes Tuman (1986) argues that all project requirements can be anticipated and needs met with sufficient resources in a timely manner Ashley et al (1987) observe that results often surpass expectations in terms of cost, schedule, quality, safety, and participant satisfaction Pinto and Slevin (1987) define project success by four criteria, highlighting the multiple dimensions that determine whether a project is successful.
Completed on schedule (time) Completed within budget (cost) Achieved all goals originally set for it (effectiveness) Accepted and used by clients for whom project is intended (client satisfaction)
Completes on time, within budget, and with an acceptable profit margin Satisfies client expectations
Produces a high-quality design or consulting services Limits firm’s professional liability to acceptable levels Kerzner (1998) The success of a project is defined in terms of five factors:
Completed on time Completed within budget Completed at desired level of quality Accepted by customer
Allowing a customer to act as a reference for a contractor can boost the contractor’s credibility with future clients, yet Low and Chuan (2006) warn that an overemphasis on time, cost, and quality provides an insufficient definition of project success, because such metrics render success too objective, difficult to measure, and ambiguous due to the disparity between project success and product success.
Views on project success abound in the literature Hatush and Skitmore (1997) identify time, cost, and quality as the most important factors that ensure project performance Doloi et al (2011) contend that a project is deemed successful when contractors meet time, cost, and quality specifications Cooke-Davies (2002) views project success as the measurement of the project’s overall objectives, and project-management success, also known as the measurement of traditional gauges of performance, as the measurement of time, cost, and quality This traditional measurement of performance, as argued by Cooke-Davies (2002) in Jugdev and Muller (2005), looks at project success from the narrow perspective of the project manager and team rather than the broader perspective of stakeholders Atkinson (1999) argues that taking a bigger picture view of success in terms of assessing it after delivery involves looking at the benefits or effectiveness of the project from the perspective of the stakeholder community and the resultant organization.
Scholars such as Bourne and Walker (2005) contend that limiting project success to time, cost, and scope yields only operational or tactical value rather than strategic value In construction projects, success also depends on addressing stakeholders’ concerns, and a project is considered successful when stakeholder needs are met, as measured by the success criteria identified and agreed at project initiation To ensure such success, the project management team must manage stakeholders’ requirements, expectations (which may be diverse or conflicting), and their influence, in accordance with the Project Management Institute’s 2004 guidance.
The review in this section shows that there are various perspectives of viewing and defining project success in the literature, as stated above, although most have emphasised the concept in terms of cost, time, and quality However, the evolving concept of project success, especially stakeholder issues, shows that the concept of the
“iron triangle” is outdated Consequently, for a broad definition which takes into account the context of this research, the researcher adopts the definition of project success as the delivery of a project on scheduled time, budgeted cost, specified specification/quality, performance and to the satisfaction of the project stakeholders
This definition is derived from the definitions by Morris and Hough (1987) and Association for Project Management (2008)
Causal link between Nigerian Public Sector Project Management,
Project stakeholders—those who participate in the project—implicitly influence cost, schedule (time), quality/specifications, and stakeholder satisfaction, which are the key metrics for project success Evidence from the linked sections shows a strong relationship between achieving targets for cost, time, quality, and satisfaction and overall project success Because the challenges undermining success in Nigerian public sector projects are tied to the very project participants referred to as stakeholders, effective project stakeholder management can facilitate greater project success in Nigeria’s public sector.
Section 2.4 identifies time, cost, quality, technical performance, and legal and environmental factors as constraints (or objectives) that shape project success, per the Association for Project Management (2006) It is also argued that a project is considered successful when the key stakeholders—from the parent organization, the project team, and end users—are satisfied with the outcome, a perspective supported by de Wit (1986, 1988).
Project success is defined by delivering the physical asset on time and within cost and to the specified quality, as well as by achieving the intended benefits such as stakeholder satisfaction, or by both measures Stakeholders are pivotal in shaping the success criteria, so their power and interest must be considered when evaluating project performance The aim of project stakeholder management is to increase the chances of project success by carrying out all purposeful activities related to stakeholders to enhance outcomes, underscoring that stakeholder management is a key process with a significant impact on project success.
Research problems work in tandem with the researcher’s objectives to justify a study and demonstrate its importance Typically, a problem is something not yet fully understood or inadequately addressed, implying that additional information is required Even when a study lacks an explicit problem statement, a strong research design nonetheless identifies, explicitly or implicitly, a relevant issue—intellectual or practical—that needs investigation, showing how the researcher’s goals guide the study’s justification (Maxwell, 2013).
Stakeholders significantly influence project success, and Jepsen and Eskerod (2013) define them as individuals, groups, or entities who can affect or be affected by the project process and its outcomes; from Section 2.1, these stakeholders’ actions—such as political leaders’ lack of interest (Eneh, 2009), corruption and absence of due process (Stephen and Lenihan, 2007), abandonment leading to aging facilities (Obadina, 1999b), misallocation of resources and gross inadequate maintenance (Ballard and Wang, 2002), and contractors’ problems with execution, monitoring, and control (Okereke, 2008)—are key factors linked to public-sector project performance, helping explain cost and schedule overruns observed in Nigerian projects; consequently, Nigerian public sector projects are not as successful as they could be, largely due to stakeholder-related challenges, which underscores the need for stakeholder management; addressing these issues through effective stakeholder management can facilitate better project outcomes.
Project success—defined by meeting cost, schedule, quality, and performance targets while achieving stakeholder satisfaction—rests on effective project stakeholder management The relationship among these elements can be conceptualized as in Figure 2.2, with arrows signaling the directional influence from stakeholder engagement to project outcomes In the Nigerian public sector, concerns have been raised that stakeholder issues implicitly hinder project success; therefore, robust stakeholder management has the potential to curb cost escalations, reduce delays, improve quality, and enhance stakeholder satisfaction, thereby facilitating overall project success.
Figure 2.2 Project success and project stakeholder management chain
Cost Time Quality/Specifications Performance
As Figure 2.2 illustrates, project objectives measured across cost, time, quality, performance, and satisfaction determine project success (Morris & Hough, 1987; de Wit, 1988; Hartman, 2000) Likewise, project stakeholders shape objectives and success (Project Management Institute, 2004; Association for Project Management, 2008), and effective project stakeholder management affects both objectives and outcomes—and the stakeholders themselves (Karlsen, 2002; Bourne & Walker, 2004; Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009) A root-cause analysis of public-sector project management issues in Nigeria, highlighted in Sections 2.1 and 2.5, shows that success and stakeholders are intertwined, implying that improving stakeholder management can facilitate project success The following sections review the literature on project stakeholder management to guide effective practices for achieving project success.
Concept of Project Stakeholder Management in Project Success
The concept of stakeholder management which was introduced by Freeman in 1984 (Moodley, 1999; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009) has grown in recent years (Yang et al.,
Numerous studies and publications on project stakeholder management have supported this assertion, including Newcombe (2003), Cole (2005), Olander and Landin (2005), El-Gohary et al (2006), and Bosher et al (2007) In recognition of the importance of stakeholder management, the Project Management Institute has highlighted its significance for successful project delivery.
PMBOK Guide Fifth Edition (2013) dedicates a full chapter to Project Stakeholder Management, a shift from earlier editions where stakeholder topics appeared only as a section within other knowledge areas This change highlights the growing focus on stakeholder engagement as a core project management competency, providing targeted guidance on identifying stakeholders, planning stakeholder engagement, managing their involvement, and monitoring relationships to drive project success.
Stakeholder management is the process of analyzing, understanding, describing, and guiding the interests and influence of stakeholders (Chinyio and Akintoye, 2008) In project management, it involves identifying the people, groups, or organizations that can affect or be affected by the project, assessing their expectations and the potential impact on outcomes, and developing effective engagement strategies to involve stakeholders in decision-making and project execution.
Stakeholder management sits at the heart of project management, reflecting the idea that a project is a temporary coalition of stakeholders who must work together to create outcomes Its aim is to improve the chances of project success by coordinating the set of purposeful activities connected to stakeholders This approach matters across construction and other project types and aligns with the organisation’s broader strategic management In construction project management, the emphasis remains on planning and controlling the processes and activities needed to deliver the project Through stakeholder management, the project team engages stakeholders in identifying their needs, negotiating roles and objectives, and pursuing shared outcomes through active participation in the project process.
2008) Also, managing stakeholders is a skill for construction project teams (Vinten, 2000; Walker et al., 2008b), as stakeholders have the ability to influence the organisation (Moodley, 2002; Moodley, 2008)
Stakeholder management is a key process that significantly influences project success, and the successful completion of construction projects depends on fulfilling stakeholders’ expectations across the project life cycle (Young, 2006; Cleland, 1995) According to Newcombe (2003), the stakeholders include clients, project managers, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users, owners, employees, and local communities.
Effective project stakeholder management centers on cultivating and managing the relationships between the project and its stakeholders Efficient relationship management is a key factor in project success Understanding stakeholder expectations enables the project team to influence and secure their support and contributions to the project It is important for the project team to assess whether stakeholder management is successful and delivering the intended results.
Stakeholder management lacks a universally accepted definition (McElroy and Mills, 2007) By grounding their view in a definition of ‘stakeholder’ and incorporating the essence of the Association for Project Management’s 2006 definition, McElroy and Mills (2007) define stakeholder management as the ongoing development of relationships with stakeholders to achieve a successful project outcome, a perspective also referenced by the Project Management Institute.
Project stakeholder management is defined as the systematic identification, analysis, and planning of actions to communicate with, negotiate with, and influence stakeholders, a definition put forward by 2004 and the Association for Project Management (2008) It is also described as the process of dealing with the people who have an interest in the project, with the aim of aligning their objectives with those of the project (Moodley, 2002; Moodley, 2008).
Stakeholder management is a dynamic process that evolves as the stakes change over the life of a project (Moodley, 2008) When stakeholder engagement is characterized by spontaneity and causal actions, and when it is not coordinated or discussed within the project team, it can lead to unpredictable outcomes (Karlsen).
Project stakeholder management centers on the premise that the project manager must influence stakeholders to secure their contributions to the project, a dynamic whose impact varies across different stages of the project life cycle A structured uncertainty-management process that addresses each life-cycle stage enables a systematic approach to stakeholder engagement, while stakeholder management itself is an iterative activity that begins in the project concept While meeting time, cost, and performance objectives remains important, failing to adequately manage stakeholders can undermine the project’s success and increase the risk of failure (Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Atkin and Skitmore, 2008; Ward and Chapman, 2008; Association for Project Management, 2006; McElroy and Mills, 2007).
Cleland and Ireland (2007) suggest that, to develop a strategy for managing the stakeholders, the following questions are important:
Who are the project stakeholders – both primary and secondary?
What stake, right, or claim do they have in the project?
What opportunities and challenges do the stakeholders pose for the project team?
What obligations or responsibilities does the project team have towards its stakeholders?
What are the strengths, weaknesses, and probable strategies that the stakeholders might employ to realise their objectives?
What resources are there at the stakeholders’ disposal to implement their strategies?
Do any of these factors give the stakeholders a distinctly favourable position in influencing the project outcome?
What strategies should the project team develop and implement to deal with the opportunities and challenges presented by the stakeholders?
How will the project team know if it is successfully “managing” the project stakeholders?
Although there are several definitions of stakeholder in the extant literature (Karlsen,
Scholars have long debated what exactly constitutes a project stakeholder, with the literature tracing definitions from the Stanford Research Institute’s 1963 idea that stakeholders are those groups without whom the organization would cease to exist, to models that emphasize dependency, impact, and vested interests Rhenman describes stakeholders as individuals or groups that depend on the company for personal goals and on whom the company depends; Freeman defines a stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the organization’s objectives; Alkhafaji sees stakeholders as the groups to whom the corporation is responsible; Dinsmore centers on those positively or negatively affected by project activities or outcomes; and Juliano notes stakeholders as individuals, teams or groups affected by a project The BS6079 guide adds the notion of vested interest in the organization’s success and operating environment, while Gibson highlights the power to threaten or benefit a project Newcombe emphasizes that stakeholders have a stake in or expectation of the project’s performance, and the Association for Project Management definitions (2006 and 2008) broaden this to all those with an interest or role or who are impacted by the project McElroy and Mills synthesize these views by defining a project stakeholder as a person or group with a vested interest in the project’s success and in the environment in which it operates, building on the APM and BS6079 perspectives Additional definitions appear in Table 2.3, illustrating the diverse viewpoints that characterize project stakeholder theory in the literature.
Cleland (1986) “ individuals and institutions who share a stake or an interest in the project.”
Cleland and King (1988) “Stakeholders are those persons or organisations that have, or claim to have an interest or share in the project undertaking.”
Dinsmore (1990) “Who has a stake in project outcome.”
“Stakeholders are individuals and/or organisations that are involved in or may be affected by the project activities.”
Wright (1997) “Stakeholders are any individuals who have an interest in the outcome of the project.”
“ people or organisations who have a vested interest in the environment, performance and/or outcome of the project.”
McElroy and Mills (2000) “A stakeholder is person or group of people who have a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates.”
“ individuals and organisations that are directly involved with the project and who have a vested interest in the resulting deliverables of the project.”
Freeman (2002) “ groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by the accomplishment of an organisation’s mission.”
Boddy and Paton (2004) “Stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutions with an interest in the project, and who can affect the outcome.”
“ individuals and organisations that are actively involved in the project or whose interest may be affected as a result of project execution or project completion.”
Andersen (2005) “ a person or a group of persons, who are influenced by or able to influence the project.”
Stakeholders are individuals or groups with an interest or ownership rights in a project, and they can both contribute to its progress and be affected by its outcomes They provide resources, expertise, or support and exert varying degrees of influence based on their stake Identifying and engaging these stakeholders early helps align objectives, manage expectations, and reduce risks, ultimately ensuring the project delivers value to those who have a stake in it.
El-Gohary et al (2006) “ stakeholders are individuals or organisations that are either affected by or affect the development of the project.”
Stakeholders are individuals or groups with a vested interest in a project's success and the environment in which it operates They may hold rights or ownership in the project and can both influence and be affected by the work and its outcomes, either directly or indirectly Their involvement extends across multiple scales and contexts, with the lives, environments, or businesses of stakeholders potentially impacted by the project’s activities and the changes it brings.
Jepsen and Eskerod (2013) “…individuals, groups, or entities represented by individuals who can affect or who can be affected by the project process or the project outcomes.”
Definitions of stakeholders vary widely, complicating efforts to involve all relevant groups in both project planning and execution For each project and its phases, the set of stakeholders can be unique, and overlooking this can jeopardize project success Stakeholders are often powerful sources of influence, and failing to manage them effectively can lead to major problems or even disaster.
The definitions show the various perspectives of viewing stakeholders, which can either be very broad or relatively narrow (Friedman and Miles, 2006; Ward and Chapman,
Atkin and Skitmore (2008) observe that the ongoing diversification of stakeholder theory into many diffuse strands has produced a confusing array of definitions and perspectives The definition chosen should be guided by its intended purpose—whether the aim is to manage threats, opportunities, and uncertainty surrounding project performance, or to recognize, protect, or enhance the vested interests of the various stakeholders involved in a given project (Ward and Chapman, 2008).
Chapter Summary and Conclusion
Project success in Nigeria’s public sector construction is undermined by weaknesses in project stakeholder management A review of the literature on public sector project management identifies persistent problems—schedule and budget overruns, weak governance and poor project implementation driven by limited political will and commitment, and misallocation of resources—along with corruption, politicization, lack of continuity, inadequate maintenance, obsolete technology, unclear roles and responsibilities, poor communication, limited autonomy and continuity in government policies, and absence of due process and project vandalism; all of which are attributed to deficiencies in stakeholder management throughout the project lifecycle.
This chapter shows that meaningful contributions can be made by pursuing the objective of developing an integrated framework to improve project stakeholder management in the Nigerian public sector By enabling coordinated stakeholder engagement across government agencies, project teams, and local communities, this framework promotes clearer governance, efficient use of resources, and more successful project outcomes in Nigeria's public sector.
developing a conceptual framework for project stakeholder management;
using the conceptual framework to evaluate the practice of project stakeholder management in the public sector in Nigeria;
analysing the strengths and weaknesses relating to project stakeholder management in the public sector in Nigeria; and
proposing, developing and evaluating an integrated framework to contribute to the improvement of project stakeholder management in the public sector in Nigeria
This chapter reviews the diverse methods documented in the extant literature and knowledge base and explains how to design and select appropriate methods that align with and help achieve the research objectives.