Tài liệu 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 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001620. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers. 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 involved in a project’s success (Fortune and White 2006; Kandelousi 2011). Baker et al. (1983) identified (1) the project team’s commitment 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 orientation; and (8) an absence of bureaucracy as factors that contribute positively to the success of a project. Other studies (Belassi and Tukel 1996; Chan et al. 2004; Cooke-Davies 2002; Jugdev and Müller 2005; Lechler 1997) have attempted to group these CSFs 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. Similarly, 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 framework, 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) 1 Lecturer, Univ. of Transport and Communications, No. 3 Cau Giay St., Lang Thuong Ward, Dong Da District, Hanoi City 100000, Vietnam. Email: [email protected] 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 individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364. © ASCE suggested placing CSFs relevant to construction project management into five categories: project management mechanisms, projectrelated 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, maintaining a cooperative relationship between client and project manager, 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 Szabó 2014; Fong and Kwok 2009; Todorović et al. 2015). This 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, subcontractors, 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. 04019002-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 commitment, coordination, and competence of construction project participants 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 dissatisfaction (Ibrahim et al. 2010; Kashiwagi et al. 2012; Xiong et al. 2014). Conversely, it appears irrational to define a collective behavioral approach to the success or failure of a project; it is a matter of which behavioral dimensions best explain project success (Baccarini 1999; Thomas and Fernández 2008). Hence, it is crucial 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 measurement is a pervasive concern (Baloi and Price 2003; Leung et al. 2004; Xiong et al. 2014). However, little attention has been given 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 management 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 research hypothesis is developed. Second, the research 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. achieving shared goals (Kinicki et al. 2010). The core of all successful organizations is the effectiveness with which people work together, and the manner in which they interact is the key to meeting 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 understanding 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 (Kinicki et al. 2010; Kinicki and Kreitner 2012; Robbins and Judge 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, contractors, and consultants) gather and set the pattern of interrelationships, 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 behaviors 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, coordination, and project team leaders’ performance (Chan et al. 2004; Chua et al. 1999; Fortune and White 2006) have been explored, 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 interactions 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 reflect 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 behavioral 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 practitioners involved over the course of the project. Justification for Study Design Client Satisfaction Identification of Factors Related to Team Behaviors An organization is defined as a deliberately coordinated social entity in which a group of people gather to continuously work toward © ASCE Numerous performance measurement indicators have been used to assess construction projects’ effectiveness and efficiency within the construction industry. Both early studies (Avots 1969; Gaddis 1959) and more recent studies (de Carvalho et al. 2015; 04019002-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 consideration of those specifications, the satisfaction of the client is advised 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, including 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 satisfaction 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). Therefore, it is relevant to apply the same to the measurement of performance 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 stakeholders may have different perspectives on project success because of their different aims (Davis 2014), project teams are primarily asked to coordinate to deliver value for the client. Therefore, moving 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 construction projects’ effectiveness (Cheng et al. 2006; Davis 2014; Ling et al. 2008; Ogunlana 2010; Williams et al. 2015). Client satisfaction in a construction context is perceived as a holistic entity consisting of quality (Alias et al. 2014; Baloi and Price 2003; Belout 1998) schedule (Belout 1998; Cserháti and Szabó 2014; Garbharran et al. 2012), and cost (Alias et al. 2014; Baloi and Price 2003; Cserháti and Szabó 2014; Garbharran et al. 2012). 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; Parasuraman et al. 1988). The level of customer satisfaction is high 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 perceptions of project quality, schedule, and budget from their interactions 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 influences 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. © ASCE Research Hypotheses In any generic business setting, there is relevant evidence that individuals’ 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 produce rather than the mere purchase of a finished product (Leung et al. 2004). CPOs are specifically regarded as temporary in nature and diverse in terms of the project teams involved. Therefore, the management of a construction project is not so much a process similar to the internal affairs of a single company as one of the organizational practices of coordinating and regulating all the elements needed to accomplish the job at hand. In addition, multiple individuals and groups with diverse backgrounds 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 communication, 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 contributor 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 behavioral 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 specific issues (Hennink 2013). In the first step of TBs development, 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 industry 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 experience 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 qualitative 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 04019002-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 components: 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 additional requests were then added as necessary. In addition, the participants 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 functions 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 participants’ 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 developing 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 ensures that project tasks are proceeding as planned; project management 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 (Table 1). Table 1. Attributes of team-related behavior TB attribute Code Description Clarification of project objectives Project planning clarification by project teams Ability of clients to define roles Mutual understanding Communicates about implementing project plan TB1 TB2 TB3 TB4 TB5 Interactions at work TB6 Communicates with information TB7 Effective communication TB8 Responsibility clarification Mutual respect and openness Idea exchange and support Risk and conflict resolution TB9 TB10 TB11 TB12 Valuing project participants’ contributions Supports team members TB13 TB14 Promotes empowerment Fosters motivation TB15 TB16 Control of project quality by contractors Control of project schedule by contractors Control of project budget by contractors Encourages team decisions Participation in decision making TB17 TB18 TB19 TB20 TB21 Trust-sharing atmosphere Direction by project leaders TB22 TB23 Objectives and values of the project are clearly understood by project teams. Project teams clearly understand their required roles and duties on the project plan. The client clearly understands and defines required roles and duties to project teams. All project teams concern each other’s objectives, expectations and values. All project teams first look at how the project would be implemented effectively rather than how they would benefit from the project. Interrelated working relationships among the project teams are promoted in terms of exploring innovative solutions and reducing costs and time spent. Information is shared, transparent and available to project teams over the course of the project. Project team leaders assist and clearly communicate with their subordinates and other teams, ensuring accomplishment of project objectives. Project participants are always ensured their responsibility over the course of project. The project teams are open and respectful of one another. The project participants are encouraged to exchange ideas and to help one another. All project teams are encouraged using “joint problem-solving” when things go wrong over the course of a project. All project members are valued as significant participants in the success of the project. All project participants are encouraged to receive constructive feedback to enhance their performance. Project team leaders are authorized to make appropriate decisions by themselves. Project teams are always supported and encouraged to maintain a high level of motivation over the course of the project. Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for project quality. Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for project schedule. Contractors emphasize the monitoring and comparing plan for contract costs. Project teams are respectfully encouraged to raise any question at every level. All project participants are encouraged to be involved in any decision making over the course of the project. There is an atmosphere of mutual reliance generated by project teams. Project team leaders always ensure that their subordinates know what is expected of them. © ASCE 04019002-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Data Collection Based on the literature and discussions with key project stakeholders, 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 appropriate 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’ experiences with their most recently completed construction project. A final sample of 195 valid responses was obtained for investigation. Among the final set of valid samples, 92 and 73 of the respondents were clients and contractors, respectively, and the remaining 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 projects were manufacturing facilities. Regarding the projects’ 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 recently 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 indicators (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 et al. 1998) for analyzing convergent and discriminant validity (Williams et al. 2010) and avoiding multicollinearity (Nguyen and Watanabe 2016). To determine the retention of components, eigenvalue 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 and Mukherjee 1996). The α value ranged between 0 and 1; the higher the α 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 and Mukherjee 1996). The stepwise technique is the most commonly employed to determine 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 © ASCE statistical criteria, the limitations of stepwise selection have been recently criticized because of the biased R2 and coefficient values, generating a false confidence interval, severe problems with multicollinearity, unstable selected variables, and a problem with redundant predictors (Prost et al. 2008; Ratner 2010; Wang et al. 2004; Xu et al. 2012). Thus, this study employs the Bayesian model averaging (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 et al. 2008). To apply BMA, the programming language systems 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 (Table 2) used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index test for sampling adequacy, which was relatively greater than the accepted threshold of 0.60 (Cheung et al. 2011), and Bartlett’s test was extremely significant (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 Szabó 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, indicating 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 Szabó 2014). Eight aspects were extracted as significant in Management factor 1: clarification of the project’s objectives (TB1); project planning clarification by project teams (TB2); ability of clients to define 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 Table 2, 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 consistent 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 behavioral factor is called project planning and organizing emphasis (P&OE). Management factor 2 was composed of eight items: communicates 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 environment, 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, dissemination, and processing of information in managing resources 04019002-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Table 2. Results of factor analysis on behavioral attributes Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Behavior components TB attribute Code P&OE Clarification of project objectives Obligation clarification by project teams Ability of clients to define roles Mutual understanding Communicates with information Effective communication Responsibility clarification Values project participants’ contributions Communicates with implementing project plan Interactions at work Openness and mutual respect Idea exchange and support Risk and conflict resolution Fosters motivation Trust-sharing atmosphere Direction by project leaders Control of project quality by contractors Control of project schedule by contractors Control of project budget by contractors Supports team members Promotes empowerment Encourages team decisions Participation in decision making Eigenvalue Variance (%) Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approximate chi-square Difference Significant TB1 TB2 TB3 TB4 TB7 TB8 TB9 TB13 TB5 TB6 TB10 TB11 TB12 TB16 TB22 TB23 TB17 TB18 TB19 TB14 TB15 TB20 TB21 — — — 0.719 0.526 0.669 0.718 0.561 0.515 0.518 0.499 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.434 41.017 0.855 — — — — — — — — 0.442 0.502 0.673 0.677 0.720 0.495 0.685 0.673 — — — — — — — 1.577 6.857 0.871 0.912 CAE EAE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.753 0.879 0.813 — — — — 1.356 5.897 0.870 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.494 0.602 0.787 0.583 1.246 5.418 0.704 2.224 × 103 253 0.000 efficiently (Hossain 2009). Thus, Cultural factor 2 is called coordination emphasis (CE). Three items were significantly organized in Management factor 3: control of project quality by contractors (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 proceeding as planned. Thus, this management factor is called contractor 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 empowered 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 (Table 3), the mean scores of the four behavioral dimensions assessed between groups of respondents are similar. This result specifies that © ASCE CE Table 3. ANOVA in regard to respondents’ professions Respondent Client Statistics Mean significant score SD Contractor Mean significant score SD Supervisory Mean significant score consultant SD Kruskal-Wallis Chi-squared test P-value P&OE CE CAE EAE 3.82 0.49 3.74 0.53 3.80 0.56 1.537 0.463 3.41 0.62 3.30 0.69 3.50 0.66 2.132 0.344 3.41 0.75 3.78 0.64 3.34 0.86 4.671 0.0716 3.45 0.55 3.32 0.59 3.52 0.63 3.442 0.178 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, despite 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. 04019002-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 2005; Liu 1999). It can be inferred from this finding that the three groups of respondents generally agree with the practices on representativeness of the identified behavioral factors instead of their conventional perceptions, which indicates the highly relevant practice 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 independent 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 (Table 4). 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. Table 4 indicates that the three TB dimensions of P&OE, CE, and CAE are conducive to increasing client SPQ. The recommended 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. Additionally, 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 (Field 2000). Further, to test the normalcy assumption of the regression models, analyses of residuals are commonly used. The histogram 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 Table 4. Bayesian model averaging of selection Model Intercept P&OE CE CAE EAE nVar R-squared BIC Post prob F-statistic p < 0.01. p < 0.05. c p < 0.001. a b © ASCE Satisfaction with project quality Satisfaction with project time Satisfaction with project cost 0.566a 0.349b 0.216c 0.313b — 3 0.520 −127.504 0.684 69.11b −0.133 — — 0.725b 0.279a 2 0.403 −89.980 0.343 64.75b 0.800a — — 0.402b 0.343b 2 0.285 −54.822 0.393 38.59b the observations plotted against a theoretical normal probability display points forming a roughly straight line, supporting the conclusions regarding the normal assumption drawn from the histograms of standardized residuals. Three predictors—P&OE, CE, and CAE—have a positive influence on SPQ, which may indicate that projects with higher levels of these predictors also have higher levels of project quality satisfaction. 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 accomplishment” 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 participants 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 mutual 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 interactions 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 quality 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 involvement and shared goals can positively contribute to participant satisfaction. CAE also plays a vital role in all project outcomes. This behavioral 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 et al. 1999; Dozzi et al. 1996). This behavior orientation reflects 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 reported for years in developing countries such as Vietnam (Nguyen and Watanabe 2017). These findings show that practitioners appear to prioritize contractors on site. These findings also clarify 04019002-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. contractors’ contributions to project success within the environment of traditional construction project procurement. CAE and EAE enhanced client satisfaction with both project schedules and budgets. Unsurprisingly, the contractor plays a significant 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 construction project management. Given the natural complexity and uncertainty of construction project management, promoting an empowerment 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 accountability 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 highest 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 understanding 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 measurable controls for participant behavior and attitudes. These controls will enable practitioners to adjust their interactions with participants during the course of a project to achieve better project outcomes. 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 attributes 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 members 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 pivotal 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 construction project management because having a cooperative atmosphere 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 © ASCE most powerful. Thus, project management invests more in leadership 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 construction industry, potentially contributing to the practice of effective change in project management. These behavioral factors were then used to analyze the significant associations between behavioral dimensions and different aspects of client satisfaction. These dimensions can be used to estimate and explain project performance in terms of client satisfaction; 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 dimensions, 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 regarding behavioral effects infer that TBs must be emphasized as a prioritized project management tool that contributes to project accomplishment, 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 relatively 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 stakeholders 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 .1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001263. 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. 04019002-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 affecting 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 critical 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 approach 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 organizational 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. Szabó. 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 crossindustry 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. © ASCE 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 Leadership: 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 Management 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 customer 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 employee 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 construction project participant satisfaction.” 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). 04019002-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/02/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 management 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 organizational culture on the performance of construction projects.” Sustainability 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 development 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 analysis 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 stepwise 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. © ASCE Ratner, B. 2010. “Variable selection methods in regression: Ignorable problem, 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. Todorović, M. L., D. Č. Petrović, M. M. Mihić, V. L. Obradović, and S. D. Bushuyev. 2015. “Project success analysis framework: A knowledgebased 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 analysis: 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. 04019002-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(3): 04019002 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.