ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ – ﻏﺰﺓ
The Islamic University – Gaza
ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ
Faculty of Engineering
ﻋﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ
Higher Education Deanship
ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ
Construction Project Management
Investigating the Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip ﺍﻟﺗﺣﻘﻕ ﻣﻥ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺣﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻣﺻﻠﺣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺷﺎﺋﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻁﺎﻉ ﻏﺯﺓ
Partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
Prepared by: Salah Hammad
Supervised by:
Dr. Nabil El Sawalhi Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering – Construction Management The Islamic University of Gaza April, 2013
ﺑﺴﻢ ﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ َﻭﺃَ ْﻧ َﺰ َﻝ ﱠ َﺎﺏ َﻭﺍ ْﻟ ِﺤ ْﻜ َﻤﺔَ َﻭ َﻋﻠﱠ َﻤ َﻚ َﻣﺎ ﷲُ َﻋﻠَ ْﻴ َﻚ ﺍ ْﻟ ِﻜﺘ َ ﷲ َﻋﻠَ ْﻴ َﻚ َﻋ ِﻈﻴ ًﻤﺎ ﻟَ ْﻢ ﺗَ ُﻜﻦْ ﺗَ ْﻌﻠَ ُﻢ َﻭ َﻛ َ ﺎﻥ ﻓَ ْ ﻀ ُﻞ ﱠ ِ ﺳﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎء -ﺍﻵﻳﺔ 113
ﺻﺪﻕ ﷲ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ
I
Dedication This thesis is dedicated To the memory of my father, may Allah have mercy upon his soul, To my mother for her endless support, To my wife for her unlimited encouragement; To my children (Abd Allah, Nagham, Dema, and Mohammad); To all my family, colleagues and friends for their sustained support.
Salah Hammad
II
0B
Acknowledgement
I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Dr. Nabil El Sawalhi whom
during this period has not only kept me on track, but provided invaluable advice and support.
Special thanks to the staff of construction management for their keen academic supervision during my study at The Islamic University-Gaza
Many thanks to Dr. Samir Saffi for his support in analyzing the study survey data.
Kind gratitude and sincere acknowledgment to NGO’s, government agencies, UN agencies, municipalities
in the Gaza Strip who
participated in filling out the questionnaires and provided valuable information for this study. At the end of my thesis I would like to thank all those people who
made this thesis possible and an enjoyable experience for me.
III
Abstract 1B
One of the major concerns coming forth in the management of construction projects is the recognition and management of project stakeholders since the stakeholders are a major source of uncertainty in construction project. The construction industry in the Gaza Strip has involved a diverse range of stakeholders. The successful construction project management can be carried out only when the responsible managers take into account the potential influence of the project's stakeholders. This research aims to empower the role of stakeholders in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Four objectives were set accordingly: identification and ranking the most common factors affecting the stakeholder management process in construction project; assessed the stakeholders based on their influence; evaluate the current practice approaches of stakeholder management; and developing a conceptual framework for stakeholder management process. A literature reviews on the topic related to the stakeholder management was conducted. A questionnaire survey was carried out among professionals in the construction industry. Ninety-eight questionnaires were distributed to governance, municipality, NGO’s, UN and INGO’s agency's experts, sixty seven questionnaires were received with a 68% response rate. The main factors affecting the stakeholder management process are hiring a project manager with high competency, transparent evaluation of the alternative solution, ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder, setting common goal and objective of the project, and exploring the stakeholder need and expectation. The client and donor are the main key stakeholders, who have the most influence in the construction project in the Gaza Strip. A management framework was developed, that guide the share of stakeholder in construction project. One of the main recommendations of this research is the management team in the Gaza Strip should use the proposed conceptual framework for managing the construction stakeholder. The study also recommended the implemented agencies have to recruit the project managers based on his competencies and to delegate them a suitable degree of authority to lead the management process of the stakeholder successfully.
IV
ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻳﻌﺰﻱ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ .ﻭﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻴﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ .ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻳﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﻷﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ. ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻔﻌﻴﻞ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ .ﻭﺑﻨﺎءﺍ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺗﻢ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ :ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺷﻴﻮﻋﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ،ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻫﻢ ،ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ،ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ. ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺈﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ،ﺗﻼﻫﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ،ﻭ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻣﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻝ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻤﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ .٪ 68 ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺫﻭ ﻛﻔﺎءﺓ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ،ﻭ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻠﺔ ،ﻭﺿﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ،ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ،ﻭﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﻷﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ. ﺃﻭﺿﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﻧﺢ ﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ .ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ. ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﺪﺭﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ .ﻭﺃﻭﺻﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻮﻅﻴﻒ ﻣﺪﺭﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻋﻄﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺣﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ.
V
Table of Contents Acknowledgement......................................................................................................... III Abstract ......................................................................................................................... IV ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ.........................................................................................................................V List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................... IX List of Titles.....................................................................................................................X List of Figures ............................................................................................................. XII Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1
Preface .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Statement of the problem ................................................................................................. 2
1.3
Expected benefit of the study ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research aim and objectives ............................................................................................ 3 1.4.1 Research aim ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Research objectives ..................................................................................................... 3 1.5
Research questions ........................................................................................................... 4
1.6
Research methodology ..................................................................................................... 4
1.7
Limitations of the research ............................................................................................... 4
1.8
Research hypotheses......................................................................................................... 5
1.9
Research layout ................................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2: Literature review........................................................................................ 7 2.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2
Stakeholder definitions ..................................................................................................... 7
2.3
Stakeholders in construction ............................................................................................ 8
2.4
Types of stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 9
2.5
Stakeholder management ............................................................................................... 11
2.6
Stakeholder management processes in construction ...................................................... 13
2.7 Critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management. ....................................... 14 2.7.1 Management support group....................................................................................... 14 2.7.2 Information input group ............................................................................................ 17 2.7.3 Stakeholder assessment group ................................................................................... 18 2.7.4 Decision making group ............................................................................................. 23 2.7.5 Action & evaluation group ........................................................................................ 24 2.7.6 Continuous support group ......................................................................................... 26 2.8 Stakeholder assessment .................................................................................................. 30 2.8.1 Classification stakeholder ......................................................................................... 30 2.8.2 Prioritizing stakeholders............................................................................................ 32
VI
2.8.3 Levels of stakeholder engagement ............................................................................ 33 2.9
Practical approaches for analyzing and engaging stakeholders...................................... 35
2.10 Formulating stakeholder management strategies ........................................................... 38 2.11 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 3: Research methodology .............................................................................. 42 3.1
Research flowchart ......................................................................................................... 42
3.2
Research strategy ............................................................................................................ 44
3.3
Research period .............................................................................................................. 44
3.4
Research population ....................................................................................................... 44
3.5
Sample characteristics .................................................................................................... 45
3.6
Research location ........................................................................................................... 47
3.7
Data collection................................................................................................................ 47
3.8
Questionnaire design ...................................................................................................... 48
3.9
Pilot study ....................................................................................................................... 51
3.10 Data measurement .......................................................................................................... 51 3.11 Data Processing and Analysis ........................................................................................ 52 3.11.1 The Relative Importance Index (RII) ........................................................................ 52 3.11.2 Cronbach's Alpha ...................................................................................................... 53 3.11.3 Non-parametric Test.................................................................................................. 53 3.12 Validity of Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 54 3.12.1 Internal Validity ........................................................................................................ 54 3.12.2 Structural validity of the questionnaire ..................................................................... 60 3.13 Reliability of the research............................................................................................... 61 3.13.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha ................................................................................... 62
Chapter 4: Results and discussion .............................................................................. 64 4.1 Section one: Organizational profiles .............................................................................. 64 4.1.1 Type of institutions ................................................................................................... 64 4.1.2 Job title for respondent .............................................................................................. 64 4.1.3 Years of respondent experience ................................................................................ 65 4.2 Section two: Factors affecting the stakeholder management process ............................ 66 4.2.1 Factors affect the management support (group one) ................................................. 67 4.2.2 Factors influencing the Information input (group two) ............................................. 69 4.2.3 Factors influence the stakeholder' assessment (group three)..................................... 71 4.2.4 Factors affect the decision making (group four) ....................................................... 75 4.2.5 Factors affect the action and evaluation (group five) ................................................ 77 4.2.6 Factors affecting continuous support (group six) ..................................................... 79 4.2.7 The important factors affecting the stakeholder management process on overall .... 82 4.3 Section three: Stakeholder assessment ........................................................................... 84 4.3.1 Assessing the stakeholder attributes .......................................................................... 84 4.3.2 Prioritizing stakeholders............................................................................................ 90 4.3.3 Classification of the stakeholder ............................................................................... 92 4.3.4 Stakeholder engagement ........................................................................................... 93 VII
4.4 Section Four: Practical approaches for analyzing and engaging stakeholders ............... 95 4.4.1 Approaches of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need ........................................ 95 4.4.2 Approaches of engaging stakeholders ....................................................................... 96 4.4.3 Response strategy to deal with the stakeholder ......................................................... 97 4.5 Section Five: The relation between the stakeholder management process groups......... 99 4.5.1 The relationship among the stakeholder management groups .................................. 99 4.5.2 Proposed Framework for Stakeholder Management process .................................. 100
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendation .......................................................... 108 5.1
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 108
5.2
Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 112
5.3
Suggestions for future research .................................................................................... 113
References: .................................................................................................................. 114 2
Annex (1): Questionnaire (Arabic) ....................................................................... 120
3
Annex (2): Questionnaire (English)...................................................................... 128
VIII
List of Abbreviations CHF
Cooperative Housing Foundation
CSFs
Critical Success Factors
CMWU
Coastal Municipalities Water Utility
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IHH
Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation
INGO’s
International Non-Government Organizations
MDLF
Municipal Development and Lending Fund
NDC
Non- governmental organization Development Center
NGO's
Non-Government Organizations
PECDAR
Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction
QRCS
Qatar Red Crescent Society
R&D
Research and Development
RII
Relative Importance Index
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TİKA
Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency
UN
Unites Nation
UNDP
United Nations development programme
UNICEF
United Nations Children's Fund
UNRWA
United Nations Relief and Works Agency
IX
List of Titles Table 2.1: Example of construction project stakeholders ………………………………………… 10 Table 2.2: Approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement in construction ……………….. 36 Table 2.3 : Stakeholder management strategies ……………………………………...................... 39 Table 2.4: Factors that influencing the stakeholder management process ...........………………… 41 Table 3.1: Sample categorize ....................................………………………………………..……. 47 Table 3.2: Classification of sample size …………………………………………………………… 48 Table 3.3: Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project ………..……49 Table 3.4: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "management support" ……………………… 57 Table 3.5: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "information input" …………………………. 57 Table 3.6: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "stakeholder assessment" ........…………….. 58 Table 3.7: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "decision making" ................……………….. 58 Table 3.8: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "action and evaluation"………...…………… 59 Table 3.9: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "continuous support" ................……………. 59 Table 3.10: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "methods of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need" .………………………………………………………………………………… 60 Table 3.11: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "engagement methods" .........………… 60 Table 3.12: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "response strategy" ……….…………… 61 Table 3.13: Correlation coefficient of each stakeholder "attitude, vested interest, power, and proximity" ………………………….……………………………………………………………… 61 Table 3.14: Correlation coefficient of each stakeholder "legitimacy, urgency, and knowledge" … 61 Table 3.15: Correlation coefficient of each field and the whole of questionnaire .........………… 63 Table 3.16: Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire ….…………………………….. 64 Table 4.1: Respondents’ profile ………………………………………………………………….…67 Table 4.2: RII's and test values for groups affecting the stakeholder management process………. 68 Table 4.3: RII's and P-value of factors affecting the “management support” .…………………… 70 Table 4.4: RII's and P-value of factors influencing the "information input" ……………………… 72 Table 4.5: RII's and P-value of factors influence the "stakeholder' assessment" …………………. 76 Table 4.6: RII's and P-value for factors affect the "decision making" ……………………………. 78 Table 4.7: RII's and P-value of factors affect the "action and evaluation" ……………………….. 80 Table 4.8: RII's and P-value for factors affecting "continuous support" …………………………. 84 Table 4.9: The overall important factors affecting stakeholder management …………………….. 85 Table 4.10: Summary of stakeholder power ……………………………………………………… 88
X
Table 4.11: Summary of stakeholder legitimacy …..……………………………………………… 89 Table 4.12: Summary of stakeholder urgency ……………………………………………………. 90 Table 4.13: Summary of stakeholder proximity …………………………………………………… 91 Table 4.14: Summary of stakeholder knowledge …………………………………………………. 92 Table 4.15: Summary of stakeholder vested-interest ……………………………………………… 92 Table 4.16: Summary of stakeholder attitude ………………………………………………………93 Table 4.17: Summary of stakeholder influence index …………………………………………….. 94 Table 4.18: Stakeholder impact level and probability of impact values ………………………….. 96 Table 4.19: Effective approaches to analyze stakeholders’ concern and need …………………… 100 Table 4.20: Effective approaches to engage with the stakeholders ………………………………. 101 Table 4.21: Effective response strategy to deal with the stakeholder ……………………………. 102 Table 4.22: Correlation Coefficient among groups affecting stakeholder management process…. 105
XI
List of Figures Figure 2.1: Different project stakeholder……………………………………………………… 9 Figure 2.2 Key elements in the project Lifecycle………………….………………………… 12 Figure 2.3 Power/predictability matrix ………………………………………...……………. 31 Figure 2.4 Power/Level of interest matrix …………………………………………………… 31 Figure 2.5 The stakeholder impact/probability matrix ………….…………………………… 32 Figure 2.6: Levels of stakeholder management ……………………………………………… 34 Figure 3.1: Research methodology flowchart ………………….…………..………………… 44 Figure 4.1: Classification and engagement level of the stakeholder ………………………… 97 Figure 5.1: Framework for stakeholder management process in the construction project …
XII
117
Chapter 1: Introduction 2B
This chapter introduces the preface of the research, statement of the problem, the expected benefit of the study, research aim and objectives, research question, research methodolegy, research hypotheses, and research layout.
1.1 Preface 8B
Construction project management, as a discipline, has focused on the process of planning, and managing the complex array of activities required to deliver a construction project. Different stakeholders have different levels and types of investments and interests in projects in which they are involved (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008). Today almost every project takes place in a context where stakeholders play a major role in the accomplishment of the tasks. Often the project is sensitive to actions and decisions taken by the stakeholder (Karlsen, 2002). Its professionals need to be capable of coordinating relationships with diversified stakeholders, especially with the growing tendency of stakeholder groups to try to influence the implementation of construction projects according to their individual concerns and needs (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008; Olander and Landin, 2005). Stakeholders need to be identified and their power and influence mapped so that their potential impact on projects can be better understood. Appropriate strategies can then be formulated and enacted to maximize a stakeholder’s positive influence and minimize any negative influence. This becomes a key risk-management issue for project managers. Failure to appreciate this has led to countless project failures (Bourne and Walker, 2005), primarily because construction stakeholders have the resources and capability to stop construction projects (Lim et al., 2005). The construction industry in Palestine provides about (33%) of the Palestinian GDP. At the same time, it provides about 10.8% of the Palestinian’s direct working force and about (30%) of the indirect working force (Palestinian Contractors’ Union, 2012), in the light of the importance of the construction project for the Palestinian economy, many researchers study the main obstacles that face this sector and according to Enshassi et al. (2008) study regarding the main risk factor in the Gaza construction
1
project, the poor communication between involved Parties is ranked as one of the most risk factor that face the construction industry in Palestine. Poor stakeholder management can lead to many serious problems in construction projects, such as: poor scope and work definition, inadequate resources assigned to the project (both in terms of quantity and quality), poor communication, changes in the scope of work and unforeseen regulatory changes, all of which may be the major source of delays and cost overruns (Yang et al., 2009). Stakeholder incorporation within quality management planning and proceeding will facilitate greatly in solving large numbers of quality problems in building projects (Heravitorbati et al., 2009). Doloi (2011) mentioned that with the increasing complexity of modern and involvement of a multitude of stakeholders with varied stakes make it nearly impossible for the modern construction projects to avoid cost overruns. To ensure a successful project, the project team must identify the stakeholders, determine their requirements and expectations, and manage their influence in relation to the requirements (Othman et al., 2011).
1.2 Statement of the problem 9B
The construction industry has complexity in its nature because it contains a large number of stakeholders as clients, contractors, consultants, regulators and others. Disagreement among participating parties rose during the implementation of projects which adversely impacted the ability of the management teams to deliver the construction project within the time and allocated budget and expected degree of quality. These disagreements are often caused by inappropriate identification and management of the different stakeholders involved in a project amongst other factors. The construction industry in the Gaza Strip has not fully been able to embrace the vast importance of managing stakeholders involved in projects. It presently focuses largely on the internal stakeholders that include clients, contractors, consultant etc, alienating the external stakeholders who are usually affected by the projects i.e. end users, local, communities, neighboring, and others. In Palestine most of the infrastructure and housing projects are funded by external donor, and the
international non-governmental organization (INGO's)/ non-
governmental organization (NGO's) acted as the mediator for the donor, and these implemented agency takes the responsibilities of managing the construction project, and
2
they hired management team to take care with these responsibilities. The management team always faces a lot of challenges one of them how to manage project stakeholder, since the list of these stakeholder contain a large number of stakeholders with different goals. Olander and Landin (2005) mentioned that the construction industry worldwide has a poor record of stakeholder management during the past decades, and the construction industry in the Gaza Strip is not an exceptional case. So, there is a need to study and analyze stakeholders’ needs and expectations and their impact, and to build a framework for managing the stakeholder in the process.
1.3 Expected benefit of the study 10B
•
It gives some basic references for other researchers to further study and come out with some guidelines on how to handle stakeholder issues in the future.
•
By doing that it is hoped that the delivery of the projects will be improved to know how to manage their stakeholder properly and identified their problem in various stages in order to fulfill their needs and expectations.
•
It will give some experiences and lesson learnt to all the staff who is involved in controlling and monitoring the project.
1.4 Research aim and objectives 1B
1.4.1 Research aim 49B
The aim of this research is to empower the role of stakeholders in construction projects in the Gaza Strip.
1.4.2 Research objectives 50B
The objectives of this research can be summarized as follows: 1 To assess the stakeholders based on their influence. 2
To identify and rank the most common factors that affecting the stakeholder management process in construction project.
3
To evaluate the current practice approaches of stakeholder management in the construction project. 3
4
To build a framework for construction stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip.
1.5 Research questions 12B
Stakeholders' need and expectation management in handling the construction project is our target. In order to achieve that, the research will be driving the following questions: •
How to engage the stakeholder in the construction project in the Gaza Strip?
•
Which factors are considered effective in the current practice of stakeholder management project in the Gaza Strip?
•
What are the effective methods used in the current practice of managing stakeholder in construction projects in the Gaza strip?
•
What is the element in the framework of strategic stakeholder management methodology that can be proposed to the construction industry in the Gaza Strip?
1.6 Research methodology 13B
The adopted methodology that is used to accomplish this study is the following techniques: review of literature related to stakeholder management, questionnaire for gathering data, and interview with professionals from the construction industry and data analysis.
1.7
Limitations of the research
It is worth to mention that the main reasons for these limitations are the time and resource shortages. The following is the limitation of the research •
The research is limited to the governmental organizations, semi-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, municipalities, and international agencies as key players whom are implementing the major construction project
4
in the Gaza Strip. However the private project was not considered in the targeted populations. •
The development of the framework is based on only the questionnaire survey. The findings are limited to the Gaza Strip construction projects.
•
The assessment of construction stakeholder in the Gaza Strip is limited to the selected sample of stakeholder, and the assessment did not take
neither the
variances in the construction project (e.g. Building project, infrastructure project, etc.) nor the stages of the project life cycle.
1.8 Research hypotheses 15B
• First hypotheses There is a positive relationship between management support and the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Second hypotheses There is a positive and efficient flow of information input to the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Third hypotheses There is a positive influence between stakeholder estimation and the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Fourth hypotheses There is a positive influence between decision making and the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Fifth hypotheses There is a positive relationship between action and evaluation and the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Sixth hypotheses There is a positive relationship between continuous support and the perception of successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip.
5
• Seventh hypotheses There is a significant degree of agreement among the respondents on the factors affecting the successful stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Eighth hypotheses There is a significant degree of agreement among the respondents on the effective practical approaches for stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip. • Ninth hypotheses There is a significant degree of agreement among the respondents in the estimation of stakeholder attributes in construction project. • Tenth hypotheses There is a significant correlation between the successful stakeholder management at the construction project in the Gaza Strip and its management process groups.
1.9 Research layout 16B
The thesis consists of five chapters as follows: •
Chapter 1: Introduction, this chapter has a general introduction to the subject of the thesis. It describes the preface of the research, statement of the problem, the expected benefit of the study, research aim and objectives, research question, research and hypotheses.
•
Chapter 2: Literature review, this chapter discusses the definition of stakeholder, stakeholder management, type of stakeholder, stakeholder management process, critical success factor for stakeholder management in construction projects, stakeholder analysis, levels of stakeholder management, and formulating stakeholder management strategies
•
Chapter 3: Methodology, this chapter defines the process of the methodology that will be applied through the questionnaire.
•
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion, this chapter presents the results of the research and discusses them in details.
•
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations, this chapter states the conclusions and recommendations.
6
Chapter 2: Literature review 3B
This chapter discusses the definition of stakeholder, stakeholder management, type of stakeholder, stakeholder management process, critical success factor for stakeholder management in construction projects, stakeholder analysis, levels of stakeholder management, and formulating stakeholder management strategies.
2.1 Introduction 17B
An increasing number of studies (Newcombe, 2003; Olander and Landin, 2005; El-Gohary et al., 2006) have identified the importance of stakeholder management in construction projects. However, the construction industry has a poor record of stakeholder management during the past decades owing to the complexity and uncertainty of projects. Many problems of stakeholder management in construction projects proposed by previous scholars include inadequate engagement of stakeholders, project managers having unclear objectives of stakeholder management, difficulty to identify the “invisible” stakeholder, and inadequate communication with stakeholders (Bourne and Walker, 2006). In order to solve these problems, project teams need to know what the essentials are for managing stakeholders (Cleland and Ireland, 2002).
2.2 Stakeholder definitions 18B
The term “stakeholder” is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the project’s objectives”. This definition is often cited by most researchers from Freeman (1984) as the foundation of stakeholder management, and it is characterized as being one of the broadest, in that it can include virtually anyone (Mitchell et al., 1997). El-Gohary et al. (2006) described stakeholders as “individuals or organizations that are either affected by or affect the deliverables or outputs of a specific organization”, other defined stakeholders as “those who can influence the project process and/or final results, whose living environments are positively or negatively affected by the project, and who receive associated direct and indirect benefits and/or losses”( Li et al., 2011), and Takim (2009) defined the stakeholder “as being those who can influence the activities/final results of the project,
7
whose lives or environment are positively or negatively affected by the project, and who receive direct and indirect benefit from it”. Newcombe (2003) studies the concept of the project stakeholders as multiple ‘clients’ for construction projects and thought it was necessary to distinguish “stakeholder” from the term “client”, which referred to the financial sponsoring organization who is directly responsible for the production and development of a project. Several organizations and scholars have also proposed the definition of “project stakeholders”. Project Management Institute (2008) defined project stakeholders as “individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or successful project completion”. Newcombe (2003) argued that project stakeholders are groups or individuals who have a stake in, or expectation of, the project’s performance.
2.3
Stakeholders in construction There are stakeholders in construction undertakings, just as there are stakeholders
in other endeavors. The checklist of stakeholders in a construction project is often large and would include the owners and users of facilities, project managers, facilities managers, designers, shareholders, legal authorities, employees, subcontractors, suppliers, process and service providers, competitors, banks, insurance companies, media,
community
representatives,
neighbors,
general
public,
government
establishments, visitors, customers, regional development agencies, the natural environment, the press, pressure groups, civic institutions, etc. (Newcombe, 2003). The number of stakeholders involved or interested in the project can dramatically increase the complexity and uncertainty of the situation. Figure 2.1 is illustrated some of the most typical stakeholders. Each stakeholder usually has different interests and priorities that can place them in conflict or disagreements with the project (Karlsen, 2008). Each of these would influence the course of a project at some stage. Some bring their influence to bear more often than others. If diverse stakeholders are present in construction undertakings, then the construction industry should be able to manage its stakeholders.
8
Figure 2.1: Different project stakeholders (Yang et al., 2009a)
2.4 Types of stakeholders 20B
Stakeholders can be divided into internal and external, internal stakeholders being those directly involved in an organization’s decision-making process (e.g. Owners, customers, suppliers, employees) and external stakeholders being those affected by the organization’s activities in a significant way (e.g. Neighbors, local community, general public, local authorities). In construction, there has traditionally been a strong emphasis on the internal stakeholder relationship such as procurement and site management, while the external stakeholder relationships to some extent have been considered a task for public officials via the rules and legislation that concern facility development (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008).
9
Similar classifications are inside and outside stakeholders (Newcombe, 2003), and direct and indirect stakeholders (Smith and Love, 2004). Another delineation considers primary versus secondary stakeholders (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2006). A primary stakeholder group is one without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive as a going concern, whereas secondary stakeholders are those who influence or are influenced by the firm, Stakeholders could also be contested between those that are contracted to provide services (e.g. Contractors, subcontractors, consultants) that is in a primary or direct relationship with an organization; in contrast to those that have no contracted responsibility or formal redress, but are in an indirect or secondary relationship with an organization (Smith and Love, 2004; Carroll and Buchholtz, 2006). Based on the above discussion, Table 2.1 summarizes examples of construction project stakeholders.
Table 2.1: Example of construction project stakeholders Stakeholder group
Client
Consultant
Contractor /subcontractors
Funding body / Donor
International nongovernmental organizations (INGO’s) / Nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s)
Objectives and roles The client can be public or private. The main difference between a private construction project and a public project is that the client and the beneficiary are the same in a private construction project and in the reconstruction housing project the main initiator is the government and benefit accrues to the community affected (Siriwardena et al, 2010). Provides the consultancy advice for the project on designing, evaluating the cost, technical issues/advice (engineering advice electrical, civil etc) (Siriwardena et al, 2010). Engage in actual construction according to the designs, specifications, contract documents communicated by the relevant parties (Siriwardena et al, 2010). E.g. UN, IDB, ICRC. Address humanitarian issues while providing the necessary funds to the community project. Ensures that the funds are utilized for the purpose. E.g. if a precondition is imposed to spend the money on community development, the donor has to make sure that the funds are used for this particular activity (Siriwardena et al, 2010). Acted as the mediator of the funding body and the government. Assisted in constructing tens of thousands of temporary shelters and permanent homes (Siriwardena et al, 2010).
10
Table 2.1: Example of construction project stakeholders (continue) Stakeholder group
Objectives and roles
Government
The government takes the lead in terms of formulating and maintaining regulations, policies and monitoring the adherence to these. Setting the standards relating to the delivery of housing reconstruction projects (Harris, 2010).
Beneficiary/ End User
Is the most important stakeholder. Since, they are the beneficiaries their engagement should be to communicate their needs/ requirements of the relevant parties involved in executing the reconstruction housing project .Designing the house and supplying labor (skilled/ unskilled) at the stage of construction (Siriwardena et al, 2010).
General public Local landowners/ neighborhood
Voluntary involvement in clearing the debris, provision of labor at the construction phase of housing (Siriwardena et al, 2010). Own land; ensure that their interests will not be hurt by the project. A neighborhood may fear a fall in amenity (Harris, 2010).
2.5 Stakeholder management 21B
Tasmanian Government Project Management Guidelines (2011) provide
an
overview of the essential components of project management methodology and identify eleven key elements that should be applied throughout the project Lifecycle, and the stakeholder management is one of the key elements in the project management process, in order to ensure the success of the project, Figure 2.2 shows the Key Elements throughout the life of the project. Project managers need to identify and interact with key institutions and individuals in the project systems environment. An important part of the management of the project systems environment is an organized process to identify and manage the probable stakeholders in that environment, and determine how they will react to the project decisions (Cleland and Ireland, 2002). On the other hand, Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) clarified the premises underlying project stakeholder management, which includes making deliberate efforts to exert influence on project stakeholders in order to gain their contributions to the project, allocating limited resources in such a way that they achieve the best possible results, and expanding efforts spread across a range of stakeholders than concentrated on a few. Therefore, project stakeholder management is indispensable to control the negative impacts of stakeholders, maximize the perceived 11
benefits, and achieves the preset mission (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Olander and Landin, 2005).
Figure 2.2 Key elements in the project Lifecycle (Tasmanian Government Project Management Guidelines, 2011) According to Bourne and Walker (2006) Project-stakeholder advantage of management is designed to encourage the use of proactive project management for limiting stakeholder activities that might affect the project negatively, and to assist the project team’s ability to take opportunities which encourage stakeholder support of project objectives . Since the purpose of stakeholder management is to address the diverse views of various participants, improve communication among stakeholders, and clarify their needs (Yang et al. 2009) . Lim et al. (2005) defined the stakeholder management as “Effective management of relationships with stakeholders”. In terms of ‘stakeholder management’, while the scholars Karlsen (2002) and Bourne and Walker (2006) used different statements, they all focused on the management activities related to stakeholders. These activities include, but are not limited to: identifying stakeholders, gathering information on stakeholders, analyzing the influence of stakeholders, communicating with stakeholders and developing strategies. The definition of ‘stakeholder management’ can be 12
synthesized as: the process of identification, analysis, communication, decision making and all other kinds of activities in terms of managing stakeholders (Yang et al., 2011).
2.6 Stakeholder management processes in construction 2B
A number of studies have been conducted to explore how to apply stakeholder management in the construction industry. Olander (2006) adopted Cleland and Ireland, (2002) in describing a project stakeholder management process in the following basic premises that could be served as a guide for the development of a stakeholder management process. The process consists of executing the management functions of planning, organizing, motivating, directing and controlling the resources used to cope with strategies from stakeholders
with the following steps:
Identification of
stakeholders, gathering information, identification of mission, determining strengths and weaknesses, identification of stakeholder strategy, prediction of stakeholder behavior, and implementing stakeholder management strategy. Karlsen (2002) provided a recursive six step process of project stakeholder management, including initial planning, identification, analysis, communication, action, and follow-up. Elias et al. (2002) proposed eight steps for managing the stakeholder process started by: Developing a stakeholder map of the project; preparing a chart of specific stakeholders; identifying the stakes of stakeholders; preparing a power versus stake grid; conducting a process level stakeholder analysis; conducting a transaction level stakeholder analysis; determining the stakeholder management capability of the R&D projects; analyzing the dynamics of stakeholder interactions. Young (2006) puts forward similar process model centering on Identifying stakeholders; gathering information about stakeholders; analyzing the influence of stakeholders. But from Bourne and Walker (2006) point view, the process could be managed in the following three steps identifying stakeholders; prioritizing stakeholders; developing a stakeholder engagement strategy. Walker et al. (2008) considers identifying stakeholder; prioritizing stakeholders, visualizing stakeholders; engaging stakeholders, and monitoring effectiveness of communication as the basic steps for stakeholder management. Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) clarified the premises underlying project stakeholder management, which includes making deliberate efforts to exert influence on project stakeholders in order to gain their contributions to the project, 13
allocating limited resources in such a way that they achieve the best possible results, and expanding efforts spread across a range of stakeholders than concentrated on a few.
2.7 Critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management. 23B
Many researchers (Jefferies, 2002; Yu, 2007; Yang et al., 2009b) have used the critical success factors (CSFs) as a means to improve the performance of the management process. CSFs can be defined as “areas, in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization” (Yang et al, 2009 cited in Rockart, 1979). Saraph et al. (1989), viewed them as “those critical areas of managerial planning and action that must be practiced in order to achieve effectiveness”. Cleland and Ireland (2002) consider important that the project team should know whether or not it is successful “managing” the project stakeholders. CSFs are viewed as those activities and practices that should be addressed in order to ensure effective management of stakeholders in a construction project. All the aspect of critical success factors of stakeholder is introduced, so 30 factors contributing to the success of stakeholder management are grouping to six main groups (include management support, identification of stakeholder information, stakeholder assessment, decision making, action & evaluation, and a continuous support group), and will be examined as hypotheses that are significantly important for stakeholder management in Gaza construction project, the six group CSFs and perceptions of successful stakeholder management are identified as follows:
2.7.1 Management support group 51B
Top level or management support from the implementing agencies, was essential for effective stakeholder engagement (Yang et al., 2009b). In some projects, certain individuals at director level are tasked with the responsibility of overseeing their stakeholder management activities and to develop their relevant. Top management must endorse the principle of stakeholder consistently and wholeheartedly. To guarantee successful stakeholder participants should be willing to share power and resource that would benefit overall organization's goal (Brooke and Litwing, 1997).
14
2.7.1.1 Managing stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities 85B
Othman and Abdellatif (2011) mentioned that the construction industry plays a significant role in the social and economic development in both developed and developing countries through constructing buildings and infrastructure projects that meet the needs of the community in the short and long terms. In addition, it supports government efforts by achieving strategic development objectives, increasing gross domestic product and offering employment opportunities. Othman and Abdellatif (2011) were summarized there finding by confirming that stakeholder management must have social responsibilities towards supporting effective management of the stakeholder in the construction project. Yang et al. (2009b) consider that managing stakeholder with economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and cultural responsibilities as the precondition step for stakeholder management. According to the definition of social responsibility, the economic responsibility is the obligation to produce goods and services, sell them at fair prices and make a profit; the legal responsibility refers to the obligation to obey the law; and the ethical responsibility covers those issues not embodied in law but expected by society. Recently environmental expectation has also been given much attention by many scholars (AlWaer et al., 2008; Prager and Freese, 2009). Because of the sustainable development expectations, environmental considerations include air, flora/fauna, dust, water, and noise. The purpose is to protect the environment and to provide healthy living conditions. The cultural responsibility is related to the consideration of the cultural diversity, especially the differences of language and tradition. So according to Yang et al. (2011a) The project managers should manage stakeholders taking into consideration of all kinds of these social responsibilities to make sure the project objectives are achieved.
2.7.1.2 Flexible project organization 86B
Li et al. (2011) suggested that a flexible project organization is needed to cope with the complexity and uncertainties of construction in China, which is echoed with the Olander and Landin (2008), whom come to the importance of the flexibility administration of project to recruit personnel to achieve the objectives for the project.
15
As one objective of stakeholder management was to gain an acceptance from stakeholders on the implementation of the project, and this will be achieved if an organization will be built to contain sufficient resources ( Knowlage, technology, information, specific skills, and capital ) for communication and interaction with stakeholders. 2.7.1.3 Project manager competences 87B
The role of the project manager should involve not simply an understanding of the technical realities at hand, but also of the links between technology, the environment, the community and the people in it. For example, a given community possesses unique information about local conditions and circumstances. The project manager should acquire knowledge about the place where the project is located and engage the local community in the planning of the construction project. Thus, an external stakeholder management process should, if conducted properly, be seen as representing an opportunity for improving the project (Oalnder, 2006). In most situations the relationship with the stakeholder is taken care of by the project manager. Consequently, the results of the stakeholder management are dependent on the project manager’s experience, relationships, and capability (Karlson, 2002). Olander and Landin (2008) found that the project managers should be highly skilled negotiators and communicators in order to be capable of managing individual stakeholder’s expectations and creating a positive culture change within the overall organization project. The construction industry involves a wide range of stakeholders, each bringing them with a great variety of interests, concerns, requirements and potential opportunities. In project management, effective project managers require keen analytical and intuitive skills to identification of stakeholders and work with them to understand their expectations and influence upon project success. This facilitates managing process that maximizes stakeholder positive input and minimizes any potential detrimental impact (Bourne and Walker, 2005).
16
2.7.2 Information input group 52B
Freeman et al. (2007) believe identifying stakeholder information is an important task for assessing stakeholders information is important as it is the backbone in the project success. Before any management activities, information about the project and stakeholders around requires extensive research and analysis. The information includes project missions, full list of stakeholder, area of stakeholder's interests, and their needs and constraints to the project (Yang et al, 2009b), the stakeholder commitments, interest and power should be fully assessed so that the project manager can tackle the key problems in the stakeholder management process and the potential impact on success in the project. This information includes:
2.7.2.1 Setting common goals 8B
The identification of a clear mission for a project at different stages is widely considered to be essential for the effective management of stakeholders (Winch, 2002). Before every stakeholder management activity, project management team should have a better understanding of the tasks and objectives of the particular stage of the project Lifecycle, including the issues of such as cost, schedule, budget (Yang et al., 2009b). Jergeas et al. (2000) further proved that “setting common goals, objectives and project priorities” is significant for improving stakeholder management, and he also suggested that the purpose of the project should be understood, and feedback from stakeholder be solicited in order to achieve alignment between stakeholder and project team, since this the way that expectations could be managed, and hidden agendas could be brought to the surface and project priorities could be established.
2.7.2.2 Stakeholder identification 89B
Project managers need to identify and interact with key stakeholder in the project system’s environment. An important part of the management of the project system’s environment is to organize the process in order to be able to identify and to manage the probable stakeholders in that environment and determine how they will react to project decisions (Olander, 2006). Identification of stakeholders includes both
17
stakeholders that are involved in the project and potential stakeholders who will also improve the support and ownership to the stakeholder management process (Karlsen, 2002). Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) point out to the identification of the (important) stakeholders and their necessary contributions, and expectations concerning rewards for contributions, As a prerequisite requirement for stakeholder analysis in projects for management the stakeholder in the construction project. The project management team could identify stakeholders either by the ‘external/internal’ guideline, or by their functions such as clients, contractors, and consultants. The identification should be based on common interests and needs of the project (Ye et al., 2009b).
2.7.2.3 Stakeholder needs and expectations. 90B
Numerous different and sometimes discrepant interests can be affected, both positively and negatively, throughout the course of a major infrastructure and construction project. Failing to address and meet the concerns and expectations of the stakeholders involved has resulted in many project failures (Li et al., 2013). During the project process, all stakeholders’ needs should be assessed “so that a satisfactory and realistic solution to the problem being addressed is obtained” (Love et al., 2004). Li et al. (2012) clarifies that stakeholders’ needs can provide an indication of the stakeholder groups’ concerns, the problems the project team faces, and stakeholders’ requirements of the projects. Furthermore, Olander and Landin (2008) also proved the importance of “analysis of stakeholder concerns and needs” by case studies in Sweden, and Olander and Landin
(2005) considered that project managers should identify all types of
stakeholder and accommodate their conflict and needs.
2.7.3 Stakeholder assessment group 53B
In the real world, stakeholders have influenced projects in a variety of complex ways. In order to analyze the impact of stakeholders upon projects, it is necessary to identify and include the factors by which they do so. To enhance the understanding of project managers on stakeholders, their attributes, behavior, and potential influence need to be
18
assessed and estimated. The conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders also could be analyzed based on the information about stakeholders (Yang et al., 2009b). Once the information about the stakeholder is priorities, the assessment of stakeholder on the basis of their impact and vested interested in the project could be done, so it is important to have an accurate understanding of the stakeholder attributes in order to categorize the stakeholder according to their attitude classification.
2.7.3.1 Stakeholders’ attitude 91B
The capacity and willingness of stakeholders to threaten or cooperate with project teams should be measured (Savage et al., 1991) during stakeholder management process. Because stakeholders may have negative or positive impacts on projects, there is a need to determine objectors and supporters. Stakeholder attitude refers to whether the stakeholder supports or opposes the project (McElroy and Mills, 2000). In other words, this factor gives a ‘clue’ for managers to be aware that stakeholders have positive or negative influences on project outcomes. Freeman et al. (2007) state that stakeholders’ attitude can be sorted into 3 categories: observed behavior, cooperative potential and competitive threat, a project manager need to clearly understand the range of stakeholder reactions and behaviors. According to McElroy and Mills (2000) stakeholder attitude includes five levels: active opposition, passive opposition, no commitment, passive support and active support.
2.7.3.2 Stakeholders’ interests 92B
Stakeholders are characterized as having a ‘stake’ in the proposed project and trying to influence its implementation so as to guard their individual interests (Olander and Landin, 2008). There are various stakeholders’ interests due to the complex nature of construction projects (Yang et al., 2009b), and Freeman et al. (2007) believe that identifying stakeholder interests is an important task to assess stakeholders, these interests including product safety, integrity of financial reporting new product services, and financial returns. Similarly, Karlsen (2002) also presents one possible consideration to evaluate the stakeholder's area of interests in the project.
19
Stakeholder interest in a project is considered by many researchers to be a factor affecting the successful outcome of a project. Several scholars, even show the “interest” term in their stakeholder definitions such as the definitions of McElroy and Mills (2000); PMI (2008); and Bourne (2005). Furthermore, the interest of stakeholders in a project is included in the power/interest matrix that Johnson et al. (2005) formulate that matrix to help project managers determine which strategy should be applied in communication with and management of project stakeholders. Similarly, Cleland and Ireland (2007) contend that stakeholders have a vested interest in a project for numerous reasons such as mission relevancy, economic interest, legal right, political support, health and safety, lifestyle, opportunism and survival. Hence, it can be concluded that vested interest is an important driver of the stakeholder-project relationship.
2.7.3.3 Stakeholders' influence 93B
Project management procedure is affected by project stakeholders (Olander, 2007). Therefore recognizing the stakeholders’ influence is important to “plan and execute a sufficiently rigorous stakeholder management process” (Olander and Landin, 2005). Olander (2007) developed the “stakeholder impact index”, and he considers that analyzing the potential impact of stakeholders indicates to determine the nature and impact of stakeholder influence, the probability of stakeholders exercising their influence and each stakeholder’s position in relation to the project. Therefore recognizing the stakeholder' influence is an important factor to "plan and execute a sufficiently rigorous stakeholder management process" (Olander and Landin, 2005).
2.7.3.4 Stakeholders' conflicts and coalitions 94B
Conflicts in construction project may involve stakeholders external or internal to the project or a combination of those. Conflicts between external stakeholders may be the most difficult to resolve because of their diversity and because of the lack of established procedures for tackling most of them. For example, in developed societies, public opinion tends to be more opposed than supporter of a construction project encompassing some environmental impact, although it may respond to a specified public need; on the contrary, in less developed or poorer countries, the public may be more keen to accept
20
the project if it aims at solving important infrastructure needs (transportation, sewage, pipelines, water treatment, etc..) (Moura and Teixeira, 2010). Analyzing the conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders is an important step for stakeholder management (Freeman et al., 2007). In fact, conflicting parties seek mutually satisfactory solutions, which can be achieved by joint problem solving to seek alternative solutions. A high level of communication among parties can help in achieving a mutually acceptable solution (Chen and Chen, 2007). On the other hand ElGohary et al. (2006) proposed a set of steps in order to resolve differences between stakeholder, to deal with conflict by resolving a difference before and after it reach the stage of a dispute. It includes facilitation, negotiation, mediation and arbitration.
2.7.3.5 Stakeholders' power 95B
Brourne (2010) defied the power as an individual or group that may have to permanently change or stop the project or other work, The power as a factor is considered to be a key driver of stakeholder-manager relations for several reasons, since the definitions of stakeholders undoubtedly imply that relationships between stakeholders and the project reflect social-business exchanges, and power means the ability to “control resources, create dependencies, and support the interests of some organization members or groups over others” (Mitchell et al., 1997). Bourne and Walker (2005) believe that successful project managers should have the ability to understand the “invisible power” among stakeholders.
2.7.3.6 Stakeholders' legitimacy 96B
The legitimacy of a stakeholder is a prerequisite for the success of transactions with stakeholders (Freeman et al,. 2007). Mitchell et al. (1997) indicate that many scholars define stakeholders as those who have such legitimate relationships with the project (including contracts, moral, and legal rights). Mitchell et al. (1997) conclude that legitimacy is a social good something larger and more shared than mere self-perception that may be defined and negotiated differently at various levels of social organization. Legitimate stakeholders are those whose actions and claims must be accounted for by managers, due to their potential effects upon normative stakeholders. The legitimacy of
21
a stakeholder gives a sense that legitimacy reflects the contractual relations, legal and moral rights in relationships between stakeholders and a project (Nguyen, 2009). 2.7.3.7 Stakeholders' urgency 97B
Urgency is described by Mitchell et al. (1997) as the “degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention.” They argue that urgency only exists when two conditions are met: (1) When a relationship or a claim is of a time-sensitive nature. (2) Why that relationship or claim is important or critical to the stakeholder. They also state that urgency has two attributes: time-sensitive and critical. The urgency attributes of stakeholders decides the extent to which they exert pressure on a project manager by calling for emergency action.
2.7.3.8 Stakeholders' proximity 98B
Proximity, according to Bourne (2005) implies the extent to which a stakeholder is involved in the project. She uses proximity as a criterion to prioritize project stakeholders by rating them on a scale of 1-4 where 1 is relatively remote from the project (does not have direct involvement with the processes) and 4 been directly working on the project (most of the time). Bourne and Walker (2005) argue the need to take proximity into account stakeholder analysis by stating that stakeholders who may have strong power and influence but are relatively far from the project core may seem transparent / invisible. Therefore their potential impact may be underestimated.
2.7.3.9 Stakeholder' knowledge 9B
Yang et al. (2007) found in their research that automation and integration technology may contribute significantly to project performance in terms of stakeholder success. They argue that due to technological development, stakeholders can seek a variety of information from numerous sources. Undoubtedly, the more knowledge a stakeholder has about the project, the more he/she is able to influence it observe that today, Walker et al. (2008) pointed out to the importance of the receptiveness of each
22
stakeholder to gain the a knowledge about the project, and McElroy and Mills (2000) suggest stakeholder knowledge ranges from full awareness up total ignorance. The former refers to the intention of stakeholders to gain knowledge of the project by finding the facts to help them achieve their own objectives. The latter, on the other hand, refers to the fact that stakeholders have knowledge of the project by hearsay and assumptions rather than facts. Additionally, it may be argued that although the stakeholder may have a strong salience to, and great interest in, the project, it hardly accounts for influence if the stakeholder lacks sufficient knowledge. As such, stakeholder knowledge is considered a driver, affecting stakeholder impact on projects.
2.7.4
Decision making group Based on the outcomes in ‘information input’, and the outcomes in ‘stakeholder
assessment’, the project management team has the responsibility to compromise conflicts among stakeholders by choosing the transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern, and to decide on the levels of stakeholder engagement in order to ensure effective communication, and formulate appropriate strategies to deal with the issues raised by stakeholders at this stage.
2.7.4.1 Evaluation of alternative solutions 10B
Olander and Landin (2008) argue that the clear and transparent evaluation of alternative solutions for the development of a construction project based on the concerns of stakeholders would help project managers to establish the basis of trust needed for an adequate stakeholder management process. Also El Gohary et al. (2006) point out that the solution identification process is a cornerstone of the involvement program as it is the first step in incorporating the stakeholder input in the decision-making process. Since It includes the development of alternative solutions based on stakeholder input, analysis of these different solutions with respect to technical design criteria and stakeholder opinion, evaluation of the solutions, and finally selection of preferred solution (s) and development of preliminary mitigating measures.
23
2.7.4.2 Ensuring effective communication 10B
Jergeas et al., (2000) identified two aspects of improvements for managing the stakeholder one of them is communication with stakeholders. To ensure the success of a project much information, including expectations, goals, needs, resources, status reports, budgets and purchase requests, need to be communicated on a regular basis to all major stakeholders. Communications includes the processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection, distribution, storage, retrieval, and ultimate disposition of project information. Effective project managers spend about 90% of their time communicating with team members and other project stakeholders, whether they are internal (at all organizational levels) or external to the organization. Effective communication creates a bridge between diverse stakeholders involved in a project, connecting various cultural and organizational backgrounds, different levels of expertise, and various perspectives and interests in the project execution or outcome (Čulo and Skendrović, 2010). 2.7.4.3 Formulating appropriate strategies 102B
The central question of stakeholder management was “what are the strategies that organizations use to address stakeholders?” A similar result is obtained by Karlsen (2002) from a survey; he stated that there are different types of the strategies, but basically the stakeholder management strategy is the attitude how the project management team treats different stakeholders. In order to identify different kinds of strategies which are enacted by organizations as responses to the demands presented by external stakeholders, through an empirical analysis of 4 different projects, Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) explained the use and emergence of the “response strategies”. All these scholars have proved the importance of formulating appropriate strategies to deal with stakeholders.
2.7.5 Action & evaluation group 5B
The action and evaluation group is the final management activity group in the process of stakeholder management. The inputs required are the formulated strategies,
24
and the level of stakeholder engagement to ensure effective communication. This group includes three management activities.
2.7.5.1 Implementing the strategies 103B
Developing policy implementation strategy development grid can help planners and decision makers gain a clearer picture of what will be required for implementation and help them develop action plans that will tap stakeholder interests and resources (Bryson, 2004). This activity is self-explanatory. The formulated strategies should be implemented accordingly. The outcome of this activity is to keep the project moving forward.
2.7.5.2 Predicting stakeholders’ reactions 104B
After the strategies being implemented, the evaluation the stakeholders’ reactions to the strategies should be used to improve the objectives in the succeeding stakeholder management process. Predicting stakeholders’ reactions is an important factor when project managers make decisions about strategies to deal with stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2007).The stakeholder analyses have a longer-term aspects that are more related to the management of the whole project Lifecycle and project management must be aware when designing strategies on how to respond to stakeholder claims, and be aware of the implications of their responses to different dimensions of the project success ( Eloranta et al., 2008).
2.7.5.3 Evaluating stakeholder' satisfaction 105B
Yang et al., (2011a) placed an emphasis on the recognition of the fact that there are several stakeholders whose expectations and influences must be included in the project management process. And it has been emphasized that if a project’s key stakeholders are not satisfied with the ongoing project outcomes, the project team will as a result be required to adjust scope, time, cost and quality in order to meet the stakeholders’ requirements and expectations.
25
In terms of the construction industry, stakeholder satisfaction can be defined as the achievement of stakeholders' pre-project expectations in the actual performance of each project stage. This concept of construction stakeholder satisfaction has gradually become more important (especially with the growing tendency of stakeholder groups to try to influence the implementation of construction projects according to their individual concerns and needs (Li et al., 2013). Olander and landin (2008) found that the level of stakeholder satisfaction depends on two basic considerations: •
The concerns and needs of stakeholders,
•
The stakeholder management process, e.g. how they are treated.
2.7.6 Continuous support group 56B
Construction projects are transient (Bourne, 2005), but organizations are correspondingly permanent. Since many stakeholders, such as government, local communities and media, would be involved in later stages of the project process or in future projects, project managers, as the representatives of different organizations, have the responsibility to realize the change of their influence and relationships, promote a steady relationship with them, and communicate with them properly and frequently (Yang et al., 2009a). This group includes the activities which should be carried out to support the management activities implemented, and the name of this group as ‘continuous support’ come from that the activities within, not only support a single management process, or contribute to the success of a single project, but can be used for accumulating the experiences and knowledge of the project management team in the long term.
2.7.6.1 Frequently communicating with stakeholders 106B
Project success is tied to effectively communicate and managing relationships with the various stakeholders of the project. This makes stakeholder management an important issue in project management (Assudani and Kloppenborg, 2010). Researchers pointed out that formal and clear communication channels/networks are needed to
26
warrant an efficient information transfer. Therefore, increasing the degree of communication amongst the project participants, the higher the participant satisfaction (Takim, 2009; Leung, 2004). Communication is an essential process in the world of project management. It is difficult to master, but essential to make a good effort in achieving. Many times on troubled projects, project team members feel that if the communication had been better, the project would have run smoother. Therefore, communication is often listed as one of the most needed areas for improvement. To ensure the success of a project much information, including expectations, goals, needs, resources, status reports, budgets and purchase requests, need to be communicated on a regular basis to all major stakeholders (Čulo and Skendrović, 2010). Project managers should be highly skilled negotiators and communicators who are capable of managing individual stakeholder expectations and creating a positive culture change within the overall project (Olander and Landin, 2005).
2.7.6.2 Stakeholder involvement 107B
Participation of project stakeholders in different stages of construction project (e.g. the planning and development phases) can be beneficial in several ways (Li, & Skitmore, 2012). Identifying and analyzing stakeholder concerns in construction projects are indispensable tasks during the participation process in order to arrive at a consensus and avoid project failures (Atkin & Skitmore, 2008). Various problems have been encountered on infrastructure project around the world that has eventually led to project failure. Public opposition due to various factors has been reported as the main reason for failure in several instances, so the stakeholder involvement in infrastructure projects plays a very important role (El-Gohary, 2006).
2.7.6.3 Promoting relationship with stakeholders 108B
Successful relationships between the project management team and its stakeholders are vital for successful delivery of projects and meeting stakeholder expectations (Savage et al., 1991; Jergeas et al., 2000). Karlsen (2008) argues that it is wrong to ignore the stakeholders or attempt to impose a rigid detailed control on the project-stakeholder relationship. These are challenging and demands which the project 27
manager cannot overlook, but have to take into consideration and address, he was recognized that several factors affect project-stakeholder relationships, and identified the following factors as being the most interesting and important for building relationships between a project and its stakeholders: trust; uncertainty and control; resources and knowledge; and goal congruence.
2.7.6.4 Realizing changes of stakeholder 109B
The concepts of the change and dynamics of stakeholders were acknowledged by Freeman (1984). According to him, in reality stakeholders and their influence change over time, and this depends on the strategic issue under consideration. Dynamics of stakeholder is a very interesting and important aspect of the stakeholder concept (Elias et al., 2002). The uncertainty caused by stakeholders includes “who the stakeholders are”, the influence of them, their needs, and the implications of relationships among stakeholders (Ward and Chapman, 2008). The process of identifying, prioritizing, and engaging stakeholders cannot be a once-only event. The work of managing stakeholder does not stop according to plan activities. Since the nature and membership of the project stakeholder change according to the project Lifecycle stage, so the team needs to continuously scan their project stakeholder for unplanned occurrences that may trigger a review when the activity moves from one stage of its implementation to other stages (Bourne, 2010). As a result of that the evaluation of stakeholder demands and influence should be considered as a necessary and important step in the planning, implementation, and completion of any construction project (Olander and Landin, 2005).
2.7.6.5 Trust 10B
Pinto el al. (2009) have pointed to the importance of trust as a facilitator of positive relationships among project stakeholders. Trust is argued to enhance a variety of intra-organizational relationships, including project team dynamics, top management support، and coordination across functional departments. Likewise, trust is argued to improve the inter-organizational relationships among the principal actors in project development, such as contractors, owners, and suppliers. 28
2.7.6.6 Reduce uncertainty 1B
Turner and Müller, (2003) whom argue that most projects are subject to uncertainty and these inherent uncertainties need to be integration in order to deliver beneficial objectives of change. They underlined that an important way to reduce this uncertainty was to choose a partnering relationship where the risk was shared between the operator and the contractors.
2.7.6.7 Maintain alignment 12B
Goal congruence means that there are aligned goals, and therefore it is easier to trust the partner doing the job. In addition, Karlsen et al., (2008) argue that the willingness to take risks may be an indicator of aligned goals. This may be the reason why we found goal congruence to be more crucial for trust building between the project management and the stakeholders.
2.7.6.8 Access to resources and knowledge 13B
Access to resources and knowledge was seen as an important factor in the formation of relationships. (Karlsen, 2008 cited from Holt and Love, 2000) argue that alliances between organizations can provide a ‘means for survival’. The key is learning relationships and knowledge transfer. Acquiring knowledge from other organizations is not a deceitful act, but rather represents a commitment to utilize each other’s skill. This is supported by case studies done by Karlesen (2008) whom finds that the project event was an opportunity to acquire knowledge about the main supplier’s new technology and for this learning purpose a close relationship was necessary.
2.7.6.9 Higher authorities support 14B
As one of the findings from Yang et al. (2011b) in the interviews in Australia, that that the top-level support is important for management activities, in an organization with a mature stakeholder management environment, the higher authorities always monitor the management process, help figuring out problems, and used the effects of
29
stakeholder management as an indicator for performance measurement of the management team.
2.8 Stakeholder assessment 24B
Stakeholder assessment or stakeholder analysis has evolved in recent years as a technique for analyzing the likely interests and actions of stakeholders (Johnson and Scholes, 1993). Assessing the importance of stakeholder expectations is a key part of any project strategy analysis. It consists of making judgments on three issues. •
How to classify the stakeholder
•
Determine the prioritizing of each stakeholder
•
How to select the engagement level for every stakeholder.
2.8.1 Classification stakeholder 57B
Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed an approach for classification Stakeholders concern by various combinations of attributes including power, legitimacy, and urgency The levels of these attributes essentially drive the degree of stakeholders’ salience in projects. Mitchell et al. (1997) define seven types of stakeholders, depending on the degree of each attribute. Olander (2007) found that this classification provides a strong sense of stakeholder impact on projects when considering the alternative concurrence of attributes to determine the silence of stakeholders. Project managers, therefore, can categorize stakeholders to develop appropriate responses to manage those (Nguyen et al., 2009). Newcombe (2003) explains that the stakeholder classification as being an important aspect of the stakeholder management process as it helps to assess how each stakeholder group is likely to enforce its expectation on the project; whether these groups have the means to do so base on the power they possess; and the likely impact of stakeholder expectations on project strategy. He proposed two methods to assess this, which are; the power/predictability matrix and the power/interest matrix (Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4).
30
Figure 2.3 Power/predictability matrix
Figure 2.4 Power/Level of interest matrix
(Newcombe, 2003)
(Newcombe, 2003)
Nguyen et al. (2009) and Olander (2006) argue that there are certain problems connected with it. First, in order to conduct a thorough external stakeholder analysis the relative levels of power and interest need to be evaluated on a finer scale than one of high or low. One has power or one has an interest; it is hard assessing them on a scale. Instead of assessing power and interest it can be more relevant to assess the level of the potential impact that external stakeholders have and the probability that impact of a given level will occur. Thus, Olander (2007) mentioned that the power/interest matrix could be translated into the impact/probability matrix (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5 The stakeholder impact/probability matrix (Olander, 2007)
31
Bourne and Walker (2005) have developed this concept into the vested interestimpact index. The parameters ‘vested interest levels’ (probability of impact) and ‘influence impact levels’ (level of impact) and the concepts derived from the risk assessment process associated with the probability impact analysis. Nguyen et al., (2009) found that their approach is reasonable because, to some extent, stakeholders can be considered as project risks (including threats and opportunities). Nguyen et al. (2009) mentioned that that stakeholder level of impact could be calculated with the following formula: 𝐼 = P + L + U + K + D ………………………….(Nguyen et al., 2009)
Where:
I = Impact level of the stakeholder; P = Power level of stakeholder; L = Legitimacy level of stakeholder; U = Urgency level of stakeholder; K = Knowledge level of stakeholder; D = Degree of proximity for the stakeholder. On the other hand the second parameter in the matrix, the vested interest levels (probability of impact). Bourne and Walker (2005) suggest a scale for measuring stakeholder vested interest (v) as 1 -very low, 2-low, 3-neutral, 4-high, and 5-very high.
2.8.2 Prioritizing stakeholders 58B
Karlsen (2002) finds in his study for project stakeholder management that some stakeholders have power because they control information and resources, while other stakeholders are important because they decide whether the project result is a success or not; therefore, he was pointed to the importance of addressing which stakeholder is the most important to the project? Studies have been conducted and have suggested several methods combining two or more key drivers attributes’ in order to determine stakeholder influences on projects (McElroy and Mills, 2000; Johnson et al., 2005; Mitchell et al., 1997; Olander
32
,2007; Bourne and Walker, 2005 Nguyen et al., 2009). Based on those studies, Nguyen et al. (2009) was proposed an approach to determine the influence represented by the impact index of a stakeholder. These indexes are then used for prioritizing the project stakeholders according to their influence in the project, the stakeholder impact index can be calculated by using this formula:
Where:
𝑆II = ViII * POS …………………………………………(Nguyen et al., 2009)
SII = impact index of a stakeholder; ViII = vested interest impact index; Pos = Attitude position value. Olander (2007) explains that the attitude position value (Pos) could be numerically assessed as: active opposition (Pos =1), passive opposition (Pos= 0.5), not committed (Pos= 0), passive support (Pos= - 0.5), and active support (Pos= -1). Bourne and Walker, (2005) mentioned that the stakeholder impact index can then vested interest impact index (ViII) could be calculated by using this formula:
𝑣∗𝐼
Where:
𝑉𝑖𝐼𝐼 = � 25 …………………. ( Bourne and Walker, 2005)
Vill = vested interest impact index; I = Impact level of the stakeholder; v = vested interest of the stakeholder. As mentioned before, Bourne and Walker (2005) suggest a scale for measuring stakeholder vested interest (v) as 1 -very low, 2-low, 3-neutral, 4-high, and 5-very high. And the Impact level of the stakeholder ( I ) could be calculated by using Nguyen et al. (2009) formula.
2.8.3 Levels of stakeholder engagement 59B
Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2010) found that there are many different approaches to stakeholder management, but it can be categorized into four levels ( collaborate,
33
involve, inform, and consult) to manage construction stakeholders, as it is illustrated in Figure 2.6.
High
Keep satisfied
Key players
Interest protected
Maintain good relation
(Involve)
(Collaborate)
Importance
Level of impact
Keep informed
Minimal Effort
Monitor
Low
(Inform)
(Consult)
Low
High Influence Probability of impact
Figure 2.6: Levels of stakeholder management (Chinyio and Olomolaiye , 2010 adapted from Grimble and Wellard, 1997; Olander, 2007).
These four levels of stakeholder management should be applied, according to the stakeholder management objectives, as a result of stakeholder analysis, and the following is explanation about each type of engagement strategies to deal with stakeholder: •
Inform: means to provide the stakeholders with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems alternatives and/or solutions. This level expresses minimal effort of stakeholder involvement in the project. External stakeholders with lower probability of impact and lower level of impact need to be kept informed of decisions taken that may affect them directly. It is unlikely that they would play an active role in making those decisions. However, were they to highlight a particular issue with a decision, it is likely that serious consideration would be given to refining the decision made (Karlsen, 2002).
•
Consult: by obtaining stakeholders’ feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. This is the way to keep stakeholders informed about the project. Since the secondary stakeholders with higher probability of impact but level of impact need to be ‘kept on board,’ they should be consulted in order to seek their 34
opinions and input for key decisions that directly or indirectly affect them. It is unlikely that the strategy will be altered as a result of such consultation, but tactics may be well adjusted to maintain higher levels of commitment (Chinyio and Olomolaiye , 2010). •
Involve: to work directly with the stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that stakeholder concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. Despite their low probability of impact, stakeholders with high level of impact essentially need to be involved in all activities in the project according to their interest since they have the power to make decisions that impact the project. The management should work directly with these stakeholders to ensure that their concerns are consistently understood, considered, and reflected in the developed alternatives. As long as their interest is achieved, they are kept satisfied and retain passive rather than active interest in the project (Chinyio and Olomolaiye , 2010).
•
Collaborate: to partner with stakeholders in each aspect of the decision. Since the key stakeholders have a high probability of impact and level of impact to project success, they are likely to provide the project ‘coalition of support’ in planning and implementation. As such, they should be treated as partners to increase their engagement and commitment. This can be achieved by revising and tailoring project strategy, objectives, and outcomes if necessary to win their support (Savage et al., 1991).
2.9 Practical approaches for analyzing and engaging stakeholders 25B
Stakeholder analysis’ is a necessary part of successfully managing stakeholders (Olander, 2006). Reed (2008) ‘stakeholder analysis’ means to identify stakeholders and their interests, and assess stakeholders’ influence and relationships. In contrast to stakeholder analysis, stakeholder engagement is to communicate with, involve and develop relationships with stakeholders (Chinyio and Akintoye, 2008). Stakeholders should be engaged as early as possible, and this has been considered to be essential for stakeholder analysis and decision making (Reed, 2008).
35
According to Yang et al. (2011) project managers should choose approaches corresponding to the stakeholder management process, also he mentioned that there is no stand-alone approach, and most of the approaches should be combined with other approaches; and the selection should take into consideration not only the social and cultural context of the analysis but also limits the time and resources that can be reasonably allocated to this activity. Table 2.2 illustrates the some of the most common approaches that can be used for analyzing and engaging stakeholder.
Table 2.2: Approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement in construction
Strengths
Limitations
Formal memos
• Provides detailed information about stakeholders
• Can be time consuming to document the information
X
• Cheap and relatively easy to organize • Makes use of existing networks and allows specific stakeholders to be targeted • Face-to-face contact ensures attendees understand issues and information can be elicited about opinions they express • Allow in-depth discussion and understanding of issues • Individual contract means that the location of the meeting is flexible • Able to explain points in own language • Usually low cost and easy to arrange
• Unknown issues and previous relationships between the stakeholders may drive responses • Opinions might not be representative of the wider community
Meetings
Interviews
36
• Can be time consuming for the project team • Can be expensive • May not have sufficient time • Requires skilled interviewers • Little quantitative information gathered and not majority opinion
Engagement **
Approaches
* analysis
(Yang et al., 2011b)
X
X
X
Negotiations
Personal past experience Professional services
Questionnaire and surveys
Workshops
Strengths
Limitations
• Cheaper and faster to solve problems
• The project team should well prepared • Concessions should be made sometimes • May have cognitive limitations • Can be useless due to the unique nature of projects
• Clear understanding about the previous stakeholders • Saves time for consultations • Provide complete plans for stakeholder management • Saves time for project managers • Respondents’ anonymity can encourage more honest answers • Can reach respondents who are widely scattered or live considerable distances away • Provides information for those unlikely to attend meetings and workshops • Allows the respondent to fill out at a convenient time • Provide larger samples for lower total costs • Ideal for looking at specific issues • Excellent for discussion on criteria or analysis of alternatives • Offers a choice of team members to answer difficult questions • Builds ownership and credibility for the outcomes
• Can be costly • May have a bias on the project • Low response rates can bias the results. • Care must be taken that the wording of questions is unambiguous to prevent skewed results • Care is needed in sampling to make sure representative samples are taken • Information gathered can be superficial • Not a totally individualized discussion • Needs to be well facilitated by credible individuals who have the interpersonal skills to deal with challenging issues • If actions not followed through can destroy trust
Engagement **
Approaches
* analysis
Table 2.2: Approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement in construction (Yang et al., 2011b) (Continue)
X
X
X
X
X
• Only suitable for some stakeholders Social • Requires creativity and contacts resource investigation to reach a large number of people * Stakeholder analysis (an approach for determining the stakeholder' needs and concern); **Stakeholder engagement approach.
X
• Build trust with stakeholders • Maximizes two-way dialogue
37
X
2.10 Formulating stakeholder management strategies 26B
Construction projects may respond to stakeholder pressures and claims in various ways to deal with the issues rose. Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) found that the Companies involved in the execution of global projects may enact different strategic responses as a result of the stakeholder pressures, and they identifies and describes five different types of stakeholder management strategies, varying from passive to active approaches enacted by focal project companies. The identified stakeholder management strategies are an adaptation strategy, compromising strategy, avoidance strategy, dismissal strategy, and influence strategy (Table 2.3). Table 2.3 : Stakeholder management strategies ( Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2009) Type of response
Description
strategy
Obeying the demands and rules that are presented by stakeholders. It is
Adaptation
considered that in order to cope with the demands and to achieve the
strategy
objectives of the project it is better to adjust to the external stakeholder pressures Negotiating with the stakeholders, listening to their claims related to
Compromising
the project and offering possibilities and arenas for dialogues. Making
strategy
reconciliations and offering compensation. Opening the project to the stakeholders Loosening attachments to stakeholders and their claims in order to
Avoidance
guard and shield oneself against the claims. Transferring the
strategy
responsibility of responding to the claims to another actor in the project network
Dismissal strategy
Ignoring the presented demands of stakeholders. Not taking into account the stakeholder related pressures and their requirements in the project execution
Influence
Shaping proactively the values and demands of stakeholders. Sharing
strategy
actively information and building relationship with stakeholders
38
According to Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) the formulating of the strategy types depending on following factors: •
Position of the focal company in the project network;
•
Power of the stakeholder;
•
Legitimacy of the presented claims by stakeholders;
•
The means stakeholders use to advance their claims;
•
Experience of the focal company;
•
Responses of other actors in the project network.
2.11 Chapter summary 27B
This chapter introduced the concept of the stakeholder definition, types of stakeholder, stakeholder management in the construction process, critical success factors in stakeholder management process, stakeholder assessment, practical approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. After studying many previous studies in this chapter, the factors affecting stakeholder management process
were categorized into six groups: "management
support"; "information input"; "stakeholder assessment"; "decision making"; "action and evaluation"; and " continuous support". The stakeholder assessment in the construction project based on the stakeholder attributes (attitude, best interest, power, legitimacy, urgency, proximity, and knowledge) are presented an applicable tool, in order to determine the stakeholder impact on a project. Regarding the practical approaches that could be used in the stakeholder management process, the previous studies indicate that there are many approaches that can be used to manage the stakeholder, but the effectiveness of these approaches depends on the type of project, stakeholder analysis, and the objective that the project manager needs to reach. Table 2.4 illustrates the factors that influencing the stakeholder management process which was collected from the literature review. The factors categorized into six groups.
39
"Management support factors group" 1
Managing Stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities
2 3
Flexible project organization Project manager competences
x
x x x
x
"information input factors group" 4
Setting common goal and objective of the project
5 6
Identifying stakeholders Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation
X x
x x
X X
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x
x x
x
x
"Stakeholder Assessment Factors Group" 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Assessing stakeholders’ attitude Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests Predicting the influence of stakeholders Analyzing conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders Evaluate the stakeholder power Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy Understand the stakeholder urgency Determine the stakeholder proximity Determine the stakeholder Knowledge
x x
x x x
x
x x x
40
X X X X
x x x x
x
x x x
x x
x
x x x x x x
x x
x x x x x x x
x x x
Karlesen (2008)
Bryson (2004)
McElroy and Mills (2000) Nguyen et al. (2009)
Ye et al., (2009)
Yang et al. (2009b)
Olander and Landin (2008)
Aaltonen et al. (2008)
Freeman et al. (2007)
Young (2006)
El-Gohary et al. (2006)
Cleland and Ireland (2002) Leung et al. (2004) Bourne and Walker (2006)
Factors
Mitchell et al. (1997)
No.
Savage et al. (1991)
Table 2.4: Factors that influencing the stakeholder management process Source
Table 2.4: Factors that influencing the stakeholder management process (continued)
Aaltonen et al. (2008) Olander and Landin (2008) Yang et al. (2009b) Ye et al., (2009) McElroy and Mills (2000) Nguyen et al. (2009) Bryson (2004) Karlesen (2008)
Factors
Mitchell et al. (1997) Cleland and Ireland (2002) Leung et al. (2004) Bourne and Walker (2006) El-Gohary et al. (2006) Young (2006) Freeman et al. (2007)
No.
Savage et al. (1991)
Source
"Decision making factors group" 16 17 18
Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution
Ensuring effective communication Formulating appropriate strategies
x x
X
x x
x x
x x x
x x
x x
x x
"Action and evaluation factors group" 19 20
Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans Flexibility in the implementing strategy
21
Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction
x x
x x
x
" Continuous Support Factors Group" 22
Communication with the engaging stakeholder properly
23 24 25
Stakeholder involvement in decision-making Promoting a good relationship among stakeholders Analyzing the change of multiple stakeholder engagement
26
Obtain support assistant from higher authorities
27
Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder
x
28 29 30
Reduce the uncertainty Maintain alignment between or among the stakeholder Access to resource and knowledge
x
x x X
x x
x x x
x x x
X
x
x
x x
x x
41
Chapter 3: Research methodology 4B
This chapter discusses the methodology that is used in this research. The adopted methodology to accomplish this study uses the following techniques: review of literature related to stakeholder management, questionnaire for gathering data, and interview with professionals from the construction industry and data analysis. This chapter provides the information about the research strategy and design, research population and sample, questionnaire design, the process of data collection, and statistical data analysis. Content validity and pilot study are also summarized.
3.1 Research flowchart 28B
This research consists of seven phases (see Figure 3.1); • The first one is to define the problems and establishing the objectives of the study in order to develop a research plan. • The second phase of the research includes a literature review. Literatures of the critical success factors affecting the stakeholder management and an identify effective approaches for stakeholder management. • The third phase of the research included a field survey. • The fourth phase of the research focused on the modification of the questionnaire design, through distributing the questionnaire to the pilot study, where experts in governmental, non-governmental, local and international institutions were contacted. • The purpose of the pilot study was to prove that the questionnaire questions are clear to be answered in a way that help to achieve the objectives of the study. The questionnaire was modified based on the results of the pilot study. • The fifth phase of the research was questionnaire distribution. The questionnaire was used to collect the required data in order to achieve the research objective. • The sixth phase of the research focused on data analysis and discussion. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to perform the required analysis. • The final phase of the research included the conclusions and recommendations.
42
Topic selection Define The Problem
Develop Research Plan
Thesis Proposal Establish Objectives
Literature Review
Field survey
Questionnaire Design
Pilot Study
Questionnaires Validity
Interviews experts, consultants, NGO’s and governance officers
Survey and Data Collection
Resaults and Discussion Establish a Frame Work
Questionnaires Reliability Conclusion and Recommendation
Figure 3.1: Research methodology flowchart
43
Researcher Experience
3.2 Research strategy 29B
Research strategy can be defined as the way in which the research objectives can be questioned, and there are two types of research strategies, quantitative and qualitative research (Naoum, 2007). Quantitative approaches seek to gather factual data and to study relationships between facts and how such facts and relationships accord with theories and the findings of any research executed previously, where qualitative approaches seek to gain insights and to understand people's perception of "the world" whether as individuals or groups (Fellows and Liu, 2008). In this research, a quantitative approach is selected to understand the factor affecting the stakeholder management in construction projects and investigate the local practice of the stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip, and these quantitative data that will be obtained from questionnaires.
3.3 Research period 30B
The study started in August, 2011 when the initial proposal was approved. The literature review was completed by the end of November, 2012. The validity testing, piloting and questionnaire distribution and collection took two months and completed in the beginning of January, 2013. The analysis, discussion, conclusion and recommendation were completed at the beginning of March, 2013.
3.4 Research population 31B
The population in this research includes the project managers or those who have abundant experiences in stakeholder management of construction projects. According to Saunders et al. (2007) there are two major types of sampling designs: probability and non-probability sampling, in probability sampling, elements of the population have some known chance or probability of being selected as sample subjects, and in nonprobability sampling, the elements do not have a known or predetermined chance of being selected as subjects which fit into the board categories of convenience & purposive sampling: i) Convenience sampling: where info or data for the research are gathered from members of the population who are conveniently accessible to the researcher, and ii) purposive sampling: where the required info is gathered from special
44
or specific targets or groups of people on some rational bases.
Non-probability
sampling (purposive sampling) has been chosen for this research since the target population is quite small. The practitioners have been selected randomly. The targeted population consists of 56 governmental agencies, NGO’s and INGO’s that they are involved in the stakeholder management in the Gaza strip. The population members got their experiences through their extended career in consulting firms, local institutions or ministries, municipalities, implementing agencies, international agencies whom are involved in implementation of the construction projects in the Gaza strip. The targeted sample was the i) governmental institutions, ii) semi-governmental institution, iii) municipalities, iv) local non-government organization and v) the UN agencies and international non-government organization in the Gaza strip.
3.5 Sample characteristics 32B
The targeted population consists of experts, project managers and consulting engineers, from diverse organizations with experience and with direct contacts in their jobs in the stakeholder management. As the population of the research is limited, the 56 governmental agencies, NGO’s and INGO’s are the targeted sample to be those who were involved in the stakeholder management in the Gaza Strip and illustrated in Table 3.1. (i)
Governmental institutions , Semi-Governmental institutions, and Municipalities: (Ministry of local government, Ministry of public work and housing, Ministry of health, Ministry of education, Municipal development and lending Fund (MDLF), Coastal municipalities water utility (CMWU), Palestinian economic council for development and reconstruction (PECDAR), Municipality of Gaza, al Zahra, Wadi gaza, Beit hanoun, Beit lahia , Jabalia, Deir el balah, El magazi, Khanyounis, Bani suhaila, Garara, Foukhari, Shouka, Rafah, el Msader, Nusseirat, Beriej, Zawaida, Wadi salga, Um el naser, Abasan el kabira, Abasan el jadida, Khuzaa, El naser, and Johr el dik).
(ii)
NGO’s : (Palestinian Council of Housing, al Rahmah society for Charity, Dar Alkitab WA Alsonna society, The Arab and international commission to build Gaza, Welfare Association, Non-governmental Organizations Development Center (NDC) , and Human appeal international - Gaza). 45
(iii)
UN agencies and INGO’s: (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), UNICEF, World Bank, CHF International, Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TİKA), Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), MER-C Indonesia, Anera, Qatar Charity, Quaker, Islamic Relief worldwide, Islamic Relief France, Qatar Red Crescent Society (QRCS), Interpal, and Muslim Hands). Table 3.1: Sample categorize
#
Type Governmental
1
No ,
Semi-Governmental
institutions,
and
33
Municipalities (I) 3
NGO’s (II)
7
4
UN agencies and INGO’s (III)
16
Total
56
Although the sample population are (56) organizations, (98) questionnaires were distributed to the same sample, since within the same organization, especially the UN agencies and INGO’s many construction projects are executed, and with the same institution there is more than one project manager, and to overcome the risk of not responding from the respondents and to reflect higher reliability and benefits for the study. The details are shown in Table 3.2. More than one experienced and operative officer with direct contacts in their jobs of the stakeholder management process, was approached within each of the mentioned institutions, when possible, to obtain data based on cumulative experience and in different areas of the Gaza Strip; (98) questionnaire was distributed, the characteristics of the (67) valid responses were illustrated in Table 3.2.
46
Table 3.2: Classification of sample size
#
Type
Number of distributed questionnaires
Number of respondents
% of respondents
1
Governmental institutions (I)
43
26
60%
2
NGO’s (II)
7
5
71%
3
UN agencies and INGO’s (III)
48
36
75%
Total
98
67
68%
3.6 Research location 3B
The research was carried out in the Gaza Strip, which consists of five governorates, the Northern governorate, Gaza governorate, the middle governorate, Khanyounus governorate and Rafah governorate. These five areas are considered the southern governors of the state of Palestine.
3.7 Data collection 34B
The questionnaire was chosen to be the method of collecting data in this research, since the questionnaire is probably the most widely used data collection technique for conducting surveys. Questionnaires have been widely used for descriptive and analytical surveys in order to find out the facts, opinions and views (Naoum, 2007). It enhances confidentiality, supports internal and external validity, facilitates analysis, and saves resources. Data are collected in a standardized form from samples of the population. The standardized form allows the researcher to carry out statistical inferences on the data, often with the help of computers. The used questionnaire has some limitations such as: it must contain simple questions, no control over respondents and respondents may answer generally (Naoum, 2007).
47
3.8 Questionnaire design 35B
The good design of the questionnaire is a key to obtain good survey results and warranting a high rate of return. The questions of the research questionnaire are constructed based on: •
Literature review.
•
More than six interviews with project manager, to obtain many basic important thoughts which can be useful for creating questions.
The questionnaire comprised of four parts to accomplish the objectives of this research, as follows: 1) Part I: General information about the population. This part mainly designed to provide general information about the respondents in terms of the type of institutions, position and experience of the respondent. 2) Part II: factors affecting the stakeholder management process. One of the objectives of this research is to investigate factors affecting the stakeholder management process in construction project. So, the previous studies were used to build a comprehensive list of critical success factors affecting the stakeholder management process. 30 factors affecting stakeholder management process in construction projects are selected. These factors are grouped into 6 groups based on literature review. The factors, which are considered in the questionnaire, are summarized and collected according to previous studies as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project Group #1: Management Support 1 Managing Stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities 2 Flexible project organization 3 Project manager competencies Group #2: Information input 4 Setting common goal and objective of the project 5 Identifying stakeholders 6 Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation
48
Table 3.3: Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project (continue) Group #3: Stakeholder assessment 7 Assessing stakeholders’ attitude 8 Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests 9 Predicting the influence of stakeholders 10 Analyzing conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders 11 Evaluate the stakeholder power 12 Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy 13 Understand the stakeholder urgency 14 Determine the stakeholder proximity 15 Determine the stakeholder Knowledge Group #4: Decision making 16 Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern 17 Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder 18 Formulate appreciate strategy to deal with stakeholder Group #5: Action and evaluation 19 Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans 20 Flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction 21 Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction Group #6: Continuous support 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Communication with the engaging stakeholder properly and frequently Stakeholder involvement in decision-making Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship with stakeholder Analyzing the change of multiple stakeholder engagement and the relation Obtain support assistant from higher authorities Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder Reduce the uncertainty Maintain alignment between or among the stakeholder Access to resource and knowledge
3) Part III: Approaches for stakeholder management practice in the Gaza Strip. One of the objectives of this research is to evaluate the current practice approaches of stakeholder management in the construction project. So, the previous studies were used to build a comprehensive list of practical approaches of stakeholder management, and three questions were designed to investigate the most effective approach that project manager in the Gaza Strip which is frequently used in managing the stakeholders, in the following fields:
49
•
What are the effective methods for analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need?
•
What are the effective methods for engaging the stakeholders?
•
What are the effective response strategies to deal with the stakeholder claims?
4) Part IV: Evaluation the attributes of the stakeholders in the construction project in the Gaza Strip. To identify the stakeholders' influence in the construction project and the engagement level to deal with them. Seven attributes of stakeholder were put in the designed questionnaire, in order to achieve this objective.
Power, proximity,
legitimacy, urgency, knowledge, vested interest, and attitude were evaluated by respondents in Likert scale, and the obtained results will be used in calculating the following indicators: (i) stakeholder impact, (ii) stakeholder vested interest-impact index, and (iii) stakeholder influence index. These indicators demonstrate the level of stakeholders’ influence on the project according to Nguyen et al. (2009). The draft questionnaire was discussed with supervisor to obtain the valuable advices and comments. After modifying the preliminary draft questionnaire, it was submitted to supervisor to have preliminary approval. Six copies of questionnaire were piloted; In general, the experts agreed on the questionnaire are suitable to achieve the objectives of this study. The researcher had conducted the required modifications and suggestions on the statements of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was classified into close form or restricted type nine page questionnaire, accompanied by a covering letter was used for gathering data. The letter indicated the objectives of the research and explained to respondents that the results of the questionnaire would be used to investigate the stakeholder management process in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. The final version of the questionnaire was designed in English language (attached in Annex 2), while the distributed version was in Arabic language (attached in Annex 1), since the Arabic language is much more effective and easier to be understood to get more realistic results. This questionnaire was designed based on numerous previous studies such as Savage et al. (1991), Mitchell et al. (1997), Cleland and Ireland (2002), Leung et al. (2004), Bourne and Walker (2006), El-Gohary et al. (2006), Young (2006), Freeman et
50
al. (2007), Aaltonen et al. (2008), Olander and Landin (2008), Yang et al. (2009b), Ye et al. (2009), McElroy and Mills (2000), Nguyen et al. (2009), Bryson (2004), and Karlesen (2008).
3.9 Pilot study 36B
It is customary practice that the survey instrument should be piloted to measure its validity and reliability and test the collected data. The pilot study was conducted by distributing the prepared questionnaire to panels of experts having experience in the same field of the research to have their remarks on the questionnaire. Eight experts representing two panels were contacted to assess the questionnaire validity. The first panel, which consisted of six experts, two from governmental agencies and the municipality’s, and three from UN agencies and INGO's, and one from NGO's, were asked to verify the validity of the questionnaire topics and its relevance to the research objective. The second panel, which consisted of two experts in statistics, was asked to identify that the instrument used was valid statistically and that the questionnaire was designed well enough to provide relations and tests among variables. Expert comments and suggestions were collected and evaluated carefully. All the suggested comments and modifications were discussed with the study’s supervisor before taking them into consideration. At the end of this process, some minor changes, modifications and additions were introduced to the questions and the final questionnaire was constructed.
3.10 Data measurement 37B
In this research, ordinal scales were used. Ordinal scale is a ranking or a routing data that normally use integer in ascending or descending order. The numbers assigned to the agreement or degree of influence (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) does not indicate that the interval between scales is equal, nor do they indicate absolute quantities. They are merely numerical labels (Naoum, 2007). Based on Likert scale we have the following:
51
Item
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Scale
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Item
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Scale
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
1
2
3.11 Data Processing and Analysis 38B
The questionnaire quantitative data analysis was done by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20) and the following statistical tools were used: Spearman correlation coefficient. 1
Frequencies and Percentile
2
The relative importance index
3
Cronbach's Alpha for Reliability Statistics.
4
Non-parametric Tests (Sign test, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient)
3.11.1 The Relative Importance Index (RII) 60B
Likert scaling was used for ranking questions that have an agreed level. The respondents were required to rate the importance of each factor on a 5-point Likert scale using 1 for not important, 2 for of little importance, 3 for somewhat important, 4 for important and 5 for very important. Then, the Relative Importance Index was computed using the following equation: Relative Importance Index ∶
∑ w 5n5 + 4n4 + 3n3 + 2n2 + 1n1 = AN 5N
Where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondent, ranging from 1 to 5, (n1 = number of respondents for not important, n2 = number of respondents for little importance, n3 = number of respondents for somewhat important, n4 = number of respondents for important, n5 = number of respondents for very important). "A" is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in the study) and N is the total number of samples. The relative importance index ranges from 0 to 1 (Tam and Le, 2006).
52
3.11.2 Cronbach's Alpha 61B
This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field and the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α) value between 0.0 and + 1.0, and the higher values reflects a higher degree of internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003). ∝=
Kr 1 + (K − 1)r
The closer the Alpha (α) is to 1, the greater the internal consistency of items in the instrument being assumed. The formula that determines alpha is fairly simple and makes use of the items (variables), k, in the scale and the average of the inter-item correlations, r.
3.11.3 Non-parametric Test 62B
Non-parametric methods are widely used for studying populations that take on a ranked order. The use of non-parametric methods may be necessary when data have a ranking but no clear numeric interpretation, or for data on ordinal scale non-parametric methods make fewer assumptions; their applicability is much wider than the corresponding parametric methods. In particular, they may be applied in situations where less is known about the application in question. Also, due to the reliance on fewer assumptions, non-parametric methods are more robust. Another justification for the use of non-parametric methods is simplicity. In certain cases, even when the use of parametric methods is justified, non-parametric methods may be easier to use. Due both to this simplicity and to their greater robustness, non-parametric methods are seen by some statisticians as leaving less room for improper use and misunderstanding (Corder and Foreman, 2009).
3.11.3.1 Sign test: 15B
It is used to determine if the mean of a paragraph is significantly different from a hypothesized value 3. If the P-value (Sig.) is smaller than or equal to the level of significance, α =0.05 , then the mean of a paragraph is significantly different from a
53
hypothesized value 3. The sign of the Test value indicates whether the mean is significantly greater or smaller than hypothesized value 3. On the other hand, if the Pvalue (Sig.) is greater
than the level of significance, α =0.05 , then the mean a
paragraph is insignificantly different from a hypothesized value 3. It is used to examine if there is a statistical significant difference between two means among the respondents toward investigating the disaster management process In the Gaza Strip due to qualification. 3.11.3.2 Spearman rank correlation coefficient 16B
A Spearman rank correlation coefficient is used to determine whether there is evidence of a linear relationship between two ordinal variables, or, if both variables are interval and the normality requirement may not be satisfied. The sample Spearman correlation coefficient is denoted rs and is given by:
Where:
2 6 ∑𝑛 𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 𝑟s = 1𝑛(𝑛2 −1)
rs = Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient d = the difference in ranking between the usage and effectiveness of factors n = the number of factors
3.12 Validity of Questionnaire 39B
Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to be measuring. Validity has a number of different aspects and assessment approaches. Statistical validity is used to evaluate instrument validity, which include internal validity and structure validity.
3.12.1 Internal Validity The internal validity of the questionnaire is the first statistical test that used to test the validity of the questionnaire. It is measured by a scouting sample, which consisted
54
of 20 questionnaires through measuring the correlation coefficients between each factor in one group and the whole field.
Part II: Factors affecting the stakeholder management process. Table 3.4 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group "management support" and the total of the factors. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.4: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "management support" and the total of this field No.
Factors
1
Managing Stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
.666
0.000
2
Flexible project organization
.835
0.000
3
Project manager competencies
.648
0.000
Table 3.5 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group "Information Input" and the total of the factors. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.5: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "information input" and the total of this field Spearman Correlation P-Value No. Factors Coefficient (Sig.) Setting common goal and objective 1 .726 0.000 of the project 2 3
Identifying stakeholders Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation
55
.812
0.000
.697
0.000
Table 3.6 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group “stakeholder assessment" and the total of the factor. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.6: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "stakeholder assessment" and the total of this field No.
Factors
1
Assessing stakeholders’ attitude Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests Predicting the influence of stakeholders Analyzing conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders Evaluate the stakeholder power Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy Understand the stakeholder urgency Determine the stakeholder proximity Determine the stakeholder Knowledge
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Spearman Correlation Coefficient .479
P-Value (Sig.) 0.000
.613
0.000
.620
0.000
.601
0.000
.541 .639 .766 .606
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.643
0.000
Table 3.7 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group “decision making" and the total of the factor. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.7: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "decision making" and the total of this field No. 1
2 3
Factors Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder Formulate appreciate strategy to deal with stakeholder 56
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
.674
0.000
.752
0.000
.851
0.000
Table 3.8 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group "action and evaluation" and the total of the factor. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this group are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.8: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "action and evaluation" and the total of this field Spearman Correlation P-Value No. Factors Coefficient (Sig.) Implementing the strategy based on 1 .214 0.041 schedule plans Flexibility in the implementing 2 strategy to deal with stakeholder' .789 0.000 reaction 3 Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction .777 0.000 Table 3.9 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the group "continuous support" and the total of the factors. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.9: Correlation coefficient of each factor of "continuous support" and the total of this field Spearman Correlation P-Value No. Factors Coefficient (Sig.) Communication with the engaging 1 .290 0.009 stakeholder properly and frequently Stakeholder involvement in decision2 .424 0.000 making Keeping and promoting an ongoing 3 .570 0.000 relationship with stakeholder Analyzing the change of multiple 4 stakeholder engagement and the .484 0.000 relation Obtain support assistant from higher 5 .465 0.000 authorities Mutual trust and respect amongst the 6 .566 0.000 stakeholder 7 Reduce the uncertainty .476 0.000 Maintain alignment between or 8 .569 0.000 among the stakeholder 9 Access to resource and knowledge .475 0.000
57
Part III: Approaches for stakeholder management practice in the Gaza Strip. Table 3.10 clarifies the correlation coefficient each factor of the group “methods of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need" and the total of the methods. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this factor are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the methods of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.10: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "methods of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need" and the total of this field No. 1 2 3 4 5
Spearman Correlation Coefficient .418 .399 .678 .472 .558
Paragraph Personal past experience Interviews Questionnaires and surveys Professional services Workshops
P-Value (Sig.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 3.11 clarifies the correlation coefficient each factor of the group “engagement methods" and the total of the methods. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the methods of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.11: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "engagement methods" and the total of this field Spearman Correlation P-Value No. Paragraph Coefficient (Sig.) 1 Meetings .527 0.000 2 Social contacts .416 0.000 3 Negotiations .539 0.000 4 Workshops .468 0.000 5 Interviews .552 0.000 Table 3.12 clarifies the correlation coefficient each factor of the group “Response strategy" and the total of types. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the types of this group are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to.
58
Table 3.12: Correlation coefficient of each paragraph of "response strategy" and the total of this field No. 1 2 3 4 5
Spearman Correlation Coefficient .542 .565 .293 .412 .548
Paragraph Adaptation strategy Avoidance strategy Compromising strategy Dismissal strategy Influence strategy
P-Value (Sig.) 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000
Part IV: Evaluation the attributes of the stakeholders in the construction project in the Gaza Strip. Table 3.13 & 3.14 clarify the correlation coefficient each attribute of the stakeholder “attitude, vested interest, power, proximity, legitimacy, urgency, and knowledge" and the total of each attribute. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of these factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the attribute of these groups are consistent and valid to be measuring what it was set to. Table 3.13: Correlation coefficient of each stakeholder "attitude, vested interest, power, and proximity" and the total of this field
P-Value (Sig.)
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Proximity
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Power
P-Value (Sig.)
Vested Interest
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Attitude
1
Client
.313
0.005
.306
0.006
.337
0.003
.310
0.005
2
Consultant Contractor Donor INGO / NGO
.471
0.000
.384
0.001
.607
0.000
.542
0.000
.428
0.000
.233
0.029
.344
0.002
.515
0.000
.473
0.000
.364
0.001
.356
0.002
.255
0.019
.437
0.000
.566
0.000
.621
0.000
.450
0.000
.617
0.000
.640
0.000
.577
0.000
.468
0.000
.661
0.000
.636
0.000
.444
0.000
.518
0.000
.493
0.000
.483
0.000
.455
0.000
.451
0.000
.433
0.000
.518
0.000
.331
0.003
.399
0.000
No.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Paragraph
Governmental
Authorities Beneficiary / end user General public Landowner / neighbor
59
Table 3.14: Correlation coefficient of each stakeholder "legitimacy, urgency, and knowledge" and the total of this field
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Knowledge
P-Value (Sig.)
Urgency
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Legitimacy
1
Client
.376
0.001
.338
0.003
.304
0.006
2
Consultant
.426
0.000
.525
0.000
.283
0.010
3
Contractor
.431
0.000
.525
0.000
.261
0.016
4
Donor
.394
0.000
.492
0.000
.664
0.000
5
INGO / NGO
.602
0.000
.701
0.000
.694
0.000
.385
0.001
.682
0.000
.668
0.000
.649
0.000
.580
0.000
.448
0.000
.235
0.028
.312
0.005
.349
0.002
.254
0.019
.181
0.044
.450
0.000
No.
6
7
8
9
Paragraph
Governmental Authorities Beneficiary / end user General public Landowner / neighbor
3.12.2 Structural validity of the questionnaire 64B
Structure validity is the second statistical test that used to test the validity of the questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each factor and the validity of the whole questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between one field and all the factors of the questionnaire that have the same level of liker scale. Table 3.15 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each field and the whole questionnaire. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of all the factors are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the factors are valid to be measured what it was set for to achieve the main aim of the study.
60
Table 3.15: Correlation coefficient of each field and the whole of questionnaire No.
Field
1
Management support Information input of stakeholder management Stakeholder assessment Decision making of stakeholder management Action and evaluation Continuous support Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project Methods of analyze stakeholders’ concern and need Engagement methods for the stakeholders Response strategy types to deal with the stakeholder claims Stakeholder management practice Attitude Vested Interest Power Proximity Legitimacy Urgency Knowledge Evaluate the attributes of the stakeholders in the construction project
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Spearman Correlation Coefficient .369 .383 .791 .670 .725 .703
P-Value (Sig.) 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.570
0.000
.538 .713
0.000 0.000
.655
0.000
.372 .696 .825 .775 .672 .673 .757 .752
0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.860
0.000
3.13 Reliability of the research 40B
The reliability of an instrument is the degree of consistency which measures the attribute; it is supposed to be measuring (Polit & Hunger, 1985). The less variation an instrument produces in repeated measurements of an attribute, the higher its reliability. Reliability can be equated with the stability, consistency, or dependability of a measuring tool. The test is repeated to the same sample of people on two occasions and then compares the scores obtained by computing a reliability coefficient (Polit & Hunger, 1985).
61
3.13.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field and the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha value between 0.0 and + 1.0, and the higher values reflects a higher degree of internal consistency. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated for each field of the questionnaire. The values of Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire equal 0.895 (Table 3.16), which indicates an excellent reliability of the entire questionnaire. Cronbach's Alpha equals 0.895 for the entire questionnaire which indicates an excellent reliability of the entire questionnaire.
Table 3.16: Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire No.
Cronbach's
Field
Alpha
1
Management Support
0.525
2
Information input of stakeholder management
0.628
3
Stakeholder assessment
0.794
4
Decision making of stakeholder management
0.646
Action and evolution
0.341
6
Continuous support
0.697
7
Factors affecting the stakeholder management in
5
the construction project
0.850
8
Methods of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need
0.388
9
Engagement methods for the stakeholders
0.381
10 Response strategy types to deal with the stakeholder claims 11 Stakeholder management practice
62
0.185 0.520
Table 3.16: Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire (continue) No.
Cronbach's
Field
Alpha
12 Attitude
0.550
13
Vested Interest
0.570
14
Power
0.609
15
Proximity
0.550
16
Legitimacy
0.491
17
Urgency
0.627
18
Knowledge
0. 604
19
Evaluate the attributes of the stakeholders in the
0.90
construction project 20
All factors of the questionnaire
0.895
Thereby, it can be said that the researcher proved that the questionnaire was valid, reliable, and ready for distribution for the population sample.
63
Chapter 4: Results and discussion 5B
This chapter discusses the results that have been deduced from a field survey of 67 questionnaires, 26 governmental & municipal institution respondents, 36 of UN agencies and INGO’s respondents, and 5 NGO’s respondents. Section one will present the profiles and all necessary information about the respondents, section two was designed to identify and rank the most common factors affecting the stakeholder management process in construction project, section three will answer the questions of how to engage construction stakeholder projects in the Gaza Strip, section four will evaluate the effective practical approaches in the stakeholder management, and section five will discuss the relation between stakeholder management process in order to build a framework for stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip.
4.1
Section one: Organizational profiles This section mainly designed to provide general information about the
respondents in terms of the type of institutions, position and experience of the respondent.
4.1.1 Type of institutions 6B
Table 4.1 shows that, 38.8 % (26 out of 67) of the respondents are governmental and municipal institution, 7.5 % (5 out of 67 ) are NGO’s, and 53.7% (36 out of 67) UN agencies and INGO’s, such as ministries, municipalities, NGO’s and international institutions were participating in the questionnaire. It is important to point that most of the constructed projects were implemented by UN agencies like UNDP and UNRWA and INGO’s. The high percentage of this category reflects a good indicator to ensure from quality information beside the other general information.
4.1.2 Job title for respondent 67B
Table 4.1 shows that, 7.5 % (5 out 67) were general manager, 67.2% (45 out of 67) of respondents were project managers, and 21% (17 out of ) of respondents were supervisor engineer where it can be seen that more than 74.4% of the respondents have key positions that support the quality of gained information.
64
4.1.3 Years of respondent experience 68B
Table 4.1 shows that, 31.3 % (19 out of 67) of the respondents have years of experience between 5 - less than 10 years. 44.8 % (30 out of 67) of the respondents from the total sample have years of experience between 10 - Less than 15 years. 2.9 % (16 out of 67) of respondents from the total sample have years of experience 15 and more, where it can be seen that more than 68.7 % of the respondents have an experience more than 10 years, which is cross checked with the obtained results in the job title of the respondent (74.4% of the respondents have key positions). This gives a good indicator that the respondents have the minimal level of experience with the stakeholder management issue. Moreover, the variety of experiences between each group will enrich the research with different knowledge and information. Table 4.1: Respondents’ profile General information
Frequency
Percent
Governmental agencies & Municipality
26
38.8%
UN agencies and INGO’s
36
53.7%
Non-governmental organization
5
7.5%
General manager
5
7.5%
Project manager
45
67.2%
Supervisor engineer
17
25.4%
5-Less than 10
21
31.3%
10-Less than 15
30
44.8%
15 and more
16
23.9%
Type of institution
Job title for respondent
Years of respondent experience
65
4.2 Section two: Factors affecting the stakeholder management process 42B
Research questions: which factors are considered effective in the current practice of stakeholder management project in the Gaza Strip? Research objective: To identify and rank the most common factors affecting the stakeholder management process in construction project. This part consists of results and discussion of factors that influence the stakeholder management process. These factors were grouped into six groups. The first group is related to factors affect the management support in stakeholder management process. The second group is related to factors influencing the information input for stakeholder management. The third group is related to factors influence the stakeholder assessment. The fourth group is related to factors affect the decision making in the stakeholder management. The fifth group is related to factors that can make the action and evolution efficiently. The last group is related to the factors of continuous support of the stakeholder management process. From Table 4.2, it is shown the Relative Importance Index (RII), and the ranks of each group affecting the stakeholder management process. Thirty factors have been identified through the literature review. The critical success factors will be discussed based on the following assumption: All the factors with mean score 4 and above will be discussed in each group related to the research objectives and research questionnaire, and at the end of the discussion of each group, the statistical verification of hypothesis tests will be presented. Table 4.2: RII's and test values for groups affecting the stakeholder management process Groups
Mean
RII (%)
4.45 4.45 4.31 4.15 4.09 4.05
88.96 88.96 86.27 83.08 81.82 81.06
Decision making Information input Management support Action and evaluation Continuous support Stakeholder' assessment
66
P-value (Sig.) 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rank 1 1 3 4 5 6
4.2.1 Factors affect the management support (group one) 69B
From Table 4.3, it is shown that the “project manager competences” was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the management support in the stakeholder management process with Relative Importance Index equals (94.33%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance. α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the satisfaction of respondents regarding the importance of the project manager competencies. In decision making, project manager often presents data to audiences who do not share the values of their technical culture. This means that the role of the project manager must involve not just an understanding of the technical process, but also an understanding of the links between technique, and the community. The obtained result clarifies that project manager should acquire knowledge and uses his competencies to engage stakeholder effectively. Thus, the implemented agencies should hire the project manager with a high competence, to manage the stakeholder. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Enshassi et al. (2009), Jarad (2012), Karlson (2002), and Olander and Landin (2008). “Managing stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities” was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the management support in the stakeholder management process, with Relative Importance Index equals (90.62%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the satisfaction of respondents regarding the importance of the managing stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities. Since the construction industry in the Gaza Strip plays a significant role in the social and economic development through constructing buildings and infrastructure projects that meet the needs of the community in the short and long terms, and supports government efforts by achieving strategic development objectives, increasing gross domestic product and offering employment opportunities. This result has come to be soundly when we note the level of acceptance of the general public toward the infrastructure project, which was designed to take in its consideration to perform many activities by using the manual labor force instead of machinery. Many implemented agencies follow
67
these strategies (e.g. UNRWA, and UNDP) to overcome with the need of reducing of high rate the unemployment within the Gaza Strip. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Othman and Abdellatif (2011), and Yang et al. (2009b). “Flexible project organization.” was ranked in the last position the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (80.60%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents' perceptions showed that there is a need for the flexibility in administering the project to recruit personnel to achieve the objectives for the project, since one objective of stakeholder management was to gain an acceptance from stakeholders on the implementation of the project, so project manager needs delegation and authority from his top management in order to able to reach the objective of the project. This issue was studied in managerial obstacles facing the Gaza Seaport project (Al-Madhoun, 2007), and one of the recommendations is to provide the Gaza Seaport Authority with the needed utmost qualified persons ( Education and port related experience) to take their responsibilities for actively contributing to the establishment of the Gaza port either in the period of construction or operation. A similar result was found by Li et al. (2011), and Olander and Landin (2008). Regarding the whole group of “management support” it was ranked in the third position among the six groups, with Relative Importance Index equals (86.27%), and Pvalue = 0. 000 which is smaller than the level of significance α= 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value (Table 4.3). The respondents totally agree that this group “management support” affect the stakeholder management process. Top level management support of the implementing agencies, was essential for effective stakeholder engagement (Yang et al., 2009b). Table 4.3: RII's and P-value of factors affecting the “management support” Statement Project manager competencies Managing stakeholder with social responsibilities Flexible project organization All factors of the group
68
Mean
RII (%)
P-value (Sig.)
Rank
4.72 4.19 4.03 4.31
94.33 83.88 80.60 86.27
0.000 0.000 0.000
1 2 3
Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the management support group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the management support group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. From Table 4.3, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of the management support in stakeholder management process. This leads to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 level of the management support in stakeholder management process.
4.2.2 Factors influencing the Information input (group two) 70B
From Table 4.4, it is shown that “setting common goal and objective of the project” was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the stakeholder management with Relative Importance Index equals (89.55%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α= 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result illustrates clearly the influence of setting common goal and objective of the project in the stakeholder management process. Since the project manager should have a good understanding of the tasks and objectives at each particular stage of the project Lifecycle, including such as the issues about cost, schedule, and budget. Enshassi et al. (2012) recommended that construction organizations have a clear mission and vision to formulate, implement and evaluate their performance. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Yang et al. (2009b). “Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation” it was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the Information input in stakeholder management with Relative Importance Index equals (88.96%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α= 0.05;
69
the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the satisfaction of respondents regarding the importance of exploring the stakeholder need and expectation during the project process; all stakeholders’ needs should be assessed so that a satisfactory and realistic solution to the problem being addressed is obtained. Failing to address and meet the concerns and expectations of the stakeholders involved has resulted in many project failures. As a clear example of the importance of exploring the stakeholder need and expectation, Gaza Emergency Water Project (GEWP) made an environmental management plan to evaluate the environmental impacts of the projects during all development stages: planning, design, construction and operation stages, in order to mitigate the negative environmental impact by using adequate public consultation during the assessment process (Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, 2010). The obtained results are in line with the findings of Olander and Landin (2008) and Li et al. (2013). “Identifying stakeholders” was ranked in the last position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the information input group in stakeholder management with Relative Importance Index equals (88.36%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α= 0.05; the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of the identification of the stakeholders and their necessary contributions, and expectations concerning rewards for contributions, as a prerequisite requirement for stakeholder assessment in projects for management the stakeholder in the construction project. A similar result was found by Jepsen and Eskerod (2009), Karlsen (2002), and Olander (2006). Table 4.4: RII's and P-value of factors influencing the "information input" Statement
Mean
RII (%)
P-value (Sig.)
Rank
Setting common goal and objective of the project
4.48
89.55
0.000
1
Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation
4.45
88.96
0.000
2
Identifying stakeholders
4.42
88.36
0.000
3
All factors of the group
4.45
88.96
70
Regarding the whole group of factors influencing the "information input" it was ranked in the first position among the six groups, with Relative Importance Index equals (88.96%), and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α=0.05, the mean of this group is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents totally agree that the factors influencing the "Information input" affect the stakeholder management process. Freeman et al. (2007) believe identifying stakeholder information is an important task for assessing stakeholders, and it is the backbone in the project success. Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the information input group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the information input group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. From Table 4.4, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of the information input group in stakeholder management process. This leads to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of information input in stakeholder management process.
4.2.3 Factors influence the stakeholder' assessment (group three) 71B
As shown in Table 4.5 the "assessing stakeholders’ attitude" was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the stakeholder' assessment with Relative Importance Index equals (83.88%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. Stakeholder attitude refers to whether the stakeholder supports or opposes the project. This result illustrates clearly that the respondents agreed to this factor and have a strong conformity at this factor to be in the first position. Because stakeholders may have negative or positive impacts on projects, there is a need to determine objectors and supporters. The result indicates that
71
attitude is the main attribute that affect the project’s decision-making process in the Gaza Strip. Savage et al. (1991) , Freeman et al. (2007), and McElroy and Mills (2000) are in agreement with our result as this factor is an important for stakeholder assessment. “Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy” was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the factors affecting the stakeholder' assessment in stakeholder management process with Relative Importance Index equals (83.58%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05; and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy. The legitimacy of a stakeholder gives a sense that legitimacy reflects the contractual relations, legal and moral rights in relationships between stakeholders and a project. Nguyen et al. (2009), Mitchell et al. (1997), and Freeman et al. (2007) are in line with our result as this factor is an important for stakeholder assessment. “Predicting the influence of stakeholders” was ranked in the third position the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (82.99%), and Pvalue = 0.000, which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This factor plays a significant role in influencing stakeholder' assessment, therefore recognizing the stakeholders’ influence is important to plan and execute a sufficiently rigorous stakeholder management process. A similar result was found by Olander and Landin, (2005), and Olander (2007). “Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests.” was ranked in the fourth position by the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (82.69%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, so the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this factor plays a significant role in influencing stakeholder' assessment, identifying stakeholder interests is an important task to assess stakeholders, these interests including product safety, integrity of financial reporting
72
new product services. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Yang et al. (2009b), Freeman et al. (2007), Karlsen (2002), and Olander and Landin (2008). “Understand the stakeholder urgency” was ranked in the fifth position by the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (82.09%), and Pvalue = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this factor plays a significant role in influencing stakeholder' assessment. Urgency is described as the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention, and it decides the extent to which they exert pressure on a project manager by calling for emergency action. A similar result was found by Mitchell et al. (1997), Nguyen et al. (2009), and Yang et al. (2009). “Evaluate the stakeholder power” was ranked in the sixth position by the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (80.60%), and Pvalue = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, so the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this factor play a significant role in influencing stakeholder' assessment, the stakeholder power level in the questionnaire is understood as a stakeholder’s capacity to make a change in the project, The power as a factor is considered to be a key driver of stakeholder-manager relations, regarding the rank of this factor in sixth position, since most the implemented contracts in the Gaza Strip are unit price contract and project managers are protected under this type of contract. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Mitchell et al. (1997), and Bourne and Walker (2005). Regarding the whole group of factors influence the "stakeholder' assessment" it was ranked in the sixth position among the six groups with relative importance index equals (85.70%), and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α= 0.05, so the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents totally agree that the group “stakeholder' assessment” affect the stakeholder management process. To enhance the understanding of project managers on stakeholders, their attributes, behavior, and potential influence need to be assessed and
73
estimated. The conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders also could be analyzed based on the information about stakeholders (Yang et al. 2009). Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the stakeholder' assessment group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the stakeholder' assessment group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process From Table 4.5, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of Stakeholder' assessment of stakeholder management process. This leads to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of Stakeholder' assessment of stakeholder management process Table 4.5: RII's and P-value of factors influence the "stakeholder' assessment" Statement
Mean
Assessing stakeholders’ attitude Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy Predicting the influence of stakeholders Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests Understand the stakeholder urgency Evaluate the stakeholder power Determine the stakeholder Knowledge Analyzing conflicts among stakeholders Determine the stakeholder proximity All factors of the field
74
4.19 4.18 4.15 4.13 4.10 4.03 3.94 3.88 3.87 4.05
RII (%) 83.88 83.58 82.99 82.69 82.09 80.60 78.81 77.61 77.31 81.06
P-value (Sig.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.2.4 Factors affect the decision making (group four) 72B
From Table 4.6, it is shown that, “transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern.” was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing decision making with Relative Importance Index equals (91.64%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance
α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater
than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern, since this factor reflects the style of management of the construction manager that leading the success of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Some of recommended characteristics that a project manager should be has according to previous studies (Jarad, 2012): ethics as moral reasoning behind making of decisions. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Olander and Landin (2008), and El Gohary et al. (2006). “Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder” was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing decision making with Relative Importance Index equals (90.15%), and Pvalue = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of the ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder. Many researchers have studied the relation between the communication and its effect on the management construction project in the Gaza Strip and they found that there is a significant relation, such as poor communications and misunderstanding is an important factor influencing time overruns in construction project (Al-Najjar, 2008); The lack of coordination between the project stakeholder is an influencing factor in dispute in construction project (Abu Rass, 2006); and the information coordination between the owner and project parties is a factor affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip (Enshassi et al., 2009). The obtained results are in line with the findings of (Čulo and Skendrović, 2010).
75
“Formulate appreciate strategy to deal with stakeholder” was ranked in the last position by the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (85.07%), and P-value = 0.019 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this factor plays a significant role in influencing stakeholder management. Since the central question of stakeholder management was; what are the strategies that organizations use to address stakeholders? The significant effort for the project manager in this field is a perquisite since within the management of construction project in the Gaza Strip, most of the infrastructure projects are funded by donors and the most of the implementing Agencies are UN agencies, INGO's, NGO's, and its role mainly as the mediator of the funding body, and there are many stakeholder with different attributes look for achieving the need from the project, so project manager has to formulate appreciate strategy to deal with those construction stakeholder. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Karlsen (2002), and Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) Table 4.6: RII's and P-value for factors affect the "decision making" Statement
Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder Formulate appreciate strategy to deal with stakeholder All factors of the field
Mean
RII (%)
P-value (Sig.)
Rank
4.58
91.64
0.000
1
4.51
90.15
0.000
2
4.25
85.07
0.000
3
4.45
88.96
Regarding the whole group of "decision making" it was ranked in the first position among the six groups, with relative important index equals (88.96%), and Pvalue=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value, the respondents totally agree that this group “decision making” is influencing the stakeholder management process Project managers have the responsibility to compromise conflicts among stakeholders, and formulate appropriate strategies to manage stakeholders. During the process of decision-making, project managers should always try to predict the reaction of stakeholders and choose the optimal solution for managing stakeholders. 76
Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the decision making group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the decision making group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. From Table 4.6, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 level of decision making in the stakeholder management process, this lead to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 level of decision making in the stakeholder management process.
4.2.5 Factors affect the action and evaluation (group five) 73B
From Table 4.7, it is shown that, “implementing the strategy based on schedule plans” was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the action and evaluation with Relative Importance Index equals (86.57%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of the Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans. This activity is self-explanatory. The formulated strategies should be implemented accordingly, and the outcome of this activity is to keep the project moving forward. A similar result was found by Bryson (2004). “Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction in terms of achievement of the stakeholder pre - project expectation” was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor influencing the action and evaluation with Relative Importance Index equals (81.49%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this
77
factor plays a significant role in influencing stakeholder management. It has been emphasized that if a project’s key stakeholders are not satisfied with the ongoing project outcomes, the project team will as a result be required to adjust scope, time, cost and quality in order to meet the stakeholders’ requirements and expectations. According to Enshassi et al. (2009) client, regular, and community satisfaction factors is important because it is significant for the effectiveness of project performance. A similar result was found by Li et al. (2013), and Olander and landin (2008). “Flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction” was ranked in the last position by the respondents under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (81.19%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. This result reflects the full agreement of respondents regarding the importance of flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction. Project management must be aware when designing strategies on how to respond to stakeholder claims, and be aware of the implications of their responses to different dimensions of the project success. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Freeman et al. (2007), and Eloranta et al. (2008). Table 4.7: RII's and P-value of factors affect the "action and evaluation" Statement
Mean
RII (%)
Pvalue (Sig.)
Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction in terms of achievement of the stakeholder pre - project expectation Flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction All factors of the field
4.33
86.57
0.000
1
4.07
81.49
0.000
2
4.06
81.19
0.000
3
4.15
83.08
Rank
Regarding the whole group of factors affect the "action and evaluation" it was ranked in the fourth position among the six groups, with Relative Importance Index equals (83.08%), and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05. The respondents totally agree that this group “factors affect the action and evaluation" influencing in the stakeholder management process. The action and
78
evaluation group is the final management activity group in the process of stakeholder management, and the inputs required are the formulated strategies, and the level of stakeholder engagement to ensure effective communication. Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the action and evaluation group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the action and evaluation group on the perception of successful stakeholder management. From Table 4.7, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of the action and evaluation of the stakeholder management process. This leads to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 levels of the action and evaluation of the stakeholder management process.
4.2.6 Factors affecting continuous support (group six) 74B
From Table 4.8, it is shown that, “communication with the engaging stakeholder properly and frequently” was ranked in the first position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor affecting continuous support with Relative Importance Index equals (87.76%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents’ perceptions showed that, this factor plays a significant role in influencing
stakeholder
management.
Formal
and
clear
communication
channels/networks are needed to warrant an efficient information transfer. Therefore, increasing the degree of communication amongst the project participants, the higher the participant satisfaction. The obtained results are in line with the findings Enshassi et al. (2009) where the information coordination between the owner and project parties lead to client satisfaction in a construction project in the Gaza Strip. “Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder” was ranked in the second position by the respondents under this group as a critical factor affecting continuous
79
support with Relative Importance Index equals (86.27%), and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. Mutual trust is a facilitator of positive relationships among project stakeholders. Trust is argued to enhance a variety of stakeholder relationships, including the project team, contractor, consultant, beneficiaries, governmental ministries, and other stakeholder. This finding is cross cut with Jarad (2012) whom finds in his study the leading characteristics of project manager in Gaza, that building mutual trust among project stakeholder as an important factor which has a positive impact on the project management success. “Obtain support assistant from higher authorities” was ranked by the respondents in the third position under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (83.88%), and P-value = 0.000, which is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05, so the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The top management in the implementing agencies always monitor the management process, help figuring out problems, and used the effects of stakeholder management as an indicator for performance measurement of the management team, and project manager during the project Lifecycle face a lot of conflict and sometimes the decisions making need support form other in order to eliminate the objection, and to increase the ability of enforcing that decision. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Yang et al. (2011a) “Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship with stakeholder” is ranked the third position under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (83.88%), and Pvalue = 0.000, which is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The result indicates that it is wrong to ignore the stakeholders or attempt to impose a rigid detailed control on the project stakeholder relationship. These are challenging and demands which the project manager cannot overlook, but have to take into consideration and address. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Karlsen (2008). "Stakeholder involvement in decision-making" is ranked in the fifth position under this group with Relative Importance Index equals (82.69%), and P-value = 0.000, which is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05, so the mean of this factor is 80
significantly greater than the hypothesized value. Participation of project stakeholders in different stages of construction project (e.g. The planning and development phases) can be beneficial in several ways, on the other hand Public opposition due to various factors has been reported as the main reason for failure in several instances, so the stakeholder involvement in infrastructure projects plays a very important role. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Li Ng & Skitmore (2012), and El-Gohary (2006). Regarding the whole group of factors affecting "continuous support" was ranked in the fifth position with Relative Importance Index equals (83.59%), and Pvalue=0.000, which is smaller than the level of significance α = 0.05, and the mean of this factor is significantly greater than the hypothesized value. The respondents totally agree that this group factors affecting "continuous support" influencing in the stakeholder management process. Project managers, as the representatives of different organizations, have the responsibility to realize the change of their influence and relationships, promote a steady relationship with them, and communicate with them properly and frequently. Test of hypothesis The null hypothesis (Ho): There is an insignificant effect of the continuous support group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. The alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant effect of the continuous support group on the perception of successful stakeholder management process. From Table 4.8, it is shown that there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 level of the continuous support in the stakeholder management process, this lead to reject the null hypothesis Ho. Therefore, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis Ha. Hence, there is a significant positive effect at 0.05 level of continuous support in the stakeholder management process.
81
Table 4.8: RII's and P-value for factors affecting "continuous support" Statement Communication with the engaging stakeholder properly and frequently Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder Obtain support assistant from higher authorities. Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship with stakeholder. Stakeholder involvement in decision-making Access to resource and knowledge Reduce the uncertainty Maintain alignment between or among the stakeholder Analyzing the change of multiple stakeholder engagement and the relation All factors of the field
Mean
RII (%)
P-value (Sig.)
Rank
4.39
87.76
0.000
1
4.31 4.19
86.27 83.88
0.000 0.000
2 3
4.19
83.88
0.000
3
4.13 3.96 3.93
82.69 79.10 78.51
0.000 0.000 0.000
5 6 7
3.91
78.21
0.000
8
3.81
76.12
0.000
9
4.18
83.59
4.2.7 The important factors affecting the stakeholder management process 75B
on overall Table 4.9 shows “project manager competencies” under the group of “management support (group one)” with Relative Importance Index (94.33 %), and “transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern” under the group of “decision making (group four)” with Relative Importance Index equal (91.64 %) were ranked in the top of the factors that affect stakeholder management process. “Evaluate the stakeholder power” with Relative Importance Index (80.60 %) under the group of “stakeholder' assessment (group three)”, and “flexible project organization with Relative Importance Index (80.60 %) under the group of “management support (group one)” were ranked in the last position.
82
Table 4.9: The overall important factors affecting stakeholder management process Over- all Factor
RII
Project manager competencies Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder Setting common goal and objective of the project Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation Communication with the engaging stakeholder properly and frequently Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder Formulate appreciate strategy to deal with stakeholder Managing stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities Identifying stakeholders Assessing stakeholders’ attitude Obtain support assistant from higher authorities Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship with stakeholder Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy Predicting the influence of stakeholders Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests Stakeholder involvement in decisionmaking Understand the stakeholder urgency Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction in terms of achievement of the stakeholder pre - project expectation Flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction Flexible project organization Evaluate the stakeholder power
94.4
1
Management support
91.6
2
Decision making
90.2
3
Decision making
89.6
4
Information input
89
5
Information input
87.8
6
Continuous support
86.6
7
Action and evaluation
86.2
8
Continuous support
85
9
Decision making
83.8
10
Management support
83.8 83.8
10 10
Information input Stakeholder' assessment
83.8
10
Continuous support
83.8
10
Continuous support
83.6 83
10 16
Stakeholder' assessment Stakeholder' assessment
82.6
17
Stakeholder' assessment
82.6
17
Continuous support
82
19
Stakeholder' assessment
81.4
20
Action and evaluation
81.2
21
Action and evaluation
80.6 80.6
22 22
Management support Stakeholder' assessment
83
Rank
Group
4.3 Section three: Stakeholder assessment 43B
Research questions: How to engage the stakeholder in construction projects in the Gaza Strip? Research objective: To identify the stakeholders engagement level based on their influence. This section discusses the results of stakeholder assessment of the selected sample of construction stakeholder in the Gaza strip, and this sample is consisted of the client, consultant, contractor, donor, INGO's / NGO's, government agencies, beneficiary/ enduser, general public, and landowner. In order to demonstrate the level of stakeholders’ influence and how they should engage in construction projects in the Gaza Strip, stakeholder assessment will be presented in four subsections as follows: (i) assessing the stakeholder attributes, (ii) prioritizing stakeholder, (iii) classifying the stakeholder, and (iv) select the engagement level.
4.3.1 Assessing the stakeholder attributes 76B
Based on the obtained resulted in Section 4.2.3 ( factors influence the stakeholder assessment), the respondents were agreed that all the selected attributes which are used in this research to assess the stakeholder are important factors and affecting the stakeholder assessment, and these attributes are: attitude (RII = 83.88%), legitimacy (RII = 83.58 %), vested interest (RII = 82.69 %), urgency (RII = 82.09 %), power (RII = 80.60 %), knowledge (RII = 78.81 %), and proximity (RII = 77.31%). After presenting the results of each individual attributes and values of these attributes will be used in prioritizing stakeholder then classifying those stakeholders, and finally select the engagement level for construction stakeholder in the Gaza strip, by doing that the objective of this section will be achieved.
84
4.3.1.1 Stakeholder power 17B
The responses to this item are used to estimate the value of the power variable for each of the stakeholders (Table 4.10). All respondents share the view that project clients (RII = 91.1 %) and donor (RII = 90.7%) have the highest power. This can be explained by the fact that most construction projects in the Gaza Strip have been funded by the donors based on the need of the clients. Therefore, in these projects, the donor and clients not only have the power of providing finance, but have also held the political power in the national management system to formally approve and decide whether the project is to be implemented or changed. The respondents point out to the power level of consultant (RII = 71%) and governmental agencies (RII = 74.6%) as moderate. This is not surprising because the consultant only has the power to manage the supervision activities in the project, deal with technical issues and assist top management in making decisions related to projects. Consultant and governmental agencies have no power to decide either financial issues or changes. Respondents think that the beneficiary (RII = 67.8%), contractor (RII = 66.3%), and INGO's / NGO's (RII = 69. 3%) have some capacity to stop or change the work in the project. Additionally, respondents agree that the power level of landowner (RII =45. 1%), and general public (RII =37. 9%) in construction projects is low, since both of them are external stakeholder and their attitude toward the project based mainly on the reaction to the implemented activity.
Contractor
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Power
Mean RII Rank
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.10: Summary of stakeholder power
4.57 91.3 1
3.55 71.0 4
3.31 66.3 7
4.54 90.7 2
3.46 69.3 5
3.73 74.6 3
3.39 67.8 6
1.90 37.9 9
2.25 45.1 8
85
4.3.1.2 Stakeholder legitimacy 18B
The respondents think that this group (client, consultant, donor, and contractors), has a high degree of legitimacy, because they are internal stakeholders and they have been integrated into a construction project, and their valid relationships with projects which are stipulated in the contract, and the following result is obtained (Table 4.11); client (RII = 93.13%), consultant (RII = 88.66%), donor (RII = 88.36%), and contractor (RII = 80.60%). INGO's/ NGO's (RII = 70.15%) also has a contractual relation, but it seems to be the degree of legitimacy is less than the first group, since these INGO's/ NGO's are a mediator for the funding body and this role was clear enough for respondents to classify them in a less degree of legitimacy than donor as an example. Beneficiary and governmental body record the following score respectively (beneficiary RII = 57.31%, and governmental RII = 54.93%). The reason for this is that there is a legal requirement toward these two stakeholders should be considered in the project It is not surprising that respondents believe that legitimacy of both landowner (RII = 43.28%) and general public (RII = 38.51%) is low, since legal requirement toward these two stakeholders there is not significant from point view of the respondents.
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Mean RII Rank
Contractor
Legitimacy
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.11: Summary of stakeholder legitimacy
4.66 93.13 1
4.43 88.66 2
4.03 80.60 4
4.42 88.36 3
3.51 70.15 5
2.75 54.93 7
2.87 57.31 6
1.93 38.51 9
2.16 43.28 8
4.3.1.3 Stakeholder urgency 19B
In general, project managers tend to respond to the demands of all stakeholders (Table 4.12). Specifically, project managers polled immediately urgent reply to the claims of the client (RII = 93.13%), and donor (RII = 88.36%). Urgent reply with a
86
short time frame to the consultant (RII = 79.7%), contractor (RII = 71.34%), INGO's / NGO's (RII = 69.55%), beneficiary (RII = 67.76%), and government (RII = 62.99%). Meanwhile, the claims of the rest of the listed stakeholders (landowner and general public) are replied to within the planned time.
Contractor
Donor
INGO's / NGO's
Government
Beneficiary
General public
landowner
Urgency
Mean RII Rank
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.12: Summary of stakeholder urgency
4.54 90.75 1
3.99 79.70 3
3.57 71.34 4
4.31 86.27 2
3.48 69.55 5
3.15 62.99 7
3.39 67.76 6
1.91 38.21 9
2.07 41.49 8
4.3.1.4 Stakeholder proximity 120B
All respondents believe that client (RII = 87.76%) and consultant (RII= 84.78%) directly work full time from the beginning, to the closure of construction projects, since the client follow up the project from preliminary design up to finalizing the project, and consultant beside the supervision of the implementation many times he performs the design and preparing of project documents. Meanwhile, most other stakeholders have directly participated in projects, However, they did this on a part-time basis as they also simultaneously engage in other projects; contractor (RII = 73.43%) whom participated mainly in the implementation phase (Table 4.13). INGO's/ NGO's (RII =71.94%), donor (RII= 69.55%), beneficiary (RII = 68.66%), and governmental (RII = 64.78%) are routinely involved in the work. On the other hand, landowner (RII = 40%), and general public (RII = 40.6%) detach from the work, but they have regular contact with or input in various project process.
Contractor
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Proximity
Mean RII Rank
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.13: Summary of stakeholder Proximity
4.39 87.76 1
4.24 84.78 2
3.67 73.43 3
3.48 69.55 5
3.60 71.94 4
3.24 64.78 7
3.43 68.66 6
2.03 40.60 8
2.00 40.00 9
87
4.3.1.5 Stakeholder knowledge 12B
All respondents agree that the consultant (RII = 91.04%), and client (RII = 87.76%), and contractor (RII = 83.58%) could have a full awareness of projects, this can be explained by the fact that the client, consultant, and contractor are the people who take full responsibility, take charge in dealing with technical issues, solving problems, attending meetings etc. throughout the project Lifecycle. The results also show that INGO's/ NGO's (RII = 71.94%), and donor (RII = 69.55%), beneficiary (RII = 68.66%), and governmental agencies (RII = 64.78%) have a considerable knowledge of the project activities. In contrast with general public (RII =40.6%) and landowner (RII = 40%) whom has the least degree of knowledge.
Contractor
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Knowledge
Mean RII Rank
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.14: Summary of stakeholder knowledge
4.39 87.76 2
4.55 91.04 1
4.18 83.58 3
3.28 65.67 6
3.96 79.10 4
3.01 60.30 7
3.54 70.75 5
1.94 38.81 9
2.31 46.27 8
4.3.1.6 Stakeholder vested-interest 12B
In the light that stakeholders are characterized as having a ‘stake’ in the proposed project and trying to influence its implementation so as to guard their individual interests (Table 4.15). The respondent clarifies that client (RII = 87.76%), consultant (RII = 91.04%), contractor (RII = 83.58%), and donor (RII = 79.10%) have an interest in the construction project and trying to influence the implementation of the project, since they are the key player whom decide the final shape of the project. Beneficiary (RII = 64.48%), INGO's/ NGO's (RII = 60.6%), and governmental authority (RII = 58.81%) have a moderate interest. While landowner (RII = 47.48%), and the general public (RII = 47.46%) have a low interest.
88
Client
Consultant
Contractor
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Table 4.15: Summary of stakeholder vested-interest
4.55 91.04 1
4.03 80.60 3
4.19 83.88 2
3.99 79.70 4
3.03 60.60 6
2.94 58.81 7
3.22 64.48 5
2.24 44.78 9
2.37 47.46 8
Stakeholder
Vestedinterest
Mean RII Rank
4.3.1.7 Stakeholder attitude 123B
Most respondents think that client (RII = 89.85%), and donor (RII = 89.55%) express an active supporting attitude towards projects. This can be explained by the fact that the success of those projects would have created many advantages, such as promotion for the donor, and covering the need for the client. Also it is also apparent that the consultant (RII = 81.85%), and INGO's/ NGO's (RII = 76.12%) express a range of passive support attitudes. Beneficiary (RII = 70.15%), contractor (RII = 69.25%), and government (RII = 62.69%) express a range of passive support attitudes to no commitment, for the beneficiary/ end-user this related to the degree of satisfaction from taking his expectation in the project, from contractor point of low bidding price has its effect on the degree of commitment. The landowner (RII = 45.67%), and general public (RII = 38.51%) express a range of no commitment to passive opposite, this can be explained by the fact that the landowner/ neighborhood of the project is always looking for protecting their benefits rather than the project itself, and for the general public they aware that the donor does not donate for the Palestinian people for free and there is some political price has to be paid versus continues for the donation construction projects in the Gaza Strip.
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
General public
landowner
Mean RII Rank
Contractor
Attitude
Consultant
Stakeholder
Client
Table 4.16: Summary of stakeholder attitude
0.75 89.85 1
0.53 81.19 3
0.23 69.25 6
0.74 89.55 2
0.40 76.12 4
0.07 62.69 7
0.25 70.15 5
-0.54 38.51 9
-0.36 45.67 8
89
4.3.2 Prioritizing stakeholders 7B
In order to prioritize the construction stakeholder in the Gaza Strip the approach developed by Nguyen et al. (2009), was adopted to investigate the stakeholders’ influence on the construction projects, since all the inputs (attributes) of this approach consider important factors that affect the stakeholder management process from the point of view of the respondents of this research, and Olander (2007) and Nguyen et al. (2009) scholars adapt this approach to determine whom the most important stakeholder in the construction project. The calculated results are presented in terms of
individual factors, stakeholder
impact calculation, stakeholder vested interest-impact index and stakeholder influence index, which are displayed in Table 4.17. The ranks show the stakeholder priority in order of the influence index, ranging from highest to lowest, which reflects the most important stakeholder into the construction projects in the Gaza Strip.
Power Proximity Legitimacy Urgency Knowledge *Impact level Vested interest **Impact index Attitude ***influence index Rank
landowner
General public
beneficiary
Government
INGO's/ NGO's
Donor
Consultant
Client
Stakeholder
Contractor
Table 4.17: Summary of stakeholder influence index
4.57
3.55
3.31
4.54
3.46
3.73
3.39
1.90
2.25
4.39
4.24
3.67
3.48
3.60
3.24
3.43
2.03
2.00
4.66
4.43
4.03
4.42
3.51
2.75
2.87
1.93
2.16
4.54
3.99
3.57
4.31
3.48
3.15
3.39
1.91
2.07
4.39
4.55
4.18
3.96
3.28
3.01
3.54
1.94
2.31
22.54
20.76
18.76
20.70
17.33
15.88
16.61
9.70
10.81
4.55
4.03
4.19
3.99
3.03
2.94
3.22
2.24
2.37
2.03
1.83
1.77
1.82
1.45
1.37
1.46
0.93
1.01
0.75
0.53
0.23
0.74
0.40
0.07
0.25
-0.54
-0.36
1.51
0.97
0.41
1.34
0.58
0.09
0.37
-0.50
-0.36
1
3
5
2
4
7
6
9
8
*Impact level = Power + Proximity + Legitimacy + Urgency + Knowledge. (Nguyen et al. ,2009) (𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕 ∗𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙 )
**Impact index = �
𝟐𝟓
………………..… …(Bourne and Walker, 2005)
***Influence index = Impact index * Attitude …………………………… (Nguyen et al. ,2009)
90
As can be seen, the client (1st rank), and donor (2nd rank) are the top of the list; meaning that these stakeholders are likely having the most influence on construction projects and should therefore receive the project manager’s most attention. The project manager is a client representative and has to determine and implement the exact needs of the client, based on knowledge of the implementing agency they are representing. The ability to adapt to the various internal procedures of the contracting party, and to form close links with the nominated representatives, is essential in ensuring that the key issues of cost, time, quality and above all, client satisfaction, can be realized. On the other hand project manager has to take care with the requirement of the donor, since the donor the financial source of the project and without this source it will be so difficult to initiate the project. The project manager has to be fitted with the donor requirement (e.g. Progress report, payment procedures, transparency in selection the qualified contractor, etc.) The consultant scores the 3rd rank, INGO's/ NGO's in the 4th rank, and the contractor in 5th rank .This implies that despite of being lower than the client’s and donor scar, these stakeholders have a high level of potential influence on construction projects in the Gaza Strip. The high score of consultant in the analysis is not surprising since consultant has taken a main part of the responsibility for the projects, specifically to prepare and defend feasible studies by analyzing economic, technical, social, and environmental criteria. In addition, their duties is to perform the design of projects beside supervise work on the implementation. INGO's/ NGO's is ranked in the four positions on, this indicates that there is a significant role in the implantation the construction project, since many UN agencies and INGO's/ NGO's facilitate the entry of raw materials for the construction project, since Gaza Strip under siege, and the entry of row materials come from two sources: by tunnels which is located in the Egyptian Palestine border, or through the Israeli cross point, and INGO's/ NGO's is working as a facilitator to entry the row materials, moreover these INGO's/ NGO's plays a vital role in the fundraising, to initiate the construction project. Contractor in the five positions, and his influence come from his duties in the project including; obtaining materials for the project, implement the work according to the design drawing, hiring the required labor, etc.
91
The next group of stakeholders comprises beneficiary/ end-user (6th rank), governmental authority (7th rank). Interestingly, landowner/ neighborhood, and general public about the project, with negative index value, are thought to negatively impact on construction projects. So project manager should be aware of these groups; it is unlikely that this group would play an active role in making those decisions. However, were they to highlight a particular issue with a decision, it is likely that serious consideration would be given to refining the decision made.
4.3.3 Classification of the stakeholder 78B
Assessing the stakeholder attributes and prioritizing stakeholders are the prerequisite steps for classification the stakeholder. The classification of construction stakeholder is based on the impact / probability matrix approach which is adapted from Olander (2007). From the stakeholder attributes that are gained from the questionnaire the level of impact and probability of impact is calculated based on Nguyen et al. (2009) and Bourne and Walker (2005), and the results are displayed in the Table 4.18.
Contractor
Donor
INGO's/ NGO's
Government
beneficiary
22.54
20.76
18.76
20.70
17.33
15.88
16.61
9.70
10.81
4.55
4.03
4.19
3.99
3.03
2.94
3.22
2.24
2.37
landowner
Consultant
*Impact level **Probability of impact
Client
Stakeholder
General public
Table 4.18: Stakeholder impact level and probability of impact values
*Impact level = Power + Proximity + Legitimacy + Urgency + Knowledge. (Nguyen et al. ,2009) ** Probability of impact = Vested interest ……………………….… …(Bourne and Walker, 2005)
The values of stakeholders which were selected in this research is placed on the impact / probability matrix, then the classification of the set of stakeholder was obtained as it is clarified in Figure 4.1 as follows: •
Key player: Client, consultant, donor, and contractor.
•
Keep satisfied: INGO's / NGO's, beneficiaries/ end-user, and governmental authority.
•
Minimal effort: Landowner/ project neighborhood, and general public.
92
25
Client ❶ ❷Consultant Donor ❸
level of impact
INGO's / NGO's ❺ Beneficiary ❻ Keep Satisfied Government ❼ (Involve)
Contractor ❹
Key players (Collaborate)
Landowner ❽ General Public ❾
Minimal Effort (Inform) 1
Keep Informed (Consult)
Probability of impact (vested interest )
1
5
Figure 4.1: Classification and engagement level of the stakeholder
4.3.4 Stakeholder engagement 79B
Stakeholders could be engaged into four levels (collaborate, involve, inform, and consult) based on Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2010) finding. As a result of stakeholder classification, the following results were obtained as it's clear in Figure 4.1. •
Collaborate: Include the key player group (client, consultant, donor, and contractor)
•
Involve: Keeping satisfied group (INGO's / NGO's, beneficiaries/ enduser, and governmental authorities)
•
Inform: Minimal effort group (landowner/ project neighborhood, and general public)
Collaborate: means to partner with stakeholders in each aspect of the decision. Since the key stakeholders have a high probability of impact and level of impact to project success. Client; consultant; donor; and contractor are the key player in the construction project in the Gaza Strip. This resulted is what the expert in the stakeholder
93
management is agreed on. It is not surprising, since the contractor is the party whom preformed the physical shape of the project, consultant is designing and supervising on production this product (construction project), the client is the customer whom need this product; and donor is the financial party whom paid for this product. The chain of resulted is very clear for the project manager in the Gaza Strip about the key player whom involved in the production process for the construction project, so project manager should collaborate with these key stakeholders. Involve: to work directly with the stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that stakeholder concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. INGO's / NGO's, beneficiaries / end-user, and governmental authority are the main actor under this group. All the actors of this group are not involved directly in the exaction the project, but they have some influence effect in the key player group (client, consultant, contractor, and donor). INGO's/ NGO's has a strong influence the project manager (whom was hired and become a member of these INGO's/NGO's). Beneficiaries/ end-user impose their influence by the client, as a representative of their need and expectation. Governmental authorities as a regulated party imposed their influence through the contractor and consultant. The management of the project should work directly with these stakeholders to ensure that their concerns are consistently understood, considered, and reflected in the developed alternatives. As long as their interest is achieved, they are kept satisfied and retain passive rather than active interest in the project. Inform: means to provide the stakeholders with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems alternatives and/or solutions. External stakeholders (landowner/ project neighborhood; and the general public) with lower probability of impact and lower level of impact need to be kept informed of decisions taken that may affect them directly. It is unlikely that they would play an active role in making those decisions. However, were they to highlight a particular issue with a decision, it is likely that serious consideration would be given to refining the decision made.
94
4.4 Section Four: Practical approaches for analyzing and engaging stakeholders 4B
Research questions: What is the effective method used in the current practice for managing stakeholder in construction projects in the Gaza Strip Research objective: To evaluate the current practice approaches of stakeholder management in the construction project. Stakeholder analysis and engagement are the main tasks in stakeholder management. To identify operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement, the questionnaire survey was done to evaluate the current practice of strategic stakeholder management in the construction project. To achieve the research objective three questions were designed in the questionnaire to evaluate the most effective approach that the respondents usually used in current practice of managing the stakeholder in the following issue: (i) analyze stakeholders’ concern and need; (ii) engaging the stakeholders; (iii) response strategy to deal with the stakeholder claims.
4.4.1 Approaches of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need 80B
The respondents were asked about their points of view regarding the effective Approaches to analyze stakeholders’ concern and need in the Gaza Strip. The analyzed results in Table 4.19 indicated the project management teams considered the approaches was useful, and it should be used as a supplement to a systematic process of stakeholder management. Table 4.19: Effective approaches to analyze stakeholders’ concern and need Mean Rank Approaches Personal past experience
4.49
1
Interviews
4.07
2
Professional services
3.90
3
Workshops
3.78
4
Questionnaires and surveys
3.48
5
95
In terms of analyze stakeholder concern and need "personal past experience" is ranked higher, this indicates that the experience of project managers is important. This finding is in line with the study conducted by Chinyio and Akintoye (2008), as they identified ‘intuition’ as an important approach for stakeholder management. Interview fall in the second rank, since project manager when they need to collect data about the need and concern of the stakeholder and before preparing the proposal for the fundraising, they face a problem related to the availability of finical resource, so the interview gives them an opportunity to overcome this problem since the interview is usually low cost, and easy to arrange. Professional services come to the third rank, since it provides complete plans for stakeholder management, and saves time for project managers. Workshop fall in the fourth ranks, by selecting this approach project manager will get a chance for discussion on criteria or analysis of alternatives, but they need to be well facilitated and interpersonal skills to deal with challenging issues. Questionnaires and surveys are ranked in lowest position, since the project manager afraid of
low response rates that can bias the results, and the information
gathered can be superficial and the reasons behind an opinion may not always be clear. Each
approach has its strengths and limitations, so the most appropriate way for effective stakeholder management is to use a combination of elements of each approach as circumstances dictate.
4.4.2 Approaches of engaging stakeholders 81B
The respondents were asked about their points of view regarding the effective Approaches to engage stakeholders in the construction project. Table 4.20 below shows the statistical analysis results including mean, and P-value for this question. According to the results of the questionnaire, 'meeting' is ranked first, followed by ‘interviews’, ‘negotiation’, ‘social contact’, and ‘workshop’. Meetings and interview the most common approaches for engaging stakeholders in a construction project in the Gaza Strip. Since the meeting is face-to-face contact ensures attendees understand the issues and information that can be elicited about opinions they express, and cheap and relatively easy to organize. On the other hand
96
interview give the ability to explain points in own language, and usually low cost and easy to arrange. Table 4.20: Effective approaches to engage with the stakeholders Approaches
Mean
Rank
Meetings
4.72
1
Interviews
4.28
2
Negotiations
3.99
3
Social contacts
3.66
4
Workshops
3.36
5
Negotiations can also be categorized as communication with stakeholders, especially settling disputes and problems. Social contacts are informal approach, but it seems to be an effective approach for establishing and maintaining relationships with some stakeholder that used by a project manager, and it helps in building trust with stakeholders, and maximizes two-way dialogue. The workshop is ranked in lowest position, since project manager needs to be well facilitated, and have the interpersonal skills to deal with challenging issues, although it is an excellent approach for discussion on criteria or analysis of alternatives.
4.4.3 Response strategy to deal with the stakeholder 82B
The respondents were asked about their points of view regarding the effective response strategy types to deal with the stakeholder claims in the construction project? The analyzed results in Table 4.21 indicated the project management teams considered the approaches were useful with one expectation that the respondents did not agree to use the dismissal strategy, and these strategies should be used as a supplement to a systematic process of stakeholder management. The response to the question about strategies as well, as the fact that the respondents usually chose a compromise strategy to deal with essential stakeholder requirements, thus this means the most effective strategy that project manager in construction project prefers to use is negotiating with the stakeholders, listening to their
97
claims related to the project and offering possibilities and arenas for dialogues. Making reconciliations and offering compensation. Table 4.21: Effective response strategy to deal with the stakeholder Response Strategy
Mean
rank
Compromising strategy
4.00
1
Adaptation strategy
3.82
2
Influence strategy
3.43
3
Avoidance strategy
3.25
4
Dismissal strategy
1.99
5
Adaptation strategy is come in the second position, since sometimes project manager found it is better to focus on achieving the objectives of the project by accept the demand when it is possible and there is no major change will be happening. Influence strategy is listed in the third positions, this means that project manager does not like to deal with strategy in general since his time is limited and may he used this type of strategy with the key stakeholder to try to influence their claim to fit with the project objective. Avoidance strategy is fallen in forth position, this type of strategy could be used in some cases, especially when the demand of the stakeholder claim is over the capacity the project, then project manager is trying to use this approach by guarding and shield oneself against the claims, and transferring the responsibility of responding to the claims to another actor in the project network. Dismissal strategy is listed in last position, most of the respondents disagreed with this strategy ‘do nothing and let the situation take care of itself’. This indicates that it is felt that project managers should deal with every issue raised by stakeholders in an appropriate manner.
98
4.5 Section Five: The relation between the stakeholder management process groups 45B
Research questions:
What is the element in the framework of strategic
stakeholder management methodology that can be proposed to the construction industry in the Gaza Strip? Research objective:
To build a framework for stakeholder management
process. This part discusses the significant correlation between the groups affecting the stakeholder management process, and the proposed framework components for stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip
4.5.1 The relationship among the stakeholder management groups 83B
Table (4.22) shows that the Correlation Coefficient is statistically significant at α = 0.05 between the “management support” and each of “information input” “stakeholder' assessment”, “decision making”, and “action and evaluation”. On the other hand there is no. statically correlation between "management support" and "continuous support" groups. Based on Table (4.22), it is clear that there is statistically significant correlation at α = 0.05 among these groups: “Information input”, “stakeholder' assessment”, “decision making”, and “action and evaluation” groups. Finally, the result indicates that there is a statistically significant correlation at α = 0.05 among the stakeholder management groups, with one exception the statistical correlation between "management support" and "continuous support" does not exist.
99
Decision making Action and evaluation Continuous support
Correlation Coefficient
.256(*)
0.200(*)
.534(**)
.262(*)
0.019
P-value (Sig.)
0.018
0.050
0.000
0.016
0.440
Correlation Coefficient
.260(*)
.250(*)
.257(*)
.274(*)
P-value (Sig.)
0.017
0.021
0.018
0.012
Pearson Correlation
.455(**)
.455(**)
.412(**)
P-value (Sig.)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Correlation Coefficient
.453(**)
.279(*)
P-value (Sig.)
0.000
0.011
Continuous support
Action and evaluation
Stakeholder' assessment
Decision making
Information input
Stakeholder' assessment
Management support
Information input
Management support
Table 4.22: Correlation Coefficient among groups affecting stakeholder management process
Correlation Coefficient
.536(**)
P-value (Sig.)
0.000
Correlation Coefficient P-value (Sig.)
* Spearman's rho Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). ** Spearman's rho Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
4.5.2 Proposed Framework for Stakeholder Management process 84B
Under this section, the proposed framework comments will be presented based on the result of the critical success factor for stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip that discussed in Section two of this chapter, and with reference to the statistical correlation between groups factor in Item 4.5.1. The final shape of the framework consists of a management support group, information input group, stakeholder assessment group, decision making group, action & evaluation group, and continuous support group. For each group, a number of activities have been defined in logical sequence. A detailed description of these groups and activities within the proposed framework is provided below:
100
4.5.2.1
Component 1: Management Support
This component is ranked in the third position with Relative importance Index = 86.2 % (Table 4.2) and this component correlates with information input, stakeholder assessment, decision making, and action and evaluation groups. From the obtained result it's clear that project managers in Gaza Strip consider the top management support from the implementing agencies, was essential for effective stakeholder management in construction projects, and to translate this support on the ground. The top management should hire a project manager team with high competencies, and support to manage stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities, and flexibility in the project organization. Therefore, this component could be illustrated by the following factors: •
Project manager competencies In most situations the relationship with the stakeholder is taken care of by the
project manager. Consequently, the results of the stakeholder management are dependent on the project manager’s experience, relationships, and capability. The top management should hire a project manager with highly skilled negotiators and communicators, in order to be capable of managing individual stakeholder’s expectations and creating a positive culture change within the overall organization project. •
Managing stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities Managing stakeholder with economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and cultural
responsibilities as the precondition step for stakeholder management, since the role of the implementing agencies is to develop the Palestinian people; by enforcing this principle the commitment of the stakeholders to the implementing project will be increased. •
Flexible project organization The flexibility in administering the project to recruit personnel to achieve the
objectives for the project, and the delegation and authorities which are given to the project management team is playing a vital role from point view of the project manager in the Gaza Strip in successfully managing the stakeholder.
101
4.5.2.2 Component 2: Information input 125B
This component ranked first among the 6 components (Table 4.2) with Relative importance Index = 89%, and this component correlates with all of the other groups. Three critical success factors comprise the elements of this component regarding information input. Before any management activities, comprehensive information about the project and stakeholders around it needs to be obtained. The information includes project missions, full list of stakeholders, and their needs and constraints of the project. The stakeholders could be managed depending on these inputs. The following factors explain the content of these components: •
Set a common goal and objectives for the project Before every stakeholder management activity, project management team should
have a better understanding of the tasks and objectives of the particular stage of the project Lifecycle, including the issues of such as cost, schedule, and budget. Since identification of a clear mission for a project at different stages is widely considered to be essential for the effective management of stakeholders. •
Explore the stakeholder need and expectation During the project process, all stakeholders’ needs should be assessed, so that a
satisfactory and realistic solution to the problem being addressed is obtained. Project managers have to be aware since failing to address and meet the concerns and expectations of the stakeholders involved has resulted in many project failures. •
Identify the project stakeholders An important part of the management of the project system’s environment is to
organize the process in order to be able to identify and to manage the probable stakeholders in that environment and determine how they will react to project decisions.
4.5.2.3 Component 3: Stakeholder assessment 126B
Stakeholder assessment ranked in last among the 6 components (Table 4.2) with Relative importance Index = 81%, and this component correlates with all of the other groups. It is indicated that project managers in the Gaza Strip consider estimating
102
stakeholders significant in stakeholder management in construction projects. To enhance the understanding of project managers on stakeholders, their attributes, behavior, and potential influence need to be assessed and estimated. Therefore, this component, which relates to estimate stakeholders, could be illustrated by: •
Assessing stakeholders’ attributes Based on the project objectivities and stakeholder information, stakeholder
attributes, namely: Attitude, power, urgency, proximity, legitimacy, knowledge, and vested interest, need to be evaluated by the project management team, the outcome of this activity is the impact level and impact index, which can be calculated by using the formulas adapted from Nguyen et al. (2009). •
Prioritizing stakeholders This activity is to prioritize the list of the stakeholders by getting the results of
"impact index", and "stakeholder attitude", and then the influence index could be calculated. The high positive influence index value determines whom stakeholder is the most influenced on the project. Therefore, the use of the results of "priority influence index" is deemed to help the project team as a planning tool, it can be used proactively to structure the project stakeholders and their potential impact on the project, and it can help project managers to formalize a stakeholder management process. •
Classify the stakeholder This classification provides a strong sense of stakeholder impact on projects when
considering the alternative concurrence of attributes to determine the silence of stakeholders. Project managers, therefore, can categorize stakeholders to develop appropriate responses to engage them. There are two inputs for this activity; the first one is the level of impact, which is calculated as a summation of stakeholder attributes (power, urgency, proximity, legitimacy, and knowledge), the second input is the vested interest. By using the stakeholder impact / probability matrix (Olander, 2007), four categories of stakeholder will be gotten: (i) Key play, (ii) Keep satisfied, (iii) Keep informed, and (iv) Minimal effort.
103
4.5.2.4 Component 4: Decision making 127B
Decision making is ranked in first position among the 6 components (Table 4.2) with Relative Importance Index = 89% and this component correlates with all of the other groups. Three critical success factors were included in this component relating to decision-making. Based on the outcomes in ‘information input’, and the outcomes in ‘stakeholder assessment’ (prioritizing the stakeholder list, and the stakeholder classification), the project management team has the responsibility to compromise conflicts among stakeholders by transparent evaluation of the alternative solution, and they can assist to decide the levels and methods of stakeholder engagement, and formulate appropriate strategies to deal with the issues raised by stakeholders at this stage. •
Evaluate of the alternative solution Clear and transparent evaluation of alternative solutions for the in construction
projects based on the concerns of stakeholders would help project managers to establish the basis of trust needed for an adequate stakeholder management process (Olander and Landin, 2008). •
Decide methods and levels of engagement The project management team should decide the levels and the corresponding
methods for engaging stakeholders according to the project objectives. The outcome of this activity is a profile for stakeholder engagement. Engagement levels include inform (to provide the stakeholders with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions), consult (to obtain stakeholders’ feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions), involve (to work directly with the stakeholders throughout the process to ensure that stakeholder concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered), and collaborate (to partner with stakeholders in each aspect of the decision). •
Formulate appreciate strategy This serves to decide what strategies the project management teams use to address
the stakeholder conflicts with the consideration of their reactions to the strategies. As described in Section 4.4.3, the strategy types comprise adaptation, Influence, and
104
avoidance. The choice of the strategy types should be in accordance with the information input group, the stakeholder’ priority, classification, and also the engagement methods.
4.5.2.5 Component 5: Action & evaluation 128B
Action & evaluation ranked in fourth position among the 6 components (Table 4.2) with Relative Importance Index = 86%, and this component correlates with all of the other groups. The action and evaluation group is the final management activity group in the process of stakeholder management.
The inputs required are the
formulated strategies, and the profile for stakeholder engagement. This group includes three management activities. •
Implement the strategies This activity is self-explanatory. The formulated strategies should be implemented
accordingly. The outcome of this activity is to keep the project moving forward. •
Evaluate stakeholder satisfaction The engaging activities with stakeholders are based on the stakeholder
engagement profile. There are several stakeholders whose expectations and influences must be included in the project management process. It has been emphasized that if a project’s key stakeholders are not satisfied with the ongoing project outcomes, the project team will as a result be required to adjust scope, time, cost and quality in order to meet the stakeholders’ requirements and expectations. To obtain the stakeholder opinion about the engagement activities, surveys and meetings should be conducted to evaluate the stakeholder satisfaction level. The results can be used to better understand the stakeholder interests, needs and project constraints. •
Flexibility in the implementing strategy After the strategies being implemented, the evaluation the stakeholders’ reactions
to the strategies should be used to improve the objectives in the succeeding stakeholder management process. This activity is carried out after the strategies being implemented, and the results of the evaluation should be used to improve the objectives in the succeeding process.
105
4.5.2.6 Component 6: Continuous support 129B
This component is ranked in the fifth position with Relative Importance Index = 81.8% (Table 4.2). This component correlates with information input, stakeholder assessment, decision making, and action and evaluation groups. This component includes the activities which should be carried out to support the implemented management activities, and the name of this group as ‘continuous support’ come from that the activities within, not only support a single management process, or contribute to the success of a single project, but can be used for accumulating the experiences and knowledge of the project management team in the long term. •
Keep communication with the engaging stakeholder Project success is tied to effectively communicate and managing relationships
with the various stakeholders of the project. This makes stakeholder management an important issue in project management (Assudani, 2010). So project manager has to keep communication channels with the engaging stakeholder properly and frequently. •
Build mutual trust Mutual trust is a facilitator of positive relationships among project stakeholders.
Trust is argued to enhance a variety of stakeholder relationships, including the project team, contractor, consultant, beneficiaries, governmental ministries, and other stakeholder. •
Obtain support assistant from higher authorities. Top-level support is important for management activities, in an organization with
a mature stakeholder management environment; the higher authorities always monitor the management process, help figuring out problems, and used the effects of stakeholder management as an indicator for performance measurement of the management team. •
Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship Successful relationships between the project management team and its
stakeholders are vital for successful delivery of projects and meeting stakeholder expectations.
106
•
Involve stakeholder in the decision-making Participation of project stakeholders in different stages of construction project
(e.g. The planning and development phases) can be beneficial in several ways, so the project manager should involve the stakeholder in order to reduce their opposition towards the decision which were taken on behalf of them.
107
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendation 6B
This chapter includes the conclusions and practical recommendations to improve the stakeholder management process in the construction projects in the Gaza Strip, and recommendations for future research are suggested.
5.1 Conclusion 46B
This research had four primary objectives, which were achieved through the data collection using survey techniques and the detail analysis of the survey results. The first objective was to identify and rank the most common factors that affect the stakeholder management process in construction project, the second objective was to identify the stakeholder's engagement level based on their influence, the third objective was to evaluate the current practice approaches of stakeholder management in the construction project, and the final objective was to propose a framework for stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip. Based on the results obtained from this research, the following conclusions of the research are drawn: A total of 30 factors affecting the stakeholder management process were synthesized in six groups in the survey, which were shown to be reliable. Data were collected from a representative sample of professional governmental institutions, municipalities, NGO’s, UN agencies and INGO’s in the Gaza Strip. The findings from the study show that 23 factors are regarded as critical for the success of the stakeholder management process in construction projects by most respondents. The most top three factors that affect the stakeholder management process in construction project in the Gaza Strip were ranked based on their Relative Importance Index are: hiring a project manager with high competencies (RII = 94.4%), transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern (RII = 91.6%), and ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder (RII = 90.2 %). There are variances in the degree of influence toward the construction projects among the set of stakeholders which were selected in this research, and the concealed results show the stakeholder priority in order of the influence index, ranking from
108
highest to lowest influence impact on the construction project in the Gaza strip according to the following: •
Client is the top of the list (1st position);
•
Donor follow with the high scores (2nd position);
•
Consultant scores the (3rd position);
•
INGO's/ NGO's in the (4th position);
•
Contractor scores (5th position);
•
Beneficiary/ End-user scores (6th position);
•
Governmental authority in the (7th position);
•
Landowner/ Neighborhood with negative index (8th position);
•
General public with negative index (9th position). The data analysis for the stakeholder attributes based on the level of impact /
probability of impact matrix tool lead to distribute the stakeholder into categories, and each category has its engagement strategies, that should be used in general to engage the construction stakeholder in the Gaza Strip as follows: • Collaborate: include the key player group (client; consultant; donor; and contractor) • Involve: with keeping satisfied group (INGO's / NGO's; beneficiaries/ end-user; and governmental authority) • Inform: minimal effort group (landowner/ project neighborhood; and the general public) Personal past experience, interviews, professional services, workshops, and questionnaires are effective Approaches to analyze stakeholders’ concern and need in the Gaza Strip. But the personal past experience (RII = 89.8 %) and interviews (RII = 81.4 %) are the most effective approaches from points of view of project managers in the Gaza Strip. Meetings, interviews, negotiations, social contacts, and workshops are effective methods for engaging the stakeholder in the construction project in the Gaza Strip. Meeting (RII = 94.4 %) and interview (RII = 85.6 %) are the most effective methods that should be used in engaging the stakeholder. The compromising strategy, adaptation strategy, influence strategy, and avoidance strategy are effective in response to the stakeholder claims. On the other hand they
109
refused to use the dismissal strategy in dealing with stakeholder. At the same time the respondents think that the compromised strategy (RII = 80 %) is the most effective approach to deal with the stakeholder claims. The study main conclusion is to introduce the stakeholder framework. The framework structure is presented based on the result of the critical success factor for stakeholder management process in the Gaza Strip, and with reference to the statistical correlation between groups factor, and the final shape of the framework is illustrated in Figure 5.1, the framework consists of six activity groups: Management support: this group is related to the support which is given from top management in the implementing agencies toward the construction project, by hiring a project manager team with high competencies, support to manage stakeholder with corporate social responsibilities, and flexibility in the project organization. Information
inputs:
the
project
management
team
should
collect
comprehensive information about the project and its stakeholders. The information includes project missions, full list of stakeholders, and their needs and constraints of the project. Stakeholder assessment: To enhance the understanding of project managers on stakeholders, their attributes, prioritizing, and classification need to be assessed and estimated. Decision making: Based on the outcomes in ‘information input’, and the outcomes in ‘stakeholder assessment’, the project management team has the responsibility to evaluate the alternative solution, decide the levels and methods of stakeholder engagement, and formulate appropriate strategies to deal with stakeholders. Action &evaluation: The required inputs for this group are the formulated strategies, and the profile for stakeholder engagement. Project manager should implement the formulate strategies based on schedule plan, evaluate the stakeholder stratification, and should keep a margin of flexibility in the implemented strategy
to
use the results of the evaluation in order to improve stakeholder management process. Continuous support: This group includes the activities which should be carried out by project managers to support the implemented management activities.
110
111
5.2 Recommendation 47B
The following recommendations are the most important ones that can be deduced by this research. •
It is recommended to use the proposed framework as a guideline (Figure 5.1) to assist project managers in managing the stakeholder in the construction project effectively in the Gaza Strip.
•
It is advisable that the implemented agencies recruit a project manager based on his competencies to lead the management of the stakeholder successfully, in the same time to delegate a suitable degree of authority and delegation to the project management team.
•
The implemented agencies should provide training courses to the project management team in the area of communication and negotiation with stakeholders in order to increase their awareness regarding this issue.
•
The project managers should openly define the evaluation criteria for the analysis of alternative solutions early. This made it possible to explain and justify why the proposed alternative was chosen when questions arose about its choice.
•
The project managers have to develop the project communication management plan. In order to ensure the effective communication between the project and its stakeholder.
•
The project management team should set clear scope of work for the different stages of the project based on agreed common goals, objectives, and project priorities.
•
Project managers should engage the construction stakeholders as early as possible.
112
•
The project managers should work closely with the client and donor as they the most important stakeholder in construction projects in the Gaza strip and give them the most attention.
•
The project manager is recommended to adapt the stakeholder assessment methodology that was used in this research for the identification, classification, and prioritizing of stakeholders. In order to choose the right stakeholders for the right level of engagement and to avoid the risk of making mistakes that could cause the mismanagement of construction stakeholder.
•
Project managers should be aware of the follow up activities to manage stakeholder effectively, so they have to keep communication with stakeholders and build a relationship based on the mutual trust, in the same time to involve them in the decision making according to their interest issue.
5.3 Suggestions for future research 48B
Based on the limitations of the research, two suggestions are proposed for future studies. They are listed as follows: •
It will be necessary to conduct additional research on the private construction projects, since this type of project is growing rapidly, as a result of the demand for the private housing projects is increased in the Gaza Strip.
•
Further research is needed to examine and evaluate the application of the stakeholder assessment in construction project management across different stages and levels of project execution with internal as well as external stakeholders. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis of how the weighted distribution of stakeholder attribute value will affect the analysis and the conclusions drawn from it should be undertaken.
113
References: 7B
Aaltonen, K. & Sivonen, R. (2009) Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27 (2), pp. 131– 141. Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K. and Tuomas, O. (2008) Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26 (5), pp. 509-516 . Abdi, H. (2007). Kendall rank correlation, in Salkind, N.J., Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, Thousand Oaks (CA), Sage. Abu Rass, A. (2006) An investigation of disputes resolution in the construction industry: the case of Gaza-Strip. M.S.c. Thesis, Islamic University, Gaza. AL-Madhoun, M. (2007) Managerial obstacles facing the Gaza Seaport project. M.S.c. Thesis, Islamic University, Gaza. Al-Najjar, J. (2008) Factors influencing time and cost overruns on construction projects in the Gaza Strip. M.S.c. Thesis, Islamic University, Gaza. AlWaer, H., Sibley, M. and Lewis, J. (2008) Different stakeholder perceptions of sustainability assessment. Architectural Science Review, 51 (1), pp. 48-59. Assudani, R. and Kloppenborg, T. J. (2010) Managing stakeholders for project management success: an emergent model of stakeholders. Journal of General Management, 35 (3), pp. 67-80. Atkin, B. and Skitmore, M. (2008) Editorial: stakeholder management in construction, Construction Management and Economics, 26 (6), pp. 549-552. Bourne, L. (2005) Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle TM, PhD Thesis, RMIT University, AU. Bourne, L. and Walker, D. H. T. (2005) Visualizing and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43 (5), pp. 649 – 660. Bourne, L. Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence – two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37 (1), pp. 5–22. Brooke, K. and Litwin, G. (1997) Mobilizing the partnering process. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13 (4), pp. 42–48. Bryson, J. M. (2004) What to do when Stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6 (1), pp. 21-53. Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2006) Business & Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (6th edn). Mason: Thomson South-Western.
114
Chen, W. T., Chen, T. T. (2007) Critical success factors for construction partnering in Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 25 (5), pp. 475–484. Chinyio, E.A. and Olomolaiye, P. (2010) Construction Stakeholder Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Cleland, D.I. and Ireland, R.L. (2007) Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation, New York, McGraw-Hill. Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (2010) Enviromental management plan Gaza emergency water project GEWP, Report, Palestine. Corder, G.W. and Foreman, D.I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-satisticians: a step-by-step approach, Wiley. Čulo, K. and Skendrović V. (2010) Communication management is critical for project success. Informatologia. 43 (3), pp. 228-235. Doloi, H. K. (2011) Understanding stakeholders' perspective of cost estimation in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (5) , pp. 622–636. El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H. and Ei-Diraby, T.E. (2006) Stakeholder management for public private partnerships, International Journal of Project Management, 24 (7), pp. 595-604. Elias, A.A., Cavana, R.Y. and Jackson, L.S. (2002) Stakeholder analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management 34 (2), pp. 301–310. Enshassi, A. Mohamed, S., and Abu Mosa, J. (2008) Risk management in building projects in Palestine: Contractors’ perspective. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 13 (1), pp. 29-44. Enshassi, A., Abdul-Aziz A.R. and Abushaban S. (2012) analysis of contractors performance in Gaza Strip construction projects. The International Journal of Construction Management, 12 (2), pp. 65-79. Fellows, R., and Liu, A., (2008) Science Ltd., Third edition.
Research Methods for Construction, Blackwell
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S. and Wicks, A.C. (2007) Managing for Stakeholders – Survival, Reputation, and Success, Louis Stern Memorial Fund, US. George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for window step by step. Fourth edition. Harris, F. (2010) A historical overview of stakeholder management, in Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P. (Eds.), Construction Stakeholder Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 41-55.
115
Heravitorbati, A. Coffey, V. and Trigunarsyah, B. (2011) Assessment of requirements for establishment of a framework to enhance implementation of quality practices in building projects. International Journal of Innovation Management and Technology, 2 (6), pp. 465–470. Jarad, N. (2012) The construction manager leading characteristics for the success of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. M.S.c. Thesis, Islamic University, Gaza. Jefferies, M., Gameson, R. and Rowlinson, S. (2002) Critical success factors of the BOOT procurement system: reflections from the Stadium Australia case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9 (4), pp. 352-361. Jepsen A. L. and Eskerod, P. (2009) Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), pp. 335–343. Jergeas, G.F., Eng. P., Williamson, E., Skulmoski, G.J. and Thomas, J.L. (2000) Stakeholder management on construction projects, 2000 AACE International Transaction, 12.1-12.6. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005) Exploring corporate strategy: Text and Cases, 6th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Karlsen, J.T. (2002) Project stakeholder management, Engineering Management Journal, 14 (4), pp. 19-24. Karlsen, J.T. (2008) Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering projects, European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2 (1), pp. 35-49. Leung, M.Y., Thomas, N.S. and Cheung, S.O. (2004b) Measuring construction project participant satisfaction. Construction Management and Economics, 22 (3), pp. 319-331. Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T. and Skitmore M. (2013) Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach. Automation in Construction, 29, pp. 123–135. Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T. and Skitmore, M. (2012). Conflicts or consensus: An investigation of stakeholder concern during the participation process of major infrastructure and construction projects in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 36 (2), pp. 333-342. Li, Y., Lu, Y. and Peng, Y. (2011) Hierarchical structuring success factors of project stakeholder management in the construction organization. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (22), pp. 9705-9713. Lim, G., Ahn, H. and Lee, H. (2005) Formulating strategies for stakeholder management: A case-based reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications , 28 (4), pp. 831–840.
116
Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z. and Edwards, D.J. (2004) Industry-centric benchmarking of information technology benefits, costs, risks for small-to-medium sized enterprises in construction. Automation in Construction, 13 (4), pp. 507-524. McElroy, B. and Mills, C. (2000) Managing Stakeholders, In Gower Handbook of Project Management, ed. J. R. Turner and S. J. Simister, Gower Publishing Limited, pp. 757-775. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp. 853-887. Moura, H., Teixeira, J. (2010) Managing stakeholders conflicts, in Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P. (Eds.), Construction Stakeholder Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 286-314. Naoum, S.G., (2007) Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Student, Reed educational and professional publishing Ltd. Newcombe, R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 22(8), pp. 762-784. Nguyen, N.H., Skitmore, M. and Wong, J. K. W. (2009) Stakeholder impact analysis of infrastructure project management in developing countries: a study of perception of project managers in state-owned engineering firms in Vietnam. Construction Management and Economics, 27 (11), pp. 1129-1140. Olander, S. (2006) External stakeholder management. PhD thesis, Lund University, UK. Olander, S. (2007) Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 25 (3), pp. 277-287. Olander, S. and Landin, A. (2005) Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 23 (4), pp. 321-328. Olander, S. and Landin, A. (2008) A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Construction Management and Economics, 26 (6), pp. 553-561. Othman, A. and Abdellatif, M. (2011) Partnership for integrating the corporate social responsibility of project stakeholders towards affordable housing development: A South African perspective. Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, 9 (3), pp. 273 – 295. Palestinian Contractors Union, (2012) Contractors sector in Palestine, [Online]. Available http://www.pcu.ps/. [Accessed on May, 2012].
117
Pinto, J. K., D. Slevin, B. (2009) Trust in Projects: An empirical assessment of owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27 (6), pp. 638-648. PMI (Project Management Institute) (2008) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Fourth version, Newtown Square, Pa. Poilt, D., and Hungler, B. (1985). Essentials of nursing research; Methods and applications, J. B. Lippincott company. Prager, K. and Freese, J. (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making – Learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2), pp. 1154-1167. Reed, M.S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biological Conservation, 141(10), pp. 2417-2431. Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, pp. 810-829. Saunders, M., Lewis P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall, Fourth Edition. Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J. and Blair, J.D. (1991) Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5 (2), pp. 61-75. Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill International, Singapore. Siriwardena, N., Haigh, R. and Ingirige, B. (2010) Managing Stakeholder Expectations of Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Projects in Sri Lanka, Published paper, University of Salford, UK. Smith, J. and Love, P.E.D. (2004). Stakeholder management during project inception: Strategic needs analysis. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10 (1), pp. 22–33. Takim, R. (2009) The management of stakeholders’ needs and expectations in the development of construction project in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science, 3 (5), pp. 167–175. Tam, V. W. Y. and Le, K. N. (2006). Environmental assessment by power spectrum. Sustainable Development through Culture and Innovation. Tasmanian Government Project Management Guidelines (2011) available at: http://www.egovernment.tas.gov.au [Accessed 14/12/12]. Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2003) On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21 (1), pp. 1-8.
118
Walker, D.H.T. Bourne, L.M. and Shelley, A. (2008) Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management & Economics, 26 (6), pp. 645-658. Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (2008) Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects, Construction Management and Economics, 26 (6), pp. 563-577. Winch, G. (2002) Global construction business systems. Building Research & Information, 30 (6), pp. 390–391. Yang, J. Shen, G. Q. Derek, S. M. and Hoa, Xue, X. (2011a) Stakeholder management in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (7), pp. 900–910. Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Bourne, L., Ho, C. M. and Xue, X. (2011b) A typology of operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. Construction Management and Economics, 29 (2), pp. 145-162. Yang, J., Shen, Q.P. and Ho, M.F. (2009a) An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management & its implications for construction industry, Journal of Facilities Management, 7 (2), pp. 159-175. Yang, J., Shen, Q.P., Ho, M.F., Drew, S.D. and Chan, A.P.C. (2009b) Exploring critical success factors for stakeholder management in construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15 (4), pp. 337-348. Yang, L.R., O'Connor, J.T. and Chen, J.H. (2007) Assessment of automation and Integration technology's impacts on project stakeholder success. Automation in Construction, 16 (6), pp. 725-733. Ye, J. Hassan, T. and Carter, C. and Kemp, L. (2009) Stakeholders' requirements analysis for a demand-driven construction industry. Building Information Modeling Applications, Challenges and Future Directions, 14, pp. 629-641. Young, T.L. (2006) Successful Project Management, Second Edition, Kogan Page, UK. Yu, T.W., Shen, Q.P., Kelly, J. and Hunter, K. (2007) An empirical study of the variables affecting construction project briefing/architectural programming. International Journal of Project Management, 25 (2), pp. 198-212.
119
2
Annex (1): Questionnaire (Arabic)
120
ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ – ﻏﺰﺓ ﻋﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ
The Islamic University-Gaza Higher Education Deanship Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Construction Project Management
اﺴﺘﺒﺎﻨﺔ ﺤوﻝ اﻟﺘﺤﻘق ﻤن إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻴﻊ اﻻﻨﺸﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة
ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ :ﺻﻼﺡ ﺣﻤﺎﺩ
ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻑ :ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ/ﻧﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﻟﺤﻲ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ
دﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ 2012
121
اﻟزﻤﻼء اﻷﻋزاء:
إﻨﻪ ﻟﻤن دواﻋﻲ ﺴروري أن ﻴﺘم اﺨﺘﻴﺎرﻛم ﻟﻺﺴﻬﺎم ﻓﻲ ﺘطوﻴر إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة ﻤن ﺨﻼﻝ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ ﺒﺠزء ﻤن وﻗﺘﻛم وﻤﻌرﻓﺘﻛم اﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺈدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻴﻊ اﻻﻨﺸﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺒﻤﻝء اﻟﺒﺤث اﻟﻤﻴداﻨﻲ ﻀﻤن ﻫذﻩ اﻟدراﺴﺔ.
ﻫدف اﻟﺒﺤث
:
ﺘطوﻴر وﺘﺤﺴﻴن اﻵﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻴﻊ اﻹﻨﺸﺎﺌﻴﺔ.
اﻟﻔﺌﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬدﻓﺔ :
ﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺨﺒراء ﻓﻲ ﻤﺠﺎﻝ إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻤﻠﻴن ﻟدى اﻟﻘطﺎع اﻟﻌﺎم واﻟﻤؤﺴﺴﺎت اﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ
وﺸﺒﻪ اﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ اﻟﻐﻴر رﺒﺤﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﻨظﻤﺎت ﻏﻴر اﻟﺤﻛوﻤﻴﺔ واﻻﺴﺘﺸﺎرﻴون اﻟذﻴن ﺴﺎﻫﻤوا ﻤن ﻗرﻴب أو ﺒﻌﻴد ﻓﻲ ﻫذا اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ. أﻫداف اﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎن :
ﺘﻘﻴﻴم اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺴﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ و اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻴﻴر اﻟﻤؤﺜرة ﻓﻲ إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻤن ﻗﺒﻝ اﻟﺨﺒراء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻴﻊ
اﻹﻨﺸﺎﺌﻴﺔ.
ﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎت ﻤﻝء اﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎن
:
•
اﻟرﺠﺎء اﻹﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻝ اﻷﺴﺌﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ،ﺒﻨﺎءا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺨﺒرﺘك اﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺠﺎﻝ ادارة أطراف اﻟﻤﺸروع.
•
ﻓﺈﻨﻪ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨدام اﻟﻔﺄرة ﻴﺘم اﻟﻀﻐط ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻼﺨﺘﻴﺎر وﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﻛذا .
ﺤﻴث ﻴوﺠد ﻤرﺒﻌﺎت اﺨﺘﻴﺎر ﻛﻬذﻩ
أﺠزاء اﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎن
:
اﻟﺠزء اﻻوﻝ :ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎت ﻋﺎﻤﺔ اﻟﺠزء اﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ :ﺘﺤدﻴد اﻟﻌواﻤﻝ اﻟﻤؤﺜرة ﻓﻲ إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ. اﻟﺠزء اﻟﺜﺎﻟث :اﻟﻤﻤﺎرﺴﺎت اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻹدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ. اﻟﺠزء اﻟراﺒﻊ :ﺘﻘﻴﻴم ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺎرﻴﻊ اﻹﻨﺸﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗطﺎع ﻏزة
ﺘﻌرﻴﻔﺎت: •
ﺍﻟﻣﺎﻟﻙ
ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ):( Stakeholders
ﺍﻟﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺣﻛﻭﻣﻳﺔ
ﺍﻻﺳﺗﺷﺎﺭﻱ
ﻫم اﻷﺸﺨﺎص أو اﻟﻤﺠﻤوﻋﺎت اﻟذﻴن ﻴؤﺜرون أو ﻴﺘﺄﺜرون ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺸروع. •
إدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ )ٍ:(Stakeholder Management
ﺍﻟﻣﻧﻅﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻳﺔ
ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺭﻭﻉ
ﺍﻟﻣﻘﺎﻭﻝ
ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎرة ﻋن ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺤدﻴد واﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻝ واﻟﺘواﺼﻝ واﺘﺨﺎذ اﻟﻘرار وﻛﻝ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻠزم ﻤن أﻨﺸطﺔ ﻹدارة ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ. •
ﺍﻟﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻣﻣﻭﻟﺔ
ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻧﺎﺱ
اﻟﻤﺴؤوﻟﻴﺔ اﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ):(Social Responsibility
ﻣﺎﻟﻛﻲ ﺍﻻﺭﺍﺿﻲ
اﻻﻟﺘزام اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤر ﻤن ﻗﺒﻝ اﻟﺠﻬﺎت اﻟﻤﻨﻔذة ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼرف أﺨﻼﻗﻴﺎً واﻟﻤﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻘﻴق اﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ
ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ )(Stakeholder
اﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻴﺔ واﻟﻌﻤﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺤﺴﻴن ﻨوﻋﻴﺔ اﻟظروف اﻟﻤﻌﻴﺸﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘوى اﻟﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ وﻋﺎﺌﻼﺘﻬم ،واﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ واﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻛﻛﻝ.
ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻔﺴﺎﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺑﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺮﺟﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﻝ ) (0599630549ﺃﻭ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﻟﻴﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ
[email protected] ﻣﻊ ﺟﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﺻﻼﺡ ﺣﻤﺎﺩ
122
ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ
.1ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻷﻭﻝ:
ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻠﺪﻳﺎﺕ
1ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ 2ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻅﻴﻔﻲ ﻟﻤﻌﺒﺊ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ
ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﻋﺎﻡ
ﻋﺪﺩ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ 3 ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ
ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ 5ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ
.2ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ:
ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﻦ -5ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ 10 ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ
ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ............
ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺱ ﻣﺸﺮﻑ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ............
-10ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ 15 ﺳﻨﺔ
ﺳﻨﺔ
ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ 15
ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
ﺑﻨﺎءﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺒﺮﺗﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻳﺮﺟﻰ ﺇﺑﺪﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ: (2.1ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺘﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ؟
1
ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﺑﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﺬﻭﻱ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
2
ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
3
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺫﻭ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ
)(5 ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
)(4
)(3
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
)(2 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
(2.2ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺘﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ؟
1
ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
2
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻢ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ
3
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
)(5 ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
)(4
)(3
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
)(2 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
(2.3ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻷﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺆﺛﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ؟
1
ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
2
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
3
ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
4
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ
5 6 7
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ) :(Powerﻗﺪﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻳﻘﺎﻑ ﺍﻭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ( ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺷﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ) : (Legitimacyﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ) : (Urgencyﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ
ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺕ ﻓﻮﺭﻳﺔ
123
)(5 ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
)(4
)(3
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
)(2 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺘﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ؟
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ) : (Proximityﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ
8
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ) (Knowledgeذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺬﺓ
9
(2.4ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ؟
1
ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
2
ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﻭ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
3
ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
(2.5ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﺠﺎﺡ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ؟
1
ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻨﺎءﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻄﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺒﻖ.
2
اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﺎﻣﺶ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﻧﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﻌﻞ ذوي
ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺭﺿﺎ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﺗﻮﻗﻌﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ.
3
(2.6ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺩﺍﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ؟
1
ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻊ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
2
ﺇﺷﺮﺍﻙ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ.
3
ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺪﺓ ﻣﻊ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
4 5 6 7
ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﻟﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ. ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ. ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ. ﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﻴﻦ ) (Uncertaintyﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ.
8
ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
9
ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
124
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ
.3ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ:
ﺑﻨﺎءﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺒﺮﺗﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻳﺮﺟﻰ ﺇﺑﺪﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ:
(3.1ﻁﺮﻕ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎﺕ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ؟ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
)(5 ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ
1
ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ
2
ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ
3
ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ
4
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻳﺔ
5
ﻭﺭﺵ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
(3.2ﻁﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ؟ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
)(5 ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ
1
ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ
2
ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ
)(4
)(3
)(2
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
)(1 ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺽ ﻭﺭﺵ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ
3 4 5 (3.3ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﺇﻟﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ؟ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ 1 2 3
ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ
ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ) :(Adaptationﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎﺕ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ) :(Avoidanceﺍﻟﺘﺤﺼﻴﻦ ﻭﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﺧﺮﻱ. ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻓﻴﻖ ):(Compromiseﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺽ ﻣﻊ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﻠ
4 5
ﻝ ﻠ
ﻞ
ﻂ
ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ) :(Dismissalﺗﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ذوي
اﻟ ﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ) :(Influenceﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﻰ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻬﻢ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ.
125
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﺑﺸﺪﺓ
.4ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ :
ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﻏﺰﺓ
ﺑﻨﺎءﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺒﺮﺗﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﻳﺮﺟﻰ ﺇﺑﺪﺍء ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ: (4.1اﻟﺪﻋﻢ ) :(Attitude
ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻦ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ
1
ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ
2
ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻱ
3
ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻝ /ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻦ
4
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻮﻟﺔ
5
ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ /ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
6
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
7
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ /ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
8
ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ
9
ﻣﺎ ﻟﻜﻰ ﺍﻻﺭﺍﺿﻲ /ﺟﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻦ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ
1
ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ
2
ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻱ
3
ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻝ /ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻦ
4
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻮﻟﺔ
5
ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ /ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
6
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
7
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ /ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
8
ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ
9
ﻣﺎ ﻟﻜﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ /ﺟﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ.
(4.2اﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎم ) :( Vested Interest
ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺤﻬﻢ.
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
(4.4اﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع ): (Proximity
(4.3اﻟﻘﻮة ):(Power
ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ
ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ.
ﻭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻞ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ
ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ.
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻰ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
126
(4.6اﻟﻀﺮورة ): (Urgency
(4.5ﺷﺮﻋﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ):(Legitimacy
ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻤﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ذوي
ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻗﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ.
ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻦ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ:
1
ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ
2
ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻱ
3
ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻝ /ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻦ
4
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻮﻟﺔ
5
ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ /ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
6
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
7
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ /ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
8
ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ
9
ﻣﺎ ﻟﻜﻰ ﺍﻻﺭﺍﺿﻲ /ﺟﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻢ
ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ذوي اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ اﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻦ ،ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ
1
ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ
2
ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﻱ
3
ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻭﻝ /ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻦ
4
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻮﻟﺔ
5
ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ /ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
6
ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ
7
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ /ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
8
ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ
9
ﻣﺎ ﻟﻜﻰ ﺍﻻﺭﺍﺿﻲ /ﺟﻴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ
اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺕ.
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
)(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ )(Knowledge (4.7 ﺑﺎﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ. )(5
)(4
)(3
)(2
)(1
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺟﺪا
ﻋﺎﻟﻲ
ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ
ﻗﻠﻴﻞ
ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ
ﺷﺎﻛﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻜﻢ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﻧﻜﻢ
127
3
Annex (2): Questionnaire (English)
128
ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ – ﻏﺰﺓ
The Islamic University-Gaza Higher Education Deanship Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Construction Project Management
ﻋﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ
QUESTIONNAIRE
Investigating the Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip
Researcher: Salah Hammad Supervised by: Dr. Nabil El Sawalhi
December, 2012
129
Dear colleagues, I would like to present my appreciation and thanks you for taking part of your time and effort to complete this questionnaire; this questionnaire aims to investigate the stakeholder management in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. This is part of partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in construction management from the Islamic University-Gaza.
Objective of the research: Development and improvement the stakeholder management process in the construction project.
The target group: All experts in the field of disaster management and reconstruction in the public sector and public corporations and non-governmental organizations and consultants who have contributed from near or far in this area.
Instructions: 1. Please answer this questionnaire with reference to your previous experience about stakeholder management of one representative project that you have participated. 2. Please answer the questions by ticking the appropriate box, e.g. Civil work.
Questionnaire Contents: Part I: General information Part II : Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project. Part III: Stakeholder management practice Part IV : Evaluate the attributes of the stakeholders in the construction project. Definition: • Stakeholder: Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the project’s objectives. • Stakeholder management: The process of identification, analysis, communication, decision making and all other kinds of activities in terms of managing stakeholders. • Social responsibility: The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large
Client Public
Beneficiar y
Consultant
Contractor
Project
Governme ntal
Donor INGO's
Project stakeholder
If you have any queries, please contact me at (059-9630549) or via email at
[email protected] Yours Sincerely، Salah Hammad
130
PART I :
Personal Information
Governmental, Semi-governmental, and Municipalities
1
Nature of Institution
2
Your position
General Manager
3
Your experience
Less than 5 years
PART II :
UN agencies and INGO’s
Non-Governmental Organization
Project Manager 5 – less than 10 years
Supervisor engineer 10 – less than 15 years
Others ,,,,,,,,,,
Others ,,,,,,,,,,. More than 15 years
Factors affecting the stakeholder management in the construction project
Based on your experience in the field of project management, please give feedback to the following questions
no.
2.1 Management Support To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders? Managing stakeholder with responsibilities Flexible project organization Project manger competences
1 2 3
corporate
(5)
(4)
(2)
(1)
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
(5)
(3)
social
no.
2.2 Information input To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders? Setting common goal and objective of the project Identifying stakeholders Exploring the stakeholder need and expectation
1 2 3
no.
2.3 Stakeholder assessment
1 2 3
To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders?
5
Assessing stakeholders’ attitude Understanding area of stakeholders’ interests Predicting the influence of stakeholders Analyzing conflicts and coalitions stakeholders Evaluate the stakeholder power
6
Evaluating the stakeholder legitimacy
7
Understand the stakeholder urgency .
8
Determine the stakeholder proximity.
9
Determine the stakeholder Knowledge.
4
131
among
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
no.
2.4 Decision making To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders?
1
Transparent evaluation of the alternative solution based on stakeholder concern.
2
Ensuring effective communication between the project and its stakeholder.
3
Formulate appreciate stakeholder.
strategy
to
deal
(5)
(4)
(2)
(1)
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
(5)
(3)
with
no.
2.5 Action and evaluation To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders?
1
Implementing the strategy based on schedule plans.
2
Flexibility in the implementing strategy to deal with stakeholder' reaction.
3
Evaluation the stakeholder satisfaction in terms of achievement of the stakeholder pre - project expectation.
no.
2.6 Continuous support To what extent do you think that the following factors are effective in managing the stakeholders?
1
Communication with the properly and frequently.
2
Stakeholder involvement in decision-making.
3 4
engaging
stakeholder
Keeping and promoting an ongoing relationship with stakeholder. Analyzing the change of multiple stakeholder engagement and the relation.
5
Obtain support assistant from higher authorities.
6
Mutual trust and respect amongst the stakeholder
7
Reduce the uncertainty
8
Maintain alignment between or among the stakeholder
9
Access to resource and knowledge
132
PART III
Stakeholder management practice
Based on your experience in the field of project management, please give feedback to the following questions 3.1 Methods of analyzing stakeholders’ concern and need
no.
To what extent do you think the following methods are effective to analyze stakeholders’ concern and need? Methods
1
Personal past experience
2
Interviews
3
Questionnaires and surveys
4
Professional services
5
Workshops
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
3.2 Engagement methods for the stakeholders
no.
To what extent do you think the following methods are effective to engage with stakeholders? Methods
1
Meetings
2
Social contacts
3
Negotiations
4
Workshops
5
Interviews
(5) Strongly agree
133
(4) Agree
(3) Neutral
(2) Disagree
(1) Strongly disagree
3.3 Response strategy to deal with the stakeholder claims
no.
To what extent do you think the following Response strategy types are effective to deal with the stakeholder claims ? Strategy Types
1
Adaptation strategy: Obeying the demands and rules that are presented by stakeholders.
2
Avoidance strategy: Loosening attachments to stakeholders and their claims in order to guard and shield oneself against the claims.
3
Compromising strategy: Negotiating with the stakeholders, listening to their claims related to the project and offering possibilities and arenas for dialogues.
4
5
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Dismissal strategy: Ignoring the presented demands of stakeholders. Not taking into account the stakeholder related pressures Influence strategy: Shaping proactively the values and demands of stakeholders.
Evaluate the Attributes of the Stakeholders in the Construction Project. Based on your experience in the field of project management, please give feedback to the following questions
no.
PART IV :
How do you evaluate the attributes of the following stakeholders?
1
Client
2
Consultant
3
Contractor
4
Donor
5
INGO / NGO
6
Governmental Authorities
7
Beneficiary / end user
8
General public
9
Landowner / neighbor
4.1 Attitude: refers to whether the Stakeholder supports or opposes the project
4.2 Vested Interest: Stakeholder interest in a project
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
134
no. 1
Client
2
Consultant
3
Contractor
4
Donor
5
INGO / NGO
6
Governmental Authorities
7
Beneficiary / end user
8
General public
9
Landowner / neighbor
no.
How do you evaluate the attributes of the following Stakeholders?
How do you evaluate the attributes of the following Stakeholders?
1
Client
2
Consultant
3
Contractor
4
Donor
5
INGO / NGO
6
Governmental Authorities
7
Beneficiary / end user
8
General public
9
Landowner / neighbor
4.3 Power: stakeholder’s capacity to make a change in the project
4.4 Proximity: relation type between stakeholders and projects
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
4.5 Legitimacy: the relation type between stakeholders and projects
4.6 Urgency: level of response to claims made by each stakeholder in projects.
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
135
no.
How do you evaluate the attributes of the following Stakeholders?
1
Client
2
Consultant
3
Contractor
4
Donor
5
INGO / NGO
6
Governmental Authorities
7
Beneficiary / end user
8
General public
9
Landowner / neighbor
4.7 Knowledge: stakeholder knowledge of project activities (5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
Thank you for your valuable contribution
136
