The Applicability of PMI’s Project Stakeholder Management Within Post-disaster Reconstruction Projects
Wael Aldandashi
A DISSERTATION Submitted to The University of Liverpool In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Project Management
2014
A Dissertation entitled
The Applicability of PMI’s Project Stakeholder Management Within Post-disaster Reconstruction Projects
By
Wael Aldandashi
We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by Wael Aldandashi conforms to acceptable standards, and as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is therefore approved as the fulfillment of the Dissertation requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Project Management.
Approved:
Dissertation Advisor
Date
The University of Liverpool 2014 II
I. Declaration I hereby certify that this dissertation constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions or writings of another. I declare that the dissertation describes original work that has not previously been presented for the award of any other degree of any institution. Signed, Wael Aldandashi
III
II. Dedication To the martyred children of the Syrian revolution, whom suffered most in one of the biggest manmade disasters of this decade. To the laborers, project managers and engineers whom will carry prospective efforts in reconstructing Syrian cities and cultural heritage.
To my family and friends, with gratitude to my parents, Sahban and Salwa Aldandashi, whose words of encouragement have pushed me for tenacity.
To my beloved wife Raneem, and amazing children whom have never left my side. You have been my best cheerleaders and I dedicate this work to you.
IV
III. Acknowledgement This work would not have been completed without the guidance and support of many to whom I owe them acknowledgment and gratitude.
I am deeply honored of having Dr. Lu Liu as my advisor, who has constantly guided me throughout the whole process. Her precious advice, especially when there was a need to make a critical decision, a solid research experience was reflected in her critiques and useful comments. I also thank Lucia Morales and Rory McLaughlin for their valuable advices in early preparation of this dissertation. My gratitude is extended to every professor who have taught me, and to every member of ULMS at the University of Liverpool.
I would also like to thank the leadership team who supervised the development of PMI’s project management methodology in post-disaster reconstruction (PMMPR) for their collective efforts, and I especially thank Wanda Curlee, whom suggested my research topic, and Peter R. Classen whom did not hesitate to offer his full support and advice. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to practitioners in post-disaster reconstruction projects whom participated in the data collection effort, and especially to members of PMI’s International Development Community of Practice. Without everyone’s participation, this dissertation would have never been completed.
Wael Aldandashi ULMS University of Liverpool, December, 2014 V
IV. Abstract Given the complexity and urgency nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, researchers have found de facto standard frameworks were unable to match with the project requirements and work environment. The addition of project stakeholder management as a main knowledge area of the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition has set a new direction towards recognizing stakeholders as project success enablers.
While the world usually encounters only few hundreds of executed post-disaster reconstruction projects yearly, the massive level of damage requires governments, NGOs, and many other stakeholders to collaborate their efforts towards the completion of related reconstruction efforts. Yet, little is determined when it comes to adopting the most suitable approach in project stakeholder management within the post-disaster context.
This research assesses the applicability of project stakeholder management methodology
within
post-disaster
reconstruction,
focusing
on
methodology
application in executed projects, its contribution to project success, and the level of expected barriers if the methodology is applied. Additionally, the study investigates the most suitable framework to be adopted in stakeholder management, through assessing the applicability when adopting standard, tailored, and no-specific frameworks, covering each project stakeholder management process, tool and technique, as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition.
VI
Based on surveying 218 project management practitioners whom participated in different post-disaster reconstruction projects that occurred during the past ten years, the study result shows that PMI’s project stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques were found partially applicable in the post-disaster context, in which the applicability increases if a tailored framework is adapted. Due to the moderate applicability score against implementation barriers, the enhancement of project stakeholder management will require further investigation towards incorporating additional processes and related tools that mitigates the unforeseen stakeholderrelated risks.
Additionally, the analysis presents a set of theoretical and practical recommendations towards maximizing the overall effect of project stakeholder management within postdisaster reconstruction.
Keywords: Project stakeholder management, post-disaster reconstruction, Extreme project management, stakeholder identification, planning stakeholder management, managing stakeholder engagement, controlling stakeholder engagement.
VII
V. Table of Contents
I. Declaration ........................................................................................................... III II. Dedication ........................................................................................................... IV III. Acknowledgement ............................................................................................... V IV. Abstract ............................................................................................................. VI V.
Table of Contents ............................................................................................. VIII
VI. Tables and Figures .......................................................................................... XIII 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research aim and questions ............................................................................. 4 1.3 Research focus and scope ................................................................................ 5 1.4 Research methodology ..................................................................................... 7 1.5 Structure of the study ........................................................................................ 9 2. Literature review................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Stakeholder management within construction projects ................................... 11 2.1.1 The aim of stakeholder management within construction industry ............ 12 2.1.2 Stakeholder involvement within the construction industry ......................... 13 2.1.3 Challenges in managing stakeholders within construction projects........... 14 2.2 Stakeholder management in disaster situations .............................................. 15 2.2.1 The aim of stakeholder management within disaster situations ................ 16 2.2.2 Stakeholder involvement within disaster projects ...................................... 17 VIII
2.2.3 Challenges in managing stakeholders within disaster projects ................. 20 2.3 Critical success factors related to stakeholder management .......................... 21 2.3.1 Stakeholder management CSFs within construction industry ................... 21 2.3.2 Stakeholder management CSFs within disaster situations ....................... 22 2.4 PMI’s stakeholder management processes ..................................................... 24 2.4.1 Stakeholder management processes according to the PMBOK® Guide .. 25 2.4.2 Stakeholder management according to the PMMPR ................................ 30 2.5 Literature gaps and related hypotheses .......................................................... 31 3. Research methodology ...................................................................................... 37 3.1 Research paradigm ......................................................................................... 37 3.2 Research purpose ........................................................................................... 39 3.3 Research approach ......................................................................................... 40 3.4 Research strategy and selection ..................................................................... 41 3.5 Data collection methods .................................................................................. 43 3.6 Data analysis ................................................................................................... 46 3.7 Quality criteria and ethical consideration ......................................................... 50 3.8 Summary ......................................................................................................... 52 4. Data analysis and discussion ............................................................................. 54 4.1 Sample details and reliability ........................................................................... 54 4.2 Stakeholder management application (hypothesis 1) ...................................... 57 4.2.1 Overall....................................................................................................... 57 4.2.1 According to the applied framework .......................................................... 59 4.2.2 According to the type of disaster ............................................................... 61 4.3 Stakeholder management’s contribution to success (hypothesis 2) ................ 63 4.3.1 Overall....................................................................................................... 63 IX
4.3.2 According to the applied framework .......................................................... 64 4.3.3 According to the type of disaster ............................................................... 65 4.4 Score against implementation barriers (hypothesis 3)..................................... 66 4.4.1 Overall....................................................................................................... 67 4.4.2 According to the applied framework .......................................................... 68 4.4.3 According to the type of disaster ............................................................... 70 4.5 Participants’ opinion towards the applicability ................................................. 71 4.5.1 Overall....................................................................................................... 71 4.5.2 According to the applied framework .......................................................... 72 4.5.3 According to the type of disaster ............................................................... 73 4.6 The total applicability of stakeholder management.......................................... 74 4.6.1 Overall....................................................................................................... 75 4.6.2 According to the applied framework .......................................................... 76 4.6.3 According to the type of disaster ............................................................... 77 4.7 Discussion of research findings ....................................................................... 79 4.7.1 Assessing research hypotheses against related samples ......................... 79 4.7.2 Assessing research findings against related samples ............................... 84 5. Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................... 88 5.1 Synopsys of Results ........................................................................................ 88 5.2 Research implication ....................................................................................... 89 5.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 94 5.4 Suggestions for future research ...................................................................... 95 5.5 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 96 References ............................................................................................................... 99 Appendices ............................................................................................................. 113 X
Appendix 3.1: Participant Information Sheet (PIS) ................................................. 114 Appendix 3.2: Survey questions ............................................................................. 116 Appendix 4.1: Cronbach’s alpha tests .................................................................... 131 Appendix 4.2: Calculation sheets - Overall ............................................................. 138 Appendix 4.3: Calculation sheets – The applied framework ................................... 139 Appendix 4.4: Calculation sheets – The type of disaster ........................................ 142
XI
VI. Tables and Figures Fig. 2.1: Project takeholder Management
verview(PMI, 2112, p.292) ..... 27
Table 2.2: M methodology gap .................................................................... 32 Fig. 2.1: Methodology pyramid ....................................................................... 53 Table 4.1: sata statistics ................................................................................ 55 Table 4.2: sesults ol reliability tests............................................................... 56 Fig. 4.1: Triangle of relationship ..................................................................... 58 Fig. 4.3: SM application according to the nature of disaster .......................... 62 Fig. 4.4: takeholder management’s contribution to success ........................ 64 Fig. 4.5: Contribution to success according to the applied framework ........... 65 Fig. 4.6: Contribution to success according to the nature of disaster ............. 66 Fig. 4.7: SM against implementation barriers ................................................. 68 Fig. 4.8: Score against barriers according to the applied framework ............. 69 Fig. 4.9: Score against barriers according to the nature of disaster ............... 70 Fig. 4.11: Participants’ opinion towards the applicability ................................ 72 Fig. 4.11: Participants’ opinion according to the applied lramework .............. 73 Fig. 4.12: Participants’ opinion according to the nature ol disaster ................ 74
XII
Fig. 4.13: The applicability of stakeholder management ................................ 76 Fig. 4.14: The applicability according to the applied framework ..................... 77 Fig. 4.15: The applicability according to the nature of disaster ...................... 78 Table 4.2: sssessment ol typothesis1 against sample sige ........................ 80 Table 4.4: sssessment ol typothesis2 against sample sige ........................ 82 Table 4.5: sssessment ol typothesis 3 against sample size ........................ 83 Table 4.6: ehe applicability against sample sige ............................................ 85 Table 4.7: ehe applicability ol tailored M processes .................................... 86
XIII
1. Introduction Project Stakeholder Management is one of the main knowledge areas that form the set of methodologies, processes, tools and techniques known as project management best practice. It covers project stakeholder identification, planning for stakeholder management, in addition to managing and controlling stakeholder engagement (PMI, 2013). This research addresses specific elements of project stakeholder management practice within post-disaster reconstruction projects, through investigating its current application as well as its applicability in the post-disaster context.
1.1 Background Project Management Institute (PMI) is the world's famous nonprofit organization (NPO) and society for more than 2.9 million professionals in the field of project management worldwide that was founded in 1969 (Tesch et al., 2009, pp.657-664). It aims to advocate project management global education, collaboration and research, in addition to advancing organizational project management educations and research publications such as the famous Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) that presents a set of project management standard terminologies and guidelines for best practices in project management. PMI identified project stakeholder management as one of the main components of its PMBOK® Guide - Fifth Edition, in which it aims to establish 1
and control relationships with entities and individuals involved in projects. This has driven PMI to develop processes and techniques related to identifying stakeholders, analyzing how they influence projects, in addition to determining the right strategies to set boundaries, communicate, and manage their expectations (PMI, 2013). Accordingly, successful project stakeholder management requires ensuring that project requirements are aligned with and understood by involved stakeholders, in order to ensure a healthy and sustained project environment. While stakeholder management is realized as an important component of project management practice throughout the project life cycle, it is more critical within post-disaster projects, due to the significant overlapping of many involved stakeholders and the urgency of managing such projects (Kim and Choi, 2013, p.148). Disasters, whether they are results of conflict, poor infrastructure, or natural causes are accompanied with urgency and complexity, which requires governments, involved private partners, nonegovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders to contribute in executing challenging and critical projects. Crawford, Langston & Bajracharya (2013, pp.317-333) argues adopting participatory project management, in which involved parties must collaborate and cooperate towards success in post-disaster projects. PMI has developed The Project Management Methodology for Post-disaster Reconstruction (PMMPR) as a guidance based on PMI’s PMBOK® Guide (Project Management Body of Knowledge, Third Edition) for governments, NGOs and relief agencies to adopt in this context (Curlee and Sterling, 2008). 2
Later in 2013, the fifth edition of the PMBOK® Guide presented Project Stakeholder Management as one of the main knowledge areas that forms the methodology detailed in this guide, covering stakeholder identification, planning and managing, in addition to controlling stakeholder engagement (PMI, 2013). The evolution of project management practice as addressed in the content of the PMBOK® Guide has motivated the researcher to assess stakeholder management practice in post-disaster projects, in order to determine the applicability of related processes, methodologies and techniques within the post-disaster context. According to Crawford, Langston & Bajracharya (2013, p.317), both project and stakeholder management are poorly practiced within current post-disaster projects, except for risk management that involves project related tasks and at the same time is associated with disaster response. The assessment study related adapting PMI’s stakeholder management processes within postdisaster reconstruction projects may be considered as an effort towards aligning future editions of the Project Management Methodology for Postdisaster Reconstruction (PMMPR) with the fifth edition of the PMBOK® Guide. This cannot be achieved without first, assessing the applicability of PMI’s of stakeholder management processes and related techniques within post-disaster reconstruction projects. In order to best contribute to PMI’s PMMPR, this research focuses on the need to assess current application of stakeholder management practice within post-disaster situations, its contribution to project success, its implementation barriers, in addition to participants’ opinion towards its applicability within the 3
post-disaster context, through surveying a large number of professionals involved in post-disaster projects. In addition to determining how these specific processes become more applicable, this study aims to determine the relationship between their application, the overall project management application and the level of meeting stakeholder requirements, which leads to determining a holistic view towards the suitable methodology to be applied within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
1.2 Research aim and questions When disaster situations occur, governments, NGOs and private partners carry high responsibility to do more than just react, by adopting the right approach in managing related projects rather than wasting time in debating and discussion. Such application ol PMI’s stakeholder management practice within post-disaster situations may contribute in facilitating community reconstruction based on a clear guidance. Stakeholder management is therefore a crucial objective that needs to be achieved in post-disaster situations due to the diversity of stakeholder interests and influences, which is also accompanied with urgency in decision-making. In
reviewing
academic
references
related
to
post-disaster
project
management, literature indicates that the applicability of stakeholder management processes was not thoroughly researched in this context, while its importance to the success of related projects, as concluded in Crawford, Langston & Bajracharya (2013, pp.317-333).
4
This draws an important question about whether PMI’s stakeholder management processes as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition are applicable and suitable for post-disaster reconstruction projects or not, which would also contribute in optimizing stakeholder management efforts in such projects that are surrounded with urgent and critical situations. In order to answer this question, the study aims to investigate the applicability of stakeholder management within post-disaster situations, whether such projects are managed according to a specific standard or not, and whether related processes, tools and techniques are implementable or not. Accordingly, this research is expected to facilitate improving future editions of PMI’s Project Management Methodology for Post-disaster Reconstruction (PMMPR), through recommending the application and/or the customization of processes related to Project Stakeholder Management in future editions of the PMMPR.
1.3 Research focus and scope In order to set boundaries for this research and since there are no specific regions or countries that experience frequent disasters, the study is not limited to a specific geographical area. However, it is structured with limited scope, focusing on post-disaster reconstruction projects. This implies eliminating data related to general reconstruction projects that did not follow a disaster, as well as eliminating non-construction post-disaster projects. The study also targets project management professionals involved in project management practice,
5
eliminating whom were only involved in technical and administrative roles within post-disaster reconstruction projects. In other words, this research focuses on investigating the applicability of PMI’s recommended practice towards stakeholder management within post-disaster situations. Hence, the study investigates the applicability of adopting the following PMI’s stakeholder processes as follows:
The applicability of implementing Identify Stakeholders process, and related tools and techniques according to PMI within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
The applicability of implementing Plan Stakeholder Management process, and related tools and techniques according to PMI within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
The applicability of implementing Manage Stakeholder Engagement process, and related tools and techniques according to PMI within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
The applicability of implementing Control Stakeholder Engagement process, and related tools and techniques according to PMI within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
6
1.4 Research methodology In order to assess the applicability ol PMI’s project stakeholder management methodology within the post disaster context, the applied research methodology aims to widely and largely survey the applicability of processes, tools and techniques related to project stakeholder management as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide-Fifth Edition. Thus, the Positivism paradigm is adopted, where research objectives do not aim to assess the behaviour but the methodology of application as recommended in Smyth and Morris (2007, p.426). Concurrently, this research targets to describe and conclude researchrelated hypotheses and not to explain reasons behind these results. According to Easterby-Smith, Thrope & Jackson (2012), the descriptive research is best served through adopting a quantitative approach that facilitates concluding research implications from a holistic understanding towards the applicability of the assessed processes, tools and techniques. This has to be forwarded by reviewing research related literature in order to determine research-related hypotheses, following by identifying the different types of measured variables, which would facilitate the development of research questionnaire and strategy towards data collection. As stated previously, this research aims to holistically assess the applicability of specific processes and related tools and techniques, which indicates that anonymous surveying to the target audience is required. In other words, the applied methodology at this stage should not target specific geographical region or culture. In order to accomplish this target, online anonymous survey was selected, targeting project management professionals involved in postdisaster reconstruction projects. In order to guarantee that the collected data 7
is only based on targeted group of participants, qualifying questions at the beginning of the survey were placed and programmed to automatically disqualify participants whom are not involved in project management and did not participate in post-disaster reconstruction projects within the past ten years. Qualified participants will then answer ordinal questions that measure the pre-defined research-related hypotheses, while a calculation method was set to assess these hypotheses, in addition to a calculation formula that gathers scores in each hypothesis in order to assess the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management methodology within the post-disaster context. As for testing the reliability of collected data, the methodology implies Cronbach’s slpha reliability test for the overall ordinal questions, in addition to the set of questions that represents each research hypothesis and main element to be assessed. While the survey also includes categorizing questions that aim to adding thorough analysis of research findings per each category, a minimum percentage of sample size per each category is considered as a condition to rely on in-depth statistical results per each category. For example, assessed participations are categorized according to the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project and accordingly, classified as natural disasters, manmade disasters and industrial disasters. Hence, the optimum percentage of participation in each of the three categories is 33.3%. Based on this, a minimum collected data percentage of 20% for each category was set as a condition in order to accept categoryrelated statistical findings, which would further strength the reliability of indepth data analysis per each category.
8
Ethical considerations are also regarded in this research. Participant Information Sheet (PIS) was developed to precede participation in the online questionnaire, opening feedback and queries related to ethical and research issues between participants and the researcher, the dissertation advisor and the committee responsible for ethical issues at the University of Liverpool. In this regard, anonymity of the online questionnaire was assured within the PIS, in addition to explaining that unqualified participations are auto-eliminated. Accordingly, participants are asked to acknowledge their full understanding and agreement to the PIS prior to contributing in the online survey. Finally, the methodology implies analysis of data according to the one-way tabulation for categorizing questions and cross-tabulation for the ordinal questions that aim to scale data and assess research-related hypotheses, in addition to answering the overall research question.
1.5 Structure of the study In addition to this chapter, Chapter Two reviews relevant literatures with focus on stakeholder management application in construction projects and disaster situations, illustrating related challenges, aims and involvement. Chapter Two also reviews critical success factors related to stakeholder management within the construction industry as well as in disaster situations, followed by reviewing PMI’s stakeholder management methodologies according to the PMB K® Guide as well as to PMI’s Post-disaster Reconstruction Methodology. Finally, this chapter determines literature gaps, in which research hypotheses are accordingly identified. 9
Chapter Three explains methodological considerations that surround this research with sound justification of selected paradigm, purpose, approach and strategy in this study. Moreover, this chapter illustrates sampling and reliability assessment, in addition to the adopted methodology in data collection and data analysis. Chapter Four presents results of data statistics and reliability testing, followed by analyzing the data collected based on the anonymous survey questionnaire in order to answer research questions. Determined results are also elaborated in this chapter, and relevant findings are discussed. Finally, Chapter Five summarizes research findings and reviews them against literature, in order to arrive at the conclusion of the study and identify its implications and limitations. This chapter ends by recommending future efforts and possible research directions.
10
2. Literature review sssessing PMI’s methodology in applying project stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects is interesting due to the critical need to collaborate stakeholder efforts in such situations. This literature review will first explore stakeholder management within the construction industry and identify industry-related challenges. The review then will look at how stakeholder management was practiced within disaster situations, lollowed by exploring PMI’s stakeholder management processes and related tools and techniques. Lastly, the review will analyze the gap within the reviewed literature, and reveal the need to assess the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes within post-disaster situations, in order to illustrate research-related hypotheses.
2.1 Stakeholder management within construction projects According to Morris (1994), project management within the construction industry is a discipline that focuses on the process of planning, and management of the complexity within the plenty of different activities that deliver construction projects. This indicates that managing stakeholder requirements is an imperative and critical skill that needs to be mastered by construction project professionals (Vinten, 2000), in which the success of completing such projects is highly dependent on managing stakeholders engagement and meeting their expectations. Fraser and Zhu (2008, pp.579590) studied the link between effective project management and stakeholder 11
influence within the construction industry, where results indicated that high performing project professionals were having similar views of their superiors, project owners and key stakeholders, while underperforming professionals were totally missing common views. This indicates the importance of carefully understanding stakeholders’ needs and managing their expectations within the construction industry.
2.1.1 The aim of stakeholder management within construction industry The interest for assessing stakeholder management within the construction industry has relatively increased in the past few years. Akintoye and Chinyio (2008, pp.591-599) indicated that managing stakeholders within construction projects does not aim to eliminate their differences, but to clearly identify these differences in terms of causes, effects and sources. The authors discussed that organizations have recognized the importance of determining stakeholder
interest
within
the
political,
social
and
environmental
surroundings. In studying the nature of construction projects, the authors indicated that stakeholders have dynamic levels of influence, power and urgency, which need to be frequently tracked in this challenging industry. Construction projects may affect their stakeholders positively, through providing better housing and higher living standard, and negatively through environmental deterioration that could affect certain stakeholder groups (Landin and Olander, 2005, p.321).
12
2.1.2 Stakeholder involvement within the construction industry Within construction projects, stakeholders may be clients, designing offices, subcontractors, vendors, financing bodies, owners, staff, and the local community residents (Newcombe, 2003, pp. 847). Due to the fact that stakeholders are capable to delay or even suspend the work in construction projects (Lim, et al., 2005), it was highly observed that failing to address their requirements has ended with countless project failures as discussed by Bourne and Walker (2005). While many previous studies on project failure have investigated related factors, without studying how stakeholders perceive these factors and impact project performance, such studies would remain as incompleted, as discussed by Mansfield et al. (1994, pp.254-260) in investigating major cost variations within construction projects in Nigeria. The authors stated that not only poor project planning and cost control that affect project perlormance, but also jeopardiging stakeholders’ expectations and objectives throughout the execution of projects. In their carried efforts towards identifying collaborative stakeholder inputs that are imperative to succeed in public-private-partnership projects, El-Gohary, Osman & El-Diraby (2006, pp.595-604) conducted direct and telephonic interviews with key experts besides brainstorming workshops, which led to developing processes related to stakeholder engagement. As a result of their research, the authors presented a semantic model representing key stakeholder involvement and management
concepts
within
public-private
partnership
infrastructure
projects. The authors have concluded that their presented model can act as a core model for knowledge representation, in which stakeholder involvement may be shared and reused in multidisciplinary domains. 13
Yang et al. (2011, p.904) on the other hand, studied successful stakeholder management
and
investigated
factors
affecting
success
within
the
construction industry. According to the authors, while most studies focus on the issues and relationships part, there is a need to analyze the impact of applying stakeholder management on success within construction projects. Olander (2007, pp.277-287) also advocates the need for conducting stakeholder impact assessment, and discusses the application of stakeholder impact index as a tool to assess and measure applied stakeholder management methodologies. The author states that classifying stakeholders according to the stakeholder impact index helps in structuring stakeholder analysis, which would facilitate taking effective decisions and required actions during project planning and execution. While construction projects may differ in terms of size, agility and complexity, the need for ongoing stakeholder assessment would relatively increase where influence and interest are likely to change in a changing project. This has also been an essential requirement for project organizations (Thiry & Deguire, 2007, pp.649-658), where stakeholder management is imperative for the holistic view in overseeing the set of organizational portfolios, programs and projects.
2.1.3 Challenges in managing stakeholders within construction projects This review indicates that within construction projects, it is not enough to focus on developing skillful project management professionals through training them in areas related to planning and controlling duration, budget and quality. The fact that construction projects are highly influenced by 14
stakeholders and thus, there is a need to develop soft skills related to stakeholder identification, engagement and management. Not to mention that such influence is not static (Landin and Olander, 2005, p.327) due to the fact that different decisions may take place, which would result in increasing influences of certain stakeholder groups and eliminating others. In order to acquire the above, a project manager should have a strong capacity to analyze and communicate with stakeholders, and the ability to visualize their interests and expectations during project initiation as well as throughout the execution of the project. This would also eliminate the unforeseen risks related to stakeholders’ reactions that could negatively impact the success of the project. In fact, this justifies the call of Freeman and McVea (2001, pp.189-217) on the need to locus on developing stakeholder’s theory prior to applying it on reality, especially within complex work environments like construction. It also justifies the evolution of the PMBOK® Guide towards including stakeholder management as a core knowledge area within its fifth edition, as discussed later in chapter.
2.2 Stakeholder management in disaster situations Lawther (2009, pp.153-169) categorizes stakeholders within post-disaster reconstruction projects into owners, sponsoring agencies, in addition to the local government. The author states that stakeholders within post-disaster situations should be deeply involved, in which they are the ultimate judges on paid efforts. Otherwise, if project management teams did not properly handle stakeholder engagement, their involvement could get the community offside. 15
2.2.1 The aim of stakeholder management within disaster situations In studying strategies of engaging multi-national enterprises within postdisaster building projects, Haigh and Sutton (2012, pp. 277-278) confirms that shortage in skills is a root cause of cost and time overruns besides construction defects. The authors state that the required expertise is mainly in logistics, project management and engineering, in which it was strongly suggested that required capabilities should be clearly identified. Logistics capabilities are related to managing the project supply chain, from procuring construction material, through handling and coordinating transportation and finally, to manage and control warehousing and material dispatching. This involves
multi-stakeholder
engagement,
where
logistics
professionals
coordinate between manufacturers, consultants, engineering and involved subcontractors. While project management is the set of models, processes, tools and techniques applied in planning and controling the complexity of projects in disaster situations, managing a project that follows a disaster is a one-time urgent task with challenged goals and interdependent activities. It also requires the right engineering resources to overcome such challenges in pre-design activities, analysis of structural engineering and construction supervision (Barakat, 2003, pp.1-40). Post-disaster reconstruction projects often entail plenty of sub-projects, involving many organizations, government entities and sub-contractors. Such working conditions may result in high level of uncertainties that require involving stakeholder counterparties (Mitrovic et al., 1999, pp.38-50) to take effective decisions as required in a timely manner. 16
2.2.2 Stakeholder involvement within disaster projects Adopting a proactive relationship approach that contains comprehensive partnering and collaborating strategies, processes and techniques is essential within post-disaster reconstruction projects. According to Zou et al. (2014, pp.202-217), it is a primary challenge for practitioners, which is subject to increase according to the complexity and size of each project. Managing stakeholder relations therefore, should result in establishing processes for collaborative management, effective communication, information system integration and stakeholder commitment. One of the major challenges found in reconstruction projects following a disaster according to Chang et al. (2010, p. 247) is resourcing. The authors confirm that multi-stakeholder collaboration is a key element in overcoming challenges related to resourcing. According to the authors, resource availability in reconstruction projects is highly dependent on how relevant stakeholders identify constraints related to cost, quality and environment, in addition to the cultural concerns. The authors discussed the importance of addressing key interested stakeholders within reconstruction projects, in order to ensure project success. Unlike the postWenchuan earthquake reconstruction projects that were mainly driven by the Chinese government, in which the local community was not involved, and thus affected the long-term sustainable community development. Due to so many stakeholder interactions and the sense of urgency, post-disaster projects may have greater indirect cost and thus are subject to faster money consumption,
17
where there is no time for a proper and detailed project plan (Kim and Choi, 2013, p. 148). Upon conducting a comprehensive research, Bajracharya, Crawford & Langston (2013, pp.317-33) confirms that stakeholder management was poorly positioned within disaster situations. The authors aimed to understand the role of stakeholder management in disaster management through applying participatory approaches in project management, and concluded that understanding the involvement of stakeholders within post-disaster projects is essential for determining their requirements and managing their expectations, which correlates with the success of the project itself. Carroll and Buchholtz (2012) identified the five pieces of required information to effectively manage stakeholders. According to the authors, stakeholder identification and classification, in terms of responsibilities, opportunities and challenges are important information that should be determined. Moe and Pathranarakul (2006) stated that disaster management has been identified as a public project management, which indicates that all steps related to stakeholder prediction and identification, communication and response, besides decisions towards reconstruction efforts should rely on a public project management approach. Yilin et al. (2008) discussed effective project governance that significantly involves stakeholder management, and concluded that the latter is imperative for improving project performance that is managed according to a public project management approach. In comparing post-disaster reconstruction and routine construction within New Zealand, Le Masurier et al. (2006) indicated that the applied processes within 18
routine construction had proved adequacy in small-scale disaster situations. Otherwise, larger reconstruction projects following major disasters requires a higher level of coordination between involved parties, which indicates the importance of applying specific stakeholder management practice within disaster situations in correlation with the nature of each disaster. This was further studied by Rotimi et al. (2009, p.144) in which they have found a lack of coordination between multiple authorities and regulatory bodies, where major disasters require effective legislation that should contain important recovery targets, in order to eliminate urgency and achieving quick wins. The authors suggests that local councils could prepare memorandum of understanding describing how resources are exchanged and external aid is received when disasters occur. As indicated in the GAO report (US government accountability office), Fagnoni (2006) stated that improving the coordination between two main stakeholders was a necessity in a postdisaster recovery projects. The author referred to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and concluded that the US federal emergency management agency (FEMA) and the Red Cross should better coordinate their efforts towards disaster management and post-disaster recovery projects. In order to ensure collaboration and partnership between various involved stakeholders, it is essential to analyze stakeholder groups and their interests in a given reconstruction project (Newcombe, 2003, pp.841-848). Members of community groups are individuals impacted by a certain disaster and directly involved in the related post-disaster reconstruction. Usually this type of stakeholders is mainly interested in housing and transportation projects 19
(Henriques & Sadorsky,1999, pp.87-99). Involving this stakeholder group can be beneficial in scoping and prioritizing post-disaster reconstruction projects as well as in the final acceptance stages (Davidson et al., 2007 pp.100-115). International organizations such as the UN are also involved stakeholders in post-disaster reconstruction projects. This type of stakeholders is highly involved in local community empowerment and financial assistance, while local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participate in fundraising and other social activities that help in local community recovery (Shieh & Deng, 2011, pp.181-194). The local city council is directly involved in planning and decision-making of reconstruction projects, especially through its legal authority and coordination with other governmental entities. On the other side, national governmental entities are mainly involved in providing high-level support. The main concerns of national governments are urban development recovery and service facility projects, besides sustaining national heritages (Hamre & Sullivan, 2002, pp.83-96). Finally, the private sector collaborates with other main stakeholders, through participating in various services and product supply and engaging in various reconstruction projects and contracts.
2.2.3 Challenges in managing stakeholders within disaster projects This review indicates that within disaster situations, shortage of skills and related resourcing challenges could be eliminated through effective multistakeholder collaboration. In order to acquire the above, the project team should conduct proper stakeholder identification and analysis, besides applying effective stakeholder management and control procedures. It was 20
also evident that stakeholder management was poorly positioned in postdisaster situations. Otherwise, stakeholder engagement can be managed with a routine project management approach when it comes to small-scale reconstruction projects. This indicates that it is also important to analyze the expected reconstruction efforts prior engagement, in order to decide the right approach to be adopted in stakeholder management.
2.3 Critical success factors related to stakeholder management 2.3.1 Stakeholder management CSFs within construction industry In exploring critical success factors affecting stakeholder management within the construction industry, Yang et al. (2009, p.337) identifies 15 critical success factors through reviewing related literature, conducting interviews and pilot studies. According to the authors, one of the fifteen factors is associated with determining corporate social responsibility, in which construction organizations should delineate specific stakeholder groups or individuals that should be considered in activities related to their corporate social responsibilities. Defining missions of the various construction projects is another critical factor due to the complexity of stakeholder organizations. In this regard, stakeholders are involved for better realization of project objectives and tasks throughout the project lifecycle, including issues related to cost, budget and schedule. Identifying stakeholders and understanding their interests should also be carried out for the success of construction projects. According to Frooman (1999, pp.191-215), answering “whom are the stakeholders” should precede stakeholder management, in which it facilitates 21
assessing their interests and needs in projects. It is even more critical to assess stakeholders’ behavior and to classily the range ol their reactions and needs (Bhattacharya, Sen and Korschun (2006, pp158-166). As part of the analysis, project managers should investigate possible areas of stakeholder disagreements and ways to compromise them, where they are likely to occur in social situations (Midgley et al., 2013, pp.143-154). This shall help in formulating appropriate strategies for stakeholder management, which would eventually lead to effectively communicating with them and therefore, it is essential for project managers to acquire related communication and negotiation capabilities (Weaver, 2007).
2.3.2 Stakeholder management CSFs within disaster situations In studying reconstruction projects, it was highly observed that disappointment of stakeholders has become a rule and not an exception (Ika, Diallo and Thuillier, 2012, p.105). The authors stated that over 50% of World Bank projects in Africa as of 2000 have failed to accomplish their objectives due to managerial root causes, according to the Meltzer Commission. Project management literature on the other hand did not thoroughly focus on success factors and criteria for projects within disaster situations, as stated in Khang and Moe (2008, p.72). The authors indicated that stakeholder satisfaction measure of project performance is a key critical factor for project success. Andersen et al. (2006, pp.127-147) suggested classifying success measures into task-related and people-related, in which they have divided elements of success into 10 categories. People-related measures include product 22
uselulness, results’ appeal to stakeholders, motivation towards luture initiatives and the acceptability of final project report. Khang and Moe (2008, p.72) identified effective consultation with stakeholders, including clear policy identification by both donors and recipients that is a key success factor for World Bank development projects. This implies classifying stakeholder groups in more details and determining areas of consultation with each stakeholder group. Thus, measuring success towards stakeholder management within disaster situations require classifying stakeholders themselves in addition to the perception of success for each category. Diallo and Thuillier (2004) classified success criteria as perceived by seven stakeholder groups as follows:
Coordinators
Task managers
Supervisors
Project team
Steering committees
Beneficiaries
Population
According to the above review, it is indicated that the lack of success perception for each stakeholder group within disaster situations could be eliminated
with
a
thorough
stakeholder
identification,
analysis
and
management. In order to acquire the above, the project team should
23
implement
effective
stakeholder
management
processes,
tools
and
techniques that suites such projects’ urgency and complexity.
2.4 PMI’s stakeholder management processes PMI’s Project Management Body ol Knowledge (PMB K® Guide) identilies project management as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques” in all project activities in order to meet its requirements and achieve related objectives. This also applies to stakeholder management as one of the main knowledge areas listed in the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2013). According to Morris (2013), project stakeholder management was included as a knowledge area in PMI’s PMB K® Guide - fifth edition in 2013. The author discussed stakeholder management’s importance and how its perception evolved in project governance, strategy, in addition to people management. PMI has developed its framework to manage projects through defining the different knowledge areas contributing to its guide, as well as its own view to the different stages of project, known as project lifecycle. Consequently, PMI’s framework defines processes related to each knowledge area throughout the project lifecycle. Ultimately, each process is supported with relevant tools and techniques that facilitate leading to the subsequent process. The perception of stakeholder management ol PMI’s lramework has evolved lrom being an embedded part ol dillerent knowledge area’s related processes to become a knowledge area by its own, as detailed in the latest guide (PMI, 2013). Pollack (2007, p.266) views the PMBOK® Guide as a framework for traditional project management 24
practice, indicating the changing paradigms in how complex and agile projects should be managed. This can also be reflected on each knowledge area within the guide, where stakeholder management framework is likely to differ in certain industries such as the construction projects and ultimately, within post-disaster reconstruction projects. When it comes to governing a project, stakeholder engagement involves setting, monitoring and maintaining values, objective and strategy to assure optimum mechanism and risk mitigation. This complies with what Yilin et al. (2008) indicated regarding the involvement of stakeholders in project governance and its effect on project performance. People management involves effective decision-making and communication that are best influenced by and affecting involved stakeholders (Pant & Baroudi, 2008, pp.124-128). The set of people skills includes stakeholder engagement, effective team management, besides communication and conflict management. The importance of acquiring such skills is important, where discontinuity may occur between required processes and involved stakeholders, resulting in ineffective use of the implemented stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques.
2.4.1 Stakeholder management processes according to the PMBOK® Guide According to the PMBOK® Guide, Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013, p.391), there are four processes related to project stakeholder management. The first process involves stakeholder identification in order to document their active involvement and assess their influence. According to the guide, stakeholders 25
have the greatest influence during the initiation stage of the project. Stakeholder analysis matrix is a main component of stakeholder strategy, which is considered as the main output of stakeholder identification process (Moodley et al., 2008, pp. 625-632). Planning stakeholder management is the second listed process in the guide that involves identifying stakeholder engagement levels, interrelationship and communication, which results in developing stakeholder engagement assessment matrix. Managing stakeholder engagement is the third process that aims to increase stakeholders’ support and eliminate their resistance. Feedback lorms and issue logs are outputs of this process that identify related issues and assess their impacts. Finally, controlling stakeholder engagement is the lourth process ol PMI’s PMBOK® Guide that involves monitoring relationships with the different stakeholders and adjusting related strategies accordingly.
26
Fig. 2.1: Project Stakeholder Management Overview (PMI, 2013, p.392)
27
PMI (2013, p. 392) discussed project charters as main inputs of stakeholder identification. A properly developed project charter should highlight internal and external parties involved in project execution and/or affected by its outcomes. Procurement documents such as contracts and BOQs (bills of quantities) are also important source of information for stakeholder identification (Pan, 2005, pp.173-184). Additionally, stakeholders can be identified through reviewing organizational structures, processes and industrial standards. In order to analyze project stakeholders, PMI (2013, p. 392) suggests applying the power/interest grid, in which their level of authority (power) as well as their level of concerns (interests) are evaluated and reflected in a relevant matrix. They can also be analyzed based on the power/influence grid, or the influence/impact grid, where project steering teams may select the suitable analysis grid based on the importance of analysis factors (Walker, Bourne & Shelley, 2008, pp.645-658). Other tools such as the use of expert judgment and brainstorming meetings are also helpful in identifying stakeholders and determining their influence and interest. As a result of this process, stakeholder register is prepared, containing stakeholder information, assessment information and classifications (Eskerod & Jepsen 2013). According to the authors, a stakeholder register identifies the list of individuals, groups and entities involved in a project. It contains basic information such as names, job titles and roles, besides stakeholder involvement
information
such
as
interest,
power,
expectations
and
requirements. The authors stated that it is important to develop stakeholder register as early as possible, in order to facilitate developing stakeholder management strategies and actions. 28
The effective stakeholder management is one of the top concerns of the project steering team, in which it can be accomplished by developing a stakeholder management plan based on the project management plan and stakeholder register (Bourne, 2006), which involves brainstorming, meetings and the use of analytical techniques. PMI (2013, pp.402-403) discussed how stakeholder engagement is assessed, in which stakeholders are illustrated and classified into unaware, resistant, neutral, supportive and leading. This classification helps taking effective actions and strategies when managing stakeholders according to the stakeholder management plan. In addition, project communication plan is also an important input to the stakeholder management plan and the proper management of stakeholder engagement (Manowong & Ogunlana, 2009, pp.121-137). With the use of effective communication tools and interpersonal skills, the project team can handle stakeholders, log related issues and - in many cases – submit change orders based on their requests (Bourne & Walker, 2005, pp. 649-660). Controlling stakeholder engagement is the fourth process under stakeholder management (PMI, 2013, p.409). The project steering team can effectively control stakeholders against the project plan and through reviewing issue logs and performance data (Sloan, 2009, pp.25-40). The steering team controls stakeholder engagement through determining impacts on project scope, duration and cost. As an outcome of this process, the project steering team can update project plans, apply corrective and preventive actions and update other project documents such as stakeholder register and the lessons learnt.
29
2.4.2 Stakeholder management according to the PMMPR The developed methodology for managing post-disaster reconstruction projects (PMI, 2005) was based on the PMBOK® Guide, third edition (PMI, 2004) which did not address stakeholder management processes and related tools and techniques as an important and independent knowledge area that is imperative for project management best practice. The methodology includes only few templates and tools that highlight some of the stakeholder management best practice. For example, the project charter template includes a section to identify stakeholders, while there is no tool specified for stakeholder identification. Change requests, communication plans and related reports and issue logs are also included in the methodology that it still remains without addressing the holistic approach towards managing stakeholder expectations within post-disaster reconstruction. At first glance, it is indicated that traditional stakeholder management may seem not practical for managing post-disaster reconstruction projects and does not fulfill related requirements. In other words, standardizing a traditional methodology to be applied in complex situations may conflict with the urgency and complexity of such projects. ehis review indicates that current PMI’s methodology lor post-disaster reconstruction projects is outdated, in which there is a need to thoroughly study the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within post-disaster situations, which may not be attributed with success if applied according to PMI’s standardiged and traditional stakeholder management methodology. This leads to concurrently update PMI’s post30
disaster methodology with effective stakeholder management processes, tools and templates that deliver better results.
2.5 Literature gaps and related hypotheses It is evident that there is a significant gap in the discussed literature related to the
required
stakeholder
management
practices
within
post-disaster
reconstruction projects. Some of the reviewed studies investigated the general practice of stakeholder management within the construction industry and suggested that the application of effective techniques such as stakeholder impact index would have a great influence on structuring stakeholder analysis towards effective project decision-making. However, the researcher has indicated that studies have limitation by not focusing on different types of construction projects such as the ones that occur after major disasters. Although some of the reviewed literature indicated that small post-disaster projects can effectively be managed according to a general public project management approach, but it was also indicated that major reconstruction efforts following a disaster require specific processes and techniques. The lilth edition ol PMI’s PMB K® Guide that was issued in 2112 identifies four specific
processes
and
related
techniques
related
to
stakeholder
management. Back in 2008, PMI has developed a methodology for postdisaster project management based on the PMBOK® Guide, Third Edition, which did not cover these four processes as addressed in the fifth edition of the guide (PMI, 2013). 31
Table 2.1: SM methodology gap Process Groups
PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition
PMMPR
Initiation
-
Identify Stakeholders
Planning
-
Plan Stakeholder Management
Execution
-
Manage Stakeholder Engagement
Monitoring and Control
Manage Stakeholders
Control Stakeholder Engagement
Closing
-
-
In summary, this review leads to verily the evolution ol PMI’s guide towards addressing
project
stakeholder
management
processes
and
related
techniques within post-disaster reconstruction. ehe lilth edition ol PMI’s guide can
influence
developing
a
methodology
for
post-disaster
project
management, which could contribute to a new edition ol PMI’s PMMPs. In order to do so, there is a need to survey whether PMI’s stakeholder management processes were applied in previous post-disaster reconstruction projects or not. In addition, the survey should assess positive implications and barriers of the application ol each PMI’s stakeholder management process and related tools and techniques, in order to determining the applicability of these processes and techniques with the post-disaster context. In other words, investigating whether PMI’s stakeholder management processes and techniques are being adopted when managing post-disaster projects, in
32
addition to whether such application is influencing success of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Considering that disasters may differ in terms of size and type, literature gap illustrates that this research should investigate whether the type of the disaster is correlated with the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes and techniques. Ultimately, this research should set the foundation for future studies that will provide an appropriate set of stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques for each type of post-disaster situations in order to positively increase the success rate of post-disaster reconstruction projects. In response to the above review and related gaps, this study will investigate the below hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: “Stakeholder management is not applied at the same level within post-disaster reconstruction projects”
This review has discussed previous studies related to managing post-disaster projects and determined how unique and complicated they are. The tsunami recovery program was studied as a case study to examine stakeholder involvement and conclude lessons learnt that emphasized on the uniqueness of such projects, in terms of requirements, challenges and expectations (Lawther, 2009, pp.153-169).
33
The researcher is therefore, driven to suspect that not all PMI’s Project Stakeholder Management Processes and related techniques as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013) are applied in post-disaster projects at the same level according to different implemented frameworks and according to the different natures of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project. At this level, the objective of this research hypothesis is to survey whether previously executed post-disaster projects have applied any of stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques discussed by PMI, and to investigate the level of application, which is expected to differ according to the applied framework and the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project.
Hypothesis 2: “Success within post-disaster reconstruction projects is correlated with proper stakeholder management application”
In reviewing that Project Stakeholder Management was included in PMI’s PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition as a main knowledge area, the researcher is driven to suspect that success of post-disaster reconstruction projects is correlated with the application ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques. Rowlinson and Cheung (2008, p.611) suggested that
34
the application of certain stakeholder management tools and techniques is a key influence for project success. This even drives the researcher to assess each of PMI’s stakeholder management processes, and related tools and techniques to determine its level of contribution to success within the post-disaster context, which may differ according to the applied framework as well as the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project.
Hypothesis 3: “Stakeholder management application within postdisaster reconstruction projects is highly affected by implementation barriers”
As a result of this review, the researcher suspects that managing stakeholders within post-disaster projects is highly affected by cultural, environmental and situational challenges of each project. Clegg et al. (2002, pp.317-337) indicated that cultural aspects have major effect on interorganizational collaboration, which is imperative in most reconstruction projects following a disaster. This reveals the need to determine the level of barriers stakeholder management application, which may differ according to the applied framework as well as the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project. Ultimately, this facilitates identifying areas of further researches that constructively study and identify these barriers and how they can be 35
eliminated in different situations when executing post-disaster reconstruction projects. The objective related to this research hypothesis is therefore, to investigate the level of barriers when implementing PMI’s stakeholder management
processes,
tools
and
techniques
within
post-disaster
reconstruction projects.
36
3. Research methodology This research aims to identify and classify elements and characteristics related to the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within the post-disaster reconstruction context. The applied research methodology is therefore used to collect, analyze and aggregate findings of the analyzed data. Hence, the applied research paradigm should result in detailed and structured data, in order to be collated and presented in a statistical format. The following represents the inquiry paradigm applied in this study as driven by the purpose of the research and its objectives, followed by discussing the adopted research approach as well as the applied strategy. In order to ensure validity and reliability of research findings, the applied methods for data collection and data analysis were also discussed in this chapter, illustrating how nominal and ordinal scales were applied to best validate each research hypothesis. Concurrently, data sampling, analysis, tabulation, and illustration were detailed for each research hypothesis as discussed in the data analysis section of this chapter. In addition, the adopted approach towards quality and ethical considerations was also presented in this chapter to ensure validity and reliability of study findings.
3.1 Research paradigm Positivism as an inquiry paradigm aims to investigate research-related theory in order to reach the single truth of a research. Accordingly, it implies adopting 37
a framework that validates research-related hypotheses, where investigation should be carried-out prior to concluding hypotheses viability (Gill & Johnson, 2010). On the other hand, Social Constructivism is an inquiry paradigm that targets subjective reality, where human interest is investigated through posing research-related questions as stated by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012). In order to validate the applicability ol PMI’s processes within post-disaster situations, data collection and analysis should reflect a widely and largely surveyed source, which facilitates reaching a compelling argument, indicating that Positivism is the right epistemology for this research. Especially when the research topic is related to project management, Smyth, & Morris (2007, p.426) has regarded positivism as a dominant paradigm that has been historically applied in studying a project management framework, and most importantly the PMBOK Guide® that is considered a main element in this research. The authors added that this is found more applicable where the research objectives lean towards generalization, which would help in establishing principles, processes and laws that govern research topics. Therefore, and where study objectives is to illustrate data analyzed in a common perspective that leads to concluding the applicability of such generalized processes, positivism was selected as a paradigm in this research methodology.
38
3.2 Research purpose Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson (2012) emphasized on the need to realize the epistemological stance to be used in conducted research, where this highly affects the design of the research as well as the selection of methods and techniques. The authors added that qualitative methods are attributed to the constructionist paradigm, while quantitative methods are associated with the positivist paradigm. According to the authors, qualitative methods aim to focus on a phenomenon that is observed in a specific social context of environment. In other words, the reality associated with constructionism is directly affected by observed social factors, which requires further interpretation. In contrast, Bernard (2013) stated that when the conducted study objective is not affected by behaviors, a positivist stance becomes more suitable to adopt, which leads to quantitatively assessing and validating the established hypotheses, in order to reveal facts and relations under investigation. The main objective of this research is to determine the applicability level of stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within postdisaster reconstruction projects in a wider coverage, while correlating with such application on the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project and the applied framework in managing stakeholders within such projects. Since the purpose of this study aims to assess the applicability of a specific methodology that is not correlated with human behavior and not to explain behavioral or situational elements that affects research findings, the descriptive research is more suitable, in which it results in identifying 39
outcomes and relations between variables, based on accurate participant observations as per the accurately collected data that describe current application of stakeholder management processes, its contribution to success, the level of implementation barriers, in addition to participants’ opinion towards the applicability ol PMI’s methodology in stakeholder management within the post-disaster reconstruction context.
3.3 Research approach The selected descriptive research is best served in this study through applying a quantitative approach that begins with identifying research problem as revealed in the literature review, followed by designing an assessment questionnaire that leads to validate research hypotheses (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson, 2012). In discussing research approach within the project management field, Winter et al. (2006) emphasized on the importance of distinguishing between research criteria that focuses on controlling and organizing project performance, and criteria that focuses on inter-subjective communication and collaboration. The authors added that each research direction implies different research strategies such as action research, action learning, co-operative inquiry and longitudinal case studies. Thus, while a research is not correlated with inter-subjective interaction, aiming to verify the applicability of core project management processes requires conducting a quantitative research through conventional surveys followed by statistical analysis.
40
In other words, it is important to consider the implications of a research and to holistically understand its intellectual activity, where the selected research methodology should suite the aimed knowledge that can be revealed throughout the research process. Hence, the study requires surveying research-related hypotheses through the application of quantitative approach. The following are the sequential steps adopted in approaching the quantitative survey as follows:
A thorough review of research theories in order to develop researchrelated hypotheses to be validated as detailed in chapter two of this dissertation.
An identification of different types of variables to be measured (discussed in 3.4), which results in developing survey questions.
The development of a questionnaire-based survey that contains measurements to the pre-defined variables.
3.4 Research strategy and selection The strategy of this research relies on implementing a statistical instrument that translates the acquired data into conclusion, in order to validate study hypotheses and conclude the level of applicability in each stakeholder management process within post-disaster reconstruction. The questionnaire is structured based on an anonymous data collection, in which the researcher 41
targets distributing the questionnaire electronically to members of professional interest groups such as PMI’s International sevelopment Community ol Practice and the Post-disaster Project Management Interest Group on LinkedIn. This facilitates accessing more than 11,000 professionals in postdisaster reconstruction projects, in which the researcher aims to obtain around 200 to 300 qualified participations that will be collected anonymously. Collected data related to unqualified participations include data collected from participants whom are not project management professionals as will as the ones whom were not involved in post-disaster reconstruction projects during the past ten years, is to be eliminated. Sample selection will be anonymously by inviting participants of professional interest groups whom have access to the Internet. Thus, there are no specific criteria for participant selection. However, the first section of the survey (preliminary questions) qualifies participants and ensures that samples are only based on valuable participation. In other words, the flow of data collection in the online survey will automatically eliminate unqualified participations through conditional programming of a sequential questionnaire. Unqualified participation will be programmed for automatic removal from the database, where excluded participant will be notified of being excluded from the survey with proper justification, and thanked for their participation.
In addition to the preliminary questions, the survey incorporates nominal as well as ordinal scales as required and according to the type of each question. As for the nominal scales, it covers questions related to the type of a disaster 42
preceding a reconstruction project, the applied framework in stakeholder management, in addition to participants’ opinion towards the suitable approach in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects. Not to mention that nominal scaling will be used at the start of the survey to eliminate unqualilied participation, such as verilying participant’s experience in postdisaster projects and whether the type of such projects were related to reconstruction or not. As for the ordinal scale, it is used in questions that aim to assess variables that are non-numeric, such as the level of overall project success and the success rate of applying certain processes, tools or techniques, which is the main source of data to validate research hypotheses. Finally, gathering both nominal and ordinal questions allows the research to categorize research findings as per the nominal questions, such as assessing the applicability of stakeholder management processes within post-disaster projects following manmade disasters or according to the standardized framework, which adds in-depth data analysis and therefore, enhances study findings.
3.5 Data collection methods This study draws upon preceding peer-reviewed researches through embracing reliable and validated measures, aiming to test research predefined hypotheses. Hence, collecting data based on a quantitative survey allows generating required data and analyzing outcomes in order to attain research objectives. The aim of data collection is to uncover the applicable processes, tools and techniques related to stakeholder management within 43
post-disaster reconstruction projects. This requires generalizing sampled population of professionals involved in post-disaster reconstruction projects. Hence, the research at this point is not interested in studying specific behavior that could be correlated with the application of stakeholder management within the disaster context. Forza (2002, pp.152-194) studied management survey research from a process-based perspective. The author discussed the scaling survey questionnaires according to the nominal, ordinal, ratio, and interval scales. He added that choosing the scale should ease how response analyses are done. Accordingly, it is important to define the way survey questions are asked, in order to collect information according to a specific concept. This has to be attributed with identifying appropriate participants and progressively arranging questions in a survey that motivates respondents and facilitates the success of their contribution. As for collecting data related to hypothesis one, survey-related questions were added, in which participants through answering ordinal questions, indicate whether any of stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques listed in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition were applied in postdisaster reconstruction projects or not and at the same time, indicate the level of application for each process, tool and technique. Hence, the measured variable related to this hypothesis is the probability ol applying PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques and the level of such application within post-disaster situations. Statistical outcomes will either
44
result in accepting or rejecting this hypothesis, in addition to scaling the level of hypothesis acceptance. Hypothesis two is also scaled through ordinal questions, where participants select the level of stakeholder management’s contribution to success in their projects. Hence, collected data of related questions are analyzed to reveal whether to accept or reject the research hypothesis, in addition to assessing the level of contribution to success for each of the four stakeholder management processes as listed in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013),
where
stakeholder
identification,
planning
for
stakeholder
management, managing and controlling stakeholder engagement are assessed. Finally, ordinal questions related to hypothesis three are added covering all stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques, in which participants indicate whether they agree or disagree that PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques are faced with cultural, situational and/or environmental barriers upon implementation within postdisaster reconstruction projects or not, in addition to assessing the degree of confronted barriers. Questions related to hypothesis three address the four processes of project stakeholder management as discussed in hypothesis two, in addition to assessing related tools and techniques, such as stakeholder analysis, expert judgment, meetings, analytical techniques, communication methods, interpersonal skills, and management skills (see appendix 3.2: Survey questions).
45
3.6 Data analysis Data listings and analysis are sorted according to the way they are collected in suitable tabulation formats. Filtering datasheets on excel allows to drill down and translate content into context. Accordingly, sorting data in the right approach can best serve in analyzing its content, where tables can be very effective presentation tools if they uncover key findings. This is applied in nominal scales where tabulation illustrates percentages of participants in each categorizing question. In more complex data related to ordinal scaling, crosstabulation is applied, in which a comparative analysis of different correlated data can easily be attained. This facilitates the aggregation of information into research findings, followed by concluding the overall study objectives. Not to mention that the use of graphical illustration in data analysis helps in presenting information in an easily attention-grapping format, which supports attaining key findings and leads to study conclusion. According to Mohn (1990) One-way tabulation is used to examine influencing factors in a research study separately. In this research, it is used as a straightforward analysis format that helps illustrating percentages of project management professional whom applied certain frameworks in managing stakeholders, in addition to illustrating percentages of each type of a disaster that preceded the executed post-disaster reconstruction projects. It also assesses participants’ awareness of how stakeholder management processes being applied are affected by cultural, situational or environmental aspects, as in hypothesis three. While this does not identify which participant group produced a particular combination of information (i.e. participants of post46
disaster projects following natural disasters), it can still be considered an important first step for a simple and quick data analysis summary as required. Two-way & Higher-way tabulation are applied to break down response categories in order to drill down ordinal data analysis, which results in aggregating detailed findings (Mohn, 1990). For example, it is applied to illustrate percentages of applying stakeholder management processes within projects following different disaster categories (i.e. natural or manmade) as in hypothesis one. It could also reveal which ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes influence success in post-disaster reconstruction and the percentage of each according to different applied framework (i.e. standard or tailored) as in hypothesis two. Finally, it shows which of the above-mentioned processes – if applied - are mostly affected by cultural and situation barriers related to post-disaster reconstruction, as in hypothesis three. Data analysis has incorporated the use of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) as a statistical analysis tool, in order to generate the abovementioned tabulation. According to Landau and Everitt (2004), it is a userfriendly and powerful software tool that is used to manipulate and analyze data. Previous discussion revealed that the survey questionnaire is structured based anonymity, yet it verifies and assures that data is collected from project management professionals working in post-disaster reconstruction. In order to avoid inconvenient sampling such as misrepresentation of population as discussed in Mathy, Kerr & Haydin (2003), sampling is tested for the overall survey questions as well as for each group of questions that represents the main elements of the study. These elements are: current application of 47
stakeholder management processes and related tools and techniques within post-disaster
reconstruction
projects
(hypothesis
one),
stakeholder
management’s contribution to success (hypothesis two), the barriers of implementing stakeholder management processes and related tools and techniques within the post-disaster context (hypothesis three), in addition to participants’ opinion towards the applicability ol these processes, tools and techniques within post-disaster reconstruction. The analysis therefore, leads to answering the main research question regarding whether stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques according to the PMBOK® Guide-Fifth Edition are applicable or not within post-disaster reconstruction based on calculating average responses of survey questions related to each of the above mentioned elements, preceded by testing data reliability of these elements, which assures that results of this survey are reliable. In details, the assessment of current stakeholder management application discussed in hypothesis 1 is measured based on calculating average response of question 19 (processes) and questions 20, 21, 22 and 23 (process tools and techniques), while the average calculations of questions 14, 15, 16 and 17 measures stakeholder management’s contribution to success as discussed in hypothesis 2. As for hypothesis 3 related to barriers of implementing stakeholder management methodology within post-disaster situations discussed in hypothesis 3, it is measured based on average scores of question 26 (barriers of process implementation) and question 27 (barriers of tools implementation) through reversing scores, in which the more barriers is determined the less grade is indicated and the other way around.
48
In addition to the above, questions 24 and 25 measures the average participants’ opinion towards the applicability ol stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within post-disaster reconstruction, which is considered as a fourth element in answering the research question. Thus, the average scores ol the hypotheses 1,2 and 2 in addition to participants’ opinion towards the applicability will be used to conclude and answer the main research question according to the following formula: The applicability of stakeholder management methodology= (Current stakeholder management application + contribution to success + scores against implementation barriers + participants’ opinion) /4. Finally, in order to compare current application of stakeholder management with the level of meeting stakeholder requirements and the overall project management application, the average response of question 8 measures the degree of meeting stakeholder requirements, while the overall project management application is measured based on average scores of meeting project triple constraint (budget, duration and scope) as discussed in questions 5,6 and 7. In addition to the above, categorizing questions indicate in-depth analysis for each category according to the applied framework in stakeholder management (question 18) and according to the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project (question 4), while question 3 indicate the applied project management methodology that leads to determine the most suitable project management methodology to be applied in reconstruction projects.
49
3.7 Quality criteria and ethical consideration Ensuring quality and reliability of this survey is based on modeling and scaling to best serve research objectives. In addition, the survey is verified based on sample testing for the different questionnaire elements, where consistently ensures the quality of outcomes, and at the same time mitigates any probable risk of inconvenience in sampling. Hence, this would also result in ensuring that the overall survey is reproducible to result in reliable findings. The applied internal consistency in sampling embraces the use of critical measurement, indicating the level of reliability of this survey as discussed by Bryman and Cramer (1999). There are plenty of tests that measure the consistency degree ol multiple elements within a single construct. In this research, Cronbach’s Alpha is applied as an internal consistency test that ensures a high level of reliability of study findings. According to Santos (1999, pp.1-5) the importance of such application is due to the need to verify whether the same set of interrelated elements would elicit similar responses if questions are recast and asked to the same participants. Accordingly, the derived variables can only be declared as reliable if responses of repeated questions are stable and reliable. Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993, p.77) states that it is common that survey questionnaires suffer from weak linkage between elements to be analyzed and related responses. This might be correlated with applying single-method when developing survey questions, in addition to the inadequate and/or unsystematic sampling procedure. Hence, quality of survey is assured upon verifying the selected method through sampling, followed by inspecting the effectiveness of linking between assessed elements and analyzed responses. Where all categorizing questions classify survey data 50
into three categories (i.e. standard, tailored, no specific), the minimum accepted sample size for each category to rely on is at least 20% of the total sample size. This means that any categorized data with a sample size less than 44 participations out of 218 will not be considered as reliable in the analysis of research findings for that particular category, while it is still counted in the analysis of the overall data. As for the ethical considerations related to this survey, the participant information sheet (PIS) preceding participation (see appendix 3.1: Participant Information Sheet) opens the communication between participants and the researcher, the dissertation advisor (DA), and the responsible committee of ethical issues at the University of Liverpool (Patel, Doku, & Tennakoon, 2003, pp.229-238), providing full contacts of the three parties in order to ensure transparency and attainability as needed. Not to mention that it was stated in the PIS that if a participant has any questions or concerns regarding this study, he or she could contact the researcher, the DA, or the Dissertation Advisor of this research, as required. Reading and acknowledging full understanding is mandatory for participants, prior to begin responding to the survey questionnaire. In order to ensure quality in this research that is not limited to specific regions or countries, this research is limited to specifically focus on the construction industry within post-disaster situations. In other words, construction projects that did not occur immediately in response to disasters are not covered in this research, which also applies on non-construction post-disaster projects. The research is also focused on only surveying project management professionals 51
whom were involved in stakeholder management practice. Other participants involved in technical roles within reconstruction projects are not targeted and accordingly will be eliminated from participation through the preliminary questions of the survey as discussed in 3.4 (research strategy).
3.8 Summary The previous discussion represented positivism as the inquiry paradigm applied in this study, in which the research aims to determine the applicability of stakeholder management, according to PMI within the post-disaster context, through identifying and classifying related characteristics and elements. Thus, it was indicated that this study requires collecting and analyzing data to be structured in a statistical form that facilitates assessing the applicability of such specific methodology in a wider coverage of data sources. Accordingly, quantitative survey was indicated as a purpose of this study, where research objectives are not correlated with any human behavior. This was translated in the application of both nominal and ordinal scaling in a questionnaire-based survey that measures pre-defined variables, which was also detailed in the applied research approach towards each research-related hypothesis.
52
The implemented data collection, data analysis and sampling approach was also designed to best suite objective of each hypothesis, and accordingly to be illustrated in suitable tabulation and charting. This was also discussed in assessing the consistency degree in the application of Cronbach’s slpha, in order to validate survey findings and ensure the quality of this research. Other quality and ethical consideration were tackled as part of the participant information sheet that is viewed and acknowledged prior to participation. The following methodology pyramid illustrates and summarizes the applied methodology as follows: Research Paradigm
Positivism
Fig. 3.1: Methodology pyramid
53
4. Data analysis and discussion The following represents reliability tests and analysis of collected data related to the overall measured items within the quantitative survey, as well as the main elements that collectively lead to concluding the applicability ol PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within postdisaster reconstruction. These main elements are: current stakeholder management application; stakeholder management’s contribution to the overall success ol reconstruction projects; stakeholder management’s applicability score against implementation barriers; in addition to participants’ opinion towards
the applicability ol
PMI’s stakeholder management
processes, tools and techniques.
4.1 Sample details and reliability The overall number of participation in this survey has reached 367 participations, in which only 218 participants have positively answered questions 1 and 2 (qualifying questions), while 149 participants indicated that they were not involved a project management role in post-disaster reconstruction projects within the past ten years and accordingly, were disqualified. Statistical details below are based on qualified participation for samples according to categorizing questions as listed in Table 4.1:
54
Table 4.1: Data statistics Classification
Category
The most suitable project management approach
The applied stakeholder management framework
The type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project
N
%
Overall
218
100
Traditional
32
14.64
Agile
49
22.47
Extreme
137
62.84
Standard
28
12.84
Tailored
93
42.66
No specific
97
44.49
Natural disasters
158
72.47
Manmade disasters
75
34.40
Industrial disasters
38
17.43
As detailed in Table 4.1, the majority of participants (62.84%) totaling 137 out of 218 indicated that the Extreme Project Management is the most suitable approach
to
manage
post-disaster
reconstruction
projects,
whereas
participants whom selected the agile and the traditional approach are respectively 22.47% and 14.64%. The sample statistics also indicate that most of the participants either did not apply a specific framework in stakeholder management (44.49%) or adopted a tailored framework (42.66), while only 12.84% stated that they have applied a standard framework in stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects. Lastly, 72.47% of participants indicated that they have contributed in reconstruction projects following natural disasters, while 34.40% and 17.43% of participants stated that they have participated in reconstruction projects following manmade disasters and natural disasters respectively. According to Gliem 55
and Gliem (2112), Cronbach’s alpha should be applied to when using Likerttype scale for the total scale and all subscales to ensure data reliability. The applied instrument in assessing data reliability demonstrated a high reliability with an overall Cronbach's alpha of .995 (N = 218) for all measured elements (53 items) within the survey questionnaire. The Stakeholder Management spplication domain with 16 items produced a Cronbach’s alpha ol .947 (N = 218), the
takeholder Management’s contribution to success with 4 items
produced Cronbach’s alpha ol .892 (N = 218), the barriers to implement stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within postdisaster reconstruction projects produced a Cronbach’s alpha ol .894 (N = 218), and linally the participants’ opinion towards the applicability ol stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within postdisaster reconstruction projects demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha ol .928 (N = 218). Table 4.2: Results of reliability tests State
N
Number of items
Cronbach’s alpha
Total Scale
218
53
.955
Subscale: SM Application
218
16
.947
Subscale: Contribution to success
218
4
.892
Subscale: Barriers to implement
218
12
.894
Subscale: Participants’ opinion
218
12
.928
Table 4.2 presented above reveals high reliability scores for the overall ordinal questions as well for questions related to each of the four main elements in this research, as detailed in Appendix 4.1 (Cronbach’s alpha tests). All 56
analysis of data statistics and computations were performed on V21 of IBM SPSS application.
4.2 Stakeholder management application (hypothesis 1) The applied formula to calculate stakeholder management application within post-disaster reconstruction is based on registering scores of current application lor each ol PMI’s lour processes related to stakeholder management, with a fifty percent share of the total scoring value. The remaining fifty percent is calculated based on registering scores of current application for each tool and technique related to each of the four processes as detailed in the PMBOK ® Guide – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013).
4.2.1 Overall Lawther (2009, pp. 153-169) studied stakeholder management application within the tsunami recovery program and discussed related challenges and expectations. This has revealed the importance of measuring the level of stakeholder management application within the post-disaster context. As a result of applying the calculation formula on the SM application subscale, the overall
stakeholder
management
application
within
post-disaster
reconstruction projects scored 67.18% as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.2: Calculation sheets-Overall). Concurrently, meeting stakeholder requirements scored 70.73%, which indicates that stakeholder management application has achieved relevancy in meeting stakeholder requirements 57
within post-disaster reconstruction projects. On the other side, the overall project management application within post-disaster situations scored 56.53%, indicating that other areas within post-disaster reconstruction projects were more challenging. The calculation formula of project management application is based on registering scores of meeting the triple constraint, with a fifty percent share of the total scoring value, while the other fifty percent represents how each of the five process groups (initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closing) was properly conducted. In details, the triple constraint achieved only 45.80% while the process group application achieved 67.25%, indicating that the reason behind inconsistency between scores of stakeholder management application and project management application is due to not meeting project timeframe, scope and allocated budget. Stakeholder Management 100.00% 67.18% 50.00% 0.00% 56.53% Project Management
70.73% Meeting Requirements
Fig. 4.1: Triangle of relationship
Radar Chart 4.1 illustrates the triangle of relationship between scores of stakeholder management application, meeting stakeholder requirements and project management application within the post-disaster context. In surveying participants’ opinion towards the most suitable approach to manage a post58
disaster reconstruction project, results indicated that only 32 indicated that such projects should be managed according to the traditional approach, 49 stated that the agile approach should be adopted, while the majority of participants totaling 137 recommended adopting the Extreme approach in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects, which reveals that if the Extreme approach is adopted, challenges towards project management challenges may be eliminated within the post-disaster reconstruction context.
4.2.1 According to the applied framework Hypothesis 1 was validated according to the applied framework. The assessment related to participants whom selected a standard framework in stakeholder management scored 77.96% as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.3: Calculation sheets-The applied framework). As for the data related to participants whom applied a tailored project management framework for managing post-disaster reconstruction projects, stakeholder management application scored 75.68%, while participants whom did not apply a specific framework in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects scored only 55.83%. This indication reveals the correlation between efficiency in managing stakeholder requirements and the adoption of successfully proven framework when managing projects within the post-disaster context. Analyses of results are illustrated in chart 4.2.
59
80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Standardized
Tailored
No specific
SM application
77.96%
75.68%
55.83%
Meeting requirements
77.86%
67.96%
71.34%
PM application
74.93%
63.30%
60.91%
Fig. 4.2: SM application according to the applied framework
As shown in Chart 4.2, meeting stakeholder requirements scored 77.86% in managing projects according a standard framework, which indicates that stakeholder management application has achieved high relevancy in meeting stakeholder
requirements
within
post-disaster
reconstruction
projects.
Likewise, the standard framework data showed relevancy with project management application that scored 74.93%. This reveals a strong correlation between
stakeholder
management
application,
project
management
application and meeting stakeholder requirements when managing postdisaster reconstruction projects according to a standardized project management framework. As for the data related to applying a project management framework tailored for post-disaster reconstruction projects, results has shown 67.96% in meeting stakeholder requirements, and 63.30% in project management application,
indicating
less
relevancy
with
stakeholder
management
application. On the other side, in the case of not applying a project management framework, poor relevancy was observed in comparing stakeholder management application with meeting stakeholder requirements 60
that scored 71.34% as well as with project management application that scored 60.91%. However and according to the data reliability standard discussed in 3.7, the sample related to the standard framework did not reach 20% of the total sample, which indicates that the score related to the standard PMI framework cannot be considered as reliable, while the data related to the tailored framework represents 42.66% and therefore, can be considered as the highest reliable score in stakeholder management application within the post-disaster context.
4.2.2 According to the type of disaster Hypothesis 1 was also validated according to the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project. The assessment of participant survey results indicated that in the case of natural disasters, stakeholder management application scored 66.18% as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.4: Calculation sheets-The type of disaster). As for the data related to reconstruction
projects
following
manmade
disasters,
stakeholder
management application scored 69.70%, while reconstruction projects following industrial disasters scored 72.70% in stakeholder management application, as shown in Chart 4.3.
61
80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Natural
Manmade
Industrial
SM application
66.18%
69.70%
72.70%
Meeting requirements
71.27%
71.20%
71.58%
PM application
63.03%
63.20%
68.79%
Fig. 4.3: SM application according to the nature of disaster
As shown in Chart 4.3, meeting stakeholder requirements scored 71.27% in managing reconstruction projects that followed natural disasters, while data related to project management application scored 63.03%, which does not indicate enough relevancy with stakeholder management application. As for the data related to managed projects that has followed manmade disasters, results has shown 71.20% in meeting stakeholder requirements, and 63.20% in project management application, indicating a higher relevancy with stakeholder management application. Lastly, more relevancy was found in data related to projects following industrial disasters when comparing stakeholder management application with meeting stakeholder requirements that scored 71.58% as well as with project management application that scored 68.79% as shown in chart 4.3. However and according to the data reliability standard discussed in 3.7, the sample related to the industrial disasters did not reach 20% of the total sample, which indicates that the score related to reconstruction projects following industrial disasters cannot be considered as reliable, while the data related to reconstruction projects following manmade disasters represents 62
34.40% and therefore, can be considered as the highest reliable score in stakeholder management application within the post-disaster context.
4.3 Stakeholder management’s contribution to success (hypothesis 2) The applied formula to calculate stakeholder management’s contribution to the success of post-disaster reconstruction projects is based on calculating average scores of participants opinion towards each of the four stakeholder management processes discussed in the PMBOK® Guide- Fifth Edition (PMI, 2112), in which each ol PMI’s lour processes shares twenty-five percent of the total scoring value. These processes are: stakeholder identification; planning stakeholder management; managing stakeholder engagement; in addition to controlling stakeholder engagement.
4.3.1 Overall As a result of applying the calculation formula, the overall stakeholder management’s contribution to the success ol post-disaster reconstruction projects scored 83.74% as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.2), where each of the four stakeholder management processes has scored within the range of 82-85% indicating that if applied, almost they equally contribute to success in post-disaster reconstruction projects. This result is also aligned with Rowlinson and Cheung (2008, p.611), which stated that the proper application of stakeholder management and related tools and techniques is a key influence to success in projects, which has been 63
found almost equal for the four processes discussed in the PMBOK® GuideFifth Edition, as detailed in Chart 4.4
90.00% 70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 10.00%
Stakehold er Identificat ion
Planning Stakehold er Manage…
Contribution to success 84.40% 82.20% Fig. 4.4: takeholder management’s contribution to success
Managing Stakehold er Engage…
Controllin g Stakehold er…
84.95%
83.39%
4.3.2 According to the applied framework Hypothesis 2 was validated according to the applied framework. The standard framework scored 85.54%, which is the highest in contribution to success, compared to the tailored framework that scored 84.19%, as well as for data related to participants whom did not apply a specific framework that scored 82.78% (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.3). However, only 28 participants out of 218 have applied the standard framework, which represents less than 20% of the total sample size and therefore, data related to the standard framework is considered as not reliable. Not to mention that all three scores are within the range between eighty-two and eighty-six percent. In details, chart 4.5 reveals that scores of each of the four processes indicate similarity in contributing to the success of post-disaster reconstruction projects. As illustrated, planning stakeholder management process has the lowest score of 81.44% in the no-specific framework category, while
64
controlling stakeholder engagement has achieved the highest score of 89.29% in the standard framework category. Hence, similarity in scores between the different frameworks indicate that disregarding the applied framework, stakeholder management application contributes to success if applied within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
90.00% 70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 10.00% Stakeholder Identification
Planning Stakeholder Management
Managing Stakeholder Engagement
Controlling Stakeholder Engagement
Standardized
86.43%
82.86%
83.57%
89.29%
Tailored
84.95%
82.80%
86.02%
83.01%
No specific
83.30%
81.44%
84.33%
82.06%
Fig. 4.5: Contribution to success according to the applied framework
4.3.3 According to the type of disaster Hypothesis 2 was also validated according to the different types of disasters. As a result of the calculation for participants whom were involved in projects following natural disasters, the contribution to success factor has scored 83.23%, which is the lowest compared to manmade disasters that scored 88.67%, and industrial disasters that scored 88.29% (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.4). However and as discussed previously, the sample related to the industrial disasters did not reach 20% of the total sample and therefore, is not considered as reliable.
65
But as an overall, noting that the three categories scored within the range between eighty-three and eighty-nine percent as detailed in Chart 4.6, similarity in contribution to success of post-disaster reconstruction projects was concluded, where the controlling stakeholder engagement process has the lowest score of 81.65% in the natural disasters category, while the same process achieved the highest score of 92.53% in the manmade disasters category. Therefore, it was indicated that stakeholder management application
contributes
to
success
if
applied
within
post-disaster
reconstruction projects that follows any of the different types of disasters.
90.00%
70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 10.00% Stakeholder Identification
Planning Stakeholder Management
Managing Stakeholder Engagement
Controlling Stakeholder Engagement
Natural
84.05%
81.90%
85.32%
81.65%
Manmade
88.27%
85.33%
88.53%
92.53%
Industrial
88.42%
90.53%
85.79%
88.42%
Fig. 4.6: Contribution to success according to the nature of disaster
4.4 Score against implementation barriers (hypothesis 3) Due to the fact that most of the reconstruction projects may experience interorganizational collaboration as stated by Clegg et al. (2002, pp.317-337), cultural, environmental and situational challenges may affect most the application of project stakeholder management and therefore, the need to validate how stakeholder management application scores against such barriers
has
grown.
The
applied
formula
to
calculate
stakeholder 66
management’s implementation barriers within post-disaster reconstruction projects is based on calculating average scores of participants opinion towards each of the four stakeholder management processes according to PMI, in which the four processes shares fifty percent of the total scoring value. The remaining fifty percent is calculated for tools and techniques related to each of the four processes as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide- Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013). However, where barriers negatively affect a project, the actual score of applying stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques against probable barriers is indicated through reversing the calculation, in which the more barriers a project face the less score it achieved, and the other way around.
4.4.1 Overall As a result of applying the calculation formula, post-disaster reconstruction projects scores 41.79% against probable barriers, as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.2). This moderate score indicate that upon applying related processes, tools and techniques within the post-disaster context, stakeholders identification, planning, managing and controlling are subject to face some barriers towards efficiency in application. Not to mention that each of the four stakeholder management processes has scored within the range of 39-44% indicating that if applied, they are almost equal in facing implementation barriers. ehe overall score has also considered assessing PMI’s delined tools and techniques related to each of the four processes (PMI, 2013), where results 67
also indicated that the application of tools and techniques related to each of the four processes have scored within the range of 39-43%, which assures the above findings, as shown chart 4.7.
50.00% 30.00% 10.00% Stakeholder Identification
Planning Stakeholder Management
Managing Stakeholder Engagement
Controlling Stakeholder Engagement
Process
39.36%
43.21%
42.84%
43.76%
Tools & Techniques
41.25%
42.45%
39.72%
41.74%
Overall
40.31%
42.83%
41.28%
42.75%
Fig. 4.7: SM against implementation barriers
4.4.2 According to the applied framework Hypothesis 3 was validated according to the applied framework. The standard and tailored frameworks have respectively scored 39.52% and 40.25%, indicating the lowest stakeholder management application scores against probable barriers. While the data related to participants whom did not apply a specific framework in stakeholder management has scored 47.66% against barriers. This indicates that flexibility in stakeholder management application within post-disaster situations may partially eliminate related application barriers (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.3). However, only 28 participants out of 218 have applied the standard framework, which represents less than 20% of the total sample size and therefore, data related to the standard framework is considered as not reliable. This does not affect analysis findings when comparing the tailored with the no-specific categories, 68
where survey findings and volume of participation indicate less likelihood to face barriers against stakeholder management application if flexibility is considered. Noting that fifty-percent of the above scores is based on scores of tools and techniques related to each of the four processes, it is important to mention that the scores of implementing these tools and techniques against barriers are within the range between forty-one and fifty-seven percent, in which the highest score falls within the no-specific category, which also supports the above conclusion of less likelihood in facing barriers against stakeholder management application in the case of not committing to a specific stakeholder management framework. Finally, while scores of the four processes and related tools and techniques fall behind forty-seven percent, it was indicated that disregarding the applied framework stakeholder management application is likely to face moderate cultural, situational and environmental barriers upon implementation, which stands against its applicability within post-disaster reconstruction projects as illustrated in chart 4.8.
50.00%
30.00%
10.00%
Standardized
Tailored
No Specific
Processes
37.86%
41.25%
48.40%
Tools & Techniques
41.19%
39.25%
46.92%
Total
39.52%
40.25%
47.66%
Fig. 4.8: Score against barriers according to the applied framework
69
4.4.3 According to the type of disaster Hypothesis 3 was also validated according to the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project. As a result of the calculation for participants whom were involved in projects following natural disasters, the score against barriers achieved 43.28%, which is the highest score indicating the lowest probability in facing cultural, situational and environmental barriers, compared to manmade disasters that scored 38.00%, as well as for data related to industrial disasters that scored 33.40% (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.4). However and as discussed previously, the sample related to the industrial disasters did not reach 20% of the total sample and therefore, is not considered as reliable. This does not affect comparing data related to natural and manmade disasters where results indicates that reconstruction projects following natural disasters are less likely to face barriers upon applying stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques, compared with the ones following manmade disasters.
40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Natural
Manmade
Industrial
Processes
44.34%
37.87%
30.39%
Tools & Techniques
42.23%
38.13%
36.40%
Total
43.28%
38.00%
33.40%
Fig. 4.9: Score against barriers according to the nature of disaster
Upon reviewing that scores of the three types of disasters are still within the range between thirty-three and forty-four percent, as illustrated in chart 4.9, 70
similarity in scores indicates that disregarding the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction projects, moderate level of implementation barriers is expected.
4.5 Participants’ opinion towards the applicability ehe applied lormula to calculate participants’ opinion towards the applicability of stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects is based on calculating average scores of participants opinion towards each of the four stakeholder management processes according to PMI, in which the four processes shares fifty percent of the total scoring value. The remaining fifty percent is calculated for tools and techniques related to each of the four processes as discussed in the PMBOK® Guide- Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013).
4.5.1 Overall ss a result ol applying the calculation lormula, participants’ opinion towards the applicability of stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within post-disaster reconstruction projects scored 82.06%, as detailed in the calculation sheets (Appendix 4.2). This high score indicate that majority of participants believe that stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques as detailed in the PMBOK® Guide- Fifth Edition are applicable within post-disaster reconstruction projects. Not to mention that each of the four stakeholder management processes has scored within the range of 80-84% indicating that they are equally applicable. 71
90.00% 70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 10.00% Stakeholder Identification
Planning Stakeholder Management
Managing Stakeholder Engagement
Controlling Stakeholder Engagement
Process
83.39%
81.01%
82.66%
80.00%
Tools & Techniques
82.87%
81.13%
83.67%
81.77%
Overall
83.13%
81.07%
83.17%
80.89%
Fig. 4.11: Participants’ opinion towards the applicability
As shown in chart 4.10, the overall score has also considered assessing PMI’s delined tools and techniques related to each ol the lour processes (PMI, 2013) where results also indicated that the application of tools and techniques related to each of the four processes have scored within the range of 81-84%, which assures previous findings.
4.5.2 According to the applied framework Upon applying the same calculation formula for data classified according to the applied framework, the standardized and no-specific categories have scored 80.95% and 80.11%, indicating lower scores compared to the tailored framework in stakeholder management that has scored 93.48% which is more leaning towards being totally applicable within post-disaster situations (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.3). However, only 28 participants out of 218 have applied the standard framework, which represents less than 20% of the total sample size and therefore, data related to the standard framework is considered as not 72
reliable. This does not affect analysis findings when comparing the tailored with the no-specific categories, where survey findings and volume of participation
indicate
higher
scores
of
participants’
opinion
towards
stakeholder management applicability if the adopted framework is tailored to suite the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Chart 4.11 illustrates the total score for each framework, and also reveals scores of processes as well as scores of related tools and techniques, where both confirms that participants believe that the applicability of a tailored stakeholder management framework is the highest. Not to mention that the score of tools and techniques is even higher (94.40%) if the tailored framework was adopted, which supports the above conclusion.
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Standardized
Tailored
No Specific
Processes
82.14%
92.56%
79.90%
Tools & Techniques
79.76%
94.40%
80.33%
Total
80.95%
93.48%
80.11%
Fig. 4.11: Participants’ opinion according to the applied lramework
4.5.3 According to the type of disaster The calculation formula was also applied to calculate scores of stakeholder management applicability classified for projects following the different types of disasters. As a result of the calculation for participants whom were involved in projects following natural disasters, the survey data achieved 80.40%, which is lower compared to manmade disasters that scored 87.34%, as well as for 73
data related to industrial disasters that scored 86.38% (see related calculation sheets in appendix 4.4). However and as discussed previously, the sample related to the industrial disasters did not reach 20% of the total sample and therefore, is not considered as reliable. This does not affect comparing data related to natural and manmade disasters where results indicates that participants believe that project stakeholder management is more applicable within construction projects following manmade disasters.
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Natural
Manmade
Industrial
Processes
79.68%
87.40%
88.42%
Tools & Techniques
81.12%
87.29%
84.34%
Total
80.40%
87.34%
86.38%
Fig. 4.12: Participants’ opinion according to the nature ol disaster
Upon reviewing that scores of the three types of disasters are still within the range between seventy-nine and eighty-nine percent, as illustrated in chart 4.9, similarity in scores indicates that disregarding the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction projects, participants believe that stakeholder management is applicable within the post-disaster context.
4.6 The total applicability of stakeholder management The applied formula to calculate the total applicability scores is based on calculating average scores of stakeholder management application, its contribution to the project success, scores against implementation barriers, in 74
addition to participants’ opinion towards the applicability of related processes, tools and techniques, in which each of the four major elements shares twentyfive percent of the total scoring value, as detailed in the applicability calculation within each sheet.
4.6.1 Overall As a result of applying the calculation formula, the overall stakeholder management’s applicability within post-disaster reconstruction projects scored 68.69%. This indicates that stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques are more leaning towards being applicable within post-disaster reconstruction projects, which is also relevant to the score of current stakeholder management application. In assessing its contribution to project success, stakeholder management achieved the highest score of 83.74%, which is also in consistence with participants’ opinion towards the applicability that scored 82.16%. towever, the score against probable barriers of implementation 41.79% has shown that stakeholder management is face with many cultural, situational and environmental
barriers
upon
implementation
within
the
post-disaster
reconstruction context, as illustrated in chart 4.13.
75
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Applicability
Current application
Contributio n to success
Score against barriers
Participants' Opinion
Total
67.18%
83.74%
41.79%
82.06%
68.69%
Fig. 4.13: The applicability of stakeholder management
4.6.2 According to the applied framework Upon applying the same calculation formula for data classified according to the applied framework, the standardized and tailored frameworks have scored 70.99% and 73.40%, indicating higher scores compared to the no-specific category in stakeholder management applicability that has scored 66.60% within post-disaster situations. However, data related to the standard framework is considered as not reliable due to the fact that only 28 participants out of 218 have applied the standard framework, which represents less than 20% of the total sample size. This does not affect analysis findings when comparing the tailored with the nospecific categories, where survey findings and volume of participation indicate higher applicability if the adopted framework is tailored to suite the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Noting that score of each of the four major elements represents twenty-five percent of the above scores, it is important to mention that scores against implementation barriers is clearly found lower than the other three elements when assessing the standard 39.52% and tailored 40.25% frameworks, where 76
scores of the other three elements range between 77-86% for the standard framework and 75-94% for the tailored framework. As for data related to nospecific framework category, it is indicated that current stakeholder management application 55.83% is close to its score against cultural, situational and environmental barriers 47.66%, while participants believe that stakeholder management is applicable by 80.11% and it contributes to the success of post-disaster reconstruction projects equal to 82.78%, as illustrated in chart 4.14.
100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%
SM application
Contributio n to success
Score against barriers
Participants' opinion
Total
Standard
77.96%
85.54%
39.52%
80.95%
70.99%
Tailored
75.68%
84.19%
40.25%
93.48%
73.40%
No specific
55.83%
82.78%
47.66%
80.11%
66.60%
Fig. 4.14: The applicability according to the applied framework
4.6.3 According to the type of disaster The calculation formula was also applied to calculate total applicability scores classified for projects following the different types of disasters. Results indicated that projects following natural disasters scored 68.27%, which is lower compared to manmade disasters that scored 70.93%, as well as for data related to industrial disasters that scored 70.19%. However, data related to the industrial disasters is considered as not reliable due to the fact that only 38 participants out of 218 have contributed in 77
reconstruction projects following industrial disasters. This does not affect analysis findings when comparing the natural disasters with the manmade disasters, where survey findings and volume of participation indicate slightly higher applicability in the case of reconstruction projects following manmade disasters. Noting that score of each of the four major elements represents twenty-five percent of the above scores, it is important to mention that scores against implementation barriers is clearly found lower than the other three elements where it ranges between 33-44%, while scores of the other three elements range between 66-84% for the natural disasters category, 69-89% for the manmade category, and between 72-89% for the industrial disasters category. Nevertheless, while the total scores related to the three types of disasters range between 68-71%, similarity is found in comparing projects following the three types of disasters, as illustrated in chart 4.15. Accordingly, classification according to the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project is found not feasible.
90.00% 70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 10.00%
SM application
Contribution to success
Score against barriers
Participants' opinion
Total
Natural
66.18%
83.23%
43.28%
80.40%
68.27%
Manmade
69.70%
88.67%
38.00%
87.34%
70.93%
Industrial
72.70%
88.29%
33.40%
86.38%
70.19%
Fig. 4.15: The applicability according to the nature of disaster
78
4.7 Discussion of research findings The previous discussion demonstrates reliability of collected data and related analysis based on the ordinal survey questions that lead to main research findings based on pre-identified data analysis formulas. In addition, the analysis takes in consideration number of participation per categorized survey data according to the applied framework in stakeholder management as well as the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project. In other words, the analysis of data is preceded by assurance of data reliability related to the overall survey ordinal questions, in addition to the sum of ordinal questions that measure each of the four major elements in this research. These elements are: current stakeholder management application within post-disaster reconstruction projects; stakeholder management’s contribution to the overall success of reconstruction projects; stakeholder management’s score against implementation barriers; in addition to participants’
opinion
towards
the
applicability
ol
PMI’s
stakeholder
management processes, tools and techniques.
4.7.1 Assessing research hypotheses against related samples As for assessing research related hypotheses, Table 4.4 below illustrates percentages and sample size of Hypothesis 1, indicating general and in-depth level of supporting hypothesis 1 as follows:
79
Hypothesis 1: “Stakeholder management is not applied at the same level within post-disaster reconstruction projects”
Table 4.3: Assessment of Hypothesis 1 against sample size Hypothesis
Description
Percentage of application
N
1
The application of PMI’s project stakeholder management with post-disaster reconstruction
67.18%
218
1A
The application of PMI’s standard project stakeholder management with post-disaster reconstruction
77.96%
28
1B
The application of PMI’s tailored project stakeholder management with post-disaster reconstruction
75.68%
93
1C
The application of PMI’s project stakeholder management with post-disaster reconstruction with no commitment to a specific framework
55.83%
97
1X
The application of PMI’s project stakeholder management with reconstruction projects following natural disasters
66.18%
158
1Y
The application of PMI’s project stakeholder management with reconstruction projects following manmade disasters
69.70%
75
1Z
The application of PMI’s project stakeholder management with reconstruction projects following industrial disasters
72.70%
38
According to the illustrated results, sample size in 1A (standard framework) and 1Z (industrial disasters) are both less than 20% of total sample size (218 responses) and therefore, are not considered as reliable in this study. Hence, the above indicates that while the overall level of stakeholder management 80
application is partially applied (67.18%), detailed results reveal that in the case of not committing to a specific framework in stakeholder management, the level of stakeholder management application has only reached 55.83%, compared to adopting a tailored stakeholder management framework that scores 75.68%. Unlike the gap of stakeholder management application between natural and manmade disasters that falls within almost 4%, the gap between the nospecific category and the tailored framework is almost 20% and accordingly, this supports hypothesis 1 and at the same time, confirms that current stakeholder management application is much higher in post-disaster reconstruction projects if tailored to meet challenges found within such complex and demanding situations.
Hypothesis 2: “Success within post-disaster reconstruction projects is correlated with proper stakeholder management application”
In assessing research related to hypothesis 2, Table 4.5 below illustrates percentages and sample size, indicating general and in-depth level of support as follows:
81
Table 4.4: Assessment of Hypothesis 2 against sample size Hypothesis
Description
Participation to success
N
2
Success in reconstruction projects is correlated to stakeholder management application
83.74%
218
2A
Success in reconstruction projects is correlated to adopting a standard framework in stakeholder management application
85.54%
28
2B
Success in reconstruction projects is correlated to adopting a tailored framework in stakeholder management application
84.19%
93
2C
Success in reconstruction projects is correlated to adopting a no specific framework in stakeholder management application
82.78%
97
2X
Success in reconstruction projects following natural disasters is correlated to stakeholder management application
83.23%
158
2Y
Success in reconstruction projects following manmade disasters is correlated to stakeholder management application
88.67%
75
2Z
Success in reconstruction projects following industrial disasters is correlated to stakeholder management application
88.29%
38
According to the illustrated results in Table 4.5, sample size in 2A (standard framework) and 2Z (industrial disasters) are both less than 20% of total sample size (218 responses) and therefore, are not considered as reliable in this study. Hence, the above indicates that while the overall level of stakeholder management application is partially applied (83.74%), detailed results indicated all categorized results according to the applied framework as well as according to the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project are within the same range, which confirms that hypothesis 2 is supported as
82
an overall, within different stakeholder management approaches and following different types of disasters.
Hypothesis 3: “Stakeholder management application within postdisaster reconstruction projects is highly affected by implementation barriers” In assessing research related to hypothesis 3, Table 4.5 below illustrates percentages and sample size, indicating general and in-depth level of support as follows: Table 4.5: Assessment of Hypothesis 3 against sample size Hypothesis
3
Description
Barriers towards applying PMI’s management methodology within reconstruction projects
stakeholder post-disaster
Percentage of barriers
N
58.21%
218
3A
Barriers towards applying PMI’s standard stakeholder management methodology within post-disaster reconstruction projects
60.48%
28
3B
Barriers towards applying PMI’s tailored stakeholder management methodology within post-disaster reconstruction projects
59.75%
93
3C
Barriers towards applying no specific stakeholder management methodology within post-disaster reconstruction projects
52.34%
97
3X
Barriers to apply stakeholder management within reconstruction projects following natural disasters
56.72%
158
3Y
Barriers to apply stakeholder management within reconstruction projects following manmade disasters
62.00%
75
3Z
Barriers to apply stakeholder management within reconstruction projects following industrial disasters
66.60%
38
83
According to the illustrated results in Table 4.6, sample size in 3A (standard framework) and 3Z (industrial disasters) are both less than 20% of total sample size (218 responses) and therefore, are not considered as reliable in this study. Hence, the above indicates that the overall level of barriers towards implementing PMI’s stakeholder management methodology is moderate (58.21%). Detailed results indicate that all categorized results according to the applied framework as well as according to the type of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project are within the same range, which confirms that hypothesis 3 is rejected. Accordingly, the concluded moderate level of barriers towards stakeholder management application found within the post-disaster context does not align with what was stated in Clegg et al. (2002, pp.317-337) regarding the major effect of cultural aspects on the inter-organizational collaboration in the case of post-disaster reconstruction projects.
4.7.2 Assessing research findings against related samples Where number of participation in certain categorizing questions is found not sufficient, the analysis does not rely on results for such categories with limited participation. Table 4.3 illustrates percentages of stakeholder management applicability in each case along with related sample size, as follows:
84
Table 4.6: The applicability against sample size Case
Description
Percentage of applicability
N
1
The overall applicability score
68.69%
218
2
ehe applicability when applying a PMI’s standard framework
70.99%
28
3
ehe applicability when tailoring PMI’s lramework
73.40%
93
4
The applicability without committing to a specific framework
66.60%
97
5
The applicability within projects following natural disasters
68.27%
158
6
The applicability within projects following manmade disasters
70.93%
75
7
The applicability within projects following industrial disasters
70.19%
38
According to the illustrated results, sample size in case#2 (standard framework) and case#7 (industrial disasters) are both less than 20% of total sample size (218 responses) and therefore, are not considered as reliable in this study. The above indicate that PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques as detailed in the PMBOK® Guide-Fifth Edition are partially applicable. However, it is also indicated that the methodology becomes more applicable if tailored to meet specific requirements of post-disaster reconstruction projects. When calculating the applicability of each of the four processes according to the tailored framework, results confirmed that all four processes have scored above 70% in process
85
applicability based on averaging scores of these processes and scores of related tools and techniques, as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: The applicability of tailored SM processes Process
Description
Percentage of applicability
N
Total
The applicability when tailoring the complete PMI’s stakeholder management framework
73.40%
93
1
The applicability of the tailored Identify Stakeholders Process
74.28%
93
2
The applicability of the tailored Plan Stakeholder Management Process
72.18%
93
3
The applicability of the tailored Manage Stakeholder Engagement Process
74.23%
93
4
The applicability of the tailored Control Stakeholder Engagement Process
72.91%
93
According to Chang et al. (2011, pp.199-205), post-disaster reconstruction is in most cases, a donor-driven funded project. According to the authors, project stakeholder management is challenged with insufficient funding, insufficient government support, in addition to contractor incompetency, which is hard to control in such urgent and critical context. This aligns with the research findings, where the applicability score against implementation barriers was found less than 43% in all processes and related tools and techniques. On the other side, participants’ opinion towards its applicability was found above 90% for all processes and related tools and techniques. This reveals that participants’ awareness towards the applicability is much less 86
than the actual applicability calculation, which also indicates that there is a need to further study the awareness gap, improve the awareness of stakeholders themselves (Newport and Jawhar, 2003, pp. 33-36), where coping mechanism and assessment are key factors to control community engagement in disaster situations. According to Khang and Moe (2008, p.72) previous literature in project management failed to thoroughly discuss success factors and identify related criteria in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects. Success measures according to Andersen et al. (2006, pp. 127-147) should be classified into task-related and people-related, in which the latter contains key elements in managing and controlling stakeholders engagement. Consequently, the tailored stakeholder management framework should apply control limits towards stakeholder planning, management and engagement that best influence success of post-disaster reconstruction projects.
87
5. Conclusion and Recommendations According to previous analysis and findings, this chapter further discusses research implications and recommendations. First, it summarizes main findings towards current application ol PMI’s project stakeholder management methodology within the post-disaster context, its contribution to success, in addition to the barriers of implementing the methodology, in order to determine its applicability within postdisaster reconstruction projects. Then, it discusses research implication both towards theory and practice, in addition to discussing limitations of the study. Lastly, this chapter points out recommendations towards future research direction in applying PMI’s stakeholder management methodology within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
5.1 Synopsys of Results The research has successfully determined that PMI’s project stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques as detailed in the PMBOK® GuideFifth Edition is somehow applicable within post-disaster reconstruction projects. It was also indicated that these PMI’s methodology becomes applicable upon tailoring these processes to meet the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects. This has been confirmed in research findings related to stakeholder identification process, planning stakeholder management process, managing and controlling stakeholder engagement. Concurrently, it was indicated that the level of project management application within the post-disaster context is moderate, due to mainly not meeting project’s triple constraint. sccording to participation results, the majority of post88
disaster reconstruction projects should be managed according to the Extreme project management approach, which collectively supports the importance ol tailoring PMI’s stakeholder management methodology, to suite the complexity of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Not to mention that the applicability was found almost at the same level when managing post-disaster reconstruction projects following natural disasters and manmade disasters. The findings also indicated that PMI’s methodology in project stakeholder management was somehow applied within the post-disaster context. It was found more applied when a tailored framework was adopted, while the application was moderate in the case of not committing to a specific framework. In-depth results based on the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction projects were found similar in stakeholder management application. Moreover, findings indicated that PMI’s stakeholder management methodology is an important driver to success in post-disaster reconstruction projects. However, the implementation of related processes, tools and techniques is accompanied with moderate barriers that need to be considered in tailoring a practical methodology for managing stakeholders within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
5.2 Research implication This section demonstrates some of the research implications towards stakeholder management theory and practice. At the theoretical level, the main advancement is related to PMI’s methodology in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects. The review of literature revealed that most of project management professionals within the construction industry and the post-disaster context partially practice a de facto 89
standard, such as the discussed lramework PMI’s PMB K® Guide. towever, such framework was developed to generally meet projects that are traditionally managed, which indicates that there is a lack in compatibility with the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects. Results indicated that cultural, environmental and situational characteristics have a moderate effect on identifying, planning, managing, and controlling stakeholders’ requirements within the post-disaster context. Adding to this the complexity found in managing projects within the construction industry due to the fact that stakeholder influence is not static as stated in Landin and Olander (2005, p.327). Remarkably, the research uncovered an effective approach in assessing the applicability ol PMI’s methodology in stakeholder management that best suites the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, as it was determined that the level of application in related processes, tools and techniques, their contribution to the success in addition to the barriers faced in methodology implementation indicated that there is a need to tailor PMI’s methodology in project stakeholder management. Accordingly, further efforts in theory research must incorporate the construct of this research to apply customized processes, tools and techniques and test their effectiveness within the post-disaster context. While the applicability score against implementation barriers is found very low compared with other elements, the customization effort may consider the addition of processes and related tools that manages and mitigates stakeholder-related risk, in order to overcome these barriers. Moreover, such customization should reflect better scores in contributing to project management success, as existing methodology is too general to be applied as-is. The study extended preceding research findings of Akintoye and Chinyio (2008, pp.591-599), Le Masurier et al. (2006) and Fagnoni (2006) which suggested that organigations have realiged the importance ol managing stakeholders’ requirements 90
with respect to the specific situational and environmental surroundings, where multistakeholder requirements and influence should be considered in customizing effective tools and techniques to identify, plan, manage and control stakeholder engagement within post-disaster reconstruction projects. In other words, the research concluded that in order to increase its contribution to success, the applied methodology should include effective tools and techniques that increase its effectiveness towards managing stakeholders, such including stakeholder-related risk assessment and management processes, in order to overcome implementation barriers and meet urgency and complexity requirements of such projects. Moreover, while the literature review indicated that stakeholder management was poorly positioned within the disaster context, results of the study demonstrated how positioning stakeholder management effectively is measured in correlation with meeting their requirements as well as the effectiveness of project management as an overall. In this regard, the triangle of relationship indicates that the overall effectiveness in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects is moderate in comparison with managing stakeholders and meeting their requirements. According to the research, the majority of practitioners believe that post-disaster reconstruction projects should be managed according to the Extreme approach, which indicates why meeting the triple constraint was barely met. Hence, the overall project management methodology and not only project stakeholder management should be tailored to meet such complex projects. Furthermore, the reviewed literature showed that PMI has developed a methodology in managing post-disaster projects, based on the PMBOK® Guide-Third Edition that did not include all processes, tools and techniques related to project stakeholder 91
management as detailed in the fifth edition of the same standard. However, the research findings indicated that if applied, project stakeholder management would strongly contribute to the success of post-disaster projects. This reveals the need to incorporate a tailored methodology of project stakeholder management into a newer version ol PMI’s methodology lor managing post-disaster projects. Additionally, the overall methodology must be reviewed and assessed towards being applicable according to the Extreme project management approach. As for the implication for practice, this research aims to improve current practice of project stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects by presenting a set of recommended practice that could draw a roadmap in baselining the development of a tailored framework to be applied within the post-disaster context. Accordingly, the below list of practical recommendations is suggested for professionals to be applied in managing post-disaster projects: -
Practitioners first need to acknowledge that there is no single framework that fits all types of projects and accordingly, the applicability of any de facto standard framework in stakeholder management must be assessed in-depth for all applied processes, tools and techniques, in order to determine the right direction towards customizing each, followed by testing the set of tailored methodology in order to frame it as a best practice. Concurrently, the lessons learnt of such practice should be lormed in a list ol do’s and don’ts, in order to develop a knowledge base of probable issues and potential solutions.
-
Practitioners may consider assessing the required level of resourcing, capabilities
and
skills
when
characterizing
parameters
in
identifying 92
stakeholders, planning stakeholder management, in addition to managing and controlling their engagement. Taking in consideration the fact that stakeholder requirements and influence is never but dynamic, practitioners must constantly monitor any change, which is highly expected within the post-disaster context. Accordingly, reassessing required resourcing and capabilities is concurrently required to be dynamic with respect to any change in stakeholder requirements and influence.
-
Due to the extreme nature of post disaster projects, practitioners may wish to prioritize the applied processes, tools and techniques in project stakeholder management into imperative, important and secondary, in order to have indepth focus on key stakeholder management drivers to the overall project success.
-
While urgency in managing post-disaster reconstruction projects is essential, practitioners must at the same level take into consideration that the high level of coordination between multiple authorities and regulation bodies requires commitment to a certain level of bureaucracy, which contradicts with tailoring a practically effective methodology in managing stakeholders within the postdisaster context. To resolve this issue, practitioners should highly comply with bureaucracy in communicating and reporting to certain groups of stakeholders, while adopting practical methodology application in other areas of project stakeholder management.
93
5.3 Limitations One of the limitations of this research is related to data source. Although, selfreported data is considered as acceptable in research, but still not enough to verify that collected data does represent the population due to the fact that a chance is always there for exaggerating in answering survey questions. This is why the structure of the survey considered assessing processes as well as the tools and techniques applied in each process, where both processes and related tools and techniques have equal weight in score calculation. In other words, the applicability of each process equals the sum of its own applicability and the applicability of related tools and techniques, divided by two. Another limitation is related to sample size. While the number of qualified participation surpassed the minimum target, in-depth analysis based on classifying results as per the categorizing questions indicated low response rates for two categories, which resulted in limitation in sample size for such categories. These questions aimed to categorize data related to the applied framework (standard, tailored and no-specific) and the nature of disaster preceding a reconstruction project (natural disasters, manmade disasters and industrial disasters), where the optimum response rate is capped by 33.33% for each category. Accordingly, the applied methodology indicated that in order to rely on in-depth results per each category, a minimum of 20% of response for each category must be achieved. Hence, data analysis related to the standard framework and the industrial disasters were considered as not reliable, due to not achieving the minimum percentage of survey participation.
94
However, this has not affected the research conclusion that led to selecting the tailored framework as most suitable for managing stakeholders within post-disaster reconstruction projects, due to the fact that almost half of participants have selected this framework, in addition to achieving the highest score in framework applicability.
5.4 Suggestions for future research The study uncovered that post-disaster reconstruction projects should be managed according to the Extreme approach, where project stakeholder management processes are tailored to meet complexity and urgency found in post-disaster reconstruction. However, when tailoring the methodology of project stakeholder management, researchers may consider that on reality it is inextricably connected to disaster response and management. Unlike how PMI separates its methodology in managing post-disaster projects from disaster response, processes of both are to a degree parallel and not serial. Accordingly, additional research may require investigating the effect of engaging with stakeholders, analyzing their requirements, and planning their engagement during the disaster response phase, while managing and controlling their requirement are subsequent to the reconstruction phase. Future research efforts may also extend their coverage to include project stakeholder processes related to disaster preparedness, in which a set of procedures in addition to periodically updated stakeholder information are ready to be incorporated in stakeholder identification and analysis process.
95
5.5 Conclusion This research was initiated with a main objective to assess project stakeholder management applicability according to different applied frameworks and following different types of disaster. Results confirmed that the selection of methodology framework has a strong relation with its applicability within the post-disaster context, while the nature of a disaster preceding a reconstruction project does not have a strong effect on the applicability of methodology. Accordingly, it was confirmed through the analyging data collected that applying PMI’s methodology in managing stakeholders within post-disaster reconstruction projects becomes more applicable through tailoring related processes, tools and techniques to suite industry and situation challenges. The study has also validated findings of Akintoye and Chinyio (2008, pp.591-599), Le Masurier et al. (2006) and Fagnoni (2006) whom suggested that managing stakeholders’ requirements in the post-disaster context may need to consider specific situational and environmental surroundings, in addition to the multistakeholder requirements and influence that need to be considered in tailoring effective related tools and techniques. First, the study analyzed data related to stakeholder management application, its contribution to project success and the barriers ol implementing PMI’s related processes, tools and techniques, in addition to assessing participants’ opinion towards its applicability. ehen, it extended the analysis by adding additional dimension towards the applied framework, in which the research findings indicated that the tailor framework has the highest applicability rating within post-disaster reconstruction projects. On the other hand, the research has determined the triangle of relations between stakeholder management application, meeting stakeholder requirements and the overall project management application, where it was confirmed that the latter was 96
not found as sufficiently applied within the post-disaster context. In line with the need to tailor PMI’s project stakeholder management to best suite the complexity and urgency of such projects, the research through received responses indicated that post-disaster projects should be managed according to the Extreme project management approach, which may increase the efficiency in the overall project management application through completely tailoring the applied methodology in such
critical
projects.
However,
tailoring
project
stakeholder
management
methodology to suite the extreme nature of post-disaster reconstruction does not necessarily mean having lighter processes that fits the urgency of such situations. In fact, the high level of coordination between multiple authorities and regulation bodies requires commitment to bureaucracy in related feedback and reporting conditions, which contradicts with simplicity that is usually targeted in tailoring a practically effective methodology. This for sure does not affect all processes, tools and techniques to be tailored, where simplicity can still be achieved in identifying stakeholders and planning for their engagement, while managing the engagement of certain groups of stakeholders requires firm commitment to their instruction in communication and reporting protocols. To summarize, the study was able to pinpoint a composite direction towards successful stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects that is characterized by project management approach and stakeholder management lramework. ehe research suggests that PMI’s project stakeholder management methodology according to the PMBOK® Guide-Fifth Edition should be tailored to meet situational and industrial traits found within the post-disaster context. Hence, customization should be consistent with the adoption of Extreme project management approach that best suites these types of projects. This demands 97
intersected and combined analysis efforts in setting an effective overall project management approach and concurrently, tailoring stakeholder management methodology that results in effective stakeholder management within post-disaster reconstruction projects.
98
References sndersen, E., Birchall, s., Jessen,
., & Money, s. (2116) ‘Exploring project
success’. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(2), pp.127-147. [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17465260610663854 (Accessed on 3, July, 2014). Barakat, Policy
. (2112) ‘tousing reconstruction alter conllict and disaster’. Humanitarian Group,
Network
Papers, 43,
pp.1-40.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.odihpn.org/documents/networkpaper043.pdf (Accessed, 7 July, 2014). Bernard,
H.
(2013) Social
research
methods:
Qualitative
and
quantitative
approaches. H. Russell Bernard. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Bhattacharya, C., responsibility
in
en,
., & Korschun, s. (2116) ‘ehe role ol corporate social
strengthening
multiple
stakeholder
relationships:
a
field
experiment’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 34(2), 158-166. [Online]. Available
from:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070305284978
(Accessed on 5 August, 2014). Bourne,
L.,
&
Walker,
influence. Management
D.
(2005).
Decision, 43(5),
Visualising 649-660.
and
mapping
[Online].
stakeholder
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?articleid=1502243 (Accessed on 8 June, 2014).
Bourne, L. (2116) ‘Project relationships and the stakeholder circle’. In Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference. Montreal Canada, PMI. [Online]. Available from: 99
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P010_Stakeholder_Circle.pdf (Accessed on 8, July, 2014). Bryman, s., & Cramer, s. (1999) ‘Quantitative data analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows’. A guide for social scientists. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://demo.gitc.colombo.vn/upload/170/20131127/Quantitative%20analysis%20with %20SPSS.pdf (Accessed on September, 3, 2014). Carroll, A. and Buchholtz, A. (2012) Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder Management, 8th ed., South-Western Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT. Chang, Y., Wilkinson, ., Potangaroa, s., & eville, E. (2111) ‘sesourcing challenges for post-disaster housing reconstruction: a comparative analysis’. Building Research &
Information, 38(3),
247-264.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09613211003693945#.U8B9vY2SzzY (Accessed on 8 July, 2014). Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., & eville, E. (2111) ‘sonor-driven resource procurement for post-disaster reconstruction: Constraints and actions’. Habitat International, 35(2),
199-205.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397510000494 (Accessed on 17, November, 2014).
Chinyio, E., & skintoye, s. (2118) ‘Practical approaches lor engaging stakeholders: lindings lrom the UK’. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 591-599 [Online].
Available
from: 100
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=3f2 ef568-a1cc-47a3-b9f0-5ce7a73128cf%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4110 (Accessed on 5 May 2014) Clegg, S., Pitsis, T., Rura-Polley, T., & Marosszeky, M. (2002) ‘Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects’. Organization Studies,23(3), pp. 317-337. [Online]. Available from: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/23/3/317.short (Accessed on 4, September, 2014). Crawford, L., Langston, C., & Bajracharya, B. (2013) ‘Participatory project management for improved disaster resilience’. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 4(3), 317-333 [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=17595908&volume=4&issue=3&articleid=17096686&show=html (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Curlee, W., & Sterling, M. (2008) ‘Project management methodology for post disaster reconstruction (PDRM)’. In Proceedings of PMI Global Congress 2008–North America.
Project
Management
Institute
[Online].
Available
from:
http://marketplace.pmi.org/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?GMProduct=00101079400 (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Davidson, C. et al. (2007) ‘eruths and myths about community participation in postdisaster
housing
projects’. Habitat
International, 31(1),
pp.100-115.
[Online].
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397506000348 (Accessed on 3 July, 2014).
101
El-Gohary, N., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. (2006) ‘ takeholder management for public private partnerships’. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 595604
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786306000949 (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Eskerod, P., & Jepsen, A. L. (2013) Project Stakeholder Management. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing, Limited. Fagnoni, C. (2116) ‘turricanes Katrina and sita: Coordination between FEMs and the Red Cross Should Be Improved for the 2006 Hurricane Season: GAO-06712’. GAO Reports 1. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (Accessed on 10, July 2014). Forga, C. (2112) ‘ urvey research in operations management: a process-based perspective’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), pp.152-194.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/01443570210414310 (Accessed on July, 23, 2014). Fraser, C., & Zhu, C. (2118) ‘ takeholder perception ol construction site managers' ellectiveness’. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 579-590. [Online]. Available
from:
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32 707892&site=ehost-live&scope=site (Accessed on 7 June, 2014). Freeman,
R.
and
McVea,
J. (2111)
‘s stakeholder approach
to
strategic management’. In: titt, M. s, Freeman, s. and Harrison, J. (2005). The 102
Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford: Blackwell Business, pp. 189– 207. Frooman, J. (1999) ‘ takeholder inlluence strategies’. Academy of management review, 24(2),
pp.191-205.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://amr.aom.org/content/24/2/191.short (Accessed on 2, June, 2014). Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010) Research methods for managers. John Gill and Phil Johnson. London: SAGE Publications. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, s. s. (2112) ‘Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coellicient lor Likert-type scales’. Midwest sesearch-toPractice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. [Online]. Available from: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344 (Accessed on 4, November, 2014). taigh, s., &
utton, s. (2112) ‘ trategies lor the ellective engagement ol multi-
national construction enterprises in post-disaster building and infrastructure projects’. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3(3), pp.
270-282.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?articleid=17056403 (Accessed on 3, July 2014). tamre, J., &
ullivan, G. (2112) ‘eoward post conllict reconstruction’. Washington
Quarterly, 25(4),
pp.83-96.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/016366002760252554#.U875q4CSzzY (Accessed on 9, June, 2014).
103
tenriques, I. &
adorsky, P. (1999) ‘ehe relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions ol stakeholder importance’. Academy of management
Journal, 42(1),
pp.
87-99.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://amj.aom.org/content/42/1/87.short (Accessed on 10, July 2014). Ika, L., siallo, s., & ehuillier, s. (2112) ‘Critical success lactors lor World Bank projects:
an
empirical
investigation’. International
Management, 30(1),
105-116.
Journal
[Online].
of
Available
Project from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786311000469 (Accessed on 3, September, 2014). Khang, D., & Moe, T. (2118) ‘ uccess criteria and lactors lor international development
projects:
Journal, 39(1),
A
life-cycle-based
72-84.
lramework’. Project
[Online].
Management
Available
from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmj.20034/abstract?deniedAccessCustomis edMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false (Accessed on 13, July, 2014). Kim, K., & Choi, J. (2112) ‘Breaking the vicious cycle ol llood disasters: Goals ol project management in post-disaster rebuild projects’. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1),
pp.147-160.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786312000348 (Accessed on 7, July 2014). Landau, S., & Everitt, B. (2004) A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS (Vol. 1). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Landin, s. &
lander,
implementation
of
. (2115) ‘Evaluation ol stakeholder inlluence in the
construction
projects’. International
journal
of
project 104
management, 23(4),
pp.321-328.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786305000232 (Accessed on 22, July, 2014).
Lawther, P. (2119) ‘Community involvement in post disaster re‐construction‐case study ol the British red cross Maldives recovery program’. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 13(2), pp. 153-169. [Online]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.153-169 (Accessed on 8, July 2014). Le Masurier, J., sotimi, J.
., & Wilkinson,
. (2116) ‘Comparison between routine
construction and post-disaster reconstruction with case studies lrom New Zealand’ [Online].
Available
from:
http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/5809
(Accessed on 5 May 2014). Lim, G., shn, t., & Lee, t. (2115) ‘Formulating strategies lor stakeholder management:
a
case-based
Applications, 28(4),
reasoning
831-840.
approach’. Expert
[Online].
Systems
Available
with from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S095741740400186 1 (Accessed on 5 June 2014). Manowong, E., &
gunlana,
. (2119) ‘ trategies and tactics lor managing
construction stakeholders’, In Construction stakeholder management, pp.121-137. Sussex, UK. Wiley-Blackwell. Manslield, N., Ugwu,
., & soran, e. (1994) ‘Causes ol delay and cost overruns in
Nigerian construction projects’. International Journal of Project Management, 12(4), pp. 254-260. 105
Mathy, R., Kerr, D., & Haydin, B. (2003) ‘Methodological rigor and ethical considerations in Internet-mediated research’. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 40(1-2),
77.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=8a0 cb5f8-29e2-47bd-9808-8edc5f4791d8%40sessionmgr115&hid=115
(Accessed
on
September, 10, 2014). Midgley et al. (2112) ‘eowards a new lramework lor evaluating systemic problem structuring methods’. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143-154. [Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713000945 (Accessed on 1 September, 2014). Mitrovic, s., Male,
., tunter, I., & Watson, s. (1999) ‘Large
cale Engineering
project process and user requirements’. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(1),
pp.
38-50.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/eb021097 (Accessed on 3, July, 2014). Moe, e., & Pathranarakul, P. (2116) ‘sn integrated approach to natural disaster management: public project management and its critical success lactors’. Disaster Prevention
and
Management, 15(3),
396-413
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=09653562&volume=15&issue=3&articleid=1558765&show=html (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Mohn, N. (1991) ‘s Manager’s Interpretation ol Cross Tabulation Survey sata’. American Journal of Business, 5(2), pp.49-48. [Online]. Available from: 106
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/19355181199000012 (Accessed on August, 14, 2014). Moodley, K., relationships
mith, N., & Preece, C. (2118) ‘ takeholder matrix lor ethical in
the
Economics, 26(6),
construction pp.
industry’. Construction
625-632.
[Online].
Management Available
and from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446190801965368#.U9LQHICSzzY (Accessed on 10, July 2014). Morris, P. (1994) The Management Of Projects [Electronic Book] / Peter W.G. Morris, n.p.: London : Thomas Telford, 1994., University of Liverpool Catalogue, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 July 2014. Morris, P. (2112) ‘seconstructing Project Management seprised: s Knowledge Perspective’. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 6-23 [Online]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/doi/10.1002/pmj.21369/abstract;jsessi onid=D9557D8EA936546DE7519F109E75C27A.f01t02 (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Newcombe, R. (2003) 'From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach', Construction Management & Economics, 21, 8, pp. 841-848, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 July 2014. Newport, J., & Jawahar, G. (2112) ‘Community participation and public awareness in disaster mitigation’. Disaster prevention and management, 12(1), 33-36. [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09653560310463838 (Accessed on 5, December 2014). lander,
.
(2117)
‘ takeholder
impact
analysis
in
construction
project
management’. Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), 277-287 [Online]. 107
Available
from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=95 b30f21-2071-4362-86a8-949abc839a6b%40sessionmgr110&hid=115 (Accessed on 5 May 2014). Pan, G. (2005) ‘Inlormation systems project abandonment: a stakeholder analysis’. International Journal of Information Management, 25(2), pp.173-184. [Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401204001318 (Accessed on 3 July, 2014). Pant, I., & Baroudi, B. (2008) ‘Project management education: The human skills imperative’. International journal of project management, 26(2), pp.124-128. [Online]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786307000968 (Accessed on 7, June 2014). Patel, M, soku, V., & eennakoon, L. (2112) ‘Challenges in recruitment ol research participants’. Advances
in
Psychiatric
Treatment, 9(3),
pp.229-238.
[Online].
Available from: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/9/3/229.short (Accessed on July, 5, 2014). Pinsonneault, s., & Kraemer, K. (1992) ‘ urvey research methodology in management inlormation systems: an assessment’. Journal of management information
systems,
pp.75-105.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=93aa6ab7 -ed73-48c4-bb6d-69bdd564682e%40sessionmgr114&vid=0&hid=102 (Accessed on September, 1, 2014).
108
PMI (2013) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute. PMI (2004) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Third Edition. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute. PMI
(2005) Project
Management
Methodology
for
Post
Disaster
Reconstruction. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Pollack, J. (2117) ‘ehe changing paradigms ol project management’. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), pp. 266-274. [Online]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786306001220 (Accessed on 15, July, 2014). sowlinson, empowerment:
.,
&
Cheung,
modelling
Economics, 26(6),
Y.
(2118)
project
‘ takeholder
management
success’. Construction
pp.611-623.
[Online].
through
Management Available
and from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446190802071182#.VBIkUoCSzzY (Accessed on 25, August, 2014). Rotimi, J., Wilkinson, post‐disaster
., Zuo, K., & Myburgh, s. (2119) ‘Legislation lor ellective
reconstruction’. International
Management, 13(2),
143-152.
Journal [Online].
of
Strategic Available
Property from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.143152#.U8mM8o2SzzY (Accessed on: July, 11 2014).
109
antos, J. (1999) ‘Cronbach’s alpha: s tool for assessing the reliability of scales’. Journal
of
extension, 37(2),
pp.1-5.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php?ref (Accessed on September, 15, 2014). Shieh, S., & seng, G. (2111) ‘sn emerging civil society: the impact ol the 2118 Sichuan earthquake on grass-roots associations in China’. The China Journal, pp.181-194.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25790563?__redirected (Accessed on 20 May, 2014). loan, P. (2119) ‘sedelining stakeholder engagement’. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2009(36),
pp.
25-40.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/glbj/jcc/2009/00002009/00000036/art00005 (Accessed on 30, June 2014). myth, t., & Morris, P. (2117) ‘sn epistemological evaluation ol research into projects and their management: methodological issues’. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(4),
pp.
423-436.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S026378630700006 3# (Accessed on August, 15, 2014). eesch, s., obol, M. G., Klein, G., & Jiang, J. J. (2119) ‘User and developer common knowledge:
Effect
on
the
success
of
information
system
development
projects’. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 657-664 [Online]. Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S026378630900003 9 (Accessed on 29 April 2014).
110
Thiry,
M.,
&
Deguire,
M.
(2007) ‘secent
developments
in
project-based
organisations’. International journal of project management, 25(7), 649-658. [Online]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786301000722 (Accessed on 17, August, 2014). Vinten, G. (2111) ‘ehe stakeholder manager’. Management Decision, 38(6), 377-383. [Online].
Available
from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=00251747&volume=38&issue=6&articleid=865155&show=html
(Accessed
on
5
May
2014). Walker, s., Bourne, L., &
helley, s. (2118) ‘Inlluence, stakeholder mapping and
visualigation’. Construction
Management
[Online].
and
Available
Economics,26(6),
pp.
645-658. from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446190701882390#.U9LT3ICSzzY (Accessed on 15, June, 2014). Weaver, P. (2117) ‘Getting the'solt stull'right-Effective communication is the key to successlul project outcomes’. In PMI Global Congress (North America). [Online]. Available
from:
http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P055_Getting_the_Soft_Stuff_Right. pdf (Accessed on 13, August, 2014). Winter, M., mith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, . (2116) ‘sirections lor luture research in project management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network’. International journal of project management,24(8), pp. 638-649. [Online]. Available
from:
111
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S026378630600126 8 (Accessed on September, 2, 2014). Yang, J. et al. (2119) ‘Exploring critical success lactors lor stakeholder management in construction projects’. Journal of civil engineering and management, 15(4), pp. 337-348. [Online]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2009.15.337-348#.U_GDC4CSzzY (Accessed on 6 June, 2014). Yang, J. et al. (2111) ‘ takeholder management in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies’. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7),
pp.
900-910
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S026378631000117 1 (Accessed on 3 May 2014). Yilin, Y., Yaling, s., Ling, Y., & Zhe, W. (2118) ‘Continuous improvement ol public project management perlormance based on project governance’. In Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2008. WiCOM'08. 4th International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Zou, W., Kumaraswamy, M., Chung, J., & Wong, J. (2114) ‘Identilying the critical success lactors lor relationship management in PPP projects’. International Journal of
Project
Management, 32(2),
pp.
265-274.
[Online].
Available
from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786313000616 (Accessed on 3 September, 2014).
112
Appendices Appendix 3.1: Participant Information Sheet (PIS) Appendix 3.2: Survey questions sppendix 4.1: Cronbach’s alpha tests Appendix 4.2: Calculation sheets-Overall Appendix 4.3: Calculation sheets-The applied framework Appendix 4.4: Calculation sheets-Nature of disaster
113
Appendix 3.1: Participant Information Sheet (PIS) Research Title: Assessing the applicability of PMI’s stakeholder management processes, tools and techniques within post-disaster reconstruction projects. Name of the researcher: Wael Aldandashi Researcher Introduction and Invitation Hi, my name is Wael Aldandashi. I am conducting research on the applicability of stakeholder management processes and related tools and techniques discussed in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide, Fifth Edition) within post-disaster reconstruction projects. In recruiting participants into this research, I am targeting those they believe they are and/or were project management professionals involved in post-disaster reconstruction projects. This is how you have come to receive this invitation. About The Research, Anonymity and Confidentiality The research involves completing this survey, which is expected to take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Data collection is anonymous, allowing participants to share data without being observed. The collected data have no indication to participants and will not be shared outside this study. Participation, Consent and Withdrawal Participants have the right to decline or discontinue from participation at any time; their participation will only be recorded upon their approval after submitting the online questionnaire. Criteria of evaluating collected data are not provided to participants, in order not to affect their answers. 114
Data Storage, Retention, Destruction and Future Use Data collection will be conducted through a secure electronic platform that is accessed with a password and provides encryption to data spreadsheets. Collected data will be stored for five (5) years and will not be shared outside the study. The survey will only collect data from participants involved in the study. Please discuss any ethical concerns you might have with Wael Aldandashi (the researcher), at any point during the research process. Contact Details: If you have any questions or concerns regarding this research, please feel free to contact Wael Aldandashi or the Dissertation Advisor of this research.
Researcher Wael Aldandashi, Email:
[email protected] Dissertation Advisor Dr. Lu Liu, Email:
[email protected]
For any queries regarding ethical concerns you may have please contact the Research
Governance
Officer,
Legal
Risk
and
Compliance
by
email
to:
[email protected]
115
Appendix 3.2: Survey questions
Preliminary Questions * 1. Does the nature of your work relate to project management? a) Yes, as part of my work requirement, I am involved in project management-related activities. b) No, my work nature is not related to project management at all.
* 2. Did any of the projects that you have participated in occur in response to a disaster and was in the construction field? In other words, can be considered as post-disaster reconstruction project? a) Yes, at least one of the projects that I have participated is a post-disaster reconstruction project b) No, none of the projects that I was involved in is a post-disaster reconstruction project
General Information 3. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how do you classify the right approach to manage post-disaster reconstruction projects? a) Traditional project management approach that is well planned with clear and detailed scope, budget and target date to achieve. 116
b) Agile project management approach that is generally scoped, timed and budgeted, where detailed scope, budget and duration are progressively elaborated. c) Extreme project management approach that is correlated with the complexity of a disaster, in which project scope, duration and budget are subject to change throughout project execution.
4. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, what type of a disaster that the project area suffered from prior to deciding to execute the project(s)? (Select what is applicable) Natural disasters (Volcanoes, earthquakes, fluid.. etc..)
Manmade disasters (Civil war, revolution, uncontrolled civil behavior.. etc..)
Industrial disasters (Failed nuclear experiments, major construction defects.. etc..) 5. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often the project timeframe was met? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently 117
e) Always
6. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often the project scope was met? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
7. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often the project budget was met? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
118
8. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often the stakeholder requirements were met? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
9. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often project initiation stage was properly conducted? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
119
10. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often project planning stage was properly conducted? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
11. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often project execution stage was properly conducted? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
120
12. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often project monitoring and control was properly conducted? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
13. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how often project closure was properly conducted? a) Never b) Seldom c)Sometimes d) Frequently e) Always
121
Stakeholder Management Practice 14. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how do you rate the effect of proper stakeholder identification to the overall success of the project? a) Totally disagree b) Disagree c) Neutral d) Agree e) Totally agree
15. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how do you rate the effect of planning for stakeholder management to the overall success of the project? a) Totally disagree b) Disagree c) Neutral d) Agree e) Totally agree
122
16. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how do you rate the effect of managing stakeholder engagement to the overall success of the project? a) Totally disagree b) Disagree c) Neutral d) Agree e) Totally agree
17. Looking back at the post-disaster reconstruction project(s) that you have participated in during the past ten years, how do you rate the effect of controlling stakeholder engagement to the overall success of the project? a) Totally disagree b) Disagree c) Neutral d) Agree e) Totally agree
123
18. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, the project management team used: a) A standardized Stakeholder Management framework such as the one adopted in PMI's PMBOK(R) Guide for managing stakeholders. b) A tailored Stakeholder Management framework for managing projects related to post-disaster situations. c) No specific framework for managing stakeholders
19. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how often did the following processes were applied? Never
Seldom
Sometimes Frequently
Always
Process#1: Identify project stakeholders Process#2: Develop Stakeholder Management plan
Process#3: Manage stakeholder engagement
Process#4: Control stakeholder engagement
124
20. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how often did the following tools and techniques were applied in stakeholder identification process that leads to developing stakeholder register?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes Frequently
Always
Stakeholder analysis Expert judgment
Meetings
21. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how often did the following tools and techniques were applied in planning stakeholder management process that leads to developing stakeholder management plan?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes Frequently
Always
Expert judgment Meetings
Analytical techniques
125
22. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how often did the following tools and techniques were applied in managing stakeholder engagement process that leads to updating stakeholder management plan, issue logs and change requests?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes Frequently
Always
Communication methods Interpersonal skills
Management skills
23. In previous post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how often did the following tools and techniques were applied in controlling stakeholder engagement process that leads to updating work performance information, project management plan, in addition to organizational assets and change requests updates? Never
Seldom
Sometimes Frequently
Always
Information management systems Expert judgment
Meetings
126
The applicability of stakeholder management 24. In assessing the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how the following processes are practically applicable:
Totally not
Not
applicable applicable Cannot tell
Totally Applicable applicable
Process#1: Identify project stakeholders Process#2: Develop Stakeholder Management plan
Process#3: Manage stakeholder engagement
Process#4: Control stakeholder engagement
127
25. In assessing the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how the following tools and techniques are practically applicable:
Totally not
Not
applicable applicable Cannot tell
Totally Applicable applicable
Stakeholder analysis Expert judgment
Meetings
Analytical techniques
Communication methods
Interpersonal skills
Management skills
Information management systems
128
26. In assessing the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how the following processes are faced with cultural, situational and/or environmental barriers upon implementation: Totally disagree
Totally Disagree
Neutral
Agree
agree
Process#1: Identify project stakeholders Process#2: Develop Stakeholder Management plan
Process#3: Manage stakeholder engagement
Process#4: Control stakeholder engagement
27. In assessing the nature of post-disaster reconstruction projects, please rate how the following tools and techniques are faced with cultural, situational and/or environmental barriers upon application:
129
Totally disagree
Totally Disagree
Neutral
Agree
agree
Stakeholder analysis Expert judgment
Meetings
Analytical techniques
Communication methods
Interpersonal skills
Management skills
Information management systems
130
Appendix 4.1: Cronbach’salphatests A) Overall
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Alpha
on Standardized Items .955
N of Items
.957
53
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's
if Item
Variance if
Total
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Deleted
Meeting project schedule
193.1147
867.254
.109
.956
Meeting project scope
192.5734
856.181
.287
.955
Meeting allocated budget
193.3073
852.518
.347
.955
Meeting stakeholder requirements
192.4725
874.711
.000
.957
Properly conducting project initiation
192.8394
848.440
.362
.955
Properly conducting project planning
192.5596
841.363
.518
.954
Properly conducting project execution
192.5917
846.224
.455
.955
192.4220
848.641
.386
.955
192.8211
839.862
.481
.955
191.7890
849.623
.469
.955
191.8991
849.999
.479
.955
191.7615
854.892
.447
.955
Properly conducting project monitoring and control Properly conducting project closure takeholder identilication’s contribution to success Planning stakeholder management’s contribution to success Managing stakeholder engagement’s contribution to success
131
Controlling stakeholder engagement’s
191.8394
844.605
.553
.954
192.5000
833.357
.610
.954
192.9725
831.538
.607
.954
192.6743
826.294
.729
.953
192.6881
833.395
.554
.954
192.8440
828.510
.659
.954
P#1 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
192.4128
844.907
.432
.955
P#1 Tool implementation: Meetings
192.0505
843.126
.562
.954
P#2 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
192.6239
828.521
.651
.954
P#2 Tool implementation: Meetings
192.3670
835.662
.580
.954
193.2982
841.805
.475
.955
192.4174
833.654
.655
.954
P#3 Tool implementation: Interpersonal skills
192.4128
830.658
.649
.954
P#3 Tool implementation: Management skills
192.5367
828.821
.680
.954
193.1239
828.505
.632
.954
P#4 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
192.7248
825.988
.729
.953
P#4 Tool implementation: Meetings
192.3028
834.148
.643
.954
The applicability of stakeholder identification
191.8394
844.882
.652
.954
191.9587
844.749
.607
.954
191.8761
845.538
.652
.954
contribution to success Applying stakeholder identification process Applying planning stakeholder management process Applying managing stakeholder engagement process Applying controlling stakeholder engagement process P#1 Tool implementation: Stakeholder analysis
P#2 Tool implementation: Analytical techniques P#3 Tool implementation: Communication methods
P#4 Tool implementation: Information management systems
The applicability of planning stakeholder management The applicability of managing stakeholder engagement
132
The applicability of controlling stakeholder
192.0092
835.511
.699
.954
The applicability of stakeholder analysis
191.9725
846.156
.572
.954
The applicability of expert judgment
191.9037
845.746
.586
.954
The applicability of meetings
191.7202
851.198
.478
.955
The applicability of analytical techniques
192.2339
854.678
.442
.955
The applicability of communication methods
191.8716
845.200
.624
.954
The applicability of interpersonal skills
191.7569
844.148
.558
.954
The applicability of management skills
191.8486
842.654
.665
.954
192.1376
849.640
.450
.955
Barriers to identify stakeholders
191.9771
847.746
.503
.954
Barriers to plan stakeholder management
192.1697
850.989
.426
.955
Barriers to manage stakeholder engagement
192.1514
846.719
.529
.954
Barriers to control stakeholder engagement
192.1972
850.343
.420
.955
Barriers: Stakeholder analysis
192.2294
842.869
.604
.954
Barriers: Expert judgment
192.0000
846.009
.578
.954
Barriers: Meetings
191.9862
846.862
.466
.955
Barriers: Analytical techniques
192.4083
851.054
.446
.955
Barriers: Communication methods
192.0459
839.795
.660
.954
Barriers: Interpersonal skills
191.9174
840.601
.612
.954
Barriers: Management skills
192.0229
842.852
.662
.954
Barriers: Information management systems
192.3028
852.157
.434
.955
engagement
The applicability of information management systems
133
B) Stakeholder management application
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Alpha
on Standardized Items .947
N of Items
.947
16
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected
Squared
if Item
Variance if
Item-Total
Multiple
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Applying stakeholder identification process
50.6881
172.142
.617
.690
Applying planning stakeholder management process
51.1606
167.767
.731
.777
Applying managing stakeholder engagement process
50.8624
166.626
.824
.861
Applying controlling stakeholder engagement process
50.8761
167.602
.702
.789
P#1 Tool implementation: Stakeholder analysis
51.0321
169.469
.683
.752
P#1 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
50.6009
174.591
.529
.755
P#1 Tool implementation: Meetings
50.2385
175.786
.608
.798
P#2 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
50.8119
166.725
.766
.766
P#2 Tool implementation: Meetings
50.5550
167.824
.775
.825
P#2 Tool implementation: Analytical techniques
51.4862
171.652
.624
.619
P#3 Tool implementation: Communication methods
50.6055
170.332
.739
.768
P#3 Tool implementation: Interpersonal skills
50.6009
169.448
.709
.838
P#3 Tool implementation: Management skills
50.7248
167.657
.775
.850
51.3119
168.769
.675
.656
P#4 Tool implementation: Expert judgment
50.9128
168.559
.749
.804
P#4 Tool implementation: Meetings
50.4908
168.850
.790
.866
P#4 Tool implementation: Information management systems
134
C) Stakeholder management’s contribution to success
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Alpha
on Standardized Items .892
N of Items
.894
4
Item-Total Statistics
takeholder identilication’s contribution to success Planning stakeholder management’s contribution to success Managing stakeholder engagement’s contribution to success Controlling stakeholder engagement’s contribution to success
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected
Squared
if Item
Variance if
Item-Total
Multiple
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
12.5275
5.218
.789
.688
12.6376
5.292
.806
.712
12.5000
5.956
.753
.588
12.5780
5.397
.712
.535
D) Stakeholder management’s score against barriers of implementation Reliability Statistics Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Alpha
on Standardized Items .894
.895
N of Items 12
135
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected Item-
Squared
if Item
Variance if
Total
Multiple
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Barriers to identify stakeholders
42.6697
48.434
.593
.828
Barriers to plan stakeholder management
42.8624
48.202
.588
.841
Barriers to manage stakeholder engagement
42.8440
47.966
.641
.687
Barriers to control stakeholder engagement
42.8899
48.550
.533
.670
Barriers: Stakeholder analysis
42.9220
48.017
.639
.709
Barriers: Expert judgment
42.6927
49.873
.519
.530
Barriers: Meetings
42.6789
47.270
.611
.584
Barriers: Analytical techniques
43.1009
48.008
.638
.712
Barriers: Communication methods
42.7385
47.079
.716
.639
Barriers: Interpersonal skills
42.6101
47.456
.644
.766
Barriers: Management skills
42.7156
48.536
.660
.709
Barriers: Information management systems
42.9954
49.894
.492
.645
E) Participants’opiniontowardstheapplicabilityofstakeholder management Reliability Statistics Cronbach's
Cronbach's Alpha Based
Alpha
on Standardized Items .928
.929
N of Items 12
136
Item-Total Statistics
The applicability of stakeholder identification
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected Item-
Squared
if Item
Variance if
Total
Multiple
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
44.8119
49.941
.811
.848
44.9312
50.184
.723
.687
44.8486
50.479
.777
.786
44.9817
48.571
.752
.757
The applicability of stakeholder analysis
44.9450
49.776
.751
.749
The applicability of expert judgment
44.8761
50.846
.664
.660
The applicability of meetings
44.6927
51.744
.589
.533
The applicability of analytical techniques
45.2064
54.496
.393
.447
The applicability of communication methods
44.8440
49.754
.799
.755
The applicability of interpersonal skills
44.7294
49.553
.695
.755
The applicability of management skills
44.8211
49.530
.803
.759
45.1101
50.698
.592
.564
The applicability of planning stakeholder management The applicability of managing stakeholder engagement The applicability of controlling stakeholder engagement
The applicability of information management systems
137
Appendix 4.2: Calculation sheets - Overall
Overall
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
3.51
3.58
3.54
4.22
1.97
2.06
2.02
4.17
4.14
4.16
3.48
69.68
Develop stakeholder management plan
3.04
3.25
3.14
4.11
2.16
2.12
2.14
4.05
4.06
4.05
3.36
67.24
Manage stakeholder engagement
3.33
3.55
3.44
4.25
2.14
1.99
2.06
4.13
4.18
4.16
3.48
69.56
Control stakeholder engagement
3.32
3.29
3.31
4.17
2.19
2.09
2.14
4.00
4.09
4.04
3.41
68.29
Total
3.30
3.42
3.36
4.19
2.11
2.06
2.09
4.09
4.12
4.10
3.43
68.69
138
Appendix 4.3: Calculation sheets – The applied framework
a) Standard Framework
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
4.14
4.05
4.09
4.32
1.86
2.05
1.95
4.29
3.92
4.10
3.62
72.34%
Develop stakeholder management plan
3.57
3.81
3.69
4.14
2.00
2.05
2.02
4.14
3.98
4.06
3.48
69.58%
Manage stakeholder engagement
4.00
3.76
3.88
4.18
1.86
2.14
2.00
4.00
4.04
4.02
3.52
70.38%
Control stakeholder engagement
4.00
3.86
3.93
4.46
1.86
2.00
1.93
4.00
4.02
4.01
3.58
71.67%
3.93
3.87
3.90
4.28
1.89
2.06
1.98
4.11
3.99
4.05
3.55
70.99%
Total
139
b) Tailored Framework
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
4.05
3.91
3.98
4.25
1.82
1.95
1.89
4.75
4.73
4.74
3.71
74.28
Develop stakeholder management plan
3.59
3.69
3.64
4.14
2.10
2.01
2.05
4.50
4.71
4.60
3.61
72.18
Manage stakeholder engagement
3.68
3.99
3.84
4.30
2.07
1.89
1.98
4.68
4.77
4.73
3.71
74.23
Control stakeholder engagement
3.69
3.67
3.68
4.15
2.26
2.00
2.13
4.58
4.67
4.63
3.65
72.91
3.75
3.82
3.78
4.21
2.06
1.96
2.01
4.63
4.72
4.67
3.67
73.40
Total
140
c) No Specific Framework
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
2.8
3.11
2.96
4.16
2.31
2.35
2.33
4.02
4.08
4.05
3.38
67.52
Develop stakeholder management plan
2.35
2.65
2.50
4.07
2.46
2.44
2.45
4.01
3.89
3.95
3.24
64.88
Manage stakeholder engagement
2.81
3.07
2.94
4.22
2.48
2.21
2.35
4.08
4.10
4.09
3.40
67.97
Control stakeholder engagement
2.77
2.77
2.77
4.10
2.42
2.38
2.40
3.87
3.99
3.93
3.30
66.02
2.68
2.90
2.79
4.14
2.42
2.35
2.38
3.99
4.02
4.01
3.33
66.60
Identify project stakeholders
Total
141
Appendix 4.4: Calculation sheets – The type of disaster
a) Natural Disasters
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
3.44
3.54
3.49
4.20
2.04
2.12
2.08
4.04
4.10
4.07
3.46
69.22%
Develop stakeholder management plan
2.94
3.23
3.09
4.09
2.30
2.19
2.25
3.93
3.98
3.95
3.35
66.91%
Manage stakeholder engagement
3.25
3.57
3.41
4.27
2.23
1.99
2.11
4.06
4.14
4.10
3.47
69.43%
Control stakeholder engagement
3.30
3.20
3.25
4.08
2.29
2.15
2.22
3.91
4.01
3.96
3.38
67.52%
3.23
3.39
3.31
4.16
2.22
2.11
2.16
3.98
4.06
4.02
3.41
68.27%
Total
142
b) Manmade Disasters
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
3.85
3.68
3.77
4.41
1.77
1.98
1.88
4.45
4.36
4.41
3.62
72.32%
Develop stakeholder management plan
3.20
3.24
3.22
4.27
1.88
2.00
1.94
4.39
4.26
4.32
3.44
68.74%
Manage stakeholder engagement
3.47
3.60
3.54
4.43
1.93
1.73
1.83
4.40
4.48
4.44
3.56
71.16%
Control stakeholder engagement
3.33
3.51
3.42
4.63
1.99
1.92
1.96
4.24
4.35
4.30
3.57
71.49%
3.46
3.51
3.49
4.43
1.89
1.91
1.90
4.37
4.36
4.37
3.55
70.93%
Total
143
c) Industrial Disasters
Contribution to success
SM Application
Score against barriers
Participants’ opinion
Total applicability
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Process
Tools & Techniques
Total
Grand Total
%
Identify project stakeholders
3.68
3.76
3.72
4.42
1.47
1.78
1.63
4.42
4.25
4.34
3.53
70.54%
Develop stakeholder management plan
3.37
3.48
3.43
4.53
1.50
1.85
1.68
4.42
4.15
4.29
3.48
69.57%
Manage stakeholder engagement
3.68
3.76
3.72
4.29
1.61
1.79
1.70
4.42
4.25
4.33
3.51
70.21%
Control stakeholder engagement
3.68
3.66
3.67
4.42
1.50
1.86
1.68
4.42
4.22
4.32
3.52
70.46%
3.60
3.67
3.64
4.41
1.52
1.82
1.67
4.42
4.22
4.32
3.51
70.19%
Total
144
