Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985 997
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Evaluating the level of stakeholder involvement during the

project planning processes of building projects
Amirhossein Heravi a,, Vaughan Coffey a , Bambang Trigunarsyah b
a
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
b
College of Environmental Design, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Received 27 August 2014; received in revised form 11 December 2014; accepted 16 December 2014
Available online 8 January 2015

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the current level of stakeholder involvement during the project's planning process. Stakeholders often
provide the needed resources and have the ability to control the interaction and resource ows in the network. They also ultimately have strong
impact on an organisation's survival, and therefore appropriate management and involvement of key stakeholders should be an important part of
any project management plan.
A series of literature reviews was conducted to identify and categorise signicant phases involved in the planning. For data collection, a
questionnaire survey was designed and distributed amongst nearly 200 companies who were involved in the residential building sector in Australia.
Results of the analysis demonstrate the engagement levels of the four stakeholder groups involved in the planning process and establish a basis for
further stakeholder involvement improvement.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stakeholder involvement; Planning process; Building projects

1. Introduction
Many stakeholders, individuals and groups are involved in
the provision and delivery of construction projects and each has
their own role, requirements and objectives. So, because
stakeholders of construction projects are numerous and
different, this introduces a level of complexity to the concept
of stakeholder involvement (SI) within the industry (Bal et al.,
2013). However, depending on the type of the project being
undertaken and its specific requirements, only certain groups
may need to get fully involved in all phases of a project.
To meet the differing demands of different stakeholder
groups, and in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 411255411.
E-mail addresses: Amirhossein.heravitorbati@qut.edu.au,
Amir.h.heravi@gmail.com (A. Heravi), V.coffey@qut.edu.au (V. Coffey),
Bambangts@kfupm.edu.sa (B. Trigunarsyah).
of the decisions that are made during the construction project
lifecycle, project managers need to develop comprehensive
stakeholder involvement plans (Saghatforoush et al., 2010).
Previous research studies in the construction sector (Bal et al.,
2013; Bosher et al., 2007; Olander and Landin, 2005a)
highlight that stakeholder involvement is important in improv-
ing the effectiveness of project outcomes (Yang, 2010). The
quality of a construction project is also largely dependent on the
appropriate performance management of diverse stakeholders,
especially contractors and consultants (Low Sui and Ke-Wei,
1996). This means that, if major parties of a contract are not
committed to properly carrying out their responsibilities, it is
likely to adversely affect the final project quality level.
Furthermore, the level of ability to impact the final project
characteristics is at its highest at the beginning of the project
and reduces as the project progresses. It is widely advocated in
the project management and infrastructure project literature
(IFC, 2007) that the project preparation and planning phase is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.007
0263-7863/00/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
986 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
the stage where stakeholders with various demands and objectives
have the highest possibility to affect the project and its outcomes
(Kolltveit and Grnhaug, 2004; Miller and Lessard, 2001).
Improving effective stakeholder involvement, will not only help
project stakeholders to efficiently collaborate with each other, it
will also facilitate the possibility of a decrease in negative
environmental impacts and increase the economic sustainability
and quality of the project. However, no major studies have been
undertaken to date to precisely examine how more effective
stakeholder involvement can be facilitated to contribute to the
ultimate delivery of construction building projects. On the other
hand, a significant step to be taken to facilitate improved
stakeholder involvements to determine the current levels of
stakeholder involvement since according to Yin and Heald
(1975), it is essential to evaluate an existing provision within the
main research area before establishing a framework. This
research therefore focuses on assessing and evaluating the extent
to which key stakeholders are currently involved within the
planning processes of residential building projects.
This paper starts with a discussion on the elements of project
success (Section 2) and stakeholder management in the construc-
tion industry (Section 3). Section 4 evaluates the influences of
project participants on project quality outcomes and clarifies the
relationship between stakeholder involvement in different phases
of the project life cycle (PLC) and project quality. Section 5 then
discusses the significance of the initial and planning stages in the
PLC. Following that, Section 6 describes the methodology and
data collection process. Data analysis and findings are then
presented in Section 7. Based on the analysis adopted, Section 8
discusses the findings and clarifies the relationship between the
findings and the research question. Section 9 outlines a summary
of the major findings, describes the significance of the research
and its theoretical and practical implications and makes recom-
mendations for future research projects.
2. Project success
Success has always been the ultimate purpose of each activity
of a project including construction and building projects (Yu
et al., 2006). Project success has been extensively discussed in the
construction and project management literature, however it is not
easy for a variety of authors to get to a full agreement regarding
project success criteria (LU et al., 2005). Most studies have
focused on the scope of project success which means the way to
measure success of project and factors affecting project success.
Westerveld (2003) states that one of the most common ways of
measuring project success is the well-known iron triangle of cost,
time and required quality. Some studies have extended project
success criteria into new aspects, such as stakeholder's
participation and satisfaction, customer's benefit and upcoming
prospective to organisation (Shenhar et al., 2001). Morris and
Hough (1986) applied a number of concepts to measure project
success such as: project function, project management, and
contractor's business performance. Other researchers examine
project success by make use of micro and macro criteria (Lim and
Mohamed, 1999). In their examination micro criteria encompass
time, cost, quality, performance and safety, and the macro criteria
consist of project's actual benefit in the operation phase as well as
their micro criteria. Baccarini (1999) identifies two components
of project success as project management success and product
success. The project management success deals with the project
process and primarily the successful achievement of project in
terms of meeting cost, time and quality objectives whereas the
product success focuses on the impacts of the ultimate product.
The key point is that both of these success components must
meet stakeholder's satisfaction where there is a link between
their interest and these components (Baccarini, 1999). In
addition, as stated by Atkin and Skitmore (2008), enhanced
stakeholder involvement can help with managing their needs,
decreasing unanticipated risk and reducing unconstructive
actions or reactions that have possible impact on project
success. According to the comprehensive statement by the
project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) guide
published by the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2013),
project success criteria consist of the golden triangle (time,
cost, quality) and key project stakeholder's satisfaction and
their incorporation to the project.
Despite these arguments, the two elements of quality and
stakeholder management, in many cases, have been regarded as
two major success factors, and therefore are the focus of the
research.
3. Stakeholders in the construction industry
The stakeholder theory concept was initially developed from
academic research being undertaken in the US in the 1960s that
defined stakeholders as those groups having high enough
impact in an organisation to cause it to stop existing without
their (the stakeholders) support (Li et al., 2013; Stoney and
Winstanley, 2001). Later, Freeman (1984, 52) extended this
definition and described a stakeholder in an organisation as
any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organisation's objectives. A helpful
illustration by Walker (2003) shown in Fig. 1, provides a
widely accepted mapping of project's main stakeholders:
Amongst the most important aspects of the above map are
the inclusion of community and external independent concerned
Client
End Project
Organisaon
Users Sponsor
External Team Project Leader
Members- (PM) Core Community
Suppliers Team Members and External
Independent
Concerned
Group
Invisible Team Members
People whose co-operaon and
support are vital for project
Source:(Walker 2003)
Fig. 1. Stakeholder mapping.
 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
groups, and an identification of invisible team members. It is
advocated that project success can be critically affected by the
activities of these two recognised groups. The importance of
stakeholders can also be determined by examining the needs of a
business and the degree to which an organisation is in need of a
particular stakeholder (Leung et al., 2013; Olander, 2007). In
certain instances, some stakeholders can be more important than
others and the project leader should carefully analyse their
requirements and attributes at different times during the project
life cycle. Phillips (2003) stated that stakeholder theory should
focus on the groups who can input into decision-making process
as well as who are affected by the outputs of such decisions. It is
argued that an organisation's advantages are basically dependant
on its capability to adequately manage stakeholders (Verbeke and
Tung, 2013). On the other hand, stakeholder management as a
task is specific to context and therefore any strategies and
methods applied should reflect this context (Bourne and Walker,
2005; Jones and Wicks, 1999).
In the construction industry, during the different stages of a
project from the initial planning through to the final operation
and maintenance, specific parties get involved whose expecta-
tions can affect the outcomes of, or may be affected by, both
negatively and positively the implementation of the project
(Olander, 2007). These groups include:
Client
Project Management team
Consultant and designing team
Contractor
Subcontractor
Supplier
Employees
Local communities
Funding Bodies
Government authorities
These groups as stated by many scholars (Olander and Landin,
2005a; Newcombe, 2003; Atkin and Skitmore, 2008; Yang, 2010)
are the major stakeholders of construction building projects. Atkin
and Skitmore (2008) signified that successful implementation and
completion of the project largely rely on addressing the needs and
expectations of those who are involved and failure to correctly
address their requirements can result in many project issues
(Bourne and Walker, 2005). This idea is reinforced by Johnson
and Scholes (1999b) who state that it is not adequate to simply
identify stakeholders, rather managers and owners need to
evaluate each stakeholder's interest in order to articulate their
expectations on project decisions. Olander (2007) advocated that it
is the key responsibility of project leaders to respond to the
requirements and needs raised by their stakeholders and to be able
to carry out, control and manage the project decision-making
process. Inappropriate management and supervision of stake-
holders can cause problems in the technical and management
mechanisms of a project. In addition, Bourne and Walker (2005)
highlighted that conflicting and unseen stakeholder agendas, if not
well managed, can lead to many project failures. These issues
highlight the need for having a systematic approach to identifying
987
key project stakeholders, examining their needs and assessing the
impact and probable risks that they can impose on the project.
4. Inuences of stakeholder involvement on construction
projects and their quality
Brian and Martin (2008) and other scholars (Bosher et al.,
2007; Cole, 2005; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Olander and Landin,
2005b) studying construction sector stakeholder issues, have
realised that the activities and practices undertaken by major
parties have undeniable impacts on project outcomes. There-
fore, identification of the important roles of key members on
projects has therefore developed more in recent years. As noted
by PMI (2013) in order to obtain project success, a project
manager needs to facilitate the contribution of stakeholders in
various project phases. However, in the view of Joaquin et al.
(2008) using the effective interaction mechanism with stake-
holders to improve project outcomes and achieve success is not
particularly evident in the construction industry practices.
Different stakeholders can be a part of a large project's
executive team and depending on how they get involved and what
their roles are, they might have different interests in, impacts on
and ambitions for a project (Kolltveit and Grnhaug, 2004).
Therefore a significant part of the project management process
should be to precisely evaluate the importance and influence levels
of these groups and their potential orientation towards the project
(Olander, 2007; Winch and Bonke, 2002). According to some
authors (Johnson and Scholes, 1999a) stakeholder analysis can be
categorised into four steps of: (1) identifying key stakeholders
(2) assessing stakeholder's interests and the potential impacts
of the project on these interests (3) assessing stakeholder
influence and importance and (4) outlining a participation
strategy. It is noted that, stakeholders and projects have a
bilateral impact function that means while stakeholders can
influence projects; a construction project can sometimes affect
stakeholders. For example, providing a higher quality of life by
increasing the quality of facilities of the final project are the
advantages of implementing a project. On the other hand,
destruction of the environment is an example of the negative
impacts of a project on some stakeholders (Olander, 2002;
Olander and Landin, 2005a).
Many factors can influence the quality of a project. Neverthe-
less, the apparent role of key stakeholders as an important factor in
determining quality levels has not to date been widely examined in
the literature (Joaquin et al., 2010; Low Sui and Ke-Wei, 1996;
Olander, 2006; Soetanto et al., 2001; Wang and Huang, 2006).
According to Low Sui and Ke-Wei (1996), the quality of a
construction project is largely dependent on the attitudes of
different stakeholders. Hence, if major parties of the contract are
not committed to properly carrying out their responsibilities, this
will adversely affect the final project quality level. Deming (1986)
declares that the customer's (stakeholder's) perspective of quality
levels is critically important, and therefore inclusion of the main
stakeholders during the important stages of project lifecycle should
be a key feature of any framework aiming to improve the quality
(Joaquin et al., 2010).
988 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
A project management team can improve its effectiveness
and the efficiency of its control and management processes and
as a result, improve project quality. This requires that they
possess important information about the project and be capable
enough to accurately analyse that information and outline
relevant project strategies. Contractors, subcontractors and
suppliers are those who might not get engaged in very early
stages of projects, however, since they provide materials,
equipment and on-site labour, they can still greatly impact on
the final asset quality. Low Sui and Ke-Wei (1996) stated that
one essential step in establishing a total quality culture is to
develop a construction team of main contractors and subcontrac-
tors who commit to the quality process and create a productive
quality attitude at the earliest time. Contractors in the competitive
market with a reputation for producing poor quality constructed
output will not generally be awarded many future projects. Such
contractors should therefore be encouraged to improve the quality
of their work in order to increase their chance of winning tenders
(Arditi and Murat Gunaydin, 1997). On the other hand,
contractors with a good quality reputation are expected to deliver
projects within the specified time and budget and to the desired
level of quality (Aje, 2012).
In addition, owners (clients) and developers play an important
role in the accomplishment of the desired project outcome quality
levels. These groups are not only accountable for preparing clear
and complete specifications, but they should also monitor and
control the actual on-site work of both contractors and
subcontractors (Jha and Iyer, 2006). In a recent investigation on
the role of quality using the perspective of the iron triangle of
cost, time and quality Basu (2014) highlighted that there is a
strong correlation between organisational quality and criteria
such as stakeholder management, project leadership and top
management support. However according to Walker(2000)
there is a gap in previous studies and he affirms that the
implementation of quality efforts is often hindered by a lack of
attention to the expectations and views of the stakeholders
regarding exactly what quality means in the construction
industry. Yang (2010) emphasised that there are several
stakeholders whose expectations and influences must be included
in the project management process. More importantly, it has been
underlined that if the project's stakeholders are not satisfied with
the quality of the ongoing project management, or project
outcomes, the project team will as a result be required to adjust
scope, time and cost in order to meet the stakeholders'
expectations on quality issues. Bubshait (1994) provides a clear
interaction between project quality and stakeholder involvement
shown in Fig. 2.
The above figure shows that project quality can be measured
by determining the degree to which the implementation of the
project is in conformity with terms (i.e., specifications), duration,
budgets, aesthetics, operation, and the stakeholders' overall
satisfaction with project quality. It affirms that stakeholder
integration in different phases of a project lifecycle is in direct and
mutual relationship with the project quality. However, the current
research mainly focuses on examining SI level in the planning
phase of projects as the majority of the vital decisions are
completed during this stage and the ultimate success of the
Involvement
Planning
The extent of
Project Quality
implementation of the
project in conformity
with:
Design
Stakeholder
- terms
- duration
- budget
- appearance
- operation
Construction
Overall Satisfaction
Source: (Adapted from Bubshait 1994)
Fig. 2. The interaction between project quality and stakeholder involvement.
design, construction and post construction phases highly depends
on the appropriate decisions being made during the earlier
planning phase (Abdul-Kadir and Price, 1995; Toakley and
Marosszeky, 2003).
5. The planning phase
The importance of conceptualisation and planning is relatively
prominent compared to other phases in the project lifecycle and
they both have remarkable influence on project success (Meyer
and Utterback, 1995; Zwikael, 2009; Globerson and Zwikael,
2002). While the final aim of a company is to improve the success
of a project, each process during the planning phase, follows
particular objectives. For example, although appropriate cost
planning will help to achieve success in the project (Belout and
Gauvreau, 2004; Yu et al., 2006), it is particularly necessary to
ensure that a realistic cost limit determined by factors such as
availability of money and market demand is established.
According to PMI (2013, p.64), A cost estimate is needed for a
contingency plan involves integration of the planning process.
Similarly, quality planning is necessary to ensure that the quality
objectives that meet the requirements of key stakeholders are
achieved.
5.1. Quality planning process
According to Applebaum et al. (2004) quality management and
improvement should start from the beginning of the planning
phase, not when the customer receives the project. One advantage
of beginning quality improvement practices in upfront project
phases is that higher quality planned-in early in the project
front-end development work will ensure fewer issues are created
in the later stages of the process, hence resulting in better final
quality delivery (Leszaka et al., 2002). Many organisations
currently concentrate their efforts on quality improvement
programmes (Senaratne and Jayarathna, 2012), nonetheless, the
literature shows that these programmes are not always generating
the expected quality improvements (Lam, 1997). This is possibly
due to a key reason stated by Juran and Blanton Godfery (1999),
that is the absence of an effective quality planning process before
 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
implementing quality practices. Hence, repeatedly the extant and
current literature highlights that quality planning is the most
important phase in a business quality management process and
therefore requires more investigation and consideration (Senaratne
and Jayarathna, 2012). Quality planning is a disciplined process
designed to make sure that the structured set of quality assurance
and control activities is complete. These activities will ensure that
an organisation can implement a high quality project on time and
to the satisfaction of customers and stakeholder's needs and
specifications (Juran and Blanton Godfery, 1999). Juran and
Blanton Godfery's (1999) grouping of quality planning, which is
used specifically in this research, has been applied to a number of
fields of study including the construction sector. They (Juran and
Blanton Godfery, 1999) grouped the main steps of quality
planning into five phases that are illustrated below in Fig. 3.
In this planning process, the purpose of the first phase (EP) is to
provide clear goals and correct directions of the project. Some of
the major tasks of this step include: identify the projects to fulfil
the organisation's strategy, clarify the mission of each project,
allocate project team members and prepare a complete project
plan. The next phase (IS) provides a systematic identification and
complete understanding of all project stakeholders and their needs,
expectations and requirements. By identifying customers and
explicitly assessing their expectations, the understating and
perception gaps can be avoided.
The specific project/product, quality planning tools, tech-
niques and technology for the industry are required to be
applied to produce an effective design, conforming fully to
stakeholders needs. Identifying and implementing the activities
that result in delivering the final project that conforms to such
requirements and without deficiencies are main purposes of
phase 3 (DP1) (Juran and Blanton Godfery, 1999). Phase 4
(DP2) ensures that the whole process and its elements are made
capable enough to deliver the project as it was planned and
designed. It also monitors that the process is consistent with
project strategic objectives. Lastly, the operational gap can be
closed in phase 5 (CO) by developing and efficiently
transferring the plans over to the operational team. According
to PMI (2013), one of the important outputs of the quality
Phase 1: Establish the Project (EP)
Phase 2: Idenfy Stakeholders and
Collect their Needs (IS)
The Quality
Planning Process Phase 3: Develop the Project (DP1)
Main Steps
Phase 4: Develop the Process (DP2)
Phase 5: Control and Operaon
Fig. 3. The planning process phases to achieve quality requirements.
989
planning process is the quality management plan, which defines
how the project management team should implement the
performing company's quality policy. It (PMI, 2013) also
stresses that a key consideration to be borne in mind is that
project planning and quality planning should not be treated as
separate processes since they include many similar activities
that interact with each other as well as with other processes of
the planning phase.
6. Study method
6.1. Research aim and methodology
The main objective drawn this research study is:
- To evaluate the extent of current stakeholder involvement in
the planning process of construction building projects.
This study used a questionnaire-based survey to facilitate the
achievement of the main research objective. Two main
characteristics describe the purposes of a survey. Firstly,
surveys aim to produce some descriptions about the distribution
of phenomena in a population (Ling et al., 2008; Pinsonneault
and Kraemer, 1993). Therefore, a survey analysis may be
concerned with comparing the relationship between variables,
or with demonstrating the finding, descriptively (Zikmund
et al., 2000). Secondly, surveys are used to collect information
from research population through use of structured questions.
Additionally, a survey provides a means for collection of a
large amount of data from a substantial population in a highly
economical way and it also operates on a foundation of
statistical sampling to protect a particular representative dataset
(Fellows and Liu, 2008).
The survey used in this study focuses on the perceptions of
four key stakeholder groups including:
Owner/developer
Construction/project management
Designer
Contractor,
who are/have been involved in medium and high-rise residential
building projects. These stakeholder groups as stated by many
scholars have the highest inuence on the project and its nal
outcomes (Hwang and Lim, 2013; Joaquin et al., 2010; Low Sui
and Ke-Wei, 1996).
6.2. Grouping questions and survey distribution
To design and setup the survey questionnaire, enquiry
questions were grouped from the general to the more specific.
The first section of the questionnaire was developed to collect
information about the demographic characteristics of stake-
holders in terms of work experience, roles in their projects and
the type of projects they were involved in. Since this study
focuses on residential building projects, it was important that
the respondents were/are involved in these types of projects.
990 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997

Table 1
Feedbacks from pilot survey.
Draft Respondents Method Comments and Suggestion
First draft 6 Academics Face to face interview A few of the factors in the planning process and some of the quality issues were
7 Industry practitioners Email found unreasonable or unnecessary
Some factors should be reworded
Add some more information about the purpose of the survey to the cover letter
Include a section where the respondents can add more comments
Second draft 3 Academics Email Rephrase some statements
2 Industry practitioners

Information about their organisational roles is also important
for comparing different levels of stakeholder involvement. In
the second section of the survey, questions were designed to
answer the main research question which is;
What is the current level of stakeholder involvement in the
planning process of construction building projects?
consistency of the quantitative data and to make the interpretation
of results more meaningful, several initial processes were
undertaken. These processes include categorising data, editing
data, coding data and creating data files. Descriptive statistical
analysis, particularly the measurement of central tendency (mean,
median), and the measurement of variation (standard deviation)
was undertaken for the following reasons:

As mentioned in Section 5.1 the quality planning process is
divided into five phases. Each phase contains a number of
corresponding factors that constitute the objectives of that
phase. These factors were derived from the quality planning
process proposed by Juran and Blanton Godfery (1999). In
order to adapt the process with the project management context,
it was then completed with the concepts of planning and quality
planning derived from PMBoK (PMI, 2013). The questionnaire
was reviewed, revised and validated by adding, removing and
changing some items originally presented in the pilot test. As a
result 37 questions were presented to evaluate the current level
of stakeholder involvement in the five phases of the planning
process. Respondents were asked to demonstrate the level of
involvement by answering to the following question; Please
tick the box which best describe your involvement level to the
following activities of the planning process of the project. A
five point Likert scale with a range from 1 representing Not
Involved/Very Low to 5 Very High measured the respon-
dents' perceived levels of involvement.
6.3. Method of analysis
The data collected from questionnaire were analysed using a
popular statistical analysis software, the Statistical Package for
Social Science (SPSS) version 19.0 (2010). To ensure the
To profile the respondents in terms of position, work experience
and their role in projects in which they were involved.
To examine the current level of stakeholder involvement in
different phases of the planning process.
The required results to answer the research question were
achieved through a comprehensive descriptive analysis (shown
in Section 7.2); however, in order to statistically test whether
organisational roles have an influence on stakeholder involve-
ment levels a parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
was also conducted.
6.4. Pilot study
Questionnaires are typically designed to collect data from
certain groups of respondents. The pilot study is necessary to
improve the validity and efficiency of the experiment before the
actual data collection starts. A pilot study is usually small
compared to the main data collection process. Although
implementing a pilot study does not assure success in the
main study, it does enhance the probability of success. It is
suggested that in construction and project management
research, a draft of questionnaire should be tested to ensure
that all questions are logical and understandable (Yang and
Pheng, 2008). Respondents from both academia and industry
were selected to participate in the pilot test. Academic experts

Table 3
Table 2 Dispersion of respondents/sampling results.
Reliability test (Cronbach's Alpha).
Types of stakeholders Number Required number in
Alpha Phase Items N each group (stratum)
0.77 Establish the project 5 77 Owner/developer 260 22
0.80 Identify stakeholder/customer 4 77 Construction and project management 290 24
0.90 Develop the project 15 77 Designer 195 16
0.86 Develop the process 8 77 Contractor 205 17
0.85 Control and operation 5 77 Total 970 79
 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997 991

Table 4
Stakeholder profile analysis.
Position indicated Percent Organisational role Percent Years of experience Percent
Project manager 24.7 Construction/project management 32.5 610 years 5.2
Job manager 15.6 Owner/ 27.3 1115 years 29.9
developer
Project coordinator/director 23.4 Contractor 22 More than 16 years 64.9
Job manager 11.7 Designer 18.2
Lead architect 6.5
Lead project planner 9
Other 9
Total 100 Total 100 Total 100

from the construction and project management discipline were
selected to provide their opinion on the theoretical aspects of
the questionnaire. Six academics provided useful feedback and
their knowledge and experience assisted to improve the
shortcomings of the initial survey draft. The industry group
were practitioners who were/are involved in the residential
sector such as project managers, contractors and designers.
Seven respondents finally participated and made practical and
valuable comments that could help to improve the quality of the
questionnaire. From the 13 people who agreed to participate in
the pilot survey, six people preferred a face-to-face interview
and seven people chose to provide their feedback and
comments by email. The major feedback obtained from the
pilot survey is outlined in Table 1.
6.5. Reliability analysis
A number of methods are available for determining the
consistency (reliability) of multiple item scales. To examine the
reliability of data, Cronbach's alpha was used to consider the
internal consistency (Bryman and Hardy, 2009). Items with a
value equal to or greater than 0.7 were considered reliable.
According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), the value of alpha ()
greater than .80 is considered to be good, between .07 and .08 is
acceptable and below .07 is poor. Table 2 shows that each of
the planning items is reliable as the alpha coefficients were all
greater than 0.77.
6.6. Sampling and response rate
It is often hard economically, and also infeasible and lengthy to
collect the data from every member of the population (Levy and
Lemeshow, 1999), therefore a sample of population has become
practical to survey so that generalisation can be contingent from
the sample to the entire population (Rea and Parker, 2005). It
involves the selection of a small number of people and it is
important they are adequate representatives of the whole
population.
To facilitate sampling for this study, the list of stakeholders
according to their organisational roles was gathered from reliable
and valid resources such as Brisbane City Council and Master
Builder Associations of Queensland. Around one thousand
companies were found that related to the context of this research
and these were divided into four main groups. Two methods of
sampling were applied to determine the required number of
responses, random sampling and stratified sampling. Ran-
dom sampling was first used to calculate the required amount of
population for the actual data collection stage. Then, using a
stratified random technique, the required number of responses
from each group of participants was determined. The first step to
apply this technique is calculating the size of the whole sample
through simple random, or systematic sampling techniques and
then dividing the result by size of the population, and finally
multiplying the results by the size of each group (stratum).
Table 3 shows the final results of sampling.
To facilitate the number of responses, approximately 200
questionnaires were distributed during the months of April and

Table 5 Table 6
The level of involvement in the EP phase. The level of involvement in the IS phase.
Groups of stakeholders Value Std. error Groups of stakeholders Value Std. error
Owner/developer Mean 3.5 .093 Owner/developer Mean 3.6 .091
Median 3.25 Median 3.75
SD .43 SD .420
Construction/project Mean 3.5 .124 Construction/ Mean 3.7 .126
management Median 3.5 project management Median 3.75
SD .623 SD .634
Designer Mean 3.1 .149 Designer Mean 3.4 .191
Median 3.25 Median 3.6
SD .56 SD .716
Contractor Mean 2.2 .109 Contractor Mean 2.5 .090
Median 2.25 Median 2.5
SD .45 SD .372
992 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997

Table 7 (27.3%) and 17 respondents (22.%) are contractors, closely

The level of involvement in the DP1 phase. followed by 14 designer respondents, (18.2%). Considering the
Groups of stakeholders Value Std. error number of each group in the sampling list, this percentage
Owner/developer Mean 3.4 .051 confirms that appropriate number of responses was received.
Median 3.4 Results of the work experience indicate that nearly 65% of
SD .234 the participants have been working more than 16 years in the
Construction/project Mean 3.5 .114
construction industry. 29.9% of respondents had 11 to 15 years
management Median 3.5
SD .571 of work experience in the industry and only 5.2% involved less
Designer Mean 3.3 .146 than 10 years in the industry. This profile signifies the high
Median 3.2 level of experience on which the results of this survey were
SD .549 based.
Contractor Mean 2.4 .045
Median 2.4
SD .187 7.2. The analysis of stakeholder involvement level

The primary aim of the analysis in this section is to

May 2012 and 85 responses were returned of which 77 were valid
for data analysis. This represents a response rate of 31%, which
according to Yehuda (1999) is a satisfactory number of responses
from an overall population sector. Eight responses were found to
be unacceptable because the respondent's current or previous
employment status, based on the criteria of this research, was not
suitable or many questions were left unanswered and resulted in
some incomplete sections.
7. Survey analysis
7.1. Analysis of stakeholder profile
Investigating the general profile of the research population is
important to be considered prior to analysing and interpreting
the findings (Egemen and Mohamed, 2006). Table 4 summa-
rises the respondent's profile in terms of their position,
organisational role in the project and years of experiences.
Using an open-ended question format, respondents were
able to identify their position on their projects, or within their
companies. Results indicate that more than 90% of the
respondents were from the top and middle management levels.
Since this research focuses on the strategic management level,
the results of this section confirm that appropriate people were
approached. It is shown, the highest return rate was from
construction/project management companies with 25 respon-
dents (32.5%), whereas owner/developers have 21 responses
determine the current level of four groups of stakeholder's
involvement in five phases of the planning process. Each of
these phases includes items corresponding to the objectives of
that phase.
7.2.1. Stakeholder involvement level in five phases of the
planning process
It was found that owner/developer (O/D) and construction/
project management (C/PM) groups were highly involved in the
project establishment phase. This can be observed from the mean
and median scores shown in Table 5 which are around 4.
Designers on the other hand, do not contribute so highly in the
activities of this phase. The lowest involvement is found amongst
the contractor group, where the mean score of the responses is
around 2.4 representing below average engagement.
Results shown in Table 6 indicate that the level of
involvement is above average for both O/D and C/PM groups
in the IS phase. This can be concluded from the mean score of the
responses. Since the important decisions in relation to collecting,
assessing and unifying stakeholder's demands are completed by
these two groups, they need to adopt a common approach to
improving their levels of involvement and contribution in this
phase. The mean and median scores are close to the value of 3
representing average involvement of designers. Finally the lowest
degree of contribution is for contractors with a mean score of 2.2.
Results shown in Table 7, demonstrate a fairly similar
situation for the three groups of O/D, C/PM and designers in

Table 8 Table 9
The level of involvement in the DP2 phase. The level of involvement in the CO phase.
Groups of stakeholders Value Std. error Groups of stakeholders Value Std. error
Owner/developer Mean 3.9 .084 Owner/developer Mean 2.9 .083
Median 3.8 Median 3
SD .387 SD .381
Construction/ Mean 3.9 .12 Construction/ Mean 3 .187
project management Median 4.2 project management Median 2.8
SD .604 SD .936
Designer Mean 3.2 .206 Designer Mean 3 .261
Median 3.2 Median 2.6
SD .773 SD .978
Contractor Mean 2.4 .088 Contractor Mean 2.5 .090
Median 2.4 Median 2.6
SD .364 SD .373
 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997 993

the Developing the Project phase. This is perceived from the Table 11
mean score representing an above average (but still less than The results of the KruskalWallis test ranking.
high) degree of involvement in this phase of the planning Ranks
process. Because many important activities such as grouping Organisation role in the project N Mean rank
stakeholder's needs, developing the project schedule, develop Establish the project Owner/developer 21 50.86
project goals and features, and identifying acceptance criteria Construction/project management 25 46.62
for project deliverables are implemented in this phase, a higher Designer 14 39.21
level of contribution of key project members is generally Contractor 17 12.97
Identify customers Owner/developer 21 46.69
expected.
Construction/project management 25 46.60
The mean and median scores shown in Table 8 demonstrate Designer 14 42.21
that C/PM and O/D group levels of involvement are close to Contractor 17 15.68
high in the Developing the process phase. In contrast, the Develop the project Owner/developer 21 46.38
contractor's level of involvement in this phase is below Construction/project management 25 47.64
Designer 14 43.82
average. Compared to the contractors, designers are more
Contractor 17 13.21
involved as their mean score is above the average. Develop the process Owner/developer 21 43.48
It was found that the O/D and C/PM groups, compared to the Construction/project management 25 47.22
other phases, are slightly less involved in the Control and Designer 14 47.25
Operation phase. This can be observed from the mean and Contractor 17 14.59
Control & operation Owner/developer 21 46.14
median scores (presented in Table 9), which are around 3,
Construction/project management 25 40.26
indicating an average involvement level. Even though contrac- Designer 14 39.54
tors are less involved than other groups, the median score of 2.6 Contractor 17 27.88
shows their higher engagement in this phase compared to other
phases of the planning process.
(p b 0.05). This means that SI level is significantly different in
7.3. Comparing levels of stakeholder involvement four of the five phases of the planning process. Findings,
however, do not demonstrate any statistically significant
This section compares the levels of stakeholder involvement difference in the mean ranking of the CO phase.
in the planning process, based on their organisational roles in Table 11 provides a ranking summary of the data. It
the project and using the KruskalWallis and Mann demonstrates the lower scores of mean ranking of contractors
Whitney non-parametric tests. Both methods are designed to compared to the other stakeholders in four phases of EP, IS,
identify whether two or more samples come from the same DP1 and DP2 of the planning process.
underlying population, or to test whether the medians between To follow-up the findings from the KruskalWallis test,
comparison groups are different. However, the main difference the MannWhitney test was conducted to determine where a
between these methods is that while the MannWhitney test significant difference exists amongst stakeholders in the mean
is applied to compare scores between two groups, the ranking of their responses. The MannWhitney test is also
KruskalWallis test (also referred to as the distribution relevant for data-sets at ordinal level. It tests the hypothesis that
free test) can accommodate the comparison between more than the median of the two groups are equal (Ho, 2006). By default,
two groups (Bryman and Cramer, 2009). The KruskalWallis the statistical software used in this research calculates the
test is appropriate for data at ordinal level (Sadiqi et al., 2013) significance of the MannWhitney and KruskalWallis
and is used in this research because the data-sets are ordinal and using the asymptotic method. This method is considered to be
measured using a Likert scale. This test was conducted to more reliable for use with large samples, but less so with
determine if the involvement levels amongst the four stake- smaller samples. However, in both large and small samples, the
holder groups in the planning process were significantly exact test is the most precise way to determine significance
different. Table 10 illustrates the overall results of the and therefore is used in the analysis in this section.
KruskalWallis test. It suggests that a significant difference A Bonferroni Correction is a multiple-comparison correction
exists in mean ranking of ratings in EP, IS, DP1, and DP2 made to P values when some statistical tests are being performed

Table 10
The results of the KruskalWallis test statistics.
Test statistics a,b
Planning phases Establish the project (EP) Identify stakeholder (IS) Develop the project (DP1) Develop the process (DP2) Control and operation (CO)
Chi-Square 32.319 24.371 29.364 26.515 6.520
df 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .089
a
KruskalWallis test.
b
Grouping variable: what is your organisation role in the project?
994 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997

Table 12
The results of the MannWhitney test.
Stakeholders Establish the Identify Develop the Develop the Control and
project (EP) stakeholder (IS) project (DP1) process (DP2) operation (CO)
Owner-contractor MannWhitney U 5.000 19.000 5.500 25.500 73.000
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .000 .000 .000 .000 .001
Project manager- contractor MannWhitney U 34.000 60.500 60.500 40.500 154.500
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .000 .000 .000 .000 .139
Designer-contractor MannWhitney U 28.500 34.000 5.500 29.000 93.500
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .000 .000 .000 .000 .316
Owner-designer MannWhitney U 91.500 129.500 125.500 115.500 141.500
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .061 .561 .474 .293 .855
Owner-project management MannWhitney U 242.500 247.000 223.000 235.000 223.500
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .659 .741 .387 .548 .391
Project manager-designer MannWhitney U 143.000 152.500 150.500 169.000 162.500
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .361 .515 .478 .874 .718

concurrently on a single data set. To apply this method, the P
value () is divided by the number of comparisons being made. A
Bonferroni Correction was applied (6 comparisons were made
between four stakeholder groups) and all effects are reported as
being at a 0.008 (0.05/6 = 0.008) level of significance. Results
shown in Table 12, suggest that there is a significant difference in
the mean rankings between contractors and other stakeholders in
four phases of EP, IS, DP1 and DP2. However, no significant
difference was found between O/D, CP/M and designers' level of
involvement.
Fig. 4 provides a visual summary of the involvement level of
different stakeholder groups in five phases of the planning
process. It indicates that the C/PM group, compared to others, has
the most efficient levels of incorporation, especially in the EP
phase where the median score is above 4. Although involvement
levels of the O/D and C/PM groups are nearly the same, the boxes
show a wider dispersion of data amongst the C/PM group,
especially in the DP1 and DP2 phases. Compared to the O/D and
C/PM groups, designers are generally less involved. However,
this discrepancy is very low in the DP2 and CO phases. While the
figure illustrates that there is no significant difference amongst
the first three groups of respondents, contractors are demonstrat-
ing a considerably lower level of involvement in all phases of the
planning process.

Fig 4. Compare stakeholder involvements in planning process phases.

 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
8. Discussion
This study culminates a comprehensive evaluation of current
level of stakeholder involvement in project planning phases. It
was determined that designers and contractors are not highly
involved in establishing the project where the key objectives
are normally to identify the projects, determine the scope, goals
and objectives and establishing a mechanism to achieve the
identified objectives, selecting the project team and defining
project resources and their limitations. This can be attributed to
the lack of attention paid by these groups to the importance of
understanding the role of key stakeholders and the significance of
their inputs into the decision-making (DM) process. Arditi and
Murat Gunaydin (1997); Marosszeky et al. (2002) reinforced this
view, stating that even though project performance depends on
creating a team relationship between contractors, designer and the
owner in the project initial phases, it has not been evidenced much
in the residential building sector. Additionally, the type of project
delivery adopted by project owners, in many cases, determines the
stages where both designers and contractors can get engaged in
project planning. Therefore, they (the owners and developers)
need to carefully select the right contract type to improve the
effective involvement of these former stakeholder groups.
In spite of the fact that correctly identifying key stakeholders
and analysing their needs and requirements, is a necessary part
of the planning phase, and that the ability to correctly identify
and manage stakeholders can mean the difference between
success and failure (PMI, 2013). This study determined that
owners and developers are not highly engaged in a systematic
identification process. This issue may be the result of certain
causes; for instance, lack of knowledge and information about
the project and its features can be a major barrier to effective
interaction between the owner and the project. Olander (2007)
suggested that poor client knowledge can negatively influence
both the project and its stakeholders. The quality planning of
most projects will be challenged by the large number of
stakeholder needs, and therefore the project team should
classify and assess those needs and demands properly.
The project development (DP1) phase is where the project is
actually operationalized. Activities such as grouping of related
stakeholders' needs, determining the method of identifying project
features, identifying the quality expectations, are all completed in
this phase. In spite of the significance of this phase, it was found
that owners/developers and designers do not contribute greatly to
the successful achievement of the phase objectives. One of the
reasons for this may be due to the lack of full commitment of these
two groups to accurately implement the activities related to this
phase. This lack of full commitment can be the result of poor
awareness of both the significance, and the advantages, of
applying these activities towards achieving success in a project.
As discussed in the literature review section, appropriate
management and involvement of stakeholders as well as meeting
quality requirements (that are included as major activities in this
phase) are two main project success factors. If, therefore, key
project members can expand their awareness and contribute to the
achievement of objectives of this phase, this could help to attain
project success.
995
Once the project has been developed, it is essential to
determine and establish the processes by which the project will
then be developed and delivered. The level of team involvement
in developing the process (DP2) was found to be less than high,
but still above average and this can be related to many factors.
Sometimes, a project has varying degrees of complexity and it
was determined that establishing and monitoring the various
processes for complex projects requires a substantially higher
level of competency. Aje (2012) confirms that in the construction
industry, where many companies are involved, the process of
determining participants must place an emphasis on their
technical, practical and managerial skills. But finding a stake-
holder, especially a contractor with a high enough level of
proficiency is not always easy. In addition, deciding on the most
accurate methods to implement the processes needs a perfect
understating of the project and its specific features. Indeed when
participants do not possess adequate and correct information, or
are not expert enough, implementing such processes cannot be
fully facilitated.
Analysis of the survey data revealed that the contractors'
involvement in the planning phase of projects was considerably
lower compared to other stakeholders. In many cases, contractors
are attributed simply as builders and they are assigned only for
the execution of the project. Therefore they get engaged when the
planning and design is almost complete, the scope, objectives and
stakeholders are identified, the acceptance criteria are determined
and the project process is established. However, depending on the
type of the contract, they may get involved prior to the design
phase, but after the planning is mainly completed. It was found
that in such situations, the contractor involvement level is low
and that can negatively impact on subsequent project quality.
Low Sui and Ke-Wei (1996) confirm that the quality of the
construction project is largely dependent on the attitudes of
contractors. Sometimes the contractor's objectives do not align
with the strategic project objectives, which might result in
conflict amongst different parties and affect the final quality
outcomes. However, interacting with contractors in the early
phases of a project can help prevent such conflict. Contractors are
sometimes assigned to carry out the project from beginning to the
end. In that case they will get engaged in the conceptual and
planning phases but they are more a developer in this instance,
rather than a contractor. Another reason for the low level of
contractors' contributions could be the issue of competitiveness.
Involving contractors in the very initial stages might result in the
project losing the competitive edge during the tendering process.
Such early involvement can also create a misconception amongst
contractors that they have already been pre-selected to be the
company finally undertaking the construction phase.
9. Conclusions
This study has evaluated the current level of SI during
different phases of the planning process. It highlights the
weaknesses and strengths of the four stakeholder groups in
different phases of the process. It was found that the O/D group
and C/PM groups were more involved than the designer group.
Results revealed that contractors have the lowest level of
996 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
contribution within early project stages. The low level of
contractor involvement suggests the need to engage them as
early as possible through, for example, use of an integrated
project delivery method.
Results of this study could provide project managers and
owners with the required information and a direction as to
where SI improvement plans should begin. Although the
important activities of the planning process require effective
engagement and great contribution of major parties involved in
the project, according to the outcomes of this research, such
engagement is not fully evident in the residential building
sector. Findings from this research affirm that project leaders
and owners should adopt improved decision-making strategies
and design a plan to enhance the effectiveness of SI from the
beginning of the project to its completion stages.
The survey conducted in this research used only the perceptions
of four stakeholder groups including owner, developer, con-
struction/project management, designers and contractors.
Taking into account the perspectives of other project members
such as, subcontractors, suppliers and surrounding social environ-
ment could provide a more complete picture of involvement level
in the whole community of stakeholders. This research provided
some valuable understanding about the issue of poor stakeholder
involvement during the decision-making process, and as a result
low level of contribution in other phases of the PLC. However,
further investigations are still required to improve the solutions to
these complex problems. Furthermore, outcomes of this research
provide a basis for further development of a framework which
aims to improve and enhance the involvement of stakeholders in
the project. It has been revealed from this research that serious
consideration should be given to facilitating the more effective
incorporation of different project members during the project life
cycle.
The main focus of this research was on high-rise and
medium-rise residential building projects. It is suggested that
further research is undertaken using the outputs of this study, to
incorporate results from an examination that includes other types
of building projects. This study also collected data from projects
in Brisbane, Australia. Further studies may be undertaken to test
the findings in other locations in Australia, or globally.
Conict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
References
Abdul-Kadir, M.R., Price, A.D.F., 1995. Conceptual phase of construction
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 13 (6), 387393.
Aje, Isaac, 2012. The impact of contractors' prequalification on construction
project delivery in Nigeria. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 19 (2), 159172.
Applebaum, Robert, Schneider, Barbara, Kunkel, Suzanne, Davis, Shawn, 2004.
A Guide to Quality in Consumer Directed Services. Miami University.
Arditi, David, Murat Gunaydin, H., 1997. Total quality management in the
construction process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15 (4), 235243.
Atkin, B., Skitmore, M., 2008. Stakeholder management in construction.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 549552.
Baccarini, Danial, 1999. The logical framework method for defining project
success. Proj. Manag. J. 30 (4), 2532.
Bal, Menoka, Bryde, David, Fearon, Damian, Ochieng, Edward, 2013.
Stakeholder engagement: achieving sustainability in the construction sector.
Sustain. J. 6, 695710.
Basu, Ron, 2014. Managing quality in projects: an empirical study. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. Elsevier 32, 178187.
Belout, Adnane, Gauvreau, Clothilde, 2004. Factors influencing project success:
the impact of human resource management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (111).
Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P., Glass, J., Price, A., 2007. Integrating
disaster risk management into construction: a UK perspective. J. Build. Res.
Inf. 35 (2), 163177.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.T.H., 2005. Visualising and mapping stakeholder
influence. Manag. Decis. 43 (5), 649660.
Brian, Aktin, Martin, Skitmore, 2008. Stakeholder management in construction.
Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 549552.
Bryman, Alan, Cramer, Duncan, 2009. Quantitative data analysis with spss
14,15 and 16: a guide for social scientists. Sussex 408 1 edition (December
3, 2008).
Bryman, A., Hardy, M.A., 2009. Hand book of Data Analysis: Sage Publication.
Bubshait, Abdulaziz A., 1994. Owner involvement in project quality. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 12 (2), 115117.
Cole, R.J., 2005. Building environmental assessment methods: redefining
intentions and roles. J. Build. Res. Inf. 33 (5), 455467.
Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Egemen, M., Mohamed, A.N., 2006. Client's need, wants and expectations
from contractors and approach to the concept of repetitive works in the
Northern Cyprus construction market.J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 17, 107118.
El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., Ei-Diraby, T.E., 2006. Stakeholder management
for public private partnerships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (7), 595604.
Fellows, Richard, Liu, Anita, 2008. Research Methods for Construction. Third
ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach.
Globerson, S., Zwikael, O., 2002. Impact of the project manager on project
management planning processes. Proj. Manag. J. 33 (3), 5864.
Ho, Robert, 2006. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and
Interpretation with SPSS. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Hwang, Bon-Gang, Lim, E-Sin Janicia, 2013. Critical success factors for key
poject players and objectives: case study of Singapore. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
ASCE 139, 204215.
IFC, 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies
Doing Business in Emerging Market (Washington).
Jha, K.N., Iyer, K.C., 2006. Critical factors affecting quality performance in
construction projects. Total Qual. Manag. 17 (9), 11551170.
Joaquin, David, Hernandez, Delgado, Aspinwall, Elaine, 2008. A framework
for building quality into construction projectspart I. Total Qual. Manag.
19 (10), 10131028.
Joaquin, David, Hernandez, Delgado, Aspinwall, Elaine, 2010. A framework
for building quality into construction projectspart II. Total Qual. Manag.
21 (7), 725736.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999a. Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall
Europe.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999b. Exploring Corporate Strategy (London).
Jones, Thomas, Wicks, Andrew, 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 24 (2), 206221.
Juran, Joseph M., Blanton Godfery, A., 1999. Juran's Quality Handbook Vol. 5.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kolltveit, Bjrn Johs, Grnhaug, Kjell, 2004. The importance of the early
phase: the case of construction and building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
Elsevier 22, 545551.
Lam, S.S.K., 1997. Quality planning performance: the relationship between
objectives and process. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 14 (1), 1023.
Leszaka, Marek, Perryb, Dewayne E., Stoll, Dieter, 2002. Classification and
evaluation of defects in a project retrospective. J. Sys. Softw. 61, 173187.
Leung, Mei-yung, Yu, Jingyu, Liang, Qi, 2013. Improving public engagement
in construction development projects from a stakeholder perspective.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 139, 04013019.
 A. Heravi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 985997
Levy, Paul S., Lemeshow, Stanley, 1999. Sampling of Populations: Methods
and Applications. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Li, Terry, Ng, Thomas, Skitmore, Martin, 2013. Evaluating stakeholder
satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction
projects: a fuzzy approach. Autom. Constr. Elsevier 29, 123135.
Lim, C.S., Mohamed, Z.M., 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory
reexamination. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17 (4), 243248.
Ling, F., Low, S., Wang, S., Egbelakin, T., 2008. Models for predicting project
performance in China using project management practices adopted by
foreign AEC firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 134 (12), 983990.
Low Sui, Pheng, Ke-Wei, Phe, 1996. A framework for implementing TQM in
construction. TQM.
LU, A.G., Flett, P.D., Bowers, J.A., 2005. Developing a value-centred proposal
for assessing project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (6), 428436.
Marosszeky, R. Thomas, Marton, Khalid Karim, David, S., McGeorge, D.,
2002. The importance of project culture in achieving quality outcomes in
construction. Paper presented at the IGLC, Brazil.
Meyer, Marc H., Utterback, James M., 1995. Product development cycle time
and commercial success. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 42 (4), 297304.
Miller, R., Lessard, D., 2001. Understanding and managing risks in large
engineering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19, 437443.
Morris, P.W.G., Hough, G.H., 1986. The preconditions of success and failure in
major projects. Oxf. Major Proj. Assoc. (3).
Newcombe, R., 2003. From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder
mapping approach. Constr. Manag. Econ. 21 (841848).
Olander, Stefan, 2002. Consensual approaches to siting controversy. Constr.
Innov. Glob. Compet. 2, 909920.
Olander, S., 2006. External stakeholder analysis in construction project
management. (PhD Thesis). Lund University.
Olander, S., 2007. Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project
management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 25 (3), 277287.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005a. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. Elsevier Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (4),
321328.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005b. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (4), 21.
Phillips, R., 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organisational Ethics. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco.
Pinsonneault, Alain, Kraemer, Kenneth L., 1993. Survey research methodology
in management information systems: an assessment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 10
(2), 75105.
PMI, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK).
Fifth ed. Project Management Institute (PMI).
Rea, Louis M., Parker, Richard A., 2005. Designing and Conducting Survey
Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Sadiqi, Zabihullah, Coffey, Vaughan, Trigunarsiyah, Bambang, 2013. Post-
Disaster Reconstruction: A Statistical Overview of the Barriers for
Community Participation in Afghanistan. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Institute for Infrastructure Renewal and Reconstruction, Queensland
University of Technology.
997
Saghatforoush, Ehsan, Trigunarsyah, Bambang, Too, Eric, HeraviTorbati,
AmiHossein, 2010. Effectiveness of constructability concept in the provision
of infrastructure assets. Paper presented at the eddBE 2011 Conference.
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (April 2011).
Sekaran, U., Bougie, R., 2009. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building
Approach, edited by. Fifth ed. Wiley, Chichester-UK.
Senaratne, Sepani, Jayarathna, Thushangi, 2012. Quality planning process of
construction contractors: case studies in Sri Lanka. J. Constr. Dev. Countries
17 (1), 101114.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001. Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. 34 (6), 699725.
Soetanto, Robby, Proverbs, David G., Holt, Gary D., 2001. Achieving quality
construction projects based on harmonious working relationships.Int.
J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 18 (5), 528548.
SPSS, 2010. SPSS Inc. (http://www.spss.com/).
Stoney, C., Winstanley, D., 2001. Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? Mapping
the conceptual terrain. J. Manag. Stud. 35 (5), 603626.
Toakley, A.R., Marosszeky, M., 2003. Towards total project qualitya review
of research needs. J. Eng. Archit. Manag. 10 (3), 219228.
Verbeke, Alain, Tung, Vincent, 2013. The future of stakeholder management
theory: a temporal perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 112 (3), 529543.
Walker, D.H.T., 2000. Client/customer or stakeholder focus? ISO 14000 EMS
as a construction industry case study. Total Qual. Manag. 12 (1), 1825.
Walker, D.H.T., 2003. Procurement Strategies: A Relationship-based Approach.
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Wang, Xiaojin, Huang, Jing, 2006. The relationships between key stakeholder's
project performance and project success: perceptions of Chinese construc-
tion supervising engineers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 253260.
Westerveld, E., 2003. The project excellence model: linking success criteria and
critical success factors. international. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (6), 411418.
Winch, G., Bonke, S., 2002. Project stakeholder mapping: analysing the
interests of project stakeholders. Project Management Institute, Manchester,
pp. 385403.
Yang, Jing, 2010. Stakeholder management in construction: an empirical study
to address research gaps in previous studies. Elsevier, International Journal
of Project Management.
Yang, J.B., Pheng, S.C., 2008. Development of customer satisfaction evaluation
model for construction project management. Build. Environ. 43 (4), 458468.
Yehuda, Baruch, 1999. Response Rate in Academic Studiesa Comparative
Analysis. SAGE Publ. 52 (4).
Yin, Robert K., Heald, Karen A., 1975. Using the case survey method to
analyze policy studies. Adm. Sci. Q. 20 (3), 371381.
Yu, Ann T.W., Shen, Qiping, Kelly, John, Hunter, Kirsty, 2006. Investigation
of critical success factors in construction project briefing by way of content
analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE 132 (11), 11781186.
Zikmund, William G., Babin, Barry J., Carr, Jon C., Griffin, Mitch, 2000.
Business research methods. vol. 6. Dryden Press Fort Worth.
Zwikael, Ofer, 2009. Critical planning processes in construction projects.
Constr. Innov. 9 (4), 372387.