Case Study

Construction Project Success under Uncertainty:

Interrelations among the External Environment,
Intellectual Capital, and Project Attributes
Yeneneh Tamirat Negash 1 and Abdiqani Muse Hassan 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Prior studies have focused on identifying and ranking critical success factors (CSFs), but both their interdependence and the
vagueness resulting from human judgment have been neglected. Furthermore, there is a need to explain CSFs from the short- and
long-term planning horizons. This study aims to identify, rank, and examine the interdependence of the critical factors affecting construction
projects in low-income economies. The study applied the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) to validate subfactors identified from the literature.
The hierarchical relationship between success factors and linguistic preferences is considered by using a fuzzy analytical hierarchical process
(FAHP) and a fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (FDEMATEL) methodology. The former is applied to rank the relative
weights of the factors and subfactors, and the latter is used to discover the nature of their interrelationship. The results indicate that over the
short term, the relationships with the clients, consultants, designers, top management, and the financial situation of the contractor are
essential. However, for strategic management and long-term success, the most influential factors are the external environment and the types
of projects undertaken. Therefore, the economic climate, technical and professional capabilities, and costs, funds, and resources should be
the primary concerns when establishing the project goals. Furthermore, this study provides managerial and theoretical implications to
guide construction projects from both short- and long-term perspectives. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001912. © 2020 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction project success; External environment; Intellectual capital; Fuzzy Delphi; Fuzzy analytical hierarchical
process; Fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory.

Introduction observed that the differences in the perceptions of stakeholders

make it difficult to reach a consensus regarding the decision criteria
Construction is among the top drivers of economic growth in low- and cause uncertainty and a lack of trust in the outcomes. Further-
income economies with gross national incomes of $1,025 or less more, Silva et al. (2016) argued that categorizing CSFs in terms of
per capita; thus, improving the capacity and capability of construc- short-term and long-term perspectives is necessary for obtaining a
tion projects is a top priority for the governments and communities comprehensive construction project success framework. Hence, the
(Randa and Musuku 2018; World Bank 2020). However, construc- CSFs that lead to project success need to be further assessed to
tion projects with poor quality, extensive delays, and cost overruns address the ambiguity and inconsistency.
create significant obstacles to economic progress, which can be In the literature, the success of a project relies on the nature of
crippling, particularly in low-income countries; for example, the the project, which includes unique characteristics and situations
African road stock has contracted since the 1980s (Collier et al. (Gudiene et al. 2014). Kim and Reinschmidt (2011) argued that
2015; Gbahabo and Ajuwon 2017). project success is evaluated by customer satisfaction. Sato and
Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015) argued that identifying the criti- Chagas (2014) set efficiency, impact on the customer, business and
cal success factors (CSFs) that impact the success of a construction direct success, impact on the team, and preparation for the future as
project is necessary to solve the existing problems and to prepare the indicators for project success. Aga et al. (2016) suggested that
for upcoming projects adequately. However, due to the nature of construction project success is measured through the triangular
CSFs, the interrelationships among factors must be incorporated factors of time, budget, and quality. However, the aforementioned
and multiple-objective and multicriteria decision-making methods studies focused on the measurement of project success instead of
applied (Nguyen 2019; Yazdani et al. 2019). Todorovic et al. (2014) what makes the project successful. Additionally, the prior studies
suggest that factors such as on-time completion within the agreed
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Business Administration, Asia Univ., budget and with a set of design specifications are not enough to
Taichung 41354, Taiwan; Section Chief, Institute of Innovation and define project success; instead, focusing on the underlying CSFs
Circular Economy, Asia Univ., Taichung 41354, Taiwan (corresponding is essential (Toor and Ogunlana 2009; Gudiene et al. 2014).
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-5472. Email: yeneneh@ Todorovic et al. (2014) proposed a project success analysis frame-
asia.edu.tw; yenuta@gmail.com work and presented CSFs for practical project success analysis.
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Business Administration, Asia Univ., Taichung Moreover, the vagueness of the underlying CSFs is the leading
41354, Taiwan; Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hargeisa,
cause of a large number of project failures (Garbharran et al. 2012).
Hargeisa, Somaliland.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 30, 2019; approved The focus of the prior studies has been on the identification and
on May 12, 2020; published online on July 22, 2020. Discussion period ranking of CSFs, whereas their causality relationships and the vague-
open until December 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted ness resulting from human judgment are neglected (Garbharran
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction et al. 2012; Esmaeili et al. 2016). The results from prior studies vary
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364. in different economies, and no studies are focusing on low-income

© ASCE 05020012-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 economic contexts (Gudiene et al. 2013; Tong 2016; Altarawneh and recommendations, and limitations are included in the “Conclusion”
Samadi 2019). Further, a CSF’s relative importance varies according section.
to the roles and responsibilities of managers and the nature of the
project; thus, it is challenging to deem whether projects are a success
or a failure due to the notion of success is ambiguous among the Literature Review
project stakeholders (Lam et al. 2008; Gudiene et al. 2014). Hence,
in low-income economies, ranking CSFs, understanding their inter-
Critical Success Factors in Construction Projects
dependence, and tackling the vagueness resulting from human judg-
ments of the CSFs is essential and needs to be studied further. In the construction industry, cost and time overruns are prevalent,
Construction work involves a dynamic, interrelated, and multi- and construction activities involve conflicting factors; thus, a com-
plete understanding of CSFs that firms should focus on is necessary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

criteria set of success factors that presents challenges for the man-
agement teams of construction firms (Turkyilmaz et al. 2019). to support the construction sector (Berssaneti and Carvalho 2015;
Success is affected by the interrelationship among the CSFs and the Turkyilmaz et al. 2019). Todorovic et al. (2014) found that defining
effectiveness of the stakeholders (Turner et al. 2015; Maghsoodi the CSFs of the project and showing their significance contribute
and Khalilzadeh 2017). Moreover, the fuzziness of human judg- to the project management’s knowledge. These factors possess a
ments must be considered in the qualitative assessment of CSFs substantial impact on the goals of the project, such as schedule,
(Nilashi et al. 2015). Fuzzy approaches address the uncertainty budget, safety, and quality (Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh 2017;
and vagueness resulting from human decisions in linguistic prefer- Nguyen 2019). Belassi and Tukel (1996) identified 27 subfactors
ences (Sirisawat and Kiatcharoenpol 2018; Addae et al. 2019). and grouped them into the following four categories: the project,
This study proposes the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) to validate the organization, the project manager and team members, and the
and screen the CSFs identified in the literature. The fuzzy analytic external environment. The most critical subfactors were support
hierarchy process (FAHP) is used to rank the underlying factors provided by top management, the project manager’s performance,
and subfactors, and the fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation and resource availability. Chan et al. (2004) analyzed the literature
laboratory (FDEMATEL) methodology is used to explore the inter- and identified 44 subfactors and classified them into the following
dependence under uncertainty. This hybrid approach has the advan- five categories: project management actions, project procedures, the
tage of formulating both short-term and long-term decision-making external environment, human-related factors, and project-related
strategies. Hence, the objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to factors.
develop a set of CSFs to assess construction project success with Jha and Iyer (2006) presented 42 subfactors responsible for
qualitative information; (2) to prioritize the factors under uncertain- project performance in India and grouped them into the five catego-
ties and linguistics preferences in the assessment process; (3) to ries; the project manager’s competency, support from top manage-
justify the causal interrelationship among the factors for industry ment, and the interactions among the project participants were found
guidance; and (4) to categorize the CSFs into short- and long-term to be the most significant. Arslan and Kivrak (2008) studied seven
planning horizons. factors and 38 subfactors that have the most effect on the success of
Low-income economies experience construction project failures the Turkish construction industry. Business management (planning,
more than other countries due to poor strategic planning (Rwelamila organizing, controlling, risk management, and record-keeping) was
and Ogunlana 2015). Ofori (2019) highlighted the uniqueness the most crucial factor, followed by the financial conditions of
and complexity of the construction environment in these countries. contractors and the owner/manager characteristics. Gudiene et al.
Further, the stunted growth of construction capacity, particularly the (2013) used 71 subfactors for the Lithuanian construction industry
ability to manage construction work, is a challenge. CSF analysis and categorized them into seven factors; the top-ranking factor was
provides a robust and practical assessment for strategic planners. project-manager related, and the second and third highest-ranking
Thus, to develop the construction capacity and capability, the top factors were the project management team and contractor capabil-
management, project managers, and stakeholders in low-income ities, respectively. Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015) argued that time,
countries need to understand the CSFs. cost, quality, and customer satisfaction are the dimensions that de-
The contribution of this study lies in the way it integrates three fine the project’s success or failure.
fuzzy multicriteria decision-making methods to provide a set of Nilashi et al. (2015) identified and evaluated 43 subfactors and
CSFs through a qualitative information assessment. This study grouped them into five categories, and the study found that the
contributes to low-income countries by (1) providing a set of CSFs project attributes and external environment factors were the most
through a qualitative information assessment; (2) providing an influential. Esmaeili et al. (2016) categorized the factors into four
understanding of the most significant factors for construction project groups, i.e., project outcomes, project types, partnering processes,
success; (3) presenting the interrelationships among the factors and delivery methods. They found that the top subfactors affecting
and subfactors, offering a causal model and theoretical insights; construction project success are senior management backing, com-
(4) classifying CSFs into those essential for improving operational mitment, cooperation, communication, and building trust among
management and those critical for strategic management; and stakeholders. Tong (2016) identified 11 factors with 58 subfactors
(5) considering the fuzziness of the human linguistic judgments of for contractors in Hong Kong, and the top three rankings were re-
qualitative information and the presence of uncertainties during data lationship engineering, human resources, and strategic management.
collection with the ranking and interdependence of the hierarchical Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh (2017) identified 16 critical subfac-
structure. tors and evaluated them against the following four factors: cost,
The rest of this study is arranged as follows. The “Literature Re- time, quality, and safety. The top rankings were allocating appro-
view” section reviews the literature on construction project success, priate funding, strategic and adequate planning, and an experienced
the proposed measures, and the proposed method. The “Method” and multidisciplinary team. Altarawneh and Samadi (2019) iden-
section discusses the data collection, questionnaire, and data analy- tified 33 subfactors grouped into five categories for the construction
sis procedure methods. The “Results” section presents the results industry in the United Arab Emirates. Human resources and project
and discussion, and the “Implications” section discusses the theo- environments were found to be the most critical factors. The results
retical and managerial implications of the study. The conclusion, from the prior studies from different economies vary, and no studies

© ASCE 05020012-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 are focusing on low-income economic contexts, which need to be incorporated this factor, naming it “relationship with stakeholders
studied further. Low-income economies “are those with a gross na- or relationship management,” and concluded that maintaining a
tional income per capita of $1,025 or less;” the category includes 31 credible tie with the project stakeholders makes a considerable con-
nations in 2020, and 24 are from Africa (World Bank 2020). tribution to the project’s success. The initial subfactors for measur-
ing relationship engineering are the relationship with government
divisions (IC12), customers and owners (IC13), consultants and
Proposed Measures
designers (IC14), suppliers (IC15), and the general public (IC16)
CSFs are critical areas where an organization must perform well (Belassi and Tukel 1996; Gudiene et al. 2014; Gbahabo and Ajuwon
consistently to attain successful and competitive performance. The 2017).
content analysis method is applied to identify a set of initial factors, Contractor Capabilities. Tong (2016) defined the contractor’s ca-
and the frequently cited CSFs from the prior studies were chosen. pabilities as an organizational culture and structure factor. Alzahrani
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hence, this study proposed 29 initial subfactors and grouped them and Emsley (2013) argued that project success is highly dependent
into five groups (Appendix). The fuzzy Delphi method was applied on the contractor because contractors are accountable for the whole
to validate the factors collected through the literature analysis. The construction process. The commitment and cooperation of the em-
CSFs are external environment (A1), human resources (A2), rela- ployees to the business or project is higher when the organizational
tionship engineering (A3), project attributes (A4), and contractor structure is clear (Gudiene et al. 2014). The literature analysis re-
capabilities (A5). sulted in subfactors that measure this factor are company character-
istics (IC24), technical and professional capabilities (IC25), the
External Environment economic and financial situation (IC26), top management support
The external environment includes the factors that impact the (IC27), working conditions (IC28), and advanced technologies
success or failure of the project and are external to the firm under- (IC29) (Arslan and Kivrak 2008; Gudiene et al. 2014).
taking the project (Belassi and Tukel 1996). External environmen-
tal factors can be the political and economic environment, society Project Attributes
in general, nature, and technological changes. Gudiene et al. (2014) The project attributes are the factors directly related to the project
emphasized that the external environment include subfactors such itself; Gudiene et al. (2014) identified project attributes among
as social, political, cultural, economic, technological, and legal the primary factors affecting project success. Nilashi et al. (2015)
environments. The previous studies identified external factors as acknowledged project attributes as the most influential factor. The
among the essential elements that contribute to the project’s suc- project attributes subfactors identified from literature analysis are
cess, and hence, consideration must be given to avoid their poten- the overall project cost (IC17), procurement management (IC18),
tially detrimental effects (Musa et al. 2015; Yazdani et al. 2019). In project schedule (IC19), planning (IC20), materials and equipment
this study, the initial set of the external environment consists of the (IC21), supervision (IC22), and the availability of funds and resour-
economic environment (IC1), social environment (IC2), political/ ces (IC23) (Chan et al. 2004; Belassi and Tukel 1996; Lam et al.
legal environment (IC3), and technological environment (IC4) 2008).
(Gudiene et al. 2013; Tong 2016).
Proposed Methods
Intellectual Capital
Turner et al. (2015) defined intellectual capital as the human, rela- In the literature, Arslan and Kivrak (2008) employed a simple mul-
tional, and organizational elements of the company and found that tiattribute rating technique to rank the CSFs, leading to the contrac-
intricate combinations of these elements affect the performances of tors’ success. Multiple studies applied structural equation modeling
projects. Hence, human resources, relationship engineering, and to rank the factors impacting the successes and failures of construc-
contractor capabilities are combined under the term intellectual tion projects (Jha and Iyer 2006; Berssaneti and Carvalho 2015;
capital. This study categorized the intellectual capital of the project Tong 2016). Esmaeili et al. (2016) analyzed the published articles
into three factors and 18 subfactors. on project success to develop conceptual frameworks of CSFs.
Human Resources. The human resources are the project personnel However, the construction project’s success factors are complex
or the project team. Gudiene et al. (2014) used the term “team- and strictly interdependent, and these studies ignored the need
related factors” to describe human resources. Tong (2016) ranked for interdependence and a hierarchical structure. Few studies ap-
human resources as the second essential critical CSF for project plied a multicriteria decision-making method to assess the construc-
success and noted that it is necessary to have competent and tion projects’ CSFs. For instance, Gudiene et al. (2014) applied the
knowledgeable staff to complete the critical and complicated tasks analytic hierarchy process. Nilashi et al. (2015) adopted a hybrid
successfully. For instance, finding a good project manager can model of gray rational analysis, decision-making trial and evalu-
optimize costs and enhance quality, and the cooperation of the ation laboratory (DEMATEL), and an analytic network process.
technical teams in the different phases, such as the design and con- Additionally, Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh (2017) used the tech-
struction, shortens the project time (Tong 2016). Maghsoodi and nique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution.
Khalilzadeh (2017) ranked human resources as the fourth most Altarawneh and Samadi (2019) applied the partial least-squares
critical factor. The human resources subfactors identified from method to study the correlation between success criteria and project
literature analysis includes managerial expertise (IC5), production performance.
expertise (IC6), design expertise (IC7), finance expertise (IC8), However, CSFs can differ based on the roles and responsibilities;
legal expertise (IC9), skilled workers (IC10), and education and for the construction firm’s top management, the focus is the rel-
training (IC11) (Chan et al. 2004; Arslan and Kivrak 2008; Tong evance to the long-term mission and strategic plan of the firm. For
2016). an individual project manager, there is a set of CSFs on which the
Relationship Engineering. Tong (2016) defined relationship engi- manager must primarily focus; these factors are vital for daily ac-
neering as an interaction with the project stakeholders. The relation- tivities and short-term operational plans. The prior studies neglected
ship among project stakeholders is an indicator of the success of the to categorize the CSFs from short- and long-term planning horizons;
project (Garbharran et al. 2012; Jiang et al. 2016; Gbahabo and integrating FAHP and FDEMATEL helps the top management and
Ajuwon 2017). Toor and Ogunlana (2009) and Gudiene et al. (2014) practitioners to prepare for short-term as well as long-term plans

© ASCE 05020012-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 Content analysis and identification countries and emphasized the significance of considering the per-
Literature Review of initial set of CSFs spective of low-income economies in construction project studies.
Somaliland, located in East Africa and unrecognized interna-
tionally, is a low-income economy. Somaliland operates under an
Fuzzy Delphi survey uncertain economic environment; a handful of local corporations
FAHP pairwise comparison created a closed market system, and foreign ventures have minimal
Data Collection
FDEMATEL factor influences
access (Musa and Horst 2019). The construction sector is one of the
three primary industries that drive and significantly contribute to
Validate and screen out factors economic progress in Somalia (Randa and Musuku 2018). Never-
Prioritize the factors theless, there is an overall underperformance in the Somalian con-
Data Analysis
struction industry, and this is often evident in extensive time delays
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Determine causal interrelationship

between the factors under and cost overruns (Gbahabo and Ajuwon 2017). These often cause
uncertainties and linguistics
project failures and customer dissatisfaction, which consequently
resulted in a financial crisis for the contractors and stakeholders.
Ranking the local and global
Resulsts and Implications Hence, understanding the CSFs is necessary for the contractors to
weights
Identifying the cause and effect
stay competitive and for economic growth in general.
relationship and their strength This study interviewed two groups of professionals from
Providing theoretical and Somaliland. First, 28 professionals were interviewed to validate the
managerial implications subfactors identified from the literature analysis. This group in-
cludes 17 civil and structural engineers, 8 architects, and 3 building
Fig. 1. Study process. engineers. Second, six domain experts with a minimum of 10 years
of industry experience were interviewed to rank and examine the
interdependence between the CSFs. The experts include three civil
engineers, each with more than 25 years of experience, a structural
(Gandhi et al. 2016). Moreover, the prior studies neglected the fuzzi- engineer, a surveyor, and an architect, each with at least 10 years of
ness of human linguistic judgments of qualitative information and industry experience. The current positions of the experts are chief
the presence of uncertainties during data collection. Thus, further executive officers and senior engineers.
investigation is required to explain the effect of planning horizons,
the cause-and-effect interrelationship, and the effect of the fuzziness
of human judgment on the CSFs. Data Collection
Hence, this study incorporates a hybrid approach of fuzzy set A fuzzy Delphi interview is conducted to structure, analyze, and
theory and multicriteria decision-making methods (Fig. 1). The validate the CSFs obtained from the literature content analysis.
fuzzy triangular numbers address the qualitative information and The participants were asked to express their opinions about the
translate the linguistic preferences into crisp values. FDM is applied importance level of each subfactor. The responses were submitted
to validate and screen the CSFs identified in the literature (Hsu et al. using linguistic terms, as given in Table 1. Based on the Delphi
2010; Habibi et al. 2015). FAHP is used to provide the CSFs for consensus, the hierarchical structure of the factors and subfactors
operational plans, and FDEMATEL is used to determine the CSFs was established, and two further interviews were conducted. The
that an organization must perform to achieve its mission and stra- first is designed as a FAHP pairwise comparison table that was used
tegic plan (Wu and Tsai 2012; Kijewska et al. 2018; Zaied et al. to prioritize the factors and subfactors and rank them in terms of
2018). The former provides insights into the factors vital for short- importance. The experts responded by rating the relative impor-
term operational plans, and the latter explains the causal interrela- tance of the subfactors and factors on a six-point linguistic scale
tionships among the factors and subfactors aimed at establishing the (Table 2). The scores were then transferred into their matching tri-
direction of firms (Wu and Tsai 2012; Lin et al. 2018). angular fuzzy numbers using the values in Table 2. Saaty’s consis-
tency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) were applied to measure
Method
Table 1. Fuzzy number linguistics for Delphi and DEMATEL
This section includes the industry background and data collec-
tion and proposes a combination of the FDM, FAHP, and the Linguistic Fuzzy numbers
FDEMATEL analytical methodologies. Very high 0.75, 1.0, 1.0
High 0.5, 0.75, 1.0
Low 0.25, 0.50, 0.75
Case Background Very low 0.0, 0.25, 0.50
Economic growth is measured by the expansion of construction No 0.0, 0.0, 0.25
projects, such as roads, bridges, and buildings (Alzahrani and
Emsley 2013). The construction industry has connections with
other sectors; it contributes to job creation and is recognized as a Table 2. Fuzzy number linguistic terms for FAHP
driving force or stimulant for economic growth (Aga et al. 2016).
Due to the positive association between the construction industry Linguistic (importance) Fuzzy numbers Reciprocal values
and economic growth, construction project success is a top priority Extremely important (EI) 5=2, 3, 7=2 2=7, 1=3, 2=5
for governments and communities. Low-income countries experi- Very highly important (VI) 2, 5=2, 3 1=3, 2=5, 1=2
ence failures in construction projects more than the other nations, Highly important (HI) 3=2, 2, 5=2 2=5, 1=2, 2=3
and a significant cause of these failures is poor strategic planning Important (IM) 1, 3=2, 2 1=2, 2=3, 1
(Rwelamila and Ogunlana 2015). Ofori (2019) highlighted the Slightly important (SI) 1=2, 1, 3=2 2=3, 1, 2
Equally important (EQ) 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1
uniqueness and complexity of the construction environment in these

© ASCE 05020012-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 !1
the consistency and reliability of the judgment from an expert (Saaty X
n n
1980; Liu et al. 2017). The acceptable consistency cut-off was lij ¼ minðlijk Þ; mij ¼ ðmijk Þ ; uij ¼ maxðuijk Þ
CR ≤ 0.1. k¼1
The second interview was aimed at discovering the causal rela- ð5Þ
tionship among factors and subfactors for long-term performance
and strategy recommendations. The same group of experts evaluated
where (lijk , mijk , uijk ) = fuzzy triangular numbers of the aggre-
how a factor or subfactor influences one another. The responses
gated comparison matrices; and (lij , mij , uij ) = judgments of
were submitted using linguistic terms, as provided in Table 1.
each expert k (1; 2; : : : ; n).
Aggregation and defuzzification were needed; hence, this study ap-
• Step 5: Calculate the fuzzy synthetic extent Si for the ith object
plied this in four steps analysis (Lin et al. 2018).
as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fuzzy Delphi " #−1

Xm Xn Xm
A panel of construction professionals consisting of 28 respondents Si ¼ j
M gi × j
M gi ð6Þ
assessed the importance of each subfactor. Experts rely on linguis- j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
tic preferences to express their opinion, and the respondents’ lin-
guistic choice was transformed into fuzzy triangular numbers using where M jgi = value of the extent analysis for m goals, for all
Table 1. The values are aggregated, defuzzified, and checked for (j ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; m)
expert consensus as follows (Habibi et al. 2015):
• Step 1: Aggregate respondent evaluation scores using the geo- !
X m
j
X
m X
m X
m
metric mean and establish the fuzzy weight (wj ) of all subfactors Mgi ¼ li ; mi ; ui ð7Þ
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
( !1 )
X
n n

wj ¼ aj ¼ minðaij Þ; bj ¼ ðbij Þ ; cj ¼ maxðcij Þ " #−1 !

n X
X m
1 1 1
i¼1
Mjgi ¼ Pn ; Pn ; Pn ð8Þ
ð1Þ i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 ui j¼1 mi j¼1 li

where j = evaluation score of subfactor j; i = expert rated the • Step 6: Determine the membership degree of possibility, M 2 ¼
subfactor j; n = number of experts; and a, b, and c = lower, ðl2 ; m2 ; u2 ; Þ ≥ M 1 ¼ ðl1 ; m1 ; u1 ; Þ, defined as follows:
middle, and upper values of fuzzy triangular numbers.
• Step 2: Defuzzify the aggregated fuzzy weights of each VðM 2 ≥ M 1 Þ ¼ uM2 ðdÞ
subfactor (Sj ) 8
>
> 1; if m2 ≥ m1
>
<
aj þ 4bj þ cj 0; if l1 ≥ u2
Sj ¼ j ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; m ð2Þ ¼
6 >
> l1 − u 2
>
:D ¼ ; Otherwise
ðm2 − u2 Þ − ðm1 − l1 Þ
• Step 3: Set threshold (α) for screening out the insignificant sub-
factor, if Sj ≥ α, the jth subfactor is accepted, if Sj < α, the jth ð9Þ
subfactor is rejected, and it will be deleted. Under the typical
situation, α ¼ 0.7 is used (Habibi et al. 2015). where d =ordinate of the highest intersection point (D) between
• Step 4: Rename the accepted subfactors and formulate a ques- uM2 and uM1 .
tionnaire for FAHP and FDEMATEL. • Step 7: Determine the weight vector (W 0 ), as follows:

FAHP d 0 ðCi Þ ¼ min VðSi ≥ Sk Þ ð10Þ

For determining the factors and subfactors weights, Chang (1996)’s
extent analysis procedure was utilized. The responses were collected where Ci ði ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; nÞ ¼ n elements; and d 0 ðCi Þ = weight
as linguistic terms and transferred to the corresponding TFNs, as factor of each element. For k ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; n; k ≠ I, the weight
indicated in Table 2. The steps for the FAHP analysis are as follows: vector is defined as follows:
• Step 1: Based on the fuzzy Delphi results, construct a FAHP
hierarchical structure. W 0 ¼ ðd 0 ðC1 Þ; d 0 ðC2 Þ; : : : ; d 0 ðCn ÞÞT ð11Þ
• Step 2: Construct a pairwise comparison.
• Step 3: Compute the consistency analysis for each pairwise
comparison, as follows:
Table 3. Random index values
λ −k
CI ¼ max ð3Þ RI k
k−1
0 1
0 2
CI 0.58 3
CR ¼ ð4Þ
RI 0.90 4
1.12 5
where CI = consistency index; CR = consistency ratio; λmax = 1.24 6
average consistency measure; k = size of the matrix; and 1.32 7
RI = random index in Table 3 (Saaty 1980). 1.41 8
• Step 4: Aggregate the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices to 1.45 9
1.49 10
combine the decision matrices as follows:

© ASCE 05020012-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 • Step 8: Normalization. The normalized weight W vectors are as • Step 3: Obtain the total relation matrix (Matrix T ¼ tij )
follows:
T ¼ DðI − DÞ−1 ð21Þ
d 0 ðC Þ
dðCi Þ ¼ Pn 0 i ð12Þ where I represent a size n identity matrix.
i d ðCi Þ
• Step 4: Calculate the row (D) and column (R) summations from
where dðCi Þ = weight factor of each element the matrix T and calculate (D þ R and D − R). The x-axis
(D þ R) is the prominence and indicates the importance; the
W ¼ ðdðC1 Þ; dðC2 Þ; : : : ; dðCn ÞÞT ð13Þ y-axis (D − R) denotes the relation. If (D − R) is negative, the
factor is identified as the effect group, and if (D − R) is positive,
• Step 9: Calculate the global weight (W g ) of each factor and sub- it is in the causal group.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

factor as follows: • Step 5: Determine the threshold value (θ) as follows:

Pn
W g ¼ W f × W sf × n ð14Þ D
θ ¼ 12 ð22Þ
n
where W f = weight of the factor; W sf = weight of subfactors;
and n = number of subfactors in a given factor. • Step 6: Obtain the inner dependence matrix (Matrix T 0 ¼ tij0 )
and identify the strength of the cause–effect relationship
FDEMATEL 
tij if tij > θ
For assessing the interrelationships among the factors and subfac- tij0 ¼ ð23Þ
tors, the study applied FDEMATEL. The normalization, aggrega- 0 if tij ≤ θ
tion, and defuzzification procedures were as follows:
• Step 1: Generate the initial direct relation matrix (Matrix A). • Step 7: Generate a causal effect relationship diagram by plotting
The fuzzy weight of the ith factor affecting the D þ R, D − R.
 jth factor as 
evaluated by kth expert is represented by wkij ¼ ak1ij ; ak2ij ; ak3ij .
Thus, normalization is done using Eq. (15)
Results
9
xak1ij ¼ ½ðak1ij − minak1ij Þ=Δmax
min  >
=
xak2ij ¼ ½ðak2ij − minak1ij Þ=Δmax
min  ð15Þ Fuzzy Delphi Results
>
;
xa3ij ¼ ½ða3ij − mina1ij Þ=Δmin 
k k k max The initially proposed set of five factors and 29 subfactors are
shown in the Appendix. A FDM assessment was conducted, the
where Δmax min ¼ maxa3ij − a1ij ; and ðxa1ij ; xa2ij ; xa3ij Þ = nor-
k k k k k subfactors with defuzzified weights below the threshold value are
malized values of a triangular fuzzy number. deleted, and the 25 subfactors in consensus are renamed. The
Compute the right (xrskij ) and left (xlskij ) normalized values as weights of each subfactor and the acceptance and rejection decision
are given in Table 4. The hierarchical structure of the factors and
follows:
subfactors was established based on the consensus from the Delphi
( ! !) panelists, and is shown in Fig. 2.
k k
xa 2ij xa 3ij
ðxlskij ; xrskij Þ ¼ ;
ð1 þ xak2ij − xak1ij Þ ð1 þ xak3ij − xak2ij Þ
FAHP Results
ð16Þ
All the judgments were acceptable with a CR ≤ 0.1 [Table 5]. The
Calculate the total normalized crisp value ðxkij Þ as follows: aggregated results for the subfactors and factors are summarized in
xkij ¼ fxlskij ð1 − xlskij Þ þ xrskij × xlskij g=ð1 − xlskij þ xrskij Þ Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Table 8 presents the values of the fuzzy
synthetic extent.
ð17Þ The local and global weights are provided in Table 9. The results
Compute the crisp values (wkij ) as follows: indicated the highest-ranking factor was relationship engineering
(A3), followed by contractor capability (A5) and project attributes
wkij ¼ minak1ij þ xkij Δmax
min ð18Þ (A4). From the top 10 subfactors, four are from relationship engi-
neering, three originate from the contractor’s capabilities, and three
Generate the initial direct relation matrix (Matrix A ¼ aij ), from the project attributes. The subfactors with the highest weights
which is the sum of the crisp values divided by the total number are relationship with clients or owners (C9), the economic and fi-
of respondents, a follows: nancial situation of the contractor (C22), relationship with consul-
  X tants and designers (C10), contractors’ top management support
1 N
(C23), project funds and resources (C19), project planning (C16),
aij ¼ × wkij ð19Þ
N k¼1 relationship with subcontractors or suppliers (C11), relationship
with public (C12), technical and professional capability of the con-
where N = total number of experts that participated. tractor (C21), and project schedule (C15).
• Step 2: Construct the normalized direct relation matrix (Matrix D)
as follows:
FDEMATEL Results
A
D¼ Pn ð20Þ The results were normalized as left (ls) and right (rs) values, the
max j¼1 aij total normalized crisp values were determined, and the total crisp
1≤i≤n
values were calculated using Eq. (18). The initial direct relation
where n = number of factors or subfactors. matrix (Matrix A) was calculated employing Eq. (19) and is given

© ASCE 05020012-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 Table 4. FDM evaluation results the effect group with the highest negative D − R; it receives more
FDM influence from the other factors more than it dispatches.
Factors Renamed subfactor weight Decision Moreover, as presented in Fig. 4, the subfactors causal effect
diagram, the effect group was found to include C5, C6, C7, C9,
A1: External C1. Economic environment 0.752 Accepted
environment C2. Social environment 0.766 Accepted
C10, C11, C12, C14, C15, C18, and C24. The causal subfactors
C3. Political and legal 0.752 Accepted were found to be C1, C2, C3, C4, C8, C13, C16, C17, C19,
environment C20, C21, C22, C23, and C25. Most of the subfactors related to
A1 and A4 factors were found to be causal groups among the sub-
C4. Technological environment 0.767 Accepted factors, whereas those related to A2, A3, and A5 are mostly in the
A2: Human C5. Managerial expertise 0.782 Accepted
effect group.
resource C6. Design expertise 0.749 Accepted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C7. Skilled workers 0.840 Accepted

C8. Education and training 0.760 Accepted
Production expertise 0.665 Rejected Implications
Finance expertise 0.604 Rejected
Legal expertise 0.617 Rejected Theoretical Implications
A3: Relationship C9. With clients or owners 0.834 Accepted The FAHP findings offer useful insights into the short-term opera-
engineering C10. With consultant and 0.746 Accepted
tional plans with a particular emphasis on the uniqueness of a single
designers
C11. With subcontractors and 0.734 Accepted
project. In contrast, the FDEMATEL results help top managers to
suppliers understand the interrelationship among factors and are useful for
C12. With public 0.719 Accepted long-term strategies aimed at establishing the direction of firms,
With government 0.628 Rejected such as forecasting, strategic planning, and market positioning.
departments Hence, integrating the results from the two approaches allows for an
improvement in both the firm’s short- and long-term perspectives.
A4: Project C13. Project cost 0.790 Accepted
Attributes C14. Procurement management 0.740 Accepted Operations Management
C15. Project schedule 0.740 Accepted
Relationship engineering (A3) is essential for project managers
C16. Planning 0.804 Accepted
C17. Materials and equipment 0.813 Accepted when the goal is to enhance the performance of the project team
C18. Supervision level 0.872 Accepted in a short-term context, such as daily operations, attitudes, skills,
C19. Adequate funds/resources 0.854 Accepted production quality, and equipment condition. A3 is necessary for
the successful daily progress of the project’s implementation. To
A5: Contractor C20. Company characteristics 0.724 Accepted achieve the desired quality, the project team must pay attention to
capability C21. Technical and professional 0.740 Accepted
communication channels, and project information must be shared
ability
C22. Economic and financial 0.755 Accepted among all stakeholders, particularly with the clients or owners,
situation designers, consultants, subcontractors, and suppliers (Jha and Iyer
C23. Top management support 0.765 Accepted 2006; Tong 2016).
C24. Working conditions 0.721 Accepted Contractor capabilities (A5), such as the economic and financial
C25. Advanced technologies 0.718 Accepted situation of the firm, the contractors’ top management commit-
ments, technical and professional abilities, working conditions, and
Threshold — 0.700
all the factors directly related to the contractor undertaking the con-
struction projects, are found to be crucial for short-term operational
plan implementation. The contractor’s commitment and full sup-
port for the project accelerate the successful execution of the proj-
in Table 10. The normalized direct relation matrix was constructed ect and the attainment of the project goals. Hence, top managers
utilizing Eq. (20) (Table 11). need to give the project high priority and consideration (Belassi and
The total relation matrix was calculated from Eq. (21) and is Tukel 1996; Gudiene et al. 2014).
provided in Table 12. The rows and columns in Table 12 were The project attributes (A4), such as project schedules and real-
summed to obtain D and R, D − R, and D þ R. The outcomes istic project goals, are found to be highly significant for a project’s
for the factors and subfactors are presented in Tables 13 and 14, success, confirming the previous findings and suggestions (Arslan
respectively. and Kivrak 2008; Gudiene et al. 2014). Hence, project managers
The causal effect diagram was plotted from a D þ R, D − R need to be particularly cautious about the availability of project
data set for the factors and subfactors. In Table 13, the project funds, the details of the level of planning, and project schedules.
attributes (A4) hold the highest prominence (D þ R), that is, when
the interrelationship of factors is taken into consideration, it has the Strategic Management
highest degree of influence. The least influential factor is relation- In terms of long-term strategic planning, implementation, and
ship engineering (A3). The prominence values are summarized as evaluation, the findings from this study indicate that top managers
A4 > A5 > A2 > A1 > A3. Moreover, the relation axis D − R need to concentrate on the external environment (A1) and project
classifies the factors into causal and effect groups (Fig. 3). The fac- attributes (A4) because two have a strong influence and are causal
tors with positive D − R values are the causal groups, A4 and A1 factors (Nilashi et al. 2015; Musa and Horst 2019). The external
lie on the positive portion of the axis and hence are the causal fac- environment mainly affects the project during the planning phase,
tors, whereas A2, A3, and A5 lie on the negative side of the D − R which implies that it affects the project in the long run (Belassi
axis and are the effect group. A1 has the highest D − R value, and Tukel 1996). Therefore, national circumstances, such as the
which means it dispatches more influence on others than it receives. economy, the political system, stability, and technology affordabil-
A4 is in second place; this factor dispatches a strong influence on ity, need proper consideration. These affect the motivation of the
others, but also it receives a medium influence from A1. A2 lies in stakeholders and access to the right materials and equipment for

© ASCE 05020012-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Hierarchy model of factors and subfactors.

Table 5. Factor and subfactors rating consistency of experts

Overall
factors Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6
Subfactor
Expert CI CR rating CI CR CI CR CI CR CI CR CI CR CI CR
1 0.08 0.07 AS1 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05
2 0.04 0.04 AS2 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06
3 0.06 0.05 AS3 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05
4 0.07 0.06 AS4 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.08
5 0.05 0.04 AS5 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
6 0.08 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

project implementation (Zhang 2005; Musa et al. 2015). Project Managerial Implications
managers, as well as top management, should possess the ability
to understand current circumstances and forecast any changes that Project Managers and Supervisors
may occur along the project timeline. Building and sustaining relationships with clients or owners were
Another critical element for strategic management is A4. This found to be the most critical subfactors for the daily progress of the
factor encompasses the nature of the project, such as cost, planning, project. Hence, project management teams must build a positive
schedule, materials used, supervision, and the availability of funds attitude by communicating effectively, being open with the clients,
and resources. Acknowledging this factor will help the firm’s stra- and sharing information related to the project. The second critical
tegic planners and project managers to reach the overall goals suc- point that project team leaders should focus on is monitoring the
cessfully, such as reaping business profit from the project, on time contractor’s financial and economic circumstances. Financial infor-
completing the project, inside a budget, and with the desired qual- mation about the contractor helps in understanding the reasons for
ity, and staying competitive in the market (Arslan and Kivrak 2008; previous project failures or successes and in predicting and plan-
Gudiene et al. 2014). A4 is a decisive factor that affects other fac- ning for the ongoing project’s successful completion.
tors, and it needs to be considered in the preplanning phase of the The relationships with consultants and designers should also be
project. Planners and managers need to know all the information priorities by the project managers. Both designers and consultants
about the project’s complexity, funds and resources available, proj- are influential figures who have the necessary knowledge, exper-
ect costs, and benefits (Kim and Reinschmidt 2011). tise, and authority to influence the project client. Proper integration

© ASCE 05020012-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 Table 6. Aggregated fuzzy pairwise comparison for subfactors
AS1 C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.58 3.50 0.40 0.72 2.00 1.00 2.17 3.50
C2 0.29 0.39 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.45 0.67 0.40 1.42 3.50
C3 0.50 1.61 2.50 1.50 2.25 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.58 3.50
C4 0.29 0.49 1.00 0.29 1.08 2.50 0.29 0.40 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00
AS2 C5 C6 C7 C8
C5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 2.28 3.50 0.33 0.58 1.00 0.29 0.75 2.00
C6 0.29 0.57 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.38 0.50 0.29 0.48 1.00
C7 1.00 1.83 3.00 2.00 2.67 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.83 3.50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C8 0.50 1.61 3.50 1.00 2.17 3.50 0.29 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AS3 C9 C10 C11 C12
C9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.08 2.50 0.50 1.86 3.00 0.40 2.33 3.50
C10 0.40 1.31 2.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 2.50 0.33 1.82 3.00
C11 0.33 0.65 2.00 0.40 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.86 3.00
C12 0.29 0.64 2.50 0.33 0.82 3.00 0.33 0.65 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AS4 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19
C13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.17 3.00 0.29 0.96 2.00 0.29 0.98 2.00 0.50 1.86 3.50 0.40 1.58 3.00 0.29 0.91 2.50
C14 0.33 0.73 2.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.44 0.67 0.29 0.43 0.67 0.33 0.76 2.00 0.33 0.53 1.50 0.29 0.37 0.50
C15 0.50 1.58 3.50 1.50 2.33 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.79 2.00 0.50 1.69 3.00 0.29 1.33 2.50 0.29 0.77 3.00
C16 0.50 1.50 3.50 1.50 2.42 3.50 0.50 1.53 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 2.36 3.50 1.50 2.08 3.00 0.33 0.71 2.00
C17 0.29 0.72 2.00 0.50 1.53 3.00 0.33 0.71 2.00 0.29 0.56 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.79 2.50 0.29 0.41 0.67
C18 0.33 0.99 2.50 0.67 2.08 3.00 0.40 1.14 3.50 0.33 0.48 0.67 0.40 1.67 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.42 1.00
C19 0.40 2.00 3.50 2.00 2.75 3.50 0.33 2.07 3.50 0.50 1.69 3.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 1.00 2.50 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
AS5 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
C20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.88 3.50 0.29 0.39 0.67 0.29 0.41 1.00 0.33 0.82 2.50 0.33 1.21 3.00
C21 0.29 1.97 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.56 1.00 0.29 0.66 2.00 0.29 1.42 2.50 0.40 1.50 3.50
C22 1.50 2.58 3.50 1.00 1.92 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 3.00 1.00 2.08 3.00 1.50 2.42 3.50
C23 1.00 2.58 3.50 0.50 1.94 3.50 0.33 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.08 3.50 1.00 2.17 3.50
C24 0.40 1.58 3.00 0.40 1.11 3.50 0.33 0.49 1.00 0.29 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.36 2.00
C25 0.33 1.21 3.00 0.29 1.03 2.50 0.29 0.42 0.67 0.29 0.49 1.00 0.50 0.81 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 7. Combined pairwise comparison for factors

Factor AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5
AS1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.67 3.00 0.29 0.37 0.67 0.29 0.37 0.67 0.33 0.49 1.00
AS2 0.33 0.65 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.36 0.50 0.29 0.36 0.50 0.29 0.41 0.67
AS3 1.50 2.75 3.50 2.00 2.83 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 3.00
AS4 1.00 2.08 3.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 0.33 0.68 2.00 0.33 0.68 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AS5 0.50 2.00 3.00 0.50 2.33 3.50 0.50 0.83 2.00 0.50 0.83 2.00 0.50 1.58 3.00

Table 8. Fuzzy synthetic extent for factors them through commitment, guidance, and involvement. It is recom-
Factor Fuzzy synthetic extent mended that the project management team make sure that the top
management understands and is aware of their significance in the
AS1 (0.05, 0.13, 0.36)
project’s success. Furthermore, they need to guarantee the availabil-
AS2 (0.05, 0.09, 0.26)
AS3 (0.14, 0.31, 0.68) ity of the resources necessary for project implementation and to
AS4 (0.09, 0.23, 0.65) show the leadership qualities that are required to deal with unfore-
AS5 (0.05, 0.25, 0.76) seen circumstances.
Funds and resources are also a significant factor in fueling the
progress of the project. The project management team needs to es-
timate the project budget and resources carefully, check the avail-
and communication between the contractor or project team and the ability of the funds, and allocate the budget by prioritizing the
consultants or designers ensure that client satisfaction fuels the project deliverables. The project management team should also im-
project’s progress and paves the way for the smooth implementa- prove the partnership and communication with the subcontractors
tion of day-to-day activities. or suppliers for better performance and daily progress; subcontrac-
Top management support for the project’s implementation is one tors and suppliers can influence the project’s schedule, cost, and
of the dominant elements leading to potential success or failure. performance, so it must be a priority factor for the project man-
Securing top management support should be a priority for the proj- agers. Project planning or finding the best strategy for the suc-
ect implementation team. Higher-level management can support cessful completion of the project is a crucial principle in attaining

© ASCE 05020012-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 Table 9. Factor and subfactor weights and rankings
Factors Weights (ranking) Subfactors Local weights Global weights Ranking
External environment 0.149 (4) C1. Economic environment 0.301 (2) 0.179 18
C2. Social environment 0.198 (3) 0.118 21
C3. Political and legal environment 0.322 (1) 0.192 17
C4. Technological environment 0.179 (4) 0.107 23
Human resource 0.100 (5) C5. Managerial expertise 0.250 (3) 0.100 24
C6. Design expertise 0.153 (4) 0.061 25
C7. Skilled workers 0.321 (1) 0.128 20
C8. Education and training 0.276 (2) 0.110 22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Relationship engineering 0.271 (1) C9. With clients or owners 0.271 (1) 0.326 1
C10. With consultants and designers 0.268 (2) 0.291 3
C11. With subcontractors or suppliers 0.233 (3) 0.253 7
C12. With public 0.228 (4) 0.247 8
Project attributes 0.233 (3) C13. Project cost 0.149 (4) 0.243 11
C14. Procurement management 0.102 (7) 0.166 19
C15. Project schedule 0.151 (3) 0.246 10
C16. Planning 0.160 (2) 0.261 6
C17. Materials and equipment 0.126 (6) 0.206 16
C18. Supervision level 0.138 (5) 0.225 13
C19. Adequate funds/resources 0.173 (1) 0.282 5
Contractor capability 0.247 (2) C20. Company characteristics 0.147 (5) 0.218 14
C21. Technical and professional capability 0.167 (3) 0.247 9
C22. Economic and financial situation 0.200 (1) 0.296 2
C23. Top management support 0.191 (2) 0.283 4
C24. Working conditions 0.154 (4) 0.228 12
C25. Advanced technologies 0.142 (6) 0.210 15

Table 10. FDEMATEL initial direct relation matrix Table 13. Factors’ prominence and relation axis for cause and effect group
Factor A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Sum Factor D R DþR D−R
A1 0.000 0.468 0.295 0.569 0.539 1.871 A1 6.943 6.245 13.188 0.698
A2 0.186 0.000 0.494 0.529 0.469 1.679 A2 6.314 6.926 13.240 (0.612)
A3 0.379 0.380 0.000 0.506 0.474 1.739 A3 6.514 6.553 13.067 (0.039)
A4 0.575 0.494 0.519 0.000 0.571 2.158 A4 7.741 7.473 15.215 0.268
A5 0.506 0.534 0.437 0.474 0.000 1.951 A5 7.114 7.430 14.544 (0.316)
— — — — — Maximum 2.158 — — Maximum 15.215 0.698
— — Minimum 13.067 (0.612)
— — Average 13.851 0.000
Table 11. FDEMATEL normalized direct relation matrix Note: Parentheses denotes negative value.
Factor A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
A1 0.000 0.217 0.137 0.264 0.250 relationship with government departments, the technical and pro-
A2 0.086 0.000 0.229 0.245 0.217 fessional capabilities of the contractor, and the relationship with the
A3 0.176 0.176 0.000 0.234 0.220 public.
A4 0.266 0.229 0.240 0.000 0.264
A5 0.234 0.248 0.203 0.220 0.000 Top Managers
The economic and financial situation of the company was found to
be the most influential subfactor for long-term decision making.
Table 12. FDEMATEL total relation matrix The top management, including the highest-ranking executives,
Factor A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
such as the president, vice president, chief executive officer, and
chief operating officer, needs to consider the information related to
A1 1.126 1.426 1.302 1.552 1.537 the contractor’s past, present, and future financial predictions to
A2 1.110 1.132 1.263 1.417 1.392
ensure that the company can successfully implement the project.
A3 1.206 1.319 1.106 1.449 1.433
A4 1.464 1.575 1.506 1.498 1.699
According to the findings of this study, consistent gauging and
A5 1.339 1.475 1.375 1.557 1.368 monitoring of the financial well-being of the company are essential
for contractors. Another factor that contributes significantly to suc-
cess is economic stability; the success of a project is connected to
the country’s development, inflation rates, and taxation policies.
short- and long-term success. The project managers should offer a These factors affect the funds, resources, and the general financial
clear vision of the objectives, set out the best strategies, implement health of the company. Hence, the findings indicated that an atten-
the plan, and define the subfactors by which to measure success. tive and detailed analysis of the economy is necessary when plan-
Other factors that need consideration for daily progress are the ning for project success.

© ASCE 05020012-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 1.5 D-R
Table 14. Subfactors’ prominence and relation axis for cause and effect C23
group
1.0 C3
Subfactors D R DþR D−R C25
C1

C1 4.686 3.791 8.477 0.895 0.5 C4 C16

C2 C13
C19 C22
C2 3.819 3.504 7.323 0.314 C20 C17 C21
C8
C3 3.111 2.141 5.252 0.970 0.0
C4 4.055 3.624 7.679 0.431 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5C5 8.0 8.5 9.0
C9
C12 C24 D+R
C5 3.684 3.774 7.458 (0.091) -0.5
C6 3.492 4.123 7.616 (0.631) C15 C6 C14
C10 C7
C7 3.886 4.654 8.540 (0.769) -1.0 C18
C8 3.611 3.544 7.155 0.067
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C11
C9 3.393 3.670 7.062 (0.277)
-1.5
C10 3.198 3.953 7.151 (0.755)
C11 2.683 3.961 6.644 (1.277) Fig. 4. Causal effect diagram among subfactors.
C12 2.973 3.456 6.429 (0.484)
C13 4.232 3.891 8.123 0.340
C14 3.629 4.276 7.905 (0.647)
construction projects. It proposed a set of valid CSFs to measure
C15 2.930 3.472 6.401 (0.542)
C16 4.153 3.711 7.865 0.442 construction projects under uncertain economic environments using
C17 3.980 3.691 7.670 0.289 linguistic preferences. The result offers top management, project
C18 2.554 3.504 6.058 (0.950) managers, and project stakeholders the core elements for short- and
C19 4.178 3.785 7.963 0.392 long-term success.
C20 3.483 3.433 6.917 0.050 The findings demonstrate that project attributes have a sub-
C21 4.222 4.069 8.291 0.153 stantial effect on human resources and relationship management,
C22 4.540 4.198 8.738 0.343 whereas the external environment has a moderate impact on project
C23 4.175 2.828 7.003 1.347 attributes and contractor capabilities. The results indicate that rela-
C24 3.607 3.990 7.597 (0.383) tionship management and contractor capabilities are essential to
C25 4.478 3.706 8.184 0.772
— — Maximum 8.738 1.347
achieve short-term progress. In contrast, the external environment
— — Minimum 5.252 (1.277) and project attributes are the most influential factors when devising
— — Average 7.420 (0.000) long-term strategies. The causal subfactors that have the most sub-
stantial influence were found to be the contractor’s economic and
Note: Parentheses denotes negative value.
financial situation, the state of the economy, the contractor’s tech-
nical and professional capabilities, project costs, project funds and
Conclusion resources, and the usage of advanced technologies. These subfac-
tors are the predominant factors that make a substantial contribu-
Prior studies have focused on the identification and ranking of tion to achieving project goals and overall success.
CSFs in construction projects while neglecting the cause and effect This study makes several contributions. First, it develops a
relationship among the factors and subfactors. Furthermore, there guideline to measure construction projects. The identification of
is a need to explain the factors from short- and long-term planning critical factors and subfactors improves the awareness and under-
horizons, and explanations regarding the vagueness of human standing among project planners and the execution team about the
judgment are lacking. Additionally, the CSF results in the literature CSFs that can affect the progress, performance, and outcome of the
differ across countries and economic conditions. Hence, this study project. Second, ranking and finding the interrelationships among
has identified, prioritized, and explored the interrelationship of CSFs help strategic managers and project managers structurally and
the CSFs of construction projects in low-income economies. This systematically formulate short- and long-term plans, for instance,
study applied a combination of the FDM, FAHP, and FDEMATEL emphasizing that causal factors, such as the external environment
methodologies and placed particular emphasis on the uniqueness of and project attributes, influence the effect group factors, such as

External
0.8 environment (A1)
D-R
0.6

0.4 Project attributes

(A4)
0.2 Relationship
engineering (A3)
0.0
12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0
Contractor
-0.2 capabilities (A5) D+R

-0.4

-0.6
Human resources
-0.8 (A2)

Fig. 3. Causal effect diagram among factors.

© ASCE 05020012-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 contractor capabilities, human resources, and relationship engineer- Data Availability Statement
ing. Therefore, ongoing project performance is improved, and an
effective strategy for future projects can be devised. This enables Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
contractors to allocate resources, including financial, human, and corresponding author by request.
time, according to the importance of the factors.
This paper has limitations. First, the survey selected and evalu-
ated a set of 29 subfactors; the hierarchical interrelationships are Acknowledgments
not necessarily complete, and more factors can be included in fu-
ture studies to deepen the understanding of CSFs. Second, the The authors are grateful to the editor and three reviewers who
number of experts for assessing the factors is limited, and future helped clarify and improve this presentation.
studies should consider including more experts to develop a more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

solid conclusion. Third, the findings are based on the Somaliland

construction industry; studies in different countries may have dif- References
ferent results; future comparison studies should be considered to
address the generalizability problem. Furthermore, this study ap- Addae, B. A., L. Zhang, P. Zhou, and F. Wang. 2019. “Analyzing barriers of
plied FAHP and FDEMATEL; in the future, other prioritization Smart Energy City in Accra with two-step fuzzy DEMATEL.” Cities
89 (Jun): 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.043.
and interdependence methods can be used, and the results can be
Aga, D. A., N. Noorderhaven, and B. Vallejo. 2016. “Transformational
compared. leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 34 (5): 806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2016.02.012.
Appendix. Initial Set of Factors and Subfactors Altarawneh, J. Y., and B. Samadi. 2019. “The relationship between critical
Obtained from Literature Analysis success factors and success criteria in construction projects in the
United Arab Emirates.” Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 6 (7): 43–53. https://doi
Factors Subfactors References .org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.07.006.
Alzahrani, J. I., and M. W. Emsley. 2013. “The impact of contractors’ attrib-
A1. External IC1. Economic environment Gudiene et al. (2014),
utes on construction project success: A post construction evaluation.”
environment IC2. Social environment Omran et al. (2012),
Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (2): 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
IC3. Political and legal Tan and Ghazali
.ijproman.2012.06.006.
environment (2011), and Arslan and
Arslan, G., and S. Kivrak. 2008. “Critical factors to company success in
IC4. Technological Kivrak (2008)
the construction industry.” World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 45 (1):
environment
997–1000.
A2. Human IC5. Managerial expertise Tong (2016), Arslan Belassi, W., and O. I. Tukel. 1996. “A new framework for determining criti-
resource IC6. Production expertise and Kivrak (2008), cal success/failure factors in projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 14 (3):
IC7. Design expertise and Chan et al. (2004) 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X.
IC8. Finance expertise Berssaneti, F. T., and M. M. Carvalho. 2015. “Identification of variables
IC9. Legal expertise that impact project success in Brazilian companies.” Int. J. Project Man-
IC10. Skilled workers age. 33 (3): 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.002.
IC11. Education and training Chan, A. P., D. Scott, and A. P. Chan. 2004. “Factors affecting the success
of a construction project.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (1): 153–155.
A3. Relationship IC12. With government Tong (2016), Jha and https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153).
engineering departments Iyer (2006), and Chan
Chang, D. Y. 1996. “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy
IC13. With clients or owners et al. (2004)
AHP.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 95 (3): 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377
IC14. With consultants and
-2217(95)00300-2.
designers
Collier, P., M. Kirchberger, and M. Söderbom. 2015. The cost of road infra-
IC15. With subcontractors or
structure in low and middle income countries. Washington, DC: World
suppliers
Bank.
IC16. With public
Esmaeili, B., E. Pellicer, and K. R. Molenaar. 2016. “Critical success fac-
A4. Project IC17. Project cost Gudiene et al. (2014), tors for construction projects.” In Project management and engineering
attributes IC18. Procurement Yong and Mustaffa research, 3–14. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
management (2013), Omran et al. Gandhi, S., S. K. Mangla, P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2016. “A combined
IC19. Project schedule (2012), and Arslan and approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in
IC20. Planning Kivrak (2008) implementation of green supply chain management in Indian manufac-
IC21. Materials and turing industries.” Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 19 (6): 537–561. https://doi
equipment .org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126.
IC22. Supervision level Garbharran, H., J. Govender, and T. Msani. 2012. “Critical success factors
IC23. Adequate influencing project success in the construction industry.” Acta Structilia
funds/resources 19 (2): 90–108.
Gbahabo, P. T., and O. S. Ajuwon. 2017. “Effects of project cost overruns
A5. Contractor IC24. Company Gudiene et al. (2014), and schedule delays in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Eur. J. Interdiscip. Stud.
capability characteristics Belassi and Tukel 3 (2): 46–59. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejis.v3i2.p46-59.
IC25. Technical and (1996), Jha and Iyer
Gudiene, N., A. Banaitis, and N. Banaitienė. 2013. “Evaluation of critical
professional ability (2006), and Arslan and
success factors for construction projects—An empirical study in
IC26. Economic and Kivrak (2008)
Lithuania.” Int. J. Strategic Property Manage. 17 (1): 21–31. https://doi
financial situation
.org/10.3846/1648715X.2013.787128.
IC27. Top management
Gudiene, N., A. Banaitis, V. Podvezko, and N. Banaitienė. 2014. “Identi-
support
fication and evaluation of the critical success factors for construction
IC28. Working conditions
projects in Lithuania: AHP approach.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 20 (3):
IC29. Advanced technologies
350–359. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.914082.

© ASCE 05020012-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012

 Habibi, A., F. F. Jahantigh, and A. Sarafrazi. 2015. “Fuzzy Delphi tech- Rwelamila, P. D., and S. Ogunlana. 2015. Construction in developing coun-
nique for forecasting and screening items.” Asian J. Res. Bus. Econ. tries research roadmap. Conseil International du Bâtiment Rep.
Manage. 5 (2): 130–143. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7307.2015 Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-
.00036.5. Hill.
Hsu, Y. L., C. H. Lee, and V. B. Kreng. 2010. “The application of fuzzy Sato, C., and M. Chagas Jr. 2014. “When do megaprojects start and finish?
Delphi method and fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology se- Redefining project lead time for megaproject success.” Int. J. Manage.
lection.” Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (1): 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Projects Bus. 7 (4): 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2012
.eswa.2009.05.068. -0040.
Jha, K. N., and K. C. Iyer. 2006. “Critical factors affecting quality perfor- Silva, K., B. N. F. Warnakulasooriya, and H. A. Bhadra. 2016. “Criteria for
mance in construction projects.” Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excellence construction project success: A literature review.” In Proc., 13th Int.
17 (9): 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360600750444. Conf. on Business Management. Gangodawila, Sri Lanka: Univ. of
Jiang, W., Y. Lu, and Y. Le. 2016. “Trust and project success: A two fold
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur" on 03/01/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sri Jayewardenepura. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2910305.

perspective between owners and contractors.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (6):
Sirisawat, P., and T. Kiatcharoenpol. 2018. “Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS ap-
04016022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000469.
proaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers.” Comput.
Kijewska, K., W. Torbacki, and S. Iwan. 2018. “Application of AHP and
Ind. Eng. 117 (Mar): 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.01
DEMATEL methods in choosing and analysing the measures for the
.015.
distribution of goods in Szczecin region.” Sustainability 10 (7): 2365.
Tan, D. J., and F. M. Ghazali. 2011. “Critical success factors for Malaysian
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072365.
Kim, B. C., and K. F. Reinschmidt. 2011. “Combination of project cost fore- contractors in international construction projects using analytical hier-
casts in earned value management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (11): archy process.” Masters thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti
958–966. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000352. Sains Malaysia.
Lam, E. W., A. P. Chan, and D. W. Chan. 2008. “Determinants of successful Todorovic, M. L., D. C. Petrovic, M. M. Mihic, V. L. Obradovic, and S. D.
design-build projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (5): 333–341. Bushuyev. 2014. “Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(333). based approach in project management.” Int. J. Project Manage. 33 (4):
Lin, K. P., M. L. Tseng, and P. F. Pai. 2018. “Sustainable supply chain 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.009.
management using approximate fuzzy DEMATEL method.” Resour. Tong, C. K. T. 2016. “Identification of critical success factors for contrac-
Conserv. Recycl. 128 (Jan): 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec tors in Hong Kong.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Business and Tourism,
.2016.11.017. Southern Cross Univ.
Liu, F., Y. Peng, W. Zhang, and W. Pedrycz. 2017. “On consistency in AHP Toor, S. U. R., and S. O. Ogunlana. 2009. “Construction professionals’
and fuzzy AHP.” J. Syst. Sci. Inf. 5 (2): 128–147. https://doi.org/10 perception of critical success factors for large-scale construction
.21078/JSSI-2017-128-20. projects.” Constr. Innovation 9 (2): 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1108
Maghsoodi, A. I., and M. Khalilzadeh. 2017. “Identification and evaluation /14714170910950803.
of construction projects’ critical success factors employing fuzzy- Turkyilmaz, A., M. Guney, F. Karaca, Z. Bagdatkyzy, A. Sandybayeva, and
TOPSIS approach.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (5): 1593–1605. https://doi G. Sirenova. 2019. “A comprehensive construction and demolition
.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1970-2. waste management model using PESTEL and 3R for construction com-
Musa, A. M., and C. Horst. 2019. “State formation and economic develop- panies operating in Central Asia.” Sustainability 11 (6): 1593. https://
ment in post-war Somaliland: The impact of the private sector in an doi.org/10.3390/su11061593.
unrecognised state.” Conflict Secur. Dev. 19 (1): 35–53. https://doi Turner, N., H. Maylor, and J. Swart. 2015. “Ambidexterity in projects:
.org/10.1080/14678802.2019.1561621. An intellectual capital perspective.” Int. J. Project Manage. 33 (1):
Musa, M. M., R. Bin Amirudin, T. Sofield, and M. A. Musa. 2015. 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.05.002.
“Influence of external environmental factors on the success of public World Bank. 2020. “World Bank country and lending groups.” Accessed
housing projects in developing countries.” Constr. Econ. Build. 15 (4): February 6, 2020. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase
30. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v15i4.4514. /articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.
Nguyen, L. H. 2019. “Relationships between critical factors related to team
Wu, H. H., and Y. N. Tsai. 2012. “An integrated approach of AHP and
behaviors and client satisfaction in construction project organizations.”
DEMATEL methods in evaluating the criteria of auto spare parts in-
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (3): 04019002. https://doi.org/10.1061
dustry.” Int. J. Syst. Sci. 43 (11): 2114–2124. https://doi.org/10.1080
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001620.
/00207721.2011.564674.
Nilashi, M., R. Zakaria, O. Ibrahim, M. Z. A. Majid, R. M. Zin, and M.
Yazdani, M., M. R. Abdi, N. Kumar, M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, and
Farahmand. 2015. “MCPCM: A DEMATEL-ANP-based multi-criteria
decision-making approach to evaluate the critical success factors in con- F. T. Chan. 2019. “Improved decision model for evaluating risks in
struction projects.” Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 40 (2): 343–361. https://doi.org construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (5): 04019024.
/10.1007/s13369-014-1529-1. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001640.
Ofori, G. 2019. “Construction in developing countries: Need for new con- Yong, Y. C., and N. E. Mustaffa. 2013. “Critical success factors for
cepts.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 23 (2): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.21315 Malaysian construction projects: An empirical assessment.” Constr.
/jcdc2018.23.2.1. Manag. Econ. 31 (9): 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
Omran, A., M. A. Abdulbagei, and A. O. Gebril. 2012. “An evaluation of .2013.828843.
the critical success factors for construction projects in Libya.” Int. J. Zaied, A. N. H., M. O. Grida, and G. S. Hussein. 2018. “Evaluation of
Econ. Behav. 2 (1): 17–25. critical success factors for business intelligence systems using fuzzy
Randa, J., and T. B. Musuku. 2018. “Somalia economic update.” Ac- AHP.” J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 96 (19): 6406–6422.
cessed December 23, 2018. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated Zhang, X. 2005. “Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in
/en/975231536256355812/pdf/REPLACEMENT-PUBLIC-Somalia infrastructure development.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (1): 3–14.
-Economic-Update-3-FINAL.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:1(3).

© ASCE 05020012-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(10): 05020012