Nwachukwu, C V; Udeaja, C; Chileshe, N and Okere, C E (2017) The critical success factors for stakeholder management in the restoration of built heritage assets in the UK. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 35(4), pp. 304-331.
Abstract
Purpose Built heritage or historic assets (BHAs) constructed in the pre-nineteenth century in the UK are perceived to have certain characteristics which instill cultural significance in them and have seen them become valuable to the economy of the country. The heritage sector makes significant contributions to the UK economy through provision of tourist attractive sites, construction and servicing of heritage assets, heritage conservation, research, and commercial activities carried out within and around heritage assets. These benefits have seen them draw considerable interests from diverse stakeholders within and outside the heritage sector. Hence, a lot of attention is drawn toward restoration of such assets, from stakeholders of different interests, ranging from advocacies for no alteration to complete alteration of the heritage assets. As with construction projects, conflict of interests amongst stakeholders affect the outcome of restoration projects and the purpose of this paper is to examine the critical success factors (CSFs) for managing the stakeholders to achieve the projects' objectives. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the views and experiences of practitioners in the heritage sector who have been involved with BHA restoration projects. A total of 32 CSFs for stakeholder management, obtained through rigorous reviews of literature, were subjected to a severe scrutiny with eight restoration experts to determine the importance of the CSFs in restoration projects. The outcome of the exercise was a modified list of 20 CSFs which were further tested on 52 restoration practitioners in the UK using a structured questionnaire to determine the degree of importance of each of the CSFs in restoration projects and their relationships as perceived by the practitioners. Findings The results of the analyses performed on the data show that most of the CSFs were perceived by restoration practitioners as truly critical and vital for successful management of stakeholders in restoration of BHAs. The results also indicate that there is a strong consensus amongst over 50 percent of the practitioners on the rankings of the CSFs. Practical implications The identified CSFs could be used by the restoration practitioners as a “road map” for the development of appropriate solutions for successfully managing stakeholders associated with the promotion and BHAs restoration assets. Originality/value Although CSFs for stakeholder management in construction have been studied by many scholars, no specific research could be identified prior to this study to have been done in defining the CSFs for stakeholder management in restoration projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | UK; critical success factors; stakeholder management; built heritage assets; restoration projects |
| Index terms: | exercise, promotion, built heritage, cultural significance, conservation, built heritage asset, questionnaire, practitioner, construction project, methodology, stakeholder management, restoration, servicing, critical success factor |
| Subjects: | environmental policy, participation process, construction type, data collection methods, practitioner, control systems, health behaviours and lifestyles, cross-cultural studies, heritage and conservation, renovation and retrofit, management, research methods, maintenance engineering, production management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Human Resources, International Construction, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here