Olawale, O; Oyedele, L; Owolabi, H; Gbadamosi, A Q and Kusimo, H (2022) Project reputation in construction: A process-based perspective of construction practitioners in the UK. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(12), pp. 2267-2278. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
The overall aim of this study is to elicit the perspective of practitioners (e.g., architects, civil engineers, building engineers, structural engineers and quantity surveyors) on the process-related factors influencing the project reputation of construction organisations. To achieve this aim, the study adopts a mixed methods approach which commenced with a review of extant literature in order to produce an exhaustive hypothetical list of process-related factors influencing project reputation. This review resulted in the identification of 29 process-related factors which was operationalised into a questionnaire survey. After an essential pilot study was conducted, the survey was distributed to a wide audience of construction practitioners in order to elicit their experiential opinion on process-related factors influencing project reputation of construction organisations. The responses from the survey were subjected to statistical processes, which include Reliability Analysis, Relative Importance Index (RII), Kruskal-Wallis and Multiple Regression Analysis. After establishing 25 statistically reliable process-related factors influencing project reputation via reliability analysis, the study further revealed an impressive general agreement of 88% of the process-related factors. Multiple regression analysis was subsequently conducted to unravel the key drivers influencing project reputation of construction organisations. This analysis revealed six key factors which include: successful completion of project without adverse environmental issues; competent project manager; friendly culture generated within project; competent project participants; successful completion of project without health and safety issues and regular client consultation. This research finding will provide a benchmark for construction organisations to develop project reputation which will invariably impact organisational reputation. In addition, the findings of this study will allow project stakeholders to prioritise 'few' critical issues that will unquestionably impact their project reputation during the implementation of the project plan.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project as a process; project as a product; project reputation; project success |
| Index terms: | multiple regression analysis, structural engineer, practitioner, health and safety issues, project stakeholder, questionnaire, relative importance index, survey, construction practitioner, civil engineer, environmental issue, implementation, architect, engineer, construction organization, quantity surveying, critical issue, project success, reliability analysis, project manager, mixed method |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, environmental issues, reliability engineering, practitioner, data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, organization, statistical analysis, occupational health and safety management, sociology, professional development, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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