Charles, S H; Chang-Richards, A and Yiu, T W (2022) What do post-disaster reconstruction project success indicators look like? End-user's perspectives. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 13(1), pp. 31-50. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to investigate the emergence of new success measures for buildings and infrastructure post-disaster reconstruction projects, beyond the traditional ”iron triangle”, which have gained prominence with the increased involvement of clients and end-users in these projects. Consequently, the industry is obliged to reconsider the critical factors regarding what constitutes a successful outcome from the perspectives of these stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: Data was gathered from end-users in four Caribbean islands using a questionnaire survey on eight empirical success indicators obtained from an extensive systematic literature review. To elicit a ranking and correlations amongst the end-user' perspectives on the indicators, factor analysis and structural equation modelling techniques (SEM) were conducted. Findings: The factor analysis found “safety” to be the most important empirical success measure, while “change” ranked the least important. Correlation analysis using SEM identified two new composite indicators, namely, “competence” with delivering timely and quality environmentally friendly and sustainable projects and “adaptability” in ensuring project objectives reflect beneficiaries' expectations amidst internal and external influences, to be critical of end-users' measurement indicators that describe their assessment mechanism. Measurement and structural models validated “safety” and “satisfaction” to be the highest loading variables in the two composites, respectively. Research limitations/implications: The research focussed on findings in English language articles; therefore, any claim to a complete list of indicators from the literature can be amiss. Practical implications: Results confirm the traditional “iron triangle” of time, cost and quality to be limited in assessing reconstruction project outcomes and the views and expectations of the potential beneficiaries need to be factored in the planning, design, execution and post-handover stages in all reconstruction projects. Originality/value: This paper was very specific in its attempt to investigate new success indicators for reconstruction project outcomes, aiming to assist with developing comprehensive project objectives that resonate with all stakeholder groups.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; project management |
| Index terms: | environmentally friendly, emergence, project outcome, reconstruction, factor analysis, systematic literature review, post-disaster reconstruction project, questionnaire, critical factor, structural equation modelling, composite, correlation analysis, satisfaction, loading, Caribbean, competence, methodology, adaptability, project management, survey |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, construction operations, project completion, personnel development, systems engineering, user focus, project delivery, data collection methods, research methods, building construction, materials science, statistical analysis, research evaluation and metrics, project management theory and practice, sustainable design, post-disaster and reconstruction, physical geography and landforms |
| Topics: | Construction Materials, Sustainability, Human Resources, Research Practice, Project Management, Site Management, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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