Govender, N.; Laryea, S. and Watermeyer, R. (2026) Through the client's lens: Factors impacting project document quality in the South African construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(15), pp. 345-361. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – This research explores the factors that affect the quality of project documentation in South Africa's construction industry, focusing on the perspectives of public sector clients. It aims to address a gap in existing research by showing how these factors influence document quality. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a qualitative multiple-case study design to explore factors affecting project document quality from the perspective of public sector clients in South Africa. Four government organisations were selected as individual cases to enable cross-case comparison and uncover both common and context-specific insights. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of complex issues within real-world settings and supports both replication and theoretical exploration. It is particularly suited to examining how clients perceive the role of fees and consultant-related factors in shaping documentation quality. Findings – The study found that five key factors influence project document quality from the client's perspective: consultant experience, competence, team composition, procurement systems and work ethic. While experience and competence align with previous research, team composition and procurement practices emerged as new client-driven insights. Additionally, low professional fees were found to constrain resources and time, negatively affecting quality. However, fees alone were not seen as the sole determinant. Rather, the interplay between fees, consultant capabilities and resource allocation was identified as critical to producing high-quality documentation. Originality/value – This research offers original value by foregrounding the perspectives of public sector clients, an often overlooked stakeholder group in studies on project document quality. By doing so, it uncovers previously underexplored factors such as team composition, procurement practices and work ethic. The study provides a more holistic understanding of how document quality is influenced, particularly in the context of fee structures and consultant capabilities. Its findings support more balanced procurement approaches and contribute to the construction body of knowledge in developing countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | document quality; public sector clients |
| Index terms: | cross-case comparison, developing country, public-sector client, documentation, competence, methodology, exploration, project documentation, South Africa, body of knowledge, team composition, resource allocation, case study, procurement system, construction industry, determinant |
| Subjects: | environmental resource management, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, project planning, research methods, Geography, development economics, data analysis and analytics, resource management, risk assessment, data collection methods, sociology, industry analysis, management, personnel development, professional development |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, International Construction, Human Resources, Site Management, Organizational Design, Information Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| 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