Ambekar, S.; Dhaigude, A. S.; Chatterjee, D. and Tapar, A. V. (2025) Identifying and ranking critical success factors for contractor value addition in the construction sector using the ISM-IRP technique. Construction Innovation, 26(5), pp. 1582-1613. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – The competitive dynamics in the construction sectors demand value maximization in projects, whereby the clients expect contractors to deliver value through efficiency and effectiveness, along with flexibility in project execution and use. Thus, the client benchmarks the contractor's performance on value-driving factors, which act as critical success factors (CSFs) for a project's value proposition. This paper aims to explore, model and rank CSFs of contractor selection within the construction sector to create a synergy between client objectives and contractor capabilities. Design/methodology/approach – The CSFs were identified using a fuzzy Delphi study. Additionally, interpretive structural modeling and Matrice d'Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement analysis were carried out to explore and model the interrelationships among the CSFs. An interpretive ranking process was also applied to rank these CSFs. Findings – The study has identified eight CSFs that help understand customer/clients' requirements and translate them to maximize the overall value of their projects. The findings suggest that management capability is the most influential factor, while project duration, value engineering and financial soundness act as critical linkages among all the eight CFSs identified. Social implications – The study can help boost the contribution of the construction sector in economic growth stories of many developing countries. The improved value from the project can help in building higher quality infrastructure that benefits the community by improving the quality of life. This also encourages inclusive relationships among stakeholders and provides a fair chance to all in contributing the growth. Originality/value – The results would help clients and regulators plan and control deviations in the contracting process more effectively by clearly understanding the inter-relationship between the value-creating CSFs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contractor selection; interpretive ranking process; interpretive structural modelling; MICMAC analysis; resilience; value analysis |
| Index terms: | synergy, economic growth, methodology, construction sector, efficiency, contractor selection, dynamics, maximization, quality of life, critical success factor, linkage, influential factor, regulator, duration, deviation, interpretive ranking process, interpretive structural modelling, value engineering, effectiveness, developing country, value analysis, fuzzy Delphi |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, risk assessment, project controls, sociology, performance management, financial analysis, industry analysis, development economics, business, tendering, control systems, economic development, data analysis and analytics, value management, research methods, algorithms, public and environmental health, partnership management, decision-making and optimization, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Sustainability, International Construction, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Time Control, Procurement, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| 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