Phua, F T T (2004) Modelling the determinants of multi-firm project success: A grounded exploration of differing participant perspectives. Construction Management and Economics, 22(5), pp. 451-459. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Existing approaches to multi-firm project success have been suggested as being overly normative and deductive. They can also be criticized for failing to accommodate the heterogeneous perspectives of respective participants in multi-firm projects that might be hypothesized intrinsically to differ by industry sector, size and other firm demographics. This research tests the extent to which the determinants of project success differ by sector, firm size and origin within the construction industry using an inductive, grounded approach to model building. Results confirm that project success factors differ significantly between project participants, and suggest the wider application of inductive methodologies to identify such heterogeneous factors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | determinants of project success; grounded approach; modelling; project success |
| Index terms: | industry sector, exploration, methodology, project success, demographics, construction industry, modelling, determinant |
| Subjects: | research methods, project management theory and practice, demography, industry analysis, risk assessment, environmental resource management, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Urban Studies |
| 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