Content uploaded by Nicholas Chileshe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicholas Chileshe on May 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Critical success factors for
implementation of risk
assessment and management
practices within the Tanzanian
construction industry
Nicholas Chileshe
School of Natural and Built Environment, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, Australia, and
Geraldine John Kikwasi
Department of Construction Management,
School of Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Abstract
Purpose – Despite the extensive research on critical success factors (CSFs), there is a paucity
of studies that examine CSFs for the deployment of risk assessment and management
processes in developing countries, particularly, Africa. The purpose of this paper is to investigate
the perception of construction professionals on CSFs appertaining to the deployment of
risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) in Tanzania with the aim of filling the
knowledge gap.
Design/methodology/approach – The primary data were collected from 67 construction
professionals working with clients (private and public), consultants, and contractor organisations
(foreign and local) within the Tanzanian construction. Response data was subjected to descriptive and
inferential statistics with one-way analysis of variance to examine the differences in the perception of
the identified CSFs.
Findings – The descriptive and empirical analysis demonstrated a disparity of the ranking of the ten
CSFs among the groups; however, the differences were not significant. Based on the overall sample, the
results of the mean score ranking indicate that “awareness of risk management processes”; “team work
and communications”; and “management style” were the three highly ranked CSFs whereas
“co-operative culture”; “customer requirement”; and “positive human dynamics” were considered to be
the least important.
Research limitations/implications – The study did not differentiate the perceptions of the CSFs
according to the ownership (local or foreign), and the sample consisted of organisations in one industry
operating in Tanzania. Consequently, the findings may not generalise to other industries or to
organisations operating in other countries.
Practical implications – For RAMP to be implemented effectively, Tanzanian constructional-related
organisations should consider the identified CSFs as a vehicle for improving project success
through reduction of risk uncertainty. Furthermore, regardless of the type of organisation,
“management style”, “team work and communication” are necessary for the successful deployment
of RAMP.
Originality/value – This study makes a contribution to the body of knowledge on the subject within
a previously unexplored context. The study provides insights on the drivers and enablers (CSFs) of
risk assessment implementation across the Tanzania construction sector.
Keywords Construction industry, Critical success factors, Risk management, Risk assessment,
Tanzania
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2014
pp. 291-319
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
DOI 10. 1108/ECA M-01-2013-0001
291
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
1. Introduction
While risk assessment and management practices (RAMP) have been studied in other
countries, the majority of these studies have largely focused on the identification
of critical success factors (CSFs) for construction projects (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Toor
and Ogunlana, 2009; Famakin et al., 2012; Tabish and Jha, 2011; Yang et al., 2009;
Zwikael, 2009), and project success (White and Fortune, 2002; Salaheldin, 2009).
Furthermore, the majority of these studies have focused on developed countries with
a paucity of studies within the developing countries. The majority of these are drawn
from the Asian region (Santoso et al., 2003, p. 43). There is a growing need for specific
RAMP studies especially within sub-Saharan Africa (SAA), including Tanzania.
The rationale for the specific Tanzanian study is that, what might be considered by
a firm to be a risk and therefore manageable in a Commonwealth country could clearly
be different to a firm operating, say, for example, in the USA where the industry is
structured differently/has different legal constraints.
As with other developing countries, construction is vital to the economic development.
For example, the importance of the construction in Tanzania is evidenced by its
contribution of more than 5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) (Lema, 2008),
and 9 per cent of employment creation and about 57 per cent of the capital formation
(United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2006). Despite the aspirations of Tanzania to have
one of the best construction industries in the world (Ofori, 2012a), it is still inundated with
poor project performance. The industry continues to deliver its products over budget,
beyond original estimated construction period and at times with poor quality.
The study and implementation of risk management and assessment practices
have been closely aligned with improved overall project performance (Zwikael, 2009;
Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe, 2010; Nkado, 2010; Tabish and Jha, 2011; Zou et al., 2010).
In contrast, several studies have failed to find support for a direct relationship between
adoption of risk management practices and enhanced project performance. For example,
Besner and Hobbs (2012, p. 242), notes that while the link between uncertainty and failure
(or between certainty and success) seems to be well established, they point to the lack of
clarity between the risk management and success linkages.
However, despite the different schools of thought on the direct correlation between
risk management practices and enhanced project performance in literature, there have
been a number of studies on project management undertaken in the context of
Tanzania (Simkoko, 1992; Lema, 2008; Msita, 1997; Ministry of Works (MoW), 2003;
Mansfield and Sasillo, 1990; Kikwasi, 1999, 2012). Other studies have focused on the
human and resources management (HRD) challenges facing the construction
professionals (Debrah and Ofori, 2005, 2006; Ofori, 2012a). For example, earlier
studies by Lema (2008) and Msita (1997) revealed that the construction industry had
not met its potential in contributing to the economic development. Drawing upon the
project management examples, Kikwasi (1999, 2012) indicated that most of the projects
undertaken in the country were not delivered on pre-estimated time and cost due to the
adoption of conventional procurement method. According to Salewi (2003), it is
common for construction projects in Tanzania to cost up to two times the original
budget. There are many factors that may affect cost control such as:
.inadequate project brief;
.inadequate terms of reference;
.under budgeting;
292
ECAM
21,3
.poor specifications;
.wrong selection of contractors for the works;
.wrong project programming including supervision;
.increase in material price;
.payment delays;
.variations; and
.weather and inflation.
Other studies in the context of Tanzania have highlighted the challenges facing the
local contractors. For example, Mansfield and Sasillo (1990) and Debra and Ofori (2005)
noticed this trend. They acknowledge that, local Tanzanian construction firms are
finding it difficult to compete with foreign companies for projects. While these studies
have not specifically addressed the issue of CSFs desirable for RAMP, some of the
issues identified are very much similar to the activities undertaken within the stages of
the risk assessment process. Therefore, this is a good starting point for understanding
the factors affecting the internal and external environments in which the construction
industry operates, and act as a reference point of departure for future identification of
CSFs on RAMP.
Therefore, there is a need to explore the CSFs affecting risk management practices
within the African context. This study is aimed at filling that knowledge gap through
conducting studies on the CSFs (enablers and drivers) affecting the deployment of
RAMP among the Tanzanian construction related organisations.
The structure of this paper gives an overview of the Tanzania Construction
Industry (TCI), with the next section summarising and presenting brief discussions on
the extant literature on RAMP. It provides the conceptualisation of CSFs and discusses
the CSFs (drivers or enablers) and a brief discussion of the gaps in knowledge. This is
followed by the methodological approach adopted and a discussion of the findings.
The implications of the study follow after the methodological approach. The final
section addresses recommendations made and conclusions.
2. Overview of the TCI
The construction industry is project-based, dynamic in nature and involves many
participants and stakeholders. URT (2006) defines the construction industry as a sector
of economy that transforms various resources into constructed physical economic and
social infrastructure necessary for social-economic development. This means physical
infrastructure are planned, designed, constructed/repaired or rehabilitated to serve
certain purposes. However, as observed by the MoW, (2003, p. 4), a substantial part of
the construction work takes place in the informal sector of industry too. About 80 per cent
of the population lives in the rural areas. The buildings and other small infrastructure
facilities for this major part of the population are constructed by the informal sector.
Overall, the construction industry contributes far more than 5 per cent of the GDP,
9 per cent of employment creation and about 57 per cent of the capital formation
(MoW, 2003; URT, 2006).
Since independence (1961), the Tanzanian government has been formulating
strategies that were geared towards the development of the local construction industry
in Tanzania. Such initiative included adoption of the Construction Industry Policy
in 2003. This became the principle guideline for the development of a competitive
293
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
construction industry in the country by delivering quality industrial product and
services which are competitive world-wide. Other initiatives included; establishment
of the National Construction Council in 1981 to promote the development of the
construction industry. Formulation of the Construction Industry Development Strategy
in 1991; the establishment of Vocational Training Centre; and the establishment of
Regulatory Institution in the Construction Industry, i.e., Contractors Registration Board
(CRB); Architects and Quantity Surveyors Registration Board and Engineers Registration
Board (ERB) (URT, 2006).
Despite the quest of the TCI to remain competitive, it is faced with a number of
challenges. According to the MoW (2003), some of these challenges are associated with
the development of adequate local capacity, and mobilisation of adequate resources in
terms of finance, equipment and human resources. These challenges undoubtedly have
an impact of implementation of practices such as risk management. Other performance
constraints contributing to the inefficient and deteriorated state of the construction
industry cited by the same report included the “low capacity and capability of the local
contractors and consultants due to weak resource base and inadequate experience”.
This is further exacerbated by the industry’s reliance on foreign institutions and
contractors to train its indigenous professionals (Chiragi, 2000; Egmond, 2012)
and further compounded by the lack of systematic integrated industry-wide training
programmes for professionals in the industry (Debra and Ofori, 2006).
3. Literature review
3.1 Conceptualisation of CSFs
Rochart (1979 cited in Chen, 1999) was first to define the concept of CSFs. These were
defined as “the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will
ensure successful competitive performance for the organization”. Pinto and Covin
(1989) defined CSFs as certain rules, executive procedures and environmental
conditions. Oakland (1995 cited in Salaheldin, 2009) defined CSFs as the critical areas
which organisations must accomplish to achieve its mission by examination and
categorisation of their impacts. The importance of CSFs has also been highlighted
by Johnson and Scholes (2001) through acknowledging that one of the major
shortcomings of strategy implementation in organisations is a failure to translate
statements of strategic purpose. Within the concept of benchmarking, Deros et al.
(2006) defined CSFs as a range of enablers which, when put into practice will enhance
the chance for successful benchmarking implementation and adoption in an organisation.
Drawing heaving on Deros et al. (2006) definition of CSFs and observations made by
studies such as Pinto and Covin, (1989), Rochart (1979) and Johnson and Scholes (2001),
within the context of this study, CSFs are defined as drivers or enablers for successful
RAMP implementation. Furthermore, the conditions for their successful implementation
are contingent upon a number of assumptions such as nature of study being
cross-sectional; existence of casual connections or interaction among the factors, and
dynamic rather than static view of the factors (Nandhakumar, 1996). A number of
taxonomies of CSFs are also evident in project management literature (Pinto and Covin,
1989; Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Chua et al., 1999; Fortune and White, 2006; Ika et al., 2012).
For example, Belassi and Tukel (1996) grouped the CSFs into the following four areas:
factors related to the project; project manager and the team members; organisation;
and external evironment. Chua et al. (1999) used analytical hierarchy process and grouped
67 success-related factors into the following four categories: project characteristics,
constractual arrangements, project participants and interactive processes. However,
294
ECAM
21,3
despite the proliferiation of studies on CSFs, none of these were specific to risk assessment
and management practices. Furthermore, previous studies such Larsen and Myers (1999)
have raised questions regarding the actual meaning of “success” and cautioned on how
“successful implementation” eventuated into failure.
3.2 General review of literature on RAMP
While there is ample literature on RAMP, the empirical studies have largely focused on the
following areas: classification of different types of risk (Edwards and Bowen, 1998a);
perceptions of risk (Liu and Cheung, 1994; Adams, 2008); implementation issues
(Mills, 2001; Tchankova, 2002); frameworks for assessment (Wang et al., 2004; Akintoye
et al., 2001; Elseth and Hamann, 1999); CSFs for mass house building projects, and risk
assessment (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Salaheldin, 2009; Yirenkyi-Fianko et al.,2012);impactof
RAMP project performance (Dada and Jagboro, 2007; Aje et al.,2009;Enshassiet al., 2009);
practices, barriers and benefits (Mok et al., 1997; Edwards and Bowen, 1998b;
Liu et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2007); awareness (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Frimpong
et al., 2003; Luu et al., 2008; Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe, 2010); techniques for
risk management practices (Ahmed et al., 2007); desirable skills for performing risk
management (Kim and Bajaj, 2000); and assessment and maturity models (Zou et al., 2010).
Table I presents a summary of selected studies on CSFs to RAMP.
As can be seen from Table I, the lack of usage of risk management practices is not
just limited to developing economies, but also affects developed countries such as
Australia (Lynos and Skitmore, 2004). There is also the issue of risk management being
in its infancy stage as a reason for the lack of implementation (hence a barrier).
This problem affects developing countries like Korea (Kim and Bajaj, 2000), Vietnam
(see Ling and Hoang, 2012) and Singapore (Hwang et al., 2014). There is a plethora of
studies on CSFs to RAMP, and the list shown in Table I is just indicative. However,
despite the previous CSFs derived from a cross-section of the literature, what is notable
from the summary (Table I) apart from the Richard et al (2008) and Chijoriga (2011)
studies, is an obvious omission, particularly in the Tanzanian context, of studies
focused on the identification of the CSFs to RAMP. However, it is worth pointing out
that, the only identified study of Richard et al (2008) was focused on understanding
credit risk management (CRM) systems of commercial banks. While some of CRM
strategies adopted by the banks such as risk identification, risk measurement, risk
assessment, risk monitoring and risk control might be similar to those operating
within the construction operational environments, the two industries, namely service
(banking) and construction have unique features and face different challenges, hence
the need for specific construction RAMP studies. Similarly, Chijoriga (2011) study
applied the multiple discriminant analysis model in predicting the firm’s performance
and credit risk assessment from the banking perspective.
Notwithstanding the obvious omission of Tanzanian related studies from Table I, of
critical importance is the notion that, given the definition of the CSF concept as it
applies to this study, and the review of the limited project management and HRD
related studies within the Tanzania context (Chiragi, 2000; Debrah and Ofori, 2005,
2006; Egmond, 2012; Kikwasi, 2012; Lema, 2008; Msita, 1997), the assumption is made
that the identified CFSs in the studies (see Table I), despite developed and applied in
another context, can be tested for their relevance as success factors for Tanzania.
Despite the noted proliferation of studies on RAMP, there has been a lack of
empirical studies reported which seeks to assess the levels of awareness, usage and
advocated benefits of RAMP relative to the impact on project outcomes within the
295
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
Tanzanian construction industry, particularly among the medium to large-sized
enterprises.
For example, a study conducted by Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010) within the
Ghanaian construction industry found that, relative to the awareness and usage,
the findings indicate that despite half of the respondents (58.30 per cent) being aware of
the risk assessment and management techniques, the uptake of RAMP was low.
The majority (61.90 per cent), of those aware where actually implementing the RAMP.
These problems are not just confined to developing countries, for example, a study
conducted by Zou et al. (2010) aimed at developing a risk management maturity
assessment model for construction organisations. That model was tested and validated
among the Australian construction industry. The study found the overall risk
management maturity level to be relatively low.
3.3 CSFs to implementing RAMP
Some of the earlier studies such as Mok et al. (1997) have previously observed that the
successful implementation of risk management process (RMP) depended on whether
the CSFs could be overcome. The management style adopted in any organisation will
therefore go a long way to affect the way risks are managed. More recent, studies
within the context of developed countries such as Toor et al. (2012) have pointed to the
confusion between “leadership” and “management” as one of the factors influencing
the mindset of managers within the construction project management. This has led
No. CSFs as used in this study
a, b
Previous studies
CSF1 Management style Pinto and Covin (1989), Belassi and Tukel (1996), Mok et al.
(1997), Frimpong et al. (2003), Fortune and White (2006),
Toor et al. (2012)
CSF2 Awareness of risk
management processes
Akintoye and MacLeod (1997), Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko
(2012)
c
, Dada and Jagboro (2007)
c
, Frimpong et al. (2003)
c
,
Kim and Bajaj (2000), Kululanga and Kuotcha (2010), Lynos
and Skitmore (2004), Santoso et al. (2003), Manelele and
Muya (2008)
c
, Zou et al. (2010)
CSF3 Co-operative culture Rwelamila et al. (1999)
c
CSF4 Positive human dynamics Simkoko (1992)
d
, Chua et al. (1999), Rwelamila et al. (1999)
c
,
Tchankova (2002), Lester (2007)
CSF5 Customer requirements Johnson and Scholes (2001), Luu et al. (2008)
CSF6 Goals and (strategic)
objectives of the organisation
Pinto and Covin (1989), Chua et al. (1999), Fortune and
White, 2006, Nandhakumar (1996)
CSF7 Consideration of external and
internal environment
Pinto and Covin (1989), Belassi and Tukel (1996), Chua et al.
(1999), Ika et al. (2012)
CSF8 Effective usage of methods
and tools
Pinto and Covin (1989), Frimpong et al. (2003)
c
, Richard et al.
(2008)
e
, Chijoriga (2011)
e
CSF9 Teamwork and
communication
Carter (1986), Belassi and Tukel (1996), Chua et al. (1999),
Fortune and White (2006), Pinto and Covin (1989),
Tchankova (2002), Lester (2007), Ika et al. (2012)
CSF10 Availability of specialist risk
management consultants
Pinto and Covin (1989), Chua et al. (1999)
Notes:
a
The ten CSFs as used in Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010) compared with existing previous
studies;
b
the same study used factor analysis and yielded two critical success factors namely,
“strategic planning” and “tools and techniques”,
c
African context specific studies,
d
Tanzanian project
management related studies;
e
Tanzanian risk management related studies
Tabl e I.
List of critical success
factors (CSFs) and
associated similar studies
296
ECAM
21,3
them (managers) to manage their teams rather than leading team. This obviously
has some inherent impact on the implementation of RAMP. Accordingly, this has
contributed to managers who mostly end up managing their teams rather than leading
them (Toor et al., 2012, p. 252). Drawing on the example of executive information
systems (EIS), Nandhakumar (1996) identified the need of an “Executive sponsor” who
leads by example as one of the CSFs for EIS development. Therefore, construction
practitioners or managers should “lead”, rather than “manage” their teams for successful
implementation of RAMP.
Zwikael (2009, pp. 377) suggests that construction project managers wishing to
improve project performance at the planning phase of a project should concentrate
more on the accurate identification of all project activities. Furthermore, the study
explored the linkages between some attributes of project planning and the following
indicators of project success: schedule overrun; cost overrun; project performance; and
customer satisfaction.
Famakin et al. (2012) aimed at investigating the factors affecting the performance
of partners in joint ventures. Construction projects in Nigeria established that, the
following factors of communication, compatibility of objectives and mutual
understanding among partners was highly important.
Another study within the African context is by Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010)
was aimed at identifying the CSFs of RAMP implementation among the medium and
large Ghanaian construction related organisation. The following ten CSFs were identified:
(1) management style;
(2) awareness of RMP;
(3) cooperative culture;
(4) positive human dynamics;
(5) customer requirements;
(6) goals and strategic objective;
(7) impact of environment;
(8) usage of tools;
(9) teamwork and communication; and
(10) availability of specialist risk management.
Using the same data set, the authors (Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe, 2010) applied
factor analysis to the CSFs and extracted two factors, namely, “strategic planning”,
“tools and techniques”. While this current study does not apply factor analysis in order
to identify the underlying dimensions, the subsequent discussion of the CSFs will make
appropriate reference to these two general headings.
Wang and Yuan (2011) also used factor analysis in investigating the critical factors
affecting contractors risk attitudes in construction projects in China, and the identified
CSFs and grouped them into four categories, namely:
(1) knowledge and experience;
(2) contractors character;
(3) personal perception; and
(4) economic environment.
297
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
While the focus of the study was more on the risk-based decision making, and
not directly related the overall implementation of RAMP, the results indicate,
“risk attitudes” that form part and parcel of the actual process.
According to the MoW (2003), while not specific to the RAMP, “teamwork and
collaboration” has been identified as a catalyst for the achievement of meaningful
results within a short timeframe. The study further notes that, there is need for total
commitment from all stakeholders and that a higher level of collaboration among the
Tanzanian construction industry stakeholders is a prerequisite for success. Similarly,
Lynos and Skitmore (2004) found “project teams” as the most frequent group to be used
for risk analysis.
3.4 Summary of literature review
Despite the extensive research on (CSFs) affecting the project performance (Salaheldin, 2009;
Zwikael, 2009), there is a paucity of empirical studies that examine CSFs for the deployment
of risk assessment and management processes in developing countries. Moreover, the
majority of the studies focused on identification CSFs have largely been related to
construction projects (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Toor and Ogunlana, 2009; Famakin et al., 2012;
Tabish and Jha, 2011; Yang et al., 2009; Zwikael, 2009), and project performance (White and
Fortune, 2002; Salaheldin, 2009). While some studies have been reported in developing
countries, the majority of these are drawn from the Asian region. As recommended by
Santoso et al. (2003, p. 43), knowledge and understanding of risk management is important
to help identify and manage inherent risk effectively and systematically to achieve the
project objectives of time, cost and quality. It is anticipated, that the observations made
from the context of Indonesia, a developing country like Tanzania, inherent solutions as
advocated could be applied within the context of the Tanzanian construction industry.
4. Research methods
The research method for this study is explained under research design, population and
sample size, sampling procedure and data collection techniques. The specific objectives
are to: identify the CSFs for risk assessment and management processes among the
construction stakeholders in Tanzania; and examine the perception of construction
stakeholders (professionals) on their importance.
The following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. There are significant differences among the constructional professionals in the
perception of the relative importance of the CSFs.
4.1 Measurement instrument
The questionnaire was divided into four sections as follows:
(1) general demographics of the respondents;
(2) evaluation of RAMP survey;
(3) awareness of RAMP; and
(4) antecedents, comprising CSFs and barriers.
The findings reported within this paper only relates to Sections 1, 2 and 4 aspect
dealing with the CSFs. It is beyond the scope of this paper to report on all issues
that were covered within the research project. The statements of the ten CSFs are as
identified in Table I (CSF1 through CSF 10) follows.
298
ECAM
21,3
For the CSFs sub instrument, the respondents were asked to identify the CSFs they
perceived as necessary for the implementation of RAMP, on a five point Likert-scale
(1 ¼strongly disagree, 2 ¼disagree, 3 ¼neutral, 4 ¼agree, and 5 ¼strongly agree).
Drawing heavily from Pinto and Covin (1989), the respondents were required to think
of a project that they had been involved in a frame of reference in completing their
questionnaire (Pinto and Covin, 1989, p. 56).
4.2 Survey administration
The study design was cross-sectional with a targeted population of architects, contractors,
engineers, quantity surveyors and others who were attending a construction industry
forum on “50 years of independence of Tanzania” held from 5 to 7 September 2011 at
Mlimani City Conference Centre in Dar es Salaam Tanzania. The type of research adopted
is descriptive which tries to highlight dominant CSFs for risk management
implementation in the Tanzanian construction industry.
4.2.1 Population and sample size. The forum was organised by three regulating
boards namely AQRB, CRB and ERB. A total of 2,500 participants from all regions of
the country attended the forum. The distribution of the delegates according to the
regulatory bodies was as follows:
The majority 42 per cent (1,050) of delegates were drawn from the engineering
profession body (ERB), followed by a third (n¼826) from contractors (CRB). A relative
small sample size comprising 14 per cent (350) and 10 per cent (274) were drawn from
architects and quantity surveyors (AQRB), respectively. A sample size of 600 potential
respondents was estimated considering 200 from each board.
4.2.2 Sampling and data collection method. As the purpose of this research
was descriptive, and the research question matched establishing the opinions of
respondents on risk management CSFs and barriers, the recommended research
strategy was that of analytical survey. Chileshe and Dzisi (2012) used a similar
approach of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions when investigating the perceptions
of UK practitioners on health and safety (H&S) related issue. In all, 600 questionnaires
were prepared and distributed to randomly select potential respondents in three
conference halls. Delegates were gathered according to their respective regulating
boards after the opening session was completed.
Two techniques of data collection were used namely literature review and
questionnaire. As regard to literature review previous works on the subject matter
were reviewed to establish the gap and broaden the knowledge base in the research
area. The questionnaire used in this study is based on Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko
(2012) instrument. While the Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko (2012) study was also aimed
at investigating the perceived differences in the perception of the construction
professional on the CSFs for RAMP, the data analysis employed included factor
analysis. The similarities were largely context specific, namely African and developing
country; population sample namely, the key stakeholders comprising clients, contractors
and clients, were the main reasons for using the instrument. Furthermore, as observed by
Tata et al. (1999), usage of pre-tested constructs from past empirical studies is crucial in
ensuring the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments. In addition,
the future opportunities of making a cross-comparative analysis between the Tanzanian
and Ghanaian samples was the second motivation for utilisation of the instrument.
Out of 600 distributed, about 300 questionnaires were collected by the delegates at
an estimate of 100 questionnaires to each Board. At the end of the third day of the
forum only 21 questionnaires were returned despite the call which was made by floor
299
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
managers. These comprised of eight from AQRB, eight from CRB and five from the
ERB. The involvement of these boards is highly significant as they are statutory bodies
mandated to regulate the relevant profession’s activities and conduct of its members.
For example, as observed by Watermeyer (2012), one of the requirements for
registration of Engineering Consulting Firms in Tanzania includes having basic
equipment and tools and carrying out engineering consulting works. Following low
response to questionnaires, e-mail and postal addresses of the forum participants
were sought from AQRB, CRB and ERB. This resulted in about 150 respondents of
the original been contacted. It was noted that most of them could not locate the
questionnaires supplied during the forum. Henceforth a further 50 questionnaires were
e-mailed and 100 were hand delivered. This was followed by constant telephone
reminders out of which eight and 48 responses were received from e-mailed and hand
delivered questionnaires, respectively. Please note that the forum drew delegates from
all parts of Tanzania not only Dar es Salaam. Of the 77 questionnaires, ten were
incomplete resulting in 67 useable for the final data analysis.
Table II depicts the summary of the questionnaire responses according to the two
waves of distribution.
This explanation provides the reason why respondents who came from various
destinations of Tanzania wanted to know the research outcomes.
4.3 Analysis of results
The primary focus of this study was to examine the perception of construction
professionals on CSFs appertaining to the deployment of risk assessment and
management practice determining whether significant differences existed in their
perception of the CSFs. The obtained raw data was input and analysed using the IBM
Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) computer programme version 20.0.0.
Four types of analysis were conducted. Review of the literature shows that such
approaches have been adopted before in survey-related studies (Tang et al., 2007;
Yan g et al., 2009; Yuan et al., 2011; Famakin et al., 2012). The techniques selected from
the aforementioned studies were as follows:
.Ranking analysis.
.Spearman rank correlation.
.One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
4.3.1 Ranking analysis. The “ranking analysis” was applied to ascertain the relative
importance of the CSFs through the examination of the mean values and standard
Wave of distribution
Collected/
Sent
a
Completed
Response rate
(%)
First wave: 600 distributed to construction forum
delegates 300 21 7.00
Second wave: 150 comprising 50 by email and 100 (postal)
a
150 56 37.33
Total
b
300 77 25.67
Notes:
a
The targeted 150 respondents in the second wave were part of the original 300 delegates who
collected the questionnaires, but did not return them during the forum;
b
this explains why the total
number of distributed questionnaire or sample population remains at 300
Table II.
Profile of questionnaires
distributed
300
ECAM
21,3
deviations. In cases where the CSF had the same mean values, the approach
adopted was to select the one with the lower standard deviation. This approach has
been used in previous studies (see Ahadzie et al., 2008; Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko,
2012). Drawing upon the study by Ikediashi et al. (2012, p. 306) which aimed
at analysing the risk factors associated with facilities management, a benchmark
of 3 [(1 þ2þ3þ4þ5/5 ¼3)] was used to identify the significant CSFs. Subsequently,
any CSFs with mean values X3 were classified as significant.
4.3.2 Spearman rank correlation. The Spearman rank correlation Kendall’s
coefficient of concordance of the sample data were also computed (see Tang et al., 2007;
Cheung et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2011). This was then utilised to measure agreement of
the respondents on their rankings of the importance of risks, application of risk
management techniques and barrier to risk management and ranking of CSFs
for public private partnerships (PPP) (Cheung et al., 2012). It should be noted that,
some studies such as Tang et al. (2007) have used the alternative technique of Kendall’s
coefficient of concordance to determine agreement among different parties (between two
groupings, i.e. mainland China and Hong Kong). However, it was deemed inappropriate
to use this method in this study, as it is only good for two groups of respondents,
and would have entailed the pairing up of the different groupings. The following formula
for Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the CSFs was computed as applied by
Cheung et al. (2012) and also illustrated in SPSS Inc (2002):
rs¼16Pd2
NðN21Þð1Þ
where dis the difference in rank of the two groups for the same CSFs; and Nthe total
number of responses concerning that CSF (ten in this case).
4.3.3 One-way ANOVA. A one-way between groups of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to test if there was any significant difference in the responses of
respondents. The respondents were divided into three groups (Group 1: clients; Group
2¼contractors; and Group 3 ¼consultants). A p-value o0.05 indicates that the two
groups have different opinions on that particular CSF. Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko
(2012) used the same approach in differentiating the risk factors.
4.4 Characteristics of the sample
The characteristics of the respondents and their organisations are summarised in
Tables III and IV, respectively.
4.4.1 Professional background and length of service in employment. Table III shows
that the majority (28.4 per cent) of the respondents are quantity surveyors, followed by
engineers (25.4 per cent). The proportion of the respondents in terms of experience was:
The majority (51.5 per cent) as having considerable lengthy tenure in the construction
industry (11-15 years), followed by those with more than six years, but oten years of
experience.
A cross-tabulation of respondents’ sector and years of experience in the construction
industry was conducted, and the results showed that, half the respondents 17 (50 per cent)
with more than 15 years of experience were actually drawn from the consulting
organisations. As previously stated within the literature review, consultants rarely have to
undertake some detailed risk assessments, as such this experience is misplaced within the
context of this research. Furthermore, as noted by Debrah and Ofori (2006, p. 442),
the construction firms or organisations in Tanzania, like many developing countries,
301
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
is comprised of small-to-medium sized organisations and, therefore do not have the
facilities to provide training and career development. The inference to be drawn is that,
irrespective of the experience, the majority of the respondent might not have the desirable
competencies and training necessary for overseeing risk management practices.
4.4.2 Organisational characteristics (turnover, sector and number of employees).
The profile of the respondents according to the organisation characteristics (sector and
size) is shown in Table IV. Two indicators of organisation size are used here, namely
number of employees and turnover.
Characteristic Number of respondents % Cumulative
Professional background
a
Quantity surveyor 19 28.4 28.4
Engineers 17 25.4 53.7
Project manager 13 19.4 73.1
Architect 12 17.9 91.0
Other
b
6 9.0 100.0
Experience in construction industry (LSCI)
o1 year 2 3.0 3.0
1-5 years 9 13.6 16.7
6-10 years 12 18.2 34.8
11-15 years 9 13.6 48.5
More than 15 years 34 51.5 100.0
Notes:
a
The interpretation of the terminology, “professional” is based on the one adopted by Debrah
and Ofori (2006, p. 460)and refers to architects, engineers and quantity surveyors who work in
managerial and or/professional roles in construction and construction related firms in the Tanzanian
construction industry;
b
other category comprised 4 (6%) managing directors 1(1.5%) construction
manager and 1 (1.5%) contract manager
Table III.
Profile of study sample
(individual characteristics)
Characteristic Number of respondents % Cumulative
Sector
Contractor (local and foreign) 24 35.8 35.8
Consultant 27 40.3 76.1
Client (private and public) 16 23.9 100.0
Size (number of employees)
o25 31 48.4 48.4
25-49 14 21.9 70.3
50-99 4 6.3 76.6
100-199 5 7.8 84.4
200-300 4 6.3 90.6
More than 300 6 9.4 100.0
Size (turnover in Tanzanian shillings, TZS)
a
o100,000 3 4.6 4.6
100,000-499,999 3 4.6 12.3
500, 000-999,999 9 13.8 26.2
1,000,000-2,000,000 16 24.6 50.8
Over 2,000,000 32 49.2 100.0
Note:
a
Where $1(USD) ¼1,601.49 TZS, and £1(GBP) ¼2,548.18 based on 20 November 2012 exchange
rates
Tabl e IV.
Profile of study sample
(organisational
characteristics)
302
ECAM
21,3
As can be seen from Table IV, the majority 46.3 per cent (31) of the respondent
organisations had o25 employees, followed by 20.9 per cent (14) with more than 25 but
o49 employees. This finding is also consistent from the contractor’s perspective.
According to CRB (2010), data show that, there are over 4,470 contractors registered in
Tanzania, both local and foreign, out of which 3 per cent are foreign and 97 per cent are
local. Out of the 97 per cent that are local, over 94 per cent are small contractors.
However, for a long time, foreign contractors have dominated construction business in
Tanzania (Materu and Uriyo, 2000; MoW, 2003; Debrah and Ofori, 2005). Examination
of Table IV also shows that, the majority 32 (49.2 per cent) of the respondents had
turnover in the excess of 2,000,000 Tanzanian shillings. These findings also confirm
the composition of respondents as SMEs, as opined by the MoW (2003), 74 per cent of
the registered 531 civil works were small contractors but capable of undertaking
works of up to about Tshs. 375,000,000; of which 97 per cent of them were local.
The proportions of the respondents in terms of the sector were: the majority 40.3 per cent
(27) of the respondents were consultants. This was followed by 35.5 per cent (24) of
contractors and 23.9 per cent (16) clients. Based on the sector, the low number of clients
is rather surprising, given that the Tanzania Government is the major client of the
construction industry. More respondents would have been expected from this category.
5. Results and discussion
5.1 Reliability analysis
The reliability and internal consistency of the survey instrument comprising the ten
CSF as itemised in Section 4.1 were examined using the Cronbach’s a’s coefficient.
According to Cronbach (1951), this is one of the most popular reliability statistics
which is aimed at determining the internal consistency or average correlation of items
in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability. The Cronbach awas found to be 0.807
(F-statistic ¼5.261, sig. ¼0.000) for the CSFs subinstrument. While the Cronbach
acoefficient for the CSF subinstrument was 40.7, thus indicating a high reliability of
scales (Nunnally, 1978), the same study by Nunnally has pointed out that, lower
thresholds are sometimes used in the literature.
5.2 Awareness and usage of RAMP
The respondents were asked to indicate whether they were aware of RAMP. If they
had, they were asked to indicate whether they had used RAMP on any of the projects
that they had worked on. Figure 1 shows the profile of the respondents according to the
awareness of RAMP.
As can be seen from Figure 1, majority 82.1 per cent (55) of respondents are aware of
risk management techniques. The respondents were further asked if they had used any
risk management techniques on any of the projects they had worked on. While the
results were positive, with almost two-thirds (67.2 per cent) responding affirmatively,
these findings contradict those of Kululanga and Kuotcha (2010). They study found
relatively low implementation of formal project risk management methods in practice
among the Malawian contractors. While the setting was different, Like Tanzania,
Malawi, is also a developing country. Similarly, a study conducted by Agyakwa-Baah
and Chileshe (2010) in the Ghanaian construction related organisations, revealed
that despite the moderate (more than half of the respondents, 61 per cent) levels of risk
management practices (and processes) awareness, there was a poor uptake or usage
of these practices among half of the respondents. Results from literature review of
earlier studies within developed countries drew similar findings. For example, a study
303
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
conducted by Kim and Bajaj (2000) among Korean contractors cited lack of familiarity
with risk management concepts and methods as one of the reasons for the lack of usage.
5.3 Overall ranking of CSF
This subsection examines the contractor’s, clients and consultant’s perception of the
CSFs to risk assessment and management processes. Table V summarises the results
of the analysis of CSFs for the group wise ratings of the respondents. Examination of
Table V show that, the mean scores of the ten factors critical for RAMP ranged from
3.652 (positive human dynamics) to 4.318 (awareness of RMP) with an average score
of 3.937.
Further examination of Table V also shows that, all the CSFs were significant as
their mean score exceeded the set benchmark of 3.00 as previously stipulated within
Section 4.4.1 for the ranking analysis. For ease of debate, only the CSFs with ranking
of 44.00 are presented here. Based on the overall mean score, the following five CSFs
are identified as highly ranked (mean score X4.00):
(1) awareness of RMPs (mean score ¼4.318);
(2) teamwork and cooperation (mean score ¼4.167);
(3) management style (mean score ¼4.136);
(4) effective usage of methods and tools (mean score ¼4.076); and
(5) goals and strategic objectives of the organisation (mean score ¼4.015).
5.3.1 Awareness of RMPs. While there were no statistical differences of opinion
in the perception of the CSFs by professionals working for different types of
12, 18%
55, 82%
Yes No
Figure 1.
Respondents’ awareness of
risk assessment and
management practices
304
ECAM
21,3
organisations, it is evident that whilst “Awareness of risk management processes”
ranked first overall, it also ranked first under the clients and consultants. It, however,
ranked third (mean score ¼4.462) under the scoring by the consultants. The fact that
this CSFs was ranked first might be indicative of the growing “risk appetite” among
the Tanzanian professionals within the construction industry. It should also be pointed
out that, as with many developing countries, the risk management concepts are
relatively new to Tanzania. This could be one of the reasons for the “high ranking
assigned to this CSFs”. One implication emerging from this is that, in order for the
“practices” to be adopted, there needs a better understanding of the issues at hand.
However, the results further suggest that, of the three parties (clients, consultants and
contractors), the contractor’s should be at the forefront of having a realistic attitude to
risk as they have to incur the financial burden, unlike the consultants and clients
(mostly government). Second, despite the acknowledgement of the importance of this
CSF, there is a need of translating this awareness into the actual usage and
implementation of the tools and techniques of RAMP.
This finding is also consistent with literature on developed countries (Lynos and
Skitmore, 2004) as well as developing countries. The specific studies within the African
context such as Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko (2012) within Ghana, Manelele and Muya
(2008) in Sub-Saharan country, namely Zambia; Dada and Jagboro (2007) have drawn
similar conclusions. For example, Dada and Jagboro (2007) in examining the impact of
risk on project cost overrun in the Nigerian construction industry identified improper
assessment of risk factors as a contributory factor to ineffective project delivery.
The study by Manelele and Muya (2008) is also worth mentioning as Zambia, like
Tanzania share some commonalities through belonging to the same economies
markets such as the Southern African Development Community as well as sharing
borders. The study by Manelele and Muya (2008) attributed the project initiation risks
affecting community based projects in Zambia to the lack of technical advice. While the
Contractors
(n¼24)
Clients
(n¼16)
Consultants
(n¼26)
Overall MS
a
(Rank) Critical success factors MS
b
Rank MS Rank MS Rank
4.136 (3) Management style 4.208 2 4.000 2 4.154 3
4.318 (1) Awareness of risk management
processes
4.083 3 4.434 1 4.462 1
3.849 (8) Cooperative culture 3.708 7 3.750 8 4.039 6
3.652 (10) Positive human dynamics 3.708 8 3.500 9 3.692 10
3.712 (9) Customer requirements 3.833 6 3.500 10 3.731 9
4.015 (5) Goals and strategic objectives of the
organisation
4.000 5 3.875 6 4.115 5
3.833 (7) Consideration of external and
internal environment
3.708 9 3.934 5 3.885 8
4.076 (4) Effective use of methods and tools 4.083 4 4.000 3 4.115 4
4.167 (2) Teamwork and cooperation 4.333 1 3.813 7 4.231 2
3.864 (6) Availability of specialist risk
management
3.708 10 3.938 4 3.962 7
3.9622 Average Scores 3.9372 3.8744 4.0386
Notes:
a
MS, Mean score based on Valid N¼66 (list wise);
b
MS, mean score of the critical success
factor where 5 ¼strongly ag ree; 4 ¼agree; 3 ¼neutral; 2 ¼disag ree; and 1 ¼strongly agree.
The higher the mean, the more important the critical success factor
Tabl e V.
Group-wise ratings
of CSFs according to
sector of organisation
305
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
emphasis is on advice, it could be inferred as the absence that advice being linked to the
lack of awareness. Similarly, within the context of developed countries, a survey
conducted by Lynos and Skitmore (2004) in Queensland (Australia) ranked this as the
second highest barrier out of the nine listed.
5.3.2 Teamwork and communication. The second overall ranked CSFs was that of
“teamwork and communication” (mean score ¼4.167). This was also ranked first and
second under the contractors and consultants, respectively. However, it achieved a low
ranking seventh (mean score ¼3.813) under the scoring by the clients. One plausible
explanation for this disparity, despite the lack of significant differences is that, while
“Teamwork” is also evident in Tanzanian construction industry; there are cases where
when a job is advertised by a certain client some consultants and even contractors will
not bother to tender. This happens as a result of the knowledge that a consultant or
even a contractor is already known if not predicted. This findings accords with the
earlier works of Lynos and Skitmore (2004) who concluded that the “project teams” are
most frequent group to be used for risk analysis, and further reinforced by Toor et al.
(2012) who highlighted the complexity and largeness of teams involved in construction
projects. It is noted that this has the potential of exacerbating the communication and
coordination problems among the various diverse team members.
Team members have a role to play in success on any project as construction works are
more dependent on the interaction of the project participants rather than a particular
process or equipment. For instance, poor communication among members may lead
to delay in issuing of instructions by the team leader and details by the design team.
This can deter the decision making process in a bureaucratic organisation.
5.3.3 Management style. The third overall ranked CSFs was that of “management
style” (mean score ¼4.136). This was also ranked second by contractors and clients,
with the consultants ranked it third. This finding suggests that, the Tanzanian
stakeholders acknowledge the importance of having an appropriate management style
that enables the establishment of a project risk management team within the
organisational and project environment. It also accords with the earlier works of Pinto
and Covin (1989) which identified the initial clarity of goals and general directions as
one of the desirable project CSFs. This is only achievable with the right management
style. The results are further reinforced by, and also consistent with literature on
developing and developed economies (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Mok et al., 1997;
Frimpong et al., 2003; Toor et al., 2012). For example, the study by Belassi and Tukel
(1996) linked ‘lack of top management support together with the project manager’s lack
of competence to project failure. Similarly, the seminal study by Mok et al. (1997)
observed that the successful implementation of RMP depended on whether the CSFs
could be in place. It could thus be argued that, the management style adopted in any
organisation will therefore go a long way to affect the way risks are managed.
5.3.4 Availability of specialist risk management consultants. Although this CSFs was
ranked sixth overall (mean score ¼3.664) and also considered as the least important by
the contractors (mean score ¼3.708, rank ¼tenth), it’s worth discussing, given that it
also appears as one of the barriers identified in literature. The low ranking of this CSF
by the contractors is hardly surprising given the contradictory results reported in
literature (Lynos and Skitmore, 2004; Toor et al., 2012). For example, the recent study
by Toor et al. (2012) provides support by acknowledging that construction projects are
technically complex, and large. As such, they require a combination of specialist skills
to undertake them, and the ability to manage a wide range of risks. On the contrary,
Lynos and Skitmore (2004) identified that project teams are the most likely group to be
306
ECAM
21,3
used for risk analysis, as opposed to (or ahead of) in-house specialists and consultants.
However, it is worth noting that, in our present study, we did not differentiate between
in-house specialists and consultants (working within the same organisations, as with
other professions) and external specialists and consultants upon whom the contractors
and clients could engage in their quest in implementing RAMP. This suggests that,
in identifying and evaluating these risks, the contractors would require the help of
specialist management consultants to training them in understanding the various
techniques and processes involved. A further reason for the low ranking of these CSFs
by contractors could be for purely financial reasons. As previously identified,
the majority of local Tanzanian contractors are SMEs, and lack the financial resources
to engage these consultants.
5.3.5 Discussion of lowly ranked CSFs: co-operative culture, customer requirements
and positive human dynamics. Examination of Table V also reveals that based on the
overall sample, “cooperative culture” (mean score ¼3.849, rank ¼eighth), “customer
requirements” (mean score ¼3.712, rank ¼ninth), and “positive human dynamics”
(mean score ¼3.652, rank ¼tenth), are the lowest ranked CSFs necessary for the
effective implementation of RAMP. This finding suggests that, while the Tanzanian
stakeholders (clients, contractors and consultants) are aware of RAMP, there is
little or no “culture” of its (RAMP) adoption within their respective organisations.
This is more profound among the client and contracting organisations that ranked
these CSFs lowly. One of the probable explanations could be due to lack of trust,
cultural or training background differences and competing interests which might
subject the projects to various risks. The findings also contradict the observations of
previous studies such as Famakin et al. (2012), Lester (2007), Tchankova (2002),
and Carter (1986) which highlighted the importance of these risk factors to the success
of construction projects.
5.6 ANOVA
A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of the role of
professionals practising with construction client (private and public); consultant and
contractor organisations, on the perception of the CSFs for the implementation of
RAMP. The respondents were divided into five groups according to the professional
background (Group 1 ¼quantity surveyor; Group 2 ¼engineers; Group 3 ¼project
manager; Group 4 ¼architects; and Group 5 ¼others). The results for ANOVA are
shown in Table VI.
As can be seen from Table VI, there are no statistical significance differences
(po0.05) in the perception of the CSFs necessary for the deployment of RAMP among
the five groups. This suggests that construction professionals within the Tanzanian
construction industry, irrespective of the sector (clients, consultants or contractors)
that they worked to generally have similar opinions regarding the CSFs influencing the
deployment of RAMP. As such, the null hypothesis (H1) of no significant difference in
the perception of different professional (from the three types of organisations) to the
CSFs to RAMP is upheld.
5.7 Spearman rank correlation
In order to confirm and test whether there was a consensus among the three groups
(clients, contractors and consultants) on the ranking of the importance of the CSFs, the
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient r
s
was computed. This approach has
previously been utilised by a number of studies to demonstrate whether there is the
307
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
agreement or disagreement among each pair of parties (Tang et al., 2007; Cheung
et al., 2012). For example, in a survey conducted by Tang et al. (2007) aimed at
investigating overall aspects of risk management among various project participants
(five to be precise) whereas, Cheung et al. (2012) in exploring CSFs necessary for
PPP. Table VII illustrates the results of Spearman coefficient and significance level
calculations.
As can be seen from Table VII, the highest degree of agreement belongs to this pair
(81.8 per cent with mean scores) between the contractors and consultants. The lowest
degree of agreement appears between contractors and clients (about 32 per cent).
Due to different professional backgrounds
Critical success factors Sum of squares df Mean square F-value Sig.
Management style
Between groups 1.496 4 0.374 0.596 0.667
Within groups 38.276 61 0.627
Total 39.773 65
Awareness of risk management processes
Between groups 2.510 4 0.627 0.836 0.508
Within groups 45.808 61 0.751
Total 43.318 65
Co-operative culture
Between groups 0.650 4 0.162 0.191 0.942
Within groups 51.835 61 0.850
Total 52.485 65
Positive human dynamics
Between groups 0.904 4 0.226 0.344 0.847
Within groups 40.081 61 0.657
Total 40.985 65
Customer requirements
Between groups 1.016 4 0.254 0.274 0.893
Within groups 56.514 61 0.926
Total 57.530 65
Goals and strategic objectives of the organisation
Between groups 1.887 4 0.472 0.542 0.706
Within groups 53.098 61 0.870
Total 54.985 65
Consideration of external and internal environment
Between groups 3.151 4 0.788 0.890 0.476
Within groups 54.016 61 0.886
Total 57.157 65
Effective usage of methods and tools
Between groups 0.930 4 0.233 0.274 0.983
Within groups 51.691 61 0.847
Total 52.621 65
Teamwork and cooperation
Between groups 3.705 4 0.926 1.363 0.257
Within groups 41.462 61 0.680
Total 45.167 65
Availability of specialist risk management
Between groups 6.355 4 1.589 1.285 0.286
Within groups 75.418 61 1.236
Total 81.773 65
Table VI.
One-way ANOVA on
significant differences of
CSFs due to respondents
of varying professional
backgrounds
308
ECAM
21,3
These results indicate a general consensus on the ranking of the CSFs among the
different group of respondents.
6. Implications of the findings
Relative to the factors affecting the deployment of the RAMP which in turn affect the
construction projects, the study has a number of managerial implications for the
researchers, policy makers and practitioners (top management) within the Tanzanian
constructional related organisations. The following four can be singled out as having
major implications.
First, the findings may help practitioners in reviewing the necessary CSFs when
considering implementing RAMP. Furthermore, the identified CSFs could be used as
a road map for the successful implementation of RAMP.
Second, the findings can have an impact upon society through influencing public
attitudes and perceptions through the positive aspects that arise from the effective
implementation of RAMP. Some of noted benefits are improved project performance
through minimisation of delays, an issue strongly associated with negative images of
the construction industry.
Third, drawing upon Yuan et al. (2011), researchers could use these CSFs as a sound
basis to develop RAMP strategies that are tailored to the practice of Tanzania.
Finally, at a National level, the study contributes to the aspirations of the National
Construction Council which seeks to improve the capacity and competitiveness of the
local construction enterprises (contractors, consultants and informal sector).
Application and usage of risk management could aid these stakeholders through the
improvement of their decision-making processes as whether or not to carry out
projects. Most importantly, as stated by Ofori (2012b), the Millennium Development
Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger can be achieved through the
attainment of an effective and efficient production of buildings and infrastructure.
Effective implementation of RAMP is indirectly linked to some of the identified
indicators for construction, vis-a
`-vis time, cost and quality.
While the implications for practice are set out within the context of the Tanzanian
construction industry, it’s prudent that caution or “a health warning” is heeded
in understanding the following recommendations as will be made in section
associated with the recommendations. The authors and the literature review
acknowledge that they are different schools of thought on the benefits of CSFs in
RAMP, as well as the direct correlation between risk management and project
performance. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that construction engineering
and management industry does not exist exclusively in the relative microcosm of
Tanzania, and neither should the research. Against that background, it is suggested
that the readers in interpreting and understanding these recommendations, should
take into considerations the geographic specific findings when applying them to the
broader global community.
Mean scores
Pairing Spearman rank correlation coefficient Significance level
Contractors – clients 0.321 0.05
Clients – consultants 0.685 0.05
Contractors – consultants 0.818 0.05
Table VII.
Spearman rank coefficient
309
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
7. Conclusions
There is a growing awareness of the need for implementation and adoption of RAMP
within both developed, and developing countries. While a number of studies have
been conducted on the CSFs for “construction projects” and “project performance”,
no study has been made of the CSFs to RAMP among the construction organisations
in Tanzania.
The purpose of this research is to investigate the perception of the CSFs for
the implementation of RAMP among the construction professionals in Tanzania.
This involved a questionnaire survey of the clients (o r owners, both private and public),
contractors and consultants involved with construction projects. The results
demonstrated that the construction professionals drawn from client, contractors and
consultants ranked the following CSFs as important or excellent (mean score 44.10):
.awareness of RMPs (mean ¼4.318);
.teamwork and cooperation (mean ¼4.167); and
.management style (mean ¼4.136).
Whereas, the least ranked CSFs were as follows:
.cooperative culture (mean ¼3.849);
.customer requirements (mean ¼3.712); and
.positive human dynamics (mean ¼3.652).
One of the main contributions of this study lies in the identification of an ordered
grouped set of CSFs for RAMP for construction projects in Tanzania. Another
significant contribution of this paper is that it sheds light and provides insights on the
understanding of the CSFs necessary for the implementation of RAMP within the
Tanzanian construction sector, an area previously under-researched. It also expands
the efforts of studying and evaluating the CSFs across the developing economies and
particularly within the (East) African context.
The findings can be used by the practitioners and stakeholders as a road map for
the successful implementation of RAMP. By focusing on the CSFs having low scores
(such as “positive human dynamics” and “customer requirements”), more emphasis
could be placed activities aimed at improving human dynamics (e.g. team building
activities) or measures aimed at improving customer requirements such as partnering
(as a procurement option).
From the contractor’s perspective, there needs to be a closer monitoring of the risk
management practices by the CRB. The underlying premise is that, since the
establishment of the CRB, which is currently the only board which deals with
contractors’ registration in Tanzania, the duties of monitoring the RAMP activities
could be extended to its portfolio. It is assumed that the concept of registration criteria
can successfully be adopted by stakeholders and help to improve quality of registration
criteria through multiplier and accelerator principle to success, therefore improving the
local contractor’s performance at large.
8. Recommendation for further research
As observed by Chileshe and Yirenki-Fianko (2012), using the case of Ghana as an
example, when it comes to developing countries, they are no clear-cut solutions to the
use of RAMP. However, the following recommendations which will be of benefit to
310
ECAM
21,3
consultants, contractors, clients, practitioners and the general public for the usage of
an effective RAMP in Tanzanian constructional related organisations are suggested:
.Awareness campaign – the relevant regulating boards such as the CRB, AQRB,
and ERB representing the contractors, “architects and quantity surveyors” and
engineers professions, respectively, should introduce training programmes
associated with RAMP as well as focus on mechanisms (such as workshops and
seminars) that are aimed at sensitisation of their members on the benefits of
implementation of RAMP.
.Best practice – as proposed by Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010), research
should be carried out on construction organisations that have successfully
implemented RMP in developing countries as case studies to identify the CSFs
that helped them succeed and the challenges they faced and how they overcame
them. The resultant findings could be used as best practice or guidelines for risk
management deployment within developing economies.
.Training – construction professionals need to specialise in risk management and
set up consulting practices so that others can seek expert advice and assistance on
how to carry out the RMP on projects. One notable area found wanting is the
handling of risk. As observed by Debrah and Ofori (2005, p. 1407), Tanzanian
construction professionals lack the ability to handle risk, manage employees and
prepare strategic corporate plans with accurate projections of demand. Some of
these competencies are indirectly linked to risk management. For example, the first
step within the risk management framework is that of “establishing the context”,
and this involves the identification of key stakeholder demands and also provides
organisations the opportunities for prioritising these demands within a framework
of constrained resources. Other studies such as Johnson and Scholes (2001), Luu
et al. (2008) and Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe (2010) have shown the linkages
between strategic management and risk management. Therefore, the need for
further training in “preparation of strategic corporate plans” is also rooted in risk
management aspects such as analysis of the markets and environmental analysis
( Johnson and Scholes, 2001), and the CSFs of “consideration of external and internal
environment” (Agyakwa-Baah and Chileshe, 2010). Furthermore, the results of the
survey shows that “Goals and strategic objectives of the organizations” as one of
highly ranked CSFs by the respondents.
.Joint ventures – studies such as Egmond (2012, p. 455) and Chiragi (2000) have
shown that collaborating with foreign contractors can act as a vehicle for
acquiring further skills for the Tanzanian employees. Against that background,
this research recommends that, where possible, those seeking to improve their
project management, including risk assessment and management techniques
would be better placed in targeting such opportunities of “joint venture ship”.
As previously noted by Chiragi (2000, p. 2), traditionally, the country (Tanzania)
has depended on foreign institutions to train her indigenous professionals and
contractors and consultants to execute big construction projects. This would
further enhance their opportunities to external exposure, which according to
Debrah and Ofori (2005) is lacking among the local Tanzanian practitioners.
Future research should attempt to differentiate the perceptions of the CSFs across the
different groupings, as each class of contractors (according to grading) as well as
ownership (local or foreign) may have its own challenges and problems in their
311
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
approach to RAMP, despite the fact that all of the respondents (including contractors)
were drawn from the relevant registration bodies. As pointed out by the MoW (2003),
foreign contractors have undue competitive advantage over the local contractors as
evidenced through ownership of the market share with 62 per cent attributed to foreign
contractors, and the remainder, 32 per cent to local contractors. This advantage further
extends to the competence related issues. It could thus be argued, the approach to risk
management needs to be differentiated.
9. Limitations of the study
While the study makes several contributions to risk management theory and practice,
several limitations of the research need to be acknowledged. The limitations of the
study relate to the sample data, snap shot nature of studies, and assumptions
undertaken. First, this study did not distinguish between local organisations
(i.e. contractors) and those that tended to collaborate with the foreign contractors as skills
levels among the employees tended to differ, with Tanzanian contractors working with
foreign contractors been the more experienced (Egmond, 2012). Furthermore, from the
contractor’s perspective, this study did not distinguish between the different classes of
contractors. In Tanzania there are seven classes for building, civil, electrical and
mechanical contractors that is, from class one to seven based on the capacity of such
contractors to execute works. Therefore the CSFs identified in this study are generic.
There are several limitations related to the sample. First, the sample consisted of
organisations in one industry, namely construction operating in Tanzania. Consequently,
the findings may not generalise to other industries or organisations operating in other
East African or SAA countries. Second, there is the issue of population validity which
refers to whether the sample is representative and whether the results are significant.
Although the sample of this study (66) was limited, the findings represent a snapshot
of the uptake and CSFs necessary for the implementation of RAMP. However, the use of
quantitative approaches normally requires a large number of cases representing the
population of interest, in order to determine the statistical significance of the results.
Furthermore, cross-section studies as this one only captures the perception of Tanzanian
construction professionals at a point in time. One of the limitations of a cross-section
study of complex concepts such as CSFs and RAMP involves the view points of multiple
actors over time. The other limitation is that, some aspects related to the organisations
and historical contexts within the implementation of RAMP are not captured. However,
despite the noted limitations, the study does provide some valuable insights on the CSFs
associated with the implementation of RAMP.
Third, this study relied on the usage of self-report data and indicators of the construct
are sensitive and difficult for respondents. As observed by Cassell et al. (2002), surveys
based on the self-reported views of a single representative of a company may not provide
reliable estimates of the CSFs necessary for the implementation of RAMP. However, there
is consistency within the results from the quantitative and qualitative (literature review)
parts of the study. Additionally the results do appear to be consistent with previous
research that has examined the implementation issues associated with RAMP within both
the developed and developing economies.
Finally, the study is based on the assumption that adoption of the identified CSFs
will lead to the effective implementation of RAMP. The premise of this assumption is
based on the evidence from the literature review as a number of studies have provided
support for this school of thought. However, to further confirm this assumption within
the context of the Tanzanian construction industry, future studies should employ
312
ECAM
21,3
rigorous statistic analysis such as correlation, regression analysis and factor analysis.
These parametric tests such as Pearson correlation and multivariate techniques
(multiple regression and factor analysis) will provide the desirable support for the
testing of the proposition that there is a significant positive relationship between each
of the ten CSFs and effective implementation of RAMP. This would enable the
exploration of the linkages between implementation of RAMP and enhanced project
performance. It is further suggested that future studies should be longitudinal in
nature in order to draw the casual inferences between adoption of RAMP and delivery of
greater project success. Secondly, as previously noted, the application of factor analysis
would establish the existence of casual connections among the CSFs. According to
Nandhakumar (1996), this would enable the interpretation of these CSFs in a dynamic
context, rather that the static one.
References
Adams, F.K. (2008), “Risk perception and Bayesian analysis of international construction
contract risks: the case of payment delays in a developing economy”, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 138-148.
Agyakwa-Baah, A. and Chileshe, N. (2010), “Critical success factors for risk assessment and
management practices (RAMP) implementation within the Ghanaian construction
organizations”, in Wang, Y., Yang, J., Shen, G.Q.P. and Wong, J. (Eds), Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Construction and Real Estates Management (ICCREM
2010), Leading Sustainable Development Through Construction and Real Estates
Management’, 1st-3rd December 2010, Brisbane (ISBN 978-7-112-12612-5), China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, Vol. 1, pp. 345-352.
Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D.G. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (2008), “Critical success criteria for mass
house building projects in developing countries”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 675-687.
Ahmed, A., Kayis, B. and Amornsawadwatana, S. (2007), “A review of techniques for risk
management in project”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 22-36.
Aje, O.I., Odusami, K.T. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2009), “The impact of contractors management
capability on cost and time performance of construction projects in Nigeria”, Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 171-187.
Akintoye, A., Beck, M., Hardcastle , C., Chinyio, E. and Assenova, D. (2001), Framework for Risk
Assessment of Private Finance Initiative Projects. Report of an EPSRC Sponsored Research
Project, Glasgow University, Glasgow, p. 10.
Akintoye, A.S. and MacLeod, M.J. (1997), “Risk analysis and management in construction”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-38.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success-failure
factors in projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 141-151.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2012), “The paradox of risk management; a project management
practice perspective”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 230-247.
Carter, R.K. (1986), “General review project management”, Facilities, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 37-44.
Cassell, C., Nadin, S., Gray, M. and Clegg, C. (2002), “Exploring human resources management
practices in small and medium sized enterprises”, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 671-692.
Chen, F. (1999), “Critical success factors for various strategies in the banking industry”,
International Journal of Banking Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 83-91.
313
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
Cheung, E., Chan, A.P.C., Lam, P.T.I., Chan, D.W.M. and Ke, Y. (2012), “A comparative study of
critical success factors for public private partnerships (PPP) between Mainland China and
the Hong Kong special administrative region”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 13/14, pp. 647-666.
Chileshe, N. and Dzisi, E. (2012), “Benefits and barriers of construction health and safety
management (HSM): perceptions of practitioners within design organisations”, Journal of
Engineering Design and Technology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 276-298.
Chileshe, N. and Yirenki-Fianko, A.B.E. (2012), “An evaluation of risk factors impacting
construction projects in Ghana”, Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 306-329.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh, P.K. (1999), “Critical success factors for different project
objectives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 3,
pp. 142-150.
Chijoriga, M.M. (2011), “Application of multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) as a credit scoring and
risk assessment model”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 132-147.
Chiragi, F.V. (2000), “Building construction industry in Tanzania-case study: youth sports centres
complex at Mwananyamala, Dar-es-salaam”, alumni papers series, Lund University, Lund,
available at: www.lth.se/fileadmin/hdm/alumni/papers/icm2000/ICM2000-17.pdf (accessed 29
December 2012).
CRB (2010), Constructors Registrations Board Consultative Meeting: Capacity and Competence of
Contractors’ – A Key to Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Colour Print (T) Limited,
Dar es salaam.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Dada, J.O. and Jagboro, G.O. (2007), “An evaluation of risk factors impacting construction cash
flow forecast”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Debrah, Y.A. and Ofori, G. (2005), “Emerging managerial competencies of professionals in the
Tanzanian construction industry”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 1399-1414.
Debrah, Y.A. and Ofori, G. (2006), “Human resource development of professionals in an emerging
economy: the case of the Tanzanian construction industry”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 440-463.
Deros, MD B., Yusof, S.M. and Salleh, Md.A. (2006), “A benchmarking implementation
framework for automotive manufacturing SMEs”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 396-430.
Edwards, P.J. and Bowen, P.A. (1998a), “Risk and risk management in construction: a review and
directions for research”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 339-349.
Edwards, P.J. and Bowen, P.A. (1998b), “Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management
process in building services costs estimation: comment”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 105-108.
Egmond, E.V. (2012), “Case studies of construction technology development and innovation in
developing countries”, in Ofori, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Construction in Developing
Countries, Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY, pp. 442-477.
Elseth, B.O. and Hamann, R.J. (1999), “An evaluation of risk management tools”, The Cost
Engineer, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 13-18.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2009), “Delays and cost overruns in the
construction projects in the Gaza strip”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-151.
314
ECAM
21,3
Famakin, I.O., Aje, I.O. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2012), “Assessment of success factors for joint
venture construction projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of Property
and Construction, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp 153-165.
Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), “Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 321-326.
Hwang, B-G, Zhao, X. and Toh, L.P. (2014), “Risk management in small construction projects in
Singapore: status, barriers and impact”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 16-124, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.007
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2012), “Critical success factors for World Bank projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 105-116.
Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O., Boateng, P. and Okwuashi, O. (2012), “Analysis of risks associated
with facilities management outsourcing: a multivariate approach”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 301-316.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2001), Exploring Corporate Strategy, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, London.
Kikwasi, G.J. (1999), “The selection of project procurement system in the Tanzanian construction
industry”, unpublished masters dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam.
Kikwasi, G.J. (2012), “Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in
Tanzania”, in Chileshe, N. et al (Eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference and
Workshop on Built Environment in Developing Countries “Fragmented Futures: The Built
Environment in a Volatile World”, 4-5 December, University of South Australia, Adelaide,
pp. 138-148.
Kim, S. and Bajaj, D. (2000), “Risk management in construction: an approach for contractors in
South Korea”, Cost Engineering, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp 38-44.
Kululanga, G. and Kuotcha, W. (2010), “Measuring project risk management process for
construction contractors with statement indicators linked to numerical scores”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp 336-351.
Larsen, M.A. and Myers, M.D. (1999), “When success turns into failure: a package-driven
business process re-engineering project in the financial services industry”, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 395-417.
Lema, N.M. (2008), Project Management Practice in Engineering Performance and Future
Challenges, University Press, Dar es Salaam.
Lester, A. (2007), Project Management, Planning and Control, 5th ed., Elsevier Ltd/Butterworth-
Heinemann, Amsterdam, Boston, MA/London.
Ling, F.Y.Y. and Hoang, V.T.P. (2012), “Project risks faced in international construction projects in
developing countries – case study of Vietnam”, in Ofori, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in
Construction in Developing Countries, Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, London and New
York, NY, pp. 347-375.
Liu, A.M.M. and Cheung, S.O. (1994), “Perceptions of risk distribution in construction contracts”,
in Rowlinson, S. (Ed.), Proceedings: CIB International Symposium. Commission W92
Procurement Systems – ‘East Meets West, Department of Surveying, University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 35-42.
Liu, J., Li, B., Lin, B. and Nguyen, V. (2007), “Key issues and challenges of risk management and
insurance in China’s construction industry – an empirical study”, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 382-396.
Luu, T., Kim, S., Cao, H. and Park, Y. (2008), “Performance measurement of construction firms in
developing countries”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 373-386.
315
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
Lynos, T. and Skitmore, M. (2004), “Project risk management in the Queensland engineering
construction industry: a survey”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 51-61.
Manelele, I. and Muya, M. (2008), “Risk identification on community-based construction projects
in Zambia”, Journal of Construction, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 2-7.
Mansfield, N.R. and Sasillo, S.M. (1990), “International construction contracts in Tanzania”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 90-94.
Materu, S.N and Uriyo, A. (2000), “Overview of contractors performance in 1999”,
paper presented to the Contractors Registration Board Tanzania, Annual Workshop,
Dar es salaam.
Mills, A. (2001), “A Systematic approach to risk management for construction”, Structural
Survey, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp 245-252.
Ministry of Works (MoW) (2003), “Construction industry policy”, Government printer, Dar es
Salaam, available at: www.ncc.co.tz/CI-P.pdf (accessed 17 December 2012).
Mok, C.K., Rao Tummala, V.M. and Leung, H.M. (1997), “Practices, barriers and benefits of risk
management process in building services cost estimation”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 161-175.
Msita, K.M.I.M. (1997), “Performance of the construction industry in Tanzania from 1992 to
1996”, Journal of National Construction Council, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 10-14.
Nandhakumar, J. (1996), “Design for success?: Critical success factors in executive information
systems development”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 62-72.
Nkado, R.N. (2010), “Cost escalation of major infrastructure projects: a case study of Soccer City
Stadium in Johannesburg”, in Laryea, S., Leiringer, R. and Hughes, W. (Eds), Proceedings
West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, 27-28 July, West Africa
Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, C/O School of Construction
Management and Engineering, University of Reading, London, pp. 265-270.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ofori, G. (2012a), “The construction industries in developing countries – strategic review of the
book”, in Ofori, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Construction in Developing Countries,
Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY, pp. 1-15.
Ofori, G. (2012b), “Built environment research and the millennium development goals”, in Laryea,
S., Leiringer, R. and Hughes, W. (Eds) Proceedings West Africa Built Environment Research
(WABER) Conference, 27-28 July, West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER)
Conference, C/O School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of
Reading, London, pp. 9-25.
Pinto, J.K. and Covin, J.G. (1989), “Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of
construction and R&D projects”, Technovation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Richard, E., Chijoriga, M., Kaijage, E., Peterson, C. and Bohman, H. (2008), “Credit risk
management system of a commercial bank in Tanzania”, International Journal of
Emerging Markets, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 323-332.
Rochart, J.F. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data needs”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Rwelamila, P.D., Talukhaba, A.A. and Ngowi, A.B. (1999), “Tracing the African project failure
syndrome: the significance of ‘Ubuntu’ ”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp 335-346.
Salaheldin, I.S. (2009), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on
performance of SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-237.
316
ECAM
21,3
Salewi, K.W. (2003), “Project management system within total quality management framework in
the Tanzanian construction industry”, dissertation prepared for the degree of doctor of
philosophy, Washington International University, Washington, DC.
Santoso, D.S., Ogunlana, S.O. and Minato, T. (2003), “Assessment of risks in high rise building
construction in Jakarta”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Simkoko, E.E. (1992), “Managing international construction projects for competence
development within local firms”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 12-22.
SPSS Inc (2002), SPSS 11.0 Statistical Algorithms, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL.
Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N. (2011), “Identification and evaluation of success factors for public
construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 809-823.
Tang, W., Qiang, M., Duffield, C.F., Young, D.M. and Lu, Y. (2007), “Risk management in the
Chinese construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 133 No. 12, pp. 944-956.
Tata, J., Prasad, S. and Thorn, R. (1999), “The influence of organisational structure on
the effectiveness of TQM programs”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 440-453.
Tchankova, L. (2002), “Risk identification – basic stage in risk management”, Environmental
Management and Health, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp 290-229.
Toor, S.-u.-R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2009), “Construction professionals’ perception of critical
success factors for large construction projects”, Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
Toor, S., Ogulana, S.O. and Ofori, G. (2012), “Leadership and its development in construction in
developing countries”, in Ofori, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Construction in
Developing Countries, Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, London and New York, NY,
pp. 242-267.
United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2006), Construction Industry Policy, Ministry of Works,
Government Printer, Dar es Salaam.
Wang, S., Dulaimi, M. and Aguira, M. (2004), “Risk management framework for construction
projects in developing countries”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 237-252.
Wang, J. and Yuan, H. (2011), “Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction
projects: case study from China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 209-219.
Watermeyer, R. (2012), “The critical role of consulting firms in acceleration of infrastructure
delivery and the improvement of the quality of life”, in Ofori, G. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues
in Construction in Developing Countries, Spoon Press, Taylor & Francis, London and New
York, NY, pp. 282-324.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), “Current practice in project management-an empirical study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S. and Chan, A.P.C. (2009), “Exploring critical success factors
for stakeholder management in construction projects”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 337-348.
Yirenkyi-Fianko, A.B., Chileshe, N. and Stephenson, P. (2012), “Critical success factors of risk
assessment and management processes (RAMP) implementation in Ghanaian construction
related organisations”, International Journal of Project Organisation and Management,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 379-396.
317
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
Yuan, H., Shen, L. and Wang, J. (2011), “Major obstacles to improving the performance of
waste management in China’s construction industry”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 5/6,
pp. 224-242.
Zou, P.X.W., Chen, Y. and Chan, T. (2010), “Understanding and improving your risk management
capability: assessment model for construction organizations”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 8, pp. 854-863.
Zwikael, O. (2009), “Critical planning processes in construction projects”, Construction
Innovation: Information, Process, Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp 372-387.
Further reading
Aniekwu, A.N. and Audu, H.O. (2010), “The effects of management on productivity:
a comparative study of indigenous and foreign firms in the Nigerian construction
industry”, in Laryea, S., Leiringer, R. and Hughes, W. (Eds), Proceedings West Africa Built
Environment Research (WABER) Conference, 27-28 July, West Africa Built Environment
Research (WABER) Conference, C/O School of Construction Management and
Engineering, University of Reading, London, pp. 567-578.
Fellows, R., Langford, D., Newcombe, R. and Urry, S. (2001), Construction Management in
Practice, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science Ltd, London.
Lee, A., Wu, S., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2000), “The process protocol, a solution for the problems
of construction”, available at: www.processprotocal.com (accessed 24 November 2012).
Project Management Institute (2008), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square.
Zulu, S. and Chileshe, N. (2010), “Service quality of building maintenance contractors
in Zambia: a pilot study”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 63-81.
About the authors
Dr Nicholas Chileshe is a Senior Lecturer in Construction & Project Management in the School
of Natural and Built Environment at the University of South Australia. He is also the Research
Education and Portfolio Leader and Program Director responsible for the doctorate in project
management. Nicholas obtained his PhD in construction management from the Sheffield
Hallam University in 2004. Prior to his appointment in July 2009, he was at the Sheffield Hallam
University (UK) from 1999 to 2009 where he also served as the course leader for the BSc (Hons)
Construction Commercial Management programme within the Built Environment Division and
an Assistant Program Leader for the MSc in construction programme. Dr Chileshe is also
a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building (FCIOB), Fellow of the Australian Institute of
Building (FAIB), Fellow of the Association of Building Engineers (FEBng), Fellow of the Higher
Education Academy (FHEA), Member of the Chartered Institute of Management (MICM),
and Member of the Australian Institute of Project Management (MAIPM). Nicholas’s ongoing
professional involvement includes membership and Chair of the Australasian Education
Committee, and the CIOB International Accreditation Panel; and as acted as a PhD external
examiner for Universities in South Africa and Australia. He also regularly reviews proposals
for the National Research Foundation (NRF) in South Africa, and the Higher Education
Academy (UK). His current research interests include total quality management, sustainability,
construction management, risk and value management, project management and project
success. Dr Nicholas Chileshe is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
Nicholas.Chileshe@unisa.edu.au
Dr Geraldine John Kikwasi is a Senior Lecturer in Construction & Project Management in the
School Construction Economics and Management and the Director of Gender Dimension Unit at
318
ECAM
21,3
Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. She holds a PhD in management science and
engineering (construction project management) from the Beijing University of Technology
(BJUT) in 2005, and masters in engineering management project management from the
University of Dar es Salaam in 1999. Prior to joining the Ardhi University as a Lecturer in 2006,
she worked with Ardhi University as part-time lecturer from 2003. She also works on various
construction projects in Tanzania as a consultant. Dr Kikwasi is also a registered quantity
surveyor with the Architects and Quantity Surveyors’ Registration Board of Tanzania; Vice
Chairperson Board of Directors of Architects and Quantity Surveyors’ Registration Board of
Tanzania; Honorary Secretary and an Associate Member of Tanzania Institute of Quantity
Surveyors (TIQS), Vice President of Association of Construction Schools of Southern Africa
(ASOCSA), and an Associate Member of Tanzania Institute of Arbitrators and panel member of
National Construction Council arbitrators. Dr Kikwasi also has been involved as an external
examiner of masters and PhD dissertations/thesis for various universities in South Africa.
Her areas of research interest include: construction management, risk management, health and
safety in construction, gender and construction, construction skills and project management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
319
CSFs for
implementation
of RAMP
