A Common Structure for Factors that Enhance Synergy in Contractor Project Teams: Executive and Practitioner Perspectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesized Model
2.1. Theoretical Foundation
2.2. Factors Related to Synergy Building
2.3. Executive and Practitioner Roles in Construction Projects
2.4. Hypothesized Model
- Planning and policy: This is measured by defining project goals and objectives, defining the scope and constraints of project tasks, ensuring strategic alignment of project team members, and using technology in project implementation;
- Organizational structure: This is measured by the expertise and competence of project team members, project team selection and development, resource allocation for projects, and corporate culture;
- Leadership: This is measured by leader capabilities and potential, roles and duties of leaders, leader authority, and decision-making process and change management.
- Motivation: This is measured by payment and rewards, acceptance and satisfaction, welfare and quality of life at work, relationships and conflict reduction, and team member participation;
- Coordination: This is measured by communication, data recording and document management, contract performance, and meetings and preparing reports.
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire Survey and Sample Characteristics
3.2. Questionnaire Establishment
- In the questionnaire’s first section, information about the respondent’s individual and organizational details was collected, including position, duration in position, type of construction projects completed, and the average annual project volume range;
- In the questionnaire’s second section, 21 synergy factors grouped into planning and policy, organizational structure, leadership, motivation, and coordination were measured, as depicted in Figure 1. This measurement used a five-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting extremely low importance, 5 denoting extremely high importance, and 3 denoting a medium level of importance. The questionnaire items in this section were arranged according to the model proposed in Figure 1. The definition of synergy factors was established by reviewing the literature and theory related to synergy, collaboration, coordination, and CSFs, validating these factors’ meanings.
3.3. Questionnaire Evaluation
- Before distributing the questionnaire, in-depth interviews were conducted with three experts in construction projects, each with over 15 years of experience, to test its content validity. The feedback from these experts was compared with the existing literature and theory, and adjustments were made to ensure that the questionnaire was clear and concise. Additionally, Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate the construct validity of the synergy factors in the questionnaire. The study found that all of the synergy factors were correlated, confirming the construct validity of the questionnaire items [23];
- In the reliability test, the internal consistency of the questionnaire scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha value ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 signifies the lowest reliability and 1 signifies the highest reliability. The test for the questionnaire scale yielded values of 0.918 and 0.934 for executives and practitioners, respectively. According to Tavakol and Dennick [24], an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value is above 0.7; thus, the alpha value of the questionnaire scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability.
3.4. Data Analysis Methods
- Comparing the mean importance and rank order of synergy factors: When analyzing synergy factors, valuable insights can be gained into the relative significance of different factors (also known as variables) contributing to overall synergy. This can help stakeholders prioritize their focus on key elements that enhance synergy. By comparing the mean importance and rank order of synergy factors, executives and practitioners can identify areas for further investigation in the hypothesized model, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the important factors driving synergy. The comparison methods involve (1) calculating the mean importance for each synergy factor based on sample responses, (2) ranking them to identify the most important factors, and (3) discussing why some of the factors are crucial for enhancing synergy among the contractor project team;
- Examining differences and similarities in synergy factors between executive and practitioner perspectives: A non-parametric statistical tool called the Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine the mean importance of synergy factors for executives and practitioners by setting the null hypothesis (Ho): there is no difference in the mean importance of synergy factors between the two sample groups. This examination is widely applied in various fields like social sciences, economics, and engineering owing to its versatility and robustness in analyzing non-normally distributed data. The U statistic in this test is used to determine the p-value, which assesses the significance of the difference between the two sample groups. If the p-value is lower than 0.05 (significance level), Ho is rejected, suggesting that the mean importance of synergy factors derived from executives and practitioners differs;
- Identifying a common structure for synergy factors: To analyze the hypothesized model in Figure 1, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. CFA is a statistical technique used to validate the hypothesized relationships between observed and latent variables. CFA examines how well the observed data align with the expected relationship specified in the conceptual model (Figure 1). By analyzing the data collected through CFA, insights can be gained into the underlying structure of factors (also known as variables). Researchers use methods like five-point Likert scales to directly measure observed variables as they indirectly measure and determine the latent variables that influence the hypothesized observed variables. There are two types of latent variables: exogenous variables, which influence other latent variables, and endogenous variables, which are influenced by other latent variables (either endogenous or exogenous ones). The CFA models for exogenous and endogenous latent variables can be represented by Equations (1) and (2), respectively [25].
- Chi-square (χ2): This criterion finds a model that fits the sample data well. When the chi-square value is zero, the sample data best fit the model. For ease of use, this criterion is indicated by the p-value. The p-value is in the 0.05–1.00 range, indicating a good fit for the model [26];
- Relative chi-square (χ2/df): The smallest difference divided by the number of its degrees of freedom [27];
- Incremental fit index (IFI): Also termed comparative or relative fit indices, these measures do not employ chi-square in its original form but instead compare the chi-square value to a baseline model [28];
- Tucker–Lewis index (TLI): The TLI is an incremental fit index that can compare a hypothesized model against a null model [29]. It ranges between 0 (no fit) and 1 (best fit), and a value above 0.90 is considered a good model fit;
- Root mean square residual (RMR): The root mean square of the differences between the sample variances and covariances and their estimated values, assuming the model is accurate [27];
- Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA): The RMSEA represents a badness-of-fit model. An RMSEA value of zero indicates the best model fit. An RMSEA value range between 0.05 and 0.08 indicates a close fit [29].
4. Results
4.1. Sample Characteristics
4.2. Comparing the Mean Importance and Rank Order of Synergy Factors
4.3. Examining Differences and Similarities in Synergy Factors between Executive and Practitioner Perspectives
4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Findings
5.2. Implications for the Thai Construction Industry
- Our examination of differences and similarities in synergy factors revealed that both executives and practitioners have similar perceptions of these factors. This discovery gives construction project participants confidence that there will be less conflict between both parties when the five-factor groups (coordination, organizational structure, motivation, leadership, and planning and policy) are implemented;
- Understanding the rank order of synergy factor groups can help executives and practitioners prioritize common measures to effectively allocate the organization’s available resources. This can also help select appropriate strategies to enhance synergy within the construction project team, potentially leading to better project performance. For instance, coordination is ranked first in enhancing synergy within a project team. Both executives and practitioners should determine measures and strategies for communication using new technologies such as ICT tools, for example, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or Zoom, along with digital tools like project management software (PMS) and BIM. These tools are crucial for enhancing communication and fostering coordination, especially in the construction industry, where project teams are often geographically dispersed. ICT tools also facilitate real-time information sharing and interaction, which is crucial for effective communication in such settings.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Afshar, J.; Roudsari, A.H.; Lee, W. Top-k team synergy problem: Capturing team synergy based on C3. Inf. Sci. 2020, 589, 117–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, Z.; Caldas, C.; Oliveira, D.; Kermanshachi, S. Cross-functional collaboration in the early phases of capital projects: Barriers and contributing factors. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2023, 4, 100092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youssef, M.F.; Eid, A.F.; Khodeir, L.M. Challenges affecting efficient management of virtual teams in construction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 14, 102008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikulina, A.; Volker, L.; Bosch-Rekveldt, M. The interplay of formal integrative mechanisms and relational norms in project collaboration. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2022, 40, 798–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, H.P. Relationships among team trust, team cohesion, team satisfaction, team effectiveness and project performance as perceived by project managers in Malaysia. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2014, 8, 205–216. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, J.; Gao, H.; Wang, J. Analysis of synergy degree and its influencing factors in hydropower EPC project management. Front. Eng. Manag. 2021, 8, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buvik, M.P.; Rolfsen, M. Prior ties and trust development in project teams—A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1484–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, B.; Waziri, A.Y.; Usman, H.; Ibrahim, Y. The Influence of Construction Project Team Effectiveness in Higher Institutions’ Building Projects: A Case from Nigeria. Int. J. Real Estate Stud. 2022, 16, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Wang, T.; Liu, Y.; Dou, Z. Configurational path to collaborative innovation in large and complex construction projects. Buildings 2024, 14, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaloul, W.S.; Liew, M.S.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A. Identification of coordination factors affecting building projects performance. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 2689–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toor, S.R.; Ogunlana, S.O. Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 26, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarvari, H.; Chan, D.W.M.; Alaeos, A.K.F.; Olawumi, T.O.; Aldaud, A.A.A. Critical success factors for managing construction small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries of Middle East: Evidence from Iranian construction enterprises. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Ying, W.; Xiong, R.; Ying, C. Project executive’s ethical Leadership and Construction Projects’ Social Responsibility: Evidence from Wuhan, China. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 6332424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amoah, A.; Marimon, F. Project managers as knowledge workers: Competencies for effective project management in developing countries. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modranský, R.; Lajčin, D. Correlation of motivation and value orientation of project managers. Emerg. Sci. J. 2021, 5, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szafranko, E. Decision problems in management of construction projects. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Innovative Materials, Structures and Technologies (IMST 2017), Riga, Latvia, 27–29 September 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latiffi, A.A.; Zulkiffli, N.A. The improvement factors of leadership skills among project managers in pre-construction phase of sustainable construction projects. Int. J. Real Estate Stud. 2021, 15, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahiabu, M.K.; Adzivor, E.K.; Attipoe, J.A.; Agyapong, J.A.M.; Abiemo, M.K. Beyond bricks and mortar: Work-life balance and project performance of Ghana’s construction professionals—Does co-worker relationship quality matter? Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2024, 10, 100940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, M.A.V.; Morgado, C.R.V.; Lins, M.P.E. Organizations and stakeholders’ roles and influence on implementing sustainability requirements in construction projects. Heliyon 2024, 10, e23762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumar, V.; Pandey, A.; Singh, R. Can artificial intelligence be a critical success factor of construction projects? Practitioner perspectives. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2021, 11, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thai Contractors Association under H.M. The King’s Patronage. Thailand Construction Handbook; ASEAN Construction Federation: Bangkok, Thailand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ayedun, C.A.; Oloyede, S.A.; Oni, A.S.; Alini, R.A. Towards ascertaining the acceptable margin of error to property investment valuation stakeholders in Nigeria. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 7, 184–197. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bollen, K.A. Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation model. Sociol. Methodol. 1987, 17, 37–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Person Prentice Hall: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, J.L. IBM SPSS Amos 20 User’s Guide; IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M.R. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
- Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research; Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, CA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Ullman, J.B. Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. J. Pers. Assess. 2001, 87, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diamantopoulos, A.; Siguaw, J.A. Introduction LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated; Sage Publication: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Lu, W.; Zhang, L. How to achieve better cooperation and performance in construction projects: A perspective of interorganizational conflict profiles. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 5885–5898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaloul, W.S.; Liew, M.S.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A. A framework for coordination process into construction projects. In Proceedings of the 4th International Building Control Conference 2016 (IBCC 2016), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–8 March 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Canel, C. Process coordination, project attributes and project performance in offshore-outsourced service projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 980–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M.; Tjell, J. The concept of project space: Studying construction project teams from a spatial perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1312–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhari, T.P.; Bhangale, P.P. Exploring coordination effectiveness for high-rise buildings. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2015, 4, 771–778. [Google Scholar]
- Malone, T.W.; Crowston, K. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. 1994, 26, 87–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, R. Managing quality in projects: An empirical study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, A.; Huber, F.; Algesheime, R.; Tomczak, T. An empirical study of quality function deployment on company performance. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2006, 23, 345–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampel, J. The core competencies of effective project execution: The challenge of diversity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawesittisankhun, K.; Pongpeng, J. Construction project team’s competencies influencing contractor business competencies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology (ICEAST 2019), Luang Prabang, Laos, 2–5 July 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, M.F.; Haque, M.A.; Islam, M.S. Motivation theories—A critical analysis. ASA Univ. Rev. 2014, 8, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- Kopmann, J.; Kock, A.; Killen, C.P.; Gemünden, H.G. The role of project portfolio management in fostering both deliberate and emergent strategy. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyer, K.C.; Jha, K.N. Critical factors affecting schedule performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikediashi, D.I.; Mendie, A.; Achuenu, E.; Oladokun, M.G. Key performance indicators of design and build projects in Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 37, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.L. Performance measurement and the prediction of capital project failure. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1393–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cserháti, G.; Szabó, L. The relationship between success criteria and success factors in organisational event projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 613–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rantai, R.A.; Omar, R.; Sarpin, N. Leadership style and traits practice by the contractors in managing construction projects in Sarawak, Malaysia. Res. Manag. Technol. Bus. 2022, 3, 608–625. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, R.J.; Wang, Y.; Jin, X.H. Stakeholders’ attributes, behaviors, and decision-making strategies in construction projects: Importance and correlations in practice. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 74–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanmugapriya, S.; Subramanian, K. Structural equation model to investigate the factors influencing quality performance in Indian construction projects. Sādhanā 2015, 40, 1975–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Olanipekun, A.O.; Bai, L. A successful delivery process of green buildings: The project owners’ view, motivation and commitment. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors Related to Building Synergy | Latent Synergy Factors | Observed Synergy Factors; Critical Success Factors Related to Synergy | References |
---|---|---|---|
Factors enhancing synergy in contractor project teams | Planning and policy | Defining project goals and objectives | Youssef et al. [3], Zhu et al. [6], Chen et al. [9], Alaloul et al. [10], Toor and Ogunlana [11] |
Defining the scope and constraints of project tasks | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6], Alaloul et al. [10] | ||
Ensuring strategic alignment of project teams | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6], Sarvari et al. [12] | ||
Using technology in project implementation | Yin et al. [2], Youssef et al. [3], Chen et al. [9], Sarvari et al. [12] | ||
Organizational structure | Expertise and competence of project teams | Youssef et al. [3], Zhu et al. [6], Toor and Ogunlana [11] | |
Project team selection and development | Zhu et al. [6], Toor and Ogunlana [11] | ||
Resource allocation for projects | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6] | ||
Corporate culture | Youssef et al. [3], Alaloul et al. [10] | ||
Leadership | Leader capabilities and potential | Yin et al. [2], Youssef et al. [3], Zhu et al. [6], Toor and Ogunlana [11] | |
Roles and duties of leaders | Yin et al. [2], Youssef et al. [3], Zhu et al. [6] | ||
Leader authority | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6] | ||
Decision-making processes and change management | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6], Chen et al. [9], Toor and Ogunlana [11] | ||
Motivation | Payment and rewards | Zhu et al. [6], Chen et al. [9] | |
Acceptance and satisfaction | Chen et al. [9] | ||
Welfare and quality of life at work | Sarvari et al. [12] | ||
Relationships and conflict reduction | Afshar et al. [1], Zu et al. [6], Chen et al. [9], Sarvari et al. [12] | ||
Team member participation | Afshar et al. [1], Youssef et al. [3], Chen et al. [9], Alaloul et al. [10] | ||
Coordination | Communication | Afshar et al. [1], Yin et al. [2], Youssef et al. [3], Chen et al. [9], Alaloul et al. [10], Sarvari et al. [12] | |
Data recording and document management | Zhu et al. [6], Alaloul et al. [10] | ||
Contract performance | Yin et al. [2], Zhu et al. [6], Chen et al. [9], Alaloul et al. [10], Toor and Ogunlana [11] | ||
Meetings and preparing reports | Alaloul et al. [10], Toor and Ogunlana [11] Chen et al. [9], Alaloul et al. [10] |
Role | Sample Characteristics | Number of Responses | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Executive | Position | ||
Organizational manager | 6 | 6.06 | |
Project manager | 11 | 11.12 | |
Project engineer | 14 | 14.14 | |
Functional manager | 4 | 4.04 | |
Practitioner | Engineer | 36 | 36.36 |
Architect | 5 | 5.05 | |
Project staff | 18 | 18.18 | |
Others | 5 | 5.05 | |
Total | 99 | 100.00 | |
Executive | Duration in position | ||
Less than 1 year | 7 | 7.07 | |
1–5 years | 8 | 8.08 | |
6–10 years | 10 | 10.11 | |
11–15 years | 1 | 1.01 | |
16–20 years | 6 | 6.06 | |
More than 20 years | 3 | 3.03 | |
Practitioner | Less than 1 year | 12 | 12.12 |
1–5 years | 19 | 19.19 | |
6–10 years | 19 | 19.19 | |
11–15 years | 4 | 4.04 | |
16–20 years | 1 | 1.01 | |
More than 20 years | 9 | 9.09 | |
Total | 99 | 100.00 |
Role | Sample Characteristics | Number of Responses | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Executive | Type of construction projects | ||
Road | 18 | 6.41 | |
Bridge | 15 | 5.34 | |
Factory building | 10 | 3.56 | |
Airport | 7 | 2.48 | |
Sports stadium | 1 | 0.36 | |
Non-residential building | 12 | 4.27 | |
Utility | 29 | 10.32 | |
Mall building | 5 | 1.78 | |
Power plant and port | 12 | 4.27 | |
Others | 3 | 1.07 | |
Practitioner | Road | 22 | 7.83 |
Bridge | 16 | 5.68 | |
Factory building | 22 | 7.83 | |
Airport | 12 | 4.27 | |
Sports stadium | 1 | 0.36 | |
Non-residential building | 27 | 9.61 | |
Utility | 34 | 12.1 | |
Mall building | 6 | 2.14 | |
Power plant and port | 15 | 5.34 | |
Others | 14 | 4.98 | |
Total | 281 * | 100.00 | |
Approximate mean yearly project worth ** (USDM) | |||
Executive | Less than 27.03 | 4 | 4.04 |
27.03–135.13 | 7 | 7.07 | |
135.14–270.27 | 6 | 6.06 | |
270.28–405.40 | 8 | 8.08 | |
405.41–540.54 | 2 | 2.02 | |
More than 540.54 | 8 | 8.08 | |
NA | 0 | 0 | |
Practitioner | Less than 27.03 | 13 | 13.14 |
27.03–135.13 | 14 | 14.14 | |
135.14–270.27 | 5 | 5.05 | |
270.28–405.40 | 6 | 6.06 | |
405.41–540.54 | 2 | 2.02 | |
More than 540.54 | 8 | 8.08 | |
NA | 16 | 16.16 | |
Total | 99 | 100.00 |
Perspective | Synergy Factors | Mean Importance | Rank Order |
---|---|---|---|
Executive | Ensuring strategic alignment of project team members | 4.57 | 1 |
Contract performance | 4.54 | 2 | |
Defining project goals and objectives | 4.54 | 3 | |
Decision-making process and change management | 4.51 | 4 | |
Communication | 4.49 | 5 | |
Welfare and quality of life at work | 4.46 | 6 | |
Expertise and competence of project team members | 4.46 | 7 | |
Resource allocation for projects | 4.46 | 8 | |
Leader capabilities and potential | 4.43 | 9 | |
Defining the scope and constraints of project tasks | 4.40 | 10 | |
Roles and duties of leaders | 4.40 | 11 | |
Payment and rewards | 4.37 | 12 | |
Data recording and document management | 4.37 | 13 | |
Meetings and preparing reports | 4.37 | 14 | |
Leader authority | 4.37 | 15 | |
Project team selection and development | 4.37 | 16 | |
Using technology in project implementation | 4.29 | 17 | |
Team member participation | 4.26 | 18 | |
Corporate culture | 4.26 | 19 | |
Relationships and conflict reduction | 4.17 | 20 | |
Acceptance and satisfaction | 4.09 | 21 | |
Practitioner | Roles and duties of leaders | 4.47 | 1 |
Leader capabilities and potential | 4.44 | 2 | |
Defining project goals and objectives | 4.39 | 3 | |
Leader authority | 4.39 | 4 | |
Expertise and competence of project team members | 4.36 | 5 | |
Data recording and document management | 4.34 | 6 | |
Ensuring strategic alignment of project team members | 4.34 | 7 | |
Team member participation | 4.31 | 8 | |
Decision-making process and change management | 4.31 | 9 | |
Contract performance | 4.28 | 10 | |
Communication | 4.28 | 11 | |
Project team selection and development | 4.27 | 12 | |
Meetings and preparing reports | 4.25 | 13 | |
Resource allocation for projects | 4.23 | 14 | |
Defining the scope and constraints of project tasks | 4.22 | 15 | |
Welfare and quality of life at work | 4.20 | 16 | |
Using technology in project implementation | 4.14 | 17 | |
Corporate culture | 4.13 | 18 | |
Relationships and conflict reduction | 4.09 | 19 | |
Acceptance and satisfaction | 4.06 | 20 | |
Payment and rewards | 4.03 | 21 |
Synergy Factors | Mean Importance | p-Value * | Examination Result | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Executive | Practitioner | |||
Defining project goals and objectives | 4.54 | 4.39 | 0.379 | Non-different |
Defining the scope and constraint of project tasks | 4.40 | 4.22 | 0.290 | Non-different |
Ensuring strategic alignment of project team members | 4.57 | 4.34 | 0.175 | Non-different |
Using technology in project implementation | 4.29 | 4.14 | 0.399 | Non-different |
Expertise and competence of project team members | 4.46 | 4.36 | 0.643 | Non-different |
Project team selection and development | 4.37 | 4.27 | 0.562 | Non-different |
Resource allocation for projects | 4.46 | 4.23 | 0.138 | Non-different |
Corporate culture | 4.26 | 4.13 | 0.469 | Non-different |
Leader capabilities and potential | 4.43 | 4.44 | 0.818 | Non-different |
Roles and duties of leaders | 4.40 | 4.47 | 0.500 | Non-different |
Leader authority | 4.37 | 4.39 | 0.731 | Non-different |
Decision-making process and change management | 4.51 | 4.31 | 0.304 | Non-different |
Payment and rewards | 4.37 | 4.03 | 0.154 | Non-different |
Acceptance and satisfaction | 4.09 | 4.06 | 0.901 | Non-different |
Welfare and quality of life at work | 4.46 | 4.20 | 0.131 | Non-different |
Relationships and conflict reduction | 4.17 | 4.09 | 0.808 | Non-different |
Team member participation | 4.26 | 4.31 | 0.677 | Non-different |
Communication | 4.49 | 4.28 | 0.244 | Non-different |
Data recording and document management | 4.37 | 4.34 | 0.994 | Non-different |
Contract performance | 4.54 | 4.28 | 0.171 | Non-different |
Meetings and preparing reports | 4.37 | 4.25 | 0.449 | Non-different |
Hypotheses | Standardized Regression Weights | p-Value | Results (p-Value < 0.05 Accepted) |
---|---|---|---|
H1: Planning and policy are positively associated with enhanced synergy. | 0.69 | <0.001 | Accepted |
H2: Organizational structure is positively associated with enhanced synergy. | 0.92 | <0.001 | Accepted |
H3: Leadership is positively associated with enhanced synergy. | 0.75 | <0.001 | Accepted |
H4: Motivation is positively associated with enhanced synergy. | 0.80 | <0.001 | Accepted |
H5: Coordination is positively associated with enhanced synergy. | 0.94 | <0.001 | Accepted |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pongpeng, J.; Ratanawimol, N. A Common Structure for Factors that Enhance Synergy in Contractor Project Teams: Executive and Practitioner Perspectives. Buildings 2024, 14, 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092754
Pongpeng J, Ratanawimol N. A Common Structure for Factors that Enhance Synergy in Contractor Project Teams: Executive and Practitioner Perspectives. Buildings. 2024; 14(9):2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092754
Chicago/Turabian StylePongpeng, Jakrapong, and Nareerat Ratanawimol. 2024. "A Common Structure for Factors that Enhance Synergy in Contractor Project Teams: Executive and Practitioner Perspectives" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2754. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092754