A Common Structure for Factors that Enhance Synergy in Contractor Project Teams: Executive and Practitioner Perspectives

Abstract

Synergy in a contractor project team improves performance by integrating diverse knowledge and skills among team members, enabling the achievement of project objectives. However, according to a literature review, factors that enhance synergy among contractor project teams from the perspective of executives and practitioners have rarely been discovered, revealing a knowledge gap that needs to be filled. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify a common structure of such factors for executives and practitioners. Data collection involved a questionnaire survey targeting large contractors in Bangkok, Thailand. Then, we compared the mean importance and rank order of synergy factors, examined differences and similarities in synergy factors between executive and practitioner perspectives using the Mann–Whitney U test, and applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the data analysis. The differences and similarities show that executives and practitioners have similar perspectives on synergy factors. The CFA results validate a factor structure that enhances synergy. This synergy factor structure for executives and practitioners can be divided into five groups, with their standardized regression weights in parentheses: coordination (0.94), organizational structure (0.92), motivation (0.80), leadership (0.75), and planning and policy (0.69). These findings contribute to the body of knowledge and the state of practice by offering a practical framework to assist executives and practitioners in contractor organizations in identifying common measures and resource allocation based on the regression weights of synergy factors. This can improve synergy among contractor project teams, potentially resulting in better performance.

1. Introduction

In the construction business, a contractor’s viability is directly linked to the successful execution of construction projects. A crucial activity in this success is cultivating the contractor project team’s synergy, where collaboration, coordination, and communication are the foundations for synergy to flourish. Synergy within the project team enables diverse skills and perspectives to come together, resulting in greater outcomes than individual efforts [1]. That is, synergy significantly enhances the collective capabilities of all team members, surpassing the sum of each individual’s capacity. This is vital in improving the contractor’s overall ability to finish construction projects. In contractor organizations, creating synergy and collaboration within the project team can be a challenging task for the project manager. As such, researchers have looked into various aspects of synergy and collaboration within these teams. For instance, Afshar et al. [1] used communication, cooperation, and complementarity to address team synergy issues. They then developed a model to measure synergy levels among project team members and assist project managers or stakeholders in forming the right teams for their projects or businesses. Yin et al. [2] identified cross-functional collaboration barriers and their contributing factors in the early phases of capital projects, specifically in the downstream and chemical industry sectors. The study utilized interviews and questionnaire surveys to identify barriers such as deviation from the project execution plan, idling resources on project teams, ignoring the project governance process, imperfect project development process, lack of alignment between functions or teams, lack of communication, limited resources, unclear business objectives, undermining the contractor’s early-phase work efficiency, undermining the project’s economic viability, unestablished or ineffective collaboration, unexpected changes in project scope, unrealistic targets and expectations, and unresolved potential project risks. In a study in Egypt, Youssef et al. [3] introduced factors affecting efficient virtual team management in construction projects, including clear goals and objectives, respect, teamwork, communication quality, trust, leadership management, 24-h support/availability, commitment, and diversity. This study also highlighted the challenges virtual teams face during construction projects, such as leadership, trust, team cohesion, technical management, communication, cultural diversity, time differences, and geographical distribution. Nikulina et al. [4] discovered that successful project collaboration relies on a combination of formal integrative mechanisms and relational norms. The formal integrative mechanisms can be divided into three distinct roles: governance and administration, support, and joint work activities. On the other hand, relational norms are characterized by commitment, a win-win philosophy, shared vision and values, transparency, trust, and respect. Fung [5] discovered that team trust, cohesion, and satisfaction play key roles in influencing project performance and team effectiveness. Specifically, high levels of team trust positively impact project performance, team satisfaction, team effectiveness, and team cohesion. However, although strong team cohesion can increase team satisfaction, it may reduce project performance. Moreover, team satisfaction can potentially enhance project performance and team effectiveness. Zhu et al. [6] studied synergy in hydropower engineering procurement construction (EPC) project management to enhance efficiency. They identified key factors that affect the synergy degree through gray correlation analysis. These factors include information synergy, organization synergy, process synergy, business synergy, resource synergy, and institution synergy.

In prior research, scholars have developed empirical synergy theories mostly focusing on data-driven insights and real-world observations. These empirical theories propose several factors to facilitate synergy and collaboration within project teams, including owners, architects, engineers, suppliers, planners, subcontractors, and contractors. However, there has been little exploration of the common factors that enhance synergy within a contractor project team from the perspective of executives and practitioners, presenting a knowledge gap. To address this knowledge gap, this research aimed to explore the structure of these factors from the perspectives of executives and practitioners, mainly by using the Mann–Whitney U test and confirmatory factor analysis. This common structure can provide insights into factors that enhance synergy for executives and practitioners, determining mutually agreed-upon measures between the two perspectives. This, in turn, can lead to coordinated efforts to ensure the success of these measures, potentially resulting in higher contractor project team performance. Furthermore, this study’s findings can help international construction professionals understand how to enhance synergy in the Thai construction business, facilitating overseas construction companies in expanding into the Thai construction market.

The next section (Section 2) includes a literature review and a hypothesized model, followed by Section 3, which covers the methodology used. Section 4 presents the results of the study. Following that, Section 5 discusses the results in comparison with empirical theories and previous studies, as well as their implications for the Thai construction industry. Finally, Section 6 provides the conclusion, presenting the study’s contributions, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesized Model

After winning a bid and entering into a contract with a project owner, a contractor must assemble a team to execute the project. Typically, this project team comprises individuals from various functional departments within the contractor’s organization, all of whom must collaborate effectively to accomplish the project’s goals and ensure its success. In this study, the factors that enable these parties to work together within the contractor project team with exceptional performance are broadly referred to as synergy. The synergy among members of a construction project team enhances stakeholder interaction, enabling effective communication and coordination to overcome challenges and ensure project success [2,4]. It also optimizes resources by efficiently coordinating internal and external resources, maximizing their utilization, and minimizing conflicts over resource allocation [4,7]. Furthermore, synergy allows construction project teams to leverage diverse expertise and perspectives, leading to innovative problem-solving approaches and effective decision-making processes [8].

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical framework of synergy is rooted in integrating various elements to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts, driven by positive feedback loops and complementary interactions between stakeholders. Various researchers have used empirical theories in the construction industry as foundational frameworks to observe, study, and analyze synergy in construction project teams. Most of them have suggested factors related to enhancing synergy, as shown in

Table 1. Factors related to building synergy.

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]

[1,2,3,6,9,10,11,12], for example, using technology in project implementation, resource allocation for projects, decision-making processes and change management, relationships, and conflict management, and meetings and preparing reports. Understanding synergy factors enables more effective critical factor prioritization. In this study, the synergy factors suggested in empirical studies by previous researchers are the theoretical foundation for developing a factor structure that can enhance synergy within a contractor project team.

2.2. Factors Related to Synergy Building

Numerous researchers have delved into various aspects to enhance synergy within project teams. Some researchers have identified synergy factors that are important in shaping overall team synergy, affecting how team members collaborate, contribute their skills, and work together toward common goals. Other studies have highlighted collaborative factors that enhance coordination and integration between different functions, teamwork, knowledge sharing, creativity, and decision-making processes, leading to overall project success. Additionally, critical success factors (CSFs) such as communication, competence, leadership, coordination, planning and policy, and motivation have been identified as key elements that promote project team synergy. Their suggested factors are summarized in Table 1.

2.3. Executive and Practitioner Roles in Construction Projects

In a contractor project team, two participants play crucial roles in the success of construction projects: executives and practitioners. These participants have different roles and responsibilities within projects. Executives are responsible for managing people, making decisions regarding project direction, project implementation, and resource allocation, and ensuring value delivery to customers [13]. They lead project teams to achieve project objectives, coordinate across technical and functional units, manage stakeholder communications throughout the project lifecycle to ensure alignment and transparency [14], and motivate the project team to maintain synergy and dynamics, ultimately contributing to project success [15]. Executives leading large projects prioritize the decision feedback and refinement to reduce significant risks. They mostly focus on strategic goals and gather comprehensive information [16]. Additionally, they thoroughly analyze project requirements to understand the scope, objectives, and constraints, helping them make the best decisions throughout the project lifecycle [17].

On the other hand, practitioners usually engage in the daily activities and implementation of construction projects. They emphasize the importance of horizontal workplace relationships, provide practical insights to improve project practices, support decision-making processes, analyze project requirements, set clear goals, and assess consequences to make suitable choices [18,19]. Practitioners are mainly concerned with, for example, productivity, resource management, site layout, labor supervision, and design complexity [20]. Their contributions to projects include promoting safety culture, assessing ground behavior, employing effective communication practices, and adapting to environmental tensions. These contributions collectively enhance the success and efficiency of construction projects.

According to our literature review, executives and practitioners have distinct roles and responsibilities when implementing construction projects. They may perceive synergy factors in different ways. Therefore, it is important to analyze the differences and similarities in their perspectives on synergy factors before identifying a unified framework for building synergy among a contractor project team.

2.4. Hypothesized Model

The literature review in Table 1 shows that synergy within project teams can be developed through various study-related disciplines. These factors fall into five groups, each consisting of several factors as follows:

• 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.

In this research, all five synergy factor groups are hypothesized and visually represented in Figure 1.

As shown in Figure 1, the following hypotheses of factor structure for enhancing synergy among contractor project teams were formulated.

Hypothesis 1 (H1):

Planning and policy are positively associated with enhanced synergy.

Hypothesis 2 (H2):

Organizational structure is positively associated with enhanced synergy.

Hypothesis 3 (H3):

Leadership is positively associated with enhanced synergy.

Hypothesis 4 (H4):

Motivation is positively associated with enhanced synergy.

Hypothesis 5 (H5):

Coordination is positively associated with enhanced synergy.

3. Methodology

This study primarily used a quantitative research approach to identify a common synergy factor structure from executive and practitioner perspectives. Figure 2 illustrates the study methodology flow chart.

3.1. Questionnaire Survey and Sample Characteristics

This study used a cross-sectional survey research approach, employing a questionnaire to gather opinions from samples on the importance of factors that enhance synergy within a contractor project team. The survey took place in Bangkok and its surrounding areas, targeting only large contractors with registered capital of more than USD 40.54 million (THB 1500 million) owing to their diverse team members and extensive synergy-building experience. Small and medium contractors were not included in the survey. Thirteen contractors involved in non-residential construction and listed in the ASEAN Construction Federation’s Thailand Construction Handbook [21] were randomly selected. The population for the study was estimated to be approximately 6500, including both executives (such as organizational managers, project managers, project engineers, functional managers, and managerial staff) and practitioners (including engineers, architects, functional staff, and project operation staff).

The sample size was calculated using Yamane’s formula, with a 90% confidence level and a 10% error margin. This 10% error margin conforms to the recommended mean consensus 11% margin of error [22]. The targeted samples were randomly selected after calculating the sample size to be 99. Then, questionnaires were distributed to the executives and practitioners, both through hand-delivered copies and via Google Forms sent through email.

3.2. Questionnaire Establishment

As mentioned in the previous section, the data were collected using a questionnaire divided into two sections.

• 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

Once the questionnaire was developed, its validity and reliability were evaluated.

• 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

To evaluate the hypothesized model (Figure 1) from executive and practitioner perspectives, three primary analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics and IBM SPSS Amos:

• 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].

x = λ_x ξ + δ,

(1)

y = λ_y η + ε,

(2)

In the equations above, the exogenous latent variables are represented by vector ξ; a coefficient matrix, λ_x, links the observed variables and these latent variables. Vector x represents the observed variables for the exogenous variables, while δ represents the measurement errors in the exogenous latent variables. The observed variables for the endogenous variables are denoted by vector y; a coefficient matrix, λ_y, links these observed variables, and the latent endogenous variables are represented by vector η. Finally, vector ε represents the measurement errors in the endogenous variables.

In analyzing the hypothesized model, it must be confirmed whether the sample data fit these measurement models at statistically acceptable model-fit criterion levels. This study adopted the following model-fit criteria and acceptable levels to assess the fit between the sample data and the hypothesized model.

• 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;
• Comparative fit index (CFI): The CFI measures the relative improvement in the fit of the hypothesized model compared with that of the independent model [26]. An acceptable CFI range lies between 0.90 and 1.00 [26];
• 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

Of the 120 questionnaires distributed, 99 were returned, resulting in an excellent response rate of 82.5% [30]. Specifically, the executive response rate was 87.5%, with 35 out of 40 questionnaires returned, while the practitioner return rate was 80%, with 64 out of 80 questionnaires returned. A summary of the individual and organizational sample characteristics can be found in

Table 2. Sample individual characteristics compared between executives and practitioners.

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

and

Table 3. Sample organizational characteristics compared between executives and practitioners.

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

* Respondents can provide multiple answers. ** THB amounts were converted into USD using an exchange rate of THB 37 per USD.

, respectively.

4.2. Comparing the Mean Importance and Rank Order of Synergy Factors

The perspectives from executives and practitioners on synergy factors were analyzed by comparing the mean importance of all synergy factors, as summarized in

Table 4. A comparison of synergy factors in executive and practitioner perspectives.

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

.

Table 4 shows that the mean importance of synergy factors for executives ranges from 4.09 to 4.57, while for practitioners, it ranges from 4.03 to 4.47. This indicates that executives and practitioners view synergy factors similarly in mean importance. However, regarding ranking, executives and practitioners have different perspectives on synergy factors. Executives prioritize “ensuring strategic alignment of project team members” and “contract performance” as the most important factors, possibly because they believe that strategic alignment ensures that all team members understand the project’s scope, timeline, budget, and quality standards, thus minimizing misunderstandings and conflicts. Additionally, effective contract performance sets the foundation for the project’s execution by defining the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all stakeholders involved. Proper contract management ensures that all stakeholders understand their obligations and commitments, reducing the likelihood of disputes or delays. Furthermore, monitoring and evaluating contract performance throughout the project is crucial to ensuring that all stakeholders fulfill their obligations and that project milestones are achieved according to the agreed terms. This monitoring and evaluation identifies deviations from the original plan and enables timely corrective actions to keep the project on track.

On the other hand, practitioners consider the “roles and duties of leaders” and “leader capabilities and potential” the first and second orders. From a practitioner’s point of view, this is possible because leaders in construction projects are responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations and creating a collaborative environment that promotes teamwork and effective communication among project stakeholders. This environment is crucial for streamlining decision-making processes, resolving conflicts, and improving overall project performance and outcomes. Effective leadership in construction projects requires leaders to demonstrate technical expertise and the ability to inspire and motivate team members toward a common goal, fostering a culture of innovation and ongoing improvement.

Executives and practitioners rated “defining project goals and objectives” as their third top priority, possibly because setting clear goals and objectives forms the basis for making decisions, allocating resources, and evaluating performance throughout a project. When project goals and objectives are clearly defined, stakeholders can work together toward a common direction, making the project more efficient and effective while reducing potential conflicts or deviations from the intended outcomes. Additionally, establishing clear project goals and objectives helps manage all stakeholder expectations, encouraging a sense of accountability and responsibility in achieving successful project outcomes.

It is interesting to note the five least important factors. Both executives and practitioners ranked four factors similarly: “using technology in project implementation”, “corporate culture”, “relationships and conflict reduction”, and “acceptance and satisfaction”. This similarity may be due to the belief that these factors are often assumed to be in place, resulting in less emphasis on their potential impact on building synergy.

Based on the discussion above, executives and practitioners rank some synergy factors similarly, while others are ranked differently. Therefore, it is uncertain whether executives and practitioners consider synergy factors differently or similarly. Further testing is needed to determine the differences and similarities between these two perspectives.

4.3. Examining Differences and Similarities in Synergy Factors between Executive and Practitioner Perspectives

In the previous section, the differences and similarities in considerations of synergy factors from executive and practitioner perspectives were discussed. Further examination is needed by setting hypotheses. Ho states that the mean importance of each synergy factor from the perspectives of executives and practitioners is not different, while the alternative hypothesis (Ha) states that the mean importance is different.

The data did not follow a normal distribution based on the skewness test. A non-parametric statistical tool, the Mann–Whitney U test, was utilized to compare the mean importance of synergy factors between executives and practitioners. The results of this examination are summarized in

Table 5. A summary of differences and similarities in synergy factors between executive and practitioner perspectives.

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

* When the p-value is less than 0.05, Ho is rejected.

.

The data in Table 5 show that all 21 synergy factors were statistically non-significant. This implies that executives and practitioners perceive synergy factors similarly. Consequently, a common factor structure that enhances synergy among contractor project teams can be established.

4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

This study used CFA to validate the hypothesized model (Figure 1), illustrating the relationship between observed and latent variables for executives and practitioners. Figure 3 presents the final CFA model confirming that factors enhancing synergy among a contractor project team are described by planning and policy, organizational structure, leadership, motivation, and coordination. The model-fit criteria values were as follows: p-value (χ²) = 0.055 (0.05 < p ≤ 1.00 [26]), χ²/df = 1.099, (0 < χ²/df ≤ 2 [26,31]), IFI = 0.989 (0.90 ≤ IFI ≤ 1.00 [26]), TLI = 0.985 (0.90 ≤ TLI ≤ 1.00 [29]), CFI = 0.989 (0.90 ≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 [26]), RMR = 0.03 (0 ≤ RMR ≤ 0.05 [32]), and RMSEA = 0.032 (0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.08 [29]). All these values satisfy the acceptable levels shown in parentheses, indicating that the collected data fit the final CFA model.

All the hypotheses were tested in the CFA. Testing results with standardized regression weights are shown in

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results with standardized regression weights.

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

, demonstrating that all the hypotheses were accepted (p-value < 0.05) and proving that there are significant relationships (represented by standardized regression weights) between the variables. The regression weights obtained when H1-H5 were tested were 0.69, 0.92, 0.75, 0.80, and 0.94, respectively.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings

Three data analysis methods were employed in this study. Firstly, the mean importance and rank order of the synergy factors were compared. Secondly, differences and similarities in synergy factors were examined. Thirdly, a common synergy factor structure was identified using CFA. The first analysis suggests that executives and practitioners apply similar mean importance values to synergy factors. However, while some factors were ranked similarly, others were ranked differently. The uncertain results of this comparison led to the second data analysis, the Mann–Whitney U test, revealing that all 21 synergy factors were perceived similarly by both executives and practitioners. Thus, the third analysis, CFA, was performed to validate the synergy factor structure in Figure 1. The CFA model corresponds to the data sampled, and all hypotheses are validated (refer to Table 6), suggesting that the data substantiate all hypotheses. The factor groups that enhance synergy among contractor project teams are planning and policy, organizational structure, leadership, motivation, and coordination.

The CFA model (Figure 3) aligns with the observed data, indicating that the theoretical foundations for synergy factors (Table 1) support the findings. The explanation and prioritization of synergy factors are discussed in descending order of regression weights. Coordination is the factor group with the highest regression weight (0.94). This is indicated by its influence on meetings and report preparation (regression weight = 0.87), contract performance (regression weight = 0.77), communication (regression weight = 0.76), and data recording and document management (regression weight = 0.74). Coordination’s high weight reflects its role in achieving synergy within projects by aligning project goals, schedules, and plans and ensuring that all project team members participate in the planning process, significantly impacting project outcomes [10]. When project teams perceive their goals, schedules, and plans as aligned, they engage in mutual support, trust, and creativity, leading to continuous improvement [33]. Effective coordination also addresses the inherent fragmentation and complexity of construction projects by ensuring smooth integration and open communication among various project team members. This achieves synergy by building strong relationships and higher levels of trust, leading to improved project performance and operational excellence [34,35]. Coordination’s ability to mitigate uncertainties and dependencies arising from the involvement of multiple project teams at different stages of construction further underlines its importance. While meetings are a common coordination method, allowing team members to share important project information and unify their experiences and perspectives [36], they are not always sufficient. Thus, written methods such as reports [37], data recording, and document management are also crucial for achieving coordination goals and improving project performance. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary study of coordination emphasizes its importance in designing tools and systems that enable people to work together more effectively, organizing collective human activities in more flexible and satisfying ways [38].

Organizational structure has the second-highest regression weight (0.92). It is defined by resource allocation for projects (regression weight = 0.78), the expertise and competence of project team members (regression weight = 0.74), corporate culture (regression weight = 0.72), and project team selection and development (regression weight = 0.63). A well-defined organizational structure clarifies the responsibilities of each functional department and team member, ensuring that everyone knows their roles and duties. This clarity reduces conflicts and enhances coordination, leading to better synergy [6,39]. Organizational structure also establishes formal communication channels, which are essential for the smooth flow of information between different teams and departments. This helps integrate diverse expertise and maintain a cohesive unit, fostering synergy [6]. A robust organizational structure ensures that resources are allocated efficiently and conflicts over resource use are minimized. This systematic approach to resource management achieves synergy by fully utilizing internal and external resources [40]. Within the organizational structure, the expertise and competency of project team members are influenced by, for example, technical, entrepreneurial, relational, and evaluative competencies. These competencies address the dynamic challenges in project management, such as economic changes, political turmoil, and technological innovations [41]. When forming and developing project teams, it is important to consider knowledge management, relationship management, risk management, technical skills, problem-solving, adaptability, learning, and self-control, as these factors impact contractor business competencies [42].

Motivation comes third, as it drives individuals and project teams to collaborate effectively and leverage shared resources for better project performance. Motivation to learn can lead to better cooperation and integration for operating procedures, supporting synergy. Early and contemporary motivation theories highlight the importance of aligning individual and organizational goals to enhance performance and satisfaction. For example, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation theory emphasize that fulfilling employee needs can lead to higher job satisfaction and loyalty, which is critical for maintaining a motivated workforce that can effectively collaborate and innovate [43]. In project management, motivated teams committed to minimizing redundant work and maximizing efficiency facilitate the rigorous exploitation of development and exploitation synergies, such as shared use of modules, platforms, and marketing channels [44]. Motivated team members are more likely to engage in constructive conflict, leading to creative solutions and improved project performance, as opposed to destructive conflict that hampers cooperation and coordination [45]. Regarding welfare and quality of life at work, including payment and rewards, particularly in project-based environments, motivation is fundamentally linked to team members’ attitudes toward their jobs and the work environment, directly impacting their willingness to perform tasks to management’s satisfaction and overall project success [43,46].

The last two factor groups are either leadership or planning and policy. Even though leadership is the second-to-last factor group, it still plays a critical role in fostering synergy within the contractor project team by ensuring effective communication, collaboration, and resource management. Transformational leadership combines charismatic leadership and intellectual stimulation, significantly impacting project outcomes by enhancing team collaboration and enthusiasm [47]. Effective leaders clarify roles, duties, responsibilities, and processes, which are essential for organizational, process, and business synergy in project management, as demonstrated by the hydropower EPC project management model [6]. In addition, leadership is vital in managing the dynamic interactions between project team members and stakeholders, ensuring that the organizational culture supports individual efforts and teamwork, leading to project success [48]. The role of project leaders extends to exploiting synergies during and after project execution, for example, sharing resources, experiences, skills, knowledge, and technologies, minimizing redundant work, and enhancing synergy. In the construction industry, leadership is essential for navigating the complex environment involving various stakeholders, ensuring that projects are completed within specific time frames, and addressing issues effectively [49]. Additionally, understanding stakeholder behaviors and their potential to cooperate and compete with the project objectives allows leaders to design effective decision-making strategies to proactively address stakeholder influences, enhancing project outcomes [50]. Lastly, planning and policy are still crucial aspects of synergy in project management. They help foster synergy within the contractor project team by providing a structured framework that effectively aligns objectives, strategies, and resources. Establishing clear policies and strategies helps set specific and measurable objectives, which are necessary for systematically measuring quality and non-quality costs, as well as for planning, evaluating, and controlling project goal achievements [51]. Within planning and policy, a well-defined scope is essential during the project initiation and planning phases, as it outlines the project’s boundaries and prepares it for execution. Poorly defined scopes can lead to cost overruns, delays, rework, and lower productivity, highlighting the importance of detailed planning and scope management [47]. Effective project management, including monitoring, feedback, and advanced technologies like Building Information Modeling (BIM), enhances communication and reduces errors, optimizing project delivery and design quality [52]. Furthermore, integrating information and communication technology (ICT) supports construction project process visualization, communication, monitoring, and critical evaluation, enabling better synergy.

5.2. Implications for the Thai Construction Industry

After winning a construction project, Thai contractors need to focus on the competencies of their project team, including their knowledge, skills, and attributes, to meet the established criteria for the project. These competencies are crucial for ensuring successful project execution and owner satisfaction. Additionally, challenges such as productivity concerns, financial constraints, absenteeism, safety perceptions, and the self-centered nature of team members should be highlighted in the Thai construction industry. One approach to tackling these challenges and improving competencies is fostering synergy within the project team. The factors suggested in this study provide insights for executives, such as organizational, functional, and project managers, as well as practitioners, such as engineers, architects, and project operation staff, on how to enhance synergy within a contractor project team, as follows:

• 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

While there is consensus among researchers on the importance of promoting synergy within project teams, there is a lack of common factors enhancing synergy within a contractor project team from executive and practitioner perspectives, presenting a knowledge gap. To address this gap, our research objective was to identify a synergy factor structure. Three analyses were conducted to achieve this. First, the mean importance and rank order of synergy factors were compared, revealing both similarities and differences in rankings between executives and practitioners. Consequently, a second analysis was conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test to ascertain whether executives and practitioners consider synergy factors differently or similarly. The results indicated that both groups consider all synergy factors similarly. Therefore, a third analysis was carried out to identify a common structure for factors enhancing synergy among contractor project teams from executive and practitioner perspectives. As a result, synergy factors were structured into five groups, and five hypotheses were proposed accordingly. A CFA model was constructed and validated to test these hypotheses. The results confirmed all hypotheses and suggested five groups of synergy factors in the following order of regression weight: coordination (0.94), organizational structure (0.92), motivation (0.80), leadership (0.75), and planning and policy (0.69).

The results of this study significantly contribute to understanding the common factors that improve collaboration among contractor project teams, as seen from both executive and practitioner perspectives. This offers insights for contractor organizations to prioritize measures and allocate their limited resources based on this understanding. Moreover, the regression weights of different factor groups and the factors within each group provide a useful guide for executives and practitioners to ensure that resources are appropriately distributed and implement effective measures, potentially leading to improved performance. Firstly, high coordination reflects its role in achieving synergy within projects by aligning project goals, schedules, and plans and ensuring all project team members participate. Effective coordination addresses the complexity of construction projects and improves project performance through smooth integration and open communication among team members. Various methods, such as meetings, reports, and document management, are crucial for achieving coordination goals. Secondly, a well-defined organizational structure clarifies the responsibilities of each department and team member, reducing conflicts and enhancing coordination for better synergy. This also establishes formal communication channels for the smooth flow of information, integrates diverse expertise, and ensures efficient resource allocation. Thirdly, motivation leads to better cooperation and procedure integration, supporting synergy in project management. Motivated team members engage in constructive conflict for creative solutions and improve project performance. In project-based environments, motivation is linked to team member attitudes toward their jobs and work environment, impacting their willingness to perform tasks and overall project success. Fourthly, leadership fosters synergy within the contractor project team, ensuring effective communication, collaboration, and resource management. Transformational leadership significantly impacts project outcomes by enhancing team collaboration and enthusiasm. Effective leaders clarify roles, duties, responsibilities, and processes for organizational synergy in project management. Leaders also exploit synergies during project execution, minimizing redundant work and enhancing synergy. Lastly, planning and policy are essential for fostering synergy within a project management team by providing a structured framework to align objectives, strategies, and resources. Clear policies set specific project objectives, and a well-defined scope during project initiation and planning is essential in preventing cost overruns and delays. Effective project management, including advanced technologies, enhances communication and reduces errors for optimized project delivery.

Although this study identified a common structure for synergy factors from executive and practitioner perspectives, several limitations must be addressed. First, the data gathered in this study are specific to Thai contractors, so the results are based on this particular dataset. Further research should collect data from different geographical construction areas in other countries to gain more insights into factors that enhance synergy among contractor project teams. Second, the CFA model needs to be validated using data from different project participants, such as consultants, designers, and owners, to understand how their differing opinions on synergy factors might affect the model’s structure. Third, this study only looked at large contractors and did not collect data from SME contractors. However, the differences in synergy between a project team for large contractors and SME contractors could be due to factors like resource availability, participation in major projects with high standards and processes, and access to expertise. These factors could impact the final CFA model. Therefore, broader investigations should be conducted on SME contractors to gain deeper insights into how contractor size impacts synergy improvements.