Disentangling the failure of benefits realization in public institutional building projects: a paradoxical understanding of formalization

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research design.

Table 1. Interviewee profiles

Respondent	Service Organization	Job Title	Service Years	Interview Duration (mins)
No. 1	Education Authorities	Middle Manager	>16	56
No. 2	Education Authorities	Middle Manager	>16	40
No. 3	Education Asset Management	Senior Manager	>16	90
No. 4	Agent Construction Company	Middle Manager	>16	52
No. 5	School (Users)	Senior Manager	>16	36
No. 6	School (Users)	Senior Manager	>16	36
No. 7	Design Institute	Senior Manager	11–15	35
No. 8	Planning Bureau	Middle Manager	6–10	62
No. 9	Design Institute	Middle Manager	>16	59
No. 10	Development and Reform Commission	Middle Manager	6–10	86
No. 11	Design Institute	Engineer	1–5	30
No. 12	Design Institute	Engineer	11–15	56

Table 2. Project archives

Project	Level	Cost (Million)	Construction Period (Month)	Archives
A	Level-2 institute	631	36	Feasibility study report, project proposal
B	Level-1 institute	200	15	Feasibility study report, project proposal, preliminary design specification
C	Level-1 & 2 institute	250	12	Feasibility study report, design specification, management regulation

Table 3. List of Q statements

No.	Statement	Frequency
Q1	Inaccuracies of project orientation in function, scale, grade, target users.	5
Q2	Government sectors’ undue administrative intervention (e.g. the one-sided emphasis on time/budget).	10
Q3	Constraints of financial allocation.	2
Q4	Discrepant requirements of different projects are not fully considered in general standards, specifications, and rules.	3
Q5	Inconsistency and contradictoriness between different sectors’ (e.g. Fire Authority and Public Security Bureau) requirements.	3
Q6	Limited autonomy of project clients due to constraints of administrative systems (e.g. procurement system, review system).	3
Q7	The decision-making phase sticks to rigid standards with little autonomy.	5
Q8	Insufficient considerations of specific use functions of projects during the decision-making phase.	6
Q9	The designer merely adheres to mandatory norms with inadequate consideration of customized functional needs.	4
Q10	The construction phase merely adheres to plans and drawings without considering functional optimization.	2
Q11	A lack of objective evaluation criteria on the benefits of projects.	4
Q12	A lack of tracking and feedback mechanisms of the projects’ functional performance.	3
Q13	Project parties tend to fulfill accountability requirements separately rather than cooperate as a team to realize benefits.	8
Q14	Project parties are passive for enhancing benefits realization as their works are driven by the “iron triangle” objectives and regulatory requirements.	6

Table 4. Respondents (P set) profile

No.	Service Organization	Service Years	Involved Projects	No.	Service Organization	Service Years	Involved Projects
P1	Construction company	3–5	2–4	P8	Design institute	>16	>10
P2	Construction company	6–10	2–4	P9	Education authorities	>16	>10
P3	Construction company	3–5	2–4	P10	Design institute	>16	>10
P4	Education authorities	3–5	2–4	P11	Design institute	11–15	>10
P5	Users (school)	6–10	2–4	P12	Government sector	6–10	>10
P6	Education authorities	>16	>10	P13	Development company	>16	5–10
P7	Education authorities	>16	2–4	–

Figure 2. 7-point scale distribution for Q sorting.

Table 5. Results of Q analysis (factors with an X indicating a defining sort)

Factor	Eigenvalue (% of Variance)	Loading	Participant	Factor	Eigenvalue (% of Variance)	Loading	Participant
F1	4.34 (33.39)	−0.85X	P7	F2	2.35 (18.04)	0.85X	P2
		−0.84X	P6			0.73X	P3
		0.66X	P4			−0.73X	P11
F3	1.74 (13.38)	0.89X	P10			−0.60X	P13
		0.71X	P9			−0.60X	P8
		0.63X	P5	F4	1.42 (10.93)	0.91X	P1
						0.70X	P12

Table 6. Z-scores of four factors

F1			F2
No.	Statements	z-Scores	No.	Statements	z-Scores
Q6	Limited autonomy of project clients due to constraints of administrative systems (e.g. procurement system, review system).	1.383	Q1	Inaccuracies of project orientation in function, scale, grade, target users.	1.553
Q2	Government sectors’ undue administrative intervention (e.g. the one-sided emphasis on time/budget).	1.310	Q7	The decision-making phase sticks to rigid standards with little autonomy.	1.360
Q10	The construction phase merely adheres to plans and drawings without considering functional optimization.	1.015	Q5	Inconsistency and contradictoriness between different sectors’ (e.g. Fire Authority and Public Security Bureau) requirements.	1.103
Q4	Discrepant requirements of different projects are not fully considered in general standards, specifications, and rules.	0.890	Q10	The construction phase merely adheres to plans and drawings without considering functional optimization.	0.742
Q13	Project parties tend to fulfill accountability requirements separately rather than cooperate as a team to realize benefits.	−0.840	Q14	Project parties are passive for enhancing benefits realization as their works are driven by the “iron triangle” objectives and regulatory requirements.	−0.741
Q8	Insufficient considerations of specific use functions of projects during the decision-making phase.	−1.234	Q4	Discrepant requirements of different projects are not fully considered in general standards, specifications, and rules.	−0.869
Q5	Inconsistency and contradictoriness between different sectors’ (e.g. Fire Authority and Public Security Bureau) requirements.	−1.282	Q2	Government sectors’ undue administrative intervention (e.g. the one-sided emphasis on time/budget).	−1.075
Q11	A lack of objective evaluation criteria on the benefits of projects.	−1.716	Q8	Insufficient considerations of specific use functions of projects during the decision-making phase.	−1.932
F3			F4
No.	Statements	z-Scores	No.	Statements	z-Scores
Q9	The designer merely adheres to mandatory norms with inadequate consideration of customized functional needs.	1.523	Q4	Discrepant requirements of different projects are not fully considered in general standards, specifications, and rules.	1.675
Q6	Limited autonomy of project clients due to constraints of administrative systems (e.g. public bidding system, review system).	1.325	Q1	Inaccuracies of project orientation in function, scale, grade, target users.	1.062
Q14	Project parties are passive for enhancing benefits realization as their works are driven by the “iron triangle” objectives and regulatory requirements.	0.730	Q9	The design merely adheres to mandatory norms with inadequate consideration of customized functional needs.	1.045
Q10	The construction phase merely adheres to plans and drawings without considering functional optimization.	0.714	Q11	A lack of objective evaluation criteria on the benefits of projects.	0.913
Q3	Constraints of financial allocation.	−0.698	Q3	Constraints of financial allocation.	−0.757
Q4	Discrepant requirements of different projects are not fully considered in general standards, specifications, and rules.	−0.783	Q13	Project parties tend to fulfill own obligations separately rather than cooperate as a team to realize benefits.	−0.956
Q2	Government sectors’ undue administrative intervention (e.g. the one-sided emphasis on time/budget).	−1.392	Q2	Government sectors’ undue administrative intervention (e.g. the one-sided emphasis on time/budget).	−1.535
Q1	Inaccuracies of project orientation in function, scale, grade, target users.	−1.987	Q5	Inconsistency and contradictoriness between different sectors’ (e.g. Fire Authority and Public Security Bureau) requirements.	−1.683