Ranking and grouping of critical success factors for stakeholder management in construction projects

ABSTRACT

Diverse sets of critical success factors (CSFs) have been proposed in the literature, emphasising various facets of stakeholder management. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the ranking and groupings of these factors. This paper seeks to uncover CSFs related to stakeholder management in construction projects in Pakistan and explore their ranking and underlying relationship. A literature study revealed the existence of 18 CSFs. A questionnaire comprising these 18 CSFs was distributed to construction professionals in Pakistan, and 89 completed surveys were recouped. “Formulating the project mission”, “Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)”, and “Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders” were identified as the top three ranking factors for stakeholder management. Utilizing factor analysis and considering the significance of the factor “Formulating the project mission”, the 18 CSFs were organized into four categories: Stakeholder Interests and Relationships, Refining Goals and Managing Stakeholder Needs, Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders, and Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. A framework is proposed for successful stakeholder management in construction projects incorporating these four components and their relationships. These findings elucidate thigh priority aspects and may also be utilized as a tool for evaluating the success of stakeholder management, hence facilitating the identification of areas for improvement.

KEYWORDS:

• Ranking and grouping
• critical success factors
• stakeholder management
• construction projects

1. Introduction

A stakeholder cares about how a project goes or what happens at the end of it (Fewing, 2005). Construction project management usually includes any or all of the following people as stakeholders: the client, contractors, designers, subcontractors, and people who work on the project. Numerous studies (Newcombe 2003; Olander and Landin 2005; El-Gohary, Osman, and El-Diraby 2006) have highlighted the significance of stakeholder management in building projects. Construction projects cannot be realized without the involvement of stakeholders (Olatunde, Ogunsemi, and Oke 2017; Olatunde and Odeyinka 2021). Unfortunately, due to the complexity and unpredictability of projects, the construction sector has a poor track record in stakeholder management (Loosemore 2006). Inadequate engagement of stakeholders, project managers with unclear objectives of stakeholder management, difficulty identifying the “invisible” stakeholder, and insufficient communication with stakeholders are among the many problems of stakeholder management in construction projects identified by previous researchers (Pouloudi and Whitley 1997; Loosemore 2006; Bourne and Walker 2006). To resolve these issues, project teams must understand the fundamentals of managing stakeholders (Cleland and Ireland 2002). People involved in a construction project significantly impact how well the project works and successfully ends as they communicate and work together. Many studies have shown that managing project stakeholders are critical (El-Gohary, Osman, and El-Diraby 2006). Since a project can be thought of as a coalition of stakeholders working together to form a project, stakeholder management is an important concern to address in project management (Srinivasan and Dhivya 2020). Organizational planning and execution are the pillars of successful management by a group of individuals (Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder 1989).

This study employs the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) methodology to uncover the essentials of stakeholder management. Using the CSF strategy was initially created by Rockart (1979). CSFs can be characterized as “areas in which, if adequate outcomes are achieved, the organization will achieve competitive success” (Rockart 1979). According to Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder (1989), they are “those important areas of managerial planning and action that must be practised to attain effectiveness.” CSFs are those significant managerial planning and activity areas that must be exercised to fulfil effectiveness. (Mashali et al. 2020) Numerous researchers (C, K, and M 2001; Jefferies, Gameson, and Rowlinson 2002; W et al. 2006) have utilized this technique to enhance the effectiveness of the management process. According to (Sunny and P 2018), identifying and establishing a shared aim and target for the project is the most crucial vital success aspect affecting the Stakeholder Management process on construction projects. In the realm of stakeholder management, Cleland and Ireland (2002) deem it essential for the project team to know whether or not the project stakeholders are being “managed” effectively. In this study, CSFs are considered the actions and procedures that must be addressed to guarantee effective stakeholder management. Stakeholder management is essential to a project’s success. People engaged in a project will naturally strive to alter it to meet their objectives (Olander and Landin 2008). It is thus critical to manage the interests of project stakeholders to prevent problems and maximize benefits while still meeting the project’s objectives (Olander and Landin 2008). However, it hasn’t worked out well in the last several years because of the project’s complexity and unpredictability, poor stakeholder participation, and construction managers who don’t know what to do with stakeholders (Loosemore 2006).

Varied sets of critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management have been suggested in the past literature in different countries and periods. The literature study indicated that several CSFs are critical to the successful implementation of stakeholder management. Jergeas et al. (2000) defined two characteristics of improved stakeholder management as “communication with stakeholders” and “defining common goals, objectives, and project priorities.” According to Landin (2000), “the long-term success of any construction and its ability to satisfy stakeholders” is contingent on decision-makers’ care in stakeholder communication. According to Aaltonen, Jaakko, and Tuomas (2008), the most important aspect of managing project stakeholders is managing the connection between the project and its stakeholders. These recommended factors may be the most important success factors for stakeholder management in construction projects. However, most of the research is descriptive reviews that lack quantitative analysis and fail to rank the importance of these success factors. In addition, as stated by Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008), these variables should be categorized such that few essential CSFs reflecting a broad range of difficulties may be identified.

One of the most significant issues confronting construction projects is the negative impact of stakeholders’ behavior, which, if left uncontrolled, becomes a risk issue. Many studies have been conducted on stakeholders and their impact on projects. According to Loosemore (2006), one of the roots of the problem is that the construction industry has had a poor track record of stakeholder management during the last decades due to the complexity and uncertainty of construction projects.

The current study expands and incorporates the project stakeholder management studies from Karlsen (2002) and Yang et al. (2009). Yang et al. (2009) advised that a comparative study be carried out in a different culture to comprehend the dynamics of stakeholder management in construction. The scope of the sample size of earlier research (Jergeas et al. 2000; Olander and Landin 2008) identifying crucial success variables for stakeholder management were both constrained. Yang et al. (2009) compiled a thorough list of critical success factors influencing stakeholder management. However, Yang et al. (2009) advised that case studies with specifics that might be provided should be used further to confirm their study’s validity based on surveys. Therefore, in this study, it was assessed whether Yang et al. (2009)“s comprehensive list of CSFs for efficient stakeholder management is applicable in the construction industry of Pakistan. Data from various stakeholders practising in Pakistan was collected to analyse the various critical success factors affecting stakeholders” management.

This study aims to determine different factors that can be beneficial in managing the different stakeholders. Objectives of this study comprise; 1) To identify and rank the different success factors for stakeholder management. 2) To determine the relationship and grouping of different success factors by factor analysis. The findings assist in clarifying the priority aspects of stakeholder management and can be utilized for evaluating the success of stakeholder management, hence assisting in uncovering areas for improvement. Furthermore, the study also contributed to the knowledge of project management by providing insight into the CSFs for stakeholder management in the Pakistani context to focus on project goals.

2. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of construction projects

According to Kerzner (1987), crucial success factors are those elements that must be present for consistent and effective project management. Typically, client happiness is regarded as the most significant component in determining a project’s success. Frequently, construction projects are influenced by variables that help everyone involved achieve their objectives more swiftly and effectively.

Several researchers have already identified several Critical Success Factors for stakeholder management. Waghmare, Bhalerao, and Wagh (2016) investigated Critical Success Factors affecting stakeholder management in construction projects. The study classified 30 elements influencing the success of SM using the six primary groups proposed by Al-Deen et al. (2015). Researchers found gaps and devised appropriate strategies and factors to resolve issues of ineffective stakeholder management in construction projects. Eyiah-Botwe, Aigbavboa, and Thwala (2016) investigated Critical Success Factors for improved Stakeholder Management in Ghana. The study identifies and evaluates 35 CSFs from the literature using a questionnaire survey. Identification of the CSFs could have only been possible if an in-depth analysis of the prior studies had been carried out. To grasp various terminologies and factors relating to stakeholder management, a pile of research papers, articles, and theses was narrowed down with the help of 3 research engines (Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and Core). Publications were sorted based on the keywords (Stakeholder Management, CSFs for stakeholders’ management, Stakeholders). Links between different publications were generated with the help of 3 websites (Research Rabbit, Connected Papers, and Litmaps). A publication by Yang et al. (2009) was used as a parent research paper, and all the research papers before and after 2009 were further rooted down based on correlations between them in terms of factors affecting stakeholder management. Major contributions to the identification of CSFs for stakeholders’ management were made by Yang et al. (2009), (Al-Deen et al. 2015; El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015; Nauman and Piracha 2016; Amoatey and Hayibor 2017), (Oyeyipo, Opeyemi; Odeyinka, Henry; Owolabi, James; Afolabi, Oyeyipo et al. 2019), (Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju 2021; Mashali et al. 2022).

Publications were then reviewed extensively to postulate CSFs that can auspiciously affect stakeholder management in construction projects in Pakistan. Similitude in CSFs was found in various publications. Most of them implemented CSFs devised by (Yang et al. 2009) to corroborate their findings in their respective regions. Comprehensive literature inferred diversified findings of researchers after implications. After reviewing CSFs proposed by (Yang et al. 2009) and several researchers, 18 critical success factors for stakeholder management in construction projects in Pakistan were proposed. Table 1 shows a complete list of 18 identified CSFs, as well as their descriptions

Table 1. Identification of CSFs.

Code	Critical Success Factors (CSFs)	Description
CSF- 1	Formulating the project mission	Formulating a clear statement entails identifying the project’s mission at various phases and developing a better grasp of the tasks and goals at a given stage of the project lifecycle, including concerns with cost, schedule, and budget.
CSF-2	Considering corporate social responsibilities (paying attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues)	The prerequisite step for stakeholder management is the deliberation of economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and cultural responsibilities, which also play a significant part in effective stakeholder management.
CSF- 3	Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders	Identifying the potential stakeholders and classifying them so they may be managed appropriately.
CSF- 4	Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project	There are many stakeholders with varied interests; since construction projects are complex, thus they should be handled appropriately.
CSF- 5	Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) the project mission	For effective stakeholder management, the project goals and mission should be refined.
CSF- 6	Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)	Effective, frequent, and well-planned communication is required.
CSF- 7	Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders	Project managers should look for potential coalitions in addition to analyzing disputes and coalitions among stakeholders, as this is a crucial step in managing stakeholders.
CSF- 8	Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively	As there are many stakeholder conflicts, the project manager must decide how to resolve them, as there may be a positive correlation between conflict resolution and stakeholder satisfaction.
CSF- 9	Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project	It is crucial to consider how stakeholders might influence the project, how likely they will utilize their influence, and how each stakeholder is positioned concerning the project.
CSF- 10	Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders	Promoting positive relationships between stakeholders and the project is crucial for successful project delivery and meeting stakeholders’ expectations.
CSF- 11	Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders	Successful stakeholder management requires strategies for responding to the requests made by the stakeholders.
CSF- 12	Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence	The influence of stakeholders changes throughout time-based on the strategic issue under consideration. Stakeholder uncertainty may encompass who they are, their impact, their requirements, and the ramifications of their interactions.
CSF- 13	Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)	Prediction of stakeholders’ behaviors which can be supportive, opposing as well as neutral toward the project’s success
CSF- 14	Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects	All stakeholders’ needs should be addressed during the project process to achieve realistic solutions to the difficulties.
CSF- 15	Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions to implementing project decisions	It’s crucial to consider stakeholders’ responses when project managers deliberate on stakeholder management strategies.
CSF- 16	Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method	Using a promising procurement method can effectively lead to a project’s success
CSF- 17	Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests	Stakeholders’ interests are dynamic, and they vary with time, so appropriate strategies should be formulated for managing the change in stakeholders’ interests
CSF- 18	Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes	The power, urgency, validity, and proximity of stakeholders must be evaluated to comprehend their needs better.

3. Methodology

The quantitative research method was used for the research. The research incorporated concepts from Smith, Love, and Wyatt (2001) and Jergeas et al. (2000). The approach used was a systematic questionnaire survey of Pakistan’s construction industry, with a particular emphasis on the Punjab Region.

The questionnaire was divided into four (4) sections: general information, organizational culture, support identification of the stakeholders, and identification of the critical success factors. The poll targeted contractors, clients, and consultants from various construction-related organizations.

This study employs a cross-sectional methodology to provide a “snapshot” of practitioner perceptions. In cross-sectional research, it is common to use a survey-based methodology or short-term interviews. The questionnaire was utilized as a research instrument, a structured method for gathering primary data. Most of the questionnaire consisted of closed-ended items (Multiple-choice, numeric scale, dichotomous and Likert scale) designed to examine respondents’ attitudes and perceptions on various aspects of stakeholder management in construction projects. The findings of the descriptive statistics analysis of the data were presented as frequency tables and percentages. Out of the 400 questionnaires provided through email and site visits, 89 were duly completed and returned. Twenty-five were collected manually by visiting the construction sites 64 were collected online.

The collected data was transformed into the necessary information by interpreting and comprehending the questionnaire responses. During the data analysis phase, descriptive statistics provided general information in simple forms to comprehend and interpret. The relative importance index (RII) was used to determine the importance of the Critical Success Factors (CSF). It is determined by the following formula (Leung et al. 2004; Jha and Iyer, 2006; Ugwu and Haupt 2005):

$RII\hspace{0.17em}=\hspace{0.17em}\frac{\sum W}{A\hspace{0.17em}\times N}$

Where:

N = the total number of respondents, A = the greatest weight

Factor analysis was used to reduce data and identify any interrelationships between factors in terms of their importance. Factor analysis is a technique used to reduce a large number of variables into fewer numbers of factors. Factor analysis was carried out in three stages: Based on the correlation coefficients of each variable, a correlation matrix was created; next, factors were identified and rotated to optimize the correlation between a specific variable and a particular factor. Another statistical test for variables is the Bartlett sphericity criterion, which was used to determine whether there are any variables in a correlation matrix. A KMO of 0.5 is acceptable for further testing, with values ranging from 0 to 1. Bartlett’s test must be significant to be considered suitable.

Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was used, and extraction using Unweighted Least Square. The Varimax rotation was shown to be the most effective rotation method for the data utilized in the study after various rotation technique tests had been conducted.

4. Results and discussions

Data collection began on 11 November 2021, and continued until 10 June 2022. The questionnaires were sent to the contractors, clients, and consultants via emails obtained from the Pakistan Engineering Council-approved list. Four hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 89 responses were received. Table 2 outlines CSFs in the light of previous studies. Respondent’s General information is summarized in Table 3. Analysis of the Respondent’s general information proclaimed that the majority (57.3%) have 5 to 15 years of professional experience. If respondents with more than five years of experience in construction work are deemed experienced, then 60.7% of the respondents are experienced, while 39.3% are less experienced. These characteristics imply that the respondents have sufficient expertise to provide considerable information that could assist in drawing conclusions and deductions on CSFs for stakeholder management. Furthermore, results showed that 47.2% of respondents are Contractors, 18% are Consultants, and 34.8% are Clients, all from different types of organizations.

Table 2. Critical success factors in the light of previous studies.

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Savage et al. (1991)			✔								✔		✔
Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997)			✔	✔										✔				✔
Rowley (1997)							✔	✔	✔
Svendsen (1998)		✔								✔	✔
Cleland (1999)	✔		✔	✔			✔	✔	✔		✔		✔	✔
Frooman (1999)			✔				✔	✔			✔		✔	✔
Landin (2000)						✔
Jergeas et al. (2000)	✔				✔	✔					✔	✔					✔
Elias, Cavana, and Jackson (2002)			✔	✔								✔		✔
Karlsen (2002)	✔		✔			✔					✔	✔			✔
Winch (2002)		✔	✔
Thomson et al. (2003)	✔
Akintoye et al. (2003)	✔
Phillips (2003)		✔
Leung et al. (2004)	✔					✔
Bakens, Foliente, and Jasuja (2005)						✔
Bourne (2005)		✔	✔			✔	✔	✔			✔	✔		✔
Olander (2006)			✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔		✔				✔
Bourne and Walker (2006)			✔			✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔		✔
Friedman and Miles (2006)			✔	✔		✔	✔	✔						✔
Cova and Salle (2006)			✔			✔				✔
El-Gohary, Osman, and El-Diraby (2006)		✔				✔
Pajunen (2006)									✔
Loosemore (2006)				✔								✔
Young (2006)			✔	✔		✔			✔			✔	✔	✔
Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks (2007)			✔				✔	✔			✔		✔		✔
Walker, Bourne, and Rowlinson (2008)		✔	✔			✔			✔	✔				✔
Aaltonen, Jaakko, and Tuomas (2008)										✔
Atkin and Skitmore (2008)																✔
Chinyio and Akintoye (2008)	✔					✔					✔				✔
Jepsen and Eskerod (2009)			✔	✔			✔	✔	✔		✔			✔			✔
Olander and Landin (2008)						✔				✔	✔
Mathur, Price, and Austin (2008)			✔
Yang et al. (2009)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Aaltonen and Kujala (2010)					✔					✔			✔
Rwelamila (2010)																✔
El-Sawalhi and Hammad (2015)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔		✔
El-Sawalhi and Hammad (2015)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔		✔	✔	✔	✔			✔
Nauman and Piracha (2016)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔
Forsman (2017)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Amoatey and Hayibor (2017)	✔		✔	✔		✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔			✔
Nwachukwu, Udeaja, Chileshe and E. Okere (2017)	✔					✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔			✔
Oyeyipo et al. (2019)	✔		✔	✔		✔		✔								✔	✔	✔
Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju (2021)	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔			✔				✔
Mashali et al. (2022)		✔				✔

Table 3. Respondent’s General Information.

Characteristics	Frequency	Percent
Experience in Construction Industry Less than 5 Years 5–15 years More than 15 years	35 51 3	39.3 57.3 3.4
Type of Organization Contractor Client Consultant	42 31 16	47.2 34.8 18

After performing the test, Cronbach’s Alpha value for CSFs was ascertained to be 0.918, which reveals that the collected data is reliable enough to be used for the research. Table 4 shows the Relative Importance Index, Mean Score, Standard Deviation, and Rankings of the 18 identified Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder Management. Major respondents who contributed to the ranking of CSFs were Contractors, Consultants and Clients. Results demonstrate that mean scores range from 4.15 to 4.72. The difference in means score manifests variation in the Relative Importance of CSFs.

Table 4. Rankings of CSFs.

Code	Critical Success Factors	Mean	Rank	S.D	RI
CSF-1	Formulating the project mission	4.72	1^st	0.500	0.966
CSF-6	Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)	4.44	2^nd	0.656	0.908
CSF-3	Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders	4.43	3^rd	0.705	0.906
CSF-8	Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively	4.38	4^th	0.666	0.897
CSF-13	Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)	4.33	5^th	0.687	0.885
CSF-4	Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project	4.30	6^th	0.714	0.880
CSF-14	Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects	4.30	7^th	0.681	0.880
CSF-9	Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project	4.29	8^th	0.801	0.878
CSF-17	Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests	4.28	9^th	0.757	0.877
CSF-7	Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders	4.27	10^th	0.670	0.874
CSF-5	Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission.	4.24	11^th	0.769	0.867
CSF-10	Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders	4.24	12^th	0.658	0.867
CSF-16	Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method	4.23	13^th	0.769	0.866
CSF-18	Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes	4.22	14^th	0.739	0.864
CSF-11	Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders	4.22	15^th	0.670	0.864
CSF-15	Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions	4.20	16^th	0.694	0.860
CSF-2	Considering corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues)	4.18	17^th	0.614	0.855
CSF-12	Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence	4.15	18^th	0.762	0.848

4.1. Discussions

Respondents had consented that “Formulating the project’s mission” (MS = 4.72) “Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently” (MS = 4.44) and “Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders” (MS = 4.43) are the top 3 factors deemed as critical for stakeholder management in construction projects within the Pakistani context. On the other hand, “Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively” (MS = 4.38), “Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)” (MS = 4.33) and “Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project” (MS = 4.30) were ranked as 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th respectively in Pakistan. The seventh factor was “Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects” (M = 4.30), while “Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project” (M = 4.29) was placed eighth. “Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests” (M = 4.28), “Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders” (M = 4.27) and “Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission” (M = 4.24) were ranked as 9^th, 10^th and 11^th respectively by the respondents. Furthermore, respondents considered some factors as less significant, which were “Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders” (M = 4.24), “Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method” (M = 4.23) and “Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes” (4.22) and they were ranked as 12^th, 13^th and 14^th respectively. The result data also showed that “Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders” (M = 4.22), “Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions” (M = 4.20), “Considering corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues)” (M = 4.18) and “Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence” (M = 4.15) were the four least significant CSFs for stakeholder management in Pakistan.

4.2. Comparison of CSFs in other countries

The CSF rankings were compared to research conducted in Hong Kong, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, and Gaza. Some CSFs differed significantly from the other countries, revealing that some CSFs are given less importance in Pakistan than others. “Formulating the project mission” was ranked first by respondents, and “Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)” was ranked second. Table 5 elucidates the comparison of the identified CSFs rankings in various countries. This research’s findings inferred that some factors were in line with the findings of other researchers. Formulating the project mission was ranked first by (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015). On the other hand, (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju 2021) ranked it third and fourth, respectively, while (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) and (Yang et al. 2009) ranked it ninth and twelfth respectively. A comparison of the countries reveals that CSF-6 referring to Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms), was ranked with a slight difference among different countries. Findings were totally in line with (Yang et al. 2009) and (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015) as they also ranked it second while it was ranked first (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Oyeyipo et al. 2019). Furthermore, (Mashali et al. 2022) ranked it third. This shows that effective communication is vital for stakeholder management in construction projects. CSF-3 was ranked the same by (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015). (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) ranked it second while it was ranked fifth in Yang (2009) findings. CSF-8 was ranked fifth by (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) with a minor difference. Moreover, (Yang et al. 2009) and (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015) ranked the factor CSF-4 as fourth while (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017) and (Oyeyipo et al. 2019) ranked it sixth and seventh respectively. Findings advocate that the most important aspect of effective stakeholder management is “Formulating the project mission” The study, however, demonstrates that “Managing stakeholders with social responsibilities” is not given ample attention. Therefore, we can conclude that to accomplish economic, legal, environmental, and ethical goals in Pakistan’s project environment, stakeholder management requires crucial attention in this area. “Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders” was the third highly prioritized factor. Furthermore, the three CSFs, “Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively”, “Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)” and “Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project” are also critical for effective stakeholder management in construction projects. Analyzing current or anticipated conflicts between various stakeholders can assist mitigate situations that could harm the project. Conflicts can be either substantive or emotional, and both are extremely common in Pakistan’s construction projects. Different parties have varying interests in the project. Managing stakeholders competently would thus be impossible without understanding their interests and behaviors. As a result, stakeholder profiling and prior understanding of a stakeholders’ behavior and interest in various contexts can substantially aid in creating an effective stakeholder management plan. Though assessing stakeholders’ attributes can assist project professionals completely comprehend the dynamics of a project, this element was ranked fourteenth by project professionals. As a result, we believe that project managers must keep an eye on this overlooked component and appropriately appraise the stakeholders’ attributes. Correctly assessing stakeholder influence would allow the project manager to aim his efforts toward dispute resolution. It would also help in convincing other stakeholders. The foundation of effective stakeholder management is a well-defined communication plan. One of the knowledge areas required for effective project management is project communications management. Understanding a project in its early stages is only possible through excellent communication with project stakeholders, which project experts identify as the second most important component. A project manager must develop an efficient communication strategy to gain the support of all stakeholders and keep them informed. This plan should ensure that all project stakeholders have access to real-time information, decreasing decision-making delays. Although it is critical to understand how stakeholders influence your project, this element is placed tenth. This suggests that the project manager may lack sufficient knowledge of the stakeholders’ interests and influence. Furthermore, managing stakeholder impact and relationship change as the project progresses would be tough. This also serves as justification for project managers to establish productive approaches for influencing and interacting with stakeholders. These tactics would thus assist them in managing the stakeholders amicably throughout the project. All these findings demonstrate that there were similarities as well as differences in CSFs rankings in various countries. Although research was carried out in different regions yet some CSFs rankings were in line with the previous studies.

Table 5. Rankings in different countries.

Code	Mean	Pakistan	Hong Kong (Yang et al. 2009)	Ghana (Amoatey and Hayibor 2017)	Nigeria (Ola-Awo, Alayande, and Olarewaju 2021), (Oyeyipo, Opeyemi; Odeyinka, Henry; Owolabi, James; Afolabi, Oyeyipo et al. 2019)	Gaza (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015)	Egypt (Mashali et al. 2022)
CSF-1	4.72	1^st	12^th	3^rd	4^th	1^st	−
CSF-6	4.44	2^nd	2^nd	1^st	1^st	2^nd	3^rd
CSF-3	4.43	3^rd	5^th	2^nd	2^nd	3^rd	−
CSF-8	4.38	4^th	11^th	15^th	5^th	8^th	−
CSF-13	4.33	5^th	15^th	8^th	−	−	−
CSF-4	4.30	6^th	4^th	6^th	7^th	4^th	−
CSF-14	4.30	7^th	2^nd	11^th	23^rd	2^nd	−
CSF-9	4.29	8^th	8^th	−	16^th	3^rd	−
CSF-17	4.28	9^th	−	−	4^th	−	−
CSF-7	4.27	10^th	7^th	5^th	19^th	−	−
CSF-5	4.24	11^th	−	−	−	−	−
CSF-10	4.24	12^th	6^th	4^th	3^rd	9^th	−
CSF-16	4.23	13^th	−	−	8^th	−	−
CSF-18	4.22	14^th	10^th	10^th	12^th	−	−
CSF-11	4.22	15^th	9^th	9^th	6^th	3^rd	−
CSF-15	4.20	16^th	13^th	13^th	−	−	−
CSF-2	4.18	17^th	1^st	−	11^th	2^nd	8^th
CSF-12	4.15	18^th	13^th	12^th	−	−	−

4.3. Correlation

Table 6 shows the correlation between the identified CSFs and reveals that the factors have a positive correlation. None of the factors had a negative correlation.

Table 6. Correlations among critical success factors.

CSFs	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	1
2	.018	1
3	.441**	.136	1
4	.305**	.056	.530**	1
5	.234*	.391**	.545**	.448**	1
6	.414**	.282**	.671**	.344**	.311**	1
7	.331**	.157	.475**	.445**	.470**	.348**	1
8	.292**	.303**	.544**	.447**	.554**	.367**	.250*	1
9	.349**	.216*	.622**	.480**	.588**	.511**	.423**	.406**	1
10	.169	.260*	.319**	.451**	.428**	.232*	.344**	.259*	.386**	1
11	.428**	.205	.468**	.450**	.359**	.420**	.420**	.340**	.448**	.162	1
12	.348**	.186	.559**	.482**	.522**	.348**	.367**	.493**	.507**	.339**	.313**	1
13	.170	.210*	.507**	.375**	.498**	.410**	.473**	.445**	.465**	.230*	.283**	.407**	1
14	.353**	.167	.461**	.393**	.448**	.386**	.317**	.443**	.398**	.270*	.442**	.439**	.223*	1
15	.330**	.261*	.472**	.471**	.378**	.452**	.517**	.274**	.465**	.442**	.463**	.309**	.504**	.229*	1
16	.263*	.319**	.399**	.365**	.366**	.311**	.360**	.399**	.514**	.338**	.381**	.561**	.455**	.317**	.378**	1
17	.189	.253*	.445**	.507**	.368**	.311**	.246*	.362**	.458**	.225*	.407**	.437**	.383**	.554**	.211*	.388**	1
18	.212*	.131	.459**	.423**	.421**	.323**	.490**	.438**	.478**	.282**	.443**	.523**	.541**	.398**	.504**	.461**	.424**	1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4.4. Factor analysis

Initially, 18 elements were used for factor analysis to determine the most relevant stakeholder management factors in Pakistani construction projects. Numerous tests are required to establish if factor analysis is suitable for extracting and rotating key factors. Initially, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was utilized to determine the sample size. Table 7 shows that the initial KMO value obtained was 0.854, which was greater than 0.5, indicating the acceptability of the sample.

Table 7. KMO and Bartlett's test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.854
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	744.966
	df	153
	Sig.	0.000

The null hypothesis that the initial correlation matrix was identical, ensuring no link between variables, was tested using Bartlett’s test for sphericity. The table shows that Bartlett’s sphericity statistic is relatively high (Chi-Square = 744,966), which indicates that the population correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and has no correlations between components. As a result, the obtained results show that the data is reliable and appropriate for conducting factor analysis in accordance with Pallant (2020)

Furthermore, the maximum number of components to maintain was determined using the scree plot test and the eigenvalues criteria. The number of components to maintain and the rotation were determined using the principal component matrix, the orthogonal varimax rotation, the factor loading of 0.4, and the initial Eigenvalue larger than 1 criterion, in accordance with (Hair et al. 2014). According to the scree plot criterion and initial Eigenvalue greater than one, as shown in Figure 1, four factors (components) account for a cumulative variation of almost 62 percent of the overall variance. Figure 1 illustrates the scree plot, which comprises the Eigenvalues. In addition, the outcome of the screen test is utilized to validate the eigenvalue retention threshold for key elements. So, the eigenvalue criterion is confirmed.

Figure 1. Scree test plot.

The scree plot in Figure 1 and Table 9 confirms the retention of four components, of which component one (Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships) accounts for 42.174% of the total variance; component two (Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs), 7.032%; component three (Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders), 6.669%; component four (Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities), 5.664%.

Table 8 shows the correlation between components and variables after rotation based on Principal Component Analysis, orthogonal varimax rotation using Kaiser Normalization rotation method, and a significant factor of 0.04. “Predicting stakeholders’ potential influence on the project” and “Ensuring the use of a favorable procurement method” were the only factors that failed the loading test. Variables CSF-4, CSF-7, CSF-10, CSF-13, and CSF-15 are correlated as they load onto Component 1: Stakeholder Interests and Relationships. Correlations were also discovered between variables CSF-5, CSF-8, CSF-12, CSF-14, and CSF-17, which loaded onto Component 2: Refining Goals and Managing Stakeholder Needs. Variables CSF-1, CSF-3, CSF-6, and CSF-11 positively correlate because they were loaded onto Component 3: Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders. Only variable CSF-2 was loaded onto Component 4: Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. Four components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were found using Unweighted Least Square (ULS), the standard for factor extraction, which is in accordance with the sample adequacy condition of greater than 50 percent.

Table 8. Total variance explained.

		Component
	Factors	1	2	3	4
	Component-1 Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships
CSF-15	Predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions	0.746
CSF-7	Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders	0.695
CSF-13	Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.)	0.661
CSF-18	Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes	0.619
CSF-10	Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders	0.579
CSF-4	Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project	0.508
	Component-2 Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs
CSF-17	Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests		0.758
CSF-14	Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects		0.704
CSF-12	Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence		0.663
CSF-8	Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively		0.624
CSF-5	Involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission.		0.503
	Component-3 Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders
CSF-1	Formulating the project mission			0.773
CSF-6	Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms)			0.726
CSF-11	Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders			0.614
CSF-3	Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders			0.573
	Component-4 Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities
CSF-2	Considering corporate social responsibilities (a business has a responsibility to the society paying attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues)				0.915

Table 9. Total variance explained.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings			Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% Of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Of Variance	Cumulative %
1	7.591	42.174	42.174	`7.591	42.174	42.174	3.630	20.166	20.166
2	1.266	7.032	49.206	1.266	7.032	49.206	3.487	19.370	39.536
3	1.200	6.669	55.876	1.200	6.669	55.876	2.601	14.449	53.985
4	1.020	5.664	61.540	1.020	5.664	61.540	1.360	7.555	61.540
5	0.928	5.154	66.694
6	0.839	4.66	71.353
7	0.756	4.201	75.554
8	0.694	3.857	79.411
9	0.594	3.299	82.710
10	0.548	3.042	85.752
11	0.491	2.73	88.482
12	0.437	2.428	90.910
13	0.401	2.225	93.135
14	0.327	1.819	94.954
15	0.303	1.682	96.636
16	0.251	1.394	98.030
17	0.200	1.113	99.144
18	0.154	0.856	100.000

Factor analysis conducted on the discovered CSFs for stakeholder management, shows the four emerging factors and explained about 62 percent of the overall variance. These factors include Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships, Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs, Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. The results of this study are consistent with Ola-awo, Alayande, Olarewaju, and Oyewobi’s findings from their study published in 2021, which identified the critical success factors for effective internal construction stakeholder management in Nigeria. Seven factors were identified in their investigation that together accounted for 66.596 percent of the total variation.

4.4.1. Component-1: Stakeholders’ reactions and relationships

This component was comparatively more essential than the other three, accounting for 42.174% (Table 9) of the total variations between critical success factors. It revealed that contractors, consultants, and clients in Pakistan regard stakeholder reactions and relationships as necessary for stakeholder management in construction projects. The data shows that predicting stakeholders’ likely reactions for implementing project decisions has the highest loading (0.746); Identifying and analyzing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders has a loading of 0.695; Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.) has a loading of 0.661; Managing change of stakeholders’ attributes has a loading of 0.619; Keeping and promoting positive relationships among the stakeholders 0.579 and Identifying and understanding stakeholders’ areas of interest in the project has a loading of 0.508. For effective stakeholder management, predicting stakeholders’ reactions, resolving stakeholders’ conflicts, and promoting good relationships, stakeholders’ behaviors, attributes, and interests are crucial. When making decisions on interacting with stakeholders, project managers must consider the stakeholders’ reactions (Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks 2007). When (Dias 1999) used an approach that wasn’t obvious; she paid attention to how stakeholders would respond. Stakeholder acceptability and feasibility were the focus of his research. Consequently, a project team should now focus on determining how stakeholders will react to a plan being implemented (Cleland and Ireland 2002).

4.4.2. Component-2: refining goals and managing stakeholders’ needs

This component, which consists of five subfactors, accounts for 7.032% of the total variation. The data shows that Managing the change of stakeholders’ interests has the highest loading (0.758); Exploring stakeholder needs and constraints to projects has a loading of 0.704; Managing the change of stakeholders’ influence has a loading of 0.663; Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively has a loading of 0.624 and involving relevant stakeholders to redefine (refine) project mission has a loading of 0.503. According to (Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks 2007), evaluating stakeholders’ requirements and expectations in projects entails examining stakeholders’ areas of interest and enumerating the specific challenges associated with the project. During the project’s development, each of the project’s needs must be evaluated to develop a reasonable and practical solution to the problem. Jepsen and Eskerod (2009) also explain the premises of essential projects stakeholder management, which include managing stakeholders with liabilities, illustrating and communicating a reasonable statement of project goals, forming the right ways to deal with managing stakeholders, examining stakeholders’ requirements and imperatives in projects, and ensuring viable as well as sustainable outcomes. Project managers are responsible for resolving stakeholder conflicts. Based on the knowledge regarding stakeholders, disputes and coalitions among stakeholders could also be examined.

4.4.3. Component-3: identifying and engaging stakeholders

Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders accounts for 6.669% of the total variance with four sub-factors, where “Formulating the project mission” has the highest loading of 0.773; Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms); 0.726, Formulating appropriate strategies to manage/engage different stakeholders; 0.614 and Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders, 0.573. The project manager should understand every stage of the project’s life cycle, including concerns with cost, time, and budget (El-Sawalhi and Hammad 2015). They concluded that a project manager with these qualities successfully manages stakeholder relationships. This will support the project’s successful completion. Furthermore, the professionals on the contract must all be proficient communicators for construction projects to be appropriately handled (Tipili, Ojeba, and Ilyasu 2014). All significant stakeholders must therefore be able to communicate effectively to discuss project-related challenges and allow the sharing of ideas and aspirations. As a result, risks are reduced, and a robust communication system enhances the reputation of the parties to the contract. According to (Yang et al. 2009), developing proper strategies for dealing with stakeholders is critical because it will influence how the project management team treats different stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis’s first phase, according to (Jepsen and Eskerod 2009), is stakeholder identification. Since many parties are engaged in construction contracts, it is essential to correctly identify the major stakeholders at the beginning of the contract so that their responsibilities can be analyzed and their expectations and possible influence on the project can be understood.

4.4.4. Component-4: stakeholders’ social responsibilities

This single factor accounts for 5.664% of the total variance. Considering corporate social responsibilities (a business has a responsibility to society by paying attention to economic, legal, environmental, and ethical issues) is the only item under this factor with a factor loading of 0.857. Managing social responsibilities involves legal, economic, environmental, and ethical challenges, all of which must be evaluated and handled before the project begins. Thus, legal difficulties pose a significant challenge to construction organizations, and projects must verify that all legal criteria are met before the commencement of the project. The economic issue is important since, except for government projects, most projects are carried out for profit, and any delay in project completion represents an additional expense to the owners.

Similarly, environmental responsibilities should also be carried out deliberately. Organizations must examine ethical concerns since they affect workers and communities. Project organizations must understand that, in addition to maximizing profits, project managers and team members must also meet their ethical and corporate social duties as decent citizens.

5. Conclusions

Many academics and researchers have acknowledged the value of stakeholder management. Different sets of CSFs have been proposed in the literature, focusing on various facets of stakeholder management. Investigating these components’ relative importance and factors groupings is essential. This article presents the results of a questionnaire survey to identify CSFs related to stakeholder management in Pakistani construction projects and investigate their relative importance and underlying relationships.

Scholars have identified CSFs for stakeholder management in various nations, but for Pakistani construction projects, no specific research could be found before this study. So, this study investigated an ordered and grouped set of factors critical for stakeholder management in Pakistan. First, a literature review and a questionnaire were used to identify 18 CSFs. Then, the ranking of these CSFs was determined via a questionnaire survey, clarifying the priority factors. According to the findings, the top five stakeholder management related CSFs in Pakistani projects are; Formulating the project mission; Communicating with stakeholders properly and frequently (instituting feedback mechanisms); Carefully identifying and listing the project stakeholders; Resolving conflicts among stakeholders effectively and Predicting and mapping stakeholders’ behaviors (supportive, opposition, neutral, etc.).

Through factor analysis, a total of 18 factors that are crucial for stakeholder management in construction projects were classified into four components: Stakeholders’ Reactions and Relationships, Refining goals and Managing Stakeholders’ Needs; Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Social Responsibilities. The study indicated that these four components are critical for successful stakeholder management in the Pakistani construction sector and will favor project performance if they are given specific attention. These findings could potentially be utilized as an assessment tool to evaluate stakeholder management performance and highlight areas for improvement.

This study has contributed to the expanding body of knowledge on project management by providing insight into the CSFs for stakeholder management in the Pakistani context to focus on project goals. The findings will assist industrial decision-makers in understanding essential factors to prioritize when managing stakeholders. Since the findings in this research are based on a questionnaire survey, respondents may have diverse interpretations of our assertions, which may skew the CSFs rankings. Therefore, case studies should be used to validate this research’s conclusions further. The outcomes of this study are compared to findings from earlier studies conducted in comparable socioeconomic conditions. Due to similar socioeconomic conditions, the similarity between findings was observed. CSF-1 ranked first in Pakistan and was also ranked first in Gaza.

In contrast, Ghana and Nigeria ranked third and fourth, respectively. Similarly, CSF-6 was ranked second in Pakistan and second by Gaza. Nigeria and Ghana ranked it first, while Egypt ranked it third. CSF-3 was ranked second in Nigeria and Ghana, while it was ranked third in Pakistan and Gaza. It can be inferred from the implications that the results may be generalized to other regions under similar socioeconomic environments.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, for providing research and financial facilities. Experts from National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) and Sohar University are also gratefully acknowledged for providing technical assistance. The Sohar University, Oman, is recognised for supporting the publication of this work

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

It was internally funded by the Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.

Notes on contributors

Abdul Rafeh

Mr. Abdul Rafeh is an undergraduate student at the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.

Mohsin Usman Qureshi

Dr. Mohsin Usman Qureshi has done Ph.D. Civil Engineering and currently working as Associate Professor and Head of Research and Development at Sohar University, Oman.

Asif Hameed

Dr. Asif Hameed has done Ph.D. Structural Engineering and currently working as Professor at Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Pakistan.

Ali Murtaza Rasool

Dr. Ali Murtaza Rasool has done Ph.D. Civil Engineering and currently working as a Senior Engineer in NESPAK. He has diversified experience of more than 16 years. He is actively involved in research and teaching activities.