Performance Measurement Framework: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 3 by Rita Xu.

Projects often fail due to a lack of understanding of the project requirements and constraints necessary for overall success. Five selected projects were analyzed in detail through the multiple case study method followed by semi-structured interviews with 56 experts to develop a pattern for the future prediction of project success.

  • performance measurement
  • project management
  • multiple case study

1. Introduction

Despite good ideas, great efforts, and high investments, many projects do not end with success. Although there could be several reasons for such, a pivotal task in the study of project management remains the same, as Chen [1] stated, “to identify the critical determinants of project management performance”. Therefore, over the years, many researchers and practitioners have examined and identified a wide variety of approaches, tools, and techniques to describe and measure project management performance focusing on input characteristics that affect project outcomes [1][2][3][4]. Those studies often focus on the overall project life cycle [2][3][5], with relatively few focused on the perspective level of the project phases [1], especially how various stakeholders will perceive project success [6][7][8]. The paradigm of focusing solely on technical and economic aspects and areas over the years has shifted towards the integration of social and behavioral areas as well, thus focusing on the interaction between project stakeholders and the project team [8][9][10][11]. Both practitioners and academics have difficulties coping with such problems, clearly showing that there is still room to investigate and contribute.
The complex surroundings and the goal for overall betterment, often viewed as sustainability, have a specific imperative that project performance is recognized and measured on long-term strategic objectives instead of short-term tactical performance [12][13][14][15]. While the authors, in general, often focus on achieving short-term project targets as long-term benefits management, especially in public projects [14], there are “significant variations in the levels of success”, as Flyvbjerg reported [16]. The PMI’s report [17] claimed “only 70% of projects successfully met their original goals and business intent”, so, there is still much room for improving performance.
Another aspect is the multi-dimensionality of success, as the interests of different stakeholders imply that they will sometimes have quite different perceptions of the project’s success [18][19][20][21][22]. Therefore, project failure is often seen as a lack of understanding of the project requirements and the constraints necessary for overall success, emphasizing the early stages of the project. Such is most evident in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry as construction costs are one of the main criteria for decision making in the early stages and of interest to all project participants, i.e., stakeholders [23][24]. Very often, there are discrepancies between the estimated (e.g., planned or contracted) costs concerning the realized (e.g., actual) costs of the construction project [25]. Usually, discrepancies occur due to a lack of data and information in the conceptual phase [26][27][28][29][30][31]. Therefore, monitoring performance and reward depending on outcomes is increasingly common.

2. Project Management, Success, and Performance of the Project

Project management theory initially defines project success based on three core criteria: delivery on time, within budget, and to an agreed quality [32]. Such an approach gained popularity thanks to the good measurability of the criteria. However, later studies have greatly criticized this concept as these three criteria are insufficient to capture the project’s success from a broader point of view [33]. Accordingly, the required level of performance can only be achieved if other aspects are observed [34]. The project’s success is affected, among others, also by its complexity, which may increase the level of cost and time risks [35]. In this context, a breakdown of project success criteria into 29 categories was proposed [36] supplementing traditional criteria (time, cost, and quality) with other macro-level categories covering stakeholders-, deliverables-, and project organization- and management-related criteria. The theory recognizes project complexity as the number and heterogeneity of different inter-related elements [37]. Vidal and Marle [38] highlighted that complexity renders the project difficult to understand, foresee, and keep under control. The multi-dimensionality of project complexity is seen in the literature from technological and organizational views, while, researchers mostly focus on the organizational complexity relating to both in terms of the complexity of project objectives and related tasks as well as to interactions between a high number of people and stakeholders involved [39]. It is also believed that a higher number of inter-related elements that have to be co-ordinated causes greater exposure to delays and cost overruns [35]. In addition, it is argued that when the scope and complexity of the project increases, the need for a more comprehensive portfolio of criteria increases as well [40]. The later studies have further conceptualized performance management on a project level in a wide range of areas, such as supply chain management [41][42][43], risk considerations [44][45][46][47], safety [48][49], and sustainability aspects [50][51][52]. In such a way, it is possible to capture a broader range of data necessary for effectively managing the project and evaluating its performance. Such an approach becomes pivotal, especially in an unstable business environment characterized by changes in competition, technologies, and customer preferences and requirements [53]. As ascertained by Ward and Chapman [54], stakeholders represent the main source of uncertainty in the project due to the multiplicity of their objectives, which can be conflicting. From this perspective and in line with performance management efforts, analyzing various stakeholders’ POVs on the project’s success becomes pivotal. Many root causes of cost and time overruns have already been identified in the literature, including project complexity, price increases, slow decision making, rework, or shortage of equipment [55]. Many scholars have incorporated risk aspect into their performance management approaches in terms of particular KPIs, such as overtime work rate and rework rate [56] or time–cost predictability [27][57][58][59][60]. Accordingly, risk performance indexes and measurement systems have been developed [45], mainly covering cost and schedule over-run-related risk. Available literature suggests numerous models, systems, and frameworks developing performance management issues. As Lin and Shen [61] discussed, the need for so many models arises from the fact that they look at the various facets of performance from different points of view. Furthermore, they argue that multi-perspective indicators are essential for performance measurement and applying the balance scorecard approach [62][63][64][65] should help improve overall performance. However, these models are often criticized for grouping causes and effects together as an overall performance indicator [66]. Hence, researchers have generally focused on providing advances (1) for the overall performance measurement and (2) by developing fragmentized forecasting models and models addressing specific aspects of the performance. In relation to (1), several approaches have been built, e.g., to predict project failure at completion by considering seven variables (communication, team, creativity, technology, risk, quality, and materials; as suggested by [1]), in terms of the total performance score that has been developed in order to quantify project performance indicator system based on 18 KPIs covering eight PAs [56], or by a system dynamics approach to predict construction project performance [67]. Regarding (2), the following models can be noted: the operational research model has been developed to predict contractor performance [68], the decision support model for construction supply chain performance management was introduced by Yildiz and Ahi [41], while Kim [45] presented a risk performance management model based on cost and schedule risk considerations. Stakeholder perspectives and their POVs have been widely studied. Prior analyses have shown that the perception of specific KPIs differs across stakeholders [34], similar to the perception of particular attributes that influence cost performance [22]. That is why engaging stakeholders already at the early stages of the project is of high importance [69][70][71] in as much as many projects disagree on the priority of particular criteria across individual stakeholders [40]. Previous research also revealed performance objectives and indicators of stakeholder management [69][72][73] and pinpointed collaborative management, which could produce positive effects such as increased cost performance of the project [74]. Considering the various concepts raised, it is desirable to reflect on how much uncertainty exists in managers’ predictive models [75], which can adversely affect achieving project success. Therefore, the choice of PAs to be monitored and measured is crucial.

3. Stakeholders Management

As ascertained by Ward and Chapman [54], stakeholders represent the main source of uncertainty in the project due to the multiplicity of their objectives, which can be conflicting. From this perspective and in line with performance management efforts, it becomes pivotal to analyze various stakeholders’ POVs on the project’s success. Stakeholders are defined usually as “groups or individuals who have a stake in, or expectation of, the project’s performance”. The origins of the stakeholder concept have been described by Freeman [76], highlighting its dynamic aspect as every stakeholder role is temporary and issue-specific. The further development of stakeholder theory has included, among others, the approach of Mitchell et al. [77] regarding the identification (normative theory), salience (descriptive theory), and establishing the typology of stakeholders. It should be mentioned that stakeholder identification belongs to the main challenges of project managers [69][72]. Once stakeholders are identified, Mitchell’s theory [77] further facilitates the determination of stakeholders’ salience based on three main elements of typology: power, legitimacy, and urgency, and their assignment to one of the nine classes. Accordingly, managers can decide on the priority they give to competing stakeholders’ claims. One of the prime project management goals is to support a balance between the needs and expectations of individual stakeholders [73]. A high number of stakeholders raises the need for careful strategic considerations in buyer–supplier relationships. Previous theoretical findings pointed out that there is no single and ideal way to manage these relationships ([78] Kim and Choi, 2015). Deep and long-term relations might benefit from the mutual trust of the parties involved, which is important as trust can influence the success of the project ([79] Cerić et al., 2021). Since the buyer has to control the relationship with its suppliers and is in line with the effort to avoid poor performance, an incentive/disincentive mechanism might be considered as a suitable managerial approach [42][80]. From the construction industry’s point of view, private and public projects have to be differentiated. As for public projects, relationships are often limited to a single contract [42]. In this context, supply chain management in construction becomes more complicated. Additionally, available literature recognizes, e.g., in the supply chain operations reference model, its metrics were used to manage the performance of the construction supply chain [41]. While the spectrum of construction project stakeholders is broad, e.g., clients, project managers, designers, subcontractors, supplies, funding bodies, users, community, local authorities, environmentalists [81], project management as well as construction management, the literature recognizes three key stakeholders, namely, clients, contractors, and consultants [69][82]. Especially, as the stakeholders being seen [80] as “one of the underestimated factors of project success”.

References

  1. Chen, H.L. Performance measurement and the prediction of capital project failure. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1393–1404.
  2. Scott-Young, C.; Samson, D. Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. J. Oper. Manag. 2008, 26, 749–766.
  3. Chen, H.L. Innovation stimulants, innovation capacity, and the performance of capital projects. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2014, 15, 212–223.
  4. Tabassi, A.A.; Bakar, A.H.A. Training, motivation, and performance: The case of human resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 471–480.
  5. El-Sayegh, S.M. Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 431–438.
  6. Turner, R.; Zolin, R. Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales o predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 87–99.
  7. Montenegro, A.; Dobrota, M.; Todorović, M.; Slavinski, T.; Obradović, V. Impact of construction project managers’ emotional intelligence on project success. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10804.
  8. Korhonen, T.; Jaaskelainen, A.; Laine, T.; Saukkonen, N. How performance measurement can support achieving success in project-based operations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2023, 41, 102429.
  9. Bukoye, O.T.; Ejohwomu, O.; Roehrich, J.; Too, J. Using nudges to realize project performance management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2022, 40, 886–905.
  10. Pavez, I.; Gomez, H.; Liu, C.; Gonzalez, V.A. Measuring project team performance: A review and conceptualization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2022, 40, 951–971.
  11. Blais, C.; St-Pierre, J.; Bergeron, H. Performance measurement in new product development projects: Findings from successful small and medium enterprises. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2023, 41, 102451.
  12. Mladenovic, G.; Vajdic, N.; Wündsch, B.; Temeljotov Salaj, A. Use of key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectives. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2013, 3, 228–249.
  13. Serra, C.E.M.; Kunc, M. Benefits realization management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 53–66.
  14. Williams, T.; Vo, H.; Bourne, M.; Bourne, P.; Cooke-Davies, T.; Kirkham, R.; Masterton, G.; Quattrone, P.; Valette, J. A cross-national comparison of public project benefits management practices–the effectiveness of benefits management frameworks in application. Prod. Plan. Control. 2020, 31, 644–659.
  15. Hughes, D.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Mapping is failure factors on PRINCE2 stages: An application of interpretive ranking process (IRP). Prod. Plan. Control. 2017, 28, 776–790.
  16. Flyvbjerg, B. From Nobel prize to project management: Getting risks right. Proj. Manag. J. 2006, 37, 5–15.
  17. PMI (Project Management Institute). Success Rates Rise–Transforming the High Cost of Low Performance. Newton Square, PA: Pulse of the Profession. 2017. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadesrhip/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2017.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2021).
  18. Ika, L.A. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj. Manag. J. 2009, 40, 6–19.
  19. Davis, K. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 189–201.
  20. McLeod, L.; Doolin, B.; MacDonell, S.G. A perspective-based understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 68–86.
  21. Williams, T. Identifying success factors in construction projects: A case study. Proj. Manag. J. 2016, 47, 97–112.
  22. Yang, R.Y.; Jayasuriya, S.; Gunarathna, C.; Arashpour, M.; Xue, X.; Zhang, G. The evolution of stakeholder management practices in Australian mega construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 690–706.
  23. Ambrule, V.R.; Bhirud, A.N. Use of artificial neural network for pre design cost estimation of building projects. Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 2017, 5, 173–176.
  24. Galjanić, K.; Marović, I.; Jajac, N. Decision support systems for managing construction projects: A scientific evolution analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4977.
  25. Peško, I.; Trivunić, M.; Cirović, G.; Mučenski, V. A preliminary estimate of time and cost in urban road construction using neural networks. Tech. Gaz. 2013, 20, 563–570.
  26. Al-Zwainy, F.M.; Aidan, I.A.A. Forecasting the cost of structure of infrastructure projects utilizing artificial neural network model (highway projects as case study). Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 10, 1–12.
  27. Car-Pušić, D.; Tijanić, K.; Marović, I.; Mlađen, M. Predicting buildings construction cost overruns on the basis of cost overruns structure. Sci. Rev. Eng. Environ. Sci. 2020, 29, 366–376.
  28. Mrak, I.; Ambruš, D.; Marović, I. A Holistic Approach to Strategic Sustainable Development of Urban Voids as Historic Urban Landscapes from the Perspective of Urban Resilience. Buildings 2022, 12, 1852.
  29. Marović, I. Possible Applications of Neural Networks in Managing Urban Road Networks. In Current Topics and Trends on Durability of Building Materials and Components; Serrat, C., Casas, J.R., Gibert, V., Eds.; International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE): Barcelona, Spain, 2020; Available online: https://www.scipedia.com/public/Marovic_2020a (accessed on 17 October 2022).
  30. Biolek, V.; Hanak, T.; Marović, I. Data flow in relation to life-cycle costing of construction projects in the Czech Republic. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 072032.
  31. Mandičák, T.; Spišáková, M.; Mésároš, P.; Kozlovská, M. Design of Economic Sustainability Supported by Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. Buildings 2022, 12, 2241.
  32. Atkinson, R. Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 337–342.
  33. de Wit, A. Measurement of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1988, 6, 164–170.
  34. Toor, S.-R.; Ogunlana, S.O. Beyond the “iron triangle”: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 228–236.
  35. Bjorvatn, T.; Wald, A. Project complexity and team-level absorptive capacity as drivers of project management performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 876–888.
  36. Radujković, M.; Sjekavica Klepo, M.; Bosch-Rekveldt, M. Breakdown of Engineering Projects’ Success Criteria. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021144.
  37. Burke, C.M.; Morley, M.J. On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Hum. Relat. 2016, 69, 1235–1258.
  38. Vidal, L.; Marle, F. Understanding project complexity: Implications on project management. Kybernetes 2008, 37, 1094–1110.
  39. Eriksson, P.E.; Larsson, J.; Pesämaa, O. Managing complex projects in the infrastructure sector—A structural equation model for flexibility-focused project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1512–1523.
  40. Bryde, D.J.; Robinson, L. Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 622–629.
  41. Yildiz, K.; Ahi, M.T. Innovative decision support model for construction supply chain performance management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2020, 33, 894–906.
  42. Patrucco, A.S.; Moretto, A.; Knight, L. Does relationship control hinder relationship commitment? The role of supplier performance measurement systems in construction infrastructure projects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 108000.
  43. Mandičák, T.; Mésároš, P.; Kanáliková, A.; Špak, M. Supply Chain Management and Big Data Concept Effects on Economic Sustainability of Building Design and Project Planning. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11512.
  44. Floricel, S.; Miller, R. Strategizing for anticipated risks and turbulence in large-scale engineering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 445–455.
  45. Kim, S.G. Risk performance indexes and measurement systems for mega construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 586–594.
  46. Cerić, A. Minimizing communication risk in construction: A Delphi study of the key role of project managers. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 829–838.
  47. Sanni-Anibire, M.O.; Mahmoud, A.S.; Hassanain, M.A.; Salami, B.A. A risk assessment approach for enhancing construction safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2019, 121, 15–29.
  48. Cheng, E.W.L.; Ryan, N.; Kelly, S. Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on project performance in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 363–369.
  49. Winge, S.; Albrechtsen, E.; Arnesen, J. A comparative analysis of safety management and safety performance in twelve construction projects. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 71, 139–152.
  50. Chang, R.-D.; Zuo, J.; Soebarto, V.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X. Discovering the Transition Pathways toward Sustainability for Construction Enterprises: Importance-Performance Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017013.
  51. Sertyesilisik, B. A preliminary study on the regenerative construction project management concept for enhancing sustainability performance of the construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2017, 17, 293–309.
  52. Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 1095–1121.
  53. Adam, A.; Josephson, P.-E.B.; Lindahl, G. Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and time delays in large public construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 393–406.
  54. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 563–577.
  55. Cha, H.S.; Kim, C.K. Quantitative approach for project performance measurement on building construction in South Korea. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 15, 1319–1328.
  56. Kagioglou, M.; Cooper, R.; Aouad, G. Performance management in construction: A conceptual framework. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 85–95.
  57. Radujković, M.; Vukomanović, M.; Burcar Dunović, I. Application of Key Performance Indicators in South-Eastern European construction. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2010, 16, 521–530.
  58. Petruševa, S.; Žileska-Pancovska, V.; Car-Pušić, D. Implementation of process-based and data-driven models for early prediction of construction time. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 7405863.
  59. Tijanić, K.; Car-Pušić, D.; Čulo, K. Impact of funding on cost-time aspects of public and social buildings. Gradjevinar 2019, 71, 21–32.
  60. Lin, G.; Shen, Q. Measuring the Performance of Value Management Studies in Construction: Critical Review. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 23, 2–9.
  61. Bassioni, H.A.; Price, A.D.F.; Hassan, T.M. Performance Measurement in Construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2004, 20, 42–50.
  62. Bou-Llusar, J.C.; Escrig-Tena, A.B.; Roca-Puig, V.; Beltran-Martin, I. An empirical assessment of the EFQM Excellence Model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA Model. J. Oper. Manag. 2009, 27, 1–22.
  63. Vukomanović, M.; Radujković, M. The balanced scorecard and EFQM working together in a performance management framework in construction industry. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2013, 19, 683–695.
  64. Dwivedi, R.; Prasad, K.; Mandal, N.; Singh, S.; Vardhan, M.; Pamučar, D. Performance evaluation of an insurance company using an integrated Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Best-Worst Method (BWM). Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2021, 4, 33–50.
  65. Jonas, D.; Kock, A.; Gemünden, H.G. Predicting Project Portfolio Success by Measuring Management Quality—A Longitudinal Study. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2013, 60, 215–226.
  66. Leon, H.; Osman, H.; Georgy, M.; Elsaid, M. System dynamics approach for forecasting performance of construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 34, 04017049.
  67. Tam, C.M.; Harris, F. Model for assessing building contractors’ project performance. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1996, 3, 187–203.
  68. Doloi, H. Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of key stakeholders in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 267–279.
  69. Marović, I.; Perić, M.; Hanak, T. A multi-criteria decision support concept for selecting the optimal contractor. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1660.
  70. Pamučar, D.; Macura, D.; Tavana, M.; Božanić, D.; Knežević, N. An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: The Serbian Railways case. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022, 79, 101098.
  71. Yang, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Drew, D.S.; Ho, M. Critical success factors for stakeholder management: Construction practitioners’ perspectives. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 778–786.
  72. Oppong, G.D.; Chan, A.P.C.; Dansoh, A. A review of stakeholder management performance attributes in construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1037–1051.
  73. Xue, H.; Zhang, S.; Su, Y.; Wu, Z.; Yang, R.Y. Effect of stakeholder collaborative management on off-site construction cost performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 490–502.
  74. Franco-Santos, M.; Otley, D. Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 696–730.
  75. Miller, D.M. Profitability = Productivity + Price Recovery. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1984, 62, 145–153.
  76. Freeman, R. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
  77. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853.
  78. Kim, Y.; Choi, T.Y. Deep, Sticky, Transient, and Gracious: An Expanded Buyer-Supplier Relationship Typology. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2015, 51, 61–86.
  79. Cerić, A.; Vukomanović, M.; Ivić, I.; Kolarić, S. Trust in megaprojects: A comprehensive literature review of research trends. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 325–338.
  80. Klaus-Rosińska, A.; Iwko, J. Stakeholder Management—One of the Clues of Sustainable Project Management—As an Underestimated Factor of Project Success in Small Construction Companies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9877.
  81. Bernolak, I. Effective measurement and successful elements of company productivity: The basis of competitiveness and world prosperity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1997, 52, 203–213.
  82. Xia, N.; Zou, P.X.W.; Griffin, M.A.; Wang, X.; Zhong, R. Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 701–715.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback