INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Critical determinants of project coordination K.N. Jha b

a,*

, K.C. Iyer

b,1

a Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016, India Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016, India

Received 12 May 2005; received in revised form 9 September 2005; accepted 3 November 2005

Abstract Coordination among project participants is an important function having considerable effect on the outcome of a construction project. Literature review and interviews of experts led to the identification of 59 construction coordination activities. Results of a questionnaire survey conducted among Indian construction professionals on these coordination activities recognized 20 important coordination activities essential for achieving day-to-day project coordination. A second level of questionnaire survey was then conducted using the 20 coordination activities. Analyses of responses on the 20 coordination activities found that only six activities are significant in enhancing coordination rating of the project. The analyses indicated that the extent of contribution of different coordination activities varies with the present coordination ratings of a given project. While estimation of the optimum resource requirements has the highest positive effect on achieving coordination at low coordination rating levels, the activity preparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specification is observed to contribute most when the coordination rating is already at high level. A model is also suggested that can evaluate the impact of these six coordination activities in achieving the coordination rating of a project. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Project coordination; Coordination activities; Coordination rating; Project success; Multinomial logistic regression; Questionnaire survey

1. Introduction The construction industry, unlike other industries, has peculiar problems as far as project management is concerned. With the arrival of large projects involving multiple designers, contractors, subcontractors, construction managers, consultants, and specialists, the project management has become all the more complex. The objective of project management is to ensure the success of a project. Success itself is a subjective term and depends on the perspective of the participant who is measuring it. Traditionally schedule, cost, and quality compliances have been used as criteria to measure the success of a construction project.

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 26596255/55467067; fax: +91 11 26581117. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.N. Jha), [email protected]. ac.in (K.C. Iyer). 1 Tel.: +91 11 26591209/26591519; fax: +91 11 26862620. 0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.005

However even in the success criteria there is no consensus among researchers. There are many variables that affect the outcome of a project. Coordination among project participants has been recognized as an important ingredient for success of many projects. While proper coordination has resulted into success of many large projects such as: the multi billion dollar Atlanta Metro Rail Project and World Trade Centre Project, USA [1,2], lack of it has resulted into numerous failures such as: SCOPE Project, India [3] and a host of large building projects in China where cost overrun is recorded to be over 50% [4]. Coordination is one of the seven recognized processes of management, the others being Forecasting, Planning, Organizing, Motivating, Controlling, and Communicating [5]. Coordination means unifying, harmonizing and integrating different agencies involved in any industry with multiple objectives [6]. Higgin and Jessop [7] recognized coordination as one of the three critical functions in the building process along with ‘‘design’’ and ‘‘construction’’ and Sheeran [8] considered coordination as one of the

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

principal functions of management, ranking along with planning, organizing, directing and controlling. Rad [9] through interviews with experts concluded coordination as the single most important factor in construction of a nuclear power plant when multiple participants viz. design and construction contractors and subcontractors are involved. He also observed that active coordination could minimize, predict and remedy problems caused by design construct lead-time, materials availability, manpower, and equipment availability. Lammie and Shah [1] while discussing the success of Atlanta rail transit system project pointed out that different groups working on the project could achieve harmony by introducing linking mechanisms between various levels of project hierarchy. Similarly, researchers from other streams viz. transportation engineering, and water industry have also recognized the importance of coordination among participants [6,10]. Although these researchers have stressed the importance of coordination, they have not discussed the activities that actually need to be performed to achieve good coordination. Pioneering work of Saram and Ahmed [11] addressed this issue, who through analysis of responses of a questionnaire survey identified a set of activities that a coordinator needed to carry out to achieve day-to-day coordination on a general basis and named these activities as Ôcoordination activitiesÕ. However the effect of a given coordination activity would vary across different project objectives, so will be the selection of set of coordination activities for any given project objective, e.g., if completion of project on time is of prime importance then a different set of coordination activity would be emphasized than those activities which help achieving cost saving, quality enhancement, or dispute reduction [12,13]. The research work of Saram and Ahmed [11] therefore has the limitations in its applicability as all coordination activities were evaluated on one common scale instead of various project performance parameters. Considering the importance the past researchers have given to coordination in influencing the outcome of a project, the need for further study was felt. 2. Objectives and research methodology The objectives of the study were:  To identify the important coordination activities which contribute to improved project coordination.  To develop a model to evaluate contribution of coordination activities for achieving day-to-day project coordination. Due to non-availability of documented and structured data on completed projects with professional organizations for the study, questionnaire survey was used for data collection. The responses received were statistically analysed through SPSS software.

315

3. Questionnaire description and response For this study a two-stage questionnaire survey was employed. The first stage questionnaire survey sought information on respondentÕs personal details, project details, relative importance of various project stages and project performance evaluation parameters, effects of coordination activities on bringing success to a project and accepted traits of project coordinator. A preliminary list of coordination activities was prepared based on the coordination activities identified by Saram and Ahmed [11]. Since their study was on construction projects at Singapore, a developed country, many activities identified by them were not relevant to Indian conditions. The preliminary list was therefore modified through personal interviews with professionals and a pilot survey was then conducted. The response to the pilot survey helped in identifying a number of new coordination activities and improving the presentation of questionnaire. A total of 59 coordination activities were identified and were used in the first level questionnaire survey. It is well established that ‘‘schedule’’, ‘‘cost’’, ‘‘quality’’ ‘‘safety’’ and ‘‘no-disputes’’ are the five important project evaluation criteria [14,15]. Among these criteria, ‘‘safety’’ provisions are statutory requirements. Any project manager would automatically put in all necessary coordination efforts to achieve these requirements. Therefore, it was assumed that there could be variation in achievement of other criteria due to various reasons; hence the other four criteria ‘‘schedule’’, ‘‘cost’’, ‘‘quality’’ and ‘‘no-dispute’’ only were selected for evaluation of importance of coordination activities. Importance of these coordination activities was gauged separately on four project performance criteria, on a five-point scale. A typical question pertaining to all the coordination activities is presented in Fig 1 and the list of 59 coordination activities is listed in Appendix A. Besides, the questions on coordination activities, since it was realized that there are several factors, other than coordination, would also have impact on ‘‘schedule’’, ‘‘cost’’, ‘‘quality’’ and ‘‘no-dispute’’ performance of projects, a separate question to assess the impact of these factors on the project performance was asked in this questionnaire. The analysis of responses revealed that 20 factors from among the 55 factors had significant contribution on project performance [16,17] and Ôcoordination among project participantsÕ was one among them. The second stage questionnaire survey was more focused and gathered specific information on certain select items that had emerged from the analysis of the first stage questionnaire. Here, the respondents were requested to base their responses on one particular project of their choice and they were asked to base their response with reference to that specific project. The relevant part of this questionnaire is given in Appendix B. A total of 114 responses were received for the first level questionnaire and 90 responses for the second level out of 450 and 300 questionnaires mailed, respectively. Respondents

316

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

Q. 11 Listed below are the coordination activities that one needs to carry out for better outcome of project. Please indicate the effects of these activities on various project success evaluation criteria given alongside these activities. NOTE:-Any activity you feel to be “not applicable” with reference to coordination you

may score them by putting a line across those activities and noting ‘NA’; and while some other important activities you feel to be missing may be added at the end of Table. Extent of positive effect on Sl Description of completion project cost project non no coordination activities schedule

1 2

quality

occurrence of project dispute

Implementing all 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 contractual commitments ………….. Legend: 1: Very large 2: Large 3: Small 4: Very small 5: Unnoticeable

Fig. 1. Typical question.

included government, public sector, multinational and private companies doing business in India. Respondents could be broadly categorized in two groups, contractors and owners. Analyses of responses and interpretations drawn are discussed in the following sections. 4. Identification of important coordination activities for overall success It is seen from the above discussion that the important sets of coordinating activities vary with the performance criteria in question. While emphasis on one performance criterion should not demean the importance of other criteria, it is felt that selection of activities on overall basis would give a more balanced result. For this purpose, the score of contribution of any activity in a particular questionnaire is considered to be the weighted mean of responses of the activity received under four criteria (adherence to schedule; cost; quality; and no-dispute). The weights assigned were based on the relative importance of each criterion as derived from the analysis of a separate question in the first stage questionnaire, which were 0.317, 0.228, 0.287 and 0.168 for schedule, cost, quality, and nodispute, respectively [17]. The weighted mean of responses for each coordination activity thus obtained were then arranged in the ascending order and are ranked 1,2,3, . . . ,59. As can be seen from the legend used for the questionnaire, the lower the mean value the greater is the activities impact on influencing the success criteria and were ranked accordingly. The activity with rank 1 indicated the most important, rank 2 indicated the next most important and so on. The rank also indicated the relative importance of one activity over the other. From the rank order a set of 20 important coordination activities were identified as requiring special attention for achieving coordination. The top 20 activities so obtained along with their identification numbers (C1,C2,C3, . . . ,C20) are given in Table 1 and they were selected for further study through second stage questionnaire survey.

Table 1 List of important coordination activities ID No.

Description of coordination activities

C1 C2

Implementing all contractual commitments Arranging timely carrying out of all tests for inspections and approval by the engineer and maintaining records of the same Arranging submission of samples of materials for approval by the engineer Application of good technical practices Preparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specification Arranging remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damage Identification of appropriate human resources, materials and equipments for the project Estimation of the optimum resource requirements Proper assignment of task to the available human resources for the project Organization of resources (manpower, plant, and material) for effective utilization Ensuring discipline among all employees Resolving differences/conflicts/confusion among participants Motivation of project participants Development of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the project Identification of activities on critical path Regular monitoring of critical path activities for adhering to schedule Arrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for execution Agreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties involved Analysis of the project performances on time, cost and quality, detecting variances Monitoring the overall functioning of each section and department of the project

C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20

It can be observed from Table 1 that Ôimplementation of contractual commitmentsÕ is the most important set of coordination activities performed by the coordinator. Considering the requirements laid down in Indian contracts to be fulfilled by the executing agencies it was not a surprise

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

that this activity emerged as the most important of all the coordination activities. The domain of contractual commitment is so wide that it can encompass most of the activities provided in Table 1. For example, it has within its fold the 2nd and 4th activities given in the table as well as activities ranked 16 and 17 besides the first activity. Another important set of coordination activities related to ÔresourceÕ, which is an integral part of coordinatorÕs job profile. A coordinator has to estimate, identify, organize, and assign resources for the project. For this he has to constantly follow up with his higher ups sitting in head office. He has to see that whatever resources are available at his disposal are assigned efficiently and a proper teamwork and discipline are maintained to get the maximum output. Identification of activities on critical path, analyzing and detecting variances from the base plan also appeared in the list of important coordination activities. It may also be observed that the majority of the above mentioned coordination activities are not one time affair but they need to be executed time and again for the entire duration of the project. 5. Evaluation of criticality of coordination activities To achieve the next objective of the study, i.e., finding the relative impact of above coordination activities on project coordination the second stage questionnaire survey (Appendix B) was conducted. In this questionnaire, the 20 select coordination activities were used and the responses were sought on the extent to which these activities were actually performed in the selected project (Q 8 of Appendix B). (The selected projects were the projects chosen by the respondents themselves and on which their responses were based.) Response on the extent to which these activities were actually performed in the selected project was sought on a 5-point scale (1–5) where 1 represented Ôunsatisfactorily doneÕ, 2 represented Ôfairly doneÕ, 3 represented Ôsatisfactorily doneÕ, 4 represented Ônicely doneÕ, and 5 represented Ôexcellently doneÕ. Through a different question, respondents were also asked to indicate the extent of contribution of Ôcoordination among project participantsÕ and 19 other significant factors had on the outcome of the selected project on a scale of 1–5 where 1 indicated low contribution and 5 indicated high contribution. If in the case project the respondents felt that there was complete coordination among project participants and a esprit de corps existed among the different stakeholders of the project which resulted in a high contribution towards the outcome they were told to mark 5 whereas if the respondents felt that coordination among project participants had only low contribution in the outcome of the project they were told to mark 1. The outcome was, however, the measure of performance of project on ÔscheduleÕ, ÔcostÕ, ÔqualityÕ, ÔsafetyÕ and Ôno-disputeÕ on a 10-point scale (1: poor performance, . . . , 10: very good performance). In the present study, using the coordination rating of the selected project as response variable and extent of contri-

317

bution of the 20 coordination activities as explanatory variables, multiple regression was applied as given in Eq. 1 below, the data points would however be the responses of these variables in the second stage questionnaire Coordination rating ðCRÞ ¼ f ðC 1 ; C 2 ; C 3 ; . . . ; C 20 Þ.

ð1Þ

Since the responses on response variables and explanatory variables were discrete the multinomial logistic regression was considered appropriate. Also, since the number of predictor variables were large and this regression required a large number of data sets (about 300–400 questionnaire responses in this case) and the available number of responses was only 90, the number of variables had to be reduced and a number of trials with different combinations of fewer variables had to be carried out [18,19]. With a view to avoid any personal bias in selection of variables and save time in carrying out huge number of trials, hierarchical forward and switching option of NCSS [20] software was used. In this option the term with the largest R2 is entered into the regression model. The term which increases largest R2 the most when combined with the first term is entered next. Now, each term in the current model is removed and the rest of the terms are checked to determine if, when they are used instead, R2 is increased. If a term can be found by this switching process, the switch is made and the whole switching operation is begun again. The algorithm continues until no term can be found that improves the likelihood. This model then becomes the best two-term model. Next, the subset size is increased by one, the best third term is entered into the model, and the switching process is repeated. This process is repeated until the maximum subset size is reached. Hence, this model finds optimum subset for each subset size. The summary of multinomial regression results is given in Table 2. The interpretation of the results is discussed in the subsequent paragraphs and the logic used for interpretation of regression results is given in Appendix C. 6. Interpretations of results It can be observed from Table 2 that six coordination activities identified as C5 – preparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specification; C6 – arranging remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damage; C8 – estimation of the optimum resource requirements; C14 – development of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the project; C17 – arrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for execution; and C18 – agreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties are significant activities among the 20 coordination activities at different coordination ratings. From Table 2, it can also be seen that v2 value of 83.004 at 24 degrees of freedom is highly significant which means that the null hypothesis that all effects of the independent variable are zero can be rejected [21]. Also, Nagelkerke

318

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

Table 2 Summary of important results of multinomial logistic regression between important coordination activities and coordination rating CRa

Variable

Log of odds ratio, B

(1) 1.00

Standard error, SE

(2) (3) (4) Intercept 15.622 4.716 C8 1.347 0.722 3.104 1.298 C18 2.00 Intercept 12.704 3.923 C6 2.768 0.895 1.216 0.682 C8 3.00 Intercept 9.713 3.310 C5 1.393 0.602 4.00 Intercept 5.194 3.009 C5 1.302 0.570 C8 1.086 0.485 C14 1.882 0.669 C17 1.262 0.550 1.371 0.694 C18 Model v2 (degree of freedom) = 83.004(24), Significance level Nagelkerke R2 value = 0.684 Percent correct prediction = 65 a

Wald Stat = (B/SE)2 (5) 10.972 3.485 5.716 10.489 9.571 3.179 8.612 5.351 2.980 5.228 5.012 7.917 5.260 3.900 0.000

Significant level, a

Odds ratio, eB

p

q

Dp

Dq

(6) 0.001 0.062 0.017 0.001 0.002 0.075 0.003 0.021 0.084 0.022 0.025 0.005 0.022 0.048

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

0.260 0.044

0.21 0.04

0.79 0.96

0.14 0.04

0.14 0.04

0.062 0.296

0.06 0.23

0.94 0.77

0.05 0.15

0.05 0.15

0.248

0.20

0.80

0.14

0.14

0.272 0.337 6.570 3.531 0.254

0.21 0.25 0.87 0.78 0.20

0.79 0.75 0.13 0.22 0.80

0.14 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.14

0.14 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.14

Coordination rating.

R2 value of 0.684 indicates that the multinomial logistic model in this case performs well for the coordination rating range from 1 to 4 with rating 5 being the reference category. The negative value of B corresponding to coordination rating of 1 in column 3 of Table 2, indicated that any increase in variable value of C8 – estimation of the optimum resource requirements; and C18 – agreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties would significantly decrease the likelihood of project coordination rating being at the level 1. The likelihood of rating being at the current level of 1 represented by p and rating not being 1 but being reference level of 5 represented by q (Appendix C) are given in column 8 and column 9, respectively. Their incremental changes, Dp and Dq given in column 10 and column 11 indicated that with unit rise in the value of C8 and C18, the probability of performance to remain at level 5 would decrease by 14% and 4%, respectively, or conversely the probability of achieving the coordination rating 5 (improving the coordination) would increase by 14% and 4%. Similarly at the coordination rating 2, the values of Dp and Dq in column 10 and column 11 indicated 5% and 15% increase in probability values of bettering of coordination rating with unit increase in the variable values of C6 – arranging remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damage; and C8 – estimation of the optimum resource requirements, respectively. The Dp and Dq values in column 10 and column 11 corresponding to coordination rating 3 indicated that with one unit increase in the value of C5 – preparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specification, the probability of bettering the coordination rating would increase by 14%. At the coordination rating 4, five variables appeared significant. While unit increase in the values of three variables: C5 – preparation of a project quality plan in line with con-

tract specification; C8 – estimation of the optimum resource requirements, respectively; and C18 – agreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties, out of the five variables would enhance the probability of bettering the coordination rating, the remaining two variables: C14 – development of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the project; C17 – arrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for execution, would increase the probability to retain the coordination level at the existing coordination rating of 4. The level of project coordination rating, CR being at 1 (i.e., unsatisfactorily done) indicates that there is complete chaos in the project and the least a project coordinator has to do is to take care of the activities, C8 and C18 that can bring the coordination level of the project to a slightly respectable level. In fact presence of C8 and C18 as significant variables even at CR = 4 (Table 2) also indicates that they are the two most important coordination activities, which showed their potential of continual improvement of coordination levels if handled properly. Generally, a project manager has to work with scarce resource most of the time and his objective would always be to optimize. Lest he takes appropriate steps to mobilize them on time there can be suspension of certain important construction activities leading to time and cost overruns in the project which may call for further explanation and fire fighting at a later date. Thus the coordination activity, C8 will be calling for a continuous feedback from all sections to estimate the optimum resource requirement. The continuous feedbacks from various sections together with Ôagreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties involvedÕ (C18) and Ôpreparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specificationÕ (C5) would automatically put all parties on a more responsive position that enhances

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

the existing level of coordination rating. However, to sustain the level of coordination at a high level (CR = 4), due care needs to be given to the coordination activities Ôdevelopment of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the projectÕ (C14) and Ôarrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for executionÕ (C17). All these can also be achieved by appointing a skilled and trained project coordinator for the project from the very beginning who is aware of the project right from its conceptual stage. A study has proven that there exists significant difference between traits of a successful projectÕs coordinator and that of a failed projectÕs coordinator and the skill set possessed by the project coordinator is an important factor that directs the outcome of any construction project [22]. While Ôpreparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specificationÕ and Ôarranging remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damageÕ would demand contract implementation skill, team building skill would be needed for Ôdevelopment of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the projectÕ and Ôagreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties involvedÕ. Project organization skill would prove to be handy for Ôarrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for executionÕ and Ôestimation of the optimum resource requirementsÕ. Hence to achieve the above six coordinating activities, the project coordinator has to be adept in team building skill, contract implementation skill, and project organization skill [22]. It can be observed from any construction project site, a project coordinator has to carry out his work within limited authority. Unless his team members have confidence in him things are not likely to work for the coordinator. Team building requires conciliatory approach and not the confrontationist approach. A coordinator needs to show concern for otherÕs ego and must have a sound understanding of human psychology. He must be good at keeping good working relationship with client and consultants. The reliance on systematic approach and a sound understanding of contract clauses make a project coordinator understand his responsibilities towards fulfilling this duty. Apart from appointing a coordinator, periodic review and constant liaison are some of the keys to achieve better coordination. As suggested by experts the project participants including the project coordinators can be trained through experiential learning, on the job training, formal education and special courses, professional activities, seminars and readings to enhance their skills to achieve better coordination and success of the project [23]. Further monitoring of desired level of achievement, feedback mechanism and actions to remove bottlenecks could also help in achieving better coordination. It is also generally felt that the nature of coordination activities performed in a construction project would vary from country to country. Accordingly, a new set of coordination activities, as discussed above were selected for

319

Indian context. However, the study proves that the list of activities may vary in size, but critical activities tend to remain the same across projects executed in different countries [16]. Hence the six coordination activities identified to be critical in this study can be also taken for the global context. 7. Conclusions A number of activities need to be carried out in order to achieve day-to-day coordination in a construction project. In this study, 59 such activities were initially identified and they were evaluated for their degree of importance. Based on the level of contribution only 20 important coordination activities were selected for further study. The important findings of this study are given below:  ÔImplementing all contractual commitmentsÕ is the most important coordination activity performed by the coordinator.  The majority of the above 20 activities is not a one time event but needs to be executed time and again for the entire duration of the project.  Six coordination activities are significantly important in influencing the coordination rating of a project. These activities are: C5 – preparation of a project quality plan in line with contract specification; C6 – arranging remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damage; C8 – estimation of the optimum resource requirements; C14 – development of a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the project; C17 – arrangement of required inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for execution; and C18 – agreement on detailed methods of construction with all the parties. Most important of them are C8 and C18, which show their potential of continual improvement of coordination levels if handled properly towards enhancement.  The extent of contribution of various coordination activities varies with coordination ratings of the project.  Once the values of actual achievements of the above six coordination activities (C5, C6, C8, C14, C17 and C18) are obtained either by any internal mechanism of the organization or by any external auditing process, it is possible for the organization to use them as input data to assess the chances of desired coordination rating of the project at the given point in time. This can help the project coordinator to better understand coordination problems and to formulate strategy to enhance the level of coordination.  While it is generally felt that geographical boundaries do affect the nature of activities performed in a construction project, it is proven that the critical activities tend to remain the same across projects executed in different countries. Hence the coordination activities identified to be critical in this study can be also taken for the global context.

320

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

Appendix A. List of coordination activities of the first stage questionnaire? S. No. 1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8 9

10

11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Description of coordination activities Implementing all contractual commitments Arranging for timely carrying out of all tests for inspections and approval by the engineer and maintaining records of the same Arranging submission of samples of materials for approval by the engineer Reporting progress reports, resources deployment report, etc., as required by the engineer Providing storage space, testing facilities, scaffolding, plant, power, water, illumination, etc., to other agencies as envisaged by the contract Arranging for compliance with site instructions/ directives from the engineer and revising programs/ordering material accordingly Applying good technical practices Preparing a project quality plan in line with contract specification Communicating instances of poor quality, dangerous or adverse incidents/situations to relevant personnel Caring for works of others by making staff and workmen aware of their responsibilities in this regard Coordinating hand over of work areas/service areas (such as plant rooms, service routes, etc.) to other parties Proposing remedial work methods and programs for executing in case of defect or damage Identification of appropriate human resources, materials and equipments for the project Estimating the optimum resource requirements Proper assignment of task to the available human resources for the project Organizing resources (manpower, plant, and material) for effective utilization Arranging technical and behavioral training of human resources Facilitating payments to own employees and subcontractors Managing the health, safety, and welfare of employees Managing the maintenance and safety of plant and machinery Equipping own men and subcontractors with tools, equipment, and resources Explaining and supporting the work of nominated subcontractors and specialist suppliers

Appendix A (continued) S. No.

Description of coordination activities

23

Delegation of responsibilities to appropriate project participant Regular follow up of work delegated to project participant Ensuring discipline among all employees Resolving differences/conflicts/confusion among participants Motivating project participants Developing a team spirit and receiving constructive input from all participants in the project Identifying/gathering information on requirements of all parties and consolidating for use in planning Identification of activities on critical path Communicating project progress, financial and commercial status, plans, schedules, changes, documents, etc., to all relevant participants Regular monitoring of critical path activities for adhering to schedule Coordinating the purchases, delivery, storage and handling of materials Arranging for kick off meeting and review with all departments asking for date wise schedule for their area of activities Identifying or gathering information on defects, deficiencies, ambiguities, and conflicts in drawings and specifications and having them resolved Improving/altering/eliminating activities and considering better alternatives that may efficiently meet the project objectives Arranging inputs like drawings, specifications, and technical details on time for execution Providing an organized means for gathering information and compiling records Identifying and gathering information on project work requirements (grouting, openings, making good, etc.) of all relevant parties and coordinating the time and manner of their execution Preparing coordination drawings for freezing sequence of activities and giving a road map of responsibilities to all involved in the project Agreeing on detailed methods of construction with all the parties involved Coordinating and rescheduling the sequence of onsite work in case of changes in requirement from client side Interfacing/integrating the work on different subsystems

24 25 26 27 28

29

30 31

32 33 34

35

36

37

38 39

40

41 42

43

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

Appendix A (continued) S. No.

Description of coordination activities

44

Establishing and maintaining an effective organizational structure and communication channels Conducting regular meetings and project reviews Analyzing the project performances on time, cost and quality, detecting variances from the schedule/requirements and dealing with their effects considering time and resource constraints Monitoring the budget on all activities and taking corrective action Monitoring the overall functioning of each section and department of the project Keeping joint records of all drawings, amendments to contract, directives, correspondences, verbal instructions, and documents received from the project participants (consultants, clients, vendors, etc.) Keeping joint records of quantities of work done especially of the work that is to get covered up Keeping joint records of price escalations where the contract has escalation clause Keeping joint records of owner supplied materials along with their scheduled delivery dates and actual receipt date Keeping joint records of all input cost (viz., labour, material, plant, etc.) for non-tendered items Keeping joint records of adverse weather conditions, breakdown time of client supplied equipment, etc. Coordinating with offsite fabricators and their deliveries Acting as liaison with specialist consultants, specialist subcontractors, nominated subcontractors, etc. Maintaining proper relationships with client, consultants and the subcontractor Acting as liaison with the client and the consultants Contacting outside authorities for testing, inspection, approval, etc.

45 46

47 48 49

50

51 52

53

54

55 56

57 58 59

Appendix B. Typical question format on coordination in second stage questionnaire Q 8 Through a previous study we have identified the following 20 important coordination activities that play significantly in the outcome of any project. To what extent were these coordination activities actually performed in

321

the case project? Please select from 1 to 5 as given in the legend. 1 2

3

Implementation of all contractual commitments Arrangement for timely carrying out of all tests for inspections and approval by the engineer and maintaining records of the same . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Legend: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Unsatisfactorily done Fairly done Satisfactorily done Nicely done Excellently done.

Appendix C. Interpretation of multinomial logistic regression model The multinomial logistic regression is an extension of binomial logistic regression and the chances of occurrence of a particular value of response variable is compared with the chances of occurrence of the reference value of the response variable, the coordination rating of the project. In the present study, the researchersÕ interest was to look for the best coordination rating of a project and to identify those explanatory variables that would enhance the chances of bringing the coordination rating nearer to the best coordination rating, the reference value of the coordination rating was set as 5, i.e., the highest level of coordination in this study. The interpretation of the results of this regression was drawn from mainly three components: ‘‘odds ratio’’, shown as eB; ‘‘log of odds ratio’’, B; and the ‘‘current value’’ of the explanatory variable which was being compared with the reference value 5. For the better comprehension of readers, these terms and their applications are explained below. Odds ratio: It is the ratio of likelihood of occurrence of an event to the likelihood of non-occurrence of that event and it is denoted by eB. Alternatively, it is also defined as the ratio of chances of happening of an event to chances of happening of all other events than this event. If the chances of occurrence of an event M (the current value of the response variable) is p, the chances of occurrence of coordination rating not being M or other than M will be q = (1  p). Since it was a binomial case and all comparisons were made with reference value (the event N), chances of the event not being M would be reckoned chances of the event being N. The eB = p/q = p/(1  p). Alternatively, the value of p and q can be determined from eB and can be written as p = eB/(1 + eB) and q = 1/(1 + eB). The M and N in the present study were the values of response variable, i.e., M represented the occurrence of project coordination rating of some level called as Ôcurrent

322

K.N. Jha, K.C. Iyer / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 314–322

valueÕ having values as 1, 2, 3 and so on up to 4; and N, the Ôreference levelÕ was taken as 5. Log of odds ratio: It is denoted by B and as the name suggests it is the log of eB, odds ratio. This component is regarded more for its sign, which determines the impact of explanatory variable on the outcome of response variable. For the event M (the assumed value of response variable), if the analysis shows positive sign to B, it implies that any increase in the value of explanatory variable will increase the likelihood of event being M. Conversely, the negative value of B indicates that increase in the value of explanatory variable will decrease the likelihood of event being M, i.e., occurrence of the response variable being at the current level. The magnitude of impact of explanatory variable on the current value of the response variable is determined by the magnitude of the odds ratio, eB. More precisely, one unit increase in the value of explanatory variable causes odds ratio to change by (1  eB) times, i.e., the new or changed value of odds ratio would now be eB{1  (1  eB)} = e2B. Accordingly, the new value of likelihood of event M, p 0 (say) and that of event N, q 0 (say) after change due to one unit of explanatory variable will be e2B/(1 + e2B) and 1/(1 + e2B), respectively. If Dp and Dq be the changes in the values of likelihood of events M and N, they can be written as given below: e2B eB  ; 1 þ e2B 1 þ eB 1 1 ¼ q0  q ¼  . 1 þ e2B 1 þ eB

Dp ¼ pnew  pold ¼ p0  p ¼

ð2Þ

Dq ¼ qnew  qold

ð3Þ

As discussed above, the M and N represented the occurrence of desired level of project performance and N, the reference level of 5. Dp would indicate the change in likelihood of project coordination rating being at the current level and Dq would indicate the change in likelihood of project coordination rating, not being at the current level, i.e., being at the reference level of 5. The values of Dp and Dq are thus complementary to each other. It could be further interpreted that the negative value of Dp, which indicates, decreasing chances of the project coordination rating being at the current level, is also associated with the positive value of Dq indicating increasing chances of alternate event, i.e., coordination rating being at 5. These lead to conclude that negative value of Dp indicates improvement in the coordination rating towards 5 from the current level. On the other hand, positive value of Dp indicates increasing chances of coordination rating of the project being at the same level and decreasing chances of coordination rating being at the alternate level of 5. These lead to conclude that

with positive value of Dp there will be diminishing chances of further improvement. These logics were used for interpretations of results of statistical analyses of responses as discussed in the paper. References [1] Lammie JL, Shah DP. Project management – pulling it all together. J Transport Eng Div, ASCE 1980;116(TE4):437–51. [2] Ruchelman L. Coordinating tall building development. J Urban Plan Dev Div, ASCE 1980;106(UP1):89–101. [3] Low cost. India Today 1993;XVIII(10):95 [May 31]. [4] Wang Y. Coordination issues in Chinese large building projects. J Manage Eng, ASCE 2000;16(6):54–61. [5] Pilcher R. Principles of construction management for engineers and managers. England: McGraw Hill; 1992. [6] Grigg NS. New paradigm for coordination in water industry. J Water Resource Plan Manage, ASCE 1993;119(5):572–87. [7] Higgin G, Jessop N. Communication in the building industry: the report of a pilot study. London: Tavistock Publications; 1965. [8] Sheeran FB. Management essentials for public works administrators. Chicago, IL: American Public Works Association; 1976. [9] Rad PF. Delays in construction of nuclear power plant. J Energ Div, Proc of ASCE 1979;105(EY/1):33–46. [10] Lam EL. Hardwiring coordination among land use and transportation agencies. J Urban Plan Dev, ASCE 1991;117(4):168–80. [11] Saram DDD, Ahmed SM. Construction coordination activities: what is important and what consumes time? J Manage Eng, ASCE 2001;17(4):202–13. [12] Iyer KC, Jha KN. Analysis of critical coordination activities of Indian construction projects. In: Proceedings of 19th annual conference of association of researchers in the construction management (ARCOM), University of Brighton, UK; 2003. p. 563–72. [13] Iyer KC, Jha KN. Critical coordination activities: the evidence from Indian projects. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on construction technology (CONTEC 2003), Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia. p. 259–71. [14] Freeman M, Beale P. Measuring project success. Project Manage J 1992;23(1):8–17. [15] Iyer KC. Identification and evaluation of dispute-prone clauses in Indian construction contracts. A Doctoral Thesis, submitted at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras; 1996. [16] Iyer KC, Jha KN. Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction projects. Int J Project Manage 2005;23(2005): 283–95. [17] Jha KN, Iyer KC. Success of a construction project in Indian perspective. In: Proceedings of international conference and exposition on construction, Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi, India; 2004. p. 90–8. [18] Schwab AJ; 2003. Available from: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ schwab. [19] SPSS 9.0.0. SPSS Inc., Headquarters, 233 S. Wacker Drive, 11th floor, Chicago, IL, 60606. Available from: http://www.spss.com. [20] NCSS; 2003. Available from: http://www.ncss.com. [21] Whitehead J; 1998. Available from: http://www.personal.ecu.edu/ whiteheadj. [22] Jha KN. Factors for the success of a construction project: an empirical study. A Doctoral Thesis, submitted at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi; 2004. [23] Kerzner H. Project management: a systems approach to planning scheduling and controlling. New Delhi, India: CBS Publishers and Distributors; 2002.