The impact of product superiority on customer satisfaction in project management

Model of driving factors for success in public health project management using structural equation modeling

In a context where pandemic crises and chronic conditions are a constant and increasing threat, the success of public health projects is absolutely critical. However, little is known about the factors that influence the success of projects that aim to provide conditions for people to be healthy and prolong the life of the population as a whole. A mixed-method study was carried out to fill the literature gap, resulting in a new model of success factors for public health projects. The research work theorizes the success factors that impact public health project success, providing relevant knowledge for project managers and contributing to the successful management of public health projects.

What (specifically) differentiates the successful and unsuccessful systems delivery projects (SDPs)

Purpose

Against the backdrop of management, planning, temporary organizations, Shannon–Weaver theory of communication and evaluation theories, the purpose of this research paper is to examine the relative importance of specific project management tasks in the various phases of system delivery projects in distinguishing successful and unsuccessful projects.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey method was used (N = 3,129) to collect data from the customers of a major systems delivery project management company operating in the facilities management industry. Logistic regression was used to analyze the capability and relative importance of the tasks in discriminating successful and unsuccessful projects.

Findings

The results of the paper indicate that three out four installation tasks were among the top three in their ability to differentiate the successful and unsuccessful systems delivery project. Especially critical tasks were “Meeting milestones” and “Allocation of appropriate resources” so that the project could be completed on-time. Relatively less important tasks were “Advice and suggestions regarding the development of specifications for the project” and “Proposal to meet the intent of the company’s specifications” in the proposal phase of the project, and “Resolving warranty issues as defined by the warranty process” in the commissioning phase.

Originality/value

Previous research has assessed the importance of the various project management phases. This research examines the capability of the more minutiae tasks to distinguish the successful and unsuccessful projects in the various phases of systems delivery projects, i.e. proposal, installation and commissioning.

Social Sustainability: Satisfying Owners and Communities by Multilevel Strategies of Contractors

In sustainable construction/production, the social dimension regarding owner and community satisfaction has received the least focus. To promote social sustainability, the multilevel strategies of contractors should be developed for owner and community satisfaction. However, a literature review shows that there are few studies on how multilevel strategies influence such satisfaction. Hence, this study aimed to analyze such influences. A survey was conducted to gather data from the Thai construction industry, and these data were then analyzed by a structural equation model (SEM). The results, for the first time, highlight that corporate strategy influences business strategy (direct influence = 0.98), which in turn influences functional strategy (direct influence = 0.93). Additionally, only functional strategy influences owner (direct influence = 0.84) and community satisfaction (direct influence = 0.66). Furthermore, parenting, cooperation, and equipment/machinery substrategies obtain the highest weights within the management levels of corporation, business, and function (regression weights = 0.49, 0.48, and 0.55), respectively. The work productivity and site organization indicators have the largest weights for owner and community satisfaction (regression weights = 0.47 and 0.57), respectively. The findings provide a guideline that helps contractors allocate their available resources to substrategies according to their regression weights, enhancing owner and community satisfaction.

Who’s who in the project zoo? The ten core project roles

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to resolve a core issue in project management research and practice – inconsistent terminology of key project roles. This inconsistency has negative consequences on the quality and impact of research in this area.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted an analysis of the literature and project management standards to identify both agreed-upon and inconsistent project role terms. Based on role and agency theories, the authors propose a consistent terminology.

Findings

The authors found consensus regarding four terms: project manager, project team, project management office, and program manager. However, the authors also found conflicting definitions and misuse concerning other terms, as well as use of the same title for different roles (e.g. customer, sponsor, champion). The authors define the ten core project roles and the two project entities with which they are associated.

Originality/value

The proposed role definitions and clear distinction between the two project entities offer clarity, reliance on existing consensus, avoidance of conflicts of interest, and clear separation of principal and agent roles. The implementation of these definitions will improve communications and enhance quality within and between both the research and the practice communities.