990-Article Text-5312-1-10-20230131

International Journal of Business, Management, and Economics
e-ISSN 2746-1351
Vol. 4 No. 1, February 2023
Factors Influencing The Quality of Construction

Projects in Public Universities
Yohanes Aenet 1, Naruka Maniha2

1
Department of Accounting and Finance, Jigjiga University, Ethiopia
2
Yesbud University, Ethiopia
1
[email protected], [email protected]
Article Information:
Received: December 23, 2022, Accepted: January 03, 2023, Published: February 01, 2023
Abstract
The study aims to determine factors affecting project quality in public universities in eastern
Ethiopia. The researchers used primary data in a quantitative research approach to accomplish
the objectives. The dependent variable, project quality, is regressed on five Explanatory
variables: Leadership, Policy & Strategy, People, Partnership & Resources, and Process. Each
of these characteristics was gathered from the consultant, client, and contractor. In order to
determine the validity of the model. All multiple regression assumption tests were found to be
valid. According to regression analysis, it was found that Leadership, Policy & Strategy,
People, Partnership & Resources, and Process all have a substantial impact on project quality.
The analysis from one-way ANOVA revealed that clients, contractors, and consultants have
similar perceptions of the five quality attributes, leadership, people and policy and strategy,
partnership and resources and process. Results from this research can be used by construction
firms to improve their quality management systems, as they will indicate where the emphasis
should be focused to ensure the ongoing improvement of project quality and sustainability.
Keywords: Project, Project Quality, Leadership Policy and Strategy, Partnership and
Resource
How to Cite:
Aenet, Y., Maniha, N. (2022). Factors Influencing The Quality of Construction Projects in
Public Universities. International Journal of Business, Management, and Economics, 4(1). 13
- 31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47747/ijbme.v4i1.990
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
As in most developing countries, Ethiopia's construction industry has significantly
contributed to the economy’s growth through infrastructure development. (Kuhil and Seifu,
Published by: Page 13

e-ISSN 2746-1351
2019). It also shared a considerable amount of the country’s scarce financial resources.
Construction is booming in Ethiopia, accounting for 18% of the country’s GDP during 2017-
2018. The construction sector is currently the largest employer in the country, with more than
two million people employed in full-time and temporary jobs. (BBC News, 2019). For many
people, a project is considered successful if it is finished on time with the agreed quality, on
time and within budget, and to everyone's delight. Functionality, profitability to contractors,
absence of claims and legal action, and "fitness for purpose" for occupants have also been
used to gauge project success (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). There is solid evidence that most
construction projects fail in terms of quality and timely completion. Despite this, the
construction industry has developed significantly and contributed significantly to the
country's economy. It is not uncommon for these important variables to be below the national
average in the construction business. A wide range of issues affect the sector, and the
consequences are dire. The difficulty facing the construction business is identifying the
important variables that influence the quality, taking proactive efforts to ensure customer
satisfaction, and maintaining continual progress in the industry(S Shanmugapriya and
Subramanian, 2015)
A vital aspect of the building industry is ensuring that the project meets all established
standards and specifications. The goal is to win over clients from other businesses. In order
for a company to be successful, it must have the ability to create, implement, and demonstrate
the right management systems. (Gherbal et al., 2012). "Quality has become an important
means of competition and a strategic weapon to boost the market share and profitability"
(Harris et al., 2021). Construction companies are under enormous pressure to enhance the
quality of their goods and establish efficient quality management systems in order to remain
competitive. This pressure comes from the market, their competitors, and the growing
demands of their customers. Rework, bad contract paperwork, inept craftsmanship, lack of
attention to quality, and inadequate monitoring and inspection can all contribute to quality
failures and flaws. (Love and Edwards, 2004). All quality failures have one thing in common:
they reduce project efficiency, increase time and expense, and negatively impact the
construction industry's overall performance.
1.2. Statements of the problem
Time, cost and quality have been accepted as key project success factors (Joslin and Müller,
2015). Among these three generally accepted constraints, the quality dimension is studied as
the least explicit feature of project success. Quality is currently becoming an imperative
distinguishing factor as the cost and time of public infrastructure projects. In order to
accomplish the time and cost objectives, project quality is mostly ignored (Atkinson, 1999;
Hamid, 2015). quality might sometimes be overlooked by the contracting parties in the
construction industry to cut back the project costs and schedule. (Turk, 2006). Better quality
in construction projects is a well-known factor in the global success and sustainability of
projects by the public construction industry. In the construction industry, quality is defined as
the effective sustainability and successful accomplishment of contracted project goals
between the client and the service provider or main contractor (Fan, 1995) and conformance
with requirements (Samuels, 1994). Quality requires proper supervision in every project
phase, which is the particular accomplishment of the quality assurance system (Jraisat, Jreisat
and Hattar, 2016). Currently, quality is given extra attention to clients’ expectations of quality
are increasing (Gan et al., 2017) because it relates to the durability and sustainability of the
project. Quality means a product or service meets the established criteria in the construction

e-ISSN 2746-1351
sector. To win over clients from competitors is a business strategy. Organizations that
consistently produce high-quality products and services do so by implementing effective
management systems, which they then publicly display to their consumers. (Abd-El-Hamied
and Mohamed, 2014). Quality awards like the European Foundation for Quality Management
model (EFQM) (Uygur and Sümerli, 2013) are used to improve an organization's quality.
Studying how the five EFQM enablement criteria might improve quality performance in
public university construction projects is the goal of this research.
1.3. Objectives of the project
This study aims to investigate the factors that affect the quality of building projects using
evidence from Public University Construction Projects in Ethiopia. The specific goals are as
follows:
1) To examine the factors influencing the quality of the construction projects
2) To rank the relative importance of factors influencing quality as perceived by the
respondents.
3) To examine the perception of the client, contractor, and consultant towards the relative
importance of factors influencing quality by analysis of variance.
1.4. Research hypotheses
To achieve the research objectives, the researcher formulated six hypotheses,
HA1: There is a positive and significant relationship between Leadership and Project quality.
HA2: There is a positive and significant relationship between partnership & resources and
Project quality.
HA3: There is a positive and significant relationship between policy & strategy and Project
quality.
HA4: There is a positive and significant relationship between partnership & resources and
Project quality.
HA5: There is a positive and significant relationship between processes and Project quality.
HA6: There is a significant difference in the perception of the client, contractor, and consultant
towards the relative importance of influencing factors of project quality.
2. Literature Review
Based on the European Foundation for Quality Management Model, a conceptual framework
is established to explore the elements that influence quality performance in the construction
industry (EFQM Model, 2003). For the five constructs of leadership, people, policy and
strategy, collaboration, and resources and procedures, the broad research of quality literature
generated the following indicators.
2.1 Leadership
Leaders can be defined as persons who identify the need for and implement change, set up
direction, support people, motivate and inspire, communicate a vision of where the
organization is headed, build teams and share decision-making, mentor and guide
subordinates, and demonstrate a high degree of integrity in their professional interactions
(Zenger and Folkman, 2002). Leadership is a significant aspect influencing quality in the
firm, which relates to the quality system's various components.(S Shanmugapriya and

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Subramanian, 2015) A construction project requires management, and the effective manager
exhibits good leadership. A major obligation of the project manager is to give effective
leadership during the life of a construction project (Gharehbaghi and McManus, 2003). The
project manager's competence, top management support and interaction between project
participants are external contributors to enhancing project quality performance from its
existing level, while the owner's competence is an internal contributor as owners tend to
retain the quality performance at the existing level itself (Jha, 2011). (Yusuf, Mofio and
Ahmed, 2007) stated that quality management principles should be implemented continually
by effective leadership.(Criado and Calvo-Mora, 2009) The degree of support management
takes in implementing total quality management is critical to the success of quality
management systems.
2.2. People
People enabler emphasizes how well the firms are able to utilize the full potential of its most
valuable resource and asset, its people. (Matlhape and Lessing, 2002) stated that an important
component of introducing quality management systems in an organization is training,
development, and empowerment of employees and confirming that quality is not only for
shareholder value creation but that it becomes a personal goal for them. The (EFQM Model,
2003, 2013) revealed that the competencies and skills of the employees are to be
continuously developed to result in quality improvement. The firms have to create a culture
that values their people and results in achieving personal and organizational goals. They have
to motivate people with awards and recognition, encouraging communication and enabling
the people to use their knowledge and skill for performance improvement of the organization.
In high-performance organizations, people are enabled to do their best work.(S
Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015)
2.3. Policy and Strategy
An enabler for policy and strategy explains how policies and strategies are created and
implemented. Organizational policies and strategies are critical in deciding quality efforts.
Companies seeking to implement a quality system must define a quality policy. (Juran, 1992;
S. Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015) emphasized the importance of integrating quality
goals into the overall company plan for successful total quality management. Organizations
that use policy development to ensure that their employees are aware of the company's goals
and how they may contribute to reaching those goals have a better chance of succeeding in
quality management (Olian and Rynes, 1991). The quality policy should be utilized to define
priorities, according to (Sureshchandar, Rajendran and Kamalanabhan, 2001). People tend to
construct their unique standards of conduct with no official guidelines. When implementing
overall quality management, organizations and facilities must have good quality policies in
place, as detailed in (Oakland, 2014).
2.4. Partnership and Resources
It's important to note that partnership and resource enablers focus on the organization's ability
to manage its resources efficiently and effectively, both internal and external. According to
the (EFQM Model, 2003), the best and most remarkable businesses plan and manage external
partnerships, suppliers, and internal resources in order to keep the policy and strategy in place
and the process running smoothly. The organization's current and long-term needs should be
taken into consideration while forming and managing partnerships and allocating
resources.(S. Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015). To formulate and implement business

e-ISSN 2746-1351
strategies, tangible and intangible assets, such as financial resources and technical skills along
with personal traits and experience of the firm's executives, were outlined by (Dansoh,
2005).The external emphasis of the company is encouraged, and the relevant expertise is
brought in through partners.
2.5. Process
A number of processes make up a company, and each process is organized by a collection of
interrelated actions that change input into output and consequence. According to (Juran,
1992; S. Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015)(Juran, 1992), an effective quality planning
process is the key to bridging the gap between the firm's aspirations for quality improvement
and the identification of the benefits. As part of the firm's quality planning process, quality
planning is one of the most important parts of TQM and the International Standardization of
Organizations (ISO). Quality planning and strategic planning should be integrated into
companies, according to (Inyang-Udoh, 2002). Customers and stakeholders benefit from
great firms' efforts to improve processes, as outlined by the (EFQM Model, 2003, 2013).
Internal processes and procedures are critical for construction companies if they are to
operate efficiently and improve the quality of their work. A process enabler is one of the most
important factors in any framework's successful deployment (Chinda and Mohamed, 2008).
2.2 Conceptual framework
The study's conceptual framework was based on an extensive review of the literature and the
European quality award (EFQM) model. The indicators for each construct and a hypothetical
model for the study are presented in Table 1 and Figure, respectively.
Independent Variables
Leadership
Dependent Variable
Policy & Strategy
People Project Quality
Partnership &
Resources
Process
Figure 1 Conceptual framework

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Table .1 Identification of Indicators for Project Quality
Construct Code Indicators Reference
L1 Role model for cultural excellence in quality (Anderson, Fornell
L2 Responsibility for quality performance and Lehmann, 1994)
L3 Specifying quality objectives (Jha, 2011).
L4 Commitment (Gryna and Juran,
L5 Encouraging the employees 2001)
L6 Acknowledgement and rewarding employees (Chan and Tam,
L7 Collaborate with employees in quality training 2000).
Leadership
L8 Updating the knowledge (Gherbal et al., 2012).
Planning & detailing the different stages of change (Mahaney and
L9 Lederer, 2006).
in the project
(Özutku, 2012).
(Arditi and Gunaydin,
L10 Measure and review the effectiveness of quality 1997)
P1 Planning and managing human resources (Gul et al., 2012)

P2 Incentives and rewards (Jha and Iyer, 2006).
Understanding quality as their responsibility, project (Serpell et al., 1999)
P3 (Lai, Weerakoon and
participants
Recruitment depends upon their skills and Cheng, 2002)
P4 (McAdam and Kelly,
experience
P5 Two-way communication 2002)
People are responsible for the end results of the Nanda & Panda,
People P6 2013)
quality
P7 Giving the opportunity to implement solutions (Lam and Tang, 2003)
P8 Motivation systems (Nepal, Park and Son,
P9 Training in the principles of quality 2006)
(Ahire, Golhar and
Waller, 1996)
P10 Suggestions, feedback and complaint system (Elsaid, Okasha and
Abdelghaly, 2013)
Satisfying the needs and expectations of the

POS1
stakeholders
POS2 Periodic review and update of policies
POS3 Benchmarking techniques
POS4 SWOT analysis (Wang and Huang,
Specific and measurable objectives for quality 2006)
POS5
policies (Bassioni, Price and
Systematic measurement of quality costs and non- Hassan, 2004)
Policy & POS6
quality costs (Samson and
Strategy
Systematic procedures to plan, evaluate and control Terziovski,
POS7
project goal achievements 1999).(Boljevic,
Systematic procedures based on information from 2007).
POS8 performance measurement of projects, research,
learning and external related activities
Systematic assessment of the effectiveness of
POS9
projects
POS10 Stakeholders' analysis
Partnershi PAS1 Long-term relations with the suppliers (Watts and Hahn,
p& PAS2 Suppliers help in providing technical assistance 1993)

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Resources PAS3 Quality agreements with suppliers (Inyang-Udoh,
PAS4 Quality documentation 2002)(Rezaian,
PAS5 The quantity of materials should be specified 2011).
Allocation of financial resources to meet the actual (Tan and Lu, 1995)
PAS6
budgeted cost
PAS7 Proper allocation of equipment and materials
PAS8 Using technology with higher operational efficiency
PAS9 Focus on research and development
PAS1
Site quality inspection of materials
0
PRO1 Systematic design and management of process
PRO2 Comprehensive documents
Regular assessment of processes to bring in change
PRO3
and improvement (Yasamis, Arditi and
PRO4 Using a system of indicators to revise the change Mohammadi, 2002)
Promoting efficient behaviour patterns in the (Vargo and Lusch,
PRO5
Process process 2004)
Improvement of processes using an innovative (Arditi and Gunaydin,
PRO6
technique 1997)
PRO7 Satisfying customer needs
PRO8 Improvement of customer relationship
PRO9 Conformance to codes and standards
PRO10 Improvement of the internal working process
PQ1 Identification of the quality status of work
PQ2 Identification of the causes of quality errors (Yasamis, Arditi and
Integrated quality management for projects in the Mohammadi, 2002)
PQ3
company (Vargo and Lusch,
Project
Analysis and comparison of respective project 2004)
Quality PQ4
quality (Arditi and Gunaydin,
PQ5 Review of the link with cost and schedule 1997)
PQ6 The setting the quality goals of the project
PQ7 Identification of the quality status of a project
3. Research Method
3.1 Research Design
This research applied a descriptive survey and causal (explanatory) design to determine the
cause-and-effect relationship between Project quality and the factors affecting it.
3.2. Target populations and Sample size
The total populations of this study were 252 contractors, clients, and consultants working on
construction projects at Haromaya and Jigjiga universities. Using R.V.Krejecie and W.
Morgan's sample size Determination formula (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970), a sample of 152
was determined. Simple random sampling, a probabilistic sampling technique, was used to
select respondent samples from each University.
3.3. Instruments of data collection
This investigation used a structured questionnaire. The survey's first section collects
organization and respondent information. Part two of the questionnaire contains 57 items that
affect construction quality under six constructs: leadership, people, partnership & resources,

e-ISSN 2746-1351
policy & strategy, process, and results. Each statement requires respondents to rate the
attributes in the context of quality enhancement on a 5-point Likert scale.
3.4. Data analysis techniques
The Relative Importance Index (RII) was used to determine the relative importance of the
various factors on Project quality. The equation used to find the RII is given in equation (1).
𝚺𝐖
𝑹𝑰𝑰 = ………….. (1)
(𝐀∗𝐍)
Where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5), A is
the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case), and N is the total number of respondents. The relative
importance index (RII) ranges from 0 to 1 (0 not inclusive). The researcher’s also used
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.
The linear multiple regression equation was used as follows:
= 𝑹 𝑹 ……….(2)
Where: bi & bii ( I= 0,1,2,3 …) are the coefficients, ε is the error variable, PQ is the
dependent variable related to Project Quality, and L, POS, P, PAR, and PRO are independent
variables.
4. Findings and Discussions
4.1 Demographic information of respondents
Questionnaires were distributed to 152 contractors, clients, and consultants; however, 148
questionnaires were collected. Table 2 provides respondent demographics. 38% were
Contractors, 18% were Consultants, and 45% were Clients. 104 respondents (70%) have
bachelor's degrees. Most respondents had 6–10 years of professional experience in public
construction projects.
Table 2 Demographic information of respondents

Character Respondents' Profile Frequency Percentage (%)
Diploma 19 13%
Education Bachelor degree 104 70%
Master degree 25 17%
Less than 3 years 11 7%
3 - 6 years 19 13%
Experience
6 - 10 years 93 63%
Above 10 years 25 17%
Contractors 56 38%
Type of Respondents Consultants 26 18%
Clients 66 45%
4.2. Reliability
In order to ensure the reliability of the data collected, Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α) was
used to test the internal consistency among items included in each factor. As a general

e-ISSN 2746-1351
guideline, an instrument's internal consistency should be at least 0.70. (Zikmund, 2013),
Table 3 shows that all variables' alpha (α) values are greater than the threshold value.
Therefore, the result indicates that the questionnaire is more reliable.
Table 3. Reliability test
Number of Items on Cronbach's
Variables Decision
the scale Alpha/
Project Quality 8 0.890 Reliable
Leadership 10 0.924 Reliable
Policy & Strategy 10 0.905 Reliable
People 10 0.735 Reliable
Partnership & Resources 10 0.910 Reliable
Process 10 0.914 Reliable
Overall 57 0.949 Reliable
4.3. Ranking of Quality factors using RII
Table 4 lists the perceived effect of the top ten factors influencing quality based on the
ranking of factors by RII are Updating the knowledge, conformance to codes and standards,
Planning and managing human resources, Quality documentation, satisfying customer needs,
specifying quality objectives, Proper allocation of equipment and materials, Specific and
measurable objectives for quality policies, Periodic review and update of policies and
collaborate with employees in quality training. This is supported by the findings of (Juran,
1992; S. Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015)
Table 4 Ranking of Quality factors using RII
Sno Construct Description of factors influencing quality RII Rank
1 Leadership Updating the knowledge 0.835 1
2 Process Conformance to codes and standards 0.834 2
3 People Planning and managing human resources 0.823 3
4 Partnership & Resources Quality documentation 0.820 4
5 Process Satisfying customer needs 0.819 5
6 Leadership Specifying quality objectives 0.799 6
7 Partnership & Resources Proper allocation of equipment and materials 0.796 7
Specific and measurable objectives for
Policy & Strategy 0.795
8 quality policies 8
9 Policy & Strategy Periodic review and update of policies 0.792 9
Collaborate with employees in quality
Leadership 0.791
10 training 10
4.4. Regression Assumptions Test

The study checked that data conforms to the Classical Linear Regression assumptions before
carrying out regression analysis, and they are discussed in this section
4.4.1. Test of normality
Shapiro-Wilk test is a non-graphical test whereby if the test results are insignificant (above

e-ISSN 2746-1351
0.05), it implies that the data being used follows a normal distribution. However, when the p-
value for the variables is less or equal to 0.05 (significant), it implies that the data is not good
for OLS analysis. Regarding the normality test of this subsection, the study adopted the
statistical measures for the normality test, which is hypothesized as follows.
Ho: Normally distributed errors
Ha: Non-Normal Distribution error
Table 5. Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Studentized .083 148 .015 .989 148 .325

Residual
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The results obtained from the Shapiro-Wilk test in Table 5 indicate that all the variables had a
p-value greater than (0.05); therefore, it can be concluded that the residual value is normally
distributed so that the regression analysis procedures have been fulfilled.
4.4.2. Test for multicollinearity
According to (Gujarati and Porter, 1999), explanatory variables should not exhibit a high
correlation with each other because that may cause unrealistic results during regression. The
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and Tolerance were utilized in this study to see if there was a
multicollinearity effect between the variables.
Ho: There is a multicollinearity problem
Ha: There is no multicollinearity problem
As indicated in Table 6, all the VIF column values are less than ten, and Tolerance values
are greater than ten, respectively, indicating no multi-co linearity between the explanatory
variables. As a result, we failed to reject the null hypotheses.
Table 6. Collinearity Statistics
Model
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Leadership 0.477 2.098
People 0.955 1.047
Policy and Strategy 0.582 1.718
Partnership and Resources 0.546 1.832
Process 0.934 1.070
a. Dependent Variable: Project Quality

e-ISSN 2746-1351
4.4.3. Test for Heteroscedasticity
The pattern of errors should remain constant throughout the observations, and violation of
this assumption renders the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) results biased (Gujarati and Porter,
1999).
Ho: There is no heteroskedasticity problem
Ha: There is heteroskedasticity
Figure 2. Test for Heteroscedasticity

Figure 2 shows a scatterplot with diffused spots, indicating that the regression model does not
have heteroskedasticity.
4.4.4. Test of Outliers
The extreme values pull the regression line towards them, therefore significantly impacting
the model's coefficients. Outliers are observations where the observed dependent value does
not follow the general trend given the independent value.
Figure 3 test of outlier

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Figure 3 shows if neither end has any circles or asterisks. The box plot indicates that there are
no outliers observed.
4.5. Correlation Analysis
The Pearson correlation matrix result in Table 7 shows a positive correlation between the
dependent and independent variables. The relationship between Project Quality and the
predictor variables was found to be positively correlated and significant
.
Table: 7 Pearson Correlation Coefficient
Policy
Partnership & Project
Leadership People & Process
Strategy
Resources Quality
Leadership 1
People 0.011 1
Policy & Strategy .619** -0.025 1
Partnership &
.647** 0.022 .536** 1
Resources
Process 0.091 .205* 0.115 0.146 1
** **
Project Quality .707 .220 .634** .659** .502** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.6. Multiple regression Analysis

4.6.1. Coefficient of determination
The coefficient of determination indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent
variable explained by the study's explanatory variables. Table 8 shows 78.1 % of the changes
in the Project Quality could be attributed to the combined effect of the predictor variables.
However, 21.9 % of the variance is explained by other factors not covered in the study.
Table 8-Multiple Regression Analysis
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate
1 .888a .788 .781 .30308
a. Predictors: (Constant), Process, Leadership, People, Policy & Strategy, Partnership &
Resources
b. Dependent Variable: Project Quality
4.6.2. Overall Significance of the Model.
The ANOVA tests whether the overall regression model fits the data well. If the p-value is <
0.05, the regression model is a good fit for the data. Accordingly, Table 9 shows that the p-
value <0.05, Thus, it is found that the model is statistically significant with (R2 = .788, F(5,
142) = 105.773, p < .000).

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Table 9 Overall model fit
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 48.579 5 9.716 105.773 .000b
Residual 13.044 142 .092
Total 61.623 147
b. Predictors: (Constant), Process, Leadership, People, Policy and Strategy, Partnership and
Resources
4.6.3. Hypothesis testing:
A significant test is performed to determine whether independent variables influence the
dependent variable. If the p-value is below 0.05, the results have a significant effect. The
results of the significance test are shown in Table 10:
Table: 10 Tests variables' level of significant
Standardized
Model Coefficients t Sig.
Beta
1 (Constant) -1.791 0.382 -4.687 0.000
Leadership 0.331 0.050 0.373 6.678 0.000
People 0.314 0.089 0.139 3.515 0.001
Policy And Strategy 0.232 0.049 0.240 4.740 0.000
Partnership And Resources 0.214 0.049 0.230 4.407 0.000
Process 0.380 0.040 0.378 9.471 0.000
Accordingly, by looking down at the standardized beta coefficients column, it is observed that
process (β = 0.380, p < .000), Leadership with (β = 0.373, p < .000), Policy and Strategy (β =
0.240, p < .000), Partnership and Resources (β = 0.230, p < .000), and People (β = 0.230, p
< .000), (0.230), respectively is positively related to project delay. Further, the ‘sig’ column
tells whether the variable is making a statistically significant unique contribution. If p < 0.05,
it indicates that the variable is making a significant and unique contribution to the prediction
of the dependent variable.
4.7. ANOVA
The results of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 11; it has been observed that factors such
as Project Quality, Leadership, Policy & Strategy, and People. Partnership & Resources and
Process had the value of an insignificant value of more than 0.05, indicating the same point of
view regarding the factors influencing quality in construction projects.

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Table 11 ANOVA Results
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .036 2 .018 .033 .967
Leadership Within Groups 78.581 145 .542
Total 78.617 147
Between Groups .041 2 .020 .246 .782
People Within Groups 12.004 145 .083
Total 12.044 147
Between Groups .075 2 .038 .083 .921
Policy &
Within Groups 65.761 145 .454
Strategy
Total 65.836 147
Between Groups .092 2 .046 .094 .910
Partnership
Within Groups 71.082 145 .490
& Resources
Total 71.174 147
Between Groups .802 2 .401 .964 .384
Process Within Groups 60.305 145 .416
Total 61.107 147
4.8. Discussion and Interpretation of Findings
The model analysis results revealed that the entire hypothesis in the project quality model is
significant and makes a unique contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable. This
finding is supported by the study of (Juran, 1992; S. Shanmugapriya and Subramanian, 2015).
The summary of the regression model and hypothesis test is presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Summary of Hypothesis testing:

Hypothesis P- Value Decision
Ha1: There is a positive and significant relationship between
.000 Confirmed
Leadership and Project quality.
.000 Confirmed
partnership & resources and Project quality.
.000 Confirmed
policy & strategy and Project quality.
.000 Confirmed
partnership & resources and Project quality.
.000 Confirmed
processes and Project quality.
Ha6: There is a significant difference in the perception of the
>0.05
client, contractor, and consultant towards the relative Confirmed
importance of influencing factors of project quality.
5. Conclusion
This research aims to help the construction industry identify quality-affecting factors and
examine their interactions and causal relationships. Understanding how leadership, people,

e-ISSN 2746-1351
policy and strategy, partnership and resources, and process affect quality helps construction
firms achieve their goals and find opportunities for improvement. This research resulted in the
following findings.
 The top five factors influencing quality in construction projects based on the ranking
factors by RII are Updating the knowledge of leaders, conformance to codes and
standards, Planning and managing human resources, quality documentation, satisfying
customer needs, specifying quality objectives,
 The computed Relative Importance Index provided a benchmark for ranking the factors
influencing quality in construction projects to inform the basis for determining the top-
ranked factor and the least-ranked factors. It is recommended that construction
professionals need to be aware of these factors to improve project quality
 Statistical analysis is carried out using one-way ANOVA to study whether the difference
exists in the perceptions of three parties, namely clients, contractors and consultants; the
analysis revealed that clients, contractors and consultants have similar perceptions of the
five quality attributes, leadership, people and policy and strategy, partnership and
resources and process.
 The model outcome on the rank of quality factors as a strategic tool to identify potential
causes and effects. It will accelerate and improve construction quality if its possible
effects are correctly identified and understood.
 Because the data used to develop the model was current, the results will provide clients,
consultants, and contractors with awareness in updating their understanding of the critical
factors affecting project quality in dealing with recent construction Projects from public
universities.
 The model results can also inform new company policies to improve construction workers'
and engineers' skills to find the best solutions for potential challenges in project quality,
particularly long-term effects.
References
Abd-El-Hamied, E.M. and Mohamed, E.M. (2014) ‘Leadership importance in construction
productivity improvement’, Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(3), pp.
114–125.
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996) ‘Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs’, Decision sciences, 27(1), pp. 23–56.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994) ‘Customer satisfaction, market share,
and profitability: Findings from Sweden’, Journal of marketing, 58(3), pp. 53–66.
Arditi, D. and Gunaydin, H.M. (1997) ‘Total quality management in the construction
process’, International journal of project management, 15(4), pp. 235–243.
Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006) ‘Causes of delay in large construction projects’,
International journal of project management, 24(4), pp. 349–357.
Atkinson, R. (1999) ‘Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria’, International journal of

e-ISSN 2746-1351
project management, 17(6), pp. 337–342.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2004) ‘Performance measurement in
construction’, Journal of management in engineering, 20(2), pp. 42–50.
BBC News (2019) Challenges facing Ethiopia’s construction industry -. Available at:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-49503781.
Boljevic, A. (2007) ‘The importance of top quality management in contemporary
management’, Serbian Journal of Management, 2(2), pp. 217–226.
Chan, A.P.C. and Tam, C.M. (2000) ‘Factors affecting the quality of building projects in Hong
Kong’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management [Preprint].
Chinda, T. and Mohamed, S. (2008) ‘Structural equation model of construction safety
culture’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management [Preprint].
Criado, F. and Calvo-Mora, A. (2009) ‘Excellence profiles in Spanish firms with quality
management systems’, Total Quality Management, 20(6), pp. 655–679.
Dansoh, A. (2005) ‘Strategic planning practice of construction firms in Ghana’, Construction
Management and Economics, 23(2), pp. 163–168.
EFQM Model (2003) ‘European foundation for quality management’, Brussels (Belgium)
[Preprint].
EFQM Model (2013) ‘EFQM Representative Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2012’, Google
Scholar [Preprint].
Elsaid, N.M., Okasha, A.E. and Abdelghaly, A.A. (2013) ‘Defining and Solving the
Organizational Structure Problems to Improve the Performanceof Ministry of State
for Environmental Affairs-Egypt’, International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, 3(10), p. 273.
Fan, C.N. (1995) ‘Development of quality assurance in Hong Kong construction works’,
Hong Kong Contractor [Preprint], (March/April).
Gan, Y. et al. (2017) ‘Critical factors affecting the quality of industrialized building system
projects in China’, Sustainability, 9(2), p. 216.
Gharehbaghi, K. and McManus, K. (2003) ‘The construction manager as a leader’,
Leadership and management in engineering, 3(1), pp. 56–58.
Gherbal, N. et al. (2012) ‘Critical success factors of implementing total quality management
in Libyan organisations’, in International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 80–89.
Gryna, F.M. and Juran, J.M. (2001) Quality planning and analysis: from product development
through use. McGraw-Hill Science, Engineering & Mathematics.
Gujarati, D.N. and Porter, D.C. (1999) Essentials of econometrics. Irwin/McGraw-Hill
Singapore.
Gul, S. et al. (2012) ‘Leadership styles, turnover intentions and the mediating role of
organizational commitment’, in Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 44–
51.

e-ISSN 2746-1351
Hamid, H. (2015) ‘Continuous Improvement CSF framework for assessing ci maturity in ISO
and non-ISO certified construction contracting organizations’. Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Harris, F. et al. (2021) Modern construction management. John Wiley & Sons.
Inyang-Udoh, U.I. (2002) ‘Appraisal of Stock Control Systems on Building Sites’, Journal of
the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, 38(1), pp. 17–21.
Jha, K.N. (2011) Construction project management: Theory and practice. Pearson Education
India.
Jha, K.N. and Iyer, K.C. (2006) ‘Critical factors affecting quality performance in construction
projects’, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(9), pp. 1155–1170.
Joslin, R. and Müller, R. (2015) ‘Relationships between a project management methodology
and project success in different project governance contexts’, International journal of
project management, 33(6), pp. 1377–1392.
Jraisat, L., Jreisat, L. and Hattar, C. (2016) ‘Quality in construction management: an
exploratory study’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
33(7), pp. 920–941.
Juran, J.M. (1992) Juran on quality by design: the new steps for planning quality into goods
and services. Simon and Schuster.
Krejcie, R. V and Morgan, D.W. (1970) ‘Determining sample size for research activities’,
Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), pp. 607–610.
Kuhil, A.M. and Seifu, N. (2019) ‘causes of delay in public building construction projects: a
case of Addis Ababa administration, Ethiopia’, Asian J. Manag. Sci, 8(2), pp. 4–9.
Lai, K.-H., Weerakoon, T.S. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2002) ‘The state of quality management
implementation: a cross-sectional study of quality-oriented companies in Hong
Kong’, Total Quality Management, 13(1), pp. 29–38.
Lam, S. and Tang, C. (2003) ‘Motivation of survey employees in construction projects’,
Journal of geospatial engineering, 5(1), pp. 61–66.
Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J. (2004) ‘Determinants of rework in building construction
projects’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management [Preprint].
Mahalli, A.F. (2013) ‘Applying the EFQM model in performance measuring of organization’,
Standard Research Journal of Business Management, 1(April), pp. 41–51.
Mahaney, R.C. and Lederer, A.L. (2006) ‘The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for
developers on information systems project success’, Project Management Journal,
37(4), pp. 42–54.
Matlhape, M.G. and Lessing, N. (2002) ‘Employees in total quality management’, Acta
Commercii, 2(1), pp. 21–34.
McAdam, R. and Kelly, M. (2002) ‘A business excellence approach to generic benchmarking
in SMEs’, Benchmarking: An International Journal [Preprint].
Nepal, M.P., Park, M. and Son, B. (2006) ‘Effects of schedule pressure on construction
performance’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2), pp.

e-ISSN 2746-1351
182–188.
Oakland, J.S. (2014) Total quality management and operational excellence: text with cases.
Routledge.
Olian, J.D. and Rynes, S.L. (1991) ‘Making total quality work: Aligning organizational
processes, performance measures, and stakeholders’, Human Resource Management,
30(3), pp. 303–333.
Özutku, H. (2012) ‘The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on employee results: An
empirical analysis in Turkish manufacturing industry’, Business and Economics
Research Journal, 3(3), pp. 29–48.
Rezaian, A. (2011) ‘Time-cost-quality-risk of construction and development projects or
investment’, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 10(2), pp. 218–223.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999) ‘The relationship between total quality management
practices and operational performance’, Journal of operations management, 17(4),
pp. 393–409.
Samuels, A.F. (1994) ‘Construction facilities audit: quality system-performance control’,
Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(4), pp. 60–65.
Serpell, L. et al. (1999) ‘Anorexia nervosa: friend or foe?’, International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 25(2), pp. 177–186.
Shanmugapriya, S and Subramanian, K. (2015) ‘Structural equation model to investigate the
factors influencing quality performance in Indian construction projects’, Sadhana,
40(6), pp. 1975–1987.
Shanmugapriya, S. and Subramanian, K. (2015) ‘Structural equation model to investigate the
factors influencing quality performance in Indian construction projects’, Sadhana -
Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences, 40(6), pp. 1975–1987. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-015-0421-3.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001) ‘Customer perceptions of
service quality: A critique’, Total quality management, 12(1), pp. 111–124.
Tan, R.R. and Lu, Y. (1995) ‘On the quality of construction engineering design projects:
criteria and impacting factors’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management [Preprint].
Turk, A.M. (2006) ‘ISO 9000 in construction: An examination of its application in Turkey’,
Building and environment, 41(4), pp. 501–511.
Uygur, A. and Sümerli, S. (2013) ‘EFQM excellence model’, International Review of
Management and Business Research, 2(4), p. 980.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’,
Journal of marketing, 68(1), pp. 1–17.
Wang, X. and Huang, J. (2006) ‘The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising
engineers’, International journal of project management, 24(3), pp. 253–260.
Watts, C.A. and Hahn, C.K. (1993) ‘Supplier development programs: an empirical analysis’,

e-ISSN 2746-1351
International journal of purchasing and materials management, 29(1), pp. 10–17.
Yasamis, F., Arditi, D. and Mohammadi, J. (2002) ‘Assessing contractor quality performance’,
Construction Management & Economics, 20(3), pp. 211–223.
Yusuf, A.A., Mofio, B.M. and Ahmed, A.B. (2007) ‘Proximate and mineral composition of
Tamarindus indica Linn 1753 seeds’, Science world journal, 2(1).
Zenger, J.H. and Folkman, J. (2002) ‘The handbook for leaders: Extraordinary leaders’.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zikmund, B. (2013) ‘Carr, & Griffin (2010)’, Business research methods, 9.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

990-Article Text-5312-1-10-20230131

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

990-Article Text-5312-1-10-20230131

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

990-Article Text-5312-1-10-20230131

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Business, Management, and Economics

Factors Influencing The Quality of Construction

Yohanes Aenet 1, Naruka Maniha2

Published by: Page 13

Published by: Page 14

Published by: Page 15

Published by: Page 16

Policy & Strategy

People Project Quality

Figure 1 Conceptual framework

Published by: Page 17

P1 Planning and managing human resources (Gul et al., 2012)

Satisfying the needs and expectations of the

Published by: Page 18

Published by: Page 19

The linear multiple regression equation was used as follows:

Table 2 Demographic information of respondents

Published by: Page 20

4.4. Regression Assumptions Test

Published by: Page 21

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Studentized .083 148 .015 .989 148 .325

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Published by: Page 22

Figure 2. Test for Heteroscedasticity

Figure 3 test of outlier

Published by: Page 23

4.6. Multiple regression Analysis

Published by: Page 24

Published by: Page 25

Table 12. Summary of Hypothesis testing:

Published by: Page 26

Published by: Page 27

Published by: Page 28

Published by: Page 29

Published by: Page 30

Published by: Page 31

You might also like