The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Project control system (PCS) PCS

implementation
implementation in engineering and
construction projects: an empirical
study in Saudi’s petroleum and 181
chemical industry Received 4 February 2022
Revised 10 May 2022
Accepted 30 May 2022
Sahar Jawad and Ann Ledwith
School of Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, and
Rashid Khan
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – There is growing recognition that effective project control systems (PCS) are critical to the success
of projects. The relationship between the individual elements of PCS and successfully achieving project
objectives has yet to be explored. This research investigates the enablers and barriers that influence the
elements of PCS success and drive project objectives.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts a mixed approach of descriptive analysis and
regression models to explore the impact of six PCS elements on project outcomes. Petroleum and chemical
projects in Saudi Arabia were selected as a case study to validate the research model.
Findings – Data from a survey of 400 project managers in Saudi’s petroleum and chemical industry reveal that
successful PCS are the key to achieving all project outcomes, but they are particularly critical for meeting
project cost objectives. Project Governance was identified as the most important of the six PCS elements for
meeting project objectives. A lack of standard processes emerged as the most significant barrier to achieving
effective project governance, while having skilled and experienced project team members was the most
significant enabler for implementing earned value.
Practical implications – The study offers a direction for implementing and developing PCS as a strategic
tool and focuses on the PCS elements that can improve project outcomes.
Originality/value – This research contributes to project management knowledge and differs from previous
attempts in two ways. Firstly, it investigates the elements of PCS that are critical to achieving project scope,
schedule and cost objectives; secondly, enablers and barriers of PCS success are examined to see how they
influence each element independently.
Keywords Project control systems, Project success, Maturity, Engineering, Construction, Enablers, Barriers
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The COVID 19 pandemic has and continues to have a dramatic impact on the global economy
and industrial sectors. Business has been severely interrupted by the pandemic and the
ensuing economic challenges (Gamil and Alhagar, 2020; Shibani et al., 2020). All sectors, other
than essential services such as public health and utilities, have been impacted. Organizations

© Sahar Jawad, Ann Ledwith and Rashid Khan. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article
is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial
purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence Engineering, Construction and
may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Architectural Management
Vol. 31 No. 13, 2024
The authors acknowledge that the manuscript has been submitted solely to this journal and is not pp. 181-207
published, in press, or submitted elsewhere. The authors have checked the manuscript submission Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
guidelines and complied with any specific policy requirements specified. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-02-2022-0114
ECAM around the world have responded by shifting to a work-from-home concept to mitigate
31,13 government-imposed restrictions and social distancing regulations. Globally, Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is likely to be impacted by 3–6% but might fall to 15% in some
countries (Prasad and Prasad, 2020; Maliszewska et al., 2020).
Recent studies have highlighted the extent to which different industries have been
negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the engineering and construction
industry being one of the hardest hit (Gamil and Alhagar, 2020). This pandemic has impacted
182 on the engineering and construction industry in many ways such as the suspension of
projects, schedule extension, cost overrun, resource unavailability and financial shortfalls.
Given the fact that projects in this sector typically have a high level of uncertainty due to large
scope, design difficulty, complex interfaces and involvement of multiple stakeholders,
challenges to complete projects once the pandemic subsides are more prevalent (Assaf and
Al-Hejji, 2006; Shibani et al., 2020). There is growing recognition that effective project control
systems (PCS) are critical to the success of projects and more importantly to address
challenges in the engineering and construction industry (Al-Jibouri, 2003; Ford et al., 2007;
Jayaraman, 2016). Therefore, an effective PCS becomes more crucial for the industry as it
recovers and comes out of the pandemic.
Although some studies developed different maturity models to assess and improve the
effectiveness of PCS (Backlund et al., 2013; Brookes et al., 2014; PMI, 2013; Crawford, 2014),
the question of how the PCS relates to, and influences, overall project objectives still needs to
be investigated. Previous research (Jawad and Ledwith, 2021) has identified six elements of
PCS: 1) change management, 2) earned value, 3) baselined plan, 4) resource allocation, 5)
progress method and 6) project governance. However, the impact of each of these PCS
elements on project scope, schedule and cost is not well understood. Additionally, the
relationship between the enablers and barriers of PCS success (Jawad and Ledwith, 2020) and
these PCS elements is also unknown. This research addresses these gaps by providing a
comprehensive model linking critical enablers and barriers with PCS elements and project
success this is illustrated in Figure 1. This can be summarized in the following research
questions;
(1) What are the critical enablers and barriers of PCS success and how do they impact the
PCS elements?
(2) Which PCS elements are critical to achieving project objectives: scope, schedule and
cost?

Figure 1.
Research model
To achieve this, three enablers, six barriers and six elements of PCS success were selected PCS
from previous research (Jawad et al., 2018; Jawad and Ledwith, 2020, 2021) to develop a model implementation
for this study. The significance of this research is to provide organizations in the engineering
and construction industry with a direction for implementing and developing PCS as a
strategic tool that can improve project outcomes.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a review of the literature on
enablers and barriers of PCS, main elements of PCS success and project success objectives in
the engineering and construction industry. The research methodology is described in Section 183
3 and the results of the study are reported in Section 4. Section 5 presents the discussion and
final research model. Finally, Section 6 highlights the conclusions and implications of
the study.

2. Literature review
Engineering and construction projects are naturally high risk due to scope complexity,
contracting strategies, overly optimistic schedule, difficulties managing project change and
resources capabilities (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006; Braimah, 2014). Therefore, achieving project
objectives in this sector is one of the key subjects in project management (Olawale and Sun,
2014; Sakka et al., 2016). Although the definition of project success is different amongst
industries, it is based on the basic notion of overall achievement of project goals and
expectations. Typically, the iron triangle of scope, time and cost has been the dominating
performance indicator of project success (Al-Hajj, 2018; Tsiga et al., 2017). Particularly in
engineering and construction projects, a lack of definition of project scope at the beginning of
the project is a major contribution to unsuccessful projects. An accurately defined and
managed scope supports the delivery of a quality project outcome within stakeholders
agreement for cost and schedule targets (Mi
sic and Radujkovic, 2015; Winch, 2012). While
ineffective project performance remains a major area of concern for project management
practitioners (Setia and Patel, 2013), previous research attributes the underperformance in a
majority of construction projects to poor project control practices (Yean Yng Ling and Theng
Ang, 2013; Liu, 2015a; Maqsoom et al., 2020).
PCS is an integrated framework of processes, tools and people that businesses use to track
and monitor project performance (Rozenes et al., 2006; Jayaraman, 2016; J€ unge et al., 2019).
The main purpose of a PCS is to provide a means to measure project performance parameters
and present them in a way that allows effective feedback against defined expectations. On
large complex projects PCS generally have many facets and demands consideration of time,
costs, quality, safety and environmental issues (Wang et al., 2017). In engineering and
construction industry with multiple stakeholders, PCS require project information from
different parties such as owner, contractor and vendor which makes the implementation of
PCS more complicated (Bower and Finegan, 2009; He et al., 2019; J€ unge et al., 2019).
An effective PCS has been shown to have a direct link to achieving project objectives and
to reducing the reasons for project failure (Benjaoran, 2009; Ford et al., 2007; Maqsoom et al.,
2020; Parnell et al., 2020). Although many studies emphasis that implementing effective PCS
is significant to project success (Al-Hajj, 2018; Durdyev, 2020; Sudhakar, 2016; Taherdoost,
2016), very few identify the elements of PCS that are most critical to improve project outcomes
(Jawad and Ledwith, 2021).
Maturity models are recognized as systematic approaches to measure the relative
performance of different aspects of project management (Backlund et al., 2013; Brookes et al.,
2014). PCS maturity in the context of project management has been addressed in previous
studies (Crawford, 2014). The majority of these studies have focused on specific elements of
PCS such as change management and earned value. For instance, change management
maturity model (CM3) was developed by (Sun et al., 2009) which consists of six key processes
ECAM evaluated against five maturity levels. Stratton (2006) also proposed a five-level maturity
31,13 model as a tool to assess an organization’s capability in earned value management. These
studies show that established, high capability maturity levels lead to better and more
consistent performance, particularly in the construction industry. Project management
standards also identify PCS as one of the project management knowledge areas and have
addressed PCS maturity as part of organizational maturity (PMI, 2013, 2017). A study
conducted by Jawad and Ledwith (2021) has attempted to consider more PCS elements by
184 proposing a new PCS maturity model that measures project control capabilities and the
quality of applying project control tools. This model defines six critical elements of a PCS: 1)
change management, 2) earned value, 3) baselined plan, 4) resource allocation, 5) progress
method and 6) project governance. The approach of this model is to provide a comprehensive
framework for PCS by including project governance that allows the project team to review
project performance and add corrective verification processes (White and Fortune, 2002).
These models provide a practical framework to help organizations assess their
performance in the main elements of PCS and improve their maturity in each element
however, the impact of enablers and barriers on these PCS elements has not been
investigated. A study of the construction industry in Oman identified a number of factors
effecting PCS success. These are: 1) schedule with documented milestones and deliverables, 2)
ability of project team to manage scheduled activities, 3) effectiveness in reworking
schedules, 4) reliability of schedules, 5) lack of leadership, 6) lack of support from project
stakeholders, 7) lack of skills in planning and scheduling, 8) ineffective control and reporting
system between management levels and 9) lack of use of new technology for project control
(Al-Nasseri and Aulin, 2016). Another study in the same year conducted in Kenya identified
project team experience diversity as a critical factor for PCS success and found that it had a
significant positive impact on the performance of construction projects (Obare et al., 2016). In
2018, Jawad et al. identified the critical enablers and barriers linked with successful PCS in the
petroleum and chemical industry using a fuzzy multi-criteria model and expert’s judgment.
Their study identified a total of nine enablers and 15 barriers that related to PCS success
(Jawad et al., 2018). A follow-on study was then conducted using interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) to examine the relationship between these enablers and barriers and to
identify the most dominant ones (Jawad and Ledwith, 2020). This study identified (3)
dominant enablers that drive successful PCS: 1) “Skilled and experienced project team
members”, 2) “Explicitly defined roles of project team members” and 3) “An accurate Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS)”. Also identified were six dominant barriers: 1) “Lack of
standard processes”, 2) “Vague contract deliverables”, 3) “Unclear project goals”, 4) “Unclear
project milestones”, 5) “Disparate control system between owner and contractor” and 6) “Lack
of information communication”.
Although previous studies present practical frameworks for 1) the main elements of PCS
success and 2) the enablers and barriers of successful PCS implementation (Jawad and
Ledwith, 2020, 2021), the relationship between these two frameworks needs to be investigated
in the context of project success. Two questions remain unanswered; 1) which PCS elements
are critical to achieve project objectives of scope, schedule and cost? and 2) what are the
critical enablers and barriers that impact these PCS elements.
This study builds on the research about PCS implementation and maturity models
described above by identifying; 1) the specific elements of PCS that impact project success,
and 2) the individual enablers and barriers that influence each of the six PCS elements. Hence,
three enablers, six barriers and six elements of PCS have been selected to develop the research
model for this study shown in Figure 1. A new modeling approach aims to provide a wider
understanding of PCS as an integrated framework for project success. The proposed model
contributes to project management knowledge and differs from previous attempts in two
ways. Firstly, it investigates the elements of PCS that are critical to achieving project scope,
schedule and cost objective; secondly, enablers and barriers of PCS success are examined to PCS
see how they influence each PCS element independently. The methodology to validate the implementation
proposed model presented is explained in the next section.

3. Research methodology
The objectives of this study are twofold: 1) to examine which of the PCS elements are more
important for achieving project scope, schedule, and cost and 2) to identify which enablers
185
and barriers of PCS implementation impact these elements and drives project success.
Following the literature review presented in the previous section, six elements are identified
as critical components of PCS. These elements are: 1) change management, 2) earned value, 3)
baselined plan, 4) resource allocation, 5) progress method and 6) project governance. The
performance of these elements can be measured using the PCS maturity model developed by
Jawad and Ledwith (2021). This model presents a framework for the measurement of PCS
success and improvement of PCS capability as shown in Table 1.
The assessment of maturity in this model involves improving project control capabilities
of the six PCS elements against five maturity levels (Crawford, 2014; Kwak and Ibbs, 2002;
Lianying et al., 2012) as described in Table 2.
The level of maturity is expressed on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1 is the lowest level of
process maturity and 5 the highest (Backlund et al., 2013; Crawford, 2014; Lianying et al.,
2012). This scale is well established in the literature and one of the most widely used in
assessing process maturity in project management (Backlund et al., 2013; Brookes et al., 2014;
Duffy, 2001; PMI, 2013).
To achieve the second objectives, the dominant enablers and barriers of PCS
implementation have been selected from the literature review (Jawad and Ledwith, 2020).
The description of these enablers and barriers are shown in Table 3.
The approach undertaken to achieve the research objectives is a questionnaire survey. To
investigate the relationship between PCS elements and project success, the respondents were
asked to rate the impact of each of the six PCS elements on project objectives: scope, schedule
and cost. The survey also asked respondents to assess the performance of their PCS in each of
the six elements and to report the impact that each of the enablers and barriers had on these
elements. The steps of the applied methodology are outlined in Figure 2. The development of
the survey instrument used to collect data, and the data collection process is described in the
following sections.

3.1 Survey instrument

The survey questionnaire used for data collection in this study consists of four sections. The
first section contained open questions collecting background information about the
respondents and their projects such as position, total years of experience and the number
of projects being managed. In the second section of the survey, respondents were asked to
assess the performance of their PCS in terms of the maturity level of the six elements: 1)
change management, 2) earned value, 3) baselined plan, 4) resource allocation, 5) progress
method and 6) project governance. The respondents in this section had to rate each element
on a five-level Likert scale, as follows: 1 5 Level 1 (Ad-hoc), 2 5 Level 2 (Repeatable),
3 5 Level 3 (Defined), 4 5 Level 4 (Managed) and 5 5 Level 5 (Optimized). This scale is
typically used to assess the maturity level in project management studies (Backlund et al.,
2013; Brookes et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2009). The third section of the survey was designed to
allow the respondents to determine the impact that the three enablers and six barriers have on
the six PCS elements. The impact level was measured on a five-point Likert scale: 1 5 Not
significant, 2-Low significance, 3-Significant, 4-High significance and 5-Very high
ECAM Elements of PCS Maturity
31,13 success level Key capabilities of PCS success

1. Change Level 1 No change management processes in place. Few processes are defined on a
Management regular basis
A documented Level 2 Basic change management processes are established, but it is not enforced
management of consistently. The project team is reactive to changes
186 change process Level 3 Change Management processes are followed in a consistent basis and
that clearly sets documented. The project team begins proactive in anticipating changes.
out the method of Audit trail is recorded
project change Level 4 The change management processes are integrated throughout the team and
required to with other functions. There is a dedicated measurement system for change
correct management. The project team is supportive to managing changes
deviations Level 5 Change management Performance evaluation metrics are developed and
against project implemented. Processes are monitored and analyzed for potential
objectives improvement. The project team takes full advantage of technology support
2. Earned Value Level 1 No or limited EVM implementation in place, any use of Earned Value is
The value of limited to individuals
work performed; Level 2 Basic EVM at the lowest level of WBS is established and basic reviews of SPI
Earned Value and CPI are carried out
(EV) can be Level 3 EVM system is defined and documented based on an international standard
provided from Level 4 There is a dedicated measurement system for EVM use. Advanced
the PCS based applications of Earned Value
upon the basis of Level 5 Plans are put in place to improve the quality of the EV data and it use.
the project Metrics are used to track EVMS improvements
schedule
3. Baselined Plan Level 1 No formal methods for capturing the major Project deliverables (WBS),
An appropriately activities are randomly placed in the schedule, and some schedule
presented base constraints, calendars and major deliverables are identified
lined schedule Level 2 Scope, constraints, and major deliverables are defined, not all activities are
within an agreed assigned to a WBS element
definition of Level 3 The project durations and deliverables are clearly defined and documented
project scope and related to the projects WBS including third parties, subcontractors, and
using a defined field activities. Project has an established a clearly identifiable critical path
WBS Level 4 The schedule is comprehensively structured by the WBS and milestones.
Cross-WBS linkages are defined in the schedule logic. Schedule is integrated
with other functions such progress method and reporting. Schedule risks are
identified
Level 5 Changes to baseline are properly managed through a documented,
integrated change control process. Schedule modeling techniques are used
e.g. networking. All schedule optimization techniques are documented along
with a rationale and risk assessment and are approved by management
4. Resource Level 1 No formal methods to define the resource requirements, resource
Loaded categorization not defined
A schedule that Level 2 Basic Methods of presenting resource allocations and categorization are
defines activities established
and resources Level 3 Methods of presenting resource allocations and categorization are defined
required to and documented; resource requirements are based upon demonstrated
complete the historical performance
project- Level 4 Risk mitigation of resource constraints can be identified, and timely
considering the corrective action proposed. Changes to schedule comprehend the resources
Construction, constraints and is adjusted considering those constraints
Commissioning Level 5 Resource changes and update to PCS is defined in an integrated change
and Handover to control process. All schedule optimization techniques are documented along
Table 1. Operations with a rationale and risk assessment and are approved by management
Six elements of PCS stages
success with maturity
level criteria (continued )
Elements of PCS Maturity
PCS
success level Key capabilities of PCS success implementation
5. Progress Level 1 No formal progress method defined or in place, progressing deliverables
Method depend on the capabilities of individuals
Clear and Level 2 Basic methods of progressing deliverables and activities are established
documented Level 3 Methods of progressing deliverables and activities, forecasting, and
method to performance measurements are defined and documented. Methods of 187
progress progressing other project activities such as third-party services,
deliverables, construction, and commissioning are defined, documented and part of the
activities, and PCS
materials/sub- Level 4 Method in place to report deviation from the project baseline to allow
contractor corrective action to be undertaken. PCS is integrated and there is only one
throughout all entry of raw data on regular basis
stages of project Level 5 Processes are continuously monitored and analyzed for potential
“life cycle” improvement
6. Project Level 1 No governance program in place
Governance Level 2 Basic Process of project performance review with all stockholders is
The project has a established
governance Level 3 Governance program is defined and documented. Project management team
program with all roles and authorization level are defined and documented
stakeholders Level 4 PCS produces information and data that drives decision making. Information
where project sharing process that streamlines and empowers decision making
performance is Level 5 Goals are set for improving the governance program. Project team shares
reviewed holistic view of what value PCS is to the overall project success Table 1.

Level Title Description

Level 1 Ad-hoc Processes are not established

Level 2 Repeatable Basic processes have been established
Level 3 Defined The processes necessary to achieve the organizational purpose are
documented, standardized and integrated with other processes in the business
Level 4 Managed Evidence of quantitative objectives for quality and process performance, to be
used as criteria in decision making Table 2.
Level 5 Optimized The organization is focused on optimization of its quantitatively managed PCS maturity levels
processes for making organizational management decisions for the future description

significance (Artur, 2019; Kriksciuniene et al., 2019). The same scale was used in the last
section of the survey, Section 4, to collect data on the impact of each PCS element on project
objectives: scope, schedule, and cost. To increase the response rate, an online survey using the
QuestionPro platform was developed. Finally, a pilot study was conducted to validate and
pre-test the survey and subsequently modified before a final version was submitted to the
respondents.

3.2 Case study and data collection

Petroleum and chemical projects are a major part of the engineering and construction
industry that includes chemical plant, oil and gas field engineering, manufacturing,
construction, operation and maintenance services. In Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi
government presented Vision 2030, an ambitious plan for moving the kingdom beyond oil
dependence, the petroleum and chemical sector is still critical to the country and a major
ECAM Enablers Definition
31,13
E1 – Skilled and A variety of skills and competencies required for a project team to be effective in
experienced project project control. These capabilities can be gleaned from experience and often take
team members years to master
E2 – Explicitly define Job description that indicate responsibilities and corresponding expectations, clearly
roles of project team define level of authority in order to make decisions defined by project organization
188 members chart, working methods defined by standard processes, procedures and tools
E3 – Accurate and The work breakdown structure (WBS) identifies the project elements that will need
detailed WBS resources and thus is the primary input to resource planning. Any relevant outputs
from other planning processes should be provided through the WBS to ensure proper
control

Barriers Definition

B1 – Lack of standard Poor standardized project management that is composed of standardized practices
processes standardization means the degree of absence of variation in implementing such
practices
B2 – Vague contract Vague and inconsistent information regarding contract, Scope of Work and contract
deliverables deliverables
B3 – Unclear project A lack of direction and define desired benefits and outcomes of project
goals and objectives
B4 – Un-clear project Poor planning for schedule activities that shows an important achievement in a
milestones project.
B5 – Disparate control Different control system between owner and contractor in term of defining Scope of
system between owner Work, deliverables, scheduled, payment methods and indistinct criterion used to
and contractor define project completion
Table 3. B6 – Lack of Poor communication planning that includes the processes required to ensure timely
Description of PCS information and appropriate generation, collection, distribution, storage, retrieval and ultimate
enablers and barriers communication disposition of project information

Figure 2.
Research methodology
contributor to the kingdom’s economic growth (Alkahtani et al., 2018; Erdogan et al., 2010; PCS
Moshashai et al., 2020). Schedule delays, budget overruns and scope changes that prevail in implementation
those projects, particularly with the COVID 19 pandemic, pose serious challenges in this
sector (Gamil and Alhagar, 2020; Shibani et al., 2020). An effective PCS will have a significant
influence on the way which these challenges can be addressed. Therefore, petroleum and
chemical projects in Saudi Arabia were selected to validate the research model.
The survey targeted organizations involved in the petroleum and chemical industry in
Saudi Arabia. The initial list came from a company register (gulftalent.com) this list was 189
shortened to include those companies that operated in the petroleum and chemical sector which
comprise 72 companies. The sampling technique used for data collection was random sampling
of respondents sourced from professional platforms. The survey was sent to 1,400 participants
in October/September 2020. According to Adam (2020), the number of respondents required to
provide a 95% confidence level in the survey was 302. The total completed responses received
back was 400 which represent 29% response rate and well above the required 95% confidence
level. The completed respondents came from nine owner/operator, 13 engineering and 21
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) companies. Table 4 shows the complete
analysis of the survey, the high non-disclosure percentage for completed surveys was expected
due to the high level of confidentiality that exist within the petroleum and chemical industry.
The valid data set was then organized and analyzed using SPSS software.

4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Data profile and reliability tests
Initial analysis of the main attributes of respondent’s profiles including; position, years of
experience and number of projects managed, is shown in Table 5.
The survey questionnaire in this study consists of 13 constructs, shown in Table 1. The
first construct assesses the performance of the six elements of PCS using PCS maturity levels,
the next nine constructs map enablers and barriers individually against PCS elements and the
last three constructs evaluate each element of PCS against project objectives scope, schedule,
and cost. The reliability of the research instrument was examined in terms of the stability and
consistency of the results for each construct (Mohamad et al., 2015; Taherdoost, 2016).
To assess the consistency of the results, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is applied. According
(Streiner, 2003; Gliem and Gliem, 2003) Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is considered the most
preferred method for assessing the reliability of measures. The coefficients of 0.7 or above are

Description Number of items %

Total surveys distributed 1,400 100.0%

Surveys completed 400 29%
Surveys terminated 39 3%
Surveys not responded 961 68%
Company representation from survey
Respondents from owner/operator 127 32%
Number of organizations in survey 19
Number of organizations represented in respondents 9
Respondents from engineering consultant 79 20%
Number of organizations in survey 28
Number of organizations represented in respondents 13
Respondents from EPC contractors 101 25%
Number of organizations in survey 25
Number of organizations represented in respondents 21 Table 4.
Respondents from undisclosed 93 23% Survey summary
ECAM generally considered to be an excellent value for reliability (Cho and Kim, 2015; Streiner,
31,13 2003). In this study the value of Cronbach’s Alpha for each construct was greater than 0.7 as
presented in Table 6.

4.2 Descriptive analysis: PCS elements that drive project objectives

The next stage of the analysis is to measure the performance of the companies surveyed in the
190 six elements of PCS. The respondents were asked to assess the maturity level of each of the
PCS elements: 1) change management, 2) earned value, 3) baselined plan, 4) resource allocation,
5) progress method and 6) project governance against the capabilities defined for each level

Respondent’s years of experience <10 years 42%

Between 11 years and <20 years 42%
>20 years 12%
Respondent’s position Project management 51%
Technical management 11%
Construction/Field management 6%
Project controls 28%
Average projects being managed by respondents <10 projects 77%
Table 5. Between 11 projects and 20 projects 7%
Respondents’ profile >20 projects 16%

Number Cronbach’s
Construct no. Description of items alpha

Construct 1 Maturity level of the six elements of PCS, Change Management, 6 0.951
Earned Value, Baselined Plan, Resource Loaded, Progress Method and
Governance Program
Construct 2 Significance of the impact of “E1 – Skilled and experienced project 6 0.951
team members” on the six elements of PCS
Construct 3 Significance of the impact of “E2 – Explicitly define roles of project 6 0.968
team members” on the six elements of PCS
Construct 4 Significance of the impact of “E3 – Accurate and detailed WBS” on the 6 0.929
six elements of PCS
Construct 5 Significance of the impact of “B1 – Lack of standard processes” on the 6 0.929
six elements of PCS
Construct 6 Significance of the impact of “B2 - Vague contract deliverables” on the 6 0.910
six elements of PCS
Construct 7 Significance of the impact of “B3 – Unclear project goals and 6 0.912
objectives” on the six elements of PCS
Construct 8 Significance of the impact of “B4 - Un-clear project milestones” on the 6 0.948
six elements of PCS
Construct 9 Significance of the impact of “B5 – Disparate control system between 6 0.937
owner and contractor” on the six elements of PCS
Construct 10 Significance of the impact of “B6 – Lack of information 6 0.958
communication” on the six elements of PCS
Construct 11 Significance of the impact of the six elements of PCS on project Scope 6 0.932
objective
Construct 12 Significance of the impact of the six elements of PCS on project 6 0.876
Schedule objective
Table 6. Construct 13 Significance of the impact of the six elements of PCS on project Cost 6 0.783
Reliability statistics objective
(Table 1). The purpose of this step was to operationalize the six elements of the PCS which PCS
represent the dependent variables in the research model. The variables were operationalized implementation
by averaging the items scores across each variable. Table 7 presents the distribution of survey
respondents. For example, for change management 0.8% of the respondents indicated that
they were at Level 1 (Ad-Hoc) and 50.8% indicated that were at Level 5 (Optimized). Generally,
the results show that a minimum of 90% of the respondents indicated that their organizations
operated at level 4 (Managed) or Level 5 (Optimized) for all six PCS elements.
The first objective in this study is to examine the relationship between PCS elements and 191
project success objectives. To achieve this, the respondents were asked to map how each of
the six PCS elements impacted the three project objectives scope, schedule and cost. The
average values for each construct between the six elements of PCS and three project
objectives were calculated. Table 8 presents the results showing which PCS element was
considered by respondents to have the greatest impact on each project objective.
The results show that project governance and baselined plan were judged to have the
highest impact on achieving project scope objectives with scores of 4.26 and 4.11,
respectively. Project governance (4.26), earned value (4.13) and resource allocation (4.13) were
ranked as most important for meeting schedule objective. Finally, for project cost objectives,
project governance and earned value were deemed as the most important with scores of 4.45
and 4.38. Based on these results, the top two elements within each of project objectives were
selected for regression analysis. These elements are: project governance, earned value,
baselined plan and resource allocation. From Table 8, it can be observed that all six elements
have a high score for project cost objective. This would indicate that the respondents consider
the PCS elements more important in controlling project cost and executing projects within the
planned budget.

4.3 Quantitative analysis: regression models

The second objective of this study was to identify which enablers and barriers of PCS
implementation impact PCS elements and drive project success. To achieve this objective, the
respondents were asked to assess the impact of each enabler and barrier individually on the
each of the six PCS elements. The results of the previous analysis of PCS elements identify the

Change Earned Baselined Resource Progress Governance

Maturity level management value plan allocation method program

Level 1 Ad-Hoc 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5%

Level 2 Repeatable 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% Table 7.
Level 3 Defined 5.5% 6.8% 5.8% 6.5% 6.5% 4.8% Respondents feedback
Level 4 Managed 41.0% 39.8% 38.8% 39.8% 39.3% 39.3% on maturity level for
Level 5 Optimized 50.8% 51.0% 53.0% 50.8% 51.5% 53.0% each PCS element

Scope objective Schedule objective Cost objective

Governance program 4.26 Governance program 4.26 Governance program 4.45

Baselined plan 4.11 Earned value 4.13 Earned value 4.38
Progress method 4.08 Resource allocation 4.13 Resource allocation 4.29
Earned value 4.04 Progress method 4.05 Progress method 4.29 Table 8.
Resource allocation 4.04 Baselined plan 3.86 Baselined plan 4.24 PCS elements ranking
Change Management 4.00 Change Management 3.83 Change Management 4.21 for project objectives
ECAM four (4) elements are the most important in accomplishing the three project objectives scope,
31,13 schedule and cost. These elements are: project governance, earned value, baselined plan and
resource allocation. Therefore, these elements were used for further quantitative analysis to
examine the significant enablers and barriers that impact their performance.
Linear regression analysis provided an estimate of the linear equation coefficients,
concerning one or more independent variables that resulted in the best prediction of the
dependent variable value (Seber and Lee, 2012). Prior to running any of the regression’s
192 models, multicollinearity was checked with bivariate correlation analysis (Pallant, 2010).
None of the independent variables (enablers and barriers) have a correlation with each other
of greater than 0.7 (Appendix 1). This result indicates that the multicollinearity assumption
has not been violated. A regression analysis was thus conducted for a total of 400 responses.
The following tables present the four regression models run between the independent
variables (three enablers and six barriers) of PCS implementation and the dependent
variables of project governance, earned value, baselined plan and resource allocation. All
models are significant explaining between 28% and 35% of the variation of the dependent
variables (Appendix 2).
4.3.1 Regression model 1 – project governance. The dependent variable for regression
model 1 is project governance. The independent variables are the three enablers and six
barriers of PCS implementation that are listed in Table 3. The model was significant and had
an R2 of 0.339, (p < 0.01). One enabler and three barriers made a unique contribution to the
performance of project governance;
(1) E1- Skilled and experienced project team members (beta 5 0.177, p < 0.01).
(2) B1-Lack of standard processes (beta 5 0.246, p < 0.01).
(3) B3-Unclear project goals (beta 5 0.176, p < 0.01).
(4) B5-Disparate control system between owner and contractor (beta 5 0.141, p < 0.01).
The beta value indicates that “Lack of standard processes” has the most significant impact on
project governance.
4.3.2 Regression model 2 – earned value. The dependent variable for regression model 2 is
earned value. The independent variables are the three enablers and six barriers of PCS
implementation that listed in Table 3. The model was significant and had an R2 of 0.281,
(p < 0.01). One enabler and three barriers made a unique contribution to the performance of
earned value;
(1) E1- Skilled and experienced project team members (beta 5 0.218, p < 0.01).
(2) B1-Lack of standard processes (beta 5 0.151, p < 0.01).
(3) B3-Unclear project goals (beta 5 0.183, p < 0.01).
(4) B5-Disparate control system between owner and contractor (beta 5 0.157, p < 0.01).
The beta value indicates that “Skilled and experienced project team members” has the most
significant impact of earned value.
4.3.3 Regression model 3 – baselined plan. The dependent variable for regression model 3 is
baselined plan. The independent variables are the 3 enablers and 6 barriers of PCS
implementation that listed in Table 3. The model was significant and had an R2 of 0.302,
(p < 0.01). One enabler and three barriers made a unique contribution to the performance of
baselined plan;
(1) E1- Skilled and experienced project team members (beta 5 0.157, p < 0.01).
 (2) B1-Lack of standard processes (beta 5 0.224, p < 0.01). PCS
(3) B3-Unclear project goals (beta 5 0.186, p < 0.01). implementation
(4) B5-Disparate control system between owner and contractor (beta 5 0.134, p < 0.01).
The beta value indicates that “Lack of standard processes” has the most significant impact of
baselined plan.
4.3.4 Regression model 4 – resource allocation. The dependent variable for regression 193
model 4 is resource allocation. The independent variables are the three enablers and six
barriers of PCS implementation that listed in Table 3. The model was significant and had an
R2 of 0.306, (p < 0.01). One enabler and three barriers made a unique contribution to the
performance of resource allocation;
(1) E1- Skilled and experienced project team members (beta 5 0.207, p < 0.01).
(2) B1-Lack of standard processes (beta 5 0.214, p < 0.01).
(3) B3-Unclear project goals (beta 5 0.183, p < 0.01).
(4) B5-Disparate control system between owner and contractor (beta 5 0.141, p < 0.01).
The beta value indicates that “Lack of standard processes” has the most significant impact of
resource allocation.
The results of the four regression models are presented in Table 9. The results show that
“Skilled and experienced project team members”, “Lack of standard processes”, “Unclear
project goals and objectives” and “Disparate control system between owner and contractor”
have significant impact in all four models (p < 0.01). The negative coefficients reported for
“Unclear project milestones” and “Lack of information communication” in some of the
regression models is surprising since the survey questions asked only for significance of the
impact of independent variables against dependent variables not whether that impact was
positive of negative. However, since the results showed these independent variables as

Dependent variables
Model 1 Model 4
Governance Model 2 Model 3 Resource
program Earned value Baselined plan allocation
Independent variables Beta Sig. (p) Beta Sig. (p) Beta Sig. (p) Beta Sig. (p)

E1 – Skilled and experienced project 0.177 0.001 0.218 0.000 0.157 0.003 0.207 0.000
team members
E2 – Explicitly defined roles of project 0.087 0.108 0.132 0.019 0.054 0.330 0.076 0.171
team members
E3 – An accurate work breakdown 0.112 0.022 0.075 0.143 0.086 0.089 0.082 0.101
structure (WBS)
B1 – Lack of standard processes 0.246 0.000 0.151 0.006 0.224 0.000 0.214 0.000
B2 – Vague contract deliverables 0.013 0.760 0.035 0.430 0.042 0.343 0.016 0.718
B3 – Unclear project goals 0.176 0.000 0.183 0.000 0.186 0.000 0.183 0.000
B4 – Unclear project milestones 0.031 0.536 0.056 0.280 0.001 0.987 0.067 0.190
B5 – Disparate control system 0.141 0.001 0.157 0.001 0.134 0.003 0.141 0.002
between owner and contractor
B6 – Lack of information 0.028 0.595 0.078 0.153 0.004 0.936 0.011 0.838
communication Table 9.
R2 0.339 0.281 0.302 0.306 Results of the four
Model significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 regression models
ECAM insignificant with (p > 0.1), they were not considered as part of the research model and thus
31,13 warrant no further investigation.

5. Discussion and final research model

A well implemented PCS contributes to the boarder strategic goals of the organization by
supporting an integrated framework of processes and people that work together to execute
194 projects successfully (Jayaraman, 2016; J€ unge et al., 2019). A clear understanding of the
enablers and barriers that impact PCS implementation has a direct bearing on an
organization’s ability to deliver successful projects. In this context, it is crucial that the PCS
elements linked with project success are defined and that the associated enablers and barriers
are understood and managed. Therefore, the main objectives of this study were: (1) to
investigate the PCS elements that are critical to achieve project success; and (2) to identify the
significant enablers and barriers of PCS success by examining the impact of these enablers
and barriers on each elements of PCS. Based on the results of a previous studies (Jawad and
Ledwith, 2020, 2021), three enablers, six barriers and six elements of PCS success were
selected to further study in this research.
Descriptive analysis was conducted to map the PCS elements against each project
objectives scope, schedule and cost. Quantitative analysis was then preformed to identify
which enablers and barriers impact the performance of the critical PCS elements that defined
for each project objective. Figure 3 presents the final research model.
Some of the major findings of this model are:
(1) The result suggests that engineering and construction organizations should consider
PCS as a key tool to achieve project cost objectives. Although there is a slight
difference in weighting between the importance of PCS for each of the three project
objectives, the high importance rating allocated to project cost indicates that
respondents should considered PCS as the main project management tool for
completing a project within the planned budget.
(2) The study has identified project governance, earned value, baselined plan and
resource allocation as the most important PCS elements to accomplish the three
project objectives scope, schedule and cost.
(3) Project governance was identified as the most critical PCS element for all three project
objectives – scope, schedule and cost. Although project governance is not discussed
frequently in project management studies as part of PCS (Too and Weaver, 2014; Too
et al., 2017), this study has highlighted that it is the main PCS element that directly
links with project performance. Good project governance clearly articulates structured
roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within a project, this facilitates an effective
monitoring and decision-making process. Project governance is the key PCS element
that provides different project stakeholders with a structure that aligns the project
deliverables with their organizational goals (Joslin and M€ uller, 2015).
(4) The results also show that “Lack of standard processes” is a significant barrier that
impacts the performance of the four PCS elements and is most significant for project
governance. This result infers that from respondent’s perspective project governance
requires structure and repeatability to be effective. This barrier can only be addressed
when the organization has formally documented the processes that are implemented
in line with organizational standards for PCS. This requires strong organizational
leadership and a concerted effort especially when the organization undertakes a wide
variety of projects with different clients and different magnitudes of scope (Dinsmore
and Cabanis-Brewin, 2014; PMI, 2017).
 PCS
implementation

195

Figure 3.
Final research model
ECAM (5) The findings of this study show that “Skilled and experienced project team members”
31,13 is a significant enabler that impacts the performance of the four PCS elements, most
significantly impacting earned value. Organizations need to recognize that essential
competencies are required in project team members across all elements of the PCS,
particularly earned value. These competencies involve detailed knowledge of the
systems and software being utilized on projects. Acquiring these competencies can
involve years of experience as well as technical qualifications (Khoury, 2014; Wang
196 and Yuan, 2011). In engineering and construction projects, the diversity and
complexity of projects requires skills gained through experience in the industry using
specific PCS systems and tools (Yosua et al., 2006).
(6) In addition, this study identified “Unclear project goals and objectives”, and
“Disparate control system between owner and contractor” as significant barriers for
the four PCS elements. This result can be explained by reflecting that engineering and
construction projects typically include multiple parties with different interests and
project goals. Differences in organizations’ objectives, combined with the enormous
variety of unexpected situations that emerge during project execution, makes
disparate control system between owner and contractor unavoidable (Doloi, 2011;
Kivil€a et al., 2017; Pinto et al., 2009). Effective PCS then depends on the project team
defining goals and objectives that all parties agree with and consider legitimate, this
allows them to be built into the organization’s PCS.
The research model has revealed some nuances specific to the three project objectives scope,
schedule and cost. These are discussed below:

5.1 Project scope objective

The results indicate that project governance and a baselined plan are the most important PCS
elements to achieve the project scope of work. A baselined plan is a clearly defined starting
point for a project that allows the project management team to assess deviations against the
agreed plan. This baseline represents the planned execution of the project scope with defined
deliverables and associated resources (Dinsmore and Cabanis-Brewin, 2014; PMI, 2017). The
results also show that “Lack of standard processes” is the most significant barrier to
developing a baselined plan. This result confirms that having a standardized approach to
creating a baseline plan is critical in order to deliver project scope objectives.

5.2 Project schedule objective

The results of this study suggest that project governance, resource allocation and earned
value are the most important PCS elements to meet a project schedule. This result confirms
that the project management team needs to understand the resources required to deliver
each scheduled activity in order to complete a project on time (Dinsmore and Cabanis-
Brewin, 2014; PMI, 2017). This also becomes important as any deviations observed
through project governance can be effectively corrected if resources are identified and
available. The results also show that “Lack of standard processes” is the most significant
barrier to the resource allocation element of PCS. This result confirms that a standardized
approach to resource loading the project baseline plan is critical to ensure that a project
adheres to its schedule.

5.3 Project cost objective

Investigation into the most important PCS elements for project cost revealed that project
governance and earned value are the critical elements to deliver a project within the planned
budget. A clear earned value process through the project lifecycle is crucial to have an PCS
accurate understanding of the project progress and thus the actual and forecast cost. implementation
The present study aimed to extend previous research in project control by providing an
empirical investigation of the elements of PCS that are critical to achieving project scope,
schedule and cost objectives. Moreover, enablers and barriers of PCS success are examined to
see how they influence each element independently. The final research model was validated
with data from a survey of 400 project management practitioners, thus the findings of this
study can be generalized across similar industries. 197

6. Conclusion and implications

With the growing cost of overruns and delays in engineering and construction projects
globally, particularly due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is a need for
governments and organizations to address the challenges of delivering projects within scope,
cost and schedule objectives. Although many studies in project management have stressed
PCS as a main component of project success and conversely failure, these studies have not
offered empirical methods to address the factors that influence the level of PCS success.
This study contributes to our knowledge of project management by presenting a new
model that explains the relationships between the six elements of PCS, and their enablers
and barriers and the achievement of successful project outcomes, cost, schedule and scope.
The results of this study revealed that project governance, earned value, baselined plan
and resource allocation are the most important PCS elements to accomplish the three
project objectives scope, schedule and cost. Moreover, this study identifies “Skilled and
experienced project team members”, “Lack of standard processes”, “Unclear project goals
and objectives” and “Disparate control system between owner and contractor” as the most
significant factors for PCS success through the four identified elements. The study offers a
direction for implementing and developing PCS as a strategic tool and focuses on the
PCS elements that can best improve project outcomes. This paper provides project
management teams in engineering and construction organizations with some practical
implications:
(1) This study highlights the importance of effective project governance with clear
responsibilities for decision making to achieve project objectives scope, schedule and
cost. Every project should have demonstratively active project governance in place to
ensure project objectives are reviewed by stakeholders and senior management.
(2) In order to achieve effective project governance, organizations need to ensure that
standard processes are used by all project stakeholders. A lack of defined and
documented processes inhibits the performance of all PCS elements.
(3) “Skilled and experienced project team members” is another area that organizations
need to focus on when assembling project teams. This is a main enabler to assure the
effective deployment and utilization of PCS in particulate earned value.
(4) Effective PCS is found to be particularly critical for achieving project cost objectives.
Therefore, if a project is cost sensitive project managers need to ensure that all six
elements of PCS are fully implemented.
One limitation of this research is that it is based on a case study of engineering and
construction projects within the petroleum and chemical industry in Saudi Arabia. It is
expected that the findings of this research will have applicability to other industries, but
further studies in different sectors and regions should be undertaken to validate this
assumption.
ECAM References
31,13 Adam, A.M. (2020), “Sample size determination in survey research”, Journal of Scientific Research and
Reports, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 90-97, doi: 10.9734/jsrr/2020/v26i530263.
Al-Hajj, A. (2018), “The impact of project management implementation on the successful completion of
projects in construction”, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology,
Vol. 9, doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2018.9.1.781.
198 Al-Jibouri, S.H. (2003), “Monitoring systems and their effectiveness for project cost control in
construction”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 145-154, doi: 10.1016/
S0263-7863(02)00010-8.
Al-Nasseri, H. and Aulin, R. (2016), “Enablers and barriers to project planning and scheduling based
on construction projects in Oman”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 21,
pp. 1-20, doi: 10.21315/jcdc2016.21.2.1.
Alkahtani, M., El-Sherbeeny, A., Noman, M., Abdullah, F.M. and Choudhary, A. (2018), “Trends in
industrial engineering and the Saudi vision 2030”, Proceedings of the 2018 IISE Annual
Conference, available at: http://amz.xcdsystem.com/C5AB9227-CA78-AE70-2946FDB80F96639A_
abstract_File8390/SubmitFinalPaper_1197_0301074039.pdf.
Artur, B. (2019), “Research on the impact of the project team on selected areas of project
management”, Trends Economics and Management, Vol. 13, p. 43, doi: 10.13164/trends.2019.
34.43.
Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006), “Causes of delay in large construction projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, pp. 349-357, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
Backlund, F., Choneer, D. and Sundqvist, E. (2013), “Project management maturity models – a critical
review”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.094.
Benjaoran, V. (2009), “A cost control system development: a collaborative approach for small and
medium-sized contractors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 270-277,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.004.
Bower, D. and Finegan, A. (2009), “New approaches in project performance evaluation techniques”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2, pp. 435-444, doi: 10.1108/
17538370910971072.
Braimah, N. (2014), “Understanding construction delay analysis and the role of preconstruction
programming”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30, 04014023, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ME.1943-5479.0000216.
Brookes, N., Butler, M., Dey, P. and Clark, R. (2014), “The use of maturity models in improving project
management performance: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 7, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2013-0007.
Cho, E. and Kim, S. (2015), “Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: well known but poorly understood”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18, pp. 207-230, doi: 10.1177/1094428114555994.
Crawford, J.K. (2014), Project Management Maturity Model, 3rd ed., Auerbach Publications, New York,
NY, doi: 10.1201/b17643.
Dinsmore, P.C. and Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2014), The AMA Handbook of Project Management, AMACOM.
Doloi, H.K. (2011), “Understanding stakeholders’ perspective of cost estimation in project
management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 622-636, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.001.
Duffy, J. (2001), “Maturity models: blueprints for evolution”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 29,
pp. 19-26, doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006530.
Durdyev, S. (2020), “Review of construction journals on causes of project cost overruns”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.
1108/ECAM-02-2020-0137.
Erdogan, B., Abbott, C. and Aouad, G. (2010), “Construction in year 2030: developing an information PCS
technology vision”, Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and
Engineering Sciences, Vol. 368, pp. 3551-3565, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0076. implementation
Ford, D., Lyneis, J. and Taylor, T. (2007), “Project controls to minimize cost and schedule overruns: a
model, research agenda, and initial results”, 25th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Boston, MA, available at: http://davidnford.engr.tamu.edu/wp-content/
uploads/sites/83/2017/02/ProjectControlModel-SDConf2007.pdf.
Gamil, Y. and Alhagar, A. (2020), “The impact of pandemic crisis on the survival of construction 199
industry: a case of COVID-19”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 11, pp. 2039-2117,
doi: 10.36941/mjss-2020-0047.
Gliem, J.A. and Gliem, R.R. (2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales”, Midwest Research-To-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, and Community Education.
He, Q., Wang, T., Chan, A.P.C., Li, H. and Chen, Y. (2019), “Identifying the gaps in project success
research: a mixed bibliographic and bibliometric analysis”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1553-1573, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2018-0181.
Jawad, S. and Ledwith, A. (2020), “Analyzing enablers and barriers to successfully project control
system implementation in petroleum and chemical projects”, International Journal of Energy
Sector Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJESM-08-2019-0004.
Jawad, S. and Ledwith, A. (2021), “A measurement model of project control systems success for
engineering and construction projects case study: contractor companies in Saudi’s petroleum
and chemical industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-
of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0924.
Jawad, S., Ledwith, A. and Panahifar, F. (2018), “Enablers and barriers to the successful implementation of
project control systems in the petroleum and chemical industry”, International Journal of
Engineering Business Management, Vol. 10, 1847979017751834, doi: 10.1177/1847979017751834.
Jayaraman, R. (2016), “Project cost control: a new method to plan and control costs in large projects”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 1247-1268, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-10-2014-0102.
Joslin, R. and M€uller, R. (2015), “Relationships between a project management methodology and
project success in different project governance contexts”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 1377-1392, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005.
unge, G.H., Alfnes, E., Kjersem, K. and Andersen, B. (2019), “Lean project planning and control:
J€
empirical investigation of ETO projects”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1120-1145, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-08-2018-0170.
Khoury, G.C. (2014), Cases on Management and Organizational Behavior in an Arab Context, IGI
Global.
Kivil€a, J., Martinsuo, M. and Vuorinen, L. (2017), “Sustainable project management through project
control in infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 1167-1183, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009.
Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. and Lewandowski, R. (2019), “Evaluating the interdependent effect
for Likert scale items”, pp. 26-38, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36691-9_3.
Kwak, Y.H. and Ibbs, C.W. (2002), “Project management process maturity (PM)2 model”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 150-155, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:3(150).
Lianying, Z., Jing, H. and Xinxing, Z. (2012), “The project management maturity model and application
based on PRINCE2”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 3691-3697, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.
01.554.
Liu, S. (2015), “Effects of control on the performance of information systems projects: the moderating
role of complexity risk”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 36, pp. 46-62.
ECAM Maliszewska, M., Mattoo, A. and van der Mensbrugghe, D. (2020), “The potential impact of COVID-19
on GDP and trade: a preliminary assessment”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
31,13 9211, SSRN: available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract53573211.
Maqsoom, A., Hamad, M., Ashraf, H., Thaheem, M.J. and Umer, M. (2020), “Managerial control
mechanisms and their influence on project performance: an investigation of the moderating role
of complexity risk”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 9,
pp. 2451-2475.
200 Mi
sic, S. and Radujkovic, M. (2015), “Critical drivers of megaprojects success and failure”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 122, pp. 71-80, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.009.
Mohamad, M.M., Sulaiman, N.L., Sern, L.C. and Salleh, K.M. (2015), “Measuring the validity and
reliability of research instruments”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 204,
pp. 164-171, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129.
Moshashai, D., Leber, A.M. and Savage, J.D. (2020), “Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: vision
2030, the national transformation plan and Saudi fiscal reform”, British Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies, Vol. 47, pp. 381-401, doi: 10.1080/13530194.2018.1500269.
Obare, J., Kyalo, D., Sabina, M. and Mbugua, J. (2016), “Implementation process of project control
systems and performance of rural roads construction projects in Kenya: role of project team
experience diversity”, European Scientific Journal, Vol. 12, doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n29p408.
Olawale, Y. and Sun, M. (2014), “Construction project control in the UK: current practice, existing
problems and recommendations for future improvement”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.003.
Pallant, J. (2010), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, Open
University Press, London.
Parnell, B., Stone, M. and Aravopoulou, E. (2020), “Controlling superprojects – information
management requirements”, The Bottom Line, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 116-131, doi: 10.1108/BL-11-
2019-0126.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P. and English, B. (2009), “Trust in projects: an empirical assessment of owner/
contractor relationships”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 638-648,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.010.
PMI, P.M. (2013), Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), Knovel Library.
Project Management Institute.
PMI, P.M. (2017), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: (PMBOK® Guide), 6th ed.,
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Prasad, B. and Prasad, N. (2020), “COVID-19: an emerging rapidly evolving situation”, Journal of Basic
and Applied Research in Biomedicine, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 82-89.
Rozenes, S., Vitner, G. and Spraggett, S. (2006), “Project control: literature review”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 5-14, doi: 10.1177/875697280603700402.
Sakka, O., Barki, H. and C^ote, L. (2016), “Relationship between the interactive use of control systems
and the project performance: the moderating effect of uncertainty and equivocality”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, pp. 508-522, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.
2016.01.001.
Seber, G.A. and Lee, A.J. (2012), Linear Regression Analysis, Vol. 329, John Wiley & Sons.
Setia, P. and Patel, P.C. (2013), “How information systems help create OM capabilities: consequents
and antecedents of operational absorptive capacity”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 409-431.
Shibani, A., Hassan, D. and Shakir, N. (2020), “The effects of pandemic on construction industry in the
UK”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 11, p. 48, doi: 10.36941/mjss-2020-0063.
Stratton, R.W. (2006), The Earned Value Management Maturity Model, Management Concepts,
Vienna, VA.
Streiner, D.L. (2003), “Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal PCS
consistency”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 80, pp. 99-103, doi: 10.1207/
S15327752JPA8001_18. implementation
Sudhakar, G. (2016), “Critical failure factors (CFFs) of IT projects”, The International Journal of
Management Research, Vol. 04 No. 02, pp. 31-51.
Sun, M., Vidalakis, C. and Oza, T. (2009), “A change management maturity model for construction
projects”, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM 2009 - Proceedings
of the 25th Annual Conference, Vol. 7, pp. 803-812. 201
Taherdoost, H. (2016), “Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of
a questionnaire/survey in a research”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Management, Vol. 5, pp. 28-36, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3205040.
Too, E. and Weaver, P. (2014), “The management of project management: a conceptual framework
for project governance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, pp. 1382-1394,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006.
Too, E., Le, T. and Yap, W. (2017), “Front-end planning – the role of project governance and its impact
on scope change management”, International Journal of Technology, Vol. 8, p. 1124, doi: 10.
14716/ijtech.v8i6.708.
Tsiga, Z., Emes, M. and Smith, A. (2017), “Critical success factors for projects in the petroleum
industry”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 121, pp. 224-231, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.031.
Wang, J. and Yuan, H. (2011), “Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction projects:
case study from China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 209-219,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.006.
Wang, C., Li, B., Li, B. and Baldwin, A. (2017), “Case study of ‘project controlling’ on a large HOPSCA
project in China”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 862-874, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-07-2015-0118.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002), “Current practice in project management — an empirical study”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00029-6.
Winch, G. (2012), “Industrial megaprojects: concepts, strategies and practices for success”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 30, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.665996.
Yean Yng Ling, F. and Theng Ang, W. (2013), “Using control systems to improve construction project
outcomes”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 576-588,
doi: 10.1108/ECAM-10-2011-0093.
Yosua, D., White, K.R.J. and Lavigne, L. (2006), “Project controls: how to keep a healthy pulse on your
projects”, Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2006—North America, Project
Management Institute, Seattle, WA. Newtown Square, PA.

Further reading
Cheng, E.W.L. and Li, H. (2002), “Construction partnering process and associated critical success
factors: quantitative investigation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:4(194).
Costello, A. and Osborne, J. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor Analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research
and Evaluation, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9.
George, R.A., Siti-Nabiha, A.K., Jalaludin, D. and Abdalla, Y.A. (2016), “Barriers to and enablers of
sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 136, pp. 197-212, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.097.
G€or€og, M. (2009), “A comprehensive model for planning and controlling contractor cash-flow”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 481-492, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.
08.001.
ECAM Gulftalent (2021), available at: https://www.gulftalent.com/companies-in-saudi-arabia/9.
31,13 Hadi, N., Abdullah, N. and Ilham, S. (2016), “An easy approach to exploratory factor Analysis:
marketing perspective noor ul hadi”, Journal of Educational and Social Research, Vol. 6,
pp. 215-223, doi: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n1p215.
Ika, L.A. (2009), “Project success as a topic in project management journals”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 6-19, doi: 10.1002/pmj.20137.
202 Joslin, R. and M€ uller, R. (2016), “The impact of project methodologies on project success in different
project environments”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 364-388, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2015-0025.
Krejcie, R. and Morgan, D. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 3 No. 30, pp. 607-610, doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308.
Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2001), “Understanding and managing risks in large engineering projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 437-443.
Rodrigues, J.S., Costa, A.R. and Gestoso, C.G. (2014), “Project planning and control: does national
culture influence project success?”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 16, pp. 1047-1056, doi: 10.1016/j.
protcy.2014.10.059.
 E2-explicity E3-accurate B5-disparate Appendix 1
E1-skilled and defined roles work control system
experienced of project breakdown B1-lack of B2-vague B3-unclear B4-unclear between B6-lack of
project team team structure standard contract project project owner and information
members members (WBS) processes deliverables goals milestones contractor communication

E1- Skilled and 1 0.310** 0.308** 0.350** 0.016 0.351** 0.163** 0.277** 0.252**
experienced team
members
E2-Explicity 0.310** 1 0.185** 0.483** 0.106* 0.273** 0.052 0.411** 0.312**
defined roles of
project team
members
E3-Accurate work 0.308** 0.185** 1 0.158** 0.016 0.121* 0.089 0.174** 0.268**
breakdown
structure (WBS)
B1-Lack of 0.350** 0.483** 0.158** 1 0.122* 0.397** 0.018 0.624** 0.150**
standard processes
B2-Vague contract 0.016 0.106* 0.016 0.122* 1 0.076 0.029 0.151** 0.065
deliverables
B3-Unclear project 0.351** 0.273** 0.121* 0.397** 0.076 1 0.032 0.247** 0.100*
goals
B4-Unclear project 0.163** 0.052 0.089 0.018 0.029 0.032 1 0.110* 0.024
milestones
B5-Disparate 0.277** 0.411** 0.174** 0.624** 0.151** 0.247** 0.110* 1 0.215**
control system
between owner and
contractor
B6-Lack of 0.252** 0.312** 0.268** 0.150** 0.065 0.100* 0.024 0.215** 1
information
communication
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
PCS

203

Table A1.

correlation test
Bivariate
implementation
ECAM Appendix 2
31,13 1-Regression Model 1 – project governance
Dependent Variable: Project Governance
Independent Variables: three enablers and six barriers of PCS implementation

Model summary
204
Change statistics
R Adjusted R Std. Error of R square F Sig. F
Model R square square the estimate change change df1 df2 change

1 0.582A 0.339 0.324 0.52982 0.339 22.252 9 390 0.000

Note(s): APredictors (Constant), El, E2, E3, Bl, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

AnovaA

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

1 Regression 56.219 9 6.247 22.252 0.000B

Residual 109.479 390 0.281
Total 165.697 399
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Project Governance
B
Predictors: (Constant), El, E2, E3, Bl, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

Co-efficientsA

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Std.
Model B error Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) 0.101 0.366 0.276 0.783

E1-Skilled and experienced team members 0.191 0.055 0.177 3.450 0.001
E2-Explicity defined roles of project team 0.077 0.048 0.087 1.609 0.108
members
E3-Accurate work breakdown structure 0.131 0.057 0.112 2.293 0.022
(WBS)
B1-Lack of standard processes 0.269 0.057 0.246 4.731 0.000
B2-Vague contract deliverables 0.015 0.048 0.013 0.305 0.760
B3-Unclear project goals 0.231 0.058 0.176 3.982 0.000
B4-Unclear project milestones 0.031 0.050 0.031 0.620 0.536
B5-Disparate control system between 0.132 0.041 0.141 3.207 0.001
owner and contractor
B6-Lack of information communication 0.022 0.041 0.028 0.532 0.595
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Project Governance
2-Regression Model 2 – earned value PCS
Dependent Variable: Earned Value
Independent Variables: three enablers and six barriers of PCS implementation implementation
Model summary

Change statistics
R Adjusted R Std. Error of R square F Sig. F 205
Model R square square the estimate change change dfl df2 change

1 0.531A 0.281 0.265 0.54496 0.281 16.974 9 390 0.000

A
Note(s): Predictors (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

AnovaA

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

1 Regression 45.369 9 5.041 16.974 0.000B

Residual 115.821 390 0.297
Total 161.190 399

Note(s): ADependent Variable: Earned Value

B
Predictors: (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

Co-efficientsA

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
std.
Model B error Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) 0.484 0.376 1.287 0.199

E1-Skilled and experienced team members 0.233 0.057 0.218 4.080 0.000
E2-Explicity defined roles of project team 0.116 0.049 0.132 2.347 0.019
members
E3-Accurate work breakdown structure 0.086 0.059 0.075 1.467 0.143
(WBS)
B1-Lack of standard processes 0.163 0.059 0.151 2.781 0.006
B2-Vague contract deliverables 0.039 0.050 0.035 0.789 0.430
B3-Unclear project goals 0.237 0.060 0.183 3.970 0.000
B4-Unclear project milestones 0.056 0.051 0.056 1.082 0.280
B5-Disparate control system between 0.145 0.042 0.157 3.417 0.001
owner and contractor
B6-Lack of information communication 0.060 0.042 0.078 1.432 0.153
A
Note(s): Dependent Variable: Earned Value
ECAM 3-Regression Model 3 – baselined plan
Dependent Variable: baselined plan
31,13 Independent Variables: three enablers and six barriers of PCS implementation

Model summary

Change statistics
206 R Adjusted R Std. Error of R square F Sig. F
Model R square square the estimate change change df1 df2 change

1 0.549A 0.302 0.285 0.54152 0.302 18.712 9 390 0.000

Note(s): APredictors (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

ANOVAA

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

1 Regression 49.384 9 5.487 18.712 0.000B

Residual 114.366 390 0.293
Total 163.750 399
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Baselined Plan
B
Predictors: (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

Co-efficientsA

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Std.
Model B error Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) 0.219 0.374 0.586 0.558

E1-Skilled and experienced team members 0.169 0.057 0.157 2.983 0.003
E2-Explicity defined roles of project team 0.048 0.049 0.054 0.976 0.330
members
E3-Accurate work breakdown structure 0.099 0.058 0.086 1.704 0.089
(WBS)
B1-Lack of standard processes 0.244 0.058 0.224 4.187 0.000
B2-Vague contract deliverables 0.047 0.049 0.042 0.950 0.242
B3-Unclear project goals 0.241 0.059 0.186 4.074 0.000
B4-Unclear project milestones 0.001 0.051 0.001 0.016 0.987
B5-Disparate control system between 0.125 0.042 0.134 2.965 0.003
owner and contractor
B6-Lack of information communication 0.003 0.042 0.004 0.080 0.936
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Baselined Plan
4-Regression Model 4 – resource allocation PCS
Dependent Variable: resource allocation
Independent Variables: three enablers and six barriers of PCS implementation implementation
Model summary

Change statistics
R Adjusted R Std. Error of R square F Sig. F 207
Model R square square the estimate change change df1 df2 change

1 0.553A 0.306 0.290 0.56104 0.306 19.072 9 390 0.000

Note(s): APredictors (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

AnovaA

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

1 Regression 54.031 9 6.003 19.072 0.000B

Residual 122.759 390 0.315
Total 176.790 399
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Resource Loaded
B
Predictors: (Constant), E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6

Co-efficientsA

Unstandardized Standardized
co-efficients co-efficients
Std.
Model B error Beta t Sig

1 (Constant) 0.285 0.387 0.736 0.462

E1-Skilled and experienced team members 0.231 0.059 0.207 3.932 0.000
E2-Explicity defined roles of project team 0.070 0.051 0.076 1.371 0.171
members
E3-Accurate work breakdown structure 0.099 0.060 0.082 1.645 0.101
(WBS)
B1-Lack of standard processes 0.241 0.060 0.214 4.002 0.000
B2-Vague contract deliverables 0.018 0.051 0.016 0.362 0.718
B3-Unclear project goals 0.247 0.061 0.183 4.029 0.000
B4-Unclear project milestones 0.069 0.053 0.067 1.313 0.190
B5-Disparate control system between 0.136 0.044 0.141 3.124 0.002
owner and contractor
B6-Lack of information communication 0.009 0.043 0.011 0.205 0.838
Note(s): ADependent Variable: Resource Loaded

Corresponding author
Sahar Jawad can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]