American Journal of Civil Engineering

2016; 4(4): 117-126

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajce
doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.20160404.11
ISSN: 2330-8729 (Print); ISSN: 2330-8737 (Online)

Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key

Indicator for Project Success
Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey1, *, Daniel Amofa2, Felix Atsrim1
1
Department of Built Environment, Pentecost University College, Kaneshie, Accra, Ghana
2
Department of Project Management, Accra Institute of Technology, Private Mail Bag, Accra, Ghana

Email address:
[email protected] (J. I. T. Buertey)
*
Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey, Daniel Amofa, Felix Atsrim. Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project
Success. American Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 4, 2016, pp. 117-126. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.20160404.11

Received: April 27, 2016; Accepted: May 9, 2016; Published: May 27, 2016

Abstract: Participation is now an international agenda for ensuring full representation of people in terms of their ideas,
feeling and decision on matters concerning their development. It has been observed that most projects fail after implementation
not due to poor execution but rather due poor stakeholder consultation and engagement. The purpose of this study was to
determine the barriers to stakeholder involvement in developmental projects at the grassroots level and examine the impact of
stakeholder involvement on the success of projects implemented. Data was gathered through structured questionnaires
distributed to ordinary citizens, community leaders and local authority staff in selected district assemblies in Ghana. Analysis
of structured questionnaires revealed that there was inadequate explanation of the background, technical and material
justification for the project to the stakeholders prior to project initiation. Stakeholders held that they had difficulty in
participating in technical discussions and there was the perceived unwillingness of project implementers to involve them
during decision making, to this end, the impact of stakeholders towards project success was significant. To overcome the
challenge of stakeholder involvement and meaningful impact to projects, stakeholders must develop capacities to contribute
meaningfully in discussions or delegate their concerns to professional representatives. To this end, projects implementers must
acknowledge the value of stakeholders and embark on stakeholder outreach to solicit their involvement for enhanced project
success.
Keywords: Stakeholder Involvement, Project Success, Development, Local Government, Communication, Community

argued that [3] and [4] holds that project failure is strongly
1. Introduction related to stakeholders’ perception of a project and their
The project stakeholder is sine qua non for the measuring involvement in it.
of project success. According to [1], stakeholders are The purpose of this study was to review the extent to
individuals and organisations actively involved in the project, which project actors (executors) intrinsically manages their
or whose interest may be affected as a result of the project stakeholders, identifying impediments to their involvement in
execution or completion. Due to the interest of stakeholders project execution and expatiate solutions and innovations to
on the project, they may exert influence on the project’s guide and positively influence daily practice of stakeholder
objective and outcomes. To ensure a successful project, the involvement for development at the local level. The results
project team must identify and engage all stakeholders, would enable the leaders at the lower level to be more aware
determine their requirements and expectation and manage of the extent of stakeholder involvement and to find the
their influence in relation to their requirements. Amponsah appropriate steps in involving them much more. Furthermore,
[2] postulates that Ghana as any developing country has been the result of the study is also beneficial to the stakeholders at
recording failure in most of their development projects the district level so that in future projects, they will make
attributable to poor stakeholder engagement. It is further themselves available for project planning and
118 Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey et al.: Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success

implementation. This will ensure that they are made part of stakeholders.
the decision of choosing projects for the community and Differently stated, [8] however held that stakeholders may
effectively support the project and improve the acceptance also been separated into strategic and moral stakeholders.
criteria for the project. In other words, organizations can Strategic stakeholders are measured to be able to impose
anticipate what their stakeholder’s reaction to the project is decisions on the firm, thus the management of their interests
likely to be so that they can build into the plan of action to is essential. Moral stakeholders are those who are rather
win the stakeholders involvement. affected by the firm. Other works however disagrees with
Stakeholder literature has offered various earlier stakeholder conceptualizations and categorizations for
conceptualizations and descriptions. According to [5], a uncertainty and suggests that a difference should be made
stakeholder is a person, group or organization that has between stakeholders, stake watchers and stake keepers. In
interest or concern in an organization. Ward and Chapman terms of classification, stakeholders are those who have a
[6] postulates that “voluntary stakeholders bear some form of tangible and real stake in a company. Stake watchers, in turn,
peril as a consequence of having invested some form of do not actually have a stake themselves but they guard the
capital, human or financial, something of value, in a firm. interests of actual stakeholders. Examples of stake watchers
Involuntary stakeholders are placed at risk as an outcome of are unions and community pressure groups. Finally, [8]
a firm’s activities. But without the constituent of risk there is postulates that stake keepers are the autonomous regulators
no stake”. Thus stakeholders have an interest in the actions who have no stake in the firm but have influence and control,
of an organization and have the ability to influence it. Others such as governments, regulatory agencies and certification
like [7] expatiate on the need to emphasize the authenticity of organizations [9].
stakeholder relationships in the stakeholder definition as:
having some legitimate, non-trivial relationship with an 2. Empirical Review
organization, such as exchange transactions, action impacts,
and moral responsibilities. This description highlights the 2.1. Stakeholder Involvement in Developmental Projects
environment of relationships between stakeholders and the
organization. The role of the stakeholders is to produce a system that
The relationships between stakeholders and firms have best meets their needs, be willing to work with others,
also been distinct either more broadly or more intently. These particularly those outside your chosen specialties, share all
views approve a strategic perspective and emphasize the fact information, including "work in progress", and to actively
that companies have only limited resources and imperfect expand their knowledge and skills. It can be upheld that the
time that they can spend on dealing with their stakeholders. role of project stakeholders may include but not limited to:
Therefore, it is in the concentration of management to provide resources (time, money, etc.) to the project team,
categorize and pay attention to those stakeholders who have educate project implementers about their community, spend
significance on organizations economic interests. time to provide and clarify requirements, be specific and
Stakeholders can also be defined through their casual precise about requirements, make timely decisions with
relationships and moral claims towards the business. These respect to project implementers assessment of cost and
views regarded as the growth and sustainment of moral feasibility, review and provide timely feedback regarding
relationships with stakeholders as the firm’s responsibility. relevant work artifacts of project implementers and promptly
Studies have suggested a diversity of stakeholder communicate changes to requirements [5]. These roles
classification schemes. Altman [7] mentions that stakeholders effectively define the relationship between project team and
can be classified as either claimants or influencers and its stakeholders, a relationship that must be honored for a
consider the potential of stakeholders to threaten or cooperate project to be successful.
with the organization. Stakeholders can also be separated into The quantity of alternatives to top-down governance is
internal and external stakeholders, or primary or secondary myriad; however, participation of stakeholders in all stages of
stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are, for example, projects (agenda setting, policy formulation, decision
employees, customers and shareholders, while examples of making, policy implementation, policy evaluation) appears to
external stakeholders are community activists, media, have gained extensive endorsement [9]. Stakeholder
advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations involvement is a procedure which captures both specialist
[8]. Secondary stakeholders are not directly connected with and lay knowledge in project management. Although many
the crucial business because they lack a “formal contractual shades of participation exist, it is noteworthy that all forms
bond with the firm” or “direct legal authority” over the firm. embrace one kind of stakeholder involvement or another. The
However, primary stakeholders, such as employees and critical question is which variety of stakeholder involvement
customers, are in an undeviating association with the firm, is appropriate for a particular setting and what level of
indulged in transactions with the firm or have direct legal intensity is deemed sustainable [10]. Numerous researchers
authority over the firm. In turn, secondary stakeholders are argue for instance that stakeholder involvement can improve
not directly engaged with economic activity, but are still able project management process [11]. Another school of thought
to impact an organization. Moral and legitimate claims are questions this assertion and suggests that stakeholder
often emphasized in correlation with less important involvement is not necessarily an improvement on the
American Journal of Civil Engineering 2016; 4(4): 117-126 119

original top-down governance approach. It cannot be effective monitoring of the involvement process is
overemphasized that stakeholder involvement requires indispensable to ensure equivalent entree to the discursive
consensus-building, negotiation, conflict resolution, trade- territory.
offs and holistic thinking and these issues are frequently time Delanty [16] argues that Habermas perceives popular or
consuming and expensive, irrespective of the scale [10]. The representative democracy as inadequate in grasping the
opposing views in the on-going debate imply that there is the complications in modern plural societies. In the same vein, it
need to look at the issues at stake from the arena of is also argued that popular democracy fails to ‘take account
complexity since either way, a mere reversal of governance of the actuality of multi-cultural pluralism, which challenges
approach seems to be insufficient to tackle multi-dimensional both the concept of unity of the civic community and the
problems. appeal to legitimacy on the basis of popular sovereignty’
In the case of stakeholder involvement in projects, this is [15]. These shortcomings of popular democracy underpin
instrumental in the sense that it is a means to an end. The end Habermas’ proposal of the theory of discursive democracy of
or goal is behavioural change on the part of the stakeholders. participation. The theory is noteworthy for a number of
It is however simplistic to assume that information access motives. First, it recognizes the authenticity of multi-cultural
through stakeholder involvement will necessarily translate value systems. Next, it takes into account the problem of
into behavioural change. Regardless of one’s position on the complication in modern societies. Finally, it identifies the
matter, it seems evident that a certain gauge for evaluation is question of law and institutionalization [17]. In essence
necessary to inform the position an individual takes on the therefore, the theory of discursive democracy of stakeholder
success or failure of the participatory process. According to participation takes into account both agency (of individuals
[12], any kind of evaluation has to capture either the process to make decisions) and structure (the establishment of new
goals or the outcome goals. An evaluation which focuses on institutions through participatory practice) [15].
process goals may consider the participatory exercise
triumphant if the socio-economic dissimilarity gap is bridged. 2.2. Stakeholder Involvement in Different Stages of
At the same point in time, an assessment which focuses on Projects
result goals may see the exercise as ineffective because the Development projects often start through multiple stages
project was a disappointment. In either case, the conclusion in which different stakeholders may be involved [18]. Active
is subjective because it hinges on the values of the individual stakeholders have a significant influence in the community
conducting the assessment. Owing to the malfunction of and on the project, make choices that directly affect others,
development projects in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers and are necessary for recruiting other stakeholders. In
and field activists began to call for the inclusion of contrast, passive stakeholders are influenced by the choices
populations concerned with development in project design of active stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are active
and implementation [13]. The perception then was that such decision makers that have great influence in the community
projects were ineffective because local populations were left and also on the project, and must be involved in all the
out of the decision making process; a state of affairs that project stages. Secondary stakeholders are mostly passive,
tended to perpetuate social inequality. Hence stakeholder undertaking decisions made by primary stakeholders and
involvement was proposed as an apparatus to uphold equality have little influence during the implementation phase.
through empowerment inclusion. Remarkably, even though The planning and design stages of projects which is
stakeholder interest was projected to address inequality, the supposed to be the most important phase, paradoxically
literature is stuffed with cases where it instead perpetuated involve only few stakeholders and are most often the
inequality [14]. project gatekeepers. This phase of the project interestingly
Central to the course of participation is the issue of takes the shortest duration, mostly neglecting the primary
mediation, which involves a discursive and impulsive stakeholders. The implementation stage mostly involves
connection between the law and democracy [15]. According almost all the key stakeholders including the primary
to [16], the concept of discursive democracy within which stakeholders. The monitoring and evaluation stage of
stakeholder involvement resides, is becoming the normal developmental projects, which is an evolving stage of the
practice in the management of projects. The conjecture of implementation phase include all stakeholders involved in
discursive democracy transcends forthcoming action as it the prior stages in an attempt to gauge the long-term
encapsulates a theory of law and democratic success of the project, generally ensuring that most
institutionalization. The theory considers ‘democracy as not stakeholders are considered and encourages their active
being ingrained in civic society or popular autonomy, but in involvement in the project [19]. Though stakeholder
the structures of communication, for which Habermas takes involvement must not be fixed or rigid, identifying where
for granted the prospect of consensus and argumentative and how their input is needed, is necessary particularly in
discourse’ [15]. In discursive democracy, equal access to the multi-stakeholder projects as it is not possible or practicable
discursive platform is a fundamental notion [16]. However, to involve all stakeholders passionately at every stage of the
[17] argues that this assumption in reality may not always be project. While it is not all stakeholders that have the same
the case. For instance, in Ghana, the history of stakeholder power and influence, it is believed that it is crucial to
involvement shows that this is not the case [8]; therefore, identify at the early stages of the project, the primary
120 Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey et al.: Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success

stakeholders who exert most influence and are most stakeholders involved, particularly if there is an unrestricted
significant to the efficient project completion [20]. flow of information between the parties. For the public it can
often be the first experience of taking a vigorous part of the
2.3. Factors That Influence Stakeholder Involvement in project implementation process. Projects benefit from the
Development Projects direct and immediate knowledge held by citizens and
Many dissimilar forces are at work, proceeding to, and business, concerning project implementation environmental
throughout, a public partaking programme, with intrinsic in their communities. Encouraging the public and other
features moving following features have moved the stakeholders to share their knowledge, with the regulatory
participatory deliberation forward. People generally resist authorities, fosters better-informed decisions and decreases
change, especially when they do not comprehend or the likelihood of project failure. Out of the 25 overseas
approve to the goals, the devices, the sponsor or the timing projects sponsored and evaluated by the World Bank, 13
of the anticipated change. So, keeping the public in the dark failed mainly as a result of lack of local input [29]. It should
is often a recipe for disaster [21]. The citizens are also be realized that wisdom is not limited to scientific specialists
progressively unenthusiastic to defer to ‘expert’ government and government officials, and that rational analysis carried on
agency opinions, and are unwilling to act as sounding in ignorance of political reality, may well end up so divorced
boards for bodies that have already made decisions, from social reality, hence may be of little use to anyone [23].
particularly when they affect their local communities [22]. Stakeholder involvement gives broader perspectives on a
These tendencies lead to a lack of public buoyancy and particular process, and early involvement gives added time to
trust, except the relevant authorities take note of them. A study issues and develop the process, enhances credibility of
far-reaching programme ensued, based on meaningful the decision making process, fosters early identification of
involvement and fair management for all races, cultures and the diverse perspectives on the issues of concern and the
incomes in project decision-making. The transmittance of generation of solution options [29]. Better-designed projects,
‘experience’, rather than knowledge, is the critical which avoid costly delays in appraisal and implementation,
neglected dimension of decision-making, particularly as it can also result from early and planned consultations and
relates to project decision-making [23]. The further the stakeholder involvement [30]. For the proponent, early
project implementation is from stakeholders, the more stakeholder involvement can have the added benefit of
pertinent becomes the public participation in same, and in diffusing opposition to a project. If a broad based consensus
this context, face-to-face meetings are critical to producing is built, it can also lead to a public sense of ‘ownership’ [31].
real learning and trust. The public’s enthusiasm is potentially a powerful motivating
Jergeas et al., [24] found two factors that influence force for project implementation. Stakeholder involvement
stakeholder’s involvement in development projects; can also supplement scarce government monitoring,
communication and setting common goals, objectives and inspection, enforcement and resources [30]. Stakeholder
project priorities. Effective communication is very vital for involvement in projects is a learning experience which gives
getting the support and commitment of stakeholders [25]. the public insight into the governance process. If the
Regular communication with members of the project experience is good, it powers the way for future co-operation.
community is very important for effective project The converse can also be true.
performance [26]. According to [27], the performance of 2.5. Problems Encountered in Stakeholder Involvement in
development projects and its ability to satisfy stakeholders is Project Implementation
dependent on decisions that are made and the care taken by
policy-makers in stakeholder communication. In the view of There is limited information on the relative costs of using
[28] the key issue in project stakeholder involvement is about the different methods of stakeholder involvement practice,
managing and promoting the friendship and relationship although some attempt is made to quantify it. Actual costing
between the project and its stakeholders. It can be held that for specific processes are given in a number of studies [32].
successful relationships between stakeholders and the project Clearly deliberative processes which are used to engage
are important for successful implementation of projects. Trust relevant stakeholders in debate, discussion and deliberation,
and commitment between project implementers and could only be done as part of another research. The intensity
stakeholders can be developed and sustained through an of the stakeholder process, including commitments of time,
effective relationships management [19]. energy and money, and often, uncertain results, has led to a
burnout phenomenon amongst many participants, and from
2.4. Benefits of Stakeholder Involvement in Project all stakeholder groups [33].
Implementation Excessive raised expectations about Stakeholder
The actualization of project goals and the improvement of involvement can lead to frustration and anger with a
projects benefits to the community is the focal aim of breakdown in trust. It is essential then to be clear with all
stakeholder participation in projects. It is intended to advance participants as to the limits of influence of the process.
the quality of both the procedure and the end decision. The Where an infrastructure project crosses planning jurisdiction
participation process is also a learning curve for all the boundaries or where more than one official is involved, the
costs to the public, state and advocates are multiplied. The
American Journal of Civil Engineering 2016; 4(4): 117-126 121

amplified time scale and disbursement involved in respondents to express their opinions and views. The
stakeholder involvement is of particular worth in projects questionnaire was designed to cover complete assessment
with a small capital funding. The foremost areas of struggle and understanding of the phenomenon under investigation
affecting stakeholder involvement are attitudinal, lack of with the following main objectives:
capability to deliver programmes, lack of clarity about what Understand the factors/barriers that influence/affect the
outcomes are possible and the lack of a legislative stakeholder involvement process in development
framework. The challenge of accessing the necessary projects?
resources for a worthwhile stakeholder public participation Examine the impact of stakeholder involvement on the
process, whether by the advocate or the regulator, by the performance (success or failure) of projects
commitment of personnel and finances, is essential. The implemented?
repercussions for project proponents, of not having a Recommend ways of improving stakeholder
properly planned and funded participatory project process, participation in the decentralization process in Ghana?
may prove much costlier than dealing with the backlash. In
many circumstances, the choice increasingly is not whether 4. Analysis and Discussion of Data
to involve the public, but how to get the best value from the
chosen process [32]. To avoid hearing from only the activist The quantitative data was analysed based on the five-point
or the powerful elite, and in order to get the widest sweep of scale ratings provided by the respondents on separate
opinion and information, authorities must reach out into the categories. These ratings were combined to deduce the
community [34]. In this regard some activities are best relative importance indices of the factors based on
avoided, for example public meetings. In the absence of respondents ratings, after which further analysis were made
trained facilitators these can often come down to ‘he who to compute the overall weightings and interpretations based
shouts loudest wins!’ on respondent’s view on barriers to stakeholders
Some institutions resist change, and communication blocks involvement, and how to improve stakeholders involvement
within stakeholders can prevent them from making head way. based on the total sample size. The significance testing was
The established routines and organizational systems of many used to decide whether to accept or reject the null
bodies seek to promote the ‘status quo’. Organizational Hypothesis, Ho. An evaluation of the test statistics (X) was
structures which support sustainability, and therefore public done and the probability (P-Value) of observing a value of
participation, are a threat to ‘command and control’ style the test statistics was also determined. The P value was taken
management systems. Managers, who have risen to power in as the smallest value at which the significance level (α) could
this style of structure, frequently resist the transition to be present and still have small (lesser than 5%) significance
alternative structures, which embrace public consultation level.
[35]. Many opportunities for stakeholder participation are The sample mean for the data in respect of each factor and
laid down in the environmental permissible framework, the effect of variation are shown in the table 1. The 5-point
where legislation does not specify early stakeholder rating (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) have mean of 18 and varying standard
involvement, then it is at the discretion of the relevant was used based on varying dispersion of respondents’ view.
authority, and dependent on the opinion of the relevant public The p-value for the test was determined to find out if there
servant. For example, in the growth planning process, the was much difference between the null value of µ=18, and the
Manager’s reporting of the consultative process clearly sample means in table 2 to cause the rejection of the Ho. The
includes the names and nature of all submissions together profitability of observing the sample mean or larger µ = 18
with his response to them. and σ was computed. The test statistics (X) was the central
limit theorem, where x is approximately normally distributed
3. Methodology with mean µ and Standard Deviation, σ/√n where n = number
of responses for that factor. The p-value was obtained using
The study population involved the people of the Ada East the relation below.
and Gomoa East District Assemblies specifically the
μ μ
assembly members, community members and the District P= x ≥ μ = p z ≥ = 1− P z ≤ x− )
Planning Coordinating Unit. A sample size of ninety (90) was √ √
determined using statistical of Kumar [36] methods. A
structured questionnaire using both open-ended and closed- From the cumulative distribution standard normal table,
ended questions were developed and administered by hand where Fz (z) = P [Z ≤ z], the value of z ranges form -3.9 to
delivery to respondents, yielding a response rate of 69%. In 3.9. Any value of z less than -3.9 has a Fz (z) of zero (0)
cases where the responses to a question were unlimited and whereas vales of more than 3.9 has Fz (z) of unity (1).
could not be adequately answered with few words, or where The P value is the smallest level of significance for which
the responses concerned qualitative and opinion related the observed data would call rejection of Ho in favor of H1.
issues, open ended questions were used to capture the The P value gives additional insight into the strength of the
response. This facilitated large collection of data within the decision taken. Thus a relatively small p-value of 0.001
shortest possible time. It also provided the opportunity for indicates that there is little likelihood that Ho is true. On the
122 Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey et al.: Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success

other hand a high p- value such as 0.2033 means that Ho is

307 − 18
not rejected and there is little likelihood that it is false. P X ≥ 4.696 = p
7.2
The P-value is often referred to as the observed level of "
significance for a given level of significance, α √90
Reject Ho if p-value ≤ α P [Z ≥ 1.859] = 0.0955
Do not reject Ho if p-value > α
Thus the larger population has a distribution of P~X [µ = Since the null hypothesis Ho= 0.05< 0.09550, we accept
18, σ =x] Ho, thus the factor ‘inadequate explanation of background
For example the P- value for ‘inadequate explanation of and technical material’ is an important factor affecting
background and technical material is calculated as follows stakeholder involvement in project.
Table 1. Statistical analysis of Barriers to stakeholder involvement In community Projects.

Rel VAR STAND p-

No Descriptors 1 2 3 4 5 Weight Rank Mean SD
Imp (σ) (P1) value
A Respondents view on barriers to stakeholders involvement
Inadequate explanations of
A1 12 15 12 27 24 307 0.682 4 18 51.84 7.2 1.85 0.0955
background and technical material?
Poor Accountability on the part of
A2 6 28 15 29 12 282 0.626 7 18 99.63 9.94 1.62 0.9475
implementers
Inadequate stakeholder consultative
A3 18 23 27 11 11 243 0.540 9 18 53.46 7.31 2.05 0.0202
meetings
Perceived inability to influence
A4 12 11 18 26 23 307 0.684 3 18 44.418 6.9 2.55 0.1100
issues
A5 Lack of time to participate? 11 38 22 12 8 239 0.530 10 18 148.63 12.1 1.22 0.0131
Failure to incorporate stakeholders
A6 25 22 18 14 11 234 0.520 12 18 32.5 5.7 2.58 0.0561
view during scope definition
Poor communication between
A7 implementers and users (challenges 11 22 21 15 21 283 0.629 6 18 23 4.8 3.39 0.8641
in accessing information)
Lack of Technical capacity and
A8 16 13 15 24 22 293 0.651 5 18 22.5 4.74 3.50 0.9970
support on the part of stakeholders
Inability of project implanters to
A9 39 21 15 5 10 196 0.436 13 18 173 13.2 1.01 0.0846
identify all stakeholder
Low enthusiasm on the part of the
A10 22 22 15 14 17 252 0.560 8 18 14.5 3.81 4.02 0.0537
local stakeholders (apathy)
A11 Feeling of powerlessness 10 11 19 25 25 314 0.698 2 18 53 7.28 2.36 0.9960
challenge of accessing resources to
A12 27 15 16 21 11 244 0.542 11 18 38 6.16 2.44 0.0997
enhance stakeholder efficiency
Unwillingness of project
A13 implementers to involve 7 11 25 14 33 325 0.722 1 18 115 8.3 1.63 0.2500
stakeholders?
B How to improve stakeholder involvement in projects
Stakeholders must develop their
B1 capacities to contribute meaningfully 2 5 2 26 55 397 0.882 3 18 527.715 23 0.85 0.8023
to project discussion?
Project implementers must adopt the
B2 use of technology to improve 2 7 5 40 36 371 0.824 4 18 332.1 18.2 1.03 0.8707
stakeholder involvement?
Project implementers must embark
B3 on stakeholder outreach to solicit for 2 4 1 34 49 394 0.879 2 18 496.4 22.5 0.87 0.1920
their involvement?
Project implementers must
acknowledge the value of
B4 1 2 2 23 63 415 0.922 1 18 715.63 26.8 0.74 0.2200
stakeholders towards the success of
projects?
C Respondents view on projects implemented in the community
Are projects implemented needed by
C1 5 7 22 20 36 344 0.764 1 18 153.9 12.4 1.45 0.3500
the community?
How regular are projects
C2 13 16 14 21 26 302 0.670 2 18 29.565 5.44 3.10 0.9900
implemented in the community used?
Will you have preferred other
C3 11 16 20 14 29 304 0.676 3 18 46.98 6.85 2.47 0.1100
projects to the current ones?
American Journal of Civil Engineering 2016; 4(4): 117-126 123

Although participation of stakeholders is seen as critical inspire more participation not less [38]. The misconception
for the project success, there exist variety of obstacles. To that stakeholders are overly emotional, ill-informed and
understand the barriers that exist at the district level, a series solely encouraged by selfish interests in their impediment of
of questions were developed and administered to facilities for the common good leads to an information-based
respondents. Based on statistical analysis from table 1, it was strategy, the postulation being that, ‘if only stakeholder knew
deduced that the stakeholder opined that the main barrier to the truth!’ This assumes the existence of an objective truth to
their involvement in projects is the unwillingness of project know [32]. The conflict that arises from having dissimilar
implementers to involve them. With a p-value of 0.0025, the bodies making decisions on different parts of the project
factor can be deployed as a very significant factor. Using execution can often confuse the public understanding and
relative importance indices, it was weighted 0.722 and increase frustrations.
ranked first. It can thus be deduced that most project are Closely linked with the second important factor is the
initiated without the involvement of the end users. These perceived inability to influence situation. Analysis of field
projects are planned from above by the sponsor or financiers data revealed that 67% of respondents indicating their
and rolled at the lowest level without seeking their opinions and views shared on how to improve the post
involvement and inputs. The research by [37] [38] and [3] implementation usage of the project at stakeholder
affirms the above that the strongest challenge to stakeholder consultative meetings were neither factored any nor reasons
involvement is recognition, this has been postulated to be the given for declining to adopt them. Thus stakeholders perceive
attributor to project failure at the lowest level. that they have very low ability to influence situations since
With a p-value of 0.0996, analysis of field studies revealed mostly at the execution stage where they are involved, the
that the end usser stakeholders’ feeling of powerlessness is a scope definition for the project has been sealed. According to
reason for their non-involvement in project executed. This [38], public ‘hearings’ often do not comprise ‘listening’. In a
factor was analysed to be second most significant factor research by [39], citizen’s efforts and ideas are not included
affecting stakeholder involvement in projects with a relative in offers and no reason given. Similarly, public hearings are
importance of 0.698. The feelings of powerlessness criticized for: being apprehended at times inopportune for the
engendered by these hurdles, add to public perceptions of a public, establishing an atmosphere that inhibits negotiation,
lack of influence at both lower and higher levels of local and conducting proceedings that intimidate the public. The
development. Consultations of interested parties.... can only lack of an obviously definite purpose can also mean that the
ever supplement, and never replace, procedures and decisions role of the public is every now and then uncertain not only to
of legislative bodies which possess democratic legitimacy. the public but to those delivering the process, with the
This sense of powerlessness may be part of the reason why, significance that the participation process chosen is often
even in cases where considerable energy and resources are unsuitable for the specific project [22].
expended, to identify individuals and groups, only a small At 5% level of significant, the hypothesis ‘inadequate
proportion of the public ever attend participation explanation and background of technical materials’ was
programmes [32]. Stakeholder involvement may actually tested to be true, with a p-value of 0.0995. This is closely
result in an increased level of conflict. Becoming involved in linked with the fifth most significant factor, ‘lack of technical
a consultative process where the decision has already been capacity and support on the part of stakeholders. Some
made, or where the possible outcomes are not made clear at significant majority of respondents about (57%) agreed to the
the outset, can lead to a great deal of frustration. Anger may assertion that the barrier to stakeholder involvement was
follow when the input of the public is ignored, especially perceived to be linked to their low technical capacity.
following prolonged constructive engagement. Conflict can According to a report by [29], there is a universal lack of
also occur between professionals. One source of such experience of partaking processes, and very few stakeholders
disagreements could evolve from the different emphases of have experienced planned participation processes. There may
‘scientific peer review’ and ‘social peer review’. The be suspicion, cynicism, or lack of enthusiasm, but there is
scientific peer review process is well established, and is unlikely to be previous training. Suspicion about
essential to assess the technical information provided to participation could be from politicians, who may feel their
policy makers. The corresponding social peer review, power is being diluted, or from NGOs that have very explicit
designed to obtain societal acceptance and legitimacy for the and stationary viewpoints. Cynicism could be from prior
decisions rendered, by contrast, does not have a set of public participation processes which were ill managed,
acknowledged professional standards [29]. It should also be leaving participants unenthusiastic to try again. Stakeholders
remembered that whilst science may strive for the ‘truth’, the are exasperated when they are treated as antagonists, rather
opinions of scientists are colored by their values and beliefs. than comfy participants in the project. Lack of technical
The resulting deadlock exasperates the capability of planners support for stakeholders, and difficulties in getting access to
to accomplish consensus on preliminary issues and information can diminish the ability of the public to play an
contributes to anti-participation attitudes. eloquent part in project processes. Stakeholder access to
Therefore, rather than attitudes as an irrational response to sovereign expertise in a particular technical/scientific field
glitches ordinary citizens cannot grasp, the solution is to can prove difficult, particularly where the proponent of a
124 Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey et al.: Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success

project is a monopoly employer. Stakeholders with no [25] benefits of stakeholder involvement [20] and [31]. Other
technical/scientific experience find it difficult to access, studies have also looked into the problems encountered in
comprehend or evaluate data and information, especially stakeholder involvement [32] and [38]. The result from this
under these short time constraints. study suggests that stakeholder involvement in project
One factor highlighted as significantly important is the planning and implementation significantly affect the success
poor communication between project implementers and or otherwise of the project. This confirms earlier research
stakeholders. With a p-value of 0.56, the hypothesis: poor made indicating that community participation in the design
communication is a barrier to stakeholder involvement was and implementation of a project greatly enhances the
tested to be true. Interestingly, over 65% of respondents likelihood of project success. Further studies also indicate
indicated that during project execution, communication that generally, ensuring that stakeholders are considered
between the various stakeholders is very poor. This is an encourages their active involvement in the project [19].
indication that there is the need to undertake proper briefing However, the study indicate that respondents put emphasis on
of stakeholders if their involvement is to be felt and not building trust, agreeing on rules of engagement and adhering
necessarily the provision of adequate minutes. Also it to advice from stakeholders as critical to the success or
provides practitioners with an idea about the need for otherwise of the project. Thus, even if the involvement would
circulation of message to the different stakeholder. That is to be limited, the little engagement made should be considered
say the document for an educated person cannot be the same important by implementers and the advice from stakeholders
for an uneducated person. Secondary data presupposes that incorporated into the process.
stakeholders have all the time available but implementers just The results of the survey conducted indicate that there are
don’t involve them or communicate effectively with them. varied factors that inhibit the involvement of stakeholders in
The challenge of poor communication may be seen as a the development of projects at the district. According to
recipe for the poor accountability the stakeholders findings, the key barriers that influence stakeholder’s
highlighted. When people are left in the dark, they make all involvement in projects were; inadequate explanations of
sort of assumption. background and technical material and unwillingness of
On the question of the need, regularity of use and project implementers to involve stakeholders and not the lack
preference to other projects, an overwhelming majority of of effective communication or regular communication as
respondents (89%) indicated that projects developed in the suggested in the study undertaken by [26] and [27]
district were projects which meets their needs. An respectively. The survey data and analysis indicated that
approximately 82% of the respondents to questionnaire although implementers may have regular meetings with
administered further held that the projects developed in the stakeholders, there is little attention paid to the advice provided
community were effectively in use by the community. by stakeholders to the project. Another major finding of the
Interestingly over 58% of respondents indicated that would study was that it was not project stakeholders who were
have preferred other projects to the current ones. unwilling to contribute to the process of project
The above interesting assertion can be explained to mean implementation but rather due to the unwillingness of project
that though projects executed were important to the local implementers to involve the stakeholder, the perceived
communities, these projects could have been deferred to a inability of stakeholders to influence issues, unwillingness of
later date making way for their actual pressing needs. This project implementers to involve stakeholders amongst others.
interesting scenarios is eminent when governments and The study also shows that although stakeholder may be
people in authority plan for the need of the people at the involved in planning and implementation, their involvement is
grassroots without duly engaging them. limited, since their views to improve the performance of the
On the issue of how to improve stakeholder involvement, project was not acknowledged by implementers. A significant
solicited and analysed views from stakeholders are skewed proportion of respondents indicated that though projects
towards the need for implementers to acknowledge the value executed in the community are regularly used by the citizenry,
of stakeholders towards project success. At 5% level of they would have preferred other projects to the current ones.
significance, this was tested with a p-value of 0.022. closely There is debate in the literature over whether the
linked to the above is the request for project implementers to performance of development projects and its ability to satisfy
embark on stakeholder outreach to solicit views prior to stakeholders is dependent on decisions that is made and the
project commencement. care taken by policy-makers in stakeholder communication
[28] as against building trust amongst stakeholders and
5. Recommendations and Conclusion implementers. However, it is suggested that all approaches
are important given that the data received from the survey
This study provided evidence to support or dispute earlier indicated that majority of respondents believed that trust
studies made into the field of stakeholder involvement in the building and communication was an issue between
decentralization process in relation to project planning and stakeholders and implementers. It is often noted in the
implementation. Previous studies have examined stakeholder research that the feelings of powerlessness engendered by
involvement in project planning and implementation [9], [11] these hurdles, add to public perceptions of a lack of influence
and [13], factors influencing their involvement by [20] and at both lower and higher levels of local development.
American Journal of Civil Engineering 2016; 4(4): 117-126 125

According to [32], this sense of powerlessness may be part of [5] Achterkamp, M. C., Vos J. F. J., 2008. Investigating the use of
the reason why, even in cases where considerable energy and the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a
meta-analysis. International Journal of Project Management,
resources are expended, to identify individuals and groups, 26 (7), 749-757.
only a small proportion of the public ever attend participation
programmes. However the study undertaken proved that not [6] Ward, B Chapman, A (2008). A stakeholder approach to
to be the case. A deliberate question was asked targeted at strategic management. In: Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S.,
(Eds.), the Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management,
investigating this assertion, however the findings indicated Blackwell, Oxford, 189-207.
that majority of respondents disagreed with that assertion but
rather placed emphasis on the willingness of project [7] Aaltonen, K.; Jaakko, K.; Tuomas, O. (2008). Stakeholder
implementers. salience in global projects, International Journal of Project
Management 26: 509–516.
The results from the analysis of capacity gaps amongst
stakeholders confirmed varied studies undertaken which [8] Botchway, K. (2001). Paradox of Empowerment: Reflections
indicate that there is universal lack of experience of partaking on a Case Study from Northern Ghana. World Development,
processes, with very few stakeholders ever experiencing the 29 (1), 135-153.
planned participation processes. On the other hand, in terms [9] Giordano, R., Passarella, G., Uricchio, G. F., & Vurro, M.
of the ability of stakeholders to comprehend technical (2007). Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching
documents, the study found out that more than half of in a decision support system for water resource management.
respondents interviewed were unable to understand Journal of Environmental Management, 84, 213-228.
background and technical material of projects and as such [10] Fraser, et al., (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of
found it difficult to evaluate data and information, especially participatory processes for sustainability indicator
under short time constraints. This constraint was seen as identification as a pathway to community empowerment and
critical in that it was one of the most ranked issue needed for sustainable environmental management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 78, 114-127.
improving stakeholder involvement, with approximately 90%
of respondents stating that it was needed. [11] Prager, K., & Nagel, U. J. (2008). Participatory decision
To improve stakeholder participation and impact on making on agri-environmental programmes: case study from
projects implemented, there is the need for: Sachsen-Anhalt. Land Use Policy, 25, 106-115. Germany.
Implementers to consciously identify all stakeholders to [12] Murdock, B. S., Wiessner, C., & Sexton, K. (2005).
the project. Stakeholder Participation involuntary Environmental
Project implementers to acknowledge, value and engage Agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL Case Studies. Science,
these stakeholders Technology and Human Values, 30 (2), 223-250.
Enhance communication between the stakeholders [13] Rahnema, S. (1992). Work Councils in Iran: The Illusion of
The application of new technologies to entice and Worker Control. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 13, 69-
improve stakeholder involvement in project 92.
development and implementation. [14] Lizarralde, G., & Massyn, M. (2008). Unexpected negative
Improve the technical capacities and support for the outcomes of community participation in low-cost housing
project. projects in South Africa. Habitat International, 32, 1-14.
With the improvement of stakeholder participation in
[15] Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Burt, J. (2006). A critical review of
projects implemented, the study found out that taking advice participatory practice in integrated water resource
from stakeholders was more likely to result in projects been management. Johannesburg: South Africa Water Resources
used in economic proportions in the district or community for Commission.
which the project is implemented.
[16] Delanty, G. (1997). Habermas and Occidental Rationalism: The
Politics of Identity, Social Learning, and the Cultural Limits of
Moral Universalism. Sociological Theory, 15 (1), 30-59.
References [17] Palerm, J. (2000). An Empirical-Theoretical Analysis
[1] Project Management Institute (2013). A guide to the project Framework for Public Participation in Environmental Impact
management body of knowledge (5th ed.). Newtown Square, Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Pennsylvania: PMI Publishing Division. Management, 43 (5), 581-600.

[2] Amponsah Richard (2012). The Real Project Failure Factors [18] USAID (2001). Policy Implementation: What USAID has
and the Effect of Culture on Project Management in Ghana. learned, at http://www.usaid.gov/our. Accessed 8/10/2014.
ICBE-RF Research Report No. 45/12.
[19] Stiglitz, J. (1998). Towards a New Paradigm for Development:
[3] Suer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study Strategies, Policies, and Processes. Proceedings from the
approach. Henley-on Themes, UK: Alfred Waller. Prebisch Lecture at UNCTAD at
https://ceaemgmt.colorado.edu accessed 08/10/2014.
[4] Lemon, W. F., Browitz, J., Burn, J. & Hackney, R. (2002).
Information systems failure. A comparative study of two [20] Bourne, L.; Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualizing stakeholder
countries. Journal of Global Information Management, 10 (2), influence – two Australian examples. Project Management
28-40. Journal 37 (1): 5–22.
126 Joseph Ignatius Teye Buertey et al.: Stakeholder Management on Construction Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success

[21] Connor, D. M (2003). Preventing and Resolving Public [30] Bisset, R. (2000). Methods of Consultation and Public
Controversy. Commission of the European Communities. Participation. EIA in Developing and Transitional Countries.
Brussels. John Wiley and Sons.

[22] Breggin, L. and Hallman, H. (1999). Building Capacity to [31] Acland A. (2002). Guidelines for Stakeholder Dialogue. The
Participate in Environmental Protection Agency Activities. Environment Council London.
Environmental Law Institute.
[32] Petts, J. and Leach, B. (2000). Evaluating Methods for Public
[23] Barkenbus, J. (1998). Expertise and the Policy Cycle. Energy, Participation: Literature Review. R & D Technical Report
Environment and Resources Center. The University of E135. Environment Agency. UK.
Tennessee.
[33] Yosie, T. F. and Herbst, T. D. (1998). Using Stakeholder
[24] Jergeas, G. F.; Williamson, E.; Skulmoski, G. J.; Thomas, J. L. Processes in Environmental Decision making. ICF
(2000). Stakeholder management on Stakeholder management Incorporated.
on construction projects. AACE International Transactions 12:
1–5. [34] Canter, L. W. (1996). Environmental Impact Assessment.
McGraw Hill.
[25] Briner, W.; Hastings, C.; Geddes, M. (1996). Project
Leadership Aldershot. Gower. [35] Griffiths, A. (2000) New Organisational Architectures:
creating and retrofitting for sustainability. Sustainability. Ed.
[26] Cleland, D. I (1995). Project management strategic design Dunphy D. 226. Allen Unwin N. S. W. Australia.
and implementation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[36] Kumar, R., (1999) Research methodology: A step by step
[27] Landin, A. (2000). Impact of Quality Management in the guide for beginners, London, SAGE Publications.
Swedish Construction process. PhD Thesis. Department of
Construction Management. Lund University. [37] Jiang, J., Klein, G. (1999). Risks to different aspects of system
success. Information and Management, 36 (5), 263-271.
[28] Aaltonen, K.; Sivonen, R. 2009. Response strategies to stake-
holder pressures in global projects. International Journal of [38] Lein, K. L. (2003). Integrated Environmental Planning.
Project Management 27: 131–141. Blackwell Publication.

[29] E. L. I. Research Report. (1997). Transparency and [39] C. E. Q. (1997). The National Environmental Policy Act. A
Responsiveness: Building a Participatory Process for Study of its Effectiveness after Twenty-Five Years. Council on
Activities Implemented Jointly Under the Climate Change Environmental Quality, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov.
Convention. Environmental Law Institute.