Tiêu chuẩn thành công của các dự án phát triển xây dựng nông thôn ở Việt Nam

Nội dung text: Tiêu chuẩn thành công của các dự án phát triển xây dựng nông thôn ở Việt Nam

1. SUCCESS CRITERIA OF RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN VIETNAM TIÊU CHUẨN THÀNH CÔNG CỦA CÁC DỰ ÁN PHÁT TRIỂN XÂY DỰNG NÔNG THÔN Ở VIỆT NAM Dr. Pham Xuan Hung, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Tran Van Hoa, Dr. Truong Tan Quan, MA. Phan Thi Kim Tuyen College of Economics – Hue University Abstract The implementation of rural infrastructure development (RID) projects has great contribution to the rural economic growth and poverty reduction. However, the definition of RID project success has remained ambiguously and there are no universally accepted criteria. The purpose of this study is to develop a framework for judging the success of RID projects in Vietnam. Based on review of literature and case studies findings, a range of success criteria both objectively and subjectively was developed. A questionnaire survey was then conducted in to collect the opinions of 302 project management practitioners regarding the level of their agreement of success criteria for RID projects. By employing Exploratory Factor Analysis, the findings reveal that a successful framework for RID project consists of three components: meeting users’ needs; sponsor satisfaction and community impacts. This finding contributes to an understanding of RID project success in context of developing countries. It also forms the foundation to judge the success of a RID project, thereby enhancing successful delivery of these projects by prioritizing limited resources on the criteria related factors. Keywords: rural infrastructure development project; success criteria; Vietnam Tóm tắt: Việc thực hiện các dự án phát triển cơ sở hạ tầng nông thôn (RID) đóng góp rất lớn cho tăng trưởng kinh tế nông thôn và giảm nghèo. Tuy nhiên, định nghĩa về thành công của dự án RID vẫn còn mơ hồ và không có tiêu chuẩn được chấp nhận rộng rãi. Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là xây dựng một khung đánh giá thành công của các dự án RID ở Việt Nam. Dựa trên đánh giá các nghiên cứu về văn học và nghiên cứu tình huống, một loạt các tiêu chuẩn thành công cả khách quan và chủ quan đã được phát triển. Một cuộc khảo sát sau đó đã được tiến hành để thu thập ý kiến của 302 chuyên gia quản lý dự án về mức độ thỏa thuận của họ về các tiêu chí thành công cho các dự án RID. Bằng cách sử dụng phân tích các yếu tố nghiên cứu, các phát hiện cho thấy một khuôn khổ thành công cho dự án RID bao gồm ba thành phần: đáp ứng nhu cầu của người sử dụng; Bảo đảm sự hài lòng và tác động của cộng đồng. Phát hiện này đóng góp vào sự hiểu biết về thành công của dự án RID trong bối cảnh các nước đang phát triển. Nó cũng là nền tảng để đánh giá thành công của một dự án RID, qua đó tăng cường phân phối thành công các dự án này bằng cách ưu tiên nguồn lực hạn chế vào các yếu tố liên quan đến tiêu chí. Từ khóa: Dự án phát triển cơ sở hạ tầng nông thôn; Tiêu chuẩn thành công; Việt Nam 589
2. 1. Introduction Infrastructure has been an important component of the national development strategy in Vietnam. The development of rural infrastructure is the main concern of Vietnamese Government as nearly 70 percent of the total population is living in these areas (GSO 2015). During the last two decades, thousands of RID projects have been implemented in rural areas in Vietnam. These projects have generally had positive impacts in term of diversity of income sources, market access improvement and poverty reduction (Mu, R. & Van De Walle 2007, 2011). However, poor performance of infrastructure projects, especially government-funded projects is a big problem in Vietnam (Le-Hoai, Lee & Lee 2008). In project management literature, several authors have attempted to define the concept of project success (Al-Tmeemy, Abdul-Rahman & Harun 2011; Do & Tun 2008). However, the definition of project success is still ambiguous, and no general agreement has been achieved (Khan & Spang 2011). The unclear definition of RID project success has remained as project success is a multidimensional concept (Shenhar & Levy 1997). Success criteria largely depend on project types (Albert & Ada 2004). Also, project success may be assessed differently by different interest groups with different views (Gu 2008). The purpose of this study is to develop a framework for judging the success of RID projects in the context of Vietnam. 2. Literature review 2.1. Definition of rural infrastructure development projects RID projects in this study refer to physical public development projects. These projects are located in rural areas and specifically designed to support rural development and living activities in these areas (Pouliquen 2000). There are some differences between RID projects and commercial projects. In term of project stakeholders, RID projects involve many layers of stakeholders with varied interests and are operated in an environment of often-conflicting goals and outcomes (Lientz & Rea 2003). In addition, RID project objectives are intangible and hardly to measure as it is implemented to promote socio-economic development in rural areas (Ahsan & Gunawan 2010; Do & Tun 2008; Jo & Barry 2008) and placates political interests (Lientz & Rea 2003). Yanwen (2012) stated that RID projects in developing countries are often implemented in turbulent environments such as poor administrative system, low institutional capacity, shortage of well-trained managers and high levels of corruption. As a result, the rate of infrastructure development project failure is high in developing countries (Jo & Barry 2008). 2.2. Project success criteria The study of project success is an area of great interest to project management practitioners and academic researchers. Traditional project success criteria known as the ‘iron triangle’ dimensions have focused on cost, time, and quality. These criteria have been widely used in previous research because they constitute economic and technical dimensions of project success and can be made objective, tangible, and measurable (Ika 590
3. 2009). Moreover, traditional success criteria can be measured soon after project completion and used to evaluate a project manager’s performance (Jugdev & Müller 2005). However, the iron triangle dimensions are criticized as too simplistic and inadequate in assessing project success. Shenhar and Levy (1997) have argued that triangle dimensions are not homogeneous dimensions. In addition, these basic criteria usually reflect project performance in a narrow view, short-term and do not incorporate the views and objectives of all stakeholders (Bannerman 2008; Jugdev & Müller 2005). Because of these limitations, other researchers have added new aspects to the notion of what would constitute a successful project. For example, Al-Tmeemy, Abdul- Rahman and Harun (2011) have developed a framework for judging the success of building projects. This framework consists of project management success (adherence to quality targets; adherence to schedule; adherence to budget); product success (customer satisfaction; functional requirements; technical specifications) and market success (revenue and profit; market share; reputation; competitive advantage). In term of infrastructure development projects, Wenjuan and Lei (2011) suggested a conceptual model for measuring project success in the public sector through the project lifecycle. This model includes three dimensions: construction success (project management success), operational success (perceived value of public users and government satisfaction with the results) and the multi-value successful standard (efficiency, equity, participation and sustainability). In project lifecycle-based approach, Do and Tun (2008) developed a framework for measuring the success of international development projects. In this framework, success criteria are classified according to project phases (conceptualizing, planning, implementing and closing) and overall project success. In the same vein, Wenjuan and Lei (2011) suggests a conceptual model for measuring large-scale public construction projects. Project success is a complex concept for which it is impossible to use single-point indicators to measure success. Project success should not only be measured by time, cost, and quality but also on success after delivery. In addition, project success depends largely on the perceptions of stakeholders. Each stakeholder in one project has their view point of success depending on their need and how well these needs are satisfied by the project. 3. Research methods The mixed research approach with two phases was adopted in this research. In the first phase, a literature review was carried to identify success criterion variables for RID projects. These success criteria were verified in the context of RID project management in Vietnam by carrying out three case studies in different regions in the central Vietnam. Table 1 presents list of success criterion items developed in the first stage of research process. The second stage of the research process adapted a survey which was conducted in central region in Vietnam. The survey instruments consisted of closed-ended questions with eliciting the respondents’ perceived agreement on the success criteria of RID projects. 591
4. Table 1: List of success criterion items Item Survey question ID SC1 Addressing relevant needs of local communities SC2 Contributing to the local development strategies SC3 Meeting sponsor priorities SC4 Completing on schedule SC5 Completing within budget SC6 Achieving its fundamental functions SC7 The acceptance of infrastructure service quality by target users SC8 Local beneficiaries/users’ satisfaction with service quality supplied SC9 Government/Sponsors’ satisfaction with the project results SC10 Reducing cost of household SC11 Increasing local security SC12 Increasing opportunities for local people SC13 Improving local capacity in implementation of similar RID projects SC14 Enhancing the local ownership of infrastructure facilities SC15 Enhancing the local capacity in operation of infrastructure facilities The target respondents for the survey were drawn randomly from the list of project managers, contractors, consultants and community members who were directly involved in RID projects. Due to the limitation of internet access in rural areas, both face-to-face interviews and web-based survey were adopted in this study. A total of 302 valid questionnaires were returned with the response rate of 74.6%. This number of respondents was sufficient for both factor analysis (Fidell & Tabachnick 2013) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed to identify success criterion dimensions of RID projects. This technique attempts to identify underlying variables or factors that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Before conducting EFA, the critical assumptions for EFA were tested using the Kaiser–Meyer– Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity. The EFA was carried out with the principal component analysis and the Varimax rotation method. The analysis process of identify the final solution was subjected to three conditions: (i) deletion of items with loadings of less than 0.5 or cross-loadings of greater than 0.5, (ii) retention of only those factors with at least two items and (iii) the number of factors extracted should account for at least 50% of the variance (Field 2013; Hair et al. 2010). 4. Results 4.1. Assessment the suitability of the data for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) The factorability of data was tested by examining the sufficiency of sample size; the value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, the significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity and correlation matrix of success criteria items. In the current 592
5. study, the sample size was 302 valid cases, and the ratio of subject to item (26 items) was approximately 12:1. As recommended by Fidell and Tabachnick (2013) and Nunnally (1978) cited in Field (2013, p. 647), this sample size was sufficient for factor analysis. In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.873 - well above the recommended value of 0.7 - indicating that patterns of correlations are relative and factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors (Field 2013, p. 647). Furthermore, the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was significant (p < .05) (χ2 = 1810, df = 78, Sig. = 0.000). This confirmed that the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix and justified the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis. The correlation matrix of success criterion variables shows the strength of the relationship between success criteria. Visual inspection of the correlations among the 15 variables shows that a substantial number of correlations greater than 0.30, and significant at 5 % level. The partial correlations also reveal no value greater than 0.8, indicating that factor analysis is appropriate (Fidell & Tabachnick 2013). 4.2. Factor analysis results Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed to identify the structure of inter- relationships among the success criterion items. In the current study, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation method was adopted to establish which success criterion variables could capture the aspects of RID project success dimensions. Initially, all 15 success criteria items were allowed to load freely on various factors. The analysis process which was utilised to identify the final solution was subjected to three conditions: (i) deletion of items with loadings of less than 0.5 or cross-loadings of greater than 0.5; (ii) retention of only those factors with at least two items; and, (iii) the number of factors extracted should account for at least 50% of the variance (Field 2013; Hair et al. 2010). Based on these conditions, two items (SC10 and SC15) were eliminated from the analysis because their loadings was less than 0.5. In order to decide how many factors to retain, this study applied two common rules including the Kaiser’s criterion (retain factors with Eigenvalues higher than 1) and the Scree plot. According to Field (2013, p. 640), the scree plot provides a reliable criterion for factor selection with a sample of more than 200 participants. Regarding Kaiser’s criterion, Field (2013) also suggested that the use of this criterion is accurate when the number of variables is less than 30 and the sample is over 250. In this study, the sample size is 302 and number of variables are 26. Therefore, these rules are appropriate for identifying numbers of retained factors. Figure 5-9 illustrates the scree plot from the factor analysis. This plot indicates that three factors should be retained and this result was the same using the Kaiser’s criterion. 593
6. Figure 1. Scree plot In the final solution, thirteen success criteria variables were loaded to three factors and these factors accounted for approximately 66.06% of the total variance in the dataset. This number was also above the recommended level suggested by Hair et al. (2010). The Rotated Component Matrix of RID project success among 13 success criteria items is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix of success criteria Component 1 2 3 Sponsor’s satisfaction (FS) SC5-Completing within budget .853 SC9-Government/Sponsors’ satisfaction with the .833 project results SC3-Meeting sponsor priorities .791 SC2-Contributing to the local development .758 strategies Community impacts (CI) SC11-Increasing local security .850 SC13-Improving local capacity in implementation .816 of similar RID projects SC12-Increasing opportunities for local people .762 SC14-Enhancing the local ownership of .646 infrastructure facilities SC8-Local beneficiaries/users’ satisfaction with .599 service supplied Meeting users’ needs (UN) SC7-The acceptance of infrastructure service .808 quality by target users 594
7. SC1-Addressing relevant needs of local .792 communities SC6-Achieving its fundamental functions .766 SC4-Completing on schedule .739 Eigenvalues 5.107 20212 1.269 % of variance explained 39.28 17.02 9.76 Cum.% of variance explained 39.28 56.30 66.06 4.3. Reliability of success components The reliability of the success components is evaluated by Cronchbach’s alpha coefficients. This coefficient investigates the internal consistency among the attributes for the construct of success criteria. In other words, it indicates how well the items in the set are correlated to one another. The Cronchbach's alpha ranges between 0 and 1. A common rule of thumb is that the Cronchbach’s alpha scores of above 0.70 are considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2010). Table 3. Reliability of the success dimensions Success Cronchbach’s Success criteria items dimension Alpha 1 SC3;SC2;SC5; SC9; 0.876 2 SC8; SC11; SC12; SC13;SC14 0.806 3 SC1; SC4; SC6; SC7 0.843 Overall 13 success items 0.864 The results of reliability analysis summarized in Table 3 shows that the Cronchbach’s Alpha coefficient obtained for 13 success criteria items (0.864) was larger than the acceptable threshold of 0.7. This indicates that the items were from a scale that had reasonable internal consistency reliability (Hair et al. 2010). In addition, the Cronchbach’s alpha coefficient for each factor was as follows: Sponsors’ satisfaction: 0.876; Community impacts: 0.806 and Meeting user’s needs: 0.843. This demonstrates that the components extracted from the factor analysis were considered adequate for the measurement of RID project success. Figure 2 summarizes the success dimensions of RID project in Vietnam. To further confirm the reliability of success dimensions, item analysis using the reliability procedure was carried out. The findings in Table 4 show that the correlation coefficients between items and their own dimension (column 1) are higher than the correlation coefficients between items and other dimensions (column 2 and 3). In other words, items in each construct (success criterion dimension) are highly correlated with their own dimension than with other dimensions. It indicates that the high reliability of success dimensions for RID projects. 595
8. Table 4. The correlation coefficients between items with their own construct and other success constructs The correlation Success coefficients between The correlation coefficients between criteria Items items and their own items and other dimensions dimensions dimension (1) (2) (3) CI UN SC2 .694 .275 .482 SC3 .771 .308 .551 Sponsors’ SC5 .721 .232 .387 satisfaction (SS) SC9 .748 .131* .473 UN SS SC8 .472 .263 .248 SC11 .725 .289 .200 (CI) SC12 .644 .338 .278 SC13 .630 .167 .159 Community impacts SC14 .502 .247 .161 CI SS SC1 .726 .300 .509 SC4 .650 .271 .455 (UN) SC6 .686 .296 .472 Meeting users’ need SC7 .653 .271 .393 5. Discussion From the results of EFA, it is evident that four variables loaded under factor 1 seem to be associated with the satisfaction of project sponsors. The second factor comprises five variables which reflect the impacts of infrastructure services on local communities. The four variables under factor 3 represent project efficiency and the acceptance of local beneficiaries. These three components constitute the success dimensions of RID projects. 596
9. Component 1: Sponsor’s satisfaction (FS) This factor was made up of four variables: SC9 (Government/Sponsors’ satisfaction with the project results); SC3 (Meeting sponsor priorities); SC2 (Contributing to the local development strategies) and SC5 (Completing within budget). Government and international sponsors are two key sponsors in the public sector investment such as RID projects. Therefore, the satisfaction of this stakeholder is a critical criterion for evaluating the success of a RID project. This view is supported by Wenjuan and Lei (2011) who found that the government’s satisfaction with project outputs was an important success criterion for judging the success of a public sector project. Like other developing countries, the demand for infrastructure development in Vietnam is high (Thanh & Dapice 2009). However, due to the limitation of financial resources, government and international agencies are unable to support all proposed projects. Project sponsors often consider approving the RID project which is in line with their priority. Therefore, the selection of a RID project which satisfied sponsor’s priority was an element of sponsors’ satisfaction. A previous study in Vietnam has shown that a development project is successfully perceived in the early phase of project life cycle if its objectives can meet sponsor priority (Do & Tun 2008). The result of EFA also showed that the contribution of project outputs to the local development strategies was an important element for successful RID projects. In Vietnam, local governments at district and province level often develop the social and economic development strategy for a five-year period (named ‘five-year development plans’). The implementation of the RID projects is a mean for achieving development strategies because infrastructure facilities such as road, market, or clean water system contribute significantly to the local development (Han et al. 2012; Ngacho & Das 2014). Therefore, the strong contribution of project outputs to the local development strategy may increases project sponsors/government’s satisfaction. The most interesting observation from the result of the factor analysis is that the success criterion – “Completing within budget” was the highest loading with the sponsor’s satisfaction component. Previous studies have shown that cost, time and quality were three traditional success criteria, and they were grouped as the project management success dimension (Al-Tmeemy, Abdul-Rahman & Harun 2011; Shenhar et al. 2001). In this study, project cost performance belonged to the government/sponsor satisfaction component. This is because the majority of funding for RID projects in Vietnam came from the government. In addition, the funding of RID projects was often done annually based on its progressive performance. As a result, the completion of RID projects within project budget is a key government/sponsor’s concern. Component 2: Community impacts (CI) The second dimension of RID project success consists of five items: SC8 (Local beneficiaries/users’ satisfaction with service supplied); SC13 (Improving local capacity in implementation of similar RID projects); SC11 (Increasing local security); SC 12 (Increasing opportunities for local people) and SC14 (Enhancing the local ownership of 597
10. infrastructure facilities). This factor was labelled as “Community impacts” because it reflected the impacts and benefits that local beneficiaries received from the project outputs. It measured how well the RID project outputs contributed to the success of the target communities. The nature of RID projects is to serve the public infrastructure demands in the rural areas, and local people are the final users of RID project outputs. Therefore, the satisfaction of local beneficiaries was an important element of RID project success. This finding was supported by Shao and Müller (2011) who claimed that community satisfaction is the vital goal of every infrastructure project, and it must be considered when evaluating project success. Results from the factor analysis indicate that benefits and impacts of infrastructure on local communities as the result of RID projects were a vital criterion for judging project success. Previous studies have shown that RID projects influence community's wellbeing in terms of improving healthcare, education; providing employment opportunities and enhancing business activities (Fanadzo 2012; Mu, R. & Walle 2007; Mu, Ren & Walle 2011). Therefore, a RID project was considered successful if it was able to enhance local security and to create more business opportunities for local beneficiaries. The benefits of RID projects to the community were also in terms of enhancing local capacity for similar RID projects implementation in the future and the local ownership of infrastructure facilities. In fact, these two criteria were inter-related. The improvement of local capacity in managing RID projects may contribute to an increase of local ownership of infrastructure facilities. This finding was also supported by Do and Tun (2008); Diallo and Thuillier (2004) who claim that the improvement of local capacity was a critical success criterion of development projects. Component 3: Meeting users’ needs (UN) This factor consists of four items that relate to the capacity of infrastructure facilities to fulfil the primary needs of targeted users. The interesting point found from the EFA result was that the item: “Addressing relevant needs of local communities” had second highest loading on this dimension. This success criterion was not commonly found in private construction projects, but it was relevant to public sector projects. Rural areas often face several difficulties in their development; however, due to the limitation of resources, not all issues can be solved at the same time. A RID project was considered successful when its objectives could address the real needs of local communities. This finding strengthened the previous viewpoint which asserted that the relevance of project objectives to local needs was crucial for project success (Do & Tun 2008). In this component, two items: “The acceptance of infrastructure service quality by target users”, “Achieving its fundamental functions” were referred to the quality performance of RID projects. In the literature, the quality performance has already been widely accepted as a vital success criterion. Chan, Chan and Chan (2005) observed that quality is an important measure of project success because it constitutes a guarantee that the project could serve its purpose. 598
11. The interesting result of the factor analysis is that the item - “Completing on schedule” – is related to this dimension. In the literature, project completion time was the first criterion for judging a project success (Lim & Mohamed 1999). Especially, in the public infrastructure sector, project completion time is perceived as the most important criterion for measuring the performance of a project (Ahsan 2012; Ahsan & Gunawan 2010). In the context of rural infrastructure projects, the time performance is more important since the delay of RID projects such as rural road; electricity; irrigation and clean water systems have adverse impacts on daily local production activities. In Vietnam, according to Le, Dai and Lee (2008), time performance of infrastructure projects - especially projects that are funded by government- is poor. Therefore, local beneficiaries are more interested in the completion time of RID projects The third dimension of RID project success measures the efficiency of project implementation. It ensures that the project could fulfil primary needs of local beneficiaries. This success dimension is classified in the literature as a short-term success. If these success criteria are achieved, it may influence long-term success of RID projects. 000Figure 2. RID project success dimensions RID PROJECT SUCCESS Meeting users’ Sponsors’ satisfaction Community’s needs (UN) (FS) impacts (CI) 6. Conclusions This research reports the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis of a survey on success perceptions of project implementers in the RID projects. The findings of this research indicated that RID project success is a multi-dimensional concept. This result is in line with previous findings (Shenhar & Levy 1997). A RID project is considered as successful when it is capable in integrating the three success dimensions. The first one is “meeting users’ needs”, which concerns with the capacity of infrastructure facilities to fulfil the primary requirements of target users. The second dimension is “sponsors’ satisfaction” that relates to the project management process success in terms of fulfilling the requirements of project sponsors. These two success dimensions were classified in the literature as a short-term success while the third dimension is “community impacts” which 599
12. relates to the project's potential in contributing to community’s success in long term such as improving local capacity; local opportunities and local ownership of infrastructure facilities. The proposed framework will provide an essential judgment for measuring RID project success in the short-term as well as the long-term objectives. This will clarify the project managers' thoughts and enhance their knowledge about project success criteria and support the development of measuring performance of RID projects as well. 7. REFERENCES Ahsan, K 2012, 'Determinants of the Performance of Public Sector Development Projects', International Journal of Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 77-90. Ahsan, K & Gunawan, I 2010, 'Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 68-78. Al-Tmeemy, SMHM, Abdul-Rahman, H & Harun, Z 2011, 'Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 337-48. Albert, PCC & Ada, PLC 2004, 'Key performance indicators for measuring construction success', Benchmarking, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 203-21. Bannerman, PL 2008, 'Defining project success: a multilevel framework', paper presented to Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Research Conference. Chan, APL, Chan, APC & Chan, DWM 2005, 'An empirical Survey of the Success Criteria for Running Healthcare Projects', Architectural Science Review, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 61-8. Diallo, A & Thuillier, D 2004, 'The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 19-31. Do, BK & Tun, LM 2008, 'Success criteria and factor for international development project: a life cycle based framework', Project management Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 72-84. Fanadzo, M 2012, 'Revitalisation of smallholder irrigation schemes for poverty alleviation and household food security in South Africa: A review', African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 1956-69. Fidell, LS & Tabachnick, BG 2013, Using multivariate statistics, 6 edn, Pearson Education Inc, New York. Field, A 2013, Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3 edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks. GSO 2015, Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam, Statistical Publisher. Gu, P 2008, 'What Is Project Success: A Literature Review', International Journal of Business and Management. 600
13. Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE & Tatham, RL 2010, Multivariate data analysis, 7 edn, Pearson Prentice Hall Han, WS, Yusof, AM, Ismail, S & Aun, NC 2012, 'Reviewing the Notions of Construction Project Success', International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 90-101. Ika 2009, 'Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals', Project management Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 6-19. Jo, PA & Barry, ML 2008, 'The most important success factors for implementation of government projects in developing countries', paper presented to Management of Engineering & Technology, Portland, 27-31 July 2008. Jugdev, K & Müller, R 2005, 'A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success', Project management Journal, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 19-31. Khan, RA & Spang, K 2011, 'Critical success factors for international projects', paper presented to Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems (IDAACS), 2011 IEEE 6th International Conference on, 15-17 Sept. 2011. Le-Hoai, L, Lee, YD & Lee, JY 2008, 'Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: A comparison with other selected countries', KSCE journal of civil engineering, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 367-77. Le, HL, Dai, LY & Lee, JY 2008, 'Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries', KSCE journal of civil engineering, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 367-77. Lientz, B & Rea, K 2003, International project management, Routledge. Lim, C & Mohamed, MZ 1999, 'Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 243-8. Mu, R & Van De Walle, D 2007, Rural roads and poor area development in Vietnam, The World Bank. 2011, 'Rural roads and local market development in Vietnam', The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 709-34. Mu, R & Walle, Dvd 2007, Rural Roads And Poor Area Development In Vietnam, World Bank. Mu, R & Walle, Dvd 2011, 'Rural roads and local market development in Vietnam', The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 709-34. Ngacho, C & Das, D 2014, 'A performance evaluation framework of development projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) construction projects in Kenya', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 492-507. Nunnally, JC 1978, Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York. Pouliquen, L 2000, 'Infrastructure and poverty', Background paper to the World Bank’s, vol. 2001. 601
14. Shao, J & Müller, R 2011, 'The development of constructs of program context and program success: A qualitative study', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 947-59. Shenhar, AJ, Dvir, D, Levy, O & Maltz, AC 2001, 'Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept', Long Range Planning, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 699-725. Shenhar, AJ & Levy, O 1997, 'Mapping the dimensions of project success', Project management Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 5. Thanh, NX & Dapice, D 2009, 'Vietnam’s infrastructure constraints', ASH Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Wenjuan, T & Lei, Z 2011, 'Study on the success criteria of large-scale public sector development projects based on whole life cycle', paper presented to Management Science and Industrial Engineering (MSIE). Yanwen, W 2012, 'The Study on Complex Project Management in Developing Countries', Physics Procedia, vol. 25, no. 0, pp. 1547-52. 602