executiveprojectmanagementstructureandthe ... · ekundayo et al./international journal of...

International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and ConstructionVol 2, No 3, September 2013, 158-169

Executive Project Management Structure and the

Challenges Facing its Adoption in the Nigerian

Construction Industry

Damilola Ekundayo1,∗, Carol Jewell2, Oluwaseyi A. Awodele3

1Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University,

Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, United Kingdom

2School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading,

Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AW, United Kingdom

3Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

Abstract: Project management (PM) is a globally recognized discipline and has been widely adopted withinthe construction industry. Despite advancements in the PM discipline, the ineffective traditional managementsystem, typical of the non-executive PM structure, is still widely used in the Nigerian construction industry.The aim of this paper is thus to explore the challenges facing the adoption of the executive PM structure inNigeria. The paper first assesses the level of growth of PM in Nigeria using UK best practices as a benchmarkand identifies the key PM characteristics in the two countries. Focus group interviews were used to collect theprimary data for the study and content analysis was used to present the results in a thematic format. Thestudy revealed the key barriers to the adoption of an executive PM structure in Nigeria as a lack of properawareness, unfavorable policies, skill shortages, the traditional culture of stakeholders and the absence of aregulatory body. It is recommended that the government, as a major player/client in the Nigerian constructionindustry, should lead the campaign to change the traditional industry approach to project management. Thisis necessary if construction stakeholders in Nigeria are to be educated and encouraged towards adopting andputting into practice effective PM.

Keywords: Executive project management structure, Nigeria, non-executive project management structure,traditional management system, UK

DOI: 10.7492/IJAEC.2013.015

1 INTRODUCTION

Project management (PM) has been identified as an in-dependent and an efficient way to achieve project goalsand objectives (Cleland 2004; Walker 2007). It is awidely recognized discipline, particularly in the westernworld (Morris and Hough 1987; Madter et al. 2012),and its application dates back to the early 1950s (Mor-ris 1994). It is the discipline of planning, organizing, se-curing, managing, leading, and controlling resources toachieve specific goals. A project manager, in the con-struction industry, is someone responsible for managinga construction project to achieve all of the project ob-

jectives including cost, time, quality, scope, change andstakeholder management (Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer2000; Winch 2002). Indeed, there are different waysof procuring construction projects, from the tradi-tional method to design and build, to management con-tracting, to public-private partnerships (Bower 2003;Murdoch and Hughes 2008; Kanoglu and Gulen 2013;Opoku 2013), but PM is a management discipline thatcan be applied to all of them (Georg and Tryggestad2009).When PM is deployed on a project in the UK, it

is now common practice and a prerequisite to ap-point an independent, specialized professional or firm

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

158

http://dx.doi.org/10.7492/IJAEC.2013.015

mailto:[email protected]

Ekundayo et al./International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 2 (2013) 158-169

to carry out management duties (APC 1995; Walker2007). This approach to management is typical ofthe executive PM structure (Waterhouse 1992). De-spite the advancements in the PM discipline, the tra-ditional management system where the project coordi-nator performs the managerial functions in addition totheir core or technical duties, is still the norm in Nige-ria (Bamisile 2003; Sobotie 2004). This approach tomanagement is typical of the non-executive PM struc-ture (Waterhouse 1992). The research carried out byvarious proponents in this field has shown that the non-executive PM structure widely adopted in Nigeria isnot effective (Onwusonye 2005; Odusami and Ameh2006; Okereke 2008). In addition, most of the problemsin the Nigerian construction industry have been at-tributed to the traditional management approach (An-dawei and King 2001; Odusami et al. 2003). Yet, theindustry has not considered the alternative, an exec-utive PM approach (Okereke 2007; Ogunsemi et al.2008).This paper aims to investigate the challenges facing

the adoption of an executive PM structure in the Nige-rian construction industry. Whilst there have beennumerous studies on PM theories (Soderlund 2004;Padar et al. 2011), principles and processes (PMI2008; Browning 2010), and the various schools ofthought (Soderlund 2011), this paper focuses on theexecutive PM approach. Firstly, PM practice in theUK was used as a benchmark for evaluating the growthand development of the practice in Nigeria. The choiceof PM practice in the UK was informed by three ma-jor reasons: (i) the level of maturity of the practice inthe UK where the executive structure has been usedfor over five decades, with an established professionalbody that regulates the practice (ii) the tie betweenUK and Nigeria - Nigeria was colonized by the Britishand many of her policies and programmes follow theUK model, and (iii) the need for a developing countryto learn the course of development from a developedcountry. Construction stakeholders in Nigeria weresurveyed through interviews and the analysis of thisprimary data revealed the barriers to the adoption ofan executive PM structure in Nigeria.The paper is structured as follows. The next section

provides an overview of PM structure. The subsequentsection is an account of PM practice in the UK, fol-lowed by the rhetoric and realties of PM practice inNigeria, and then the research methods used. There-after follows the analysis of the primary data collectedthrough interviews. The paper ends with conclusionswhich include recommendations and limitations of thestudy.

2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTMANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

PM is a rapidly expanding subfield of management andorganisation studies with its origins in diverse areas

such as engineering, operations research and organisa-tion theory (Johnson 1997; Browning 2010). Accordingto Soderlund (2011), PM has been caught in the plu-ralism trap and it is often explored and/or exploited indifferent ways, models, processes, practices and struc-tures. The challenge for PM is highlighted by an ob-servation by Knudsen (2003) that “fields with too littlepluralism run the risk of being caught in a specializa-tion trap, while fields with too much pluralism run therisk of being caught in a fragmentation trap”. Rodney(1999) stressed the importance of researching the PMstructure and concluded that it is an important area ofenquiry in any discipline where PM is deployed. Whileattempts have been made to address this and classifyPM theories into different schools of thought (Soder-lund 2011), this study focuses on the PM structureadopted in construction.Waterhouse (1992) established two basic types of the

PM structure, executive and non-executive. In the ex-ecutive PM structure, the client would normally ap-point an independent PM firm or professional to makedecisions on their behalf and to manage the day-to-dayrunning of the project to achieve specific goals (Walker2007). The PM firm acts as a single point of con-tact for the client and coordinates the design and con-struction aspects of the project (White and Fortune2002). The firm is neither involved in the actual de-sign nor in the actual construction work, but it pro-vides the managerial expertise needed to achieve suc-cess (Carter 1992; Waterhouse 1992). On the otherhand, the non-executive PM structure involves the ap-pointment of a project coordinator (or their firm) tocarry out the management duties in addition to theirprimary role (Andawei and King 2001; Odusami et al.2003). The appointed project coordinator is usuallyan architect for building projects or a civil engineerfor civil works (Ogunsemi et al. 2008). Coupled withthe bias inherent in the non-executive PM structure,the project coordinator often has less influence on theproject team (Zack Jr. 2004). The non-executive PMstructure is further explored in a later section.The acceptance of an executive PM and the evo-

lution of the role has been driven by the increasingcomplexity of today’s clients’ demands, the high-pacedenvironment in which the industry operates, the risingcosts, and the multifaceted nature of projects. The roleis key to more effective planning, scheduling and con-trolling to achieve project goals and objectives (Morris1994; Winch 2002). Many studies have shown that,in order to achieve managerial effectiveness, the exec-utive PM structure should be adopted on constructionprojects as opposed to the traditional management sys-tem or the non-executive PM approach (Waterhouse1992; Muller and Turner 2007; Walker 2007; Georgand Tryggestad 2009).Furthermore, in order for PM to be taken seri-

ously and used effectively in practice, it must be seenas the investiture of an independent person or firm

159


with the responsibility for the success or failure of aproject (Morris 1994; APC 1995; Winch 2002; Cleland2004). To this end, PM, like any other discipline or pro-fessional role, has to be institutionalized; certificationis a prerequisite and an important step in becominga project manager (CIOB 1988; Edum-Fotwe and Mc-Caffer 2000; Walker 2007; Madter et al. 2012). Thisconcept is supported in Fayol (1917) and Urwick (1943)who both devised a similar list of general principles formanagerial effectiveness. A common denominator intheir lists is the division of work, given that special-ization encourages continuous improvement, both interms of skills and methods. They both stressed theimportance of regulatory standards and procedures asa basis for effective management. Fayol is often de-scribed as the “father” of modern management. Ur-wick wrote about the ideas of scientific managementand those of classical organisation theory. So, boththeir views are relevant and fundamental to PM.Follett and Likert are the originators of the human

relations approach, emphasizing the need to view man-agement and project leadership more holistically witha focus on process (Follett 1918; Pugh 1989). Thebest-known quote from Follett’s inventive work in thisfield is “management is the art of getting things done

through other people”. This neatly sums up her ideaof management as an art. It should perhaps be reiter-ated that the general theories of management and thecontrasting approaches are indeed not the focus of thisstudy, given that other studies have explored these as-pects. However, what these pioneers, together withvarious authors identified above, generally acknowl-edge, is that management is more effective if seen as aspecialization and as an art which facilitates the inte-gration of people to achieve specified objectives. Wa-terhouse (1992) focused on specialization as part of theexecutive PM approach, while the “art” of PM in con-struction is what Kupakuwana and van der Berg (2005)summarize as:

“... an orchestra (construction project)where a conductor (an independent, cer-tified project manager or a PM firm) di-rects every participant (construction profes-sional) to play his or her tune (deliverable)as expected of him or her, to the satisfactionand delight of the audience (external stake-holders) and all involved (internal stake-holders).”

Fig. 1. Stanney project organisation (Adopted from Holt 1989)

160


3 PROJECT MANAGEMENTPRACTICE IN THE UK

PM is a well-established discipline in the UK. The ex-ecutive PM structure is widely supported by industrystakeholders and often deployed in procuring publicand private sector projects (Morris and Hough 1987;Waterhouse 1992; Madter et al. 2012). It has beenargued in a few studies that PM is a procurement sys-tem in itself (Al-Sedairy 1985; Sommerville and Camp-bell 2001). However, several other proponents in thisfield describe PM as a management discipline that canbe applied to any procurement system (CIOB 1988;Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer 2000; Bower 2003; Fewings2005).Earlier, Nahapiet and Nahapiet (1985) stressed that,

although PM is not a procurement system in itself, theexecutive PM structure is often applied to procurementsystems in the UK to deliver complex constructionprojects. A study published by the CIOB examined themanagement of construction projects using case stud-ies from the UK and the USA. Similarly, Holt (1989)conducted a practical case study to examine the typ-ical management structure used in the UK construc-tion industry. The author later used the Shell Stanneycase as a typical example of project management ex-cellence (see Figure 1). This case involves the appoint-ment of an independent project manager in a man-agement contract procurement route. The appointedproject manager had the overall management responsi-bility for the success (or otherwise) of the project andserves as a single point of contact for the client as in-dicated in Figure 1. Based on his findings, the authorcommended the positive attitudes and behavior of con-struction clients in the UK towards PM practice.Bresnen and Haslam (1991) reported that the atti-

tude of UK construction clients, particularly public sec-tor clients, has enabled the successful implementation,and widespread adoption, of an executive PM struc-ture in practice. This is evident, for example, in thedevelopment of PRINCE2 (PRojects IN Controlled En-vironments) by the Office of Government Commerce(OGC), an independent office of the UK HM Trea-sury and a major construction client. PRINCE2 is amethod which covers the control, management and or-ganisation of a project and is a de facto standard forPM in the UK. This method supports the executivePM approach in public sector procurement (Fewings2005). Consequently, there has been widespread adop-tion of this management technique and approach in theprivate sector as a supplier to the public sector (Sageet al. 2010).Most designers and constructors in the UK prefer

working in a contractual arrangement under an execu-tive PM structure, especially when dealing with com-plex projects (Abdullah and Vickridge 2000). Thisis in recognition of the complexity of the construc-tion industry (Opoku 2013) and projects which require

an independent firm of experts to facilitate the inte-gration of the people and processes involved (Winch2002; Madter et al. 2012). Thus, in the UK, a certi-fied PM firm is often appointed to this position (Catt1992), as shown in Figure 1. Some of the recognizedPM certifications include those provided by the As-sociation for Project Management (APM) and otherinternational certification bodies such as the Interna-tional Project Management Association (IPMA) andthe Project Management Institute (PMI) (APC 1995).APM is an independent organisation in the UK whichdevelops and promotes project management as an ex-ecutive discipline (APC 1995).Similarly, professional bodies such as the Chartered

Institute of Building (CIOB) and the Royal Institutionof Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have made equally sig-nificant contributions to the development of executivePM in the UK (CIOB 1988; Carter 1992; APC 1995).These independent organizations promote PM as an in-dependent discipline (which requires separate skill sets)to their members through different mediums. These in-clude providing relevant training courses, workshops,CPD events and short courses. Executive PM practicein the UK construction industry has its roots in theCIOB (CIOB 2010). After the Second World War, theCIOB was quick to recognize and explore the need forbetter management structures, as opposed to the tradi-tional management system, in order to meet the urgentsocial and industrial building demands and to addressthe complexities of the modern, dynamic market place.During the 1980s, the CIOB was central to PM beingfirmly established as an independent management dis-cipline and the institute’s first publication of the Codeof Practice for Project Management in 1992 is often re-ferred to as the premier guide for project managementin construction (CIOB 2010). Since then, the CIOBhas been responsible for training many constructionproject managers and for promoting an executive PMstructure in construction.To successfully assume the role of a project manager

under the executive PM structure, PM firms in theUK have had to attach great importance to their per-sonnel developing essential, soft skills. These includeleadership, communication, negotiation and problem-solving skills in addition to basic and core compe-tencies such as integration, time, cost, procurement,quality, risk, scope, stakeholder and human resourcemanagement (Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer 2000; PMI2008). Many UK universities teaching construction-related skills offer construction project managementcourses at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.However, Edum-Fotwe and McCaffer (2000) raised aconcern that most of the managerial knowledge andsoft skills required in executive PM transcend the tech-nical academic training and the requirements for certi-fication set out by the accreditation bodies. In responseto this concern, PM firms in the UK often complementthe technical skills of their personnel with further orga-

161


nizational training, relevant short courses/CPD eventsand practical experience to achieve professional compe-tence. In summary, the attitude of different stakehold-ers has indeed been fundamental to the recognition,development and maturation of PM skills and execu-tive PM structure in the UK (Holt 1989; Walker 2007).

4 RHETORIC AND REALITIES OFPROJECT MANAGEMENTPRACTICE IN NIGERIA

This section reviews the structure and the current prac-tice of PM in Nigeria. More research specific to theconstruction sector is needed in Nigeria (Dada and Ak-padiaha 2012), especially with the current rate of ur-banization - Lagos will have a projected 3.5 millionmore people by 2020 (UN Habitat 2010) - as well asthe high failure rates of construction projects and theneed for effective PM.Odusami and Iyagba (2001) argued that for a com-

plex project costing millions of Naira (Nigerian cur-rency) it is more appropriate to adopt the executivePM structure instead of the traditional managementapproach. In a similar study by Andawei and King(2001), findings show that the executive PM struc-ture has not been adopted in Nigeria despite the fail-ings of the widely adopted traditional management sys-tem (Adetola 2004; Ogunsemi et al. 2008; Okereke2008). In the traditional system (see Figure 2), theproject coordinator, usually an architect or an engi-neer, performs the role of a project manager but in alimited capacity, and using a traditional procurementmethod. Quantity surveyors and builders have arguedthe case for their role as project coordinator (Odusamiand Iyagba 2001); the debate continues in Nigeria asto which profession is most suitable to be project co-ordinator or team leader (Ogunsemi et al. 2008).Under the traditional procurement system, whoever

is appointed by the client as the project coordinatorhas to assume a managerial role in addition to theirprimary or technical duties (Andawei and King 2001).As a result, the project coordinator plays a less dom-

inant role and acts in parallel with the other projectparticipants as illustrated in Figure 2 (Odusami et al.2003). There is little authority for decision making bythe project coordinator who is more concerned withcommunication and coordination of just the construc-tion aspects of the project. The overall responsibilityand management still rest with the client (Odusamiet al. 2003). Under this arrangement, other projectsuccess determinants and objectives that are typicalof the executive PM structure, such as meeting theclient’s business needs and managing stakeholders’ ex-pectations, are not part of the project coordinator’sresponsibilities (Andawei and King 2001).

The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) regulatesthe requirements for PM practice in Nigeria (Ogun-semi et al. 2008). A project manager has to betrained in one of the listed construction-related disci-plines and qualify with either a degree or diploma (orboth) from a recognized institution of learning. Therecognized construction-related disciplines include ar-chitecture, quantity surveying, building and civil engi-neering. The FGN approves the following professionalbodies and any of their corporate members, to rendermanagement services in the Nigerian construction in-dustry: the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA); theNigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS); theNigerian Institute of Building (NIOB), and the Nige-rian Institution of Civil Engineers (NICE) (Odusamiand Iyagba 2001). These professional bodies appearnot to be overly dissatisfied with the traditional man-agement style as they have not been involved in cham-pioning or promoting PM as an independent disciplineor specialization requiring separate skill sets.

Odusami and Ameh (2006) added that there is alack of educational institutions promoting PM as anindependent discipline in Nigeria. Similarly, Ogun-semi et al. (2008) reported that there are currentlyno colleges or educational institutions in Nigeria thatoffer construction project management courses at un-dergraduate level. Only one university (the Univer-sity of Lagos (UNILAG)) currently offers constructionproject management at postgraduate level, and only

Fig. 2. Project management structure in Nigeria (Adapted from Odusami et al. 2003)

162


since 2002 (Odusami and Ameh 2006). As revealedby (Sobotie 2004), there is also no independent or-ganisation or certification body responsible for settingan industry standard for PM in Nigeria. Controversypersists among industry professionals and the on-goingdebate about the best-suited professional to provideproject management is partly due to the lack of anindependent organisation regulating PM discipline inNigeria (Ogunsemi et al. 2008). The appointment of aproject coordinator under the non-executive PM struc-ture can often have a negative impact on the otherproject professionals (Odusami et al. 2003). As a re-sult, and due to a lack of commitment by project par-ticipants, construction projects procured through thismanagement system are often problematical (Odusamiand Iyagba 2001; Zack Jr. 2004; Onwusonye 2005). Ta-ble 1 compares the key characteristics of PM practicein the UK with those in Nigeria and thus summarizesthe discussion above.In brief, the reality of most construction projects

in Nigeria is a succession of routine project failures,adversarial relationships between project participants,and the on-going debate about the most suitable pro-fessional to be a project coordinator. Many studieshave recommended that, for managerial effectiveness,the executive PM structure be used instead of the cur-rent traditional management approach. However, thereis little evidence to suggest that this structure has beenaccepted, or even considered (Bamisile 2003; Okereke2007; Ogunsemi et al. 2008). The barriers to the adop-tion of an executive PM structure in Nigeria were thusinvestigated through primary data collection and anal-ysis, as existing research has not explored this aspectof PM practice in Nigeria.

5 RESEARCH METHOD

This study used a focus group, made up of experts andmajor construction stakeholders in Nigeria, to collectprimary data. Interviews were conducted with theseexperts to validate an earlier literature review and toexplore the challenges facing the adoption of an ex-ecutive PM structure in the Nigerian construction in-dustry. The review of extant literature informed theformulation of questions used for the interviews. Achecklist was then prepared for the interview to en-sure consistency in the set of questions for the differ-ent group of interviewees. The checklist was preparedbased on the information in Table 1 and covered a va-riety of factors related to PM practice and the barriersto the adoption of executive PM structure in Nigeria(including PM recognition, development and matura-tion).The focus group comprised twelve experts registered

with their respective professional bodies: two archi-tects, two quantity surveyors, two civil engineers, twobuilders, two academics (construction programme lead-

ers), and two construction clients representing bothpublic and private sectors. These represent the ma-jor stakeholders in the Nigerian construction indus-try (Odusami and Iyagba 2001; Adetola 2004). Re-spondents with over twenty years of industry experi-ence were selected; all had been involved in projectswhere the non-executive PM structure was used. Therespondents’ details were obtained from professionalbodies, whose members are certified to carry out PM-related duties in the Nigerian construction industry.The composition and size of the population studied isconsidered appropriate due to the qualitative nature ofthis research, the data sought and the level of exper-tise of the interviewees. The sample size is acceptable,based on the assertion that a smaller number of re-spondents with adequate understanding of the subjectmatter is more appropriate than a large sample withlittle comprehension (Silverman 2005; Fellows and Liu2008). The interviews conducted with the selected ex-perts helped to achieve greater depth and scope.Wolcott (2011) indicated that, in a qualitative en-

quiry of this nature, open-ended questions should beused so that participants can share their views. Tothis end, in-depth interviews were conducted using aprepared checklist but no interview script. The datacollected were analyzed using text and image analysisand interpreted using themes and pattern interpreta-tion. Nvivo software was used for the collation andanalysis of the interview data as described. To gen-erate textual data, the interviews were first recordedusing a tape recorder and later transcribed. The tran-scripts were then imported into the Nvivo environmentfor analysis, and a content analysis of the transcribeddata was undertaken. Content analysis is a commonapproach to the qualitative analysis of data in a the-matic manner (Yin 1994). It involves searching-outunderlying themes in the qualitative data and makingcritical evaluation of the extracted themes (Bryman2008).

6 ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWSAND RESULTS

6.1 Project Management Practice in theNigerian Construction Industry

The interviewees were asked to provide their views onthe adoption of an executive PM structure in the Nige-rian construction industry. All twelve interviewees in-dicated that an executive PM structure has not yetbeen adopted in the industry despite the growing de-mand for it and the ineffectiveness of the traditionalmanagement system. They stated that when manage-ment capabilities are required by the clients, it is usualto deploy the non-executive PM structure. All the in-terviewees expressed their concern about this manage-ment approach for reasons described below. As oneinterviewee put it, “the notion of appointing an inde-

163


pendent professional or firm to carry out PM duties isnot yet the in thing, as the industry still relies on thetraditional management structure”. Another intervie-wee confirmed this, recognizing that PM is still in itsinfancy in Nigeria.The interviewees explained that the traditional man-

agement structure, whereby the project coordina-tor/administrator carries out the managerial role inaddition to their primary duties, is widely adopted de-spite its inherent deficiencies and the resultant projectfailures. One interviewee equates the project coordina-tor’s role in the traditional management structure tobeing a judge and a jury in one’s own case. He acknowl-edged that there is a significant possibility of a conflictof interest in this arrangement which negates the in-tent of project management. Six of the intervieweesstated that in their current projects, the project coor-dinator acts in parallel with other project participantsand has less managerial responsibilities. Making refer-ence to their construction industry experience both inthe public and private sectors (over two decades), alltwelve interviewees acknowledged that they have notyet witnessed a construction project where the execu-tive PM structure had been adopted.

6.2 Challenges Facing the Adoption of anExecutive PM Structure in Nigeria

There was a similarity of opinions among the intervie-wees when asked about the barriers to the adoption ofan executive PM structure in the Nigerian constructionindustry. The interviewees believed that the identified

barriers directly and/or indirectly stifle the adoption ofan executive PM structure in Nigeria, despite the in-creasing need for its adoption. The barriers identifiedby the interviewees are discussed below.

Lack of Proper Awareness of the PM Profession

The interviewees generally expressed their concernabout the lack of awareness of the PM profession. Theyall saw project management as a globally recognized,independent management profession that is not valuedin the Nigerian construction industry. One intervieweeobserved that PM is yet to be recognized as a spe-cialization or profession that should be practiced inde-pendently. Another interviewee identified that a largeproportion of construction stakeholders in Nigeria arestill generally unaware of the PM discipline.

The interviewees stated that a lack of awareness isthe root cause of the other challenges facing the adop-tion of an executive PM structure in Nigeria and is amajor barrier. Two interviewees criticized the lack ofproper awareness of the PM profession in Nigeria, de-spite the progress made in other countries in the con-tinent, including, for example, in South Africa. Ac-cording to nine interviewees, the industry is actuallyaware of the need for management but are ill-informedof how it should be practiced, which is why the tradi-tional management system is still often used. Most ofthe interviewees admitted that this is not only typicalof the construction industry but that a similar situa-tion exists in other sectors.

Table 1. Project management practice: Comparison of the UK and the Nigerian construction industry

PM United Kingdom NigeriaCharacteristics

PM practice :

Structure Executive PM Non-executive PMAdoption Applied as a management system to any pro-

curement methodUsed in traditional procurement method

Approach Appointment of an independent and certifiedPM firm, strictly to carry out managementfunctions

Appointment of an architect, quantity sur-veyor, builder or civil engineer to perform lim-ited managerial duties in addition to their pri-mary assignment

Designation Project manager Project coordinator/administratorService require-ment

ISO, CIOB and/or RICS certified projectmanagement firm

Corporate member of any of the listed profes-sional bodies; NIA, NIQS, NIOB and NICE

PM recognition, development and maturation :

Education Most universities that offer construction-related courses offer project management atboth undergraduate and postgraduate level

Only one university in Nigeria (UNILAG) of-fers construction project management at post-graduate level, and this only since 2002

Regulator Independent organizations/professional bod-ies such as CIOB, RICS and APM

The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) - amajor player in the Nigerian construction in-dustry

Promoter Independent organizations/professional bod-ies such as CIOB, RICS, APM

None

Stakeholders’ at-titude

Supportive of executive PM structure Marked by controversies in non-executive PMstructure

164


Traditional Culture of Stakeholders

All the interviewees admitted the existence of a cul-ture issue which should not be underestimated. Eightinterviewees further discussed their views on the tra-ditional culture inherent in the construction industryin Nigeria, highlighting that the traditional method ofprocurement is still the norm, irrespective of projectscope and peculiarities. Hence, the industry is usedto the traditional management structure whereby theproject coordinator/administrator performs the man-agerial duties in addition to their primary assignment.Nine of the twelve interviewees identified the indus-

try as being reluctant to change, although they be-lieved this is also a common problem in other coun-tries, including in the developed world. As a passingcomment, three of the interviewees further noted thatthe traditional culture in Nigeria is evident, not onlyin the way construction projects are managed, but alsoin the adoption of renewable technologies/sustainableconstruction materials and modern methods of pro-curement. Most of the interviewees stressed that theculture issue has, to some extent, hindered the recog-nition, development and maturation of PM skills andeffective PM practice in Nigeria.

Lack of Demand

The interviewees explained that some professionals inthe Nigerian construction industry are aware of thebenefits of executive PM adoption but there is a lackof demand by the clients. Ten of the interviewees de-scribed the lack of demand for an executive PM struc-ture as being one of the major barriers to its adoption.The tradition of using a project coordinator means thatconstruction clients in Nigeria do not see PM as an in-dependent management profession. Even in the publicsector, which is Nigeria’s major construction client, theinappropriateness of government policies and contractconditions is a factor causing the lack of demand foran executive PM structure. Some of these intervieweesattributed the lack of demand to the traditional clients’approach to project procurement and/or greed in thecase of enlightened clients. Others attributed it to theclients’ absolute ignorance of the executive PM prac-tice. However, one interviewee was reluctant to blamethe clients for the lack of demand. Instead, he believesthat more has to be done by the industry as a whole tospread the awareness of effective PM practice and thepromise of its adoption.

Clients’ Behavior and Lack of Motivation

Five of the interviewees pointed out that constructionclients in favor of executive PM adoption are neverthe-less unsupportive because of the costs involved. Oneinterviewee stated that clients are not prepared to payfor the appointment of an independent project man-ager even when this is thought to be essential. Ac-

cording to one interviewee, this is because clients canget this service (though to a limited extent) at no ad-ditional cost under the traditional procurement sys-tem widely adopted in Nigeria. Another intervieweelamented that, apparently to save costs, clients wouldrather entrust the managerial duties on their projectsto the project coordinator when management capabil-ities are required. The five interviewees remarked thatthe clients lack motivation to appoint an independentprofessional or firm to carry out management dutiessince the “so-called” project coordinator is responsiblefor performing activities that can be broadly relatedto the generic PM role of planning and controlling.However, they expressed their dissatisfaction with thisattitude, particularly when the benefits of adopting anexecutive PM structure on a complex project are clear-cut.

Lack of Understanding of PM as a Specialization

All the interviewees were aware of the controversy thatpersists among construction professionals in Nigeriaconcerning who is most competent to be a project coor-dinator. All twelve interviewees identified this debateas a clear misinterpretation of the PM discipline and isindicative of a lack of understanding of PM as a spe-cialization. Eight of the twelve interviewees suggestedthat the latter is one of the greatest barriers to execu-tive PM adoption as it is not yet seen as an independentdisciplineHowever, they all condemned the traditional man-

agement structure for a number of reasons. Firstly,it often results in a lack of support for the appointedproject coordinator in an endeavor to prove that he orshe is not capable. Secondly, the interviewees identi-fied the obvious conflict of interest as a direct conse-quence of this approach. Lastly, they emphasized thatthis management structure very often leads to trou-bled projects, coupled with the fact that the appointedproject coordinator has less time to carry out his/herprimary assignment.

Shortage of PM Expertise

Nine of the interviewees identified a shortage of PMexpertise as one of the major barriers to the adoptionof executive PM structure in Nigeria. When probedfurther on this, the interviewees stated that the short-age of trained and professionally-qualified project man-agers and certified PM firms are barriers that cannotbe underestimated. The interviewees believed that theindustry will always utilize the available resources atits disposal and these include both natural resourcesand human skills. Further, they stressed that if PMexperts and firms are in large supply, they can help toraise awareness and to promote the uptake of execu-tive PM. One of the interviewees blamed the lack ofdemand for executive PM by clients (identified above)on the lack of supply of publicly listed (i.e. registered)

165


PM firms, essentially caused by skill shortages.Two interviewees attributed the skill shortage to the

lack of construction project management (CPM) pro-grammes in Nigerian higher education although theyacknowledged that one university currently offers CPMat postgraduate level. One interviewee supported thispoint, recognizing that the Nigerian Universities Com-mission (NUC) is doing little, if anything, to promotethe PM discipline. The NUC is a government bodyand the federal umbrella organisation responsible forthe development and management of university educa-tion in Nigeria. Most of the interviewees acknowledgedthat the government has a key role to play in the recog-nition, development and maturation of PM skills whichwill lead to effective PM practice in the Nigerian con-struction industry.

Lack of a Regulatory Body or Assessing Organisa-tion

The interviewees identified, as a barrier, the lack of aprofessional body or an independent organisation thatregulates and promotes the PM profession in Nigeria.They stressed that this has to be addressed in orderto make any meaningful progress. According to oneinterviewee, the lack of an assessing organisation sim-ply means that there is no structure, model, formalstandard and/or procedure to follow in managementpractice. In other words, the absence of a certificationbody regulating PM practice in Nigeria has resultedin a lack of regulatory standards and procedures. An-other interviewee stated that it was therefore “no won-der project management is in crisis in the Nigerian con-struction industry”. Three interviewees argued that allother barriers are offshoots of the lack of an indepen-dent professional body promoting and regulating PMpractice in Nigeria. According to the interviewees, theCIOB has been promoting the PM discipline globallybut limited progress has been made in Africa, withthe exception of South Africa. They concluded that,currently, the CIOB has no established presence andinfluence in Nigeria.

Unfavorable Framework and Policies

Five interviewees representing both public and privatesectors stated that the political, social and economicpolicies of the government are not supportive of an ex-ecutive PM structure and practice. Also, one inter-viewee remarked that the contract forms and condi-tions used in both public and private sector procure-ment are not supportive of the executive PM structureand approach. Another interviewee reiterated that thecommon forms of contract conditions widely used inthe industry do not, in any way, favor the adoption ofexecutive PM. The absence of relevant infrastructureand an enabling environment to support an effectivePM process was a major barrier identified by manyof the interviewees. It was acknowledged that this is

where the government should intervene as it is a majorplayer in the Nigerian construction industry. Accord-ing to one interviewee, unethical practices are rife inNigeria; these create barriers that are difficult to un-tangle but also dangerous to ignore, in terms of theefficacy of project management.Finally, all the interviewees recommended that the

government, as the main construction stakeholder inNigeria, should lead the campaign to change the tradi-tional industry culture and approach to project man-agement. The interviewees believed that governmentinfluence is necessary if participants in the Nigerianconstruction industry are to be educated and stim-ulated towards effective PM practice and action. Itwas also acknowledged that adopting the executive PMstructure instead of the ineffective traditional manage-ment structure in complex project procurement shouldhelp to address many of the inherent industry and man-agement problems causing project failure.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Generally, the interviews revealed that constructionstakeholders in Nigeria are dissatisfied with the tradi-tional management structure for a variety of reasons.This attitude is not limited to issues such as conflictsof interest which negate the intent of PM, but includesthe lack of support for the appointed project coordi-nator. It is mainly due to the ineffectiveness of thestructure. Various proponents in this field have arguedthat before PM can be taken seriously and used effec-tively in practice, it must be seen as the investitureof an independent person or firm with the responsibil-ity for the success or failure of a project. This suggeststhat an executive PM structure is critical to managerialeffectiveness. Perhaps, more importantly, it explainsthe failure and ineffectiveness of the traditional man-agement structure in Nigeria. Furthermore, the studyhas showed that adopting an executive PM structureinstead can help to address some of the managementproblems inherent in the Nigerian construction indus-try, particularly in complex project procurement.According to the primary data findings, a number of

barriers prevent the adoption of an executive PM struc-ture in Nigeria. These include a lack of proper aware-ness of the PM profession, an unfavorable frameworkand policies, skill shortages, a lack of understanding ofPM as a specialization, the traditional culture of stake-holders, a lack of demand, and clients’ behavior andlack of motivation. Last but not least is the absence ofa regulatory body or an assessing organisation that reg-ulates and promotes PM as an independent discipline.Some of these barriers corroborate and/or explain thefindings and the likely issues raised in this study’s lit-erature review. For example, the lack of understandingof PM as a specialization, and the absence of an inde-pendent organisation regulating the PM discipline in

166


Nigeria, probably explain the controversy that persistsamong industry professionals and the on-going debateabout the best-suited professional to provide projectmanagement. Also, in contrast with the UK situation,the stakeholders’ traditional cultural approach to con-struction procurement is a fundamental issue causingproject failures and which has hindered the recognition,development and maturation of PM skills and practice.In view of the above findings, this paper proposes sixkey recommendations for the development of PM skillsand effective PM practice in Nigeria:

1. Awareness campaigns: it is expedient that aware-ness campaigns should be organized to educatethe industry stakeholders, particularly the con-struction clients, of the benefits of project man-agement if practiced as an independent profes-sion.

2. Development of a registration policy: the fed-eral government should develop a policy that reg-ulates the registration of firms offering projectmanagement in Nigeria to ensure that they arepublicly listed. This will also help to create morerecognition for the profession.

3. Establishment of an assessing organisation: anindependent organisation should be establishedwith suitable legal backing from the government.This organisation should have the responsibilityfor the certification of project managers and PMfirms in Nigeria. It should also be given a man-date to regulate and endorse the requirements forthe practice of project management. Only indi-viduals and firms who meet the requirements ofthe assessing organisation should be given a li-cense to practice project management in Nigeria.

4. Role of professional bodies: the different profes-sional bodies in the Nigerian construction indus-try have a key role to play in the awareness cam-paign and in educating their members. Thesebodies should support their members who wishto specialize in professional project managementby providing them with relevant training, work-shops and seminars.

5. Role of the NUC: more universities should be en-couraged to offer construction project manage-ment at postgraduate level and it should also beintroduced at undergraduate level.

6. Role of the government: the uptake of an execu-tive PM structure generally requires a concertedeffort by all stakeholders involved. In particular,it is recommended that the government, as themajor construction stakeholder in Nigeria, shouldlead the campaign to change the traditional in-dustry approach to project management. This isnecessary if participants in the Nigerian construc-tion industry are to be educated and stimulatedtowards effective PM practice and action.

The above mentioned lessons do not exhaust thatwhich the Nigerian construction industry can learn

from the UK. However, in transferring best practices toNigeria, it will be important to retain an awareness oftheir inherent limits, the contextual nature of manage-ment knowledge and cultural issues. Further researchshould examine how this can be achieved in practice.Additionally, wider issues should be addressed, suchas the management processes in Nigeria, in order toidentify the planning aspects most critical to projects’success.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. M. and Vickridge, I. G. (2000). “Theextent of multi-project management implementa-tion in the uk construction industry.” Proceedings ofthe 16th Annual Conference of Association of Re-searchers in Construction Management, A. Akin-toye, ed., 137–146.

Adetola, F. O. (2004). “Contract administration andproject management.” The Nigerian Institute ofQuantity Surveyors, April, 10–20.

Al-Sedairy, S. T. (1985). Large-scale ConstructionProjects: Management, Design and Execution. Bats-ford Academic and Educational, London, UnitedKingdom.

Andawei, M. M. and King, N. O. (2001). “Economicimperative of project management concept in con-struction industry: A case study of selected com-panies in Nigeria.” The Nigerian Quantity Surveyor,37(4), 13–17.

APC (1995). Body of Knowledge. Association ofProject Managers, HighWycombe, United Kingdom.

Bamisile, A. (2003). “Project management: Its appli-cation in housing development.” The Nigerian Pro-fessional Builder, August, 47–52.

Bower, D. (2003). Management of Procurement.Thomas Telford, London, United Kingdom.

Bresnen, M. J. and Haslam, C. O. (1991). “Construc-tion industry clients: A survey of their attributes andproject management practices.” Construction Man-agement and Economics, 9(4), 327–342.

Browning, T. R. (2010). “On the alignment of the pur-poses and views of process models in project manage-ment.” Journal of Operations Management, 28(4),316–332.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Carter, T. (1992). “Project management: Making ithappen.” Chartered Quantity Surveyor, 14(4), 17–18.

Catt, R. (1992). “Project management: The rescue sce-nario.” Chartered Quantity Surveyor, 14(4), 24–25.

CIOB (1988). Project Management in Building. Char-tered Institute of Building, Ascot, United Kingdom.

CIOB (2010). Code of Practice for Project Manage-ment for Construction and Development. Blackwell,Ames, Lowa, United States.

Cleland, D. I. (2004). “The evolution of project man-

167


agement.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-agement, 51(4), 396–397.

Dada, M. O. and Akpadiaha, B. U. (2012). “An assess-ment of formal learning processes in construction in-dustry organisations in Nigeria.” International Jour-nal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction,1(2), 103–111.

Edum-Fotwe, T. F. and McCaffer, R. (2000). “Develop-ing project management competency: Perspectivesfrom the construction industry.” International Jour-nal of Project Management, 18(2), 111–124.

Fayol, H. (1917). Administration Industrielle et Gen-erale. Dunod et Pinat, Paris, France.

Fellows, F. and Liu, A. (2008). Research Methods forConstruction. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UnitedKingdom.

Fewings, P. (2005). Construction Project Management:An Integrated Approach. Taylor & Francis, London,United Kingdom.

Follett, M. P. (1918). The New State: Group Organiza-tion the Solution of Popular Government. KessingerPublishing LLC, Montana, United States.

Georg, S. and Tryggestad, K. (2009). “On the emer-gence of roles in construction: The qualculative roleof project management.” Construction Managementand Economics, 27(10), 969–981.

Holt, L. (1989). “Project management excellence: Theshell stanney case.” Construction Management andEconomics, 7(3), 217–234.

Johnson, S. B. (1997). “Three approaches to big tech-nology: Operations research, systems engineeringand project management.” Technology and Culture,38(4), 891–919.

Kanoglu, A. and Gulen, S. (2013). “Model for managingthe contractual risks of construction firms imposedby the procurement system.” International Journalof Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2(1),43–54.

Knudsen, K. (2003). Handbook on Organization The-ory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United King-dom, Chapter Pluralism, scientific progress and thestructure of organization theory.

Kupakuwana, P. S. and van der Berg, G. J. H. (2005).“The goalposts for project success have moved: Amarketing view.” Cost Engineering, 47(5), 28–34.

Madter, N., Bower, D. A., and Aritua, B. (2012).“Projects and personalities: A framework for indi-vidualising project management career developmentin the construction industry.” International Journalof Project Management, 30(3), 273–281.

Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The Management of Projects.Thomas Telford, London, United Kingdom.

Morris, P. W. G. and Hough, G. H. (1987). TheAnatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Realityof Project Management. Wiley, Chichester, UnitedKingdom.

Muller, R. and Turner, R. (2007). “The influence ofproject managers on project success criteria and

project success by type of project.” European Man-agement Journal, 25(4), 298–309.

Murdoch, J. R. and Hughes, W. P. (2008). Construc-tion Contracts: Law and Management. Taylor &Francis, London, United Kingdom.

Nahapiet, H. and Nahapiet, J. (1985). The Manage-ment of Construction Projects: Case Studies fromthe USA and UK. Chartered Institute of Building,Ascot, United Kingdom.

Odusami, K. T. and Ameh, O. J. (2006). “Nigerianconstruction project managers’ educational level andneed in project management.” Proceedings of the In-ternational Conference in the Built Environment inthe 21st Century, J. V. Torrance, H. Adnan, and R.Takim, eds., 59–69.

Odusami, K. T. and Iyagba, R. R. (2001). “The mostsuitable professional for team leadership on buildingprojects as perceived by the professionals in the con-struction industry.” The Professional Builder, July,64–73.

Odusami, K. T., Iyagba, R. R. O., and Omirin, M. M.(2003). “The relationship between project leadership,team composition and construction project perfor-mance in Nigeria.” International Journal of ProjectManagement, 21(7), 519–527.

Ogunsemi, D. R., Oyediran, O. S., and Ekundayo,D. O. (2008). “Construction professionals and projectmanagement competencies in Nigeria.” Journal ofConstruction, 1(2), 6–11.

Okereke, O. C. (2007). “Project management: A strate-gic instrument for effective political governance andeconomic development.” PM World Today, 9(6), 1–17.

Okereke, O. C. (2008). “Marketing of project manage-ment in an oil-rich developing country.” PM WorldToday, 10(9), 1–8.

Onwusonye, S. I. (2005). “Overview of constructionproject management and project cycle.” The Nige-rian Quantity Surveyor, 51(2), 22–28.

Opoku, A. (2013). “The application of whole life cost-ing in the UK construction industry: Benefits andbarriers.” International Journal of Architecture, En-gineering and Construction, 2(1), 35–42.

Padar, K., Pataki, B., and Sebestyen, Z. (2011). “Acomparative analysis of stakeholder and role theoriesin project management and change management.”International Journal of Management Cases, 13(4),252–260.

PMI (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Bodyof Knowledge: PMBOK Guide. Project ManagementInstitute, Pennsylvania, United States.

Pugh, D. (1989). Writers on Organizations. Penguin,Harmondsworth, United Kingdom.

Rodney, T. J. (1999). The Handbook of Project-basedManagement: Improving the Processes for AchievingStrategic Objectives. McGraw-Hill, London, UnitedKingdom.

Sage, D. J., Dainty, A. R. J., and Brookes, N. J. (2010).

168


“Who reads the project file? Exploring the powereffects of knowledge tools in construction projectmanagement.” Construction Management and Eco-nomics, 28(6), 629–639.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: APractical Handbook. SAGE, London, United King-dom.

Sobotie, I. O. (2004). “Overview of construction projectmanagement and project cycle: Contract adminis-tration and project management.” The Nigerian In-stitute of Quantity Surveyors, April, 1–20.

Soderlund, J. (2004). “Building theories of project man-agement: Past research, questions for the future.”International Journal of Project Management, 22(3),183–191.

Soderlund, J. (2011). “Pluralism in project manage-ment: navigating the crossroads of specializationand fragmentation.” International Journal of Man-agement Reviews, 13(2), 153–176.

Sommerville, J. and Campbell, C. (2001). “Projectmanagement: an evaluation of the client andprovider attribute paradigms.” Proceedings of the17th Annual Conference of Association of Re-searchers in Construction Management, A. Akin-toye, ed., 435–444.

UN Habitat (2010). The State of African Cities 2010,Governance, Inequality and Urban land Markets.United Nations Environment Programme, UnitedNations.

Urwick (1943). The Elements of Administration.Harper & Brothers, New York, United States.

Walker, A. (2007). Project Management in Construc-tion. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Waterhouse, R. (1992). “Project management: spot thedifference.” Chartered Quantity Surveyor, 14(4), 21–22.

White, D. and Fortune, J. (2002). “Current practice inproject management: An empirical study.” Interna-tional Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1–11.

Winch, G. M. (2002).Managing Construction Projects:An Information Processing Approach. Blackwell Sci-ence, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Wolcott, H. (2011). Writing up Qualitative Research.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California,United States.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design andMethods. SAGE, London, United Kingdom.

Zack Jr., J. G. (2004). “Project management in crisis.”The Quantity Surveyor, 48(7), 26–29.

169

executiveprojectmanagementstructureandthe ... · ekundayo et al./international journal of...

Documents