The design of the questionnaire

4.11.1 The development of the questionnaire

The questionnaire is designed to obtain data from people in practice. The questions are grouped as follows.

1. Questions 1 and 2: identification of a ‘project(s)’

The terms ‘project management’ and ‘profession of project managers’ are not well recognised in Japan. Or, at least, people are supposed to have different understanding of projects. In addition, the roles and responsibilities are not explicitly defined between workers and between the management and the rest of the work-force (Wakabayashi, 1997, p. 202, Nakazawa and Akaike, 2000, pp. 80–82). In order to answer the questionnaire, the respondents need to identify what we mean by ‘projects’.

When a respondent is asked about a project, it is important what preconceptions he/she holds when thinking about a project. There is a big difference in the perception of projects between clients and contractors. Clients are stakeholders of projects. Clients have a clear perception of the project’s needs. Contractors, on the other hand, have traditionally been involved in projects with the aim of generating profits for the parent companies. Some respondents are not involved in any construction projects. Such people need to define the projects that they are actually involved in, such as research projects or projects involving organisational change.

Question 1 is provided to identify the respondent’s point of view toward projects, with a view to: (1) clients, (2) contractors, and (3) others (e.g. projects involving organisational change, research projects, etc.).

Using this question, the position of respondents in terms of the contract is mainly identified. For instance, those who answer ‘(1) client’ are expected to represent client’s organisation. Those who devoted to in-house projects are supposed to answer ‘(3) the other’.

managers, some senior managers asked the author whether they should answer from owners’ or contractors’ point of view. From the author’s experience in Japan, many engineers, especially at higher management level, tend to have both of clients’ and contractors’ views working with clients as a contractor. Roles of clients’ and contractors’ are determined within their relationships during the projects.

Therefore, it is likely that there are some people who cannot clearly answer this question, without determining his/her point of view. Therefore, to avoid inconsistency or hesitation for such respondents, if the respondent’s view is not clearly that of a client or a contractor, then the questionnaire will recommend respondents to answer ‘(1) clients’.

Question 2 asks the respondents to specify the types of projects that they have experienced in the past. This will help the respondents to clarify what the projects mean to them by answering the questions, and this will help me by ensuring that each respondent has an appreciation of what is meant by projects.

These questions are important, especially in Japan, where neither the term ‘project’ nor the role of management is explicitly defined.

2. Questions 3 and 4: testing the topics in the straw-man list

Question 3 was designed to test the agreement on 50 topics in the straw-man list of Q1.Please specify your point of view in the definition of your project.

1. Client, supporter of a client, or someone who manages a project(s) on behalf of a client 2. Someone who manages part of a project(s) as a contractor

3. Other (please specify: e.g. projects involving organisational change, research projects) <If you can answer yes to both 1 and 2, please just answer 1.>

Q2. Please describe your current construction project, or use an imaginary project to answer this questionnaire. Please give the size, type, terms, location, etc. (e.g. rapid railway construction project, art- gallery construction project, LNG-plant construction project).

3. Question 5: an open question

Q5 is an open question, and is asked to test the definition of topics, aiming at; (1) testing the definitions of topics

(2) asking about attempts to define key topics for a Japanese construction project as an explicit guide for project management.

4. Question 6: identification of the role in the project

The role of the respondent in the project is identified by question 6. Questions for this purpose are (1) organisation, (2) age (3) name, (4) position, and (5) sector/industry

Q3. Do you think that each of the following elements is essential knowledge for the management of your construction project/programme?

Choose from <1. Important, 2. Not so important, 3. I cannot tell/I do not know>

Q4. Are there any missing topics for success for your project from the list of answers to

Q5. See the definitions attached to the questionnaire. Please point out if you disagree with any of them. Q5.1 Please make any other comments on this questionnaire.

Q6. Could you tell me about your responsibility in your construction project/ programme 1. Organisation

2. Age: 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s 3. Name

4. Position

4.11.2 Interviews

In the course of developing the questionnaire, interviews were conducted with nine Japanese managers in the UK. The interviews were conducted based on an early version of the questionnaire. The Japanese managers listed in Table 4.6 were interviewed.

Table 4.6: Details of the Japanese manager interviewees

Name Organisation

Role in the

organisation Position Age

Mr Sugiyama

Nishimatsu

Construction Contractor Director 50s

Mr Kondo

JR (Japan Railway)

Tokai Client General manager 40s

Mr Shoji Ministry of Construction Client Assistant Manager 30s Mr Saito Ministry of Construction Client Assistant Manager 30s Mr Ishibashi Ministry of Transportation Client Assistant Manager 30s Mr Maruo

Japan Highway Public

Corporation Client Engineer 30s

Mr Kamino Obayashi Construction Contractor General manager 40s

Mr Nagai

Former Mitsubishi

estate Contractor Project manager 50s

Mr Tanaka MID Client Project manager 40s

4.11.3 The questionnaire form

Through the consultancy and the interviews, the following suggestions were obtained. The questionnaire was revised based on these suggestions.

2. The text should be written in plain Japanese as much as possible.

3. Personal details should not be requested at the beginning of the questionnaire, in order to get more responses from respondents.

4. The questionnaire should be sent from individual to individual. The normal route of enquiry in Japan: from organisation to organisation, e.g. from the government or university to institutions, is not good in terms of the quality of data. Otherwise, data is not reliable in terms of valid individual experience.

5. The 50 elements in question 3 that are listed without categories are difficult to understand. These should be structured so that respondents can answer the questions without difficulty.

The final version of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix A. Definition of each topic is shown in Appendix H.