Development of the Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed from the results of the literature review and incorporated the preliminary case study results (based on real heritage project management experience) to ensure that the survey questions being asked were suitable in nature for drawing information from either professional or non- professional stakeholders. Therefore, the survey questions were directed at internal (INTS) and external project stakeholders (EXTS) in order to provide an appropriate range of responses to answer the relevant research questions. The survey consisted of a general opening section of questions that gather demographic information. This was followed by sections of targeted questions designed to determine the key reasons and challenges in retaining heritage structures/buildings, and to validate the causal relationship between planning/design (PD) and execution/construction (EC) in a project management context. The survey was also designed to examine how multiple stakeholder factors (M_stake) and technical factors (Technical) influence project management. The proposed theoretical/structural model was developed using a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach to examine the relationship that exists between unobserved latent variables that cannot be measured directly but only through the use of indicators/observed variables.

The unobserved variables from the external stakeholders (HR, KR and MC) and internal stakeholders (PP, PD, EC, M_stake and Technical) and the observed variables related to each unobserved variable in the proposed models. In each of the models (Model 1 and Model 2), the relationships between unobserved variables and related composite items are used to answer the research questions as follows:

Part 1 of the EXTS survey questionnaire consisted of general background questions and questions that target the first research question (see the survey in Appendix A). By identifying and improving, the main causal challenge can maximise the success of heritage retention that can further affect the decision making on heritage retention.

Part 2 of the INTS survey questionnaire examined the project management challenges that occur through the planning design and execution/construction phases and impact on the eventual success of heritage projects and was designed to answer the second and third research questions. By examining directly observed variables, the questions aimed to identify and quantify the main challenges and causal relationships that exist between PD, EC to PP; M_stake to PP; Technical to PP; M- Stake to PD and EC through MP.

Each part of the survey questionnaire concluded with a series of open-ended questions to enable the participants to provide knowledgeable input based on their in- depth understanding of the critical issues in the delivery of heritage projects beyond those raised in the survey questions. This section was highly important to gain new knowledge from participants with different backgrounds (such as technical and legislative) and heritage experience practitioners (such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and builders). Each of the salient comments drawn from these open-ended questions is presented in Appendix F and when analysed, they provided rich insights into the depth of respondents’ heritage-related experiences and included suggestions for the better management of heritage building projects in the future. The literature clearly indicates that heritage projects, like many other types of construction projects, not only have a tendency to run over time and go over budget, but with such projects, this becomes a norm rather than an exception (Zwikael and Smyrk 2011). Why projects are not able to meet the criteria of even basic project success models such as the modified iron triangle (time, cost and quality/scope)

presents a major question that needs to be further investigated as in this research. In order to determine the main challenges that have a significant impact on the project delivery, the two models (see Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.7) were developed. To enable the examination of each construct and unobserved variable, the measuring elements for each were developed based on the literature as discussed in Chapter 3 and the preliminary case study validated through extensive interviews to ensure that they reflect specifically the Australian perspective (presented in detail in Chapter 5). These elements are:

 The need to take action to protect heritage places from further development pressure

 Historical importance  Social value

 Tourism

 Problematic factors that affect project delivery through the project management phases

 Scope definition

 Accuracy in tender documentation

 Meeting the Building Code of Australia (BCA)  Meeting the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)  Multiple stakeholder involvement

 Identification

 Requirements and needs

 Communication and engagement.

The factors that measure the stakeholder influence on the project were derived from the review of previous research into stakeholder management (Yang 2010) The stakeholder factors were mostly adopted from the survey questionnaire by Yang (2010, p. 256 - 257), but some of the factors were omitted as they were not relevant to this research.

The CFA model was run for each of the four main latent constructs. The items that were most heavily loaded (0.6 and higher) were chosen between all items.

The constructs were analysed separately with CFA prior to assembling all factors (with the factor loading 0.6 and higher) to be selected priory to further analyses by using SEM.

Figure 4.8 presents the two project management phases (PD and EC) with two sets of factors (Technical and M_stake) and all of their component elements used to measure those unobserved variables and how they influence the overall project performance and delivery. Successful heritage project performance in this research is represented by the modified iron triangle theory described in the literature review (Chapter 2), where project success is measured by time, cost and quality/scope. The other two unobserved variables (M_stake and Technical) and their likeliness to influence the project delivery were analysed separately. The elements of PD, MC, M_stake and Technical that were identified in the interview results as the factors that were most likely to impact the overall project success were examined as a statistical model as shown in Figure 4.8. Data triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative results takes a place prior to using the final test of the top four rankings under SEM. The combined top four scores have been tested in SEM. Figure 4.8 present the initial proposed SEM model that was proposed to be run for final analysis and the four boxes represent the four top results that were chosen to sit within the detailed SEM after the data was triangulated.  

Figure 4.8: Project performance structural equation model Execution/  Construction  (EC)  MULTIPLE  STAKEHOLDER  factors  Planning/  Design (PD)   TECHNICAL  factors  (Technical)  PROJECT  PERFORMANCE  (PP) 

Each of the observed variables in the CFA is an indicator variable that reflects the associated latent variable as in this case the four of them will be further analysed. In the final section of the survey, the respondents were asked to indicate whether they were willing to be further contacted or interviewed. This option provided the researcher with the opportunity to further discuss any of respondents’ answers and extend the investigation of challenges of significance.