ARID ZONE JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
AZOJETE December 2019. Vol. 15(4):939-957

Published by the Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818

www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 939

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

PROJECT MANAGERS' PERCEPTIONS ON BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER
MANAGEMENT (ESM) IN MULTIFARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (MIPs)

DELIVERY IN NIGERIA
G. A. Zarewa

(Department of Quantity Surveying, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria)
* Corresponding author’s email address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng

1.0 Introduction
Involvement of many stakeholders with varying interests, power/influence and expectations in
MIPs delivery has necessitated the need for the projects' managers to understand what
enhances or militates against effective stakeholder management (ESM) in the projects' delivery.
A project's manager's ability to effectively manage stakeholders in a project's delivery plays a
great role in ensuring achievement of the project's desired goals and objectives. This
corroborated the views of some authors such as Chinyio and Omoloyaie (2015) who argued that
ESM sets a basis for deciding which stakeholders are to be involved in determining a project

ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT

Many projects were known to have failed due to ineffective
stakeholder management. This study investigated views of Project
Managers (who participated in the delivery of Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) in north eastern and north western
regions of Nigeria) on barriers to Effective Stakeholder
Management (ESM) in MIPs delivery in Nigeria. The study was
conducted with the aim of preventing or at least minimising the
projects' failure rates due to ineffective stakeholder management.
Extensive literature review, questionnaire survey, and Relative
Importance Index (RII) analysis methods were used to conduct the
study. Barriers to ESM in the projects' delivery were identified and
ranked according to the project managers' perceptions on their
respective levels of influence against ESM. The study discovered
that barriers with different levels of impact inhibit effective
stakeholder management in MIPs delivery. Client's Uncooperative
Attitude; Failure to Identify Potential Conflict Areas; Uncooperative
Attitude of Stakeholders; Project Manager's Poor Knowledge of
Stakeholder Management/Failure to Understand Stakeholders'
Needs and Expectations; and Failure to Meet Information
Requirements of all Stakeholders were ranked as the first, second,
third, fourth and fifth (in descending order) barriers to ESM in MIPs
delivery respectively. The study concluded that current approach to
stakeholder management in MIPs needs to be improved
considerably and accordingly recommends the development of an
appropriate strategy for handling stakeholder management in the
delivery of MIPs and other projects in Nigeria.

© 2019 Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria. All rights reserved.

Submitted 02 December, 2018
Revised 04 May, 2019
Accepted 10 May, 2019

Keywords:
Barriers
effective stakeholder
management
multifarious infrastructure
projects
project managers and
stakeholders .

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 940

goals and measuring its success. Chandrayan (2017) discovered that achievement of a project's
desired goal depends upon the skill-set of project managers and their human management
traits while Bodepudi (2018) opined that managing people to ensure that project team
members are meeting the deadlines and following the guidelines was the key element of
project management.

Stakeholder Management (SM) has been defined as “the systematic identification, analysis and
planning of actions to communicate with and influence stakeholders” by Project Management
Institute (PMI, 2004). Olander and Landin, (2008) argued that the aim of stakeholder
management in projects is to attain the desired and successful implementation of the project
and avoid unnecessary conflicts and controversies with the project stakeholders. The foregoing
statements imply that ineffective stakeholder management in a project delivery will affect the
success of the project. Chino and Olomolaiye (2015) discovered that ineffective stakeholder
management will reduce probability of successful project completion due to conflicts between
stakeholders and result in dissatisfaction with project outcomes and adverse disruption to
budget and schedule. Another study by Eskerod and Jespen (2013) discovered that carrying out
a project as planned was not a guarantee for success as the project may still fail if stakeholders
are not sufficiently managed.

Ineffective stakeholder management has been identified as one of the main causes of projects'
failure in Nigeria. Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (2012) attributed refusal of
some motorists to pay road tolls, which affected the performance of Lekki Toll Road Concession
Project in Lagos, to ineffective SM at the early phases of the project. Ibrahim et al (2006), in their
work, identified ineffective SM as risk associated with successful PPP projects in Nigeria. The
foregoing discourse clearly highlighted the need to identify factors that enhance or militate
against ESM in projects' delivery. Eyiah- Botwe1 et al (2015) suggested that it was imperative for
appropriate stakeholders to identify factors militating against effective stakeholder
management in the delivery of their projects. Yang et al. (2009) discovered that there are
significant barriers and challenges which militate against successful stakeholder management in
construction projects' delivery.

It has however been observed that despite identified negative impacts of ineffective SM on
project success, not much efforts were made to identify and address factors militating against
ESM in project delivery particularly in developing countries like Nigeria. Eyiah- Botwe1 et al.
(2015) observed that while many studies have considered Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for
stakeholder management, not much has been done on Critical Barrier Factors (CBFs) to ESM in
developing countries. It is in view of the foregoing that this study investigated project
managers' perceptions on barriers to ESM and their respective levels of influence (ranking) on
SM in MIPs' delivery with the aim of preventing or minimizing incidences of the projects' failure
due to ineffective stakeholder management. Finding from the study will give project managers
an idea of which barriers to address/focus on in order to achieve ESM in MIPs delivery. Findings
from this study can also help project managers to enhance their chances of managing their
projects successfully.

MIP for the purpose of this study refers to one large infrastructure project comprising three
different types of projects for example one large project comprising building, civil engineering

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 941

and services sub-project such as establishment of a large housing estate, hospital, industry and
so on.
The aim of the study was achieved through identification of factors PMs considered to be
barriers to ESM in the delivery of MIPs in Nigeria and assessing/ranking the level of influence of
each of the identified barriers against ESM in the projects' delivery.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Multifarious Infrastructure Projects
MIPs have been described differently by different institutions and scholars. Fox and Miller (2006)
and Bekker (2008) referred to them as mega-projects, macro-projects and/or super projects. The
projects, which have significant impact on the socio-economic development of countries all
over the world (Bekker, 2008), are always in continuous demand due to increasing global
population, aging infrastructure, increasing urbanisation and so forth. The projects usually
attract huge investment in their procurement and involve numerous stakeholders often with
conflicting interests in their delivery.MIPs comprise many sub-projects and involve many
stakeholders such as the clients, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, financial institutions,
end users, government agencies, media, regulators such as the local and national authorities,
local community groups, and other independent groups with special interests in their delivery.
These stakeholders with varying stakes, influence and power; undertake different roles and
responsibilities that could lead to the success or failure of the projects.

The large number of stakeholders and/or role players and work packages involved in the
delivery of MIPs makes their management more complex than those of small conventional
projects. Fox and Miller (2006) were of the view that as a project increases in size, the challenges
associated with managing relationships among its sub-projects grow more intricate. Conflict
between and among MIPs participants often occurs in the course of the projects' delivery due to
divergent interests of the numerous participants and stakeholders involved in the delivery. Fox
and Miller (2006) were of the opinion that potential for conflicts between and among project
stakeholders depends largely on the project’s scope and environment. Internal conflicts,
conflicts in sponsor - contractor relationship and conflicts over resources were identified by Fox
and Miller (2006) as the three major conflicts likely to occur between and among MIPs'
stakeholders in the course of the projects' delivery. The fact that each of these conflicts has the
potential of impacting negatively on the projects' delivery, made it imperative for managers of
the projects to handle issues associated with MIPs' stakeholders with utmost caution.

The foregoing discourse clearly indicated that delivery of an MIP involves significantly more
stakeholders with multiple views and opinions than that of a conventional project thereby
making the management of MIPs' stakeholders and the projects' delivery very challenging.

2.2 Managing MIP's Stakeholders
Stakeholder management in MIPs' delivery is more complex than that in small conventional
projects' delivery due to involvement of large number of stakeholders (with multiple stakes,
views and opinions) in MIPs' delivery. It is therefore imperative for MIPs' project managers to
adopt an effective strategy for managing these numerous stakeholders effectively with a view to
achieving successful project delivery devoid of any rancour. Attaining desired and successful

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 942

implementation of a project and avoiding unnecessary conflicts and controversies with project
stakeholders had earlier been identified as a key aim of stakeholder management in projects by
Olander and Landin (2008).

Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013a) has defined a project stakeholder as an individual,
group, or organization that may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a
decision, activity, or outcome of a project, program, or portfolio. Although different kinds of
stakeholders are involved in each particular project, stakeholders in construction projects such
as MIPs can, according to Chino and Olomolaiye (2015), be classified into five main groups:
clients, consultants, contractors, external public parties and external private parties. Clients,
consultants and contractors can be grouped together as internal stakeholders, while the
remaining parties are considered external stakeholders. Stakeholders can also be classified as
primary or secondary. Teye Buertey (2016) reported that other works disagreed with the above
conceptualisations and categorisations of stakeholders for uncertainty and suggested that a
difference should be made between stakeholders, stake watchers and stake keepers. In terms of
classification, stakeholders are those who have a tangible and real stake in a project. Stake
watchers, in turn, do not actually have a stake themselves but they guard the interests of actual
stakeholders. Examples of stake watchers are unions and community pressure groups. Botchway
(2001) postulated that stake keepers are autonomous regulators, such as governments,
regulatory agencies and certification organizations, who have no stake but have influence and
control. This study, while appreciating further explanation on stakeholder classification offered
by the immediate foregoing argument, aligns itself with classification by Chino and Olomolaiye
(2015).

Newcombe, (2003) postulated that construction projects such as MIPs have, by their nature,
diverse stakeholders who play various roles and responsibilities in a project's delivery. These
stakeholders who are from different disciplines, backgrounds, have different goals, interest,
stake and influence which can affect or be affected by the project outcome. Their interest,
influence, power and perception about the project, among others, need to be managed
effectively for a successful project delivery. Meeting project stakeholders' satisfaction and needs
has been identified as a measure of project success by Project Management Institutes (2013).
Moreover, Mok et al. (2013) discovered that mega construction projects such as MIPs require
ESM in their delivery due to the management challenges posed by involvement of numerous
stakeholders in the delivery.

SM is an essential part of project management process which entails processes and techniques
employed to effectively manage relationships between project organisation and stakeholders
with a view to enhancing positive and reducing negative impacts of stakeholder influence on
project goals and objectives. SM requires systematic identification, analysis, planning actions,
communication, and negotiation aimed at influencing these stakeholders (Lock, 2007). The
process could, if conducted properly, serves as an opportunity for achieving stakeholder
satisfaction, which is a key to meeting client’s objectives, value, concern and success.

An MIP manager should, therefore, excel in organising, delegating, communicating, directing,
and getting along with the project's stakeholders such as members of the project manager’s
team, sponsors, government regulators, bankers, contractors, the media, and representatives of

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 943

local interest groups. The PM should also adopt flexible and dynamic SM approach in order to
deliver satisfactory outcomes to the stakeholders. A test for effective management of MIPs is
the degree to which the projects’ objectives has been achieved in terms of quality, within
budget, time and expected service delivery to relevant stakeholders’ satisfaction.

The main steps involved in stakeholder management in construction projects include
stakeholder identification, stakeholder analysis, stakeholder classification and
formulating/adopting stakeholder management strategy. Researchers have suggested several
approaches to SM. Lock (2007) recommended identification of stakeholders, gathering
information about the stakeholders and analysing their influence as a systematic approach to
SM. Bourne and Walker (2005) adopted stakeholder circle approach which involves
identification of stakeholders, prioritisation, visualisation, engagement and monitoring effect of
their involvement. Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2015) stated that stakeholder management can be
carried out in many ways including evaluating needs and expectations of stakeholders in
relation to main project goals.

The foregoing statements implied that MIPs' managers should identify all stakeholders that are,
in one way or the other, associated, with the delivery of their projects. It can also be deduced
from the statements that it is important for every MIP manager to understand the needs,
expectations, power and influence of every stakeholder associated with the delivery of his/her
project and manage them well in order to achieve successful delivery of the project. Abdu
Lawan (2016) reported that some unidentified stakeholders protested against the execution of
an MIP because their needs and expectations were not taken into consideration when initiating
the project. The protest led to suspension of works at the affected project's sites and affected its
completion period. . The manager should also ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately
communicated with, engaged and prioritised according to their influence on the success or
otherwise of the project. Limiting stakeholder engagement to only few stakeholders such as
internal stakeholders, which used to occur in many circumstances, could derail a project. TRB
(2015) believed PM of complex projects such as MIPs must develop solutions to satisfy all
stakeholders, including external stakeholders, who can affect the manager's ability to achieve
the complex project’s objectives.

Whatever approach an MIP manager adopts in managing a project's stakeholders, it is
important to ensure that they (stakeholders) are effectively managed because effective
management of stakeholders of a project is an important key to the project's success. Findings
of a study reported by Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2015) reinforced the foregoing statement by
stating that ineffective stakeholder management reduces the probability of successful project
completion due to conflicts between stakeholders, dissatisfaction with project outcomes and
adverse disruption to budget and schedule.

The importance of SM to successful project delivery highlighted above has made some scholars
to investigate and discover factors that could influence SM in project delivery. Yang et al., (2009)
confirmed 15 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management for developing
countries while Hammad, (2013) identified 23 CSFs for the Gaza strip construction industry.
Other studies by Chinyio and Akintoye, (2008); Olander and Landing, (2008); Jepsen and Eskerod,
(2009); and Li et al. (2011) have also identified and studied critical success factors (CSFs) for
stakeholder management in construction projects. Critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 944

management have been described as activities, practices and considerations that can directly or
indirectly ensure successful stakeholder management (Eyiah- Botwe1 et al. 2015).

Yang et al. (2009), in their work, discovered challenges associated with the processes of
stakeholder management that are militating against Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in
project delivery. A recent but yet to be published study on barriers to ESM in MIPs delivery by
this author has identified 39 barriers to ESM in MIPs delivery in Nigeria. It is therefore important
for MIPs' managers to identify and understand these challenges and/or barriers with a view to
achieving ESM and successful delivery of their projects.

2.3 Factors/Barriers Militating against Effective Stakeholder Management in Project delivery
A review of extant literature on stakeholder management showed that many previous studies
have identified challenges and factors militating against ESM in project delivery. The
challenges/factors were identified by studies conducted by authors such as Abdu lawan (2016);
Chino and Olomolaiye (2015); Eyiah- Botwe1 et al. (2015); Molwus (2014); Hammad, (2013);
Mok et al. (2013) and many others. An analysis of the challenges/factors resulted in the list of
barriers contained in Table 1. The Table contains list of Factors Militating Against ESM in MIPs’
Delivery obtained by the study from literature review.

Table 1 : Factors Militating Against Effective Stakeholder Management in MIPs' Delivery in
Nigeria
S/N Barrier
1 Incomplete Stakeholder Identification
2 Late identification of stakeholders
3 Failure to identify key stakeholders
4 Failure to recognise and cooperate with adverse stakeholders
5 Language barrier between stakeholders
6 Cultural differences between stakeholders
7 Uncooperative Attitude of Stakeholders
8 Limited stakeholder engagement/involvement
9 Lack of stakeholder engagement/involvement
10 Stakeholders' incapacity to participate in discussions
11 Involvement of numerous stakeholders
12 Assignment of similar task to two stakeholders
13 Failure to Identify potential conflict areas
14 Failure to assess levels of influence of various stakeholders
15 Failure to understand Stakeholders' needs and expectations
16 Lack of constant communication with stakeholders
17 Lack of open and ongoing communication process
18 Issuance of the same information to all stakeholders
19 Failure to meet information requirements of all stakeholders
20 Issuance of incorrect information to stakeholders

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 945

21 Lack of a person specifically assigned to handle SM
22 Conflicts between Stakeholders
23 Lack of Periodic Stakeholder Meetings
24 Misunderstanding of roles by stakeholders
25 Taking over roles from one stakeholder & assigning them to another
26 Lack of continuity in SM process
27 Project Manager's poor knowledge of SM
28 Absence of formal SM process
29 Failure to understand relationship between and among stakeholders
30 Lack of fairness and equity, for all stakeholders;
31 Failure to engender trust with the stakeholders;
32 Inhumane attitude in relating with stakeholders
33 Imposition of leadership on stakeholders
34 Nature and size of a project;
35 Project location
36 Interference in SM by client
37 Client's uncooperative attitude

3. Research Methodology
The study was conducted in three stages. The first stage involved extensive literature review
from which the list of factors militating against effective stakeholder management in MIPs
delivery in Nigeria contained in Table 1 was drawn. The identified factors were then carefully
analysed and discussed with some MIPs’ project managers and other experts in order to identify
major barriers to ESM in MIPs’ delivery. A questionnaire survey was then conducted to evaluate
the impact of each barrier against ESM in MIPs' delivery on the basis of a 5-point Likert Scale
where 1 represents Very Low Impact, 2 represents Low Impact, 3 Moderate Impact, 4 High
Impact and 5 Very High Impact. The Relative Importance Index (RII) for each factor was then
calculated and ranked accordingly. This approach was used to rank causes of delay in
Construction Projects and Causes of Delay for Residential Construction Projects in Indian
Context by Abu Hassan (2016) and Megha and Rajiv (2013) respectively.

3.1 Survey Design
As mentioned earlier, a questionnaire survey approach was adopted for the purpose of data
collection on the perceptions of the respondents on the level of impact of each of the 34
barriers against ESM in the delivery of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) in Nigeria. The
questionnaire is made up of three sections. The first section comprised introduction of the study
and definitions of an MIP, stakeholder and stakeholder management in the context of the study.
The second section contained participants' information that was eventually used in categorising
the participants into groups while the last section contained the respondents' perceptions on
the barriers respective levels of impact against ESM on the basis the 5 point Likert Scale
described above.

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 946

3.2 Questionnaire Administration
The questionnaire was purposely administered to 25 experienced MIPs' project managers (PMs)
involved in and/or associated with the delivery of MIPs in the north eastern and north western
regions of Nigeria due to their knowledge in the study area and willingness to partake in the
study. Kumar (2011) argued that a researcher should only go to those people who in his/her
opinion are likely to have the required information and willing to share it with the researcher
while Fellows and Liu (2015) postulated that the real issue, after identifying data required for a
study and sources of the data, is to determine which person is at an appropriate position to
provide the data required for the study. The uncommon nature of MIPs also played significant
role in deciding the number of respondents to be considered for the study because infrequent
execution of MIPs in the regions covered by this study has limited the number of people to be
considered as respondents for the study considerably.

3.3 Ranking Approach
Relative Importance Index (RII) was used to assess and rank each barrier to ESM on the basis of
respondents' scores collected from the survey. Gunduz et al. (2014) used the relative importance
index to rank factors that delayed Turkish construction projects. It was also used by many other
scholars such as Somiah et al. (2015) who used it to conduct relative importance analysis of
factors influencing unauthorized siting of residential buildings in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis of Ghana. Johnson and LeBreton (2004) argued that RII ranking method best fits the
purpose of a study of this nature which sets to find the contribution a particular variable makes
to the prediction of a criterion variable both by itself and in combination with other predictor
variables.
The Relative Importance Index (RII) used to assess and rank the PMs' perceptions on each
barrier to ESM in the delivery of MIPs in Nigeria was calculated using the following formula:

RII = ΣW
A*N (1)

where:
W = weight given to each attribute by the respondent (1 to 5).
A = the highest weight (in this case is 5).
N = total number of respondents
RII Value ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the RII value a barrier has, the higher its ranking and
level of impact against ESM.

4 Results and Discussions
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Outcome of Analysis of and Discussions on Factors Militating Against ESM in MIPs’
Delivery
The analysis and discussions resulted in the reduction of the 37 identified factors militating
against ESM in MIPs’ delivery to the 34 barriers to ESM contained in Table 2.

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 947

Table 2: Barriers to ESM in MIPs’ Delivery
S/N Barrier
1 Incomplete Stakeholder Identification
2 Late identification of stakeholders
3 Failure to identify key stakeholders
4 Failure to recognise and cooperate with adverse stakeholders
5 Language barrier between stakeholders
6 Cultural differences between stakeholders
7 Uncooperative Attitude of Stakeholders
8 Limited stakeholder engagement/involvement
9 Lack of stakeholder engagement/involvement
10 Stakeholders' incapacity to participate in discussions
11 Involvement of numerous stakeholders
12 Failure to Identify potential conflict areas
13 Failure to assess levels of influence of various stakeholders
14 Failure to understand Stakeholders' needs and expectations
15 Lack of constant communication with stakeholders
16 Lack of open and ongoing communication process
17 Issuance of the same information to all stakeholders
18 Failure to meet information requirements of all stakeholders
19 Issuance of incorrect information to stakeholders
20 Lack of a person specifically assigned to handle SM
21 Conflicts between Stakeholders
22 Lack of Periodic Stakeholder Meetings
23 Misunderstanding of roles by stakeholders
24 Project Manager's poor knowledge of SM
25 Absence of formal SM process
26 Failure to understand relationship between and among stakeholders
27 Lack of fairness and equity, for all stakeholders;
28 Failure to engender trust with the stakeholders;
29 Inhumane attitude in relating with stakeholders
30 Nature and size of a project;
31 Project location
32 Client's uncooperative attitude

4.1.2 Received Questionnaire Response
Twenty five (25) questionnaires were distributed to PMs who have actively participated in the
delivery of MIPs in the north eastern and north western regions of Nigeria. Eighteen
questionnaires (18) which represented 72% were returned and used for analysis. The returned
questionnaires were considered adequate for the study because a comparative analysis on

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 948

response rate in academic studies by Baruch (2014) discovered an average response rate of
between 53 - 55.6%. Another study by Matthews (2007) recommended between 40 - 50%
response rate while Idrus and Newman (2002) considered any questionnaire response in the
range of 20% to 30% to be adequate for research in construction industry.

4.1.3 Respondents' Profile
The respondents' profiles based on their professions, sectors of employment and years of
experience are given in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

4.1.3.1 Respondents' Profiles on the basis of their Professions
The professional callings of the respondents are shown in Figure 1

Figure 1: Breakdown of Respondents based on their Professions

The chart shows that quantity surveyors constituted 28% of the respondents while 22% were
project managers by profession. Builders also provided 22% of the responses whereas 17% of
the respondents were architects by profession. Responses provided by engineers contributed
11% of the responses.

4.1.3.2 Respondents Profile based on their Sector of Employment
The respondents’ breakdown according to their respective sectors of employment is given in
Figure 2.

Figure 2: Respondents Profile on the Basis of their Sector of Employment

Legend
PM: Project Management
QS: Quantity Surveying
Arch: Architecture
Bldg: Building
Eng: Engineering

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 949

Figure 2 above showed that the respondents were made up of 33% of the respondents were
employed in the public sector and while 67% were employed in the private sector.

4.1.3.3 Respondents Profile based on their Years of Experience
The respondents’ breakdown according to their years of experience is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Respondents' Profile based on their Years of Experience

Figure 3 showed that respondents with 21 - 30 years working experience constituted 28% of the
respondents while those with 11 - 20 years experience had 33% of respondents. Respondents
within the range of 5-10 years provided 17% of the responses while respondents within 31 - 41
years made up 22% of the respondents.

4.1.4 Survey Results and Data Analysis
Survey participants' perceptions (evaluations) on the impact of each barrier against ESM in
project delivery on the basis of a 5-point Likert Scale where 1 represents Very Low Impact, 2
represents Low Impact, 3 Moderate Impact, 4 High Impact and 5 Very High Impact were
analysed using RII approach. The Relative Importance Index (RII) value of each barrier was
calculated using the formula given under Ranking Approach. The calculated RII values were then
used to rank the barriers in descending order. The respondents' perceptions, RII values and
ranking of each barrier against ESM in MIPs' delivery are contained In Table 3. The Table
contains list of barriers to ESM, the respondents’ evaluations of their respective impacts, the
barriers’ values and ranking.

Table 3: Respondents' Perceptions, RII Values and Ranking of Barriers to ESM in MIPs' Delivery
Barrier N Respondents

Evaluations
RII Rank

1 2 3 4 5
Client's Uncooperative Attitude 18 0 0 0 5 13 0.9444 1
Failure to Identify Potential Conflict Areas 18 0 0 1 9 8 0.8778 2
Uncooperative Attitude of Stakeholders 18 0 1 1 7 9 0.8667 3
Failure to Identify Key Stakeholders 18 0 1 4 4 9 0.8333 4
Failure to Understand Stakeholders' Needs and
Expectations

18 0 0 4 7 7 0.8333 4

Project Manager's Poor Knowledge of SM 18 0 1 5 2 10 0.8333 4
Failure to Meet Information Requirements of all 18 0 2 7 6 3 0.8222 5

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 950

Stakeholders
Conflicts between Stakeholders 18 0 1 5 5 7 0.8000 6
Lack of Stakeholder Engagement/Involvement 18 1 0 4 7 6 0.7889 7
Issuance of Incorrect Information to Stakeholders 18 0 3 4 3 8 0.7778 8
Lack of Fairness and Equity, for all Stakeholders; 18 0 2 2 8 6 0.7778 8
Inhumane Attitude in Relating with Stakeholders 18 0 3 4 3 8 0.7778 8
Limited Stakeholder Engagement/Involvement 18 1 0 6 5 6 0.7667 9
Misunderstanding of Roles by Stakeholders 18 0 0 7 7 4 0.7667 9
Failure to Engender Trust with the Stakeholders; 18 0 2 3 10 3 0.7667 9
Failure to Recognise Adverse Stakeholders 18 0 0 4 9 5 0.7556 10
Taking Over Roles from One Stakeholder & Assigning
them to Another

18 0 6 4 6 2 0.7556 10

Lack of Open and Ongoing Communication Process 18 0 1 5 10 2 0.7444 11
Incomplete Stakeholder Identification 18 1 2 4 7 4 0.7222 12
Lack of a Person Specifically Assigned to Handle SM 18 1 1 6 6 4 0.7222 12
Late Identification of stakeholders 18 1 1 5 9 2 0.7111 13
Failure to Assess Levels of Influence of Various
Stakeholders

18 0 3 5 7 3 0.7111 13

Failure to Understand Relationship between and
among Stakeholders

18 0 1 8 8 1 0.7000 14

Lack of Constant Communication with Stakeholders 18 0 0 10 8 0 0.6889 15
Absence of Formal SM process 18 0 3 6 7 2 0.6889 15
Nature and Size of a Project; 18 1 3 6 4 4 0.6778 16
Lack of Periodic Stakeholder Meetings 18 0 3 9 5 1 0.6444 17
Project Location 18 4 3 2 6 3 0.6333 18
Issuance of the Same information to all Stakeholders 18 2 5 4 3 4 0.6222 19
Assignment of Similar Task to two Stakeholders 18 1 4 5 5 3 0.6111 20
Stakeholders' Incapacity to Participate in Discussions 18 1 4 7 6 0 0.6000 21
Cultural Differences between Stakeholders 18 3 4 4 5 2 0.5889 22
Involvement of Numerous Stakeholders 18 3 3 5 6 1 0.5889 22
Language Barrier between Stakeholders 18 4 3 5 5 1 0.5556 23

Results of the study as contained in Table 3 clearly indicated that PMs have different
perceptions on respective levels of impact of the various barriers to ESM in MIPs’ delivery which
resulted in different RII values and rankings for the barriers. It can also be clearly seen from the
Table that the RII values range between 0.5556 and 0.9444 while the barriers were ranked from
first to twenty third positions. The Table also clearly indicated that Client's Uncooperative
Attitude with an RII value of 0.9444 was ranked as the first barrier to ESM in MIPs delivery in
Nigeria followed by Failure to Identify Potential Conflict Areas with an RII value of 0.8778 and
Uncooperative Attitude of Stakeholders in the second and third positions respectively.
Language Barrier between Stakeholders with an RII value of 0.5556 was according to the Table
ranked as the twenty third and last barrier to ESM in MIPs delivery.

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 951

The result also showed that some barriers have the same RII values as a result of which they
were ranked in the same positions. Such barriers as shown on the included Failure to Identify
Key Stakeholders, Failure to Understand Stakeholders' Needs and Expectations and Project
Manager's poor knowledge of SM with similar RII value of 0.8333 each of which was ranked as
the fourth barrier. Eighth and ninth positions were shown on the Table to be occupied by three
barriers while the tenth, thirteenth, fifteenth and twenty second positions were each shared by
two barriers.

4.2 Discussions
Findings from the study as presented in Table 3 highlighted the PMs perceptions on the level of
impact of each barrier against ESM in MIPs' delivery and implied that each of the barriers has
different level of impact against ESM in MIPs delivery. The rankings implied that ESM cannot be
achieved in the delivery of MIPs unless each barrier is given the attention it deserves based on
its identified level of impact against ESM in the projects' delivery. It further implied that
successful delivery of an MIP may not be achieved unless the barriers are adequately addressed
because unexpected problems and uncertainty to a project can, according to Karsen (2002), be
caused by stakeholders, if stakeholder management is not adequately addressed in the project's
delivery.

The ranking of client's uncooperative attitude as the first barrier against ESM in MIPs delivery by
the study as shown in Table 3 clearly underscored the importance of a client's attitude to
ensuring ESM and successful project delivery. A client, according to Chinyio and Omolaiye
(2015), initiates a project, finances the project, determines its objectives and scope, specifies the
functions the project's outcome should satisfy and largely determines its methods of
implementation. The authors added that a client must be the starting point for understanding
the priorities and interests of project stakeholders without which ESM will not be possible.
Failure to Identify Potential Conflict Areas was, as shown in the Table, ranked as the barrier with
second highest level of threat to ESM in MIPs delivery. The ranking, which represented the PMs’
perceptions on the level of impact of the barrier, implied that the barrier may not allow
stakeholders' managers to identify probable conflict areas in MIP delivery, develop preventive
measures and/or address the conflicts when they occur in order to achieve ESM in MIPs delivery.
Stakeholder managers should therefore proactively identify all likely areas of conflicts and
circumstances that may result in conflict between MIP stakeholders and develop proactive
measures to prevent the conflicts and/or addressing them when they eventually occur. The
ranking of another barrier associated with failure to identify conflict areas, that is, conflicts
between stakeholders as the sixth barrier was also shown in the table. This barrier has direct
impact on ESM and MIP delivery because no meaningful achievement can be recorded in a
conflict situation. Conflict of authority between some role players of a Large Infrastructure
Project (LIP) created serious management problem for the LIP which contributed to the project's
failure (Zarewa et al., 2018).The likely impacts of these two barriers on ESM have made authors
such as Jepsen and Eskerod, (2009); Yang et al. (2009) and Chinyio and Akintoye, (2008) to
consider identifying and analysing possible conflicts and coalitions among stakeholders as well
as effective resolution of conflicts among stakeholders as CSFs for ESM.

The ranking of uncooperative attitude of stakeholders as the third barrier suggested that MIPs'
stakeholders should strive to get the cooperation of all stakeholders associated with the delivery

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 952

of their project, if they wish to achieve ESM and successful delivery of their projects.
Uncooperative attitude of some stakeholders can, according to Chino and Omolaiye (2015),
make construction projects irrespective of their sizes to become embroiled in a process of
controversy and conflict without warning.
The ranking of failure to identify key stakeholders, failure to understand stakeholders' needs
and expectations, and project manager's poor Knowledge of SM in the same fourth position
implied that respondents of the study perceived the three barriers to have the same level of
impact in MIPs delivery. Failure to identify key stakeholders will make ESM difficult if not
impossible because without identifying the stakeholders, the manager may not know their
needs and expectations, power, perception, disposition towards the projects, constraints etc.
and the approach to adopt in managing them. Miller and Oliver (2015) postulated that it is
important to identify key stakeholders in order to understand how much power they have to
either facilitate or hinder a project. The authors further argued that the identification will lead to
their effective management and development of plans to ensure that they (key stakeholders)
fulfill their functional position based on the project team’s identification of their position and
influence in the stakeholder map. ESM will also be difficult to achieve in a situation where a PM
fails to understand stakeholders' needs and expectations because the manager's knowledge of
what the stakeholders require and expect from the project will provide very useful information
on how to manage them effectively. This can best be appreciated if the fact that stakeholders
have different needs and expectations that may create clashes within the project is taken into
consideration. It is therefore important for stakeholders to be managed according to their needs
and expectations so that no stakeholders may feel left out. Teye Buertey et al. (2016) were of the
views that project team must determine stakeholders' requirements and expectation and
manage their influence in relation to their requirements in order to ensure ESM and successful
project delivery. Project Manager's poor knowledge of SM has direct relation with quality of SM
in any project delivery because a project manager cannot effectively manage stakeholders
without appropriate knowledge and skills. A study by Eyiah-Botwe1 et al. (2015) on the
importance of a PM's appropriate knowledge to achieving ESM identified PMs’ poor knowledge
as a major Critical Barrier Factor to an effective SM. The authors further argued that a person
cannot give what he/she does not have.

Failure to Meet Information Requirements of all Stakeholders ranked as the fifth barrier will
make ESM in MIPs delivery difficult to achieve because stakeholders cannot perform optimally
without adequate, accurate and appropriate information. Lack of appropriate, timely and correct
information can make a project to become embroiled in a process of controversy and conflict
without warning (Chino and Omolaiye 2015). Another barrier closely related to the last one is
Issuance of Incorrect Information to Stakeholders ranked as the eighth barrier against ESM in
MIPs delivery by the study. It will be extremely difficult to achieve ESM in MIPs delivery on the
basis of incorrect information because actions and/or decisions taken using such information
may turn out to be wrong or fraught with mistakes. Moreover, issuance of incorrect information
may make stakeholders to suspect and/or mistrust any information issued to them and this will
affect stakeholder management processes. Stakeholders' perception of correctness or otherwise
of information given to them has significant effect on SM. Chinyio and Omoloyaie (2015) argued
that there is a serious prospect of failure in stakeholder management process if information
given by those responsible for a project cannot be trusted by affected stakeholders.

http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 953

The ranking of Lack of Fairness and Equity, for all Stakeholder and Inhumane Attitude in
Relating with Stakeholders as the eight barriers to ESM in MIPs delivery did not come as a
surprise because they are related. ESM cannot be achieved if stakeholders are unfairly and
inhumanly treated because these dual treatments can demoralise stakeholders and make them
to work against achieving ESM and successful project delivery. Fairness and humane treatment
of stakeholders can, on the other hand, motivate them to work at their best and contribute
greatly towards ESM and successful MIP delivery. The two barriers can result in stakeholders'
dissatisfaction, make the stakeholders unsupportive of a project and cause adverse relationship
between stakeholders all of which will be inimical to ESM and MIPs delivery. The importance of
stakeholders' support, satisfaction, and healthy relationship between stakeholders to ESM and
successful project has been highlighted and emphasised by many authors. Kelly (2015) argued
that keeping stakeholders satisfied is vital for project success while Charted Body for the Project
Profession (2014) discovered that investing effort in identifying and building stakeholder
relationships can increase confidence across a project environment, minimise uncertainty, and
enhance speed of problem solving and decision-making.

Three barriers, Limited Stakeholder Engagement/Involvement, Misunderstanding of Roles by
Stakeholders and Failure to Engender Trust with the Stakeholders were jointly ranked as the
ninth barrier to ESM in MIPs delivery. The ranking implied that the study respondents perceived
them to have the same impact against ESM in MIPs delivery. Limited Stakeholder
Engagement/Involvement cannot ensure ESM in MIPs delivery due to the fact limiting the
stakeholder to engage with or involve in SM will not provide stakeholder managers with
information to use in managing the excluded stakeholders' interests, needs, expectations,
importance, power, influence, complaints, etc. Full stakeholder engagement/involvement is
regarded by many authors and researchers as a major success factor in construction projects.
Paul and Ritchie (2012) opined that stakeholder engagement/involvement should be inclusive of
all stakeholders that will affect or be affected by a project. Teye Buertey et al. (2016) argued that
to ensure a successful project, the project team must identify and engage all stakeholders,
determine their requirements and expectation and manage their influence in relation to their
requirements. Failure to engender trust with stakeholder will result in mistrust, suspicion and
loss of confidence in project manager by stakeholders which will undoutbly impact SM in MIPs
delivery. The level of trust stakeholder managers are able engender with their stakeholders will
determine how the stakeholders will perceive the accuracy or otherwise of the information.
Chinyio and Omoloyaie (2015) argued that a problem will arise once any given information is
perceived to be inaccurate and any every effort to improve that information may face the risk of
being met with suspicion by those stakeholders for whom the information is intended.

Failure to Recognise Adverse Stakeholders and Taking over Roles from One Stakeholder &
Assigning them to Another shown to occupy tenth position in Table 3 have the potential of
hindering ESM in MIPs. Non recognition of adverse stakeholders will deprive stakeholders'
managers the opportunity to assess their interests, power, influence, expectations and views on
the project. Cleland (1986) was of the views that failure to recognise or cooperate with adverse
stakeholders may hinder ESM and successful project outcome because some strong and
vociferous adverse stakeholders can force their particular interest on a project manager at some
time, perhaps at a time least convenient to the project. Taking over Roles from One Stakeholder
& Assigning them to Another has the potential of causing conflict between the affected

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 954

stakeholders and hindering ESM in MIPs delivery. An MIP was discovered to experience serious
conflict between in-house staff and consultants due to the taking over of the design and
management of the MIPs' delivery from the in-house staff and assigning same to the
consultants (Abdu Lawan, 2016).

5. Conclusion
This study investigated project managers' perception of barriers to effective stakeholder
management in the delivery of multifarious infrastructure projects in Nigeria. Both the study and
its timing were considered apt due to the recurring failure of the projects as a result of
problems associated with SM. 34 barriers to ESM in the projects' delivery in Nigeria were
identified, evaluated and ranked by the study. The findings indicated that barriers with different
levels of impact inhibit ESM in MIPs delivery and at times even lead to the projects' failure. The
study recommends the development and effective implementation of Stakeholder Management
Strategy (SMS) that will clearly spell out how to address both the barriers identified by this study
and those yet to be identified.

Findings of the study will enable project managers and other stakeholders associated with the
delivery of MIPs to understand barriers hindering ESM in the projects delivery and develop
strategies for overcoming the barriers. The study contributed to knowledge by increasing
understanding of barriers to ESM in MIPs delivery and their respective levels of impacts.
It is however important to note that the study has some limitations that may affect
generalisation of its findings. One of such limitations was the restriction of the study's
respondents to project managers involved in the delivery of MIPs in north eastern and north
western reasons of Nigeria. Findings of the study could, however, still be used to conduct
another study to cover wider area using similar or different research method.

References
Abdu Lawan, GZ. 2016. Development of Project Governance Framework (PGF) for Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) in Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Department of Quantity Surveying,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
Abu Hassan, MA. 2016. Causes of Delay in Construction Projects: MSc. Thesis, Faculty of
Engineering, Qatar University College of Engineering. pp47-76
Baruch, Y. 2014. Response Rate in Academic Studies - A Comparative Analysis on response rate
in academic studies. Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com, 18/10/2018
Bekker, MC. 2008. Project Governance for Large Capital Investments. PhD Thesis, Graduate
School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa pp169-205
Bodepudi, M. 2018. Roles and Responsibilities of Project Manager and Project Management
Team. Greycampus. https://www.greycampus.com/.../project.../roles-and-responsibilities-of-
project-manag... 16/11/2018
Botchway, K. 2001. Paradox of Empowerment: Reflections on a Case Study from Northern
Ghana.World Development, 29 (1: 135-153.

https://www.greycampus.com/blog/project-management/roles-and-responsibilities-of-project-manager-and-project-management-team
https://www.greycampus.com/blog/project-management/roles-and-responsibilities-of-project-manager-and-project-management-team
http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 955

Bourne, L. and Walker, DHT. 2005. Visualising and Mapping Stakeholder Influence. Management
Decision, 43(5): 649-660.
Chandrayan, P. 2017. Project Managers: Roles and Responsibilities. https://codeburst.io/project
managers-roles-responsibilities-103bc122195d 16/11/2018
Charted Body for the Project Profession, 2014. 10 key Principles of Stakeholder Engagement.
Association for Project Management. https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a.../stakeholder-
engagement/key principles/ 16/11/2018.
Chinyio, EA. and Akintoye, A. 2008. Practical Approaches for engaging stakeholders: findings
from the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6): 591-599.
Chinyio, EA. and Olomolaiye, P. 2010. Construction Stakeholder Management. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex,
PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom, pp.57-167.
Chinyio, EA. and Olomolaiye, P. 2015. Construction Stakeholder Management. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex,
PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom, pp.13-121.
Cleland, DI. 1986. Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4):36–45.

Eskerod, P. and Jepsen, AL. 2013. Project Stakeholder Management, 1st Edition Gower
Publishing Ltd. Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot, GU11 3HR, United Kingdom.
Eyiah-Botwe, E., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, WD. 2016. Mega Construction Projects: Using
Stakeholder Management for Enhanced Sustainable Construction. American Journal of
Engineering Research, 5(5):80-86.
Eyiah-Botwe, E., Aigbavboa, CI. and Thwala, WD. 2015. Critical Barriers Affecting Stakeholder
Management in the Construction Industry. https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za>.....13/02/2019
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. 2015. Research Methods for Construction, (Fourth Edition), Blackwell
Science, Oxford, U.K. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West
Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom, pp.57-215.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. 2003. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of
Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Techniques and People, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Fox, JR. and Miller, DB. 2006. Challenges in Managing Large Projects. Defence Acquisition
University Press, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, U. S. A.
Giordano, R., Passarella, G., Uricchio, GF. and Vurro, M. 2007. Integrating Conflict Analysis and
Consensus Reaching in a Decision Support System for Water Resource Management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 84: pp213-228.
Gunduz, M., Nielsen, Y., and Ozdemir, M. 2014. Fuzzy Assessment Model to Estimate the
Probability of Delay in Turkish Construction Projects. Journal of Engineering Management,
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000261,04014055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000261

 https://codeburst.io/project
managers-roles-responsibilities-103bc122195d  16/11/2018 
 https://codeburst.io/project
managers-roles-responsibilities-103bc122195d  16/11/2018 
 https://codeburst.io/project
managers-roles-responsibilities-103bc122195d  16/11/2018 
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a.../stakeholder-engagement/key principles/ 16/11/2018. 
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a.../stakeholder-engagement/key principles/ 16/11/2018. 
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a.../stakeholder-engagement/key principles/ 16/11/2018. 
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng


Zarewa: Project Managers' Perceptions on Barriers to Effective Stakeholder Management (ESM) in Multifarious
Infrastructure Projects (MIPs) delivery in Nigeria. AZOJETE, 15(4):939-957. ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818,
www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 956

Hammad, S. 2013. Investigating the Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects in the
Gaza Strip. MSc Thesis, the Islamic University of Gaza.
Ibrahim, AD., Price, ADF. and Dainty, ARJ. 2006. An Analysis of Success Factors for Public
Private Partnerships in Infrastructure Projects in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Procurement,
12 (1): 51 - 69. http://www.journalofconstructionprocurement.com
Idrus, AB. and Newman, JB. 2002. Construction Related Factors Influencing Concrete Floor
Systems. Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 20: 13-19. Taylor and Francis,
United Kingdom. http://www.scimagojr.com>journa....
Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, 2012. Public Private Partnership Manual for
Nigeria. Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission of Nigeria (ICRC), pp. 5-13
Jepsen, AL. and Eskerod, P. 2009. Stakeholder Analysis in Projects: Challenges in Using Current
Guidelines in the Real World. International Journal of Project Management, 27: 335 – 345.
Johnson, JW. and LeBreton, JM. 2004. History and Use of Relative Importance Indices in
Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 238-257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510
Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (Third Edition).
SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP, pp53-136
Kelly, C. 2015. Project Management: The Importance of Managing Stakeholders. Geneva
Business News. https://www.gbnews.ch/project-management-the-importance-of-managingn
stakeholders/ 16/11/2018.
Li, Y., Lu, Y. and Peng, Y. 2011. Hierarchical Structuring Success Factors of ProjectStakeholder
Management in Construction Organizations. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22:
9705-9713. http:/www.academicjournals.rog/AJBM.
Lock, D. 2007. The Essentials of Project Management, 3rd Edition, Gower Publishing Ltd
Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot, GU11 3HR, United Kingdom Project.
Project Management Institute 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge:
(PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. 5th edition.
Matthews, J. 2007. Survey Acceptable Response Rate. Effortmark
Ltd.www.effortmark.co.uk/surveys acceptable-response rate. 11/10/2018
Megha, D. and Rajiv, B. 2013. A Methodology for Ranking of Causes of Delay for Residential
Construction Projects in Indian Context. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, 3(3): 25 37.
Molwus, JJ. 2014. Stakeholder Management. Construction Projects: A Life Cycle Based
Framework. PhD Thesis, Heriot Watt University, Edinburg pp.134-276.
Newcombe, R. 2003. From Client to Project Stakeholders: A Stakeholder Mapping Approach.
Construction Management and Economics, 21(8): 841-848.

https://www.gbnews.ch/project-management-the-importance-of-managingn stakeholders/ 16/11/2018.
https://www.gbnews.ch/project-management-the-importance-of-managingn stakeholders/ 16/11/2018.
https://www.gbnews.ch/project-management-the-importance-of-managingn stakeholders/ 16/11/2018.
http://www.effortmark.co.uk/surveys acceptable-response rate.  11/10/2018                                                               
http://www.effortmark.co.uk/surveys acceptable-response rate.  11/10/2018                                                               
http://www.azojete.com.ng


Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, December, 2019; Vol. 15(4) 939-957. ISSN 1596-2490;
e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Corresponding author’s e-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng 957

Olander, S. and Landin, A. 2008. A Comparative Studies of Factors Affecting the External
Stakeholder Management Process. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6): 553-564.
doi:10.1080/01446190701821810.
Orlander, S. and Landin, A. 2005. Evaluation of Stakeholder Influence in the Implementation of
Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1): 321-328.
Pacagnella Júnior, AC., Porto, GS., Pacífico, O. and Salgado Júnior, AP. 2015. Project Stakeholder
Management: A Case Study of a Brazilian Science Park. Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation, e 10(1):39-49, . Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía Negocios.
Paul, N. and Ritche, M., 2012. Major Governance Toolkit-Overview and Guidance.
http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/major_project_gov.aspx. 14/11/2014.
Peter, N. 2017. Tips for Driving Effective Stakeholder Management.
https://www.inxsoftware.com/.../tips-for-driving-effective-stakeholder-management 18/10/2018.
Retfalvi, LA. 2014. Achieving Project Success Using Proven Stakeholder Management Techniques.
Proceedings of 2014 Project Management Institute Global Congress, Newtown Square, Phoenix
AZ, North America.
Somiah, MK., Osei-Poku, G. and Aidoo, I. 2015. Relative Importance Analysis of Factors

InfluencingUnauthorized Siting of Residential Buildings in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis of
Ghana. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 3: 117-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jbcpr.2015.33012
Taylor, A. 2015. 5 Steps to Stakeholder Engagement: Strategic Planning and Management
Insights. https://www.smestrategy.net/blog/stakeholder-engagement-in-your-strategic-plan-pt-
112/11/2018.
Teye Buertey, JI., Amofa, D. and Atsrim, F. 2016. Stakeholder Management on Construction
Projects: A Key Indicator for Project Success. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(4):117-126.
Watt, A. 2014. Project Management. http://open.bccampus.ca.
www2.ensc.sfu.ca/~whitmore/courses/ensc305/.../Project_Management_Watt.pdf 10/11/2018
Yang, J., Shen, GQ., Ho, M., Drew, DS. and Chan, AP. 2009. Exploring Critical Success Factors for
Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 15(4): 337-348.
Zarewa, GA., Ibrahim, AD., Ibrahim, YM. and Adogbo, KJ. 2018. Governance Impact Assessment
on Large Infrastructure Project (LIP) Delivery. Journal of Engineering, Project and Production
Management, 8(1): 9-21

http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/major_project_gov.aspx
https://www.inxsoftware.com/.../tips-for-driving-effective-stakeholder-management
https://www.smestrategy.net/blog/author/anthony-taylor
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/index?journalid=229
http://www2.ensc.sfu.ca/%7Ewhitmore/courses/ensc305/pdf%20files/Project_Management_Watt.pdf
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/azojete143/www.azojete.com.ng