Mixed methods: Qatar - Essay Example

Mixed methods: Qatar The study has for its aim the exploration of the causes of disruptions and delays in large-scale infrastructure projects, during the phases of initiation and planning, in the state of Qatar. This is being undertaken in the context of determining which of the research questions tied to this project aim lend themselves to being answered with qualitative and quantitative data. Tied to this, the paper explores ways of integrating quantitative and qualitative data, as well as the attendant challenges moving forward. This paper leverages existing project documents, namely the pilot project document and the literature review document, with the project title being “An Overview of the Primary Causes of Delay and Disruption During the Initiation and Planning Phases for Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects in the State of Qatar—A Client Perspective”. It has been established in the literature review that there is value in investigating the causes of disruptions in delays in large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar, given the large negative impacts of such delays in the success of past infrastructure projects with global import, such as the Asian Games in 2000, and given that the country is set to host the World Cup in 2022. The lessons and insights to be gleaned from such a study of the causes of disruptions and delays in large infrastructure undertakings, specifically in the initiation and planning stages, ought to improve the prospects for the successful staging of the 2022 World Cup in particular, and other large infrastructure undertakings by Qatar in general. The study, mindful of past experiences and with an eye towards improving outcomes in the said areas moving forward, takes off from an analysis of deficiencies and shortcomings in the past and hopes to look at such factors as the management models and best practices employed by the Qatari project management teams in order to ensure the success of public undertakings such as the 2022 World Cup (Deloitte Global Services Limited 2013; Arab Times Kuwait English Daily 2013; Simons 2007). It is important to note that mixed methods considerations factor into a novel area of investigation such as the causes of delays in large scale infrastructure projects as they apply to the Qatar case, given that the literature in general is still exploring those causes, and the growing body of research continues to focus on pinning down the areas in the initiation and planning stages of the projects that are prone to cause problems. The large body of research all point to a common theme, and that is of the initiation and planning stages being particularly problematic and causing significant delays and disruptions. In the context of the Qatari case, where the need to come up with fixes to the potential problems relating to such delays is very important, given the global importance of the upcoming World Cup event in 2022, and given that being able to identify and overcome the sources of such delays and disruptions should bolster Qatar’s public spending performance and the performance of its large-scale infrastructure in the long run in general. The context is important too, given that Qatar-specific data collection exercises must be relevant and must help in ferreting out the problems and their causes as they relate to delays and disruptions in the crucial early stages of project planning and execution. Going back to the main problems to be addressed in this paper, relating to which aspects of the overall research question lend themselves to being answered with qualitative data and quantitative data respectively, the question of integration is important with regard to the two sets of data, given that the enormity of the problem and the enormity of its positive impacts to Qatar’s public sector and the staging of the World Cup when solved requires that the two sets of data be considered together to yield potentially useful insights into solving the problems of delays and disruptions in the execution of such large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar (Kaliba et al. 2009; Ahsan and Gunawan 2010; Said and El-Rayes 2010; Cantarelli et al. 2012; Doloi et al. 2012; Flyvberg et al., 2004; Le-Hoai et al. 2008; Flyvberg et al. 2009). II. Research Questions, Hypotheses The pilot project paper details a strategic question and corollary research questions that flow from that strategic question. The strategic question asks thus: What are the primary reasons that Qatari large-scale infrastructure projects point to as causing complications, overruns, and deficiencies in project performance, and what potential roles can the phases of project initiation and planning play in addressing these deficiencies, overruns and complications? Tied to this strategic question, the study aims to conduct an empirical investigation into the industry of infrastructure development in Qatar, with a view towards being able to find out the impact of the planning and initiation phases of construction projects in determining projects failure and success. Success or failure here relates to being able to complete set project requirements and specifications within target timelines and budgets (Pilot Project 2013). Flowing from the research aim above is a set of objectives, related to the eventual research questions that were identified for the study. The research objectives are as follows: (1) the identification of barriers, relative to desired outcomes, that the project faced stemming from the specific problems and challenges in the initiation and planning stages of large-scale construction projects; (2) the conduct of a survey of the experiences and insights of project managers in Qatar, relating to the factors that contribute to project overruns in terms of time and money; (3) the identification of opportunities to enhance project outcome success prospects, via improvements in the planning and initiation phases of the large-scale infrastructure projects (Pilot Project 2013; Bryde 2005; PMI 2008; Merrow 2001; Wysoki 2006; Weaver 2008; Barker and Cole 2009). From the above strategic question, aims and objectives flow the following research questions (Pilot Project 2013): 1. What factors during the planning and initiation phases of large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar are most contributive to project delays and disruptions? 2. What are the reasons for the planning and initiation phases of the project to cause substantial delays and disruptions in large scale projects, hence necessitating their having special emphasis in the project management literature? 3. What are the cascades of effects from one cause of delay in the earlier stages of a project all the way to the later stages? 4. How are different project types affected by different causes of delays and disruptions, and what are the holistic approaches available to mitigate/control the causes from the perspectives of both the client and the project? (Pilot Project 2013) Two sets of hypotheses have been developed, flowing from the exposition of the research questions above. They are as follows: Hypothesis 1: Project delays and disruptions at the planning and initiation phases negatively affect the completion of projects Hypothesis 1 Null: Project delays and disruptions at the planning and initiation phases do not negatively affect the completion of projects Hypothesis 2: The delays and disruptions in the planning and initiation phases of large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar have derailed Qatar’s ability to fully reach the potential of the construction and infrastructure development sectors of the country Hypothesis 2 Null: The delays and disruptions in the planning and initiation phases of large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar have not derailed Qatar’s ability to fully reach the potential of the construction and infrastructure development sectors of the country (Pilot Project 2013). III. Models, Approaches The questions proposed above for the study lend themselves to a number of theoretical approaches for answering them, especially as they relate to resolving difficulties in the planning and initiation phases of large-scale infrastructure projects, and especially as they relate to the use of specific models for dealing with the difficulties in these initial stages of a project. As discussed in the pilot project document, the literature is diverse and not very specific about the models and approaches that are useful from a theoretical point of view. Taking a step back, the models seem to indicate that there are various approaches to dealing with the assessment of the extent of the delays and disruptions at these early stages of the project, from the systems theory approach of Weaver (2008), to the three classifications of projects in the conception of Wysoki (2006). All of them indicate to varying degrees of clarity and relevance that there are indeed many facets to the problems associated with delays and disruptions emanating from the planning and initiation stages, even as Merrow (2001) quantifies the impact of the planning and initiation costs to total project costs at anywhere from three to five percent for those project phases only, and not quantifying the impact to total costs from problems springing from the two phases, as they impact later stages of the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects (Merrow, 2001; Wysoki, 2006; Kaming et al. 1997). Elsewhere the literature points to other instances where poor planning and initiation led to a cascade of negative effects down the line that led to projects underperforming on key performance metrics, including poor contingency planning, and overall poor project execution, not to mention delays and overruns in costs and time. The recommendations meanwhile include looking at risk management as an important input in the planning stages, together with intelligent interventions at later stages of the project, making use of good planning and initiation practices to lay a good foundation for overall project success. Clearly what these approaches lack is an overall indication, meanwhile, of the kinds of research, qualitative or quantitative, or both in mixed methods designs, that will lead to good insights relating to the research problems stated here. At any rate, the literature seems to suggest that the hypotheses are validated in their affirmative formulations, and that indeed, problems at the planning and initiation stages of large-scale infrastructure projects negatively impact project outcomes, and that those problems have caused the Qatar infrastructure development sector to miss out on realizing its full potential in the past and moving forward (Cantarelli et al. 2012; Kaliba et al. 2009; Ahsan and Gunawan 2010; Ng and Loosemore 2007; Said and El-Rayes 2010). Having briefly touched on theoretical models that relate to the proper approach to dealing with problems relating to the planning and initiation projects for large-scale infrastructure projects, the paper turns to an investigation of the available quantitative and qualitative data options that can be used to deal with the research questions discussed above. Going back to the questions to be addressed in this paper, the chief concern is with regard to determining which research questions lend themselves to being adequately answered with qualitative research methods and data, and which questions lend themselves to being answered with quantitative research methods and data. Tied to this, how can one integrate quantitative and qualitative research methods and data in mixed method approaches to properly answer the questions relating to the Qatar experience, and what are the challenges in this regard moving forward? Intuitively one can imagine that a resort to just qualitative or just quantitative research methods and data may not be adequate, each on their own, to properly answer the questions posed for this research undertaking given the complexity of the issues that are reflected in the literature, and as discussed above. The large number of theoretical models that have been proposed to understand and determine the problems that lead to project delays and disruptions at the planning and initiation phases indicate the complexity of those problems, necessitating, intuitively, a mixed methods approach. Offhand, an investigation into the causes of project delays in Qatar, via a survey of project managers, would entail qualitative probing surveys, as well as quantitative methods to rank and quantify the extent of the problems and their underlying causes. On the other hand, even here it is evident that a mixed methods approach would be most ideal, because of the complex nature of the issues being explored necessitating that the most appropriate approaches, blending the best of both qualitative and quantitative data approaches, be used. The estimation is that, a mixed methods approach that is mindful of the quality of the responses from the Qatar project managers, practitioners, and academics would yield the best outcomes and the best insights (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009). From a purely theoretical perspective, the mixed methods approach moreover lends itself to being more comprehensive and holistic, with those terms being associated with mixed methods approaches that effectively blend qualitative and quantitative research methodologies into a unified approach that helps deal effectively with very intricate problems, such as those that are being investigated in the project and as stipulated in the pilot project document. The amalgamation of the two research approaches has to be such that the two are able to either validate or question the results of individual qualitative and quantitative research components within the mixed methods approach, as well as to be able to lend themselves to being compared in terms of the outcomes of the individual methods in order to ferret out unusual insights from the comparison, as well as to come up with new insights and knowledge coming directly out of the comparison. The operative words in mixed methods research methods include a greater variety of perspectives, richer instruments and results, more flexible research methodologies, and the ability to circumvent the limitations of either just qualitative or qualitative approaches taken alone, among others. This extends the benefits of mixed methods research methods of merely triangulating results, for this is the special case where the various components are in congruence with regard to the results. In the general case, there is a richness in both method implementations and results associated with mixed research methods, as discussed above, that are simply not available when either qualitative data or quantitative data approaches are used alone (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009; Jonker and Pennink 2010; Creswell and Clark, 2011; Bryman, 2012; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009; Creswell 2011). IV. Sampling Methods and Sample Characteristics, Data Collection Instruments The study as discussed in the pilot study document leveraged the insights from the value of mixed methods research protocols to come up with a two-tiered data gathering methodology, where the first component is made up of a mixed methods instrument consisting of a survey with Likert characteristics, which is quantitative, together with open-ended questioning. The inspiration for this first amalgam, mixed method research instrument came from the examples and discussions in Creswell and Clark (2011) for the Likert survey as well as the mixed method instrument in total, and Merriam (2009) and Bryman (2012) for the qualitative open-ended questions component. In the Likert survey component, the survey responses were calibrated on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 for responses to assessment questions of the experiences and backgrounds of those surveyed, related to the topic at hand. In the first section, the focus was on demographic data, followed by statements that required measured responses relating to the state of infrastructure in Qatar together with questions relating to project management in the second section. The third section presented fifteen factors that the respondents had to rate in terms of influence degree, where the factors had to do with the outcomes of projects (Pilot Project 2013; Merriam 2009; Bryman 2012). The second tier of the data collection exercise entailed the use of a data collection tool made up of five open-ended questions that had been partially structured to elicit similarly partially-structured responses. The questions were geared towards eliciting responses to what amounted to challenges to the critical thinking of the respondents relating to the experiences of the project managers in managing infrastructure projects in Qatar. The questions also tried to elicit their thoughts relating to addressing biases and shortcomings/practices in different organizations that impact project performance. The survey responses for this tier were prepared and compared with an eye to ferreting out thematic elements in those responses, whether they be major or minor elements. This mode of data analysis, as prescribed in Merriam (2009), is supposed to allow for an analysis that yields similarities as well as differences in responses to the open-ended questions. Those trends in turn informed further analysis, with an eye to generating conclusions and insights from the qualitative data (Merriam 2009; Bryman 2012; Pilot Project 2013). The sampling method and the characteristics of the eventual sample population are also prime considerations because they impact results and weigh on the value and usefulness of the mixed methods approaches that were used in the study, as discussed above. Taking as the general potential population to be the project managers and key government personnel that had responsibilities tied to executing on the large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar, an initial sample size of ten was whittled down to six by the time of the data gathering period. This is done over a period of eight weeks. The six members of the final sample population were briefed with regard to the purpose and methods of the study, and were each interviewed for an hour on average, until the data collection instruments had been satisfactorily been administered to all six (Merriam 2009; Bryman 2012; Pilot Project 2013). VI. Outcomes The results of the mixed methods approach to data gathering essentially yielded excellent insights into what ails the infrastructure sector in Qatar, and those ills relate to the lack of standardization and the lack of early involvement of project managers and the use of proven project management methodologies as they pertain to the planning and initiation phases of large-scale infrastructure projects in the country. Those have definite implications for the prospects for completion of the projects, and effectively derail the country’s ability to fulfill to the full its potential in terms of optimizing the performance of the infrastructure development sector. The results are meaningful even with a small sample size too, indicating the effectiveness and value of the mixed methods approach to answering the questions posed for this study. The richness and appropriateness of the methods and their results can be gleaned from the way the table below, for instance, is able to determine the top contributors to project delays and disruptions in large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar, and how they are ranked (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009; Jonker and Pennink 2010; Creswell and Clark, 2011; Bryman, 2012; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009; Creswell 2011; Pilot Project 2013): 1 Contract inconsistencies and disagreements 1.17 2 Specific public sector requirements (e.g. resource levels, quality levels, time demands, etc.) 1.33 3 Mid-term client design changes and project feedback 1.50 4 Resource accessibility or unpredictable shortages 1.50 5 Lack of adequate best practices and performance guidelines 1.67 6 Fractured or incomplete project management methodology 1.83 7 Significant increases in costs for materials, labour, or resources 2.00 8 Unforeseen (external) risks and delays 2.00 9 Project manager experience/knowledge 2.17 10 Design inconsistencies or deficiencies 2.17 11 Corporate management and leadership 2.33 12 Organisational skill sets and competencies 2.67 13 Competitive forces and other industry interests 2.67 14 Deficiencies in the organisational vision and agenda 3.83 15 Human errors or skill deficiencies 4.33 Table Source: Pilot Project 2013 VII. Conclusion Given that the mixed methods approaches have been hailed as being more flexible and multi-dimensional, and as well as enabling researchers to come out with research tools that are marked by greater creativity and completeness/comprehensiveness, it is easy to see that the mixed methods approaches are the most appropriate approaches to answering the questions relating to the subject matter being discussed in this paper, namely, the problem of finding out just what the impacts of the initiation and planning stages of large-scale infrastructure projects in Qatar are to the completion prospects of those projects and the overall state of the infrastructure development sector in the country (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009; Jonker and Pennink 2010; Creswell and Clark, 2011; Bryman, 2012; Pilot Project 2013). . References Ahsan, K., Gunawan, I. 2010. Analysis of Cost and Schedule Performance of International Development Projects. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, pp. 68-78. Arab Times Kuwait Business Daily 2013. World Cup Projects Seen To Boost Qatar GDP. Arab Times. [Online]. Available at: http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/195932/reftab/96/t/World-Cup-projects-seen-to-boost-Qatar-GDP-/Default.aspx [Accessed 2 November 2013] Barker S. and Cole, R. 2009. Brilliant Project Management: What the best project managers know, do and say. Harlow: Pearson Education. Bryde, D.J. 2005. Methods for managing different perspectives of project success. British Journal of Management 16, pp. 119-131. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 4th Edition. Cantarelli, C.C., Molin, E.J.E., Wee, B.V., Flyvbjerg, B. 2012. Characteristics of Cost Overruns for Dutch Transport Infrastructure Projects and the Importance of the Decision to Build and Project Phases. Transport Policy, Vol. 22, p. 49-56. Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2nd Edition. Deloitte Global Services Limited 2013. Insight into Qatar construction market and opportunities for real estate developers. Deloitte.com. [Online]. Available at: http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_XE/xe/services/financial-advisory/ff9de0ddb950f310VgnVCM3000003456f70aRCRD.htm [Accessed 2 November 2013] Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C., Rentala, S. 2012. Analysing Factors Affecting Delays in Indian Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, pp. 479-489. Flyvberg, B. et al. 2004. What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport Infrastructure Projects? Transport Reviews 24 (1). [Online]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.4476.pdf [Accessed 2 November 2013] Flyvberg, B. et al. 2009. Delusion and Deception in Large Infrastructure Projects. California Management Review 51 (2). [Online]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.7403.pdf [Accessed 2 November 2013] Jonker, J., Pennink, B. 2010. The Essence of Research Methodology: A Concise Guide for Master and PhD Students in Management Science. Berlin: Springer. Kaliba, C., Muya, M., Mumba, K. 2009. Cost Escalation and Schedule Delays in Road Construction Projects in Zambia. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 522-531. Le-Hoai, L. et al. 2008. Delay and Cost Overruns in Vietnam Large Construction Projects: A Comparison with Other Selected Countries. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 12 (6). [Online]. Available at: http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/VN_delay_cost_project.pdf [Accessed 2 November 2013] Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merrow, E.W. 2011. Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Ng., A., and Loosemore, M. 2007. Risk Allocation in the Private Provision of Public Infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, pp. 66-76. Pilot Project (2013). Pilot Project Documentation. PMI. 2008. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute, 4th Edition. Said, H., El-Rayes, K. 2010. ‘Optimizing the Planning of Construction Site Security for Critical Infrastructure Projects.’ Automation in Construction, Vol. 19, pp. 221-234. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research Methods for Business Students 5th edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Simons, Char 2007. Doha’s Grand Games. Saudi Aramco World. [Online]. Available at: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200702/doha.s.grand.games.htm [Accessed 2 November 2013] Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A.(2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Weaver, P. 2007. The Origins of Modern Project Management. PM World Today, 10 (3), pp. 1-20. Wysocki, R.K. 2006. Effective Project Management: Traditional, Adaptive, Extreme. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Read More