Musau 4TH Project Management Theses

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INFLUENCE
LEVELS ON SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF

BOREHOLE WATER PROJECTS IN MAKUENI COUNTY,
KENYA
JOHNSON KYALO MUSAU
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Project Management)
JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
2020
Project Management Practices Influence levels on Successful
Implementation of Borehole Water Projects in Makueni
County, Kenya
Johnson Kyalo Musau
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Project Management in the Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology
2020
DECLARATION
This Thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
University.
Signature: …………………………………… Date: …………………………………
Johnson Kyalo Musau
This Thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University
Supervisors:
Signature: …………………………… Date: …………………………….
Prof. Henry M. Bwisa.PhD

JKUAT, Kenya
Signature: …………………………………… Date: ………………………………
Prof. John M. Kihoro,PhD

The Co-operative University of Kenya
ii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Esther Wayua and the late William Musau Naku
who gave firm foundation to my education, my wife, Angeline Mueni and my children,
Mwende, Katunge and Mutisya.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the process of doing this study, several people contributed and supported me in one
way or another. It is not possible to mentioned all of them by name but there are those I
am deeply indebted without their input, I count not have made it.
I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Henry Bwisa and Professor John Kihoro
for their guidance, support, patience and constructive criticism while doing the study.
My sincere gratitude goes to my lecturers Prof. Bwisa, Prof. Namusonge, Prof. Mukulu,
Prof. Gakure, Dr. Gichira and Dr. Orwa. I would also like to appreciate my colleagues,
the PhD September 2014 class, for their contributions through discussions, presentations
and interactions which gave me a better understanding in project management.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xiv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................... xv
DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................... xviii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... xxii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Project Management .............................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Project Cycle Management ................................................................................... 2
1.1.3 Project Implementation Practices .......................................................................... 2
1.1.4 Project success factors ........................................................................................... 9
1.1.6 Project management practices considered as influencing successful

implementation of borehole water projects ........................................................ 10
1.1.6(a) Project Change Management .......................................................................... 11
1.1.6 (b) Project Team Competency ............................................................................ 11
1.1.6 (c) Project Stakeholders’ Involvement ................................................................ 12
1.1.6 (d) Project Resource Management ...................................................................... 13
1.1.6 (e) Project Environment ...................................................................................... 14

v
1.1.7 Background of the water projects ........................................................................ 15
1.2 Statement of Research Problem .................................................................................. 16
1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 19
1.4 Hypotheses of the study .............................................................................................. 20
1.5 Justification ................................................................................................................. 21
1.6 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 21
1.7 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 23
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................... 23
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 23
2.2. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Project Management Theory ............................................................................... 24
2.2.2 Theory of Change ................................................................................................ 26
2.2.3 Team Theory ....................................................................................................... 27
2.2.4 Stakeholders’ Theory .......................................................................................... 29
2.2.5 Resource Management Theory ............................................................................ 31
2.2.6 Environment Theory............................................................................................ 33
2.3 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 34
2.4 Review of Literature on Variables .............................................................................. 36
2.4.1 Project Change Management............................................................................... 37
2.4.2 Project Team Competency .................................................................................. 38
2.4.3 Project stakeholders’ involvement ...................................................................... 39
2.4.4 Project Resource Management ............................................................................ 40
vi
2.4.5 Moderating effect of project environment........................................................... 41
2.5 Empirical Review ........................................................................................................ 41
2.6 Critique of Existing Literature .................................................................................... 45
2.7 Research Gaps ............................................................................................................. 47
2.8 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 48
2.9 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................ 49
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 49
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 49
3.2 Research philosophy ................................................................................................... 49
3.3 Research design ........................................................................................................... 50
3.4 Target population ........................................................................................................ 50
3.5 Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................... 51
3.6 Sample and Sampling technique ................................................................................. 51
3.7 Data collection instruments ......................................................................................... 52
3.8 Data collection procedure ........................................................................................... 53
3.9 Pilot Test ..................................................................................................................... 53
3.10 Reliability .................................................................................................................. 53
3.11 Content and Construct validity ................................................................................. 54
3.12 Normality .................................................................................................................. 54
3.13 Data Analysis and Presentation ................................................................................. 54
3.13.1 Statistical models ............................................................................................... 55
3.12.2 Test of hypotheses ............................................................................................. 55
vii
3.12.3 Operationalization of Study Variables .............................................................. 56
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 58
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS........................................................... 58
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 58
4.2 Response rate .............................................................................................................. 58
4.3 Validity of Research Instruments ................................................................................ 58
4.4 Descriptive statistics.................................................................................................... 59
4.4.1 Gender of respondents ........................................................................................... 59
4.4.2 Project implementation .......................................................................................... 60
4.4.3 Project environment ............................................................................................... 62
4.5 Reliability Analysis .................................................................................................. 64
4.5.1 Aggregation of Independent Variables .................................................................. 65
4.6 Variables Diagnosis .................................................................................................... 66
4.6.1 Normality Tests for All Variables ......................................................................... 66
4.6.1 (a) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project implementation index ........................................ 67
4.6.1 (b) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project change management ........................................... 68
4.6.1 (c) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Team Competency .............................................. 69
4.6.1 (d) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Stakeholders’ Involvement ................................. 70
4.6.1(e) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Resource Management ......................................... 71
4.6.1(f) Normal Q-Q Plot of project environment .......................................................... 72
4.6.2 Linear Relationship between the Study Variables ................................................. 73
4.6.3 Collinearly tests ..................................................................................................... 76
4.7 Influence levels of study variables on Project Implementation .................................. 76
viii
4.7.1 Objective 1: Analyze the change management influence level on successful
4.7.1(a) Regression results for change management influence level on project

implementation ................................................................................................... 79
4.7.1 (b) The Moderating Effect of Project Environment on the Relationship

between Change Management and Project Implementation .............................. 80
4.7.2 Objective 2: Examine the project team competency influence level on

4.7.3 Objective 3: Determine stakeholders’ involvement influence level on

4.7.3 (a) Regression results for project stakeholders’ involvement influence level on
project implementation ....................................................................................... 92
4.7.3 (b) The Moderating effect of project environment on the relationship between
project stakeholders’ involvement and project implementation ......................... 94
4.7.4 Objective 4: Establish project resource management influence level on

4.7.4 (a) Regression results on project resource management influence level on

project implementation ....................................................................................... 99
4.7.4 (b) The moderating effect of project environment on the relationship between
project resource management and project implementation .............................. 101
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................... 105
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 105
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 105
5.2 Study Findings .......................................................................................................... 105
5.3 Conclusions of study ................................................................................................. 107
5.4 Recommendations of the study ................................................................................. 109
5.4.1 Recommendation for policy and practice .......................................................... 109
ix
5.4.2 Recommendation for further research ............................................................... 109
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 111
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 135
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Operationalization of independent variables.................................................. 56
Table 3.2: Operationalization of dependant variable ...................................................... 57
Table 4.1: Gender of respondents ................................................................................... 59
Table 4.2: Project implementation .................................................................................. 61
Table 4.3 Project Environment ........................................................................................ 63
Table 4.4: Reliability Coefficient of the Independent Variables .................................... 64
Table 4.5: Aggregation of Study Variables ..................................................................... 65
Table 4.6: Test of Normality ........................................................................................... 67
Table 4.7: Correlation matrix .......................................................................................... 75
Table 4.8: Project change management........................................................................... 78
Table 4.9: Relationship between change management and project implementation ...... 80
Table 4.10: The Moderating Effect of Project Environment on the Relationship between
Change Management and Project Implementation ................................................... 81
Table 4.11: Project team competency influence level on project implementation ......... 84
Table 4.12: Relationship between Project Team Competency and Project
Implementation ......................................................................................................... 86
Table 4.13: The moderating effect of project environment on the relationship between
project team competency and project implementation ............................................. 88
Table 4.14: Influence of stakeholders’ involvement on project Implementation ............ 91
Table 4.15: Relationship between project stakeholders’ involvement and project
implementation ......................................................................................................... 93
xi
project stakeholders’ involvement and Project Implementation............................... 95
Table 4.17: Project resource management ...................................................................... 99
Table 4.18: Relationship on project resource management and Project Implementation
................................................................................................................................ 100
project resource management and project implementation .................................... 102
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework.................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.1: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project implementation index ...................................... 68
Figure 4.2: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project change management ........................................ 69
Figure 4.3: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Team Competency .......................................... 70
Figure 4.4: Normal Q-Q Plot of project stakeholders’ involvement............................... 71
Figure 4.5: Normal Q-Q Plot of project stakeholders ..................................................... 72
Figure 4.6: Normal Q-Q Plot of project environment ..................................................... 73
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 135
Appendix II: Interview guide ....................................................................................... 141
Appendix III: List of Borehole Water Projects in Makueni County implemented in the
year 2010– 2016...................................................................................................... 143
xiv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANOVA Analysis of variance
APR Annual Progress Reports
ASLs Arid and Semi Arid Lands
CMI Change Management Institute
GDP Gross domestic product
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NIMES National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
ORS Organizational Research Services
PMBOK Project Management Book of Knowledge
PMI Project Management Institute
TANATHI Tana and Athi River
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
USAID United States Agency for Internal Development
WAB Water Appeal Board
WAGs Water and Sanitation Action Groups
xv
WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board
WCIC Weather and Climate Information Centers
WHO World Health Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WRMA Water Resources Management Authority
WRUA Water Resources Users Associations
WSBs Water Services Boards
WSTF Water Services Trust Fund
xvi
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Change Management any intentional change process, including those constituted
formally as a change portfolio, change programme or
change project (CMI, 2013)
Conflict resolutions processes of finding a peaceful to a disagreement among
two or more parties (PMI, 2018).
Clear objective easily understood terminal behavior or desired outcome of
the project (Pass et al, 2005).
Defined roles Specified position or purpose that someone or something
has in a project (PMI, 2018).
Effective communication A two way information sharing process which involves
one party sending a message that is easily understood by
the receiving party(PMI, 2018).
Goal setting the process of deciding what you want to accomplish and
devising a plan to achieve those desired results (PMI,
2018)
Ecological factor any factor, abiotic or biotic, that may influences project
implementation (Yoo and Kim (2019).
Effective leadership a combination of soft skills and high emotional
intelligence, which leads to certain behaviors that a person
a demonstrates to influence others (PMI, 2018).

Management support a procedure which is concerned with getting appropriate
information to managers as and when they need it and
which aids the manager in making decisions (Pass et al,
2005).
Needs identification systematic set of procedures that are used to determine
necessary and relevant issues for proper planning and
implementation (Pradhan & Pradhan, 2011).
Political factors refer to the stability of the political environment and the
attitudes of political parties or movements (Mbithi et al,
2017).
Project change management the capability of an organization to effectively design
and transition project outcomes into the business (CMI,
2013).
Project environment conditions, not under the control of the project team, that
influence, constrain, or direct the project (PMI, 2013).
Project implementation
practice a technique, tool, method, or approach used effectively to
arrive at the desired outcome (Menon, 2015).
Project implementation coordinating people and resources, managing stakeholder
expectations, as well as integrating and performing the
activities of the project in accordance with the project
management plan (PMI, 2013).

xix
Project Managemen application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to
project activities to meet project requirements (PMI,
2013).
Project Resource
Management the processes to identify, acquire, and manage the
resources needed for the successful completion of the
project (PMI, 2018).
Project stakeholders individuals, groups, or organizations who may affect, be
affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by a
decision, activity, or outcome of a project (PMI, 2013)
Project stakeholders’
Involvement Practice of applying stakeholder inclusiveness in
sharing information, consulting, dialoguing or deliberating
on decisions in a project (Eskerold, Huemann, &
Ringhofer, 2015)
Project success factors the elements of a project which, when influenced, increase
the likelihood of success; these are the independent
variables that make success more (PMI,2018).
Project sustainability the capacity of a project to continue to deliver its intended
benefit over a long period of time (Amjad, Ojomo,
Downs, Cronk & Bartram, 2015).
xx
Project team is a group of employees with interdependent interactions and
mutually-shared responsibilities (Khoshtale & Adeli, 2016).
Project team competency Required skills and abilities to complete the project
activities in accordance with accepted design limitations (PMI,
2018).
Teamwork the willingness of a group of people to work together to achieve a
ommon aim (PMI, 2018).
Technological factors refer to the rate of new inventions and development, changes in
information and mobile technology, changes in internet and
ecommerce and spending on research (Mbithi et al, 2017)
Training refer to developing in oneself or others, any skills and knowledge
or fitness that relate to specific useful competencies.
www.businessdictionary.com
xxi
ABSTRACT
The existence of poor project implementation is likely to lead to low development levels
in a country. This is because development of a country is dependent on successful
project implementation. This study examined influence level of project management
practices: change management, project team competency, stakeholders’ involvement,
and project resource management on implementation of borehole water project. It also
determined the moderating effect of project environment of the study variable. It
adopted cross sectional survey approach. Quantitative data was collected using a semi-
structured and open-ended questionnaire which was administered to 89 chairpersons of
borehole water projects and analyzed by statistical package for social sciences (SPSS)
version 24. Qualitative data was collected using interview guide and analyzed by
Content Analysis. Multiple regression analysis was done to establish whether there is
any relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The study found that:
change management positively influence implementation of borehole water projects in
Makueni County (r = 0.346 and P-value <0.001), project team competency was found
also to positively influence implementation of borehole water projects (r = 0.265 and P-
value <0.001), stakeholders’ involvement positively influence successful
implementation of water projects in Makueni County (r = 0.233 and P-value <0.001),
and project resource management influences successful implementation of borehole
water projects in Makueni County (r = 0. 0.400 and P-value <0.001). Project
environment was found not a moderator of all study variables. The study concluded that:
project resource management influence level was the highest (0.593), followed by
change management (0.546), then stakeholders’ involvement (0.474) and the least was
project team competency (0.440). The study thus, contributed to previous knowledge by
identifying the influence levels of the variables. The study recommends these practices
to be given due consideration during project design, planning and implementation.
Further, the study recommends further research using longitudinal study design to
validate these findings, and similar research to be done in other areas to compare study
findings.
xxii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Project management is a means of coordinating and managing projects in a complex,

vulnerable, unpredictable and ambiguous environment. Organizations using project
management are therefore able to: compress the product life cycle; use knowledge
explosion to their advantage; use sustainable business practices; downsize operations;
and increase customer focus (Larson & Gray 2011). Thus, organizations using project
management practice are innovative and are likely to have a successful outcome reached
more quickly and having consumed fewer resources.
1.1.1 Project Management
Project according to Project Management Institute’s (PMI, 2013) is a temporary

endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result and go through a life
cycle. Project life cycle consists of five stages namely: project initiation, project
planning, project implementation, t monitoring and evaluation stage, and project closure.
Each stage has a set of activities which are carried out in detail with involvement of
stakeholders and documentation in order to ensure project success (PMI, 2013). Projects
are means by which an organization can achieve development goals. Project
management has been embraced by organizations to address myriad of challenges due to
globalization and advances in business operations. Organizations using best project
management practices have many advantages which include: transfer of knowledge,
better communication, time and cost savings, better process quality, better position on
the market, an international approach of labor, better monitoring and controlling of
projects (Ilies, Crisan & Muresan, 2010).
1
1.1.2 Project Cycle Management
Project cycle management (PCM) is the term given to the process of planning and
managing projects, programmes and organizations (Blackman, 2006). It breaks project
cycle into six stages in the life of a project thereby providing basis for effective
preparation, implementation and evaluation. International Committee of the Red Cross
([ICRC], 2008) opines that, project cycle management contributes to results based
management by rationalizing the steps leading to a successful outcome. Spreckley
(2006) further observes that, project cycle management can achieve sustainable solutions
to perceived problems by taking into account of the need to involve those who are
intended to benefit in all levels of planning, implementing and evaluating. Blackman
(2006) also argue that, a central value of project cycle management is monitoring and
evaluation of the project which is done throughout the project cycle to ensure that any
changes which have occurred or lessons learned are included in the project design and as
a result, projects are more likely to be successful and sustainable. In order to collect
information to be used in all phases of the project life cycle and meet the needs of all
stakeholders and to measure performance against the strategic plan of the organization,
work breakdown structure is developed to ensure that all tasks are identified and that
participants of the project have an understanding of what is to be done; integrated
information system is developed to schedule work and allocate budgets, and a
communication plan is used to help coordinate project activities and follow progress
(Larson & Gray 2011).
1.1.3 Project Implementation Practices
According PMI(2013), Project Cycle Management [PCM] typically consist of four

phases namely: project initiation which is first phase where a business problem or
opportunity is identified and a business case developed; planning which is the second
phase and involves detailed planning; the third phase is project implementation which
involves executing the activities created in planning. Project implementation process
2
involves coordinating people and resources. This includes managing stakeholder
expectations, as well as integrating and performing the activities of the project in
accordance with the project management plan (PMI, 2013). The implementation phase is
typically the longest phase of the project in terms of duration. It is the phase within
which resources and effort are used to turn inputs into outputs to meet customer
requirements. During this phase, people are carrying out the tasks, and progress
information is being reported through regular face- to - face meetings with stakeholders.
Because of the number of activities, amount of resources and amount of time involved,
the implementation phase determines success or failure of projects. This is the phase
which this study examined. Project closure which the fourth phase involves: releasing
the final deliverables to the customer, handing over project documentation, terminating
supplier contracts, releasing project resources and communicating the closure of the
project to all stakeholders.
Project implementation practice refers to a technique, tool, method, or approach used

effectively to arrive at the desired outcome (Menon, 2015). They are practices which
have been tried in project implementation and found to deliver the expected results.
Adopting project implementation best practice is likely to lead to project success.
However, use of these practices is dependent on organizational parameters. As posited
by Menon (2015), implementation of best practices in the project depends on the
existing organizational culture, which directly influences the project organization.
Properly and timely applied project management practices may lead to project success
and wrongly used project management practice may lead to project failure (Al-Hajji and
Zrauning, 2018). This has been demonstrated by several researchers. Fraz et al (2016)
did a study in Pakistan and confirmed that, project success is correlated with project
management practices in manufacturing organizations. Further, Al-Hajj and Zrauning
(2018) in their study, on Project Management Implementation in Construction industry
revealed that, majority of successful projects implemented, do not fully utilize
contemporary project management practices to their capabilities and; the influence of
3
project management practices on project success depends on the practitioners’ training,
the timing and level of implementation achieved, whereas the human factor plays an
essential part for achieving project success. Ndachi and Kimutai (2018) in their study on
Project Management Practices in Public Hospitals concluded that, project management
practices: government policies, project planning and project funding contribute
positively to implementation of health projects in public hospitals. Mulewa, Kising’u
and Oyoo (2019) in their study on Implementation of Youth Projects in Mombasa
County in Kenya confirmed that the four project management practices; project
stakeholder engagement, project leadership, project monitoring and project risk
management were practiced and were significant in implementation of youth projects in
Mombasa County. Properly and timely applied project management practices may lead
to project success and wrongly used project management practice may lead to project
failure (Al-Hajji & Zrauning, 2018). Idoro and Patunula-ajayi (2009), affirmed that,
most projects in Nigeria failed because project implementation practices was not well
established in public sector. Further, Mavuti, Kising’u and Oyoo (2019) in their study,
concluded that project management is important for success of any project
implementation, yet in most projects it has not been adopted effectively. Igwe and Ude
(2018) established that in Nigeria, the three tiers of government have not really planned,
implemented and executed projects with due diligence in accordance with global best
practices leading to a widespread institutional mediocrity in project execution,
deficiency of vision, and inadequate budgetary allocations leading to high cost of project
financing and corruption in the long run. Adopting best project implementation practices
has several challenges which include role of senior leadership, effectiveness of project
management office, human factors, project management training, poor adoption of
project management standards, and triple constraints (Menon, 2015). Project managers
and teams implementing projects thus, need to consider these challenges against the
organization’s experiences and capabilities.
4
Project implementation process involves management of human and non human
resources, diverse stakeholders, project team which integrates and performs project
activities so as to bring about the desired change. Furthermore, project implementation
process involves the practice of coordinating people and resources, managing
stakeholder expectations, as well as integrating and performing the activities of the
project to bring about the desired change (PMI, 2013). Thus this study examined the
influence of project management practices: change management, resource management,
project team competency, stakeholders’ involvement on successful implementation of
borehole water projects. Guo, Wang and Wang (2017) demonstrated that, human
resource environment and social & cultural environment have no significant impact in
small/medium industrial enterprises, Science & technology environment in large-scale
industrial enterprises have positive impact than in small/medium. They further observed
that, political environment in small/medium industrial enterprises have a better positive
impact than in large scale industrial enterprises. Akanni, Oke and Akpomiemie (2015)
confirmed that, economic, financial and political project environmental factors influence
project implementation. Because projects are implemented in a dynamic environment,
the study also determined the moderating effect of project environment on each variable.
(a) Change management
Project implementation brings about a change initiative and as observed by Crawford,

Aitken, and Hassner-Nahmias (2014), project managers are embracing change
implementation practices despite their absence from project management standards.
Further, Menon (2015) is of the view that, change management is one of the best
practices for effective project management since it provides direction towards future
state and it aligns culture with people for enabling strategic changes. Successful change
management can be influenced by many factors which can affect the objective of the
project. Alexandrova and Kuzmanova (2017) in their study among Bulgarian business
organizations operating in the IT sector concluded that, organizational change
implemented by projects is effective if there is supportive role of the culture, leadership,
5
affirmative support by the top management and effective communications. Further,
Munassar, Ghanim, and Dahlan (2013) conducted a survey among Malaysian Ministries
departments and agencies on Success of IT projects and demonstrated that, effective
communication, empowering individual with skills, top management and stakeholders
agreement and commitment, organization culture support, effective were among the
success factors for effective change management. In their study on Change
Management Practices on Performance of Teachers Service Commission, Wachira and
Anyieni (2015) concluded that communication have a significant effect on Teachers
Service Commission performance. Furthermore, Wainaina and Anyieni (2017)
concluded that, communication is very effective in delegation of duties, forwarding of
grievances and enacting disciplinary procedures.
(b) Project resource management
Resources which are rare and valuable drive an organization to achieve its strategic goal.
Availability or lack of resources may determine successful project implementation or
failure. Furrer, Thomas and Goussevskaia (2008) opine that organizational performance
is dependent on the fit between its intangible asset portfolio, foreign market entry
strategies, partner relationships, and worldwide organizational structure. Bhoola and
Giangreco (2018) examined the impact of Human Resource activities and practices on
value-driven project management in the Indian IT industry and confirmed that efficient
project leadership, effective communication, training of project leaders, ensuring job-
matching and listening to team members’ issues influence project success while team
conflicts and personnel turnover, however, adversely impact IT project success. In their
study on effect of resources management on project Success in Rural Rwanda Projects,
Ndayisaba and Mulyungi (2018) concluded that human resource, time resource,
financial resources are key for project success. Further, Gashuga, Kule and Ndabaga
(2016) did a study on effect of funds management on project performance in Rwanda
and concluded that, budgeting, fundraising, funds control and funds allocation plays a
big role towards performance of the project. In their study on effects of material
6
management techniques on Construction Project Success in Northern Region of Ghana,
Napoleon, Eugene, Asubonteng, Tom, and Alubokin (2018) revealed that, planning and
monitoring of material schedule; establishing good business relations with suppliers; the
use of security measures on site; use of information communication technology; and also
use of competent workers as well as effective training of workers is significant for
effective material management on construction site, and has direct effect on project
implementation success. They further revealed that, use of ICT can help different parties
involved in project implementation do some functionality such as purchasing orders,
paying invoices and processing credit checks, and manage flow of material order,
product, transportation and delivery of goods.
(c) Project team competency
Project teams are temporary in nature and may not go through the normal team
formation cycle, yet they are expected to deliver tangible results within a limited time
frame. They are constituted from people with diverse background are supposed to bond
and influence knowledge sharing and project implementation. Garousi, Tarhan, Pfahl,
Coakuncay, & Demirors revealed that, team experience with the project development
methodologies, and team’s expertise with the task are key competences of a team. Han
and Hovav (2013) in their study on diverse social connections in IS project teams in S.
Korea concluded that, project team members with diverse social connections and is
bonded share knowledge and positively influences project implementation. Khedhaouria
and Jamal (2016) did a study in France on project teams confirmed that, team members’
learning orientation can be increased by promoting a climate that encourages open
discussion of problems, mistakes and errors and this in turn positively influences project
implementation. Li Yang, Klein, and Ghen (2010) confirmed that: the ability of a team
to solve problems that arise during project implementation can help to overcome
uncertainty of requirements, and Project leader is a key driver of project team and his
actions or inactions determine team performance. Alqahtani, Chinyio, Mushatat, and
7
Olke (2015) identified influencing aspects of the project leader as competencies and
skills, capability, self-sufficiency, and leadership style.
(d) Project stakeholders’ involvement
Projects have many stakeholders and their involvement is likely to make their needs and
expectations known, contribute resources and support the project. Botwe, Aigbavboa,
and Thwale (2016) quoting Mok, Shen,& Yang (2013) posited that, stakeholder issues
are associated with the diverse stakeholders involved, their cultural background and the
culture of the project location in context. Further, Heravi, Coffey, and Trigunarsyay
(2014) quoting Saghatforough et al (2010) state that, to meet the differing demands for
different stakeholder groups and in order to increase effectiveness and efficiency in
decisions that are made during project cycle, a comprehensive stakeholder involvement
plan must be developed. Furthermore, Ingason (2014) in his study on project
management practices in quality management system concluded that, organizations
using direct participation of the employees, were likely to implement their quality
management systems in the time they expected. Therefore, for successful project
implementation, it is important to evaluate the importance and influence levels of all
stakeholders and their perception towards the project. However, involving stakeholders
in project implementation has potential drawbacks which include: conflict, delay, and/or
resource demand (OECD, 2015).
(e) Moderating effect of project environment
Project implementation is dependent on a dynamic environment and as such,

environmental variables may impact on the implementation practice. Yoo and Kim
(2019) in their study on the effects of environmental uncertainty on Korean firms’
investment confirmed that, top managers’ entrepreneurial orientation may be adjusted by
the characteristics and intensity of environmental uncertainty. Alon et al (2013) in their
study on the moderating effects of environmental dynamism on project performance
8
concluded that, environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between dynamic
capabilities strategy and new venture performance. However, Akpomiemie (2014) in
their study on impact of environmental factors in construction industry in Nigeria,
confirmed that successful management of political, legal, technological, economic and
financial positively influences project implementation.
1.1.4 Project success factors
It is not easy to define success or failure because, as observed by Hussein (2013),

success and failure are not only subjectively perceived and constructed by people, but
are also entwined in meaning and action. Project success embodies the perceived value
of a project when the result or product is in operation while project management success
is the ability to comply with time, cost and schedule requirements (Hussein, 2013).
According to PMI (2013), project success is measured by product and project quality,
timeliness, budget compliance, and degree of customer satisfaction. Project success
therefore defines the benefits of the project as perceived by the beneficiaries. Steinfort
and Walker (2007) argue that, project success should be seen as a collaborative
achievement that involve joint-team action to identify problems and solutions to these
problems, taking action to effectively deliver, while learning from the process and fine
tuning strategy and tactics employed in a constructive and reflective way. Furthermore,
Alias,et al, (2014) are of the view that, success on a project means that certain
expectations for given participants were met whether owner, planner, engineer,
contractor or any other stakeholder.
There are many competing forces in project management and managing projects focuses
on balancing these competing project constraints namely: scope, quality, schedule,
budget, resources and risks. The quality and the ultimate success of a project are defined
by meeting and/or exceeding the expectations of the customer and upper management in
terms of cost, time, and performance of the project (Larson & Gray, 2011). In addition,
organizational culture, style and structure influence project performance (PMI, 2013).
9
Furthermore PMI (2013), observe that, organizations adhering to project management
methods and strategies have reduced risks, cut costs and improved success rates. Mir and
Pinnington (2014) posited that, for project success components like relations with
customers and partners, policy and strategy should be made visible in the organization to
all levels of project management hierarchy; organizations should invest in project
management performance framework in order to achieve better project results, higher
employee engagement, and improved retention rates.
Project success factors, are the elements of a project which, when influenced, increase
the likelihood of success; these are the independent variables that make success more
likely (Muller & Jugdev, 2012). Mir and Pinnington (2014) gives five project success
measurement factors to include: efficiency, impact on customer, impact on team,
business Success, and preparation for the future. Furthermore, Martens et al (2016) adds
sustainability as the sixth factor. There are no universal project success factors to all
projects and different projects have different project success factors, resulting in that
contemporary research lacks in sufficient hard evidence, for justifying the positive
influence of project management on project success. Nevertheless, due to the rich
variety of different practices, which are applicable to different project life cycle phases,
it seems of utmost importance to apply the right implementation practice at the right
time.
1.1.6 Project management practices considered as influencing successful

implementation of borehole water projects
It is always necessary to identify project success factors at the onset of a project because
knowing the factors that have highest influence on the project’s success not only help
the management process but also increase its efficiency. Project management practices
considered as influencing successful implementation of borehole water projects in this
study include: change management, project team competency, stakeholders’
10
involvement, project resource management, and the moderating effect of project
environment on the study variables.
1.1.6(a) Project Change Management
Projects are the means by which organizations and governments introduce changes in
services and products. Thus, projects bring about change in an organization and that
change has to be managed well. As observed by Ghanim, Munassar and Dahlan (2013),
a project is considered as a core element in any organization and its continuity can be
guaranteed through a successful change management. Project Change Management
describes the capability of an organization to effectively design and transition project
outcomes into the business (Change Management Institute [CMI] 2013). Crawford, et al
(2014) affirmed that, successful project change management leads to successful project
implementation. Thus, project managers need to understand how to structure a change
initiative, and how to work with operational managers to ensure that it has the best
possible chance of delivering the expected benefits (CMI, 2013). Furthermore, according
to CMI (2013), organizational change occurs at three levels: project change
management, business change readiness, and organizational change leadership.
1.1.6 (b) Project Team Competency
Projects are performed by teams. Project teams are therefore, the engines that drive the
project. According to Khoshtale and Adeli (2016), project team in organizations is a
group of employees with interdependent interactions and mutually-shared
responsibilities. Assaf, Hassanain, & Mughal (2014) demonstrated that, three factors of
teamwork are strongly associated with project success namely: team roles and
responsibilities, team goals and objectives and team leadership. Assaf et al (2014)
further added that, knowledgeable leadership leads to project success through
convincing people of the need to change and to motivate them to work together for
accomplishing project objectives in difficult work environments; understanding and
11
matching employees to their areas of expertise lead to project success. Furthermore,
Gido and Clements (2011) concluded that, the characteristics of effective teams include:
high degree of cooperation, trust, open, timely effective communication and ethical
behavior. These characteristics are important factors for project success. Khoshtale and
Adeli (2016) confirmed that high performing teams: have clear and understandable
roles; team members understand their individual or organization’s duties, rights, and
responsibilities prior to starting the project. Furthermore, Khoshtale and Adeli (2016)
opine that, success of a project is heavily dependent on appropriate management of
internal conflicts, relationship, setting and agreeing on comprehensible goals and
establishing good trusting relationships within the team.
1.1.6 (c) Project Stakeholders’ Involvement
According to Aapaoja, Haapasalo and Söderström (2013), early involvement allows

room for creative solutions and the intensive exchange of ideas. Thus, it leads to
procedures that run in phases, which in turn change the project’s value creation to
holistic value co creation. As observed by Nelson (2007) ineffective stakeholder
management is among the major cause of project failure and that one of the best
practices in stakeholder management include the use of communication plans, creation
of a project management office, and portfolio management. PMI (2013) defines project
stakeholders as individuals, groups, or organizations who may affect, be affected by, or
perceive themselves to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of a project.
According to Newton (2015), one of the keys to successful project is successfully
managing the relationships between stakeholders. Littau (2015) opines that, stakeholders
are defined by their impact on a project and the causes of impacts are identified by
power-interest-attitude they have towards the project. Furthermore, Littau (2015)
identified three categories of impacts as: project execution (PE) impact which is the
overall impact on the project execution process and the final delivered product;
sustainability impact (SI) which is the overall impact on project sustainability
performance, including environmental, social, and profit (or economical); and project
12
management success (PMS) impact which is the overall impact the stakeholder caused
to time, cost and quality performance. Thus, the stakeholders in water sector which
include: National and County governments, project team members, suppliers, water
users, community surrounding the project, politicians, NGOs and donors have different
power and interest in water projects. As observed in PMI (2013), it is critical for project
success to identify these stakeholders early in the project or phase and to analyze their
levels of interest, their individual expectations, as well as their importance and influence.
The process of identifying, prioritizing and engagement of stakeholder should be
continuous exercise because stakeholders move within the organization, or leave it; or
their relative importance to the project or their power and influence changes over the
project’s lifecycle (Bourne, 2006). Furthermore, Bourne (2006) opine that,
understanding stakeholder power and interest determines which stakeholder the project
team should involve in project definition and planning, which stakeholders need
information about the project to mitigate their opposition, and stakeholders roles and
relevant responsibilities. To maintain currency of stakeholders, Bourne (2006) observe
that, the project team should update their assessment regularly, particularly as the project
progresses through the phases of the life cycle or as the stakeholder community changes
to reflect the dynamic nature of the project’s many relationships. This view is supported
by Littau (2015) who asserts that dynamic stakeholder analysis needs to be conducted
often, and therefore a degree of flexibility must be built into the project plans.
1.1.6 (d) Project Resource Management
The success of any project depends on how available resources are managed and as
such, project resource management is pivotal to successful project implementation.
Rahman, Memon, and Karim (2013), identified resources factors that affect project
success to include: material, manpower, finance and, equipment. Project resource
management is a complex task. According to Rahman et al (2013), factors that
contribute to this complexity include: the variety and great number of existing resources
of both human and material, the diversity of tasks that each working unit is able to
13
execute, the performance of each working unit, the involved costs, and the spatial
distribution of all resources over the different places leading to the need for
displacement from one site to another. Rahman et al (2013) concluded that: fluctuation
of prizes of material, cash flow and financial difficulties faced by contractors and
shortage of material are the major factors causing cost overrun and subsequently project
failure; financial problems of contractors influence the procurements of material and
arrangement of adequate number of material and equipment which play an important
role in achieving successful projects. Unger, Kock, Gemunden, and Jones (2012)
demonstrated that, in a single project context, quantity of available resources positively
influences project success. As observed by Roberts (2013), if the employees are given
conducive work environment, trained to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge,
motivated, and their efforts recognized, they will give the organization their best.
Furthermore, as observed by Purnus (2015), lack of cash during the project progress
both at the employer level but mostly at the contractor level leads to delays, penalties
and loss of opportunities which are reflected in the health of projects and organizations.
1.1.6 (e) Project Environment
According to Wideman (2001), project environment are the cultural, organizational and
social surroundings of the project. Further more understanding project environment
leads to possibility of influencing the project environment in a positive way, for the
better reception of the change which the project is designed to introduce (Wideman,
2001). Project environment is dynamic and has a high probability to change during a
projects life cycle. The dimensions of project environment include: project time
environment, the internal project culture, the corporate culture, and the external social
surroundings (Wideman, 2001). The boundary between project and its environment is
dynamic and in constant change because project organization integrates external
resources into its organization. Kreiner (2012), while challenging the rational project
environment is of the view that , complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity witnessed in
practice should be taken into account in the planning of the project and that there is a
14
need to develop skills for using project plans in more inspired and realistic ways.
Akanni, Oke, and Akopomiemie (2015) are of the view that, the project environment in
many developing countries presents challenges that arise mainly from inherent risks
such as political instability, excessive bureaucratic contract procedures, and lack of
adequate infrastructure such as transportation networks, electricity supply, and
telecommunications system. Furthermore, they cite project environmental factors that
have been generally identified to include; political, legal, institutional, cultural,
sociological technological resource, economic, financial, and physical infrastructure.
Furthermore, Akanni et al (2015) deduced that, successful development of construction
projects in Delta State in Nigeria may be greatly jeopardized without effective
management of economic, financial and political clusters.
1.1.7 Background of the water projects
Water is essential for human life and sustainable development and therefore, proper
management of water is a means to reduce poverty, improve food agricultural
production to meet global food security needs and improve the health of society.
According to WHO (2019), 785 million people lack even a basic drinking-water service,
including 144 million people who are dependent on surface water. Globally, at least 2
billion people use a drinking water source contaminated with faeces; contaminated
water can transmit diseases such diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and polio;
contaminated drinking water is estimated to cause 485 000 diarrhoeal deaths each year;
by 2025, half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Globally,
there has been concerted efforts to address the water issue: The United Nations Water
Conference (1977), the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation
Decade (1981-1990), the International Conference on Water and the
Environment (1992) and the Earth Summit (1992), The ‘Water for Life’ International
Decade for Action 2005-2015 and more recently Sustainable Development Goal target
6.1 which calls for universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water.
The targets cover all aspects of both the water cycle and sanitation systems, and their
15
achievement is designed to contribute to progress across a range of other SDGs, most
notably on health, education, economics and the environment. According to Water
Charity for Safe Water and Sanitation (2019), 41 percent of Kenyans still rely on
unimproved water sources, such as ponds, shallow wells, boreholes and rivers; 9 out of
55 public water service providers in Kenya provide continuous water supply, leaving
people to find their own ways of searching for appropriate solutions to these basic needs.
According to WHO (2012), gaining universal access to adequate water and sanitation
would result in an estimated $18.5 billion in economic benefits per year from deaths
avoided and Sub-Saharan Africa loses an estimated 4.3% of GDP each year due to lack
of water supply and sanitation.
In the current environment which is characterized by change, Project Management as

demonstrated by Cleland and Ireland (2002) is the principal means by which operational
and strategic changes are managed in contemporary organizations. Thus, it is no doubt
that best project management practices if adopted will most likely lead to successful
project implementation. The continued poor performance of rural water projects in
Kenya and other developing countries, demonstrates the need to do studies on project
management practices. Over and above that, identification of project management
practice influence levels on implementation of borehole water projects may aid
researchers and policy makers in recognizing their importance.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
The management of water projects all over the world continues to be faced with many
problems. This has lead to projects not delivering the anticipated outcome, continued
high level of poverty, suffering and people dying of hunger in ASALs and wastage of
resources. Statistics from Improve International indicate that, in 2015, data from
126,251 water points across 37 countries sindicate that 20% are not functional and 10%
are functional but have problems. According to WHO-UNICEF (2006), most rural areas
of developing countries, safe drinking water from improved source and sanitation
16
services remain below acceptable standards. According to The Kenya Population Census
(2009), 27.9% of the population obtained water from piped water from water service
providers while 37.2% obtained water from either improved or un-improved springs,
wells or boreholes. All over the world, there have been increased concerns to address the
issue of access to safe water. It is being addressed as one of the basic human rights of
nations (UNDP 2006). The United Nations General Assembly at its 58th session declared
2005 to 2015 as the International Decade for Action “Water for Life”. The Decades
goals were: a greater focus on water- related issues, with emphasis on women as
managers of water to help to half by 2015 the proportion of people who are unable to
reach or afford safe drinking water and do not have access to basic sanitation; recommit
countries to achieving the water related goals of 2000 Millennium Declaration; the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of World Summit for Sustainable Development
and Agenda 21.
The promulgation of The Kenya Constitution in 2010 saw the devolution of the
functions of Central Government and more involvement of local communities in
projects. Participation by local communities in decision making on matters which affect
them is guaranteed in article 24(1) of the Constitution. In Kenya, the Vision for Water
and Sanitation Sector is “to ensure water and improved sanitation availability and access
to all by 2030”. All Kenya’s Vision 2030 flagship projects: Tourism, Agriculture,
Manufacturing, Wholesale and trade, Health, Environment and, Governance will
consume additional water. Kenya being a water scarce country will therefore need to
develop sustainable water projects to meet the targets for Vision 2030. One of the
focuses for Water Sector in Kenya’s Vision 2030 is to shove up water and sanitation
infrastructure with the aim to achieve 90% and 70% access to safe and reliable water for
urban and rural areas and to reduce levels of unaccounted-for-water by 30%. During the
Second Medium Term Plan (MTP II) 2013-2017, one of the flagship projects for Rural
Water Supply Subsector will be to construct and rehabilitate 150 rural water schemes
annually, drill an average of 70 water boreholes annually in areas lacking surface water
17
and construct 160 small dams/pans in ASALs. Within the period 2009-2014, the
Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, increased Water Purification
Points from 198 to 236 and bore holes drilled increased from 97 to 451 across the
country. The Development Expenditure on Rural Water Supply increased from Ksh
1,044.8 to Ksh 2,786.5 million (Kenya Economic Survey, 2014).
However, despite tremendous investment, water projects and interventions have

encountered startling high failure rates over the past several decades. Statistics from
Improve International (2015) show that in 2015, data from 126,251 water points across
37 countries show that 20% are not functional and 10% are functional but have
problems. An assessment of 100 water systems built between 2006–2010, shows that,
75% are still in use, 45 are affected by minor technical issues or serious damages, 14%
are not functional (welthhungerlife, 2011). Numerous projects have been undertaken by
both the Kenya Government and other development agencies to address the water
problem in Makueni County but have not achieved the anticipated results. According to
Makueni County Water Office (2015) between the year 2004 and 2010, twenty two
water projects were undertaken in Makueni County at a cost of Kshs167.74 m but could
not deliver the expected results. The high number of failed water projects suggests
existence of underlying project management practices that are likely to influence project
implementation which have not been identified. It has been realized that many projects
failed even after satisfying the triple criteria and this has evoked researchers to
investigate in depth about success (Velayudhan & Thomas, 2016). Furthermore,
Velayudhan and Thomas (2016) are of the view that, other than the triple criteria, many
other criteria also should be considered to determine success or failure of a project.
Several studies have been done on project management practices that influence success
of projects. Ndachi and Kimutai (2018) in their study concluded that project
management practices: government policies, project planning and project funding
contribute positively to implementation of health projects in public hospitals. Mulewa,
Kising’u and Oyoo (2019) in their study on confirmed that, the four project management
18
practices; project stakeholder engagement, project leadership, project monitoring and
project risk management were practiced and were significant in implementation of youth
projects in Mombasa County. Further, Mavuti, Kising’u and Oyoo (2019) in their study
effect of project management practices on implementation of projects concluded that
project management is important for success of any project implementation, yet in most
projects it has not been adopted effectively.
However, few studies have empirically tested the influence levels of: change
management, project team competency, project stakeholders’ involvement, project
resource management, and moderating effect of project environment on these variables
on successful implementation of borehole water projects. It is against this background
that, the study examined project management practices influence levels on successful
implementation of water projects in Makueni County, Kenya. This study examined the
relationship between the five variables and their influence on project management
practices.
1.3 Objectives
The general objective of this study was to examine project management practices
influence levels on successful implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni
County, Kenya.
Specific objectives of study were to:
1. Analyze the influence level of change management on successful implementation

of borehole water projects in Makueni County.
2. Examine the influence level of project team competency on successful
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County.
3. Determine the influence level of project stakeholders’ involvement on successful
19
4. Establish the influence level of project resource management on successful
5. Determine the moderating effect of project environment on relationship between
each study variable and the implementation of the water project in Makueni
County.
1.4 Hypotheses of the study
A hypothesis is a statement that describes an unknown but tentatively reasonable

outcome for the existing phenomenon (Kombo and Tromp 2006). It is a tentative answer
to what the researcher considers to ought to be the possible outcome of an existing
problem or phenomenon. It is a likely solution to a problem being studied, which is
advanced before the actual research is undertaken. Furthermore, Kothari (2004) defines
hypothesis as a preposition or a set of preposition set forth as an explanation for the
occurrence of some specified group to guide some investigation or accepted as highly
probable in the of phenomena either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture light of
established facts. The study tested null hypotheses. As observed by Lavrakas (2011),
null hypothesis always states that there are no differences between groups on a particular
variable being studied, no effects of particular independent variables on the dependent
outcome variable, or no relationship between the variables being examined. Thus a null
hypothesis is used in a study with the purpose to reject the relationship between
variables. Bonett (2012) used null hypothesis and concluded that, formal assessments of
replication can be obtained, effect sizes can be estimated with greater precision and
generalizability, misleading findings from prior studies can be exposed, and moderator
effects can be assessed. Further, Glickman et al (2014) used null hypothesis in their
study and concluded that, the use of false discovery rate control in the context of
multiple testing can provide a solid basis for drawing conclusions about statistical
significance. Null hypothesis has therefore been used by several scholars in research.
The study tested five null hypotheses as listed below:
20
1. H01: Change management has no influence on implementation of borehole water
projects in Makueni County.
2. H02: Project team competency has no influence on implementation of borehole
water projects in Makueni County.
3. H03: Project stakeholders’ involvement has no influence on implementation of
borehole water projects in Makueni County.
4. H04: Project resource management has no influence on implementation of
borehole water projects in Makueni County.
5. H05: Project environment does not moderate the effect of change management,
project team, stakeholders’ involvement, and resource management on
1.5 Justification
The existence of poor project implementation is likely to lead to poor development. This
is because projects are vehicles which a country uses to deliver development goals. This
study examined project management practices which are likely to influence
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. The research findings of
the study provide an understanding of project management practices within project
implementation and aid researchers and policy makers in recognizing their usefulness.
The results can also be used in teaching of project success factors in institutions of
higher learning.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study examined project management practices influence levels on successful

implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County, Kenya. Project
implementation phase is critical in determining project success because it is the phase
which uses a lot of resources, time and effort. There are many project management
practices which determine project success but this study was limited to only five namely:
project change management, project team, project stakeholders, project resource
21
management and project environment. The choice of Makueni County was because it is
located in an ASALs region with unreliable rainfall, there are no many permanent rivers
and the major source of water are boreholes. These boreholes are well distributed within
the County.
1.7 Limitations of the study
The study had several limitations. First, the study adopted cross sectional survey data for
analysis. But as posited by Setia (2016), in cross sectional survey participants are
selected based on the exposure status, it is difficult to derive causal relationships from
cross-sectional analysis since it is a one – time measurement, and is prone to selection
and recall biases. There is therefore, need to conduct further research using longitudinal
study design to validate these findings. Secondly, data for analysis was obtained from
chairpersons of the water borehole chairpersons only. The response from one cadre is
prone to biases since it will depend on their experience. A Longitudinal studies can be
conducted to address this issue. This is because as observed by Caruana, Roman and
Solli (2015), longitudinal studies have the ability to exclude recall bias in participants,
correct for the cohort effect and can establish sequences of events.
22
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of literature related to practices likely to facilitate or

impede project success. It tries to integrate project management theory into water
projects with a view to identify project management practices influencing levels on
successful implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. The chapters
captures the theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and review of variables,
empirical reviews, critique of relevant literature, research gap, ethical considerations,
and concludes with a summary
2.2. Theoretical Framework
Charmaz (2006) observes that, definition of a theory can be viewed from two schools of
thought: positivists who view a theory as a statement of relationships between abstract
concepts that cover a wide range of empirical observations and the theory seeks to
determine cause – effect relationship and emphasize generality and universality;
interpretative theory which assumes emergent and multiple realities and calls for
imaginative understanding of the phenomena under study. The study adopted positivist
approach. Imenda (2014) opines that, a theory is a set of interrelated concepts, which
structure a systematic view of phenomena for the purpose of explaining or predicting.
He further observes that, a theory is like a blueprint, a guide for model which the theory
is applicable, a set of relationships amongst the variables, and specific predictive claims.
A theory therefore gives predictions and should give clear picture of the relationships.
Therefore, theories are necessary in research as they determine and define the focus and
goal of research (Bwisa, 2015).
A theoretical framework is a broad overview, outline, or skeleton of interlinked items

which supports a particular approach to a specific objective, and serves as a guide that
23
can be modified as required by adding or deleting items (Bwisa, 2015). It is the structure
that supports the study. Furthermore, a theoretical framework provides guidance to a
research project (Bwisa, 2015). As Sekaran (2006) notes, a theoretical framework
theorizes or makes logical sense of the relationships among several factors that have
been identified as important to the problem. Furthermore, Kombo & Thromp (2006)
view theoretical framework as a collection of interrelated ideas based on theories.
Imenda (2014) observes that, theoretical framework refers to the theory that a researcher
chooses to guide him/her in his/her research. Thus, a theoretical framework is the
application of a theory, or a set of concepts drawn from one and the same theory, to offer
an explanation of an event, or shed some light on a particular phenomenon or research
problem. The study used the following theories: Project Management Theory, Theory of
Change, Teams Theory, Stakeholders’ Theory, Resource Management Theory and,
Environment Theory.
2.2.1 Project Management Theory
Projects in one form or another have been undertaken for millennia, but it was only in
the latter part of the 20th century people started talking about project management. The
genesis of the ideas that led to the development of modern project management can
arguably be traced back to the protestant reformation of the 15th century. Protestants
came up with ideas of removing unnecessary elements from process and breaking it into
smallest units to understand and manage them well. The development of scientific
management by Fredrick Taylor (1856-1915) and later the development of general
management theory through to the 1960s, and the emergence of Critical Path Method
from Operation Research were the critical underpinnings for the creation of modern
project management (Weaver, 2007). Project management is the application of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project
requirements. Project management is accomplished through the appropriate application
and integration of logically grouped project management processes, which are
categorized into five Process Groups. These five process groups are: initiating, planning,
24
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and Closing (PMI, 2013). Furthermore,
managing a project typically includes but is not limited to: identifying requirements,
addressing the various needs, concerns, and expectations of the stakeholders in planning
and executing the project; setting up, maintaining, and carrying out communications
among stakeholders that are active, effective, and collaborative in nature; managing
stakeholders towards meeting project requirements and creating project deliverables;
balancing the competing project constraints, which include, but are not limited to: scope,
quality, schedule, budget, resources, and risks (PMI, 2013). Thus, the work of a project
manager job should be regarded as coordinating a process of interrelated functions that
are neither totally random nor rigidly predetermined but are dynamic as the process
evolves.
Success on a project means that certain expectations for a given participant were met,
whether owner, planner, engineer, contractor or operator and the study of project success
is often considered as one of the vital ways to improve the effectiveness of project
delivery (Alias, Zawawi, Yusof, & Aris, 2014). Thus, project success is defined by the
extent to which a project meets expectations of stakeholders and employees. However,
stakeholder expectations are not universal but dependent on the stakeholder and project
environment. There is no single process that makes a project successful. Furthermore,
Alias et al. (2014) observes that, factors that lead to successful projects include: clearly
defined goals and objectives, a well-defined project management process, a proven set
of project management tools, a clear understanding of the role of project management.
The theory has however been criticized for being a traditional model that fits only a
small group of today’s projects since most modern projects are uncertain, complex and
changing, and are strongly affected by the dynamics of the environment, technology, or
markets (Lannon ,2015). Promoters of Project Management Theory who include
Warburton and Cioffi (2014) argue that, the theory provides a fundamental relation
between a project's network structure (the inter-related nature of project activities,
informs managers about how to calibrate projects in terms of observables, such as the
25
total cost and the final schedule, and can used to guide future project improvements.
This theory is relevant to the study because it provides the interrelatedness of project
activities and processes, and provides observables of practice project management that
define project success.
2.2.2 Theory of Change
According to Serrat (2013), a theory of change is a purposeful model of how an

initiative— such as a policy, a strategy, a program, or a project—contributes through a
chain of early and intermediate outcomes to the intended result. Further, Serrat (2013)
observes that, the chief proponents of theories of change were: Auguste Comte (1798–
1857), Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), and Emile Durkheim (1858–1917); Karl Marx
(1818–1883); and Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), respectively. Theories of change help
navigate the complexity of social change. The concept of change management is being
practiced nowadays but how it is managed varies on the change, people and the nature of
business. Project implementation brings about change in an organization and the success
of the project depends on how this change is managed. International Network on
Strategic Philanthropy ([INSP], 2005), define Theory of Change (ToC) as the
articulation of the underlying beliefs and assumptions that guide a service delivery
strategy and are believed to be critical for producing change and improvement. Theory
of Change articulates the intended activity and the expected change it will bring about.
According to Organizational Research Services (ORS, 2004), a theory of change is a
roadmap communicating project goals, activities being done, milestones to evaluate
progress, and how success will be recognized once they occur. The map would also
provide commentary about assumptions, such as the final destination, the context for the
map, the processes to engage in during the journey and the belief system that underlies
the importance of traveling in a particular way. A theory of change, therefore, is a
reflection of the community’s view point on how change occurs when the project is
implemented. When borehole water projects are being implemented, some of the
changes are planned, well defined while others may be spontaneous, emergent, informal
26
or sporadic, such as networking. The theory of change approach has been criticized by
many scholars and researchers. Valters (2014) is of the view that, the theory creates a
top – down accounts of change which emphasizes more donor interests than project
beneficiaries. He further argues that, donors demand results hence placing more
emphasis on the product than the process of project implementation and this discourages
project implementers from critical reflection and therefore constrains Theory of Change
approaches and that, it is prone to political, organizational and bureaucratic forces which
can derail its transformational agenda. Supporters of Theory of Change who include
Silva, Lee and Ryan (2015) argue that, the theory provides information about how, why
and whether an intervention works. It helps a diverse range of stakeholders reach a
realistic consensus on what is to be achieved, how, using what resources and under what
constraints. It embeds the intervention in the real world and helps design an evaluation
that will work and be implemented in real world, rather than just an intervention that it is
possible to evaluate in a research setting. This makes it more likely that the intervention
will be effective and be scaled up. This theory is relevant to the study because it
provides a platform for critical reflection on project assumptions and the context in
which they work.
2.2.3 Team Theory
The Bruce Tuckman theory was created in 1965, and has been applied in countless
organizations and scenarios. With four main stages titled forming, storming, norming,
and performing; this theory is commonly referred to as the origin for successful team
building. The theory assumes a linear relationship of these stages of team development.
Teams are the engines which drive projects and in today’s corporate environment, it is
project teams which hold key to the success of the organization. According to
Kozlowski and Bell (2001) work teams and groups are composed of two or more
individuals, who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more
common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies (i.e., workflow, goals,
outcomes), maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational
27
context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other
units in the broader entity. The activities done by project teams are interdependent and
the success of one activity determines the success or failure of the preceding phase. An
understanding of how teams perform is critical to project success. According to Warner
(2011), high performance teams put the mission ahead of their desires, craft and
communicate dynamic visions, create an environment of trust and caring, practice and
reflect so that they are prepared to perform at faces of challenges. According to De
Meuse (2009), thrust refers to agreed upon vision, mission, values, and goals among
members within a team and, members employ a common strategy and tactics to
accomplish goals. Thrust enable project teams to have clear understanding of project
goals, values it will deliver and make them forge a common method to accomplish
project goals. All the five factors must be present but De Meuse (2009) quoting
Lombardo & Eichinger (1995) opine that, a team cannot be high performing unless the
necessary organizational and leadership support also are provided. He further asserts, it
does not matter how good a team is on thrust, trust, talent, teaming skills, and task skills,
it must have the support from the organization and the leadership fit to be effective. The
teams strive to optimize a common objective function but have different information to
reach their decisions. The team wants to determine an optimum, the global optimum if it
exists. To achieve at an optimum, they use the concept of a person-by-person or person-
by-person equilibrium. The main problem of team theory is then to determined
conditions under which a person-by-person equilibrium is also an optimum or the global
optimum, and to compute a person-by-person equilibrium (Schuppen, 2015).
The team theory has received criticism from some scholars. Genc (2017) is of the view
that, for effective team functioning both task oriented and social/emotional oriented
behaviors are required but some behaviors can be disruptive to completing tasks or
maintaining a positive social/emotional environment such as excluding others or
blocking suggestions. This implies that individuals whom others find to be difficult or
adversarial will suffer discomfort and dissatisfaction. He further observes that, advances
28
in technology have affected the ways in which organizations operate and how
individuals communicate within teams. In addition, if resilience and relational conflict
are not managed effectively it can cause team members to not trust one another, limit the
sharing of information and increase the tension within a team. It can also be argued that,
in contemporary world characterized by rapid explosion of Information Technology and
ever changing environment, virtual teams have evolved and may not necessary follow
the four stages. Supporters of Team Theory among them Filho (2019) argue that, the
theory presents an integrated, explanatory, and systemic theory of team dynamic
focusing not only on the team-level of analysis but also account for multilayered effects
arising from individual members’ characteristics and contextual constraints. Team
Theory is relevant to the study because it gives an understanding of high performing
team.
2.2.4 Stakeholders’ Theory
The origin of the stakeholder concept lies in the business science literature (Freeman,
1984), and may be traced back even as far as Adam Smith and his The Theory of Moral
Sentiments. Its modern utilization in management literature was brought about by the
Stanford Research Institute, which introduced the term in 1963 to generalize and expand
the notion of the shareholders as the only group that management needed to be sensitive
towards (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Within this perspective, Freeman argued that business
organizations should be concerned about the interests of other stakeholders when taking
strategic decisions (Mainardes et al, 2011).
Ackermann and Eden (2011) are of the view that, stakeholder theory is a strategy by top
management team for management of the interface between the many (often competing)
demands of an organization’s different stakeholders in relation to its strategic goals.
Thus, one of the critical tasks of a project leader is to identify and manage successfully
stakeholders who are either affected or can affect implementation of a project. Further,
Ackermann and Eden (2011) identify three themes for strategic management of
29
stakeholders as: identifying who the stakeholders really are in the specific situation,
exploring the impact of stakeholder dynamics and, developing stakeholder management
strategies. Managing project stakeholders is critical during project implementation
because one stakeholder’s actions can generate a dynamic of responses across a range of
other stakeholders (Ackermann & Eden, 2011).
As asserted by PMI (2013), the project manager should manage the influences of various
stakeholders in relation to the project requirements to ensure a successful outcome.
Project manager being the link between strategy and project team should posses the
following competencies for effective project implementation: Knowledge—what the
project manager knows about project management; Performance—what the project
manager is able to do or accomplish while applying his or her project management
knowledge; Personal—how the project manager behaves when performing the project or
related activity. Personal effectiveness encompasses attitudes, core personality
characteristics, and leadership, which provides the ability to guide the project team while
achieving project objectives and balancing the project constraints (PMI, 2013). Local
community should get both economic and social benefits from borehole water projects
once implemented. Benefits include: increased empowerment, shared project costs,
capacity building, and increased project effectiveness. Project beneficiaries, who are the
customers of borehole water projects, should have benefits which include getting water
at affordable prices, improved livelihoods, financial benefits, skills related to project
management.
However, as posited by Eskerold et al (2015) applying stakeholder inclusiveness in a

project is likely to increase the likelihood of more engaged and satisfied stakeholders;
increase the danger of losing focus on those stakeholders who possess the most critical
resources for the project's survival and progress; and increase the danger of inducing
stakeholder disappointment due to expectation escalation and impossibility of embracing
conflicting requirements and wishes. The stakeholder theory has been criticized by some
30
scholars. For example Blackburn (2019), argue that stakeholders represent large and
diverse groups and the interests of these groups cannot be balanced against each other.
Supporters of stakeholder theory including Harrison, Freeman and Sá de Abreu (2015)

argue that, core to the theory is about creating more value. Further, Harrison et al argue
that, organizations are attempting to create value for stakeholders through: better
stakeholder relationships, stakeholder dialogue, better work environment, environmental
preservation, increased customer base, local development, and improved reputation. This
theory is relevant to the study because it enhances understanding of key players in
project implementation.
2.2.5 Resource Management Theory
According to Cleland and Ireland (2002), resources are the assets that an organisation
has and can access and utilize in its operations which include human resources, financial
resources, materials and equipment. Furthermore Resource dependence theory has its
roots in Emerson’s classic “Power-Dependence Relations” (1962) and Pfeff er and
Salancik’s The External Control of Organizations (1978) provides valuable guidance for
managers who want to understand the considerations and consequences relevant to
different types of interorganizational partnering. Resource dependency rests on a few
straightforward principles. First, an organization needs resources to survive and to
pursue its goals. Second, an organization can obtain resources from its environment or,
more simply, from other organizations. Third, power and its inverse, dependence, play
key roles in under-standing interorganizational relationships (Malatesta & Smith, 2014).
This suggests that, resources are the drivers of project implementation and therefore,
their availability or lack of them directly affects project success or failure.
Organizational success in resource dependency theory (RDT) is defined as organizations

maximizing their power. Research on the bases of power within organizations began as
early as Weber (1947) and included much of the early work conducted by social
31
exchange theorists and political scientists. Generalization of power-based arguments
from intra-organizational relations to relations between organizations began as early as
Selznick (1949). It characterizes the links among organizations as a set of power
relations based on exchange resources. It also explains behavior, structure, stability, and
change of organizations (Nemati et al, 2010).
The nature of resources and resource management are the two main issues in project
implementation; can inform the process of strategy formulation for businesses and act as
a guide for strategic decision making and even setting the strategic direction and,
provides models which project managers can use to analyze resources for the purposes
of strategic planning exercises and decision making (Davis & Simpson, 2017). Resource
dependence theory looks at many ways in which an organization can ensure it gets
required resources necessary for its operation. The theory is focused on projects’
external environment relationship. Further, it provides valuable guidance for managers
who want to understand the considerations and consequences relevant to different types
of interorganizational partnering to identify and get resources. The theory provides three
strategies commonly observed in contemporary governance: merging, outsourcing, and
co-opting; explains implications and consequences of merging, outsourcing, and co-
opting, as well as other common managerial strategies for public and nonprofit managers
(Malatesta & Smith, 2014). Project managers require skills in developing buyer–supplier
relationships to respond to environmental complexity and gain resources. Firms gain
power over resource providers by entering alliances with other agencies. Firms that
supply resources can gain power and be able to manipulate project implementation.
Resource dependency theory fails to properly value a sense of rationality in the
organization, the theory does help explain the environment and context in which
individual decisions are made within organizations (Nemati et al, 2010). Further,
defining and measuring resources is a challenge since some of them are intangible.
Sometimes, one can label certain elements in an organization as resources depending on
his intention to establish definition. Definitions and units of analysis of a phenomena are
32
preliquisites in research and as asserted by Nemati et al (2010) quoting Truijens (2003),
there are two major issues related to the definitional soundness of the resource
dependency theory, the first one is the definitions are believed to be all-inclusive, and
the second one is related to the unit of analysis, as there is no consensus on its definition.
Resource management theory is relevant to the study because it provides information for
understanding the impact of external resources on the operations of an organization.
2.2.6 Environment Theory
The environmental theory developed by Florence Nightingale in the second half of the
nineteenth century in England, has focused primarily on the environment, interpreted as
all external conditions and influences that affect the life and development of a project,
that are able to prevent, suppress or contribute to success or failure (Medeiros, Enders, &
Lira, 2015). With the large scale of investments and increasingly complex technologies
in projects, the delivery of projects, which is a long-term and interactive process
intertwined with project implementation, is hypersensitive to the project external
environment (Liu, Xue, Huo, Shen, & Fu, 2018). According to PMI (2013) project
environmental factors refer to conditions, not under the control of the project team, that
influence, constrain, or direct the project. Factors such as a key vendor going bankrupt,
economic upheaval, wars, crime, and other events may directly impact the project's
effectiveness. Furthermore, Akanni (2015) opines that, project environment includes
virtually everything outside the project; its technology, the nature of its products,
customer and competitors, its geographical setting, and the economic, political and even
metrological climate in which it must operate. A clear understanding of these factors is
critical to project success because, and as observed in PMI (2013), they are considered
inputs to most planning processes, may enhance or constrain project management
options, and may have a positive or negative influence on the outcome. Stantec (2013)
identified some ecological factors that are likely to influence project implementation as
severe weather, climate change, seismic activity, and forest fires resulting from causes
other than the Project. Dickinson et al (2012) state, that web-based tools enable simple
33
online data-entry systems that provide potential for initiating projects quickly,
inexpensively, have stringent criteria to ensure data accuracy, and are democratizing
project development, allowing for the creation of data-entry systems for community-
based projects that arise out of local, practical issues or needs. Furthermore Dickinson et
al (2012) demonstrated how new technologies can be used to increase participant
interest, data quality (using quiz scores as measures of observer variation or observer
bias), participant interest, and learning impacts. According to Welle et al. (2015), factors
that impact on success of ICT initiatives for reporting on water supply functionality in
Kenya include: mobile phone reception, availability of mobile phone charging facilities
and affordability of reporting, internet connection, human resources and knowledge for
processing and the availability of back-up support to solve any problems with ICTs and
funds, spare parts and a mechanic are available for the repairs. Environment Theory has
been criticized by scholars who include Medeiros, Enders, & Lira (2015); Ferris, (2019)
argue that the theory's emphasis on environmental measures may be effective to an
extent but is inherently limited. It says little about the application of globalization,
technology, which are existent. Promoters of environment theory among them
Medeiros, et al (2015) are of the view that the theory has significance, clear and
understandable language and concepts, which induce the formulation of proposals and
are explained and understood by variables. This theory is relevant to the study as it
provides understanding on how the presence of project environment variable is likely to
modify the original relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
2.3 Conceptual Framework
Jabareen (2009) defines conceptual framework as a network, or a plane, of interlinked

concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or
phenomena. Furthermore, Imenda (2014) observe that, conceptual framework is an end
result of bringing together a number of related concepts to explain or predict a given
event, or give a broader understanding of the phenomenon of interest. A conceptual
frame work is based on ideas that may be formulated from a researchers own perception
34
or with a few reference to support them. According to Nachmias and Nachmias (2004), a
concept is an abstraction – a symbol – a representation of an object or one of its
properties, or of a behavioral phenomenon. Concepts appear in hypotheses as variables.
Furthermore, Bhattacherjee (2012), define a variable as a measurable representation of
an abstract construct and, constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of
abstraction that are chosen specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest.
The conceptual framework of this study was on four independent variables, a

moderating variable and one dependent variable. According to the study, project
implementation in borehole water projects in Makueni County was conceptualized as the
dependent variable being influenced by the four project management practices and
moderated by project environment during implementation of borehole water projects in
Makueni County. The factors used to measure change management were: clear
objectives, defined milestone, and management support. Conflict resolution, teamwork
and effective leadership were factors used to determine project team competency; those
used for project stakeholders’ involvement were: goal setting, needs identification and
training; for project resource management: manpower, material and financial factors
were used; and for moderating effect of project environment, the factors used were:
technological, ecological and political. These are as shown in figure 2.1
35
Independent variables Dependent variable
Project change management
-Clear objectives
Implementation levels of borehole water
-Effective communication projects in Makueni County
-Management support
-Stakeholders satisfaction
- Identification of requirements
Project Team competency
-Conflict resolution -Defined goals
-Defined roles
- Effective leadership
-
Project resource management

- Manpower
- Material
-Financial
Moderating effect of project environment on

Project stakeholders’ involvement variables
- Goal setting -Technological
- Needs identification - Ecological
- Training -Political
Moderating variable
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework
Source: Author
2.4 Review of Literature on Variables
This section reviews literature related to the study variables: project change
management, project team competency, project resource management, stakeholders’
involvement, and project environment.
36
2.4.1 Project Change Management
Projects have been used to bring a change in enterprises since the start of practice of
project management. Projects have played a key role and in some instances have
initiated changes in the society that are still being felt today (Cleland & Ireland, 2004).
A change can be intentional or unintentional during project implementation. Some
intentional changes could be a new process, product, service or improvement of product
or service occasioned by changes in the market and intended to make the organization
globally competitive. Also changes may be introduced to projects’ scope and can
produce acceptable or unacceptable effects on project deliverables (Bejestani, 2011).
The change can involve cost, time, and technical performance capability and has to fit
into the design and implementation of organizational strategies. At any organization,
change is implemented at three levels i.e., individual, group and organization. At every
level, leadership plays a critical role to manage change. According to Ryerson
University(2011), in order to impact change, leaders leverage relationship with project
stakeholders to address their concerns on a personal, group or organizational level; ask
for their feedback and respond to their concerns honestly and openly communicate key
information to project stakeholders on an on - going and consistent basis and involve
them in the initiative. Changes which occur, whether intentional or unintentional during
project implementation therefore, should be communicated to key project stakeholders
through a change request by the project leadership and the project activities adjusted
accordingly. In the 21st century, one of the challenges facing project managers is how to
manage change. The leadership characteristics of a project manager can affect change
management directly and effectively because these characteristics facilitate interaction
and support cooperation between project manager and his/her team members (Bejestani,
2011). Furthermore, Cabrey and Haughey (2014) opine that, organizations that are
highly effective at change management have common characteristics that include: have
well-defined milestones and metrics, have senior management committed to change,
establish and communicate concrete ownership and accountability, use standardized
project management practices, and engage executive sponsors. The study analyzed the
37
influence support of senior management, defined goals and effective communication on
change management process.
2.4.2 Project Team Competency
Teams are the engines that drive projects and a skilful project team management is vital
to project Implementation. According to PMI (2018), project team competency refers to
required skills and abilities to complete the project activities in accordance with
accepted design limitations. Effective teams will therefore implement projects
successfully if members of the team have the necessary skills and abilities to perform
project activities. The project team may require skills and knowledge in project
management, conflict resolution, and teamwork. The project leadership should conduct
team building activities to ensure a cohesive and integrated project team. This view is
supported by Mclees and Matthews (2015) who opine that, to build effective project
teams and to maintain the necessary teamwork, a project leader must understand the
aspects of team leadership and the crucial skills of team members. Project teamwork and
leadership are intertwined as they depend on each other. Building an effective team is
one of the challenges a project leader faces. Increased workforce diversity, challenges
brought by information technology coupled with complex projects makes the task of
assembling and effective project team difficult. Effective teams offer opportunities for
organizations by finding unique, creative, and efficient ways to implement projects by
bringing a diverse group of people together to brainstorm, collaborate, and solve tactical
problems. Leveraging the diverse talents, background experiences, and interests of
members often leads to more creative solutions during team problem solving efforts
(Mclees & Matthews, 2015). Effective project teams require a strong leader to take them
through the project life cycle, help them to develop credibility and influence among
team members and establish vision and goals. Furthermore, Mclees and Matthews
(2015) observe that: an effective team will utilize team membership to help designate
team roles, and to help provide constructive feedback to one another; feedback is needed
to help teams be more effective in their work; clear goals help members to succeed in
38
their roles because they know exactly what is expected of them and what the outcome
would be once they complete their task. According to Richards, Carter and Feenstra
(2012), drivers of high performing teams include positive climate, sound
communication, shared goals, and constructive conflict. The examined the influence of
conflict resolution, defined goals and effective leadership on project team competency.
2.4.3 Project stakeholders’ involvement
Project stakeholders’ involvement is the practice of applying stakeholder inclusiveness

in a project (Eskerold, et al, 2015). Stakeholders need to be identified, classified
accordingly during all project phases depending on their interests and expectations.
Further, according to Aapaoja and Haapasalo (2014), stakeholders’ identification,
classification, and management are crucial in order to collect and manage the
stakeholder requirements, and any misjudgment in this process could lead to project
failure. Furthermore, Laplume, Sonpar and Litz (2008) opine that, project managers
need to take into consideration those groups and individuals that are likely to affect, or
are affected by, the accomplishment of the project implementation. If the interests of
some stakeholders are not catered for, the affected group may resist implementation of
the project directly or indirectly. A project comprises of different sets of groups with
varied interests who keep changing, have different roles and responsibilities. According
to PMI (2015), because the stakeholders in a project are rarely equal, it is essential that
the project management assess the salience of stakeholders and their probability of
impacting the project. The interest of different stakeholders may need to be monitored,
prioritized and addressed as the project progresses. Botwe, Aigbavboa and Thwale
(2016), in their study on Mega Construction Projects concluded that, stakeholders first
require education to embrace both stakeholder management and sustainable
construction concepts as accepted by the construction industries. Project stakeholders,
therefore need to have to be trained on their roles and responsibilities during project
implementation. Further, stakeholders should be identified and classified to enable
project managers rank stakeholders’ interests, roles and influence about sustainability
39
targets and to establish the grounds for stakeholder engagement (Botwe, Aigbavboa &
Thwale, 2016). According to Freeman, et al (2010), a stakeholder approach can be used
to satisfy the demands and expectations of key stakeholders; integrate goal, resource-
based and internal process approaches to measuring organizational effectiveness; and
goal setting. Different stakeholders may have different needs and expectations which
should be synchronized with those of the project.According to Dekkar and Qing (2014),
project leaders should have ability to identify project stakeholders and understand the
interaction between them, asses their vested interests and aim to consolidate common
project success criteria. The study determined the influence of manpower, material and
financial factors on project resource management
2.4.4 Project Resource Management
Project Resource Management includes the processes to identify, acquire, and manage
the resources needed for the successful completion of the project (PMI, 2018). In
addition, according to Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl and Westman (2014),
resources can be defined as things that people value, with an emphasis on objects, states,
conditions, and other things. They further assert that, defining resources in terms of their
role in attaining project goals helps to understand how individuals determine the value of
their resources. For a project to deliver, it requires resources which include people,
material, and finance among others. Availability of project resources may impact on
project implementation. Their availability in quality and quantinty is likely to affect
project success or failure. Ismail,Rose, Uli, and Abdullah (2012), in their study,
confirmed that, resources owned and controlled by firms have the potential and promise
to generate competitive advantage, which eventually leads to superior organizational
performance. They further confirmed that among the organizational resources, human
resources and intangible resources namely: reputational, regulatory, positional,
functional, social and cultural are the foundation of superior organizational performance.
Thomas, Adekunle, Olarewaju, and Folarin (2015) investigated the role of financial
management on the growth of Small Business Enterprise in Lagos state in Nigeria and
40
revealed that, financial management positively influences growth of Small Business
Enterprises and recommended that training centers should be established by government
for entrepreneurs. The study examined the influence levels of human, financial and
material resources on implementation of borehole water projects.
2.4.5 Moderating effect of project environment
Project environmental factors refer to conditions, not under the control of the project
team, that influence, constrain, or direct the project. Urbanski, Vi Hague and Oin (2019)
conducted a study in United Kingdom and Pakistan and confirmed that, project planning
had a statistically significant impact on project success while, risk management
significantly moderated the relationship between project planning and project success.
Project risks may be uncertainties in the project environment which may include
political conditions in a country, climatic wheather conditions or technological
development. These factors could moderate project management practices and influence
project impact. Zwikael, Pathak, Singh, and Ahmed, 2014) in their study revealed that,
risk moderates the impact of planning on success, and in different ways for various
success measures. Joslin and Muller (2014) did a study and concluded that
environmental factors do impact the use of a project methodology and its elements with
resulting characteristics in the project success. Project environmental factors thus, may
have a moderating effect on project management practices and impact on the project
implementation process. The study examined the moderating effect of project
environment on the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
2.5 Empirical Review
Most of the organizations worldwide are experiencing change currently brought about
by the ever changing environment. The way these changes are managed, is likely to
determine success or failure of the organization. This has elicited a lot of interest by
scholars and researchers to examine practices for successful change management.
Njuguna and Muathe (2016) in their study confirmed that: leadership, motivational
41
commitment, training and communication are positively and significantly correlated to
change management. Further, Basamh et al (2013) in their study affirmed that, clear
objectives, top management support and aspects of communication are success factors
for change management. Hennayake (2017) conducted a study and revealed that, lack of
proper communication, absence of formal change management process, financial
limitations and lack of strategy are highly influential in the success of change
management process. The study further revealed most of the obstacles related to
innovation and change in public sector are found as structural and cultural problems.
Stouten, Rousseau and Cremer (2017) in their study affirmed that, organizational change
is likely to be more readily implemented when it targets multiple stakeholder needs in its
goals and interventions.
Researchers have tried to get an understanding of the process underlying the unfolding
of relationships in teams. Lee et al (2015) in their study revealed that, emotional
intelligence competencies of project manager directly influence the project performance,
social intelligence competencies of project manager indirectly influence project
performance only via team social capital, and cognitive intelligence competencies of
project manager maintains direct influence on project performance in shorter term
projects, but indirect influence only via the accumulated team social capital in longer
term projects. Thus, the team members’ network and how they relate with each other
and emotional, intellectual and managerial capabilities of project manager are key
factors for team performance. Further Maqbool et al (2015) in their study showed that,
project managers with high emotional intelligence who bear the desired competencies
and exhibit transformational leadership behavior are effective leaders and ensure higher
success in projects. Grand et al (2016) demonstrated that agent teams generate
collectively shared knowledge more effectively when members are capable of
processing information more efficiently and when teams follow communication
strategies that promote equal rates of information sharing across members. Project team
require competencies relating to systems thinking and complexity theory and higher-
42
order cognitive skills required to deal with the managerial challenges brought about by
the emergent, adaptive and dynamic behavior of projects (Sense, & Kiridena, 2014). A
study conducted by Chan (2014) on multiple project team membership and performance
concluded that, project teams integrate diverse sources of knowledge and resources into
the team, and the study also found that individuals' emotional skills and cognitive skills
influence project performance. Involvement of stakeholders in project management is
likely to lead success and lack of their involvement may impede project implementation.
Heravi et al (2015) conducted a study and concluded that, project leaders and owners
should adopt improved decision-making strategies and design a plan to enhance the
effectiveness of stakeholder involvement from the beginning of the project to its
completion stages. Also an analysis of critical success factors to implementation of
enterprise resource planning implementation from stakeholders perspective by Tarhini,
et al (2015) identified top management support and commitment, training and education,
project management, clear vision and objectives of the ERP system, careful change
management and Interdepartmental communication as critical success factors to
successful implementation of ERP projects. Nangoli et al (2016) did a study on
stakeholder participation and concluded that, if stakeholders are not actively involved in
the project by being consulted, taking up roles and making decisions concerning the
interventions which impact them; this is likely to negatively affect the implementation of
the project. In their study, Bijlsma et al (2011) concluded that stakeholders’ involvement
increases the quality of the knowledge base for a development process.
A study by Aryanto et al (2015) on Strategic Human Resource Management, Innovation

Capability and Performance affirmed that strategic human resource management
practices are positively related to innovation capability, which in turn has a positive
effect on innovation performance. Sheehan (2013) conducted a study on human resource
management and performance from small and medium-sized firms and confirmed that
there are significant positive returns in terms of increased profitability, innovation and
lower labor turnover associated with human resource investment. Materials management
43
in capital projects very important and is likely to affect successful project
implementation. A study conducted by Caldas et al (2015) on materials management
practices in the construction industry concluded that, implementation of a
comprehensive materials management program contributes to more-predictable project
outcomes, reduced costs, improved productivity and quality, and a safer working
environment. Furthermore Gulghane and Khandve (2015) conducted a study on
management for construction materials and control of construction waste in construction
industry concluded that, effective material management improves performance projects
in terms of cost, time, quality, and productivity. Maina and Gathenya (2014)
demonstrated that, foreign currency exchange rate, funding, joint ventures and foreign
investments affect the success of projects in the petroleum marketing firms. Drexler et al
(2014) conducted a study in Dominican Republic to compare the impact of two distinct
programs: standard accounting training versus a simplified, rule-of-thumb training that
taught basic financial heuristics with micro entrepreneurs and found that, for micro-
entrepreneurs with lower skills or poor initial financial practices, the impact of the rule-
of-thumb training was significantly larger than that of the standard accounting training,
suggesting that simplifying training programs might improve their effectiveness for less
sophisticated individuals. In addition, Zayed (2014) conducted a study and revealed that,
change of progress payment, payment duration, financial position of the contractor, and
project delays are the most significant factors that affect cash flow in construction
projects.
Projects are implemented within a dynamic environment and several researchers have
empirically tested the influence of project environment on project success. As confirmed
by Musa, Amirudin, Sofield, and Musa (2015) in their study in Nigeria on influence of
external environmental factors on projects revealed that, the economics factor
significantly affects public housing project success, the social factor significantly affects
public housing project success, and the political factor significantly affects public
housing project success. Rad (2015) reveals that, events signifying the change in
44
environmental elements such as climatic situations, rain, heat, cold or anything that may
change the environment of the project, affecting the project team workable conditions.
Beleiu, Crisan, and Nistor (2014) revealed that, projects environments are dynamic, so
success factors might change their level of influence in time. Thus, a permanent
monitoring of these factors is needed and whenever necessary the project manager
should influence certain factors in order to increase chances of accomplishing success
criteria. In their study Assefa, Rivera, and Vencatachellum (2013), affirmed that country
policies and institutions and country capacity in general is positively correlated with
project performance whilst parallel project implementation units were not correlate.
2.6 Critique of Existing Literature
Theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and

practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported
by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational
change management. The theory creates a top – down accounts of change which
emphasizes more donor interests than project beneficiaries (Valters, 2014). The theory
however, provides information about how, why and whether an intervention works
(Silva, Lee & Ryan, 2015).
The Teams theory identifies the composition, structure and processes of teams and the
key characteristics to their effectiveness. It considers organizational and situational
factors as influencing the structure of the team as a whole which affect. But as Rico,
Hera and Tabernero (2011) points out, it lacks ability to incorporate the temporal and
recursive aspects imposed on teams by development and feedback, so that it can
overlook the adaptive and incremental learning processes that necessarily influence their
effectiveness. It is unitary, simplified and opaque treatment of team processes. Teams
operate in a dynamic environment, they are not homogenous and the real demands of
current organizations and the new forms of work organization (Rico, Hera &Tabernero,
2011).
45
Among the reasons that affect project outcomes, stakeholder influential attributes and
more importantly, their understanding and effective utilization and management are
identified as the key to project success (Rajalu, Marthandan, & Yussof, 2015).
Stakeholder theory advocates for maximization of benefits to stakeholders. However,
there are no legal provisions for stakeholder maximization. Law says do what is lawful.
The model also ignores stakeholders beyond the framework of the project. Analysis of
Topology of Stakeholder Influential Attributes (TSIA) shows that, stakeholders with
positive quality of interest that can highly contribute to project’s success should be
empowered; stakeholders with positive qualities of network, legitimacy, and proximity
with low to moderate contribution to project’s success and should be empowered;
stakeholders with negative weight of urgency that can highly disturb project’s success
should be controlled; stakeholders with negative weight of power that can disturb
project’s well-being, but if utilized under legitimate channels as authority can positively
contribute to project’s success should also be controlled.
In the Resource Management Theory, there is no universally accepted definition of

resources; some are intangible and difficult to measure (Nemati et al, 2010). But as
asserted by Cleland and Ireland (2002), resources are the assets that an organization has,
can access and utilize in its operations which include human resources, financial
resources, materials and equipment. Availability of project resources when required and
in right quality and quantity is likely to influence its implementation.
Environment theory's emphasis on environmental measures may be effective to an extent

but is inherently limited. It says little about the application of globalization, technology,
which are existent Projects are implemented in an environment characterized by rapid
change in technology, globalization which has resulted into climatic changes, ambiguity,
workforce diversity and complexity. These are likely to affect project implementation
because as observed by Schroter, Zanden, Oudenhoven & Remme, (2014) the prevailing
transactional nature of Ecological System neglect societal demand and access and is in
conflict with concept of biodiversity. Further as revealed by Rad (2015), changes in
46
environmental elements such as climatic situations, may moderate the environment of
the project.
2.7 Research Gaps
Despite the importance being given to project and project management by organizations
and academia, many projects implemented are deemed as failed. Most studies done on
the influence of project management practices on project implementation have mainly
looked only at one project management practice influence on project implementation.
Despite the fact that, there has been empirical evidence linking project success to
adoption of best project management practices (Al-Hajji &Zrauning, 2018) , and lack of
using project management practices to project failure (Idoro & Patunula-ajayi, 2009),
studies to link project management practices influence levels on successful
implementation of have not been exhaustive in Kenya. In developing countries, solutions
to project failure may require unique and project specific implementation practices to
meet the diverse challenges to deliver project success. The existence of failed project
implementation is likely to lead to poor development in Kenya because, the growth of
the Country is dependent on successful project implementation. There is therefore need
to conduct studies and establish the link between project management practices and
successful project implementation. This study addresses this gap by examining the
project management practices influence levels of project change management, project
team, project resource management, project stakeholders’ involvement, and project
environment on successful project implementation. Thus, the study was conducted to
determine project management practices influence levels on successful implementation
of borehole water projects in Makueni, Kenya.
47
2.8 Ethical Considerations
Respondents were explained the importance of the study and were assured of
confidentiality of the information they give. To conceal the identity of borehole water
projects, they were given serial numbers BH 001 – BH 115. Participants were
encouraged to be free and provide information being sought. They were also assured that
the information being sought was for the purpose of research only.
2.9 Summary
This chapter reviewed empirical literature on influence of implementation practices on

implementation of projects. Extant literature shows that change management influences
project implementation. In change management, clear objectives, effective
communication and management support through their commitment are necessary for
successful project implementation. The trend to use project teams to achieve
organizational goals during this era of globalization has gained momentum. Factors
considered for team competency are: conflict resolution, effective leadership, and
defined roles. Resources are rare and key to successful implementation of projects.
Prudent resource utilization through effective consideration of manpower, financial and
material factors is key to project success. Project implementation affects and is
influenced by different stakeholders. Involvement of stakeholders in project
implementation ensures that needs satisfaction; training of key stakeholders on project
operation and maintenance, and goals for the project are clearly understood so that
stakeholders may own and support the project fully. Projects are implemented in an
environment characterized by climatic change, explosion of information technology,
continual change, and difficult to define. These factors may influence project
management practices during project implementation.
48
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reviewed literature related to research methodology that was adopted in the
study. Research methodology according to Ihuah and Eaton (2013) quoting Collis and
Hussey (2003) and Creswell (2009), is the overall approach to the design process of
conducting research including all phases from the theoretical underpinning to the
collection and analysis of data. Further, Ihuah and Eaton (2013) observe that, research
methodology is a philosophical stance of worldview that underlies and informs the style
of research. This chapter therefore reviewed research philosophy, research design, the
methods and processes that will guide the research.
3.2 Research philosophy
A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon
should be gathered, analysed and used. The study adopted positivism philosophy
because as argued by Žukauskas, Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė (2018), positivism
adheres to the view that only factual knowledge gained through observation, including
measurement, is trustworthy. They further observe that, in positivism studies the role of
the researcher is limited to data collection and interpretation in an objective way.
Furthermore, according to Hasan (2016), positivism is most suited for large-scale social
surveys or for providing descriptive information about the social world. According to
Siponen and Tsohou (2018), positivistic beliefs in scientific research should: be
generalizable, focus on stable independent variables, and use statistical or quantitative
methods rather than qualitative methods.
49
3.3 Research design
Bhattacherjee (2012) opines that research design is a comprehensive plan for data
collection in an empirical research project and is aimed at answering specific research
questions. The study adopted cross sectional survey research design using both
quantitative and qualitative approach. This is because, as Lavkaras (2011) observe,
cross-sectional surveys are used to document the prevalence of particular characteristics
in a population. Furthermore, Levin (2006) point out that in cross sectional survey: a lot
of information can be collected, it is relatively inexpensive and takes up little time to
conduct; can estimate prevalence of outcome of interest because sample is usually taken
from the whole population; many outcomes and risk factors can be assessed. Crouch,
Waters, McNair, Power & Davies (2014) used cross sectional survey in their study and
demonstrated that children with same-sex attracted parents in Australia are being raised
in a diverse range of family types. Further, Rockers et al (2018) used cross sectional
survey in their study revealed that among patients with NCD in the country, the poorest
face increased barriers to accessing needed medicines. The study used questionnaires to
collect quantitative data for the study. Before administering the questionnaire, a pilot
study was conducted to test the internal consistency of the instrument. Data collected
was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.
Qualitative data was collected using observation and interview guides and analyzed
through Content Analysis.
3.4 Target population
According to Cox (2011), the target population for a survey is the entire set of units for
which the survey data are to be used to make inferences. It therefore, defines those units
for which the findings of the survey are meant to generalize. Thus, the target population
for the study was all borehole water projects in Makueni County implemented in the
year 2010 – 2016. A total of 115 borehole water projects were interrogated as shown in
appendix 3.
50
3.5 Sampling Frame
Lavkaras (2011) opines that sample frame represents a list of the target population from
which the sample is selected. Therefore, the sampling frame for the study was a list of
all borehole water project implemented in the year 2010 – 2016 in Makueni County as
provided by Makueni County Water Office as shown in appendix 3.
3.6 Sample and Sampling technique
Sekaran (2006) define a sample as a subset of the population which on studying, the
researcher should be able to draw conclusions that would be generalizable to the
population of interest. The sample size of 89 was determined using the formula
z 2 pq
n
e2
Where: n= Sample size,

z=Confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96)
p=Proportion in the target population estimated to have the characteristics being
measured
q=1-p
e=level of statistical significance (=0.05)
z = 1.96, p = 0.5 = q, and e = 0.05
1.96 2 x0.5 x0.5
n  385
0.05 2
385 x115
n Adj   89
385  115
Sampling is the process of selecting a sufficient number of elements from the

population, so that a study of the sample of its properties or characteristics would make
it possible to generalize such properties or characteristics to the population elements
(Sekaran, 2006). Purposive sampling was used for the study. According to Teddlie and
51
Yu (2007), purposive sampling techniques involve selecting certain units or cases based
on a specific purpose. Furthermore, Creswell and Plano (2011) posited that, purposive
sampling enables researcher to identify and select individuals or groups of individuals
that are knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest and, those
selected are willing to communicate experiences and opinions in an articulate,
expressive, and reflective manner. The study selected 89 chairpersons of the water
borehole projects as these were the people best placed to provide the information sought.
3.7 Data collection instruments

Quantitative data was collected using a semi-structured and open-ended questionnaire
which was administered to 89 chairpersons of borehole water projects. According to
Abawi (2013), a questionnaire is a data collection instrument consistent of a series of
questions and other prompts for the purpose of gathering information from respondents.
Further according to Rowley (2014) the advantage of questionnaires is that it is easier to
get responses from a large number of people, and the data gathered may therefore be
seen to generate findings that are more generalizable. Furthermore, Rowley (2014) opine
that, while using questionnaire, research process is assumed to give direct access to
knowledge that already exists in the mind of the respondent and can generate data that
provides some interesting insights. The questionnaire had 35 items and divided into 8
sections; A for bio data , B for project implementation, C for change management, D for
project team competency, E for project stakeholders’ involvement, F for project resource
management, and G for project environment. Section A had 5 open-ended questions and
sections B – G had closed-ended questions covering the 5 variables in which
respondents were asked their opinion on different issues touching on borehole water
projects. It anchored on 5 – point scales with strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5).
Qualitative data was collected using interview guide administered to selected
chairpersons of borehole water projects.
52
3.8 Data collection procedure
The target participants were the chairpersons of borehole water projects and are the ones
who filled in the questionnaires. They were easy to identify and were the people who
had most of the information being sought. The researcher sought approval from the
County Water office and the borehole water committee for their cooperation in the
research. He presented and introduced himself to County Water Officer, the borehole
water project committee chairpersons, explained the purpose of the research and sought
their approval and cooperation. The questionnaires were then delivered to the
respondents and were waited for to fill them. The unit of analysis was borehole water
projects. The numbers of questionnaires administered were 89 since this sample size of
the study. Focus interviews were also conducted with chairpersons of borehole water
projects as they were the key informants and notes were taken during the interviews.
3.9 Pilot Test

Pilot testing of questionnaire was done to in order to identify and solve confusing points
and make the questionnaire clear to all respondents (Abawi, 2013). During the pilot trial,
questionnaire participants were randomly selected from the study population. Connelly
(2008) suggests that a pilot study sample should be 10% of the sample projected for the
larger parent study (10% of 115 = 11.5 chairpersons). The study administered the
questionnaire to 12 chairpersons of borehole water project committee selected randomly
from the population and not those which will be sampled during the study. This
represented 10% of the study population.
3.10 Reliability
According to Mohajan (2017), reliability refers to a measurement that supplies
consistent results with equal values. It measures consistency, precision, repeatability,
and trustworthiness of a research. It indicates the extent to which a study is without bias.
The study used Cronbach’s coefficient alpha test of reliability. Sekaran (2006) alludes
53
that, the higher the coefficients in Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability, the better the
measuring instrument.
3.11 Content and Construct validity

Validity concerns what an instrument measures, and how well it does so. Content
validity is the extent to which the questions on the instrument and the scores from these
questions represent all possible questions that could be asked about the content or skill.
It ensures that the questionnaire includes adequate set of items that tap the concept
(Haradhan, 2017). It helps to determine presence of certain words, texts and quantify
them in an objective manner. According to Smith and Pearson (2015) construct validity
involves the evaluation of evidence for the validity of psychological theories and the
measures used to test them. To ensure content and construct validity, the preliminary
questionnaire was pre-tested with a sample of respondents from 12 borehole water
projects.
3.12 Normality
The main tests for the assessment of normality are Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and
Shapiro – Wilk (S-W) tests. The normal Q – Q plot are graphical assessment of
normality and are used to supplement K –S and S – W tests (Ghasemi & Zahediasl,
2012). The study used the normal quartile – quartile plot (Q – Q plot) to assess the
normality of the data. Loy, Follet, and Hofmann (2014) opine that, the quantile-quantile
(Q-Q) plot, are arguably the most widely used method of distributional assessment, and
that that lineups of standard Q-Q plots are more powerful than traditional tests of
normality.
3.13 Data Analysis and Presentation

Quantitative data collected was analyzed using statistical package for social sciences
(SPSS) version 24 by calculating descriptive statistics such as mean, median, standard
deviation. Qualitative data was coded into the different factors and analyzed through
content analysis. Inferential data analysis was carried out by the use of factor analysis
54
and correlation analysis to determine the strength and the direction of the relationship
between the dependent variable and the independent variables. Multiple regression
analysis was done to establish whether there is any relationship between the dependent
and independent variables. Regression models were fitted and hypothesis testing carried
using multiple regression analysis and standard F tests and t tests.
3.13.1 Statistical models

The outcome was predicted by the models:
Y = β0 + βi Xi+ e …………………………………………………………………….... (1)
Y = β0 + βi Xi + βzZ+ e ………………………………………………………………... (2)
Y = β0 + βi Xi + βzZ+ βiz + βi ZXi Z + e ……………………………………………..... (3)
Y = β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + β3 X3 + β4 X4 + β1z X1Z + β2z X2Z + β3z X3Z + β4z X4Z +e. (4)
Where Y= Successful implementation of borehole water projects
β0 = constant (Intercept)
β (1,…4) = coefficient of the independent variable.
X1 = Project Change Management
X2 = Project Team Competency
X3 = Project stakeholders’ Involvement
X4 = Project resource management
Z = Project environment (Moderator)
XiZ= Product term / interaction term of the project environment with each of the
independent variables(X1,X2X3,X4)
e = Error term, represents “noise” which denotes there may be a non-linear relationship
between the independent and dependent variable
There may be other factors affecting implementation of borehole water projects other
than those under study. These factors are represented by β0.
3.12.2 Test of hypotheses

Hypotheses were tested to assess the influence of independent variables on
implementation of borehole water projects. Analysis was done separately on each
55
variable to test their individual influence. The ANOVA F –test statistic was done to test
hypotheses for the reggressor coefficient of each variable to be equal to zero. An
analysis of all combined independent variables was done. ANOVA F – test was finally
carried out to test that the reggressor coefficients of all independent variables are jointly
equal to zero.
3.12.3 Operationalization of Study Variables

The independent variables of the study that were surveyed are: Project Change
Management, Project Team Competency, Project Stakeholders’ Involvement and,
Project Resource Management. They have been operationalized in accordance with the
research objectives as shown in table 3.1 and 3.2
Table 3.1: Operationalization of independent variables
Independent Operational indicator Section in data

variable collection instrument
Project Change Clear objectives C (3)
Management -Defined milestone
-Management support
Project Team -Conflict resolution D (3)

Competency -Teamwork
- Effective leadership
Project - Goal setting E (4)

Stakeholders’ - Needs satisfaction
Involvement - Training
Project Resource -- Manpower G ( 4)

Management - Material
- Financial
Project --Technological F (5)

Environment - Ecological
- Political
56
Table 3.2: Operationalization of dependant variable
Dependent variable Operational indicator Section in data collection

instrument
Effective Project -Stakeholders satisfaction A (1- 2)

Implementation – B ( 2)
- Identification of requirements
the extent to which C (3)
people and resources -Defined activities D (3)
have been utilized in E (4)
project execution F (4)
G ( 5)
57
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study performed to test the study models and
hypotheses. It outlines the response rate, assesses the reliability and validity of the
constructs. The chapter also outlines the response rate, validity of research instruments,
descriptive statistic, reliability analysis, variable diagnosis, influence levels of study
variable on implementation of borehole water projects and concludes with a summary.
4.2 Response rate
Data for the study was collected using 89 questionnaires administered to chairpersons of
borehole water projects. An interview guide was used to triangulate the results obtained
from the questionnaires. The questionnaires were delivered to the respondents personally
by the researcher at venues agreed upon by chairpersons of borehole water projects.
Mugenda (2008) opines that, a response rate of more than 50% was enough to analyze
and draw conclusions. All the 89 questionnaires administered were filled and returned
making a response rate of 100% and was thus considered adequate for the purpose of
further analysis.
4.3 Validity of Research Instruments
To ensure content and construct validity, the questionnaire was piloted with 12 randomly
selected borehole water projects. A response rate of 70% was realized. Corrections were
done appropriately in the final tool.
58
4.4 Descriptive statistics
The purpose of the study was to examine the influence levels of project management
practices influence levels on successful implementation of borehole water projects in
Makueni County. The researcher analyzed the influence levels of change management,
competency of project team, stakeholder involvement, resources management, and
moderating effect of project environment on the study variables. This was done through
presentation of frequencies, means, graphs, standard deviation, tables and graphs.
4.4.1 Gender of respondents
The respondents were requested to state their gender. As shown in table 4.1, of the
chairpersons who participated, 82.02% were males and 17.08% females. This does not
meet the constitutional requirement of thirty percent of either gender in positions of
responsibility. Women play a central role in management of water projects. According
to United Nations (2006), projects designed and run with the full participation of women
are more sustainable and effective than those that do not. Furthermore, Water and
Sanitation Program (2010) observe that, tools that indicate responsibilities are useful for
empowerment and in highlighting and redressing gender issues during key phases of the
project cycle.
Table 4.1: Gender of respondents
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Female 16 17.08 17.08
Male 73 82.02 100.0
Total 89 100.0
59
4.4.2 Project implementation
The study used a five point Likert Scale and sought the opinion of respondents on areas
of project implementation. The statement were opinions which required the participant
to Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree and Strongly Disagree. The results
were presented using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation and
percentages as shown in table 4.2. A majority of 37.5% agreed that their projects had
achieved the intended purpose while 27.3% strongly disagreed that projects had
achieved the intended purpose. This implies that, majority of the respondents were of the
opinion that most of the water projects had not achieved their intended purpose. This
was also confirmed from results of the interview guide. A majority of 38.2% agreed that
money set aside at the start of the project was used as proposed while 23.6% could not
decided on how money set aside at the start of the project was used during
implementation. Results of the interviews indicated that in most cases, project
beneficiaries were not involved in budgeting of water projects and hence could not know
how money was being spent during project implementation. Only 33% agreed that there
were records showing lessons learnt during project implementation implying that there is
little documentation of vital lessons learnt during project implementation. Those who
strongly disagreed indicated that: 36.8% expressed the opinion that there was improved
economic status of the community due to water projects; 45.5% felt that project could
not operate due to disagreement among community members; and 42.5% were of the
opinion that was improved vegetation as a result of the projects. This implies that, there
has been little economic change brought about by implementation of water projects in
the area under study. It is worth noting that the means of all statements are less than 3.4
except one which is 3.43. This means that there was low agreement of respondents with
the statements expressed on project implementation. The values of all standard deviation
are all above 1, confirming that, the opinion of the respondents highly differed with the
statements given.
60
Table 4.2: Project implementation
Project implementation SD D U A SA %
% % % % % M S. D
Our project has achieved its
27.3 21.6 5.7 37.5 8 2.77 1.404
purpose
Money set aside at the start of the
11.2 9 23.6 38.2 18 3.43 1.214
project was used as proposed
At the end of implementation there
was a ceremony to hand over the 35.2 17 6.8 15.9 25 2.78 1.65
project
There are records showing the
lessons learnt during project 27.3 20.5 8 33 11.4 2.81 1.437
implementation
There is improved economic status
36.8 24.1 3.4 28.7 6.9 2.45 1.412
of the local community
Project could not operate due to
disagreement among community 45.5 27.3 4.5 10.2 12.5 2.17 1.424
members
There is improved vegetation as a
42.5 23 2.3 26.4 5.7 2.3 1.399
result of the project
N=89, SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree, U= Undecided, A = Agree, SA = Strongly
Agree
M = Mean, S.D = Standard Deviation (Strongly Disagree range = 11.2 – 45.5, Disagree
range = 9 – 27.3, Undecided range= 2.3 – 23.6, Agree range = 10.2 – 38.2, Strongly
Agree range = 5.7 – 25, Mean range 2.17 – 3.43, Standard deviation range = 1.214 –
1.65, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.770)
61
4.4.3 Project environment
The study used a five point Likert Scale and sought the opinion of respondents on areas
of Project Environment in relationship to project implementation. The statements were
opinions which required the participant to Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided,
Agree and Strongly Disagree. The results were presented using descriptive statistics
such as mean, standard deviation and percentages as shown in table 4.3. That effective
change management by project team ensures project success was confirmed by 70.8% of
the respondents. This was supported by a high mean of 3.66. The participants who
agreed with the statement that, effective change management by project team enable
them to deliver the project as expected despite all interferences comprised of 69.3% of
the total number. This item posited a high mean value of 3.57. That the high competence
of project teams ensures timely completion of project was confirmed by 71.6% of total
participants. The high competences of the project team enable them to navigate through
the interferences to deliver the project as expected. This statement was confirmed by
76.1% of the total participants. A total of 75.3% of the respondents were in agreement
that, effective project stakeholder consultations by the project team ensure timely
completion of the project. Participants who confirmed that, effective project stakeholder
consultations by the project team enable them to go through all the interferences to
deliver the project as expected comprised 76.1% of the total number. That adequate
project resource support ensures timely completion of the project was confirmed by a
total of 73.0% of the respondents. Adequate project resource support enables project
team to go through all interferences to deliver the project as expected. A total of 73.0%
of the respondents confirmed this statement. The mean of all statements on project
environment were all above 3.49 which mean that, the respondents highly agreed with
the statements on project environment. There were high variations on the opinion of
respondents on the statements on project environment. This is supported by the high
standard deviation values.
62
Table 4.3 Project Environment
Project environment SD D U A SA M SD
% % % % % % %
Effective change management by project team 7.9 11.2 10.1 48.3 22.5 3.66 1.177
ensures project success
Effective change management by project team 5.7 15.9 9.1 54.5 14.8 3.57 1.102
enable them to deliver the project as expected
despite all the interferences
The high competence of the project team 13.6 10.2 4.5 56.8 14.8 3.49 1.259
ensures timely completion of the project
The high competence of the project team 10.2 12.5 1.1 60.2 15.9 3.59 1.200
enable them to navigate through the
interferences to deliver the project as expected
Effective project stakeholder consultations by 9.0 13.5 2.2 57.3 18.0 3.62 1.192
the project team ensures timely completion of
the project
Effective project stakeholder consultations by 9.1 14.8 63.6 12.5 3.56 1.163
the project team enable them to go through all
the interferences to deliver the project as
expected
Adequate project resource support ensure 7.9 16.9 2.2 57.3 15.7 3.56 1.177
timely completion of the project
Adequate project resource support enable 7.9 16.9 3.4 55.1 16.9 3.56 1.187
project team to go through all interferences to
deliver the project as expected
N =89, SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, U = Undecided, A = Agree, SA =

Strongly Agree. (Strongly Disagree range = 5.7– 13.6, Disagree range = 10.2– 16.9,
Undecided range = 1.1– 10.1, Agree range = 48.3– 63.6, Strongly Agree range = 12.5–
22.5, Mean range = 3.49– 3.66, Standard deviation range = 1.102– 1.259, Cronbach’s
alpha =0.867)
63
4.5 Reliability Analysis
Reliability can be defined as the correlation between two observations of the same
measure (Santos, 1999). There are various estimate methods for reliability in social
science research. However, Cronbach's Alpha tends to be the most frequently used
estimate of internal consistency. Santos (1999) quoting Nunnaly (1978), observe that,
Alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability
of factors extracted from dichotomous (that is, questions with two possible answers)
and/or multi-point formatted questionnaires or scales and the higher the score, the more
reliable the generated scale is. A Cronbach‘s Α coefficient of 0.7 means an
instrument is sufficiently reliable (Nachmias & Nachmias, 2004). In the study, the
reliability of the instrument was estimated using Cronbach‘s Α Coefficient at the
acceptable reliability coefficient of 0.7. In the study, the Cronbach‘s Α Coefficient for
all independent variables were all above acceptable level of 0.7 and were considered
reliable for further analysis. The moderating variable, Project environment has
Cronbach‘s Α Coefficient of 0.683 very close the acceptable level of 0.7, hence a good
predictor of project implementation. This is given in table 4.4
Table 4.4: Reliability Coefficient of the Independent Variables
Influence on project No. Cronbach’s alpha Remarks

implementation of
items
Project change management 7 .842 Very good
Project team 7 .932 Excellent
Project stakeholders 7 .841 Very good
Project resource support 7 .867 Very good
Project environment 7 .683 Good
TOTAL 28
64
4.5.1 Aggregation of Independent Variables
Having confirmed that all variable met the required reliability threshold, the items were
aggregated by averaging the items to get variables of interest. Influence of Project Team
(X2) had the highest rating and variation of responses (M = 3.4593, SD = 1.09751).
Project change management (X1) had the second highest rating but exhibited high
variation (M =3.2809, SD = 1.01529). Project stakeholder (X3) had a moderately low
rating and high variation (M =3.2785, SD = 0.93853). Project resource support (X4)
exhibited moderately low rating but a high variation (M = 2.6592, SD = 1.00233). Based
on rating, the worst predictor is project resource support with the lowest mean, followed
by project stakeholders. The most significant predictor is project team displaying a mean
of 3.4593. Though the mean values for project stakeholders and project change
management are almost equal, dispersion is greater in project change management than
in project stakeholders. The real rating of project implementation index rated neutrally
and dispersion is low. The aggregation is as shown in table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Aggregation of Study Variables
Variable Standard
N Mean Deviation
Project implementation index Y 89 2.6918 .93853
Project change management x1 89 3.2809 1.01529
Project team x2 89 3.4593 1.09751
Project stakeholders x3 89 3.2785 .95402
Project resource support x4 89 2.6592 1.00233
Project environment M 89 3.1530 .78576
65
4.6 Variables Diagnosis
The study, after highlighting the independent variables through descriptive statistics,
sought to get the influence of Project Change Management, Project Team, Project
Stakeholders and Project Resource Support on implementation of borehole water
projects in Makueni County. In order to get the relationship among the variables,
correlation analysis was used. Further, linear regression was used to determine the
nature of relationship. Inferential statistics was applied to test the hypothesis and
reject or fail to reject the Ho or Null hypothesis. At 5% level of significance , the
Null was rejected if p value was < 0.05.
4.6.1 Normality Tests for All Variables

Many of the statistical procedures are based on the assumption that the populations from
which the samples are taken are normally distributed (Ghasemi & Zahediasi, 2012).
Furthermore, assessing the assumption of normality is required by most statistical
procedures and parametric statistical analysis is one of the best methods of assessing the
normality assumption (Razali & Wah, 2011). Parametric statistical analysis assumes the
normal distribution and if this assumption is violated, interpretation and inferences may
be invalid. As asserted by Ghasemi and Zahediasi (2012), Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
and Shapiro-Wilk are among the main tests of normality. The Shapiro-Wilk test provides
better power than K-S test and is recommended by more researchers as the best choice
for testing the normality of data (Ghasemi & Zahediasi, 2012). Given H0 and H1, set α =
0.05, the rule is that reject H0 if P- value is less than α and fail to reject H0 if P-value is
more than α: where
H0: The data is normally distributed
H1: The data is not normally distributed
As shown in table 4.6, all five variables that is Project change management, Project
team, Project stakeholders’ involvement, Project resource management and, Project
environment had P-values less than 0.05 indicating Shapiro-Wilk test is not violated.
66
This study therefore, rejected their corresponding null hypotheses (H01, H02, H03, H04 and
H05,) and concluded that, the data sets for these five variables are normally distributed.
Table 4.6: Test of Normality
Kolmogorov-
Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Project implementation index .094 89 .051 .962 89 .010

Project change management .148 89 .000 .943 89 .001
Project team .150 89 .000 .913 89 .000
Project stakeholders’ involvement .079 89 .195 .976 89 .018
Project resource management .082 89 .193 .964 89 .014
Project environment .098 89 .035 .963 89 .013
The normal quantile-quantile plot (Q-Q plot) is the most commonly used and effective
diagnostic tool for checking normality of the data (Razali & Wah, 2011). Q-Q plots were
done and results represented by figure 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 4.5 and 4.6
4.6.1 (a) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project implementation index

The Q - Q plot of Project implementation shows a strong, positive, linear association
between observed value and expected normal. There don't appear to be any outliers in
the data. The linearity of the points suggests that the data are normally distributed. The
line of fit for project implementation index shows that the approximation for project
implementation was close to normal distribution and could be used for regression
analysis. This is as shown in figure 4.1
67
Figure 4.1: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project implementation index
4.6.1 (b) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project change management

The Q - Q plot of project change management shows a strong, positive, linear
association between observed value and expected normal. There don't appear to be any
outliers in the data. The linearity of the points suggests that the data are normally
distributed. The line of fit for project change management index shows that the
approximation for project change management was close to normal distribution and
could be used for regression analysis.
This is as shown in figure 4.2
68
Figure 4.2: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project change management
4.6.1 (c) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Team Competency

The Q - Q plot of project team competency shows a strong, positive, linear association
line of fit for project team competency index shows that the approximation for project
team competency was close to normal distribution and could be used for regression
analysis.
69
Figure 4.3: Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Team Competency
4.6.1 (d) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Stakeholders’ Involvement

For stakeholders’ involvement, the Q –Q plot shows a strong, positive, linear association
line of fit for project stakeholders’ involvement index shows that the approximation for
project stakeholders’ involvement was close to normal distribution and could be used for
regression analysis.
70
Figure 4.4: Normal Q-Q Plot of project stakeholders’ involvement
4.6.1(e) Normal Q-Q Plot of Project Resource Management

For project resource management, the Q –Q plot shows a strong, positive, linear
association between observed value and expected normal. There don't appear to be any
outliers in the data. The linearity of the points suggests that the data are normally
distributed. The line of fit for project resource management index shows that the
approximation for project resource management was close to normal distribution and
could be used for regression analysis..
71
Figure 4.5: Normal Q-Q Plot of project stakeholders
4.6.1(f) Normal Q-Q Plot of project environment

For project environment, the Q –Q plot shows a strong, positive, linear association
line of fit for project environment index shows that the approximation for project
environment was close to normal distribution and could be used for regression analysis.
72
Figure 4.6: Normal Q-Q Plot of project environment
4.6.2 Linear Relationship between the Study Variables

Multiple regression analysis was used in the study to in order to determine the
relationship between the independent, moderating and dependent variables. The five null
hypotheses of the study were tested using linear regression model. The regression
coefficients were used to describe the nature and direction of association of study
variables given by the regression analysis. As asserted by Nachmias and Nachmias
(2004), correlation coefficients reflect the strength and the direction of the association
between the variables and the degree to which one variable can be predicted from the
73
other. Results of the analysis showed that there was a positive correlation between
project change management and project implementation (r = 0.591, p value <0.001).
Since r = 0.515, p value <0.001, the linear relationship between project team and project
implementation is statistically significant. This means that, use of teams enhances
successful project implementation by 51.5%. That the linear relationship between
stakeholders and project implementation is significant since r = 0.482 and p
value<0.001. A linear relationship exists between project resource and project
implementation since r = 0.633 and p value<0.001. Since r = - 0.009 and p value =
0.934, there is no sufficient evidence that, project environment and implementation are
linearly related. Looking at the indicator variables, it can be noted that most of them are
highly correlated. For example project change management and project team are highly
correlated (r =0.820, p value<0.001. The results are shown in table 4.7
74
Table 4.7: Correlation matrix
Correlations
Y X1 X2 X3 X4 M
** ** ** **
Y Pearson Correlation 1 .591 .515 .482 .633 -.009
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .934
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .012 .006 .004 .002 .929
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
** ** ** **
X1 Pearson Correlation .591 1 .820 .722 .545 .222*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000
.036
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
X2 Pearson Correlation .515** .820** 1 .727** .500** 216*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .042
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
X3 Pearson Correlation
.482** .722** .727** 1 .499**
.147
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000
.168
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
X4 Pearson Correlation .633** .545** .500** .499** 1 .059
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .586
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
M Pearson Correlation -.009 .222* .216* .147 .059 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .934 .036 .042 .168 .586
N 89 89 89 89 89 89
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-
tailed).
KEY: Y = Project implementation; X1 = Project change management, X2 = Project
team,X3= Project stakeholders, X4= Project resource support, M = Project environment
75
4.6.3 Collinearly tests
Collinearity is a linear association between two explanatory (predictor) variables and
multicollinearity refers to a situation in which two or more explanatory (predictor)
variables in a multiple regression model are related with each other and likewise related
with the response variable (Akinwande, Dikko & Samsom, 2015). Furthermore,
Akinwande et al (2015) observe that, variance inflation factor (VIF) assesses how much
the variance of an estimated regression coefficient increases when predictors are
correlated. If no factors are correlated, the VIFs will all be 1. If the variance inflation
factor (VIF) is equal to 1 there is no multicollinearity among regressors, but if the VIF is
greater than 1, the regressors may be moderately correlated. A VIF between 5 and 10
indicates high correlation that may be problematic. And if the VIF goes above 10, it can
be assumed that the regression coefficients are poorly estimated due to multicollinearity.
In all the cases, the VIF values < 10 indicating that, the low correlation among the
explanatory variables can be ignored since they cannot increase the variance of the
coefficient estimates. See the 7th and 8th column of coefficient tables of regression output
as shown by Table 4.9 page 80, Table 4.10 page 81, Table 4.12 page 86, and Table 4.15
page 93.
4.7 Influence levels of study variables on Project Implementation

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the influence of study variables on
project implementation. The five null hypotheses of the study were tested using linear
regression model. The regression coefficient was used to describe the nature and
strength of relationship given by the regression analysis.
4.7.1 Objective 1: Analyze the change management influence level on successful

The study specifically sought to analyze the change management influence level on
successful implementation of borehole water projects. An analysis on perceptions of
chairpersons of water projects was sought through opinion statements which elicited
responses in a five point likert scale. The statement were opinions which required the
76
participant to Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree and Strongly Disagree.
The results were presented by use of means, frequencies, standard deviations and
percentages as shown in table 4.8.
Of those who agreed, majority of 70.8% felt consultations on the need of the project
were done before it was implemented; 68.5% expressed opinion that project manager
passes key information to all stakeholders; 51.5% were of the view that changed actions
based on interests which occurred were integrated into final actions; 55.1% expressed
their opinion that community jointly with other stakeholders identified solutions of the
water project; 65.9% opined that project manager was able to address their concerns at
personal group and project level; and 64% felt changes to be brought about by the
project were communicated to all stakeholders. A paltry 34.8% expressed their opinion
that projects received support from Makueni County Government. However, content
analysis indicates a contrary opinion that, decisions during implementation of water
projects were carried out between county officials and project management committee of
each project.
Three of the mean values are 3.39, 3.62 and 3.65 meaning that the respondents in
agreement that; changes to be brought about by the project are communicated to all
stakeholders, project manager passes key information to all stakeholders, and
consultations on the need of the project were done before it was implemented. The low
mean values 2.76% implies majority of respondents felt that Makueni County
Government was not supporting water projects. The values for standard deviation were
all above 3.335. The high values of standard deviation demonstrate that, the opinion of
the respondents differed with the statements on Change Management in Project
Implementation.
77
Table 4.8: Project change management
Project change Management SD D U A SA %

% % % % % M S.D
Consultations on the need of the project 11.2 15.7 2.2 38.2 32.6 3.65 1.374
were done before it was implemented
Project manager passes key information
11.2 15.7 4.5 37.1 31.5 3.62 1.369
to all stakeholders
Changed actions based on interests which

15.7 28.1 4.5 40.4 11.2 3.03 1.335
occurred were integrated into final actions
We have jointly with other stakeholders

14.6 27.0 3.4 37.1 18.0 3.17 1.392
identified solutions of the water project
The project manager is able to address our

concerns at personal group and project 17.0 15.9 1.1 48.9 17.0 3.33 1.387
level
The project has support County

34.8 18.0 3.4 23.6 20.2 2.76 1.610
Government
Changes to be brought about by the

project are communicated to all 18.0 13.5 4.5 39.3 24.7 3.39 1.451
stakeholders.

Strongly Agree. (Strongly Disagree range = 11.2 – 34.8, Disagree range = 13.5 – 28.1,
Undecided range = 1.1 – 4.5, Agree range = 23.6 – 48.9, Strongly Agree range = 11.2 –
32.6, Mean range = 2.76 – 3.65, Standard deviation range = 1.335 – 1.610, Cronbach’s
alpha =0 .842)
78
4.7.1(a) Regression results for change management influence level on project
implementation
In order to address the change management influence level on project implementation,
hierarchical regression model was used to analyze the data.
Model 1 Y = β0 + β1 X1 +e was found to be significant (F (1, 87) = 46.582, P-
value <0.001). The study hypothesized H01: Change management has no effect on
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. Since r = 0.346 and P-
value <0.001, the linear relationship between change management and project
implementation is statistically significant. The null hypothesis that change management
has no influence on project implementation was rejected and concluded that, Change
Management (X1) significantly influences Project Implementation (Y). Project change
management explains that, 34.9% of the variation in project implementation index. The
model equation is Y = 0.901 + 0.546X1 implying that, for one unit increase in Change
Management, Project Implementation increases by 0.546. This is displayed in table 4.9
79
Table 4.9: Relationship between change management and project implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square F Sig. F
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .591a .349 .341 .76176 .349 46.582 1 87 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project change management
(b) ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 27.030 1 27.030 46.582 .000a
Residual 50.484 87 .580
Total 77.514 88
(c ) Coefficients
Standardized Collinearity
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .901 .275 3.281 .001
Project change
.546 .080 .591 6.825 .000 1.000 1.000
management
a. Dependent Variable: Project implementation index
4.7.1 (b) The Moderating Effect of Project Environment on the Relationship

between Change Management and Project Implementation
To investigate the moderating effect of Project Environment on the relationship between

Change Management and Project Implementation, model 2: Y= β0 + β1X1+ βmM + e
and Model 3: Y= β0 + β1X1+ βmM + β1MX1+ β1MX1M+ e were used and the models
were found to be significant (P value<0.001). On adding Project Environment (M) into
the model containing Change Management (X1) the change was insignificant (F change
= 0.263, P value = 0.609). This shows that, Project Environment is not a predictor of
Project Implementation. On adding the interaction term into the model containing both
Change Management (X1) and Project Environment (M), the change was also not
80
significant (F change = 0.520, P value = 0.473). This indicates that Project Environment
(M) is not a significant moderator of the relationship between Change Management (X1)
and Project Implementation (Y). Regression results are shown in Table 4. 10.
Table 4.10: The Moderating Effect of Project Environment on the Relationship

between Change Management and Project Implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F
Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .591a .349 .341 .76176 .349 46.582 1 87 .000
2 .592b .351 .336 .76500 .002 .263 1 86 .609
3 .596c .355 .332 .76715 .004 .520 1 85 .473
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project change management, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project change management* Project Environment
ANOVA
1 Regression 27.030 1 27.030 46.582 .000a
Residual 50.484 87 .580
Total 77.514 88
2 Regression 27.184 2 13.592 23.226 .000b
Residual 50.330 86 .585
Total 77.514 88
3 Regression 27.490 3 9.163 15.570 .000c
Residual 50.024 85 .589
Total 77.514 88
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project change management, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project change management, Project Environment, X1M
d. Dependent Variable: Project implementation index
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .901 .275 3.281 .001
Project change management .546 .080 .591 6.825 .000 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) .931 .282 3.303 .001
Project change management .554 .082 .599 6.766 .000 .962 1.040
Project Environment -.088 .172 -.045 -.513 .609 .962 1.040
3 (Constant) .743 .384 1.934 .056
Project change management .616 .119 .667 5.175 .000 .457 2.186
Project Environment -.096 .173 -.050 -.557 .579 .958 1.044
X1M -.119 .164 -.092 -.721 .473 .471 2.123
81
Discussion on findings of Change Management influence level on Project
Implementation
Project implementation results in change and management of this strategic change are
vital in project management. As posited by CMI (2012), project change management
describes the capability of an organization to effectively design and transition project
outcomes into the business. The Regression Analysis results showed that project change
management had an influence on implementation of water projects in Makueni County
(r = 0.346, P-value <0.001). For one unit increase in Change Management, Project
Implementation increases by 0.546. The study findings lend support to Cabrey and
Haughey (2014) who concluded that organizations that are highly effective at change
management have well-defined milestones and use standardized project management
practices. The research findings also support, Andrade, Albulquerque, Teofilo and Silva
(2016) who revealed that, use of change management is becoming increasingly essential
for the Information Technology sector, and for businesses in helping and supporting the
strategic planning, targets and indicators. Furthermore, Hornstein (2015) recommends
organizations to widen their thinking to acknowledge the existence and importance of
change management in project success. Project environment is not a moderator on the
relationship between change management and project implementation (F change =
0.520, P value = 0.473).
4.7.2 Objective 2: Examine the project team competency influence level on

The study sought to examine the project team competency influence level on
implementation of borehole water projects. An analysis on perceptions of chairpersons
of water projects was sought through opinion statements which elicited responses in a
five point likert scale. The statement were opinions which required the participant to
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree and Strongly Disagree. The results were
presented by use of means, frequencies, standard deviations and percentages as shown in
table 4.11.
82
When respondents were asked about exchange of ideas during project implementation,
74.1% agreed that there was free exchange. This item had a mean of 3.61 which
according to the scale is high. To appreciate freedom of thought, participants were asked
if there was free information sharing within the team, 71.9% agreed that there was free
information sharing within project team members. This item returned a mean of 3.58
which is high in the scale.
When asked if they had trust in their leaders, 73.8% of the respondents agreed they had
trust in their leaders. This item returned a mean of 3.60 which is high on the scale. To
assess communication, opinion of participants was sought on channels used to pass
information, 73.0% agreed that, there were clear channels of passing information to
project team members. This item had a mean of 3.64 which is high on the scale.
Participants were required to share views on their project involvement, 71.8% agreed
that, they were involved in all stages of the project. This item returned a mean of 3.36
which is high on the scale. This view was supported by content analysis which
confirmed that, it is important to involve local communities from start of the water
projects to its implementation. However, it revealed that community was ignored during
implementation by donors especially in awarding of tenders.
83
Table 4.11: Project team competency influence level on project implementation
SD D U A SA %
Project Team % % % % % M S.D
There are clear channels of
passing information to project 9.0 15.7 2.2 48.3 24.7 3.64 1.264
team members
There is free information
sharing within project team 11.2 13.5 3.4 49.4 22.5 3.58 1.286
members
Team members have trust in

12.5 11.4 2.3 51.1 22.7 3.60 1.300
their leaders
Individual talents, experience

and skills of team members are
15.7 19.1 4.5 47.2 13.5 3.24 1.340
used for the benefit of the
project
Team members are assigned

tasks in areas where they have 11.4 23.9 10.2 42.0 12.5 3.20 1.261
best knowledge
There is free exchange of ideas

10.1 13.5 2.2 53.9 20.2 3.61 1.240
within the project team
Team members are involved in

15.7 18.0 4.5 38.2 23.6 3.36 1.424
all stages of the project

alpha =0 .932)
84
4.7.2 (a) Regression results for the project team competency influence level on
project implementation
In order to examine the project team competency influence level on project

implementation, hierarchical regression model was used to analyze the data. Model 1
Y = β0 + β2 X2 +e was found to be significant (F (1, 87) = 31.395, P-value <0.001). The
study hypothesized H02: Project team competency has no effect on implementation of
borehole water projects in Makueni County. Since r = 0.265 and P-value <0.001, the
linear relationship between project team competency and project implementation is
statistically significant. The null hypothesis that project team competency has no
influence on project implementation was rejected and concluded that; project team
competency (X2) significantly influences Project Implementation (Y). Project team
competency explains 26.5% of the variation in project implementation index. The model
equation is Y = 1.168+.440X2 implying that, for one unit increase in project team
competency, project implementation increases by 0.440. This is displayed in table 4.12
85
Table 4.12: Relationship between Project Team Competency and Project
Implementation
(a) Model Summary

Std. Change Statistics
Error of
R Adjusted the R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .515a .265 .257 .80914 .265 31.395 1 87 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Project team
(b) ANOVA
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 20.555 1 20.555 31.395 .000a
Residual 56.959 87 .655
Total 77.514 88
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project team
(C ) Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 1.168 .285 4.099 .000
Project team
.440 .079 .515 5.603 .000 1.000 1.000
competency
a. Dependent Variable: Project
implementation index
project team competency and project implementation

Project Team Competency and Project Implementation, model 2: Y= β0 + β2X2+ βmM +
e and Model 3: Y= β0 + β2X2+ βmM + β2MX2+ β2MX2M+ e were used and the models
86
were found to be significant (P value<0.001). On adding Project Environment (M) into
the model containing Project Team Competency (X2) the change was insignificant (F
change = 0.479, P value = 0.491). This shows that, Project Environment is not a
predictor of Project Implementation. On adding the interaction term into the model
containing both Project Team Competency (X2) and Project Environment (M), the
change was also not significant (F change = 0.139, P value = 0.710). This indicates that
Project Environment (M) is not a significant moderator of the relationship between
Project Team Competency (X2) and Project Implementation (Y). Regression results are
shown in Table 4.13
87
Table 4.13: The moderating effect of project environment on the relationship
between project team competency and project implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .515a .265 .257 .80914 .265 31.395 1 87 .000
2 .519b .269 .252 .81157 .004 .479 1 86 .491
3 .520c .270 .245 .81567 .001 .139 1 85 .710
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project team competency, Project
Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project team, Project Environment, X 2M
(b) ANOVA
1 Regression 20.555 1 20.555 31.395 .000a
Residual 56.959 87 .655
Total 77.514 88
2 Regression 20.870 2 10.435 15.843 .000b
Residual 56.644 86 .659
Total 77.514 88
3 Regression 20.963 3 6.988 10.503 .000c
Residual 56.551 85 .665
Total 77.514 88
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project team competency, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project team, Project Environment, X 2M
(c) Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.168 .285 4.099 .000
Project team competency .440 .079 .515 5.603 .000
2 (Constant) 1.200 .290 4.144 .000
Project Environment -.128 .186 -.066 -.692 .491
3 (Constant) 1.275 .354 3.604 .001
Project Team * Project Implementation
.063 .168 .045 .373 .710
88
Discussion of results of project team competency influence level on project
implementation
The basic elements of every project are the people who carry out the project (Zdonek,
Podgórska & Hysa, 2017). Project team is the engine of the project. Further, Zdonek et
al (2017) opine that, in order to achieve success, the project team must have
certain skills and competencies to carry out the entrusted task, and thus, affecting the
success of each project. Effective teams offer opportunities for organizations by finding
unique, creative, and efficient ways to implement projects (Mclees & Matthews, 2015).
The Regression Analysis results showed that project team competency had an influence
on implementation of water projects in Makueni County (r = 0.265, P-value <0.001). For
one unit increase in Project Team Competency, Project Implementation increases by
0.440. The findings of the study are supported by Zdonek, et a l (2017) who revealed
that, project team which had competencies in creativity, leadership, intuitiveness,
motivation, and technical were likely to succeed in a project Implementation. Moreover,
Maclees and Matthews (2015) found that, fostering a team environment based upon
trust, mutual respect, and integrity often leads to more effective collaboration, creativity,
teamwork, productivity, and profitability. Further, the findings are consistent with
Gudience et al (2012) who revealed that, for construction projects in Lithuania, one of
the critical success factors is the competence of the project team. Project Environment is
not a significant moderator of the relationship between Project Team Competency and
Project Implementation (F change = 0.139, P value = 0.710).
4.7.3 Objective 3: Determine stakeholders’ involvement influence level on

The study sought to determine the stakeholders’ involvement influence level on
implementation of borehole water projects. An analysis on perceptions of chairpersons
of water projects was sought through opinion statements which elicited responses in a
five point likert scale. The statement were opinions which required the participant to
89
presented by use of means, frequencies, standard deviations and percentages as shown in
table 4.14.
The participants who agreed that survey to determine stakeholder expectations was done
before implementation of projects comprised of 56.9% of the total respondents. The
mean for this item was 3.24 which are high on the scale. This implies that survey to
determine stakeholder expectations were fairly done before implementation of projects.
That the process of identifying individuals of influence to water project was not done
continuously was supported by a total of 56.1% of the respondents. The mean for this
item was 2.98 which is at the neutral level on the scale. All stakeholders support the
projects. This was attested by a total of 80.9% of the respondents who agreed with the
statement. The mean for this item was 4.00 which is high on the scale.
There are adequate mechanisms of passing information to all stakeholders. This
statement was supported by a total of 67.4% of the respondents who agreed with it. The
mean for the item is 3.49 which is very close to 3.5 the mid-point of the scale. The
means of the items were majorly below 3.5 which means there was a high disagreement
of the respondents on the statements on the views on stakeholders during project
implementation. This was supported by the high values of standard deviation. Content
analysis also, confirmed that communication was carried out through regular meetings
and through mobile phone short message texts.
90
Table 4.14: Influence of stakeholders’ involvement on project Implementation
Stakeholders Influence SD D U A SA %
% % % % % M SD
Survey to determine stakeholder expectations

was done before implementation of the 17.0 19.3 6.8 36.4 20.5 3.24 1.422
project
Analysis of individuals of influence was done

14.8 30.7 9.1 33.0 12.5 2.98 1.322
at the onset of project
The process of identifying individuals of

influence to water project is done 15.7 40.4 5.6 29.2 9.0 2.75 1.282
continuously
There are established means for stakeholders

16.9 30.3 1.1 41.6 10.1 2.98 1.348
to raise concerns about the project
There is total support for the project from the

11.2 20.2 4.5 34.8 29.2 3.51 1.391
community
There are mechanisms of passing information

9.0 21.3 2.2 46.1 21.3 3.49 1.289
to all stakeholders
All stakeholders know the benefit of the

6.7 10.1 2.2 38.2 42.7 4.00 1.215
project

alpha =0. 841)
91
4.7.3 (a) Regression results for project stakeholders’ involvement influence level on
In order to determine the Stakeholders’ involvement influence level on Project
Implementation, hierarchical regression model was used to analyze the data. Model 1
Y = β0 + β3 X3 +e was found to be significant (F (1, 87) = 26.373, P-value
<0.001). The study hypothesized H03: Stakeholders’ involvement have no influence on
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. Since r = 0233 and P-
value <0.001, the linear relationship between change management and project
implementation is statistically significant. The null hypothesis that stakeholders’
involvement has no influence on project implementation was rejected and concluded
that, Project stakeholders’ involvement (X3) significantly influences Project
Implementation (Y). Project Stakeholders explains 23.3% of the variation in project
implementation index. The model equation is Y = 1.136+0 .474X3 implying that, for one
unit increase in project stakeholders involvement, Project Implementation increases by
0.474 This is displayed in table 4.15 on page 102.
92
Table 4.15: Relationship between project stakeholders’ involvement and project
implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .482a .233 .224 .82687 .233 26.373 1 87 .000
(b) ANOVA
1 Regression 18.031 1 18.031 26.373 .000a
Residual 59.483 87 .684
Total 77.514 88
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project stakeholders’ involvement
(C ) Coefficients
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

Model
1 (Constant) 1.136 .315 3.603 .001
Project stakeholders’
.474 .092 .482 5.135 .000 1.000 1.000
involvement
93
4.7.3 (b) The Moderating effect of project environment on the relationship between
project stakeholders’ involvement and project implementation
Project Stakeholders and Project Implementation, model 2: Y= β0 + β3X3+ βmM + e and
Model 3: Y= β0 + β3X3+ βmM + β3MX3+ β3MX3M+ e were used and the models were
found to be significant (P value<0.001). On adding Project Environment (M) into the
model containing Project Stakeholders (X3) the change was insignificant (F change =
0.239, P value = 0.626). This shows that, Project Environment is not a predictor of
Project Implementation. On adding the interaction term into the model containing both
Project Stakeholders (X3) and Project Environment (M), the change was also not
significant (F change = 0.708, P value = 0.403). This indicates that Project Environment
(M) is not a significant moderator of the relationship between Project Stakeholders (X3)
and Project Implementation (Y). Regression results are shown in Table 4.16
94
between project stakeholders’ involvement and Project Implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .482a .233 .224 .82687 .233 26.373 1 87 .000
2 .485b .235 .217 .83051 .002 .239 1 86 .626
3 .491c .241 .214 .83192 .006 .708 1 85 .403
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project stakeholders’ involvement, Project
Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project stakeholders’ involvement, Project
Environment, X3M
(b) ANOVA
1 Regression 18.031 1 18.031 26.373 .000a
Residual 59.483 87 .684
Total 77.514 88
2 Regression 18.196 2 9.098 13.190 .000b
Residual 59.318 86 .690
Total 77.514 88
3 Regression 18.686 3 6.229 9.000 .000c
Residual 58.828 85 .692
Total 77.514 88
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project stakeholders’ involvement, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project stakeholders’ involvement, Project Environment, X3M
(c) Coefficient
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
1 (Constant) 1.136 .315 3.603 .001
Project stakeholders’ involvement .474 .092 .482 5.135 .000
2 (Constant) 1.158 .320 3.621 .000
3 (Constant) 1.400 .430 3.255 .002
Project Stakeholders * Project Implementation .161 .192 .114 .841 .403
95
Discussion on results of project stakeholders’ involvement influence level on
According to PMI (2015), stakeholder participation in project management is important
because they contribute resources, the establish criteria for assessing project success,
their resistance may affect the success of the project and, project may affect them either
positively or negatively. It is therefore necessary to identify, engage and manage
stakeholders during project implementation
The Regression Analysis results showed that stakeholders’ involvement had an influence
on implementation of water projects in Makueni County (r = 0.233, P-value <0.001).
Stakeholders’ involvement explains 23.3% of the variations in project implementation.
For one unit increase in Project Stakeholders’ Involvement, Project Implementation
increases by 0.474. This is supported by Liang, Yu and Guo (2017) in their study
concluded that, stakeholders strongly influence project success, particularly for complex
projects with heterogeneous stakeholders. Shah and Naqvi (2014), in their study on
impact of external stakeholders in IT industry in Lahore, Pakistan and explained that,
external stakeholder’s engagement had significant effect on the project portfolio
management success. The research findings support Muzigura, Shukla and Kibacha
(2017) who concluded that, stakeholders have an imperative influence on project
implementation since they are affected in one way or another by such intended projects.
Furthermore, Ouma and Mburu (2017), in their study, concluded that stakeholder
participation in project identification and planning influenced project sustainability. The
study is supported by the findings of Ndunda, Paul and Mbura (2017) in their study
revealed that, project beneficiary participation positively and significantly influences the
implementation of road projects in Machakos County. Project environment is not a
significant moderator of the relationship between project stakeholders and project
implementation (F change = 0.708, P value = 0.403).
96
4.7.4 Objective 4: Establish project resource management influence level on
In order to establish project resource management influence level on implementation of
boreholes in Makueni County, the study used a five point Likert Scale and sought the
opinion of respondents on areas of resources management in relationship to project
implementation. The statements were opinions which required the participant to
presented using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation and percentages
as shown in table 4.17 on page 107.
Opinion of the participants indicated that a total of 50% agreed with the statement that,
project team members are always involved in identification of right materials for use in
the project. These respondents expressed counter opinion and a total of 39.9% disagreed
that, team members are always involved in identification of right materials for use in
projects. This therefore suggests that project team members are rarely involved in
identification of right materials for project. This was supported by the mean for this item
which was 2.82% which is neutral on the scale
That projects always employ the people with right skills was collaborated by a total of
44.3% and disputed by a total of 47.8% suggesting that, water projects rarely employ
people with right skills. The item returned a mean of 2.86 which is neutral on the scale.
From the content analysis, respondents maintained that project management committees
and county staff are incharge of project implementation. A total of 61.8% expressed
opinion that water projects do not have right number of required equipments. Nearly half
of the water projects did not have functional equipment. This was confirmed by 47.8%
of the respondents while 46.5% expressed counter opinion that water projects did not
have functional equipment. It was also confirmed by content analysis that, some of the
challenges experienced include frequent breakdown in operations and machines. It was
also sighted that the local communities are not able to manage the high cost of operation.
When participants were asked their opinion on the statement that, members had
received training on the operations of the project, 67% disputed as indicated by a low
97
mean of 2.35. That project members had received training on management of water
project was confirmed by only 28.1% and disputed by a total of 67.4% of the
respondents. This implies that majority of the project members were not trained on
management of the water projects. This was confirmed by the low mean value of 2.34.
This was also confirmed by the Content Analysis that, water project committee members
should be trained on operations and book keeping. IDC(2012) observe that, training
represents one concrete step to ensure project teams possess the skills necessary to
reduce failure risk, decrease costs, and increase project effectiveness. The means for all
the statements on resource support were majorly below 3.5 which means there was
moderate agreement by respondents that water projects were having adequate resource
support during implementation. There were high variations of respondent opinion on
statements of project resources management. This is supported by the high values of
standard deviation.
98
Table 4.17: Project resource management
Project Resource Support SD D U A SA %

% % % % % M SD
Project team members are always involved in
identification of right materials for use in the 22.7 27.3 9.1 27.3 13.6 2.82 1.411
project
The project always employ the right number
20.2 23.6 13.5 27.0 15.7 2.94 1.401
of people
The project always employ people with right

20.5 27.3 8.0 34.1 10.2 2.86 1.358
skills
The project has functional equipment 29.5 17.0 5.7 36.4 11.4 2.83 1.472
The project has right number of equipments 31.5 30.3 5.6 28.1 4.5 2.44 1.314
Members have received training on the

29.5 37.5 6.8 20.5 5.7 2.35 1.260
operations of the project
Members have received training on

32.6 34.8 4.5 22.5 5.6 2.34 1.296
management of water project

alpha =0.867)
4.7.4 (a) Regression results on project resource management influence level on

In order to determine the resources management influence level on Project

Implementation, hierarchical regression model was used to analyze the data. Model 1: Y
= β0 + β4 X4 +e was found to be significant (F (1, 87) = 58.109, P-value <0.001). The
study hypothesized H04: Project resources management has no effect on implementation
of borehole water projects in Makueni County. Since r = 0.400 and P-value <0.001, the
99
linear relationship between change management and project implementation is
statistically significant. The null hypothesis that resources management has no influence
on project implementation was rejected and concluded that, project resources
management (X4) significantly influences Project Implementation (Y). Project resources
management explains 40% of the variation in project implementation index (r = 0.400,
P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.116+0.593X4 implying that, for each unit
increase in Resource Support, Project Implementation increases by 0.593. This is
displayed in table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Relationship on project resource management and Project

Implementation
(a) Model Summary

Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted R of the R Square
Model R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .633a .400 .394 .73087 .400 58.109 1 87 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource
support
(b) ANOVA
1 Regression 31.041 1 31.041 58.109 .000a
Residual 46.473 87 .534
Total 77.514 88
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource support
(c) Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.116 .221 5.056 .000
Project resource
.593 .078 .633 7.623 .000
management
100
project resource management and project implementation

Project resources management and Project Implementation, model 2: Y= β0 + β4X4+
βmM + e and Model 3: Y= β0 + β4X4+ βmM + β4MX4+ β1MX4M+ e were used and the
models were found to be significant (P value<0.001). On adding Project Environment
(M) into the model containing Project Resources Management (X1) the change was
insignificant (F change = 0.006, P value = 0.938). This shows that, Project Environment
is not a predictor of Project Implementation. On adding the interaction term into the
model containing both Project Resource Support (X1) and Project Environment (M), the
change was also not significant (F change = 0.261, P value = 0.611). This indicates that
Project Environment (M) is not a significant moderator of the relationship between
Project Recourse Support (X4) and Project Implementation (Y). Regression results are
shown in Table 4.19.
101
between project resource management and project implementation
(a) Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F
Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .633a .400 .394 .73087 .400 58.109 1 87 .000
2 .633b .400 .387 .73509 .000 .006 1 86 .938
3 .634c .402 .381 .73826 .002 .261 1 85 .611
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management, Project Environment,
X4M
(b) NOVA
1 Regression 31.041 1 31.041 58.109 .000a
Residual 46.473 87 .534
Total 77.514 88
2 Regression 31.044 2 15.522 28.726 .000b
Residual 46.470 86 .540
Total 77.514 88
3 Regression 31.186 3 10.395 19.073 .000c
Residual 46.328 85 .545
Total 77.514 88
a. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management
b. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management, Project Environment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Project resource management, Project Environment, X4M
(c) Coefficients
1 (Constant) 1.116 .221 5.056 .000
Project resource management .593 .078 .633 7.623 .000
2 (Constant) 1.110 .237 4.682 .000
Project Environment .013 .163 .007 .078 .938
3 (Constant) .961 .376 2.552 .012
Project Environment .007 .164 .003 .041 .967
Project resource management * project
-.087 .169 -.076 -.511 .611
environment
102
Discussion of results on resource management influence level on Project
Implementation
The allocation of resources is pivotal to successful project implementation and a difficult

challenge in project management (Kane and Tissier, 2012). Resources are always scarce
and face competing needs. When resources are available on time and in quality and
quantity, projects will be implemented successfully. The Regression Analysis results
showed that resources management had an influence on implementation of water
projects in Makueni County (r = 0.400, P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y =
1.116+0.593X4. Hence for each unit increase in project resources management, project
implementation increases by 0.593. Nyandika and Ngugi (2014) in their study revealed
that, enough financial resource, donor support, availability of human resource and
provision of resources on time influence positively to the performance of road projects.
Mwangi, Mbabazize, and Euginia (2017) in their study concluded that, resource
availability have statistically significant role on MIS project success in the Banking
Industry in Rwanda. The findings are supported by Rammer and Klingebiel (2013) who
concluded that, breadth in resource allocation increases performance, more so than does
resource allocation intensity. Project Environment is not a significant moderator of the
relationship between project recourse Support and project implementation (F change =
0.261, P value = 0.611).
4.8 Summary of study findings
The main objective of the study was to examine project management practices influence
level on implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County, Kenya. On the
specific objectives, the study found that change management positively influence
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County (r = 0.346 and P-value
<0.001). The model equation is Y = 0.901 + 0.546X1 implying that, for one unit increase
in Change Management, Project Implementation increases by 0.546. Project
environment was found not a moderator. Project team competency was found also to
103
positively influence implementation of borehole water projects (r = 0. 0.265 and P-value
<0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.168+.440X2 implying that, for one unit increase in
project team competency, project implementation increases by 0.440. On the
stakeholders’ involvement, the study found that stakeholders’ involvement positively
influences project implementation (r = 0. 0.233 and P-value <0.001). The model
equation is Y = 1.136+0 .474X3 implying that, for one unit increase in project
stakeholders’ involvement, Project Implementation increases. Project resource
management was also found to positively influence implementation of borehole water
projects in Makueni County (r = 0. 0.400 and P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y
= 1.116+0.593X4 implying that, for each unit increase in Resource Support, Project
Implementation increases by 0.593. From the above findings, the estimated model of
regression is:
Y = 3.301 + 0.546X1 + 0.440X2 + 0.483X3 + 0.593X4.
Since F change = 0.520, P value = 0.473) for change management, F change = 0.139, P
value = 0.710 for project team competency, F change = 0.708, P value = 0.403 for
stakeholders’ involvement, and F change = 0.261, P value = 0.611 for project resource
management, there was no sufficient evidence that project environment is a moderator
on relationship between each study variable and the implementation of the water project
in Makueni County. The study findings on moderating effect of project environment
lend support to Alon et al (2013) who concluded that, environmental dynamism
moderates project performance. However, the findings on moderating effect of project
environment negates conclusion by Akpomieme et al (2014) that, successful
management of political, technological, economic and financial environmental factors
positively influences project implementation. The Content Analysis, also revealed that,
technology effected communication by use of mobile phone and use of solar panels
instead of diesel in pumps saved money; after elections and there was change of
Member of County Assembly, project support changes and can take long to get financial
support.
104
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides summary of the study findings as guided by the specific
objectives, the conclusions as well as the recommendations drawn from the study
findings. The study sought to examine project management practices influence levels on
implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County, Kenya. Specifically, the
study sought to analyze change management influence level on implementation of
borehole water projects in Makueni County, to examine the project team competency
influence level on implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County, to
determine project stakeholders’ involvement influence level on implementation of
borehole water projects in Makueni County, to establish resources management
influence level on implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County, to
determine the moderating effect of project environment on relationship between each
study variable and the implementation of the water project in Makueni County.
5.2 Study Findings
Project implementation brings about change and the manner in which this change is
managed determines project success or failure. The study found that, change
management positively influence successful implementation of water projects in
Makueni County (r = 0.346 and P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y = 0.901 +
0.546X1 implying that, for one unit increase in Change Management, Project
Implementation increases by 0.546. For successful implementation of water projects in
Makueni County, setting of clear objectives should be done, effective communication,
and management support are critical factors for successful project implementation.
Therefore, change management is a significant project management practice on
successful implementation of water projects in Makueni County, Kenya. The study
found that, project environment is not a significant moderator in the relationship
105
between change management and project implementation (F change = 0.520, P value =
0.473).
Projects are implemented by teams and the effectiveness and efficiency of project team
will determine the success or failure of each project. The study found that, project team
competency positively influences implementation of water projects in Makueni County
(r = 0. 0.265 and P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.168+.440X2 implying
that, for one unit increase in project team competency, project implementation increases
by 0.440. The project team competencies include conflict resolution, effective
leadership, and defined roles. The study found that, project environment is not a
significant moderator in the relationship between project team competency and project
A stakeholder is any person, group or organization which can influence or is affected by

implementation of a project. Stakeholders, therefore, need to be identified, prioritized
and managed during project management. The study found that, project stakeholders’
involvement positively influence successful implementation of water projects in
Makueni County (r = 0. 0.233 and P-value <0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.136+0
.474X3 implying that, for one unit increase in project stakeholders’ involvement, Project
Implementation increases by 0.474. For successful implementation of water projects in
Makueni County, stakeholder should be involved in goal setting, needs identification
process, and should be trained on project operations and maintenance. An analysis of
people with influence should be done continuously as the project progress, project
should have total support of community, all stakeholders should know the benefits of the
project, must not only be involved in goal setting, but also during implementation and
other phases. Once the project is implemented, it has to perform to satisfaction of the
stakeholders. The study found that, project environment is not a significant moderator in
the relationship between stakeholders’ involvement and project implementation (F
change = 0.708, P value = 0.403).
106
Project implementation requires and consumes a lot of resources. When resources are
available at the right time and in required quality and quantity, activities are done as
planned, project outcomes and objectives are realized as expected leading to successful
projects. The study found that, project resource management positively influences
successful implementation of water projects in Makueni County (r = 0. 0.400 and P-
value <0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.116+0.593X4 implying that, for each unit
increase in Resource Support, Project Implementation increases by 0.593. For successful
implementation of water projects in Makueni County, projects should always employ the
right number of people with right skills, have functional equipment and have adequate
finances at the right time for use. The study found that, project environment is not a
significant moderator in the relationship between resources management and project
5.3 Conclusions of study
The study concludes that change management positively influences successful

implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. The model equation is Y
= 0.901 + 0.546X1 implying that, for one unit increase in change management, Project
Implementation increases by 0.546. It means change management is critical in realizing
successful implementation of water projects. During project implementation, effective
change management may be facilitated by having clear objectives, effective
communication as well as top management support. Project environment was found not
a significant moderator in the relationship between change management and project
Project team competency was found to positively influence successful implementation

of borehole water projects in Makueni County (r = 0. 0.265 and P-value <0.001). The
model equation is Y = 1.168+.440X2 implying that, for one unit increase in project team
competency, project implementation increases by 0.440. The performance of project
team is likely to be influenced by having conflict resolution mechanisms, defined roles,
107
and effective leadership. Project environment was found not a significant moderator in
the relationship between project team competency and project implementation (F change
= 0.139, P value = 0.710).
The study concludes that, project stakeholders’ involvement positively influences

implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni (r = 0. 0.400 and P-value
<0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.116+0.593X4 implying that, for each unit increase
in project stakeholders’ involvement, Project Implementation increases by 0.593.
Stakeholders have to be involved in project goal setting and other phases and on
completion, and in needs identification to ensure that their needs are likely to be met.
Factors which enhance stakeholders’ involvement include training, needs identification
process, and goal setting. Project environment was found not a significant moderator in
the relationship between stakeholders’ involvement and project implementation (F
change = 0.708, P value = 0.403).
The study concludes that, project resource management influences successful

implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County (r = 0. 0.400 and P-value
<0.001). The model equation is Y = 1.116+0.593X4 implying that, for each unit increase
in Resources Management, Project Implementation increases by 0.593. Practices which
enhance resources management include human, material and financial management.
Project environment was found not a significant moderator in the relationship between
resources management and project implementation (F change = 0.261, P value = 0.611).
In conclusion, this study examined project management practices and their influence
levels in implementation of borehole water projects in Makueni County. The estimated
model of regression is: Y = 3.301 + 0.546X1 + 0.440X2 + 0.483X3 + 0.593X4. Project
resources management influence level was found the highest (0.593), followed by
change management (0.546), then stakeholders’ involvement (0.474) and the least was
project team competency (0.440). The study contributed to previous knowledge by
identifying the influence levels of the variables.
108
The study also determined the moderating effect of project environment on relationship
between each study variable and the implementation of the water project in Makueni
County. Since F change = 0.520, P value = 0.473) for change management, F change =
0.139, P value = 0.710 for project team competency, F change = 0.708, P value = 0.403
for stakeholders’ involvement, and F change = 0.261, P value = 0.611 for project
resources management, there was no sufficient evidence that project environment is a
moderator of the project management practices investigated. Thus, it can also be
concluded that, project environment is not a moderator on relationship between each
study variable and the implementation of the water project in Makueni County.
5.4 Recommendations of the study
This section gives recommendation for policy and practice, and for further research
based on the study findings and conclusions.
5.4.1 Recommendation for policy and practice
Project management practices: change management, project team competency,

stakeholders’ involvement, and resource management all influence project
implementation but at varying levels. These practices should be given due consideration
during project design, planning and implementation. The study thus, advances the
understanding of project management practices within project implementation with
intention of aiding researchers and policy makers in recognizing their benefits and
challenges.
5.4.2 Recommendation for further research
The study used cross sectional survey and therefore recommends further research using
longitudinal study design to validate these findings. The study was carried out in
Makueni County. The study thus, further recommends similar studies in other places to
compare the findings. The study relied on five variables and recommends further study
109
to explore other project management practices influence levels on successful
implementation of borehole water project.
110
REFERENCES
Aapaoja, A., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwale, W,D.(2014). A Framework for Stakeholder
Identification and Classification in Construction Projects. Open Journal of
Business and Management, 2, 43-55.
Aapaoja, A., Haapasalo, H., a& Söderström, P. (2013). Early Stakeholder Involvement
in the Project Definition Phase: Case Renovation. ISRN Industrial Engineering,
2013, Article ID 953915.
Abawi, K. (2013). Data Collection Instruments (Questionnaire & Interview). Training in

Sexual and Reproductive Health Research, Geneva Workshop 2013, Geneva
Akanni, P, O., Oke, A, E., Akopomiemie, O, A. (2014). Impact of environmental factors

on building project performance in Delta State, Nigeria, Housing and Building
National Research Center Journal, 11, 91-97.
Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H.G., &Samson, A.(2015) Variance Inflation Factor: As a

Condition for the Inclusion of Suppressor Variable(s) in Regression Analysis.
Open Journal of Statistics, 5, 754-767.
Alexandrova, M., & Kuzmanova, M. (2017). Change Management and Project

Management Integration: Survey Evidence. Paper presented at the Third
International Scientific – Business Leadership and Management Conference:
Integrated Politics of Research and Innovation, Belgrade, Serbia
Al-Hajj, A., & Zrauning, M, M. (2018). The Impact of Project Management

Implementation on the Successful Completion of Projects in Construction.
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 9 (1).
111
Alias, Z., Zawawi. E, M, A., Yusof, K., & Aris, W, M.(2014). Determining Critical
Success Factors of Project Management Practice: A conceptual framework.
Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 61-69
Alon, I., Jiao, H., Kwong, K, C., & Cui, Y. (2013). The Moderating Effects of
Environmental Dynamism on the Relationship between Dynamic Capabilities
Strategy and New Venture Performance in an Emerging Market. Faculty
Publications. 30 (2), 1 –30.
Alqahtani, F., Chinyio, E., Mushatat, S., & Olke, D. (2015). Factors Effecting
Performance of Projects: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, 6 (4).
Amjad, U., Ojomo, E., Downs, K., Cronk, R., & Bartram, J. (2015). Rethinking
Sustainability, Scaling Up, and Enabling Environment: A Framework for Their
Implementation in Drinking Water Supply. Water, 7, 1497-1514.
Andrade, P, R, M., Albuquerque, A, B., Teofilo, W, D., & Silva, A, B. (2016). Change
Management: Implementation and benefits of the change control in the
Information Technology Environment. International Journal of Advanced
Information Technology. 6(1), 23 - 33.
Assaf, S., Hassanain, M, A., & Mughal, H. (2014). Effectiveness of Project Teams and
their Impact on the Performance of Saudi Construction Projects. Research
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7(24), 5148-5156.
Assefa, Y., Rivera, O, P., & Vencatachellum, D. (2013). Macro and micro determinants
of project performance, African Evaluation Journal, 2(1), 1 - 9.
Basamh, S, S., Huq, M, N,. &Dahlan, A, R, A. (2013) Empirical Research on Project

Implementation Success and Change Management Practices in Malaysian
112
Government-Linked Companies. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Research, 3 (5), 1 – 9.
Beleiu, I., Crisan, E., & Nistor, R. (2014). Main factors influencing project success.
Interdisciplinary Management Research, 11, 59 - 72
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.

Textbooks Collection.Book 3. University of South Florida, Scholar Commons.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3
Bhoola, V., & Giangreco, A. (2018). HR activities and practices for project success: A
multimethod approach from Indian IT firms. Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, 22, 1-29.
Bijlsma, R., Bots, P., Wolters, H., & Hoekstra, A. (2011). An Empirical Analysis of
Stakeholders’ Influence on Policy Development: The
Role of Uncertainty Handling. Ecology and Society, 16,(1).
Blackburn, M. (March 5, 2019). What Is Stakeholder Theory? Retrieved on February 12,

2020 from ProectManager.com.
Blackman, R. (2009). Project cycle management. Tearfund, United Kingdom.
Bonett, D, G. (2012). Replication – Extension Studies. Current Directions in

Psychological Science. 2(6), 409 – 412.
Botwe, E., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwale, W, D. (2016). Mega Construction Projects: using
stakeholder management for enhanced sustainable construction. American
Journal of Engineering Research, 5 (5), 80-86.
113
Bourne, L. (2006). Project Relationships and the Stakeholder Circle. Stakeholder
management Pty, Melbourne, Australia.
Bwisa, H. (2008). Your Proposal Writing Companion. How to write a problem statement
(1st ed.), 1, 1 – 15, Nairobi, Kenya.
Bwisa, H. (2015). What is a theoretical Framework? Retrieved from

professorbwisa.com.
Bryson, J, M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of
strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public
dministration Review, 67(4), 702-17.
Caldas, C., Menches, C, L., Reyes, P, M., Navarro, L,. & Vargas, D, M. (2015).
Materials Management Practices in the Construction Industry. Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 20(3), 504-509.
Caruana, E, J., Roman, M., & Solli, P. (2015). Longitudinal studies. Journal of
Thoracic Disease, 7(11), 537-540.
Chan, K,Y. (2014). Multiple project team membership and performance: empirical
evidence from engineering project teams. South African Journal of Economic
and Management Sciences, 17(1), 76 - 90.
Chandra, P. (2005). Projects; Planning, Analysis, Financing, Implementation, and

Review. 5th Edition. Tata McGraw- Hill Publishing Company Limited, New
Delhi.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.
Cheong, Y., Nur, Y., & Mustaffa, E. (2012). Analysis of factors critical to construction
project success in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
114
Management, 19(5), 543 – 556.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L.R. (2002). Project Management: strategic design and
implementation. 4th Edition. Singapore.
Pass, C., Lowes, B., Pendleton, A., Chadwick, L., O’Reilly, D & M Afferson, M.
(2005). Collins Dictionary of Business (3rd edition). HarperCollins Publishers.
Crawford, L., Aitken, A., & Hassner-Nahmias, A. (2014). Project Management and
Organizational Change. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Crewsell, J, W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approach. Sage Publications.
Crouch, S.R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davies, E. (2014). Parent-reported
measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-
sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 14, 635.
Davis, G, F., & Cobb, J. (2010). Resource Dependence Theory: Past and future.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21-42.
Davis, J, P., & Simpson, E. (2017). Resource-Based Theory, Competition and Staff
Differentiation in Africa: Leveraging Employees as a Source of Sustained
Competitive Advantage. American Journal of Management, 17(1), 19 – 33.
Dekkar, A., & Qing, Y. (2014). Stakeholder management issues and Leadership in
project management: The way forward. International Journal of Education and
Research. 2(2).
Donyavi, S., & Flanagan, R. (2009). The impact of effective material management on
construction site performance for small and medium sized construction
115
enterprises. Paper presented at 25th Annual Association of Rearserchers in
Construction Management Conference
Drexler, A., Greg, F., & Antoinette, S. (2014). "Keeping It Simple: Financial Literacy
and Rules of Thumb."American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 1-
31.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2015). Stakeholder Inclusiveness:

Enriching Project Management with General Stakeholder Theory1. Project
Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53.
Ferris, D. (2019). Weaknesses of Nightingale Theory (February 04, 2019). .

Retrieved from ttps://www.ehow.co.uk
Filho, E. ((2019). Team Dynamics Theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team
mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health
15(1), 1–20.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the
strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic
management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1 0 ( 1 ) ,
1–23.
Fraz, A., Waris, A., Afzal, S., Jamil, M., Shah, S, T, H., & Sultana, S. (2016). Effect of
Project Management Practices on Project Success in Make-to-Order
Manufacturing Organizations. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9
(21).
Genc, C. (2017). A changing world: A discussion of the Belbin’s Team – Role Theory.
Marketing Communications Transformer
116
Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-
Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology &Metabolism, 10(2),
486-9.
Gilpin, A. (1996). Dictionary of environment and sustainable development (1 st edition),

Chichester, Wiley.
Githua, R., & Wanyoike, D. (2015). Factors influencing performance of community

water projects in Njoro Sub County..International Journal of Economics,
Commerce and Management. 3(11), 967 – 990.
Glickman, M, E., Rao, S, R., & Schultz, M, R. (2014). False discovery rate control is
recommended alternative to Bonferroni – type adjustments in health studies.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69,263.
Government of Kenya. (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. Government printer, Nairobi
Ghanim, A., Munassar, F., & Dahlan, A. R.A. (2013). Projects and Change Management
Success Factors from Malaysian Government Departments and Agencies
Perspective. Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 36-45.
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasi, S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide
for Non-Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology Metabolism,
10(2), 486 – 489.
Gudiene, N., Banaitis, A., Podvezko, V., & Banaitienė, N. (2014). Identification and
evaluation of the critical success factors for construction projects in Lithuania:
AHP approach, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(3) 350-359.
117
Gulghane, A, A,. Khandve, P, V. (2015). Management for Construction Materials and
Control of Construction Waste in Construction Industry. Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications, 5(4), 59-64.
Guo, T., Wang, G., & Wang, C. (2017). Empirical Study on the Effect of Environmental
Factors on Enterprise Growth - Comparative Analysis of Chinese Large Scale
Industrial Enterprises and Small/Medium Industrial Enterprises. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13 (11), 7549-
7559
Garousi, V., Tarhan, A., Pfahl, D., Coakuncay,A., & Demirors, O. (2019). Correlation of
critical success factors with success of software projects: an empirical
investigation. Software Quality Journal, 27, 429–493
Grand, J, A., Braun, M, T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S, W, J., & Chao, G, T. (2016).
The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge
emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1353–1385.
Halbesleben, J, R, B., Neveu, P., Paustian-Underdahl, S, M., & Westman, M. (2014).

Getting to the ''COR'': Understanding the Role of Resources in Conservation of
Resources Theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334 - 1364.
Han, J, Y., & Hovav, A. (2013). To brdge or to bond? Diverse social connections in an
IS project team. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 378 – 390.
Hasan, M, N. (2016). Positivism: to what extent does it aid our understanding of the
contemporary social world? Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 317–325.
Harrison, J, S., Freeman, R,E., Sá de Abreu, M, C. (2015). Stakeholder Theory As an

Ethical Approach to Effective Management: applying the theory to multiple
contexts. Review of Business Management, 17(55), 858-869.
118
Heravi, A., Coffey, V., & Trigunarsyay, B. (2014). Evaluating the level of stakeholder
involvement during the planning process of building projects. International
Journal of project management, 33, 985 – 997.
Hennayake, Y. (2017). Change Management and Its Facets in Different Application

Scenarios:An Empirical Review. International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, 8(6), 1892 – 1900.
Hillman, A, J., Withers, M, C., & Collins, D. J. (2009). Resource Dependency Theory: A
Review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404 – 1425
Hornstein, H, A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational

change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project
Management, 33, 291 – 298
Ibeto, I., & Chinyeaka, J. (2013). Issues and challenges in local government project
monitoring and evaluation in Nigeria: The way forward, Lagos State
University, Ojo-Nigeria.
Idoro, G, I., & Patunola-Ajayi, J, B. (2009). Evaluating the Strategies for Marketing
Project Management System in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Nordic
Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 6(2), 25 – 36.
Ihuah, P, W.,& Eaton, D. (2013). The Pragmatic Research Approach: A Framework for
Sustainable Management of Public Housing Eastates in Nigeria. Journal of US-
China Public Adminstration, 10, 933-944.
Imenda, S.(2014). Is There a Conceptual Difference between Theoretical and

Conceptual Frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185-195.
119
Ingason, H, T. (2014). Best Project Management Practices in the Implementation of an
ISO 9001 Quality Management System. Conference proceedings, 28th IPMA
World Congress, IPMA 2014, 29 September – 1 October 2014, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
International Committee of Red Cross [ICRC]. (2008). Programme/Project

management: Results based approach, Geneva, Switzerland.
International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD]. (2009). Sustainability of rural

development projects. Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD in Asia: India
Case Study.
Ilies, L., Crisan, E., & Muresan, I, N. (2010). Best Practices in Project Management.
Review of International Comparative Management. 11(1), 43 – 51.
Ismail, A, I., Rose, R, C., Uli, J., & Abdullah,H. (2012). The relationship between
organisational resources, capabilities, systems and competitive advantage. Asian
Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 151–173.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and

Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62.
Joslin, R. & Müller, R. (2014). The impact of project methodologies on project success
in different contexts. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Research
and Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Juma, M, N. (2015). Factors Influencing Implementation of Constituency Development

Fund Projects In Public Secondary Schools In Kiminini Constituency, Trans-
Nzoia County.International journal of technology enhancements and emerging
engineering research, 3(5), 44 – 55.
120
Kane, H., & Tissier, A. (2012). A Resources Allocation Model for Multi-Project
Management. Paper presented at 9th International Conference on Modeling,
Optimization & Simulation, Jun 2012, Bordeaux, France
Khoshtale, O., & Adeli, M. M. (2016). The relationship between team effectiveness
factors and project performance aspects: A case study in Iranian construction
project teams. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2016,
1738 – 1768.
Kombo, D. & Tromp, D. (2006). Proposal and Thesis writing. Paulines Publications,
Nairobi.
Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology. New Age International. New Delhi.
Lannon, J. (2015). Project management as a professional discipline in private, public and

non – profit sectors. Paper presented at Engineers Ireland’s Project
Management Society in association with Young Engineers Society on May
19, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2015/08/11/critique-
project-management-
Larson, E, W., & Gray, C, F. (2011). Project management: the managerial process, 5th
edition. McGral-Hill companies, New York, U.S.A.
Laplume, A, O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R, A. (2008). Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a
TheoryThat Moves Us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
Lavrakas, P, J. (2011). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications,

Inc
Lee, H., Park, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Role of Leadership Competencies and Team Social
Capital in it Services, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 1-11.
121
Leitch, C, M., McMullan, C., Richard, T., & Harrison, R. (2009). Leadership
Development in SMEs: an action learning approach, Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 6(3), 243-63.
Lewis, J, P. (2011). Project planning, scheduling and control: the ultimate hands-on
guide to bringing projects in on time and budget. 5th Edition. Tata McGraw-
Hill, New Delhi.
Li, Y., Yang, H, M., Klein, G., & Ghen, H, G. (2010). The role of team problem solving
competency in information system development projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 29 (7), 911 – 922.
Liampunttong, P. (2010). Focus Group Methodology: Introduction and History. Sage

publications.
Liang, X., Yu, T., & Guo, L. (2017). Understanding Stakeholders’ Influence on Project
Success with a New SNA Method: A case Study of the Green Rerofit in China.
Sustainability, 9(1927), 1 - 18.
Loy, A., Follet, L., & Hofmann, H. (2014). Variations of Q-Q Plots – The Power of
ourEyes!. Statistical Evaluation Methods, arXiv: 1503.02098v.
Littau, P. (2015). Managing Stakeholders in Megaproject. The MS Working Group

Report. European Cooperation in Science and Technology, University of Leeds.
Liu, B., Xue, B., Huo, T., Shen, G., & Fu, M, (2018). Project external environmental
factors affecting project delivery systems selection. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, 25(3), 276–286.
Maina, C., & Gathenya, J. (2014). Influence of Economic Factors on Performance of

Project Management among Petroleum Marketing Firms in Kenya. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(6), 146 –
122
173.
Mainardes, E, W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (20110. Stakeholder theory: issues to
resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226-252.
Makueni County Government. (2013). Makueni County Integrated Development Plan

(CIDP).Makueni: Makueni County Government.
Malatesta, D., & Smith, C. R. (2014). Lessons from Resource Dependence Theory for
Contemporary Public and Nonprofit Management. Public Administration
Review,74(1), 14–25.
Mathis, J., Senlet. P., Topcouglo, E., & Tsui, A. (2001). Best Practices in Monitoring
and Evaluation: Lessons from the USAID Turkey Population Program. Carolina
Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Martens, M, L., Carrvalho, M, M., & Martens, C, D. (2016). Conference Proceedings at

International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) 2016.
May, C., Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An

outline of normalization process theory. Sociology,43, 535–554.
Mavuti, B. M., Kisingu, T. M. & Oyoo, J. J. (2019). Effect of project management

practices on implementation of Kenya Ports Authority Funded projects. The
Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 6(2), 1110 – 1129.
Maqbool, R,. Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N,. & Rashid, Y. (2017). The Impact of Emotional
Intelligence, Project Managers’ Competencies, and Transformational Leadership
on Project Success: An Empirical Perspective. Project Management Journal,
48(3), 58 – 75
123
Mbithi, B., Muturi, W., & Rambo, C. (2017). Macro environment moderating Effects on
Strategy and Performance. Haya: Saudi Journal of Life Sciences, 2(5), 197-209
Medeiros, A, B, A., Enders, B, C., & Lira, A, L, B, C. (2015). A Critical Analysis of

the Environmental Theory. Escola Anna Nery, 19(3), 518-524.
Menon, S, A. (2015). Best Practices and Implementation Challenges in Effective Project

Management. Capella University, School of Business and Technology.
Meyer, W, B., & Turner, B, L. (1994). Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global
Perspective, 2nd, edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCormick, M. (2011). Enterprise Project Management Office (ePMO), Management
Consultant. Retrieved from http://www.mccormickpcs.com/pmo/epmo.html
Mclees, J., & Mattews, R. (2015). Building Effective Project Teams and Teamwork.
Journal of Information Technology and Economic Development. 6 (2), 20 – 30.
Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management:
linking Project Management Performance and Project Success. International
Journal of Project Management, 32, 202 –217.
Mohajan, H, K. (2017). Two Criteria for Good Measurements in Research: Validity and
Reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University, 17(3), 58-82.
Mugenda, A., & Mugenda, O. (2006). Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, 4th Edition. Nairobi, ACTS
Mulewa, J, F., Kising’u, T, M., & Oyoo, J, J. (2019). Effect of project management
practices on implementation of youth projects in Mombasa County, Kenya.
The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 6(3), 466 – 485.
124
Munassar, F., Ghanim, A., & Dahlan, A, R, A. (2013). Change Management and its
Contribution to the Success of IT Project Implementation. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 3(4), 36-45.
Musa, M.M., Amirudin, R.., Sofield, T. and Musa, M.A. 2015. Influence of external
factors on the success of public housing projects in developing countries,
Construction Economics and Building, 15(4), 30-44.
Muzigura, T., Shukla, J., & Kibacha, J. (2017). Influence of Stakeholder Management
on Project Implementation: Case of Kirehe Community-Based Watershed
Management project in Kirehe District, Rwanda. European Journal of Business
and Social Sciences, 6(7).
Mwangi P., Irechukwu N., & Mbabazize, B. (2017). Role of Project Resource
Availability on Project Success in Banking Industry in Rwanda: A Case of KCB
ATM MIS Project. African journal of Business and Industry, 2(3), 445.
Nachmias, C, F., & Nachmias, D. (2004). Research Methods in Social Sciences, 5th
edition. Arnold, London
Nangoli, S., Namiyingo, S., Kabagambe, L., Namono, R., Jaaza, M., & Ngoma, M.
(2016). Stakeholder participation: An empirical investigation. African Journal of
Business Management, 10(8), 182-186.
Nawi, M, N, M., Lee, A., Azman, M,N, A., & Kamar, K, A, M. (2014). Fragmentation
Issue in Malaysian Industrialised Building System (IBS) Projects. Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, 9(1), 97 – 106
125
Napoleon, K, D, K., Eugene, A, S., Asubonteng, A, J., Tom, A., Alubokin A, A. (2018).
Effects of Material Management Techniques on Construction Project Success:
Perspective of Material Managers in Northern Region of Ghana. International
Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(5), 183 – 188.
Ndachi, H, N., & Kimutai, G. (2018). Project Management Practices and

Implementation of Health Projects in Public Hospitals in Nyeri County,
Kenya. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 5(2),
2518-2532.
Ndayisaba, O., & Mulyungi, P. (2018). Effect of Resources Management on Project

Success Implementation. A Case of Strengthening Livelihoods in Rural Rwanda
Project. International Journal of Research in Management, Economics and
Commerce, 8(5), 32- 41.
Ndunda, A, N., Paul, S, N., & Mbura, L, K. (2017). Influence of Stakeholder activities
on implementation of rural road projects in Machakos County. International
Academic Journal of Information Sciences and Project Management, 2(2), 1-20.
Newton, P. (2015). Principles of Project Management. Project Skills. . Retrieved from

www.free-management-ebooks.com.
Nganga, S., Kibetu, P., Thumbu, G., Ochadha, G.,& Nyadawa, M. (2016).
Groundwater quality assessment and water quality indexing: Case Study of
Makueni County, Eastern Kenya. Journal of International Academic
Research forMultidisciplinary, 6(2),77 – 91.
Nyandika, F. O., & Ngugi, K. (2014). Influence of Stakeholders' Participation on

Performance of Road Projects at Kenya National Highways Authority.
European Journal of Business Management, 1, (11).
126
Ofori, D. F. (2013). Project Management Practices and Critical Success Factors–A
Developing Country Perspective. International Journal of Business and in
public-private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria",
Journal of Facilities Management,10, (3), 212 – 225.
Olszak, C, M., & Ziemba, E. (2012). Critical Success Factors for Implementing Business
Intelligence Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises on the Example of
Upper Silesia, Poland. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and
Management, 7, 128 – 150.
Onditi, W,O., & Mburu, D, K. (2017). Role of Stakeholders’ involvement in

sustainability of Constituency Development Fund Projects in Kenya: Case of
Nakuru Town East Constituency. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Project Management. 2(1), 1-13
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2015).

StakeholderInvolvement in Decision Making: A Short Guide to Issues,
Approaches and Resources. NEA No. 7189
Palmer, E. (2014). Five Factors That Lead to Successful Projects. Retrieved from
http://www.transformed.com.au/media/articles/tips_quality.html.
Parmar, B., Wicks, C., & Freeman, E, R. (2004. Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate
Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364-369.
Posselt, T., & Förstl, K. (2012). Success Factors in New Service Development: a
Literature Review. Fraunhofer Center for Applied Research on Supply Chain
Services, Nordostpark, Germany.
Prabhakar, G, P. (2008). Teams and Projects: A Literature Review. International

Journal of Business Management. 3(10), 3-7.
127
Pradhan, R, K., & Pradhan, S. (2011). Necessity of Training & Identification of Training
Needs. Human Resource Development, (Chapter 3) New India Publishing
Agency
Pring, R. (2012). Importance of Pholosophy in the Conduct of Educational Research.

Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 23 – 30.
Project Management Institute [PMI]. (2013). A guide to the project management body
knowledge, 5 th Edition, Pennsylvania, USA.
Project Management Institute[PMI] . (2018). A guide to the project management body

knowledge, 6 th Edition, Pennsylvania, USA.
Project Management Institute[PMI], (2014). Project Management Office: Aligning

Strategy & Implementation.
Project Management Institute (2010). The Value of Project Management. Retrieved from
https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/.../value- of-project-
management.
Purnus, A., & Bodea, C, N. (2015). Financial Management of the Construction Projects:
A Proposed Financial Cash Flow Analysis Model at Project Portfolio Level.
Organization, technology & management in construction: an international
journal, 7 (1), 1217-1227.
Rad, M, A, N. (2013). The effects of external events on projects. Paper presented at

Project Management Institute Global Congress 2013—EMEA, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rahman, I, A., Memon, A, H., & Karim, A, T, A.( 2013). Relationship between Factors
of Construction Resources Affecting Project Cost.. Modern Applied Sciences,
7(1), 67 -75.
128
Rajalu, M., Marthandan, G., & Yussof, W, F. (2015). Managing for Stakeholders: The
Role of Stakeholder-Based Management in Project Success. Asian Social
Science,11(3), 111 – 125.
Reynaldo, J., & Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach’s Apha: A tool for Assessing the
Reliability of Scales. The Journal of Extension, 37 (2), 1 – 4.
Razali, N, M., & Wah, Y, B. (2011). Power Comparisons of Shapiro – Wiks,

Kolmogorov – Smirnov, Lillierfors and Anderson – Darling tests. Journal of
Statistical Modeling and Analysis, 2, (1), 2021 – 2023.
Rialto. (2011). How to Create High Performing Teams. Retrieved from

http:/www.rialtoconsultancy.com. .
Richards, B., Carter, N., & Feenstra, F. (2012). High Perfroming Work Teams: Key
Factors which Drive Performance. People Measures.
Rico, R., Hera, C, M, A., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work Team Effectiveness, A review
of research from the last decade (1999 -2009). Psychology in Spain, 15(1), 57-
79.
Rockers, P, C., Laing, R, O., Wirtz, V, J. (2018). Equity in access to non-communicable

disease medicines: a cross-sectional study in Kenya. BMJ Global Health, 3, 1 –
7.
Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research

Review, 37(3), 308-330.
Serrat, O. (2013). Theories of change. Manila, Asian Development Bank.
Setia, M, S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian

journal of dermatology, 61(3), 261–264.
129
Shackelford,N., Hobbs, R, J., Burgar, J, M., Erickson, T, E., Fontaine, J, B., Laliberte,
E., Ramalho, C,C., Perring, M, P., & Standish, R, J. (2013). Primed for Change:
Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century. The Journal of the
Society for ecological restoration, 21(3), 2331 - 2334
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E, H., van Oudenhoven, A, P, E., Remme, R, P., Serna-
Chavez, H, M., de Groot, R, S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a
Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-arguments.
Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514-523
Sena, L, A., Ferreira, P., & Braga, A, C. (2016). Social acceptance of wind and solar
power in the Brazilian electricity system. Environment, Development and
Sustainability. 18(5), 1457 – 1476.
Sense, A. & Kiridena, S. (2014). Building workforce competencies through complex

projects. Workforce Development: Perspectives and Issues, Singapore, Springer
Science+Business Media.
Schuler, A., Alpizar, F., & Madrigal, R. (2010). Determinants of Performance of

Drinking- Water Community Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of
Case Studies in Rural Costa Rica., Environment for Development.
Sekaran, U. (2006). Research Methods for Business. A Skill - Building approach. 4th
Edition. John Willey & Sons, Inc, India.
Sharaffudin, H., & Al-Mutairi, A. (2015). Success Factors for the Implementation of
Build Operate Transfer (BOT) Projects in Kuwait. International Journal of
Business and Management, 10 (9), 68 – 78.
Sheehan, M. (2013). Human resource management and performance: Evidence from

small and medium-sized firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(5),
545 –570.
130
Smith, G, T., & Pearson, C, M. (2015). Construct Validity. In The Encyclopedia of
Clinical Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Silva, M., Lee, L., & Ryan, G. (2015). Using Theory of Change in the development,
implementation and evaluation of complex health interventions. A practical
guide. The Centre for Global Mental Health at the London School of Hygiene
&Tropical Medicine and The Mental Health Innovation Network, London
School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Siponen, M., & Tsohou, A. (2018). Demystifying the Influential IS Legends of

Positivism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 600-
617.
Spreckley, F. (2006). Project Cycle Management Toolkit, Local Livelihoods, England
Stantec (2013). Effects of the environment on the project. Sisson Project: Environmental
Impact Assessment (Eia) Report, Chapter 8, 675 - 694
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D, M., & Cremer, D, D. (2018). Successful organizational change:
integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788.
Takim, R., & Adan, H. (2008). Analysis of Effectiveness Measures of Construction

Projects Success in Malaysia, Asian Social Science, 4(7), 74 – 91.
Tarhini, A., Ammar, H., Tarhini, T., & Masa'deh, R. (2015). Analysis of the Critical
Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation from
Stakeholders’ Perspective: A Systematic Review. International Business
Research, 8(4), 25 – 40.
Thomas, O, O., Adekunle, T, A., Olarewaju, A, A., & Folarin, E, A. (2015). Financial
management as a tool for the growth of Small Business Enterprises in Lagos
131
State: an empirical approach. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management
Studies, 6(1), 17-24
Ubarnski, M., Vi Hague, A., & Oin, I. (2019). The moderating role of risk management
in project planning and project success: Evidence from construction businesses
of Pakistan and the UK. Engineering management in production and services,
11(1), 23 - 35.
Unger, B, N., Kock, A., Gemunden, H, G., & Jones, D. (2012). Enforcing strategic fit of
project portfolios by termination: An empirical study on senior management
involvement. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 675-68.
United Nations Water (2006). Gender, Water and Sanitation: A Policy Brief. Retrieved
from www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/un_water_policy_brief_2_gender
United States of America International Development [USAID]. (2011). Performance

Monitoring and Evaluation. TIPS. Conducting Focus Group Interviews. No.,
10, Vol 3. New York, USA.
Schuppen, J, H. (2015). Coordination Control of Distributed Systems. What Is Team

Theory? 147-154. Springer International Publishing
Valters, G. (2014). Theories of Change in International Development:

Commmunication, Learning, or Accountability? Justice and Security Research
Programme, International Development Department, LSE, Houghton Street,
London WC2A 2AE
Velayudhan, D, P., & Thomas, S. (2016). Measuring Project Success: Emergence of
Dimensions. The International Journal of Business & Management, 4 (4). 2321
Wachira, L., & Anyieni, A. (2015). Effect of Change Management Practices on
132
Performance of Teachers Service Commission. International Journal of Science
and Research, 6 (5), 525 – 531.
Wainaina, S, M., & Anyieni, G, A. (2017). Change Management Practices on

Organization Performance: A Case Study of Mandera Kenya Prisons Service.
European Journal of Business and Management, 9(29).
Walia, R. (2015). A Saga of Qualitative Research. Social Criminology, 3(124), 1 - 3.
Warburton, R. D. H. & Cioffi, D. F. (2014). Project management theory: deriving a

project's cost and schedule for its network structure. Paper presented at Project
Management Institute Research and Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Warner, C. (2011). Creating and Leading High Performance Teams. Retrieved from
chrisbwarner.com/.
Water Charity for Safe Water and Sanitation (2019). Kenya's water and sanitation crisis.
Retrieved from water.org.
Welle, K., Williams, J., & Pearce, J. (2015). Analysis of the factors affecting success in
rendering water services sustainable based on ict reporting. Water Aid.
Whetten, D, A., & Cameron, K, S. (2016). Developing Management Skills, 9th edition.
New York: Prentice-Hall Project.
Wideman, R, M. (2001). Managing the Project Environment Dimensions of Project

Management, AEW Services, Vancouver.
133
Yoo, J., & Kim, J. (2019). The Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation and
Environmental Uncertainty on Korean Technology Firms’ R&D Investment.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technololy, Market, and Complexity, 5(2), p29.
Zareei, A., Bagherpour, M., & Noori, S. (2011. The Use of Earned Value Analysis in
Production Control with Uncertainty. Journal of Uncertain Systems. 5(1), 21-2.
Zayed, T., & Liu, Y. (2014). Cash flow modeling forconstruction projects Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 21, (2), 170-189
Zdonek, I., Podgórska, M., & Hysa, B. (2017). The competence for project team
members in the conditions of remote working. Foundations of Management,
9(1) 213-224
Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J., & Andriukaitienė, R. (2018)). Management Culture and
Corporate Social Responsibility (1st edition). Philosophy and Paradigm of
Scientific Research). IntechOpen.
134
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire
Name of respondent………………………………Date____________________
Name of Borehole Water Project --------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this exercise is to get your input concerning issues on implementation of
the borehole water project which you have been involved in. There is no right or wrong
answers. The information you give will be treated with lot privacy and will be used for
academic work only. I am therefore, requesting you to spend about 30 minutes of your
time and answer all the questions. I wish to get your answers on certain issues of the
water project you have been involved in. Feel free to answer each question to the best of
your knowledge.
SECTION A: BIO DATA
By means of a tick, select one of the answers which is most appropriate for you.
1. What is your gender □ Male □ Female
2. What is your highest level of education □ Primary □ Secondary □ Tertiary □
University
3. How old are you □ less than 25 year old □ from 25 to 35 year old □ from 35 to
50 year old □ More than 50 year old
4. How long have you been involved in this water projects. □ less than 5 years □
from 5 to 10 years □ from 10 to 20 years □ More than 20 years
135
5. Have you received any training in water project? □ Yes □ No
For each question below, five options have been provided. Tick only one option
which best explains your opinion
KEY
SA = Strongly Agree, A= Agree, U = Undecided, D = Disagree, SD= Strongly
Disagree
SECTION B: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
SA A U D SD
a. Our project has achieved its purpose □ □ □ □ □
b. Money set aside at the start of our project was used as □ □ □ □ □

proposed
c. At the end of implementation, there was a ceremony to □ □ □ □ □

hand over the project
d. There are records showing all lessons learnt during □ □ □ □ □

e. There is improved economic status of the local □ □ □ □ □

community
f. Project could not operate due to disagreement among □ □ □ □ □

community members
g. There is improved vegetation as a result of the project □ □ □ □ □
SECTION C: PROJECT CHANGE MANAGEMENT
SA A U D SD
136
a. Consultations on the need of the project were done □ □ □ □ □
before it was implemented
b. Project Manager passes key information to all □ □ □ □ □
stakeholders
c. Changed actions based on interests which occurred □ □ □ □ □
were integrated into final actions
d. We have jointly with other stakeholders identified □ □ □ □ □
solutions of the water project
e. The project Manager is able to address our concerns at □ □ □ □ □
personal, group and project level
f. The project has support County Government □ □ □ □ □
g. Changes to be brought about by the project are □ □ □ □ □
communicated to all stakeholders
SECTION D: PROJECT TEAM
SA A U D SD
a. There are clear channels of passing information to □ □ □ □ □

project team members
b. There is free information sharing within project team □ □ □ □ □
members
c. Team members have trust in their leaders □ □ □ □ □
d. Individual talents, experience and skills of team □ □ □ □ □
members are used for the benefit of the project
e. Team members are assigned tasks in areas where they □ □ □ □ □
have best knowledge
f. There is free exchange of ideas within the project team □ □ □ □ □
g. Team members are involved in all stages of the project □ □ □ □ □
137
SECTION E: PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS
SA A U D SD
a. Survey to determine stakeholder expectations was done □ □ □ □ □

before implementation of the project
b. Analysis of individuals of influence was done at the □ □ □ □ □
onset of project
c. The process of identifying individuals of influence to □ □ □ □ □
water project is done continuously
d. There are established means for stakeholders to raise □ □ □ □ □
concerns about the project
e. There is total support for the project from the □ □ □ □ □
community
f. There are mechanisms of passing information to all □ □ □ □ □
stakeholders
g. All stakeholders know the benefits of the project □ □ □ □ □
SECTION F: PROJECT RESOURCE SUPPORT
SA A U D SD
a. Project team members are always involved in □ □ □ □ □

identification of right materials for use in the project
b. The project always employ the right number of people □ □ □ □ □
c. The project always employ people with right skills □ □ □ □ □
d. The project has functional equipment □ □ □ □ □
e. The project has right number of equipments □ □ □ □ □
f. Members have received training on the operations of □ □ □ □ □
the project
g. Members have received training on management of □ □ □ □ □
water project
138
SECTION G: PROJECT ENVIRONMENT
SA A U D SD
a. Changes after elections affect implementation of water □ □ □ □ □

project
b. The borehole dries up during dry season □ □ □ □ □
c. Government work authorization affect implementation □ □ □ □ □
of water projects
d. Community governance system affect implementation □ □ □ □ □
of water project
e. Community members use mobile phones in sharing □ □ □ □ □
information of the water project
f. The community willingly contributes locally available □ □ □ □ □
material to the project
g. There are no threats to project team members □ □ □ □ □
SECTION H: PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF INPUTS MODERATOR ON
IMPLEMENTATION
SA A U D SD
a. Effective change management by project team ensures □ □ □ □ □

project success
b. Effective change management by project team enabled □ □ □ □ □
them to deliver the project as expected despite all the
interferences
c. The high competence of project team ensures timely □ □ □ □ □
completion of the project
d. The high competence of the project team enabled them □ □ □ □ □
to navigate through all the interferences to deliver the
project as expected
e. Effective project stakeholder consultations by the □ □ □ □ □
project team ensures timely completion of the project
139
f. Effective project stakeholder consultations by the □ □ □ □ □
project team enabled them to go through all the
interferences to deliver the project as expected
g. Adequate project resource support ensures timely □ □ □ □ □
completion of the project
h. Adequate project resource support enabled project team □ □ □ □ □
to go through all interferences to deliver the project as
expected
140
Appendix II: Interview guide
Name of Interviewer________________________
Date____________________________________
Name of Interviewee_______________________
Position in water project____________________________
This interview is being conducted to get your input about the implementation of the
borehole water project which you have been involved in. I am especially interested in
any problems/successes you have faced or are aware of and recommendations you have.
I assure you that all your comments will remain confidential.
1. How do you know if the project has achieved its goal?
2. Do you have records documenting lessons learned during project

implementation?
3. Is the community happy with the project?

Why do you say so?
4. How does the leadership of the project affect its implementation?
5. Tell me how communication is carried out in your project
6. How were decisions made during implementation of the water project?
Probe to gather the information about input from staff, participant reactions,
availability of technical staff, etc.
141
7. Has active participation of all stakeholders been encouraged?
Please describe for me how
8. What do you think the strongest points of the water project have been up to this
point?
Why do you say this?
9. What other problems are you aware of?
10. What do you think about the project at this point?
I'd like to know more about what your thinking is on that issue
11. Is there any other information about the project that you think would be useful
for me to know?
142
Appendix III: List of Borehole Water Projects in Makueni County implemented in
the year 2010– 2016.
S. NO PROJECT NAME Sub-County

1. BH001 Kibwezi (Kisayani)
2. BH 002 Kibwezi (Kiunduani)
3. BH 003 Kambi Mawe
4. BH 004 Mukaa Ward
5. BH 005 Tulimani
6. BH 006 Ivingoni/Nzambani
7. BH 007 Nzaui
8. BH 008 Kilungu
9. BH 009 Nzaui
10. BH 010 Mbooni East
11. BH 011 Kilili Kalamba Ward
12. BH 012 Kalii
13. BH 013 Muvau/Kikumini Ward
14. BH 014 Wote Ward
15. BH 015 Kathonzweni
16. BH 016 Kibwezi
17. BH 017 Kasunguni
18. BH 018 Makindu
19. BH 019 Ivingoni/Nzambani Ward
21. BH 021 Kalawani
22. BH 022 Makindu
23. BH 023 Makindu
24. BH 024 Kiboko
25. BH 025 Kiboko
26. BH 026 Mbooni
27. BH 027 Kibwezi (Ngandani)
29. BH 029 Kilungu Ward
30. BH 030 Nzaui
31. BH 031 Kibwezi
33. BH 033 Makueni
35. BH 035 Mukaa
36. BH 036 Kibwezi
37. BH 037 Ivingoni
38. BH 038 Nzaui (Tutini)
143
39. BH 039 Makindu (Ngakaani
40. BH 040 Makindu (Nduluni)
41. BH 041 Makindu (Ngulya)
42. BH 042 Nzaui (Tutini)
43. BH 043 Nzaui (Mulala)
44. BH 044 Makindu (Kalindiloni)
45. BH 045 Kalawa Ward
46. BH 046 Kako Kyaluma
48. BH 048 Kivani
50. BH 050 Makueni
51. BH 051 Kibwezi
52. BH 052 Mbitini Ward
53. BH 053 Nzaui
54. BH 054 Mukaa
55. BH 055 Mukaa
56. BH 056 Kiima Kiu
57. BH 057 Makueni
59. BH 059 Mukaa
60. BH 060 Nzaui
61. BH 061 Matiku
62. BH 062 Nzaui
63. BH 063 Makueni
65. BH 065 Nzaui
67. BH 067 Nzaui
68. BH 068 Mbooni
69. BH 069 Kikumbulyu Ward
70. BH 070 Kikumbulyu South
71. BH 071 Nzaui
72. BH 072 Nzaui
74. BH 074 Mukaa
76. BH 076 Mulala
77. BH 077 Thange
78. BH 078 Kee Ward
79. BH 079 Makueni
80. BH 080 Ilima Ward
144
81. BH 081 Kitise/Kithuki
82. BH 082 Mukaa
83. BH 083 Wote
84. BH 084 Ukia Ward
85. BH 085 Mukaa
86. BH 086 Twaandu - Makindu
87. BH 087 Makueni
88. BH 088 Kee Ward
90. BH 090 Kibwezi
91. BH 091 Mukaa
92. BH 092 Masongaleni
93. BH 093 Kiboko
94. BH 094 Kiboko
95. BH 095 Wote
96. BH 096 Kee Ward
97. BH 097 Nzeveni
98. BH 098 Kibwezi
99. BH 099 Kibwezi
100. BH 100 Thange
101. BH 101 Nzaui
102. BH 102 Nzaui
103. BH 103 Nguumo Ward
104. BH 104 Makindu
105. BH 105 Nguu/ Masumba Ward
106. BH 106 Tulimani
107. BH 107 Kanzui (Mbooni)
109. BH 109 Mukaa
110. BH 110 Kibwezi
112. BH 112 Makueni (Mukuyuni)
113. BH 113 Kako/Waia Ward
114. BH 114 Kibwezi
115. BH 115 Kibwezi
Source: Makueni County Water Office
145

Musau 4TH Project Management Theses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Musau 4TH Project Management Theses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Musau 4TH Project Management Theses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INFLUENCE

LEVELS ON SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF

JOHNSON KYALO MUSAU

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF

Implementation of Borehole Water Projects in Makueni

Johnson Kyalo Musau

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in Project Management in the Jomo Kenyatta University of

Agriculture and Technology

Signature: …………………………………… Date: …………………………………

Johnson Kyalo Musau

Signature: …………………………… Date: …………………………….

Prof. Henry M. Bwisa.PhD

Signature: …………………………………… Date: ………………………………

Prof. John M. Kihoro,PhD

Mwende, Katunge and Mutisya.

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xiv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................... xv

DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................... xviii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... xxii

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Project Management .............................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Project Cycle Management ................................................................................... 2

1.1.3 Project Implementation Practices .......................................................................... 2

1.1.4 Project success factors ........................................................................................... 9

1.1.6 Project management practices considered as influencing successful

1.1.6(a) Project Change Management .......................................................................... 11

1.1.6 (b) Project Team Competency ............................................................................ 11

1.1.6 (c) Project Stakeholders’ Involvement ................................................................ 12

1.1.6 (d) Project Resource Management ...................................................................... 13

1.1.6 (e) Project Environment ...................................................................................... 14

1.2 Statement of Research Problem .................................................................................. 16

1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 19

1.4 Hypotheses of the study .............................................................................................. 20

1.5 Justification ................................................................................................................. 21

1.6 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 21

1.7 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 23

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 23

2.2. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 23

2.2.1 Project Management Theory ............................................................................... 24

2.2.2 Theory of Change ................................................................................................ 26

2.2.3 Team Theory ....................................................................................................... 27

2.2.4 Stakeholders’ Theory .......................................................................................... 29

2.2.5 Resource Management Theory ............................................................................ 31

2.2.6 Environment Theory............................................................................................ 33

2.3 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 34

2.4 Review of Literature on Variables .............................................................................. 36

2.4.1 Project Change Management............................................................................... 37

2.4.2 Project Team Competency .................................................................................. 38

2.4.3 Project stakeholders’ involvement ...................................................................... 39

2.4.4 Project Resource Management ............................................................................ 40

2.5 Empirical Review ........................................................................................................ 41

2.6 Critique of Existing Literature .................................................................................... 45

2.7 Research Gaps ............................................................................................................. 47