1.

0 INTRODUCTION (roughly 10% of the whole dissertation)

1.1 Background to the research and Rationale – the reason and justification for doing it. When someone looks at your work they will not automatically assume that your research and analysis is a good idea; they will
want to be persuaded that it is relevant and that it was worth doing. So this section pre-empts the “so what?” question: explain up-front why the research is worth doing & why it is important/interesting/useful.

1.2 Aim(s) and Objectives (specific research questions) – remember, the aim is what you want to achieve, the objectives are specific research questions that you need to answer in order to achieve your aim.

1.3 Outline methodology – BRIEFLY how you are going to approach answering your questions. Don’t waste too many words on this – the detail comes later as in section 3 below..

1.4 Overview of each chapter content – this is optional, not strictly necessary, but it is sometimes helpful to signpost your direction and train of thought to the reader.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2000 WORDS

PINTO, Frigenti, Enzo Maylor, Harvey Maylor, Harvey PINTO, PINTO, KERZNER, Latif, Khawaja
JEFFERY K Comninos, Dennis JEFFERY K JEFFERY K HAROLD Fawad
Nazeer, Aqib
Define A project is a unique ‘A project is a ‘a project is A unique set of Probably the [A project is] A project is a Operationally,
venture with a temporary endeavour
projects whatever I call a coordinated simplest [o]rganized unique activity, project is
undertaken to create a
beginning and end,
unique product or service’. project’. One step activities, with definition is work toward a with a well- defined as a
conducted by people
The Project Management
to meet estab- lished on from this is the definite start- ing found in the predefined defined objective unique and
Institute intends to amend
goals within the definition to refer to the
most basic of and finishing points, Project goal or with constraints, temporary
parameters of cost, creation of ‘... a unique accepted undertaken by an Management objective that that consumes effort that must
schedule, and outcome or result’ (PM
definitions: a individual or Body of requires resources, and is be completed
quality.6 Network, December 1998:
19). This is a more useful project is a task organisation to meet Knowledge resources and generally within a

Page 1 of 27
 defi- nition, as outcome or that has a specific performance (PMBoK) guide effort, a multifunctional. specified
result has a wider business
beginning and an objectives within of the Project unique (and The project budget, time
connotation and covers
products and services. end defined schedule, Management therefore usually provides and scope.
cost and Institute (PMI). risky) venture a unique product
performance PMI is the having a service or
parameters world’s largest budget and deliverable.
professional schedule.9
project
management
association, with
more than
450,000
members
worldwide as of
2014. In the
PMBoK guide,
a project is
defined as “a
temporary
endeavor
undertaken to
create a unique
product, ser-
vice, or result”
(p. 553).
Author KERZNER, pinto Frigenti, Enzo I smith I smith Wu, Ziyu Anantatmula, Dada, Joshua o. HauwaMujaddad
HAROLD Comninos, Dennis Nisar, Tahir Vittal Jagboro, G. O. i
Kapletia, Fan, Yang Daniel, Cross
Dharm Ogohi
Prabhakar,
Guru
Define risk However, when define project risk. What is risk? Risk is present in Most project Definitions of Risk is generally Risk is inherent The term risk is
risk is Project risk is Risk definition is every aspect of our risk is generated risk and seen as an in all human defined in many
considered, the defined as any elusive. While lives; thus risk by the way project exposure to a endeavours, ways. A
consequences possible event that there are many management is different people success Risk situ- ation that including comprehensive
(impact) or can negatively affect definitions of risk, universal perceive issues is generally leads to construction risk that
damage the viability of a the following one but in most and seen as an unfavorable activities, and incorporates the
associated with project. We is used for the circumstances an react to them, exposure to a outcome. How- the risk two aspects
Page 2 of 27
 the event frequently use the purposes of this unstructured shaped by ‘the situation that ever, a project elements (threat
occurring must equation: Risk event discussion: activity, based on way we do leads to risk is an involved are and opportunity)
also be included = (Probability of Risk is an common sense, things around unfavorable occurrence that diverse and is the project
event) exposure to the relevant knowledge, here’ outcome, can be either varied risk. Project risk
(Consequences of attainment of experience and whereas a positive or (Odeyinka, is an uncertain
event). Effective risk stated objectives instinct project risk is negative. 2000). Risk in event or
management goes a as a consequence an occurrence con- struction condition that, if
long way toward of the uncertainty that can be can be it occurs, has a
influencing project associated with a either positive described as positive or
development. To be particular course or negative. exposure of negative effect
effective, however, of action. (Anantatmula construction on one or more
project risk Stated differently, and Fan, activities to project objectives
management needs project risk is 2013). A economic loss such as scope,
to be done early in anything that project, by due to schedule, cost,
the project’s life potentially definition, is a unforeseen and quality
prevents the new endeavor events or (Project
project from and risks are foreseeing Management
achieving its integral to events for Institute, 2013).
stated business projects due which According to
and process to uncertainty was Greeshma and
objectives. uncertainties not prop- erly Minu (2016), a
and unknowns accommodated risk is considered
associated as the
with, for combination of
instance, the probability of an
development event and its
of a new impacts on
project
objectives.
KERZNER, KERZNER, KERZNER, PINTO, JEFFERY Caselli, Stefano Caselli, Frigenti, Enzo Frigenti, Enzo Fernando, Yudi Note
HAROLD HAROLD HAROLD K Stefano Comninos, Comninos, Walters, Tim Prabhakar, Guru
Dennis Dennis Ismail, Mohamad Prakash
Norris
Seo, Yong Won
Kaimasu,
Masatoshi
Define we defined Project success is The primary Definitions of project define the Project success project success project success is In reviewing the
project project success as now the creation of definitions of successful projects success begins scope of the is defined by as being measured by its literature on
Page 3 of 27
success the completion of sustainable business success are seen can be surprisingly with a good project, and stakeholders, perceived and efficiency in the project success
an activity within value rather than through the eyes elusive.25 How do plan. ultimate and therefore measured in short term and its factors, we found
the constraints of merely meeting of the customer. we know when a There is project determined by terms of busi- effectiveness in it largely ignores
time, cost, and certain imposed The secondary project is empirical success rests their ness results achieving the the project
performance. constraints definitions of successful? When it evidence that in their perceptions. (effectiveness), expected results manager, and his
This was the success are is profitable? If it project success satisfaction Ensure that their supported by in the medium or her leadership
definition used usually internal comes in on budget? is directly linked definition of the project and the long term style and
for the past thirty benefits. If On time? When the to the amount of success is built process ( Jugdev et al., competence. This
to forty years or achieving 86 developed product autonomy and into the plans. (efficiency). An 2001; Müller and is in direct
so. More percent of the works or sells? authority project Upper efficient Jugdev, 2012). contrast to the
recently, the specification is When we achieve managers have management process is Therefore, the general
definition of acceptable to the our long-term over their influences necessary but value of a project management
project success customer and payback goals? projects (Gray et project success insufficient to can be literature, which
has been follow-on work is Generally speaking, al., 1990; through setting ensure success. understood in so considers effec-
modified to received, then the any definition of Larson & strategic far as it satisfies tive leadership a
include original project project success must Gobeli, 1988; direction for customer needs, success factor in
completion: might very well take into Larson & the project. aligns the project organizations,
● within the be considered a consideration the Gobeli, 1987). Although this output with the and has shown
allocated time success. elements that define However, most strategic organization’s that an appro-
period ● within the very nature of a of this research direction is strategy and priate leadership
the budgeted cost project: that is, time is based on what essential, it may gives a return on style can lead to
● At the proper (schedule is best for be insufficient if investment better
performance or adherence), budget, managing upper managers (Thomas and performance.
specification functionality/quality, specific demonstrate Mullaly, 2008).
level ● with and customer projects. It is outdated The set of
acceptance by the satisfaction. At one important to behaviour, such measures for the
customer/user ● time, managers remember what as rewarding project
with minimum or normally applied was stated in the functional management
mutually agreed three criteria of beginning of the performance performance and
upon scope project success: chapter—that while paying lip success depends
changes ● the best system service to project on
without balances the performance. To the
disturbing the needs of the improve the organization’s
main work flow project with chances of strategy,
of the those of the satisfactory technology, the
organization ● parent project results, particular
organization. So upper industry and the

Page 4 of 27
 what project management environment in
structure should must not only which they
an organization give initial compete. Return
use? This is a project direction,
complicated
question with no
precise answers.
Nawaz, Allah Aga, Deribe Assefa Horner, Melissa
Ullah Khan, Irfan
Ahmed Khan,
Zakeer
Define Offering a Leadership style is a Leadership is
leadership definition of relatively stable typically defined
leadership pattern of behavior by the traits,
appears to exhibited by a leader qualities, and
challenge even when dealing with behaviours of a
the most employees [14, leader. The study
scholarly 15]. There is no one of leadership has
thinkers. Perhaps typology of spanned across
DuPree (1989) leadership styles. cultures, decades,
said it best when The Full Range of and theoretical
he said, Leadership Theory, beliefs. A
“Leadership is an as one of the most summary of what
art, something to widely recognized is known and
be teamed leadership theories, understood about
overtime, not encompasses the leadership is
simply by transformational, important to
reading books. transactional and conducting further
Leadership is laissez-faire styles research on team
more tribal than [16]. Though leadership.
scientific; more History of
weaving of leadership theory
relationships than and research. In a
an amassing of comprehensive
information, and, review of
in that sense, leadership
don’t know how theories (Stogdill,
to pin it down in 1974), several
Page 5 of 27
every detail”. different
Typically the categories were
more active identified that
“management- capture the
by-exception” essence of the
leader defines the study of
expectations or leadership in the
standards in twentieth century.
advance and The first trend
monitors them dealt with the
accordingly. attributes of great
“Rewards leaders.
Leadership was
explained by the
internal qualities
with which a
person is born
(Bernard, 1926).
The thought was
that if the traits
that differentiated
leaders from
followers could be
identified,
successful leaders
could be quickly
assessed and put
into positions of
leadership.
Personality,
physical, and
mental
characteristics
were examined.
This research was
based on the idea
that leaders were

Page 6 of 27
 born, not made,
and the key to
success was
simply in
identifying those
people who were
born to be great
leaders. Though
much research
was done to
identify the traits,
no clear answer
was found with
regard to what
traits consistently
were associated
with great
leadership. One
flaw with this line
of thought was in
ignoring the
situational and
environmental
factors that play a
role in a leader’s
level of
effectiveness. A
second major
thrust looked at
leader behaviours
in an attempt to
determine what
successful leaders
do, not how they
look to others
(Halpin and
Winer, 1957;

Page 7 of 27
 Hemphill and
Coons, 1957).
These studies
began to look at
leaders in the
context of the
organization,
identifying the
behaviours leaders
exhibit that
increase the
effectiveness of
the company. The
Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah Nawaz, Allah
Define A. Great-Man Trait Theory The Contingency Style and Behavior S Process Transactional Transformationa
leadership Theory The effort early theorists Theories Theory The style Leadership Theory The l Theory
theory toward opined that born (Situational) The theory Theory leadership Transformationa
explorations for leaders were theories of acknowledges the Additional theories, by l leadership
common traits of endowed with contingency significance of leadership the late 1970s distinguishes
leadership is certain physical recommends that certain necessary theories with a and early itself from the
protracted over traits and personality no leadership leadership skills that process focus 1980s, rest of the
centuries as most characteristics which style is precise as serve as enabler for include servant activated to previous and
cultures need distinguished them a stand-alone as a leader who leadership, diverge from contemporary
heroes to define from non-leaders. the leadership performs an act leaming the specific theories, on the
their successes Trait theories style used is while drawing its organizations, perspectives basis of its
and to justify ignored the reliant upon the parallel with principal of the leader, alignment to a
their failures. In assumptions about factors such as the previous capacity of centered leadership greater good as it
1847, Thomas whether leadership quality, situation the leader, prior to leadership and context and entails
Carlyle stated in traits were genetic or of the followers or that particular act charismatic the follower involvement of
the best interests acquired. Jenkins a number of other while suggesting leadership, with and toward the followers in
of the heroes that identified two traits; variables. that each individual others emerging practices that processes or
“universal emergent traits “According to this has a distinct style every year. concentrated activities related
history, the (those which are theory, there is no of leadership with Greenleaf further on the to personal
history of what heavily dependent single right way to which he/she feels introduced exchanges factor towards
man has upon heredity) as lead because the most contented. Like servant between the the organization
accomplished in height, intelligence, internal and one that does not fit leadership in the followers and and a course that
this world, is at attractiveness, and external all heads, similarly early 1970s. A leaders. The will yield certain
the bottom of the self-confidence and dimensions of the one style cannot be resurgence of transactional superior social
Page 8 of 27
history of the effectiveness traits environment effective in all the discussion of leadership dividend. The
great men who (based on experience require the leader situations. Yukl servant was described transformational
have worked or learning), to adapt to that (1989) introduced leadership was as that in leaders raise the
here”. Carlyle including charisma, particular three different noted in the which leader- motivation and
claimed in his as fundamental situation”. In most leadership styles. early 1990s. follower morality of both
“great man component of cases, leaders do The employees ervant leaders associations the follower and
theory” that leadership (Ekvall & not change only serving with were were the leader
leaders are born Arvonen, 1991). the dynamics and democratic leaders encouraged to grounded (House &
and that only Max Weber termed environment, displayed high be focused to upon a series Shamir, 1993). It
those men who charisma as “the employees within degree of the anxieties of of agreements is considered
are endowed with greatest the organization satisfaction, the followers between that the
heroic potentials revolutionary force, change. In a creativity, and and the leader followers and transformational
could ever capable of producing common sense, motivation; working should leaders leaders “engage
become the a completely the theories of with great sympathize (House & in interactions
leaders. He new orientation contingency are a enthusiasm and with them take- Shamir, with followers
opined that great through followers category of energy irrespective care of and 1993). The based on
men were born, and complete behavioral theory of the presence or nurture them. transactional common values,
not made. An personal devotion to that challenges absence of the The leadership theory was beliefs and
American leaders they that there is no leader; maintaining was imparted on “based on goals”. This
philosopher, perceived as one finest way of better connections a person who reciprocity impacts the
Sidney Hook, endowed with leading/organizin with the leader, in was by nature a where leaders performance
further expanded almost magical g and that the terms of servant. “The not only leading to the
Carlyle supernatural, style of leadership productivity servant leader influence attainment of
perspective superhuman qualities that is operative in whereas, autocratic focuses on the followers but goal. As per
highlighting the and powers”. This some leaders mainly needs of the are under their Bass,
impact which initial focus on circumstances focused on greater follower and influence as transformational
could be made by intellectual, physical may not be quantity of output. helps them to well”. Some leader, “attempts
the eventful man and personality traits effective in others Laissez faire become more studies to induce
vs. the event- that distinguished (Greenleaf, 1977). leadership was only autonomous revealed that followers to
making man non-leaders from Contingency considered relevant freer and transactional reorder their
(Dobbins & leaders portended a theorists assumed while leading a team knowledgeable” leadership needs by
Platz, (1986). He research that that the leader was of highly skilled and . The servant show a transcending
proposed that the maintained that only the focus of motivated people leader is also discrepancy self-interests and
eventful man minor variances leader-subordinate who excellent track- more concerned with regard to strive for higher
remained exist between relationship; record, in the past. with the “have- the level of order needs".
complex in a followers and situational Feidler & House nots” and leaders‟ This theory
historic situation, leaders (Burns, theorists opined (1994) identified recognizes them action and the conform the

Page 9 of 27
but did not really 2003). The failure in that the two additional as equal nature of the Maslow (1954)
determine its detecting the traits subordinates leadership styles (Greenleaf, relations with higher order
course. On the which every single played a pivotal focusing 1996). The the followers. needs theory.
other hand, he effective leader had role in defining effectiveness of the leaders in Bass and Transformationa
maintained that in common, resulted the relationship. leadership. These leading Avolio (1994) l leadership is a
the actions of the in development of Though, the researchers opined organizations observed course that
event-making trait theory, as an situational that consideration are to be the transactional changes and
man influenced inaccessible leadership stays to (concern for people steward leadership “as approach targets
the course of component, falling emphasis mostly and relationship (servant) of the a type of on beliefs,
events, which into disfavor. In the upon the leader, it behaviors) and vision of the contingent- values and
could have been late 1940s, scholars creates the commencing organization and reward attitudes that
much different, studied the traits of significance of the structure (concern not a servant of leadership enlighten
had he not been military and non- focus into group for production and the people that had active leaders‟
involved in the military leaders dynamic. “These task behaviors) were within the and positive practices and the
process. The respectively and studies of the very vital variables. organization. exchange capacity to lead
event making exposed the relationships The consideration is Leaders in between change. The
man’s role based significance of between groups referred to the learning leaders and literature
on “the certain traits and their leaders amount of organizations followers suggests that
consequences of developing at certain have led to some confidence and clarify and whereby followers and
outstanding times. C. of our modern rapport, a leader nurture the followers leaders set aside
capacities of theories of group engenders in his vision and were personal
intelligence, will dynamics and subordinates. consider it to be rewarded or interests for the
and character leadership”. The Whereas, initiating greater than recognized for benefit of the
rather than the theory of structure, on the one-self. The accomplishing group. The
actions of situational other hand, reflects leader aligns agreed upon leader is then
distinction”. leadership the extent, to which themselves or objectives”. asked to focus
However, proposes that style the leader structures, their vision with From the on followers’
subsequent of leadership directs and defines others in the leader, these needs and input
events unfolded should be his/her own and the organization or rewards might in order to
that this concept accorded with the subordinates‟ roles community at implicate transform
of leadership was maturity of the as they have the large. These gratitude for everyone into a
morally flawed, subordinates participatory role process merit leader by
as was the case (Bass, 1997). toward leadership increases, empowering and
with Hitler, “The situational organizational theories and bonuses and motivating them
Napoleon, and leadership model, performance, profit others that have work (House &
the like, thereby first introduced in and accomplishment emerged often achievement. Aditya, 1997).
challenging the 1969, theorized of the mission. suggest that the For good Emphasis from

Page 10 of 27
credibility of the that there was no Different researchers work of leaders work, positive the previously
Great Man unsurpassed way proposed that three is to contribute support could defined
theory. These to lead and those types of leaders, to the well- be exchanged, leadership
great men leaders, to be they were; being of others merit pay for theories, the
became irrelevant effective, must be autocratic, with a focus on promotions, ethical extents of
and consequently able to adapt to democratic and some form of increased leadership
growth of the the situation and laissez-faire. social performance further
organizations, transform their Without involving responsibility. and differentiates the
stifled leadership style subordinates, the There appears to cooperation transformational
(MacGregor, between task- autocratic leader be a clear for leadership. The
2003). “The oriented and makes decisions, evolution in the collegiality. transformational
passing years relationship- laissez-faire leader study of The leaders leaders are
have given the oriented”. lets subordinates leadership. could instead considered by
coup de grace to make the decision Leadership focus on their capability
another force the and hence takes no theory has errors, avoid to identify the
great man who real leadership role moved from responses and need for change,
with brilliance other than assuming birth traits and delay gain the
and the position and the rights, to decisions. agreement and
farsightedness democratic leader acquired traits This attitude commitment of
could preside accesses his and styles, to is stated as the others, create a
with dictatorial subordinates then situational and “management vision that
powers as the takes his decision. relationship -by- guides change
head of a “He further assumed types of exception” and embed the
growing that all leaders could leadership, to and could be change
organization but fit into one of these the function of categorized as (MacGregor
in the process three categories”. groups and passive or Bums, 2003).
retarded group processes active These types of
democratization”. and, currently, transactions. leaders treat
Leadership to the The difference subordinates
theory then interaction of between these individually and
progressed from the group two types of pursue to
dogma that members with transactions is develop their
leaders are born an emphasis on predicated on consciousness,
or are destined by personal and the timing of morals and skills
nature to be in organizational the leaders‟ by providing
their role at a function of involvement. significance to
particular time to groups and In the active their work and

Page 11 of 27
 a reflection of group processes form, the challenge. These
certain traits that and, currently, leader leaders produce
envisage a to the continuously an appearance of
potential for interaction of monitors convincing and
leadership. the group performance encouraged
members with vision of the
an emphasis on future. They are
personal and “visionary
organizational leaders who seek
moral to appeal to their
improvements followers‟ better
(Yammarino, nature
1999).
Nawaz, Allah Aga, Deribe Assefa Copeland, Mary
Kay
John, St
College, Fisher
abstart Main theories Though transactional The research
that emerged leadership is provides evidence
during 20th considered as a that leaders that
century include: necessary are ethical,
the Great Man precondition for authentic and
theory, Trait transformational transformational
theory, Process leadership to be are more
leadership theory, effective, less effective and that
Style and attention has been each of these
Behavioral paid to the role of behaviors can
theory, transactional incrementally
Transformational, leadership in project improve the
Transactional and success. Using 224 positive outcomes
Laissez Faire development of a leader. Of the
leadership theory. projects of the Non- three leadership
1. Governmental behaviors, ethical
Organization (NGO) leadership was the
sector in Ethiopia, greatest predictor
the present study of leader
examines the effectiveness with
relationship between transformational
Page 12 of 27
 transactional being the next
leadership and highest and
project success and authentic being
the moderating role the least. The
of project goal research did not
clarity. The findings support the theory
of the study indicate that the
that contingent transformational
reward in leadership
transactional conduct of a
leadership is leader moderated
positively related to the impact of the
project success. leader’s authentic
Further, project goal or ethical
clarity moderates the leadership on the
relationship between leader’s
contingent reward effectiveness.
and project success Additional
such that contingent research is
reward becomes a encouraged that
stronger predictor assists academics
for projects that have and practitioners
high goal clarity than in determining
low goal clarity. how these
Implications of the combined
findings, limitations leadership
of the study and qualities may be
directions for future further developed
research are in leaders to add
discussed. to their overall
effectiveness.
Leadership
literature reveals
that theories have
been refined and
modified with
passage of time

Page 13 of 27
 and none of the
theory is
completely
irrelevant. As
mentioned
earlier, relevance
depends on the
context in that it
is applied.
History of
bonny
Kutsch, Elmar Adebisi, Kpekpena, Enyonam Latif, Khawaja Frigenti, Enzo Frigenti, Enzo Chapman, Chris IVES, MARK
Emmanuel Fawad Comninos, Comninos, Ward, Stephen
Oluwatobi Nazeer, Aqib Dennis Dennis
Alao, Oluwaseyi Shahzad, Faisal
Olalekan Ullah, Mohsin
Ojo, Stephen Imranullah,
Okunlola Muhammad
Define risk According to the The highest ranked According to Risk Management: If a business is Project risk What is risk? Risk—an Despite well-
managemen Project factor for project Philip et al. The processes of facing management Risk definition is uncertain event established and
t Management failure (Whittaker, (2010), while it is identifying, turbulence, means elusive. While or condition accepted project
Institute [1], 1999) is project a common trend analyzing, and attributed to identifying, there are many that, if it risk management
project risk riskmanagement, the for studies on controlling project new venture analysing and definitions of occurs, has a processes such as
is defined as an systematic process project risk risk. development, responding to risk, the positive or Prince2 (Office
uncertain event of identifying, management to The PMI explains industry project risk. It following one is negative effect of Government
that, if it occurs, analysing, and focus on threats risk management as changes, or includes risk used for the on a project Commerce –
will at least have responding to risks with likelihood of the processes organizational identification, purposes of this objective—PMI OGC, 2007) or
a positive or as project-related future occurrence, associated with the change, risk discussion: (2000, p. 127). PRAM
negative outcome events or conditions the EWS planning, entrepreneurial quantification, Risk is an Risk—an (Chapman, 1997;
on project which are not approach centres identification, leadership style risk response exposure to the uncertain event APM, 2005),
objectives such definitely known and on risks that could analysis, response could lead to the development attainment of or set project managers
as scope, cost, which have the be managed in the strategy planning willingness of and risk stated objectives ofcircumstances commonly
time, and quality. potential of adverse critical early and monitoring, and the leader to response as a consequence that, should it perceive these
Baloi and Price consequences on a project stages, so controlling of risks take risks and contro of the occur, will have processes as not
[2] also viewed project objective as to ensure the on projects (PMI, contribute uncertainty an effect on the effective for
risk as threats to (PMI, foundation for the 2013) innovative ideas associated with a achievement of managing project
project success, project is set right to lead the particular course the project’s uncertainties
which are likely organization to a of action. objectives— (Pender, 2001)

Page 14 of 27
to occur when point of stability APM (1997, p. The findings
there is no proper (Cai, 2018). In 16). show that IT
management. In transformational These project managers
this research leadership, the APM (1997) or encountered
work, risk leader arouses PMI (2000) difficulties in
management will follower definitions of managing
be delimited as a performance by ‘risk’ will do project risk
process of enticing to the better, but will because of
identifying and higher follower still tend to be several risk-
analyzing risk needs. focused on related
elements, which uncertain interventions
may occur as a events, such as denial,
result of conditions,or characterised by
management, circumstances. anxiety among
material, design, This stakeholders due
finance, labor, To this end it is to the
and equipment useful to define identification and
risks, and solving ‘risk’ as an analysis of risk.
them to attain the uncertain effect These
project aims. on project interventions
Risk management performance tended to
in construction rather than as a influence project
projects has a cause ofan risk management
broad perspective (uncertain) in such a way
and is a effect on that project
systematic way project managers
of identifying, perform- ance. overlooked risks
analyzing, and Such a that later
* definition of materialised and
project ‘risk’ is resulted in an
‘the adverse effect on
implications the project
ofuncertainty outcome. Hence,
about the level these risk
ofproject interventions
performance contributed to the
achievable’. inability of

Page 15 of 27
 However, this project managers
definition on its to prevent risks
own is not an from
effective materialising and
operational thus negatively
alternative to influencing the
those provided achievement of
by the PMI or the project
APM objectives of
scope, cost and
time and other
objectives/////
Delegated
responsibilities –
the “absent
customer” often
creates risks
involving the loss
of real customer
oppor- tunities
during the
decision-making
process and via
trade- offs
throughout the
project.
PPP Chinyio, C
Obunwo E
Suresh, S Risk
management:
Absence of a
thorough risk
assessment,
identifying
possible
occurrences and
appropriate

Page 16 of 27
 solutions to
reduce or
eliminate such
risks. Socio-
political
uncertainties such
as change in
power,
bureaucracy in
obtaining
funding, and
project creep
greatly influence
the quality of the
finished
construction
project (Olalusi
and Otunola,
2012)
Project ( Olanrewaju,
leader Abdullateef A.
Anavhe, Paul J.)
Evidence within
the study
suggested that
most projects
result in claim.
From the case
study, it can be
seen that the
measures taken
were reactive,
though theclaims
werenot resolved
through
litigation.

Page 17 of 27
different constructs from the same source at the same time, common method bias could be a concern [41]. However, moderator effects are less susceptible to common method variance than are main effects [42]. The fourth limitation of
our study is that we used a self-reported form to measure transactional leadership that may raise the question of reliability. However, self-ratings of managers on their leadership behavior were in conformity with the ratings of their
subordinates in previous studies, suggesting that self-reports of leadership are valid measures [43, 44]. Regardless of this, future research would benefit from a design that directly targets project team members in measuring project
leadership behaviors.

6. Conclusions Project leadership is one of the important factors influencing the success of temporary organizations. In the

context of development projects, this study confirms that contingent reward of transactional leadership has a positive significant effect on project success. More importantly, the study indicates that project goal clarity moderates the
relation between contingent reward and project success.

Acknowledgement This research was supported by the Netherlands organization for international cooperation in higher education

(Nuffic), under grant no. NICHE/ETH/020, and coordinated by Tilburg University.

Appendix 1. Measurement items Constructs and items Project success: (1) strongly disagree – (5) strongly agree 1. The project was completed on time. 2. The project was completed according to the budget allocated. 3. Given the problem
for which it was developed, the project seems to do the best job of solving that problem. 4. Project specifications were met by the time of handover to the target beneficiaries.

Transactional leadership Contingent reward 1.

I tell team members what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work.

2.

I provide recognition or rewards when team members reach their goals.

3.

I call attention to what team members can get for what they accomplish.

Active Management-by-exception 1.

I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes and failures.

2.

I focus my attention on irregularities, exceptions and deviations from standards.

3.

I closely monitor performance for errors needing correction.

4.

I keep track of all mistakes made by the team members.

Project goal clarity: (1) strongly disagree – (5) strongly agree 1. There were clear and comprehensible goals for this project. 2. The goals and requirements of the customers were clear for this project. 3. The goals and requirements of the
management were clear for this project.

Page 18 of 27
The Concept of Project Success Ika, Lavagnon A

The concept of project success is diffi- cult to define. As defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998), success is “the accomplishment of an aim; a favourable outcome.” But what can be said of project success? Without venturing
onto risky terrain, we can say that there is no consensus as to what constitutes “project success” or “project failure.” Pinto and Slevin (1988a) sug- gested that few concepts in project management have been addressed in the literature on a
regular basis with- out the investigators being able to reach a consensus on definitions. Wells (1998) goes so far as to complain about how little attention has been paid to defin- ing success, except what could be said in the most general
terms. Arriving at a definition of project success would appear to represent an enormous chal- lenge to investigators. Several authors simply presume that

everyone knows what is meant by “proj- ect success” and “project failure.” The only thing that is certain in project man- agement is that success is an ambiguous,

inclusive, inclusive, and multidimensional con- cept whose definition is bound to a spe- cific context. Without going so far as to propose a complete definition, we can nevertheless frame project success in terms of other concepts such as
effi- ciency and effectiveness. Many authors and practitioners consider efficiency and effectiveness synonymous, and this confusion is often present in the project management literature (Belout, 1998). As described by the famous
American author Peter Drucker, efficiency is to “do things right,” or to maximize output for a given quantity of inputs or resources, and effectiveness is to “do the right things,” or to attain the project’s goals and objectives. Drucker
considers effec- tiveness more important than efficiency (see O’Shaugnessy, 1992, p. 13, among others). Project success therefore corre- sponds to a project’s efficiency and effectiveness (Belout, 1998). As proposed here, the definition
of the concept of success remains very broad. Implicitly or explicitly, the authors generally discuss project success with the conviction that they are talking about project management success or more than successful project manage- ment
(the project success). Within the conceptual framework of this review, a distinction is necessary between “proj- ect management success” and “project success.” Project success has long been considered the ability to fall within

time, cost, and quality constraints. The “time/cost/quality triangle” or “iron triangle,” or the “golden triangle,” that some professionals call the

“Holy

Trinity” or the “triangle of virtue” suf- ficed as a definition of project success (Atkinson, 1999; Hazebroucq & Badot, 1996, p. 35; Westerveld, 2003). However, projects have often enough been deliv- ered within time, cost, and quality,
only to be considered failures (this is the case of the second generation of the Ford Taurus car that was completed on time in 1995 but turned out to be a disap- pointing business experience [Shenhar et al., 2005]). At the same time, other
projects that have exceeded time or cost

December Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals

constraints are generally considered successful (Pinto & Slevin, 1988a). The Thames Barrier, the Fulmar North Sea Oil project, the Concorde, the Sydney Opera House, and the first generation of the Ford Taurus car are several good
examples (Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Shenhar et al., 2005). The “percussion effect,” to borrow from Hazebroucq (1993), would appear to apply: projects that were perceived as failures at their launch would later
become models of success, while others considered successes at their launch turned into catastrophes. A project team may therefore be wrongly congratulated or blamed, depending on when a project is considered a success or failure. It
was this apparent paradox that led

de Wit (1988) to suggest a distinction between project success and project management success. Considering the tautological perspective under which a project only exists in terms of prede- fined objectives (Hazebroucq & Badot, 1996,
p. 35), de Wit (1988) takes issue with the equation: project objectives ⫽ project management objectives. For Munns and Bjeirmi (1996), the project management objectives differ from the project objectives, and we can no longer

afford to confuse strict adherence to the “time/cost/quality triangle”—the most common objective of project manage- ment—with project success. This dichotomy is very important, because in terms of this review it enables us to draw a
distinction between articles that discuss success as project manage- ment success from articles that treat project success as more than project management success. The concept of project success

remains vague and ambiguous, to the point that the literature on project management does not reach a broader consensus on its definition and meas- urement than to say that it involves effi- ciency and effectiveness. The authors we
reviewed nevertheless agree on its importance and on the existence of project success criteria and critical fac- tors. This conceptual framework will

Page 19 of 27
Project success Aga, D. A.Noorderhaven, N.Vallejo, B.

Traditionally, project management has been associated with

the fields of construction and engineering, where the project success criteria are objective, well-accepted, and measurable, usually by the conventional triangle criteria of time, budget, and compliance with the client's terms of reference, or
‘quality’. Project management, however, has become ubiquitous nowadays in the service sector, as well as in areas like capacity building and social work projects (Diallo and Thuillier, 2005). The Project Management Institute (PMI)
defines project success as balancing the competing demands for project quality, scope, time, and cost, as well as meeting the varying concerns and expectations of the project stakeholders (PMI, 2008, p. 9). Ika (2015) indicates that while
the ‘iron triangle’ (i.e., cost,

time, and quality) dominated the concept of project success criteria in the 1960s to 1980s, many other criteria were added more recently. These include benefit to the organization, end user satisfaction, benefit to stakeholders, benefit to
project personnel, strategic objectives of the organization, and business success. Though there is no consensus on project success criteria in the

project management literature, the works by Ika et al. (2012) and Khang and Moe (2008) are comprehensive and relevant for development projects. The criteria set forth by these authors include relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
impact, and sustain- ability. Relevance refers to the extent to which the project suits the priorities of the target group, the recipient, and the donor. Efficiency refers to the extent to which the project uses the least

costly resources possible to achieve the desired results. Effectiveness refers to the extent to which the project meets its objectives. Impact refers to the positive and negative changes produced by the project, directly or indirectly, planned
and unplanned. Sustainability refers to whether the benefits of the project are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn

Project success (PS) Latif, Khawaja Fawad Nazeer, Aqib Shahzad, Faisal Ullah, MohsinImranullah, Muhammad

Project success has been a central topic in project management literature and project success criteria are measures used to evaluate the success or failure of a project (Al-Tmeemy et al., 2011). Operationally, project is defined as a unique
and temporary effort that must be completed within a specified budget, time and scope. Jugdev et al. (2013) divide project success into two segments, whereby project success elements (critical factors) are related to independent variables
that contribute to the project towards the achievement and second segment is project success standards; these are measures used to assess if a project was successful or failure. Shenhar et al. (2002) claimed that project success could be
influenced by various factors in different types of projects and for that, an organization shall make adjustments in order to deal with the effect of different factors that could affect the chances of project success or failure.

Entrepreneurial

Project success Müller, Ralf Turner, Rodney

Project success is not a fixed target. Jugdev and Mu¨ ller

(2005) reviewed our changing understanding of what con- stitutes project success. In the 1980s there was a heavy focus on the use of the correct tools and techniques. In a classic and still widely quoted paper, Pinto and Slevin (1988)
listed what they found as the ten most important factors for project success, regardless of project type. In accordance with the understanding of project management by that time, the list did not include the project manager’s competence or
fit to the project. Wateridge (1995) did sug- gest that in deciding how to manage their projects, project managers should first identify the important success criteria for their projects, and then identify success factors that will help them
deliver those criteria, and then choose tools and techniques associated with those factors. One of the most significant pieces of work from the current decade was developed by Cooke-Davies (2002) who differentiated between project
Page 20 of 27
success and project management success, with the former relating to the achievement of planned business results using the project’s outcome (typically a new product or service) and the latter to the achievement of time, cost, quality or
other goals set for the management of the project. However, the factors identified through the study did not include the project manager’s competence, focusing instead on risk management, program and portfo- lio management and
benefits management, and again the one list was offered as being appropriate for all projects. Mu¨ ller and Turner (2007) identified the correlations

between success and project managers’ leadership compe- tences, using the LDQ and a composite measure of project success. Ten different success criteria measured on 7 point Likert scales were used to assess project managers’ level of
achievement in their projects. The criteria are shown in Table 2

Leadership theories Reviewing the leadership theories of the last 80 years

shows that early theories started from a focus on the indi- vidual leader and his or her traits. Subsequently leadership theory developed:

(a) First by taking into account the context of the leader- ship situation.

(b) Then by shifting focus from the observable behavior of personal attributes to the intellectual exchange and interpersonal relationships.

Several authors present this development as stages of

Schools of Leadership (Partington, 2007; Turner and Mu¨ l- ler, 2005). Historically they started in the 1930–1940s, by focusing on leaders’ traits, such as their physical appear- ance, capabilities and personalities. These studies are often
categorized as the trait school of leadership. Representa- tives of this school in recent times include Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) for general leadership, as well as Turner (1999) for leadership in project management. The 1940s brought
the behavior school of studies, which emphasized the styles adopted by leaders for their particular leadership task. The new underlying assumption of this school was that leadership can be learned, and is not a trait people are born with.
The popular 2 ? 2 matrices by Blake and Mouton (1978) or Hersey and Blanchard (1988) are among the representative models of that school. They emphasized leadership differences in concern for people versus concern for production.
In the 1960s the contingency school was developed, which was concerned with the appropriateness of different leadership styles in different leadership situa- tions by matching the personal characteristics of a leader to the leadership
situation. Representative for this school is, for example Robbins’ (1997) with the four styles of directive, supportive, participative and achievement ori- ented leadership, contingent on the personality of the per- son being led and the
situational ambiguity. The visionary and charismatic school came in the 1980s, developed with a focus on organizational change. Representative of that school is the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership styles
(Bass 1990). Here the former emphasizes follower rewards contingent on meeting speci- fied performance targets, while the latter emphasizes the development of visions, presence of charisma, respect and trust. Following this move
towards ever more soft factors in leadership the emotional intelligence school emerged shortly before the year 2000. This school focuses on self management and interaction management. Daniel Gol- eman (1995) as the most prominent
representative of this school hypothesized that emotional capabilities are more important for leadership than intellectual capabilities. Together with Boyatzis and McKee (2002) he identified six leadership styles, namely visionary,
coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and commanding. This order of styles moves from very democratic via supportive to authoritative. Pacesetting and commanding is only sug- gested in cases of emergency, because of their
inherent thread for long-term relationship between leader and fol- lower (Goleman et al., 2002). Most recently the competence school emerged, which encompasses all the earlier schools. Competence is hereby meant as a specific
combination of knowledge, skills and personal characteristics (Boyatzis, 1982; Crawford, 2003). Representative for that school are Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) who did an extensive review of existing theories and their assessment tools,
and identi- fied 15 leadership dimensions, which they then clustered under three competences of intellectual (IQ), emotional (EQ) and managerial (MQ). These dimensions are listed in Table 1 and described in the Appendix A. Using
these 15 dimensions they identified three leader-

ship profiles for organizational change projects (Table 1), which they call goal oriented, involving and engaging, and which are appropriate depending on the level of change to be achieved within an organization (p. 114)

Leadership in projects Traditionally project management is understood as

using the right tools and techniques for being successful, regardless of a project manager’s match of personality with project type (PMI, 2004). This is contrary to the results of the studies mentioned earlier and the chronological devel-
opment of leadership theories. Parts of the project manage- ment literature used the well known team roles tests like Myers-Briggs (Briggs-Myers, 1987), or Belbin (1986), etc. as measures of leadership. However, these measures are not
leadership measures in terms of project managers’ lead- ership capabilities. Research has shown that these tests are only weakly related to leadership performance (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2003; Higgs, 2001). This group of literature was
therefore excluded. Earlier investigations on project managers’ leadership

Page 21 of 27
were done using case studies. Holt (1989) mapped the lead- ership principles of Peters and Waterman’s (1982) ‘‘In search of Excellence” against leadership attributes identi- fied through interviews and found that some, but not all of the
principles are required for leadership in projects. Another case study used the Blake and Mouton (1978) grid to identify low task and high relationship attitude as appropriate leadership style in Asia (Walker and Kalinow- ski, 1994). The
importance of vision for leadership was out- lined by Christenson and Walker (2004), and the importance of creating a supportive environment was shown by Thamhain (2004). The importance of transfor- mational leadership style for
project managers was shown by Prabhakar (2005). Along the same line of research Kee- gan and den Hartog (2004) hypothesized a dominance of transformational leadership style among project managers, but could not statistically proof
it. Research on matching project managers to project types

includes Hauschildt et al. (2000) study which categorized project managers as either project star, promising new- comer, focused creative expert, uncreative decision-maker, or thick-skinned pragmatist. For each of these categories they
showed the fit to particular combinations of large or small project budgets, high or low project priority, extent of information access and provision, need for technology skills, and level of participation in goal formation. By look- ing at the
construction industry only, Dainty et al. (2004) developed a competency-based framework for performance in projects. Their results reveal some of the variables also found in the competency school of leadership, such as achievement
orientation, analytical thinking, as well as impact and influence. It is only recently that the project management literature has acknowledged that projects dif- ferent from the construction industry may require different approaches to their
management, and that both the project management procedures used (Crawford et al., 2005), and the project manager’s competence should be selected to meet the needs of the particular type of project. Examples include Turner and
Mu¨ller (2006) who showed the correla- tion of specific leadership dimension of the competency school with project success in different types of projects. A number of studies based on the competence school and using the Leadership
Development Questionnaire (LDQ) showed the particular leadership competences that relate with success in leadership in general, for example, at the Royal Airforce (Wren and Dulewicz, 2005), the Royal Navy (Young and Dulewicz,
2006), the British Police (Hawkins and Dulewicz, 2007), and in project management in particular, for example, in agile projects (Porthouse and Dulewicz, 2007) or projects in the financial industry (Geog- hegan and Dulewicz, 2008).
Common across all these stud- ies is that different leadership competences relate to leadership success in different contents. These findings are supported by studies which showed the general importance for emotional competences in
projects, such as Dvir et al. (2006). Most recently Turner et al. (2009) compared the leadership profiles of line managers and project managers and identified an even stronger relationship between emo- tional competences and success in
line managers than in project managers. This is line with Goleman’s theory that higher levels in the organizational hierarchy require higher levels of EQ. The late acknowledgement of leadership in the project management literature is in
stark contrast to the general leadership literature, where for almost 80 years people have tried to identify the traits, behaviors or competencies of leaders, and to determine which traits, behaviors or competencies are required in different
circumstances for leaders to be successful. But what constitutes success in projects?

Leadership Theory Bolman, Lee G

Deal, Terrence E

Examples Central Idea Current Status

Trait theory: how Galton, 1869; Terman, are leaders

1904; Kirkpatrick and

different?

Locke, 1991; Zaccaro, 2007

Leaders possess distinctive

Fell out of favor in the 1950s when

personal characteristics

reviewers found weak empirical support,

(intelligence, self-confidence, but has returned to favor in recent integrity, extraversion, and so on). decades.

Leadership style theory: how do

Page 22 of 27
leaders act?

Lewin, Lippitt, and White, Leadership depends on style

Mixed evidence stimulated move toward

1939; Likert, 1961;

(democratic vs. autocratic, task- contingency theories, which often include

Fleishman and Harris,

oriented vs. people-oriented, etc.). leader style variables.

1962

Contingency Fiedler, 1967; Lawrence

Effective leadership depends on No single contingency view has found

theory: how do

and Lorsch, 1967; Evans, the characteristics of followers

consistent empirical support or wide

circumstances

1970; House, 1971, 1996 and context: what works in one acceptance, but most modern leadership

affect leadership?

situation may not work in

research incorporates the idea that

another.

leadership depends on circumstances.

Leader-member Dansereau, Graen, and exchange (LMX) Haga, 1975; Graen and theory: what

Uhl-Bien, 2008

happens in the

leader-follower relationship?

Leadership is rooted in the quality Advocates of LMX theory have been of the relationships between

actively conducting research since the

Page 23 of 27
leaders and individual followers. 1970s; many LMX propositions have empirical support, but the approach is criticized for complexity and viewing leadership too narrowly.

Transformational Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; leadership

Conger and Kanungo,

theory: how do

1998

leaders transform

followers?

Transformational (or charismatic) Evidence suggests transformational leaders use inspiration, idealized leadership makes a difference, but more influence, and the like to

research is needed on when and how it

generate followers’ trust and

works best.

willingness to go above and beyond.

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.

Projects are arguably as old as the pyramid of Giza; however, project management is new compared to the former. Though new and unique, project management is now ubiquitous in developing countries like Nigeria (Aga, Noorderhaven

and Vallejo, 2016).On the other hand, trappings of failed projects litter the landcapes of the country (Solomon, Olajide and Toyin, Shafau, 2018). The contrast between Solomon et al. (2018) and Aga, Noorderhaven and Vallejo (2016)

leads us to project success and failure. So why has effective risk management been a factor for project success to solve the dilemma?

Projects constantly encounter risks. Risk identification, analysis, and understanding are the panacea for developing a framework for project success. The early definition of Project success viewed as an Iron triangle of time, cost and

quality are now obsolete (Ika, 2009); primarily because excluding balancing; benefit to the organisation, end-user satisfaction(customer), benefit to stakeholders, benefit to project personnel, strategic objectives of the organisation, and

business success (Aga, Noorderhaven and Vallejo, 2016). Other authors definitions differ in the realm of project specifics hence the critical success factor (CSF) or Success factors.

Project risk management is the application of knowledge and skills to manage project risk, while Project leadership is expected to drive risk management processes in a project environment. In addition, there is a general belief that proper

application of risk management practices would lead to project success (Chinenye and Aku, 2016; Nnadi, 2016; HauwaMujaddadi and Daniel, 2020) and supported by (Mohammed Kishk and Chioma Ukaga) where a direct correlation

was established between project failure and risk management.

The author's research approach uses the Bolman and Deal four-frame leadership theory as a lens to investigate the Impact of Risk Management practice on Project Success: Case of local Nigerian Companies doing projects in Bonny

Island. There are many theoretical frameworks to look at, viz: quality, Cost, Contingency, and system Just in Time. However, leadership has more materials and can be covered within the time frame.

Page 24 of 27
&dquo;You can

drag a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.&dquo; The adage may

explain why the effects of many programs to train participants to be more effective leaders evaporate once

participants are back on the job. We believe

that for training to produce lasting changes in attitude or behavior, participants must be ready, willing and able to change. They must understand the why’s and wherefore’s of the training, must be cognizant of their own needs to change,

and must want to make the change. Along these lines, Posner and Kouzes (1996,

p.3) recently stated, &dquo;The belief that leadership can’t be learned is a far more powerful deterrent to development then is the nature of leadership itself.&dquo; Equally important, the change must also be supported by the readiness of

the organization for the change advocated by the program (Daugherty & Williams, 1997).

This paper focuses on the particular importance of selecting to make a

change

in a

particular aspect of one’s leadership style, and planning for the change following a training workshop intervention. In this regard, we

operationalized

&dquo;readiness,&dquo; based on the participants’ completing and implementing a detailed leadership developmental plan of action for changing their leadership styles

following a three day training program. We believe that intentions to implement are

required to have a successful training effort. Indeed, Gollwitzer (1996) found that 62 percent of participants completed a past due difficult task, if they had formed a specific plan to do so. Conversely, only 22 percent complied with their

goal if they had not developed a

plan. Many past leadership programs have taught lessons that had some practical

value for participants. The Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) posited one best way to lead across different situations: showing an

integrated concern for production

and people. Situational leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) argued for aligning one’s leadership to the demands of each of four designated situations. Leader Match (Fiedler, 1986) assumed task-oriented leaders performed better in

one type of structure, while relations-oriented leadership style was better for

Page 25 of 27
other situations. Here, we assume a broader array of possible leadership styles can be developed through training, resulting in efforts to improve some but not

necessarily all components of leadership, including charismatic or idealized leadership

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1. This research explores how risk management practices impact project success for Nigerian companies doing projects in Bonny Island, Rivers State.

PROBLEM TO BE INVESTIGATED

1. Does Project leadership feel Risk Management practice is necessary for project success?

2. Does Project leadership think that companies should provide Risk management training?

3. Does Project leadership differ in opinion (1) and (2)?

4. What is the representative of project leadership that agree and disagree?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

1. How effective is risk management to project success?

2. How has this effectiveness (1) Impacted companies in Bonny Island and why?

3. In what ways does the project leaderships approach to risk management practice affect project success?

4. In which situation can we say risk management practice is an adequate contributor to project success from a leadership standpoint and why?

3.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis 1:

There is a positive dependant connection between effective risk management practice and project success.

Hypothesis 2:

There is a discrepancy between the impact of effective risk management practices implemented by small organisations (local companies) and multi-national organisations.
Page 26 of 27
 Hypothesis 3:
There is a discrepancy between leadership approach to risk management organisational issues hence a discrepancy on how it affects project success.

Hypothesis 4:
A positive statistical correlation exists between leadership support for project risk management practices and project success from a leadership standpoint.

1.4 OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY

TYPES OF RESEARCH
This study assessed the skills expected of construction project risk managers in Nigeria

The research approach to theory shall be by deduction, and the approach to philosophy shall be the positivism approach. Hence the research strategy shall be deductive positivism. The research will be carried via case studies or desktop
studies and Quantitative analysis of questionnaires.

RESEARCH APPROACHES

CASE STUDY
A study of relevant pieces of literature will guide the research questions, hypothesis, and questionnaires. The literature will also guide the author's choice of statistics for the quantitative analysis

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Closed-ended rated questions using a 5-point Likert type shall be administered in the questionnaires. Data from the questionnaire shall be used to generate data for the quantitative analysis.

1.5 OVERVIEW OF CHARPTERS

Page 27 of 27