1. Review of the topic
5.4 Construct validity
60 Figure 12. Client organisational structure
61
5.4.1 KMO and Bartlett’s test for sphericity results
The KMO result, as shown in table 7 below, for measuring sample adequacy for all the combined scores for the project questions shows a value of 0.915 which is well above the recommended value of 0.5 (Field, 2014). Furthermore, the below results show that the Bartlett’s test for sphericity is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.001, which is below the level of significance of 0.05. These test values shown below therefore indicate that the results from a factor analysis may be suitable based on the available data and that a factor analysis is appropriate for the project success questions.
Table 7
KMO & Bartlett's test results KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .915 Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 3384.835
df 496
Sig. .000
5.4.2 Exploratory factor analysis results
An exploratory factor analysis was performed on the project success construct questions. It was exploratory as the researcher wanted to create his own set of new project success dimensions specific for ERP projects. The factor analysis was specifically done through principle axis factoring as the extraction method. Six factors were identified by the factor analysis, using the Kaiser Criterion of Eigenvalues larger than one (Kaiser, 1970). These 6 factors explained a total of 68.318% of the variance
The project success survey questions were loaded onto a factor if that loading was greater than 0.3 or less than negative -0.3. The closer the coefficient is to a value of one indicates that particular question is highly associated to that factor, whereas a coefficient value closer to zero indicates a much weaker association. The minimum coefficient that should be used to load a question to a factor is 0.3 as recommended by Gaskin and Happell (2014), and it is suggested that items with a lower coefficient be disregarded. Therefore, question PS_PE_19 was eliminated from this study and was not utilised in any further statistical testing. The detailed results of the exploratory factor analysis are shown in table 8 below.
62 Table 8
Project success factor analysis
6 factors: Eigenvalue and Horne
Pattern Matrixa
Factor
Sub-dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Project Benefits
& Stakeholder Satisfaction
PS_FP_26 The project outcome created an improvement in organisational capability.
0,615
PS_OB_17 The project yielded business and other benefits.
0,677
PS_OB_22 The project adhered to the defined procedures of the client
0,773
PS_OB_40 The end product, as a result of the project, was used as planned.
0,820
PS_OB_43 The project satisfies the needs of the users.
0,678
PS_PE_21 The project met the planned quality standards.
0,728
PS_PE_24 There was a smooth handover of
the project outputs. 0,399
PS_PI_29 The project’s impact on its beneficiaries are visible.
0,536
PS_PI_30 The project
achieved its purpose. 0,731
PS_PI_35 The End- User group was satisfied.
0,647
PS_SS_14 The ERP service providing company (the firm contracted to execute the project in
conjunction with the client) was satisfied with the project outcomes.
0,414
PS_SS_18 The project met the client's
requirements.
0,564
63 PS_SS_34 The
project’s steering group was satisfied.
0,449
PS_SS_36 The project
team was satisfied. 0,457
PS_SS_39 The project sponsor/s was
satisfied.
0,486 0,389
PS_SS_42 The project met the organisational
objectives. 0,856
Future Potential
PS_FP_15 The project was enabling of other related project work in future.
0,856
PS_FP_28 The project could be used as motivation for future projects.
0,640
Project Reputation
PS_PI_16 The project was perceived as being highly successful by the client’s competitors and other businesses (including other ERP project and support firms).
0,817
PS_PI_31 The project has good reputation amongst the other business units, competitors and ERP project providing firms.
0,748
Project Learnings &
Personal Rewards
PS_SS_44 There were personal non- financial rewards as a result of the project.
0,583
PS_SS_41 There were personal
financial rewards as a result of the project.
0,442
PS_OB_23 The project provided valuable learnings to most stakeholders.
0,419
PS_OB_33 New understanding and knowledge was gained from the project.
0,384
Project Efficiency
PS_PE_37 The project activities were carried
out as scheduled. 0,663
PS_PE_25 The project resources were
mobilised and used as planned.
0,476
64 PS_PE_13 The project
was completed according to the specifications.
0,390 0,410
Project Costs, Deadlines &
Scope
PS_PE_38 The project
finished within budget. -0,837
PS_PE_20 The costs and budget for the project were judged as being used effectively.
-0,625
PS_PE_32 The project
finished on time. -0,617
PS_PE_27 The project required a minimum number of agreed scope changes.
-0,402
PS_PE_19 The project caused minimum disruption to the organization
The above factor analysis did not perfectly correspond with the official five project success dimension as provided by the work of Khan et al. (2013) (see Appendix 2), and successfully used as individual constructs in the research of Joslin and Müller (2016). As a result, the researcher looked for the common themes present in the questions that have been grouped together as per the factor analysis shown above. The six new project success dimensions to be utilised in this study going forward are:
• Project Benefits & Stakeholder Satisfaction
• Future Potential
• Project Reputation
• Project Learnings & Personal Rewards
• Project Efficiency
• Project Costs, Deadlines & Scope
These new ERP project success dimensions are considered very similar in name and in the questions that they contain, to the original set of dimensions of Khan et al. (2013). Some dimensions have just simply been combined or separated, and thus renamed.
Through a principal component analysis extraction which is produced as part the KMO and Bartlett’s tests, the results indicate that the 6 factors of project success shown above can explain a total of 68.318% of the variance.
65