ABSTRACT
Adequate school infrastructure facilities are vital for schools to function, dispense education services to the community, and realize the performance targets expected. The study was set in the post-conflict state of Somaliland where school infrastructure is in the process of being rebuild following wanton destruction visited by the Somalia civil war. The study aimed to provide a research evaluation of how the performance of construction projects is affected by school infrastructure policy and community participation. The study sought to establish the influences of school infrastructure policy implementation aspects of policy interpretation and policy governance on the performance of construction projects; the mediating influence of project management practices on the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects; the influence of community participation on the performance of construction projects; and the moderating influence of community participation on the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects. To overcome the main limitations of the study: costs, time and logistical challenges; the study drew a scientifically determined representative sample of 279 respondents. It was delimited to public primary schools in seven sampled regions of Somaliland since public primary schools are bound by both the school infrastructure policy and community participation policy by MoEHS while private schools are bound only by the school infrastructure policy. The study’s theoretical framework drew from punctuated equilibrium policy theory, program theory, social capital theory and Arnstein’s ladder of participation theory. The study was guided by the pragmatism philosophy. It was a cross- sectional survey using a correlational research design and mixed methods. The target population was 920 headteachers in 920 public primary schools in Somaliland; and 82 district education officers in the 82 districts units in Somaliland – a total of 1002. The survey adopted a multistage sampling approach using purposive, proportionate stratified random sampling, and simple random sampling techniques to draw a sample of 257 headteachers and 22 district education officers. The questionnaire was pilot tested on 28 headteachers and the interview guide on 2 MoEHS officers from Awdal district. Construct, content and criterion-related internal validity of the questionnaire was ensured by the two academic supervisors, by use of proven variable indicators and by computing the predictive validity coefficient (r = 0.82) respectively. Internal validity of interviews was ensured by a variety of methods among them, simple random sampling of informers, voluntary participation of informers and triangulation of interview data with quantitative data and secondary data. External validity was ensured by random sampling, respondent validation, and use of a scientifically determined representative sample. Reliability of the questionnaire was ensured using the Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency (α = 0.924). Reliability of interviews was ensured by triangulation, respondent validation and comparing of responses. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect primary quantitative data, semi-structured interviews to collect primary qualitative data and desk analysis to collect secondary data. Participation in the study by respondents was voluntary and the researcher ensured confidentiality of respondents and their responses. The response rate was 96.1% (247 headteachers) for questionnaires and 90.9% (20 DEOs) for interviews. Data were presented in tabular form in frequency and percentage distributions. Descriptive analysis was by the mean, standard deviation, mean of means and composite standard deviation. The data fulfilled the assumptions of parametric tests. Pearson correlation was used to analyse the association between the variables. Simple and multiple regression analysis were used to analyse total effects. Path analysis technique was used to calculate the direct effect, indirect effect and the path coefficients. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. Relationships among the variables were tested using t-tests at a 5% level of significance. The study found that policy interpretation (b = -0.3215, p< 0.001, R2 = 0.4183), policy governance (b = -0.3074, p< 0.001, R2 = 4308), and school infrastructure policy implementation (b = -0.7350, p< 0.001, R2 = 0.6214), each had significant direct influence on performance of construction projects. Community participation, however, did not have a significant influence on performance of construction projects (c = -0.1870, P = 0.100, R2 = 0.011). Project management practices were found to mediate the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects (p52 * p21 = 0.8008, CI [0.6411, 0.9779]). The study concluded that policy interpretation, policy governance and school infrastructure policy implementation, each had a moderate direct negative linear relationship with performance of construction projects. These variables also exerted a significant positive indirect influence on the performance of construction projects through project management practices (mediation). Project management practices exerted a partial positive mediation on the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects. Community participation had no significant total effect and direct effect on the performance of construction projects but rather exerted its influence by moderating the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects (b = -0.0309, p = 0.4380, CI [-0.0609, -0.009], R2 = 0.0279). Low community participation partially moderated the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects while moderate and high community participation levels fully moderated that relationship. The study concluded that policy interpretation, policy governance and combined school infrastructure policy implementation manifest their influence on the performance of construction projects through project management practices. The study also concluded that project management practices mediate while community participation moderates the relationship between school infrastructure policy implementation and performance of construction projects. The study recommends that the school infrastructure policy should be put together into one policy document, it should be made accessible and available to the schools and ministry officials, school management should be sensitized on the policy, headteachers be acquainted with basic project management skills and stakeholders be participated throughout the project cycle for more projects’ support and better projects’ performance. Future studies can focus on: how administration structures affect policy implementation, establishing whether other sub-variables of policy exist, why policy interpretations vary between urban schools and rural schools and, whether practices should be specified in policies.
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The importance placed on education by the nations of the world can be seen in the budget allocations made to education, the infrastructures that governments have set up for education, and the institutions set up to oversee education both at country and international levels. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2013), education is a critical component of national development and poverty alleviation strategies in many countries. To provide education, countries develop education systems and build requisite infrastructure. Developing countries often find it difficult to cope with the growing demand for education and often lag in expanding their educational infrastructure resulting in a state of inadequacy (Sifuna and Sawamura, 2009). This has especially been escalated by free and compulsory primary education for all, adopted internationally (UNESCO, 2014; Sifuna and Sawamura, 2009). Faced with this challenge, governments often engage the private sector to invest in education and supplement the school placement vacancies available in public schools (Damon, Glewwe, Wisniewski and Sun, 2016). Another strategy has been involving local communities in the construction of schools in their areas and school infrastructural development activities.
Due to Somalia’s protracted civil war that has spanned over two decades, Somaliland state declared independence from the Republic of Somalia and set up its government. During the war, schools’ infrastructures were extensively destroyed and ravaged (Ministry of Education and Higher Education [MoEHE], 2012). Access to education has remained limited and despite the facts that schools have been re-established, teachers and tutors trained, curricula developed and textbooks provided; the present demand for education far surpasses its availability due to insufficiency of school infrastructure (Abdurrahman, 2009; Cummings and Tonningen, 2003). A regular practice by primary schools entails teaching in ‘double shifts’, where one shift of pupils attends classes in the morning, and the second shift attends in the afternoon (MoEHE, 2012).
Since the year 2000, enrolment at primary level grew from 12,000 to just over 180,000 by 2011. In 2011 the government of Somaliland introduced Free Primary Education (FPE) for all (MoEHE, 2012). Currently, the education system in Somaliland is comprised of five levels: early childhood,
primary education, secondary level, tertiary education, and higher level. Primary level comprises of grades 1-8 and is specified as basic education for all.
As more Somaliland citizens turn to education, as school enrolment grows and demand for education rises; the Ministry of Education and Higher Studies [MoEHS] is faced with the major challenge of expanding education infrastructure and capacity (Abdurrahman, 2009). As a way to arrest this challenge, MoEHS has put in place a school infrastructure policy. The policy promotes community participation at primary schools to help establish and expand school infrastructure facilities. The role of the community, as provided in MoEHS policies, is to assist school headteachers in resource mobilization, school development and where necessary, in running the school among others. The role of appointing community members to take part in school projects and management activities is left to the headteacher and the local community leadership. Members appointed, together with the headteacher form the school’s Community Education Committee (CEC). The CEC meets at least quarterly to address various issues and to identify and plan school construction projects among other projects. (MoEHE, 2012).
Performance of Construction Projects
School construction projects refer to establishment works of physical components of a built environment in a school among them buildings and structures (MoEHRD, 2011). Performance of a construction project can be measured by the level of realization of a specified or pre-planned matrix of results that the project set out to realize (Chan and Chan, 2004). Once projects are implemented, it is vital to measure their performance upon completion. The criteria for assessing success/failure of projects is commonly referred to as project performance indicators (Gyadu- Asiedu, 2009). Certain parameters are considered when determining whether a project is successful or not, among them: completion within the set timeline and budget, the realization of the scope and quality specifications and, customer satisfaction. Projects that miss all or some of these may be considered failed or partially successful. Concerning a project organization; parameters such as projects initiated, completed, finished on time, completed without exceeding the budget and, value and size of the projects undertaken are indicators of the organizations’ projects’ performance (Jiang and Carroll, 2009).
Different authors have proposed different performance indicators based on empirical studies: Vandevelde, Dierdonck and Debackere (2002) proposed seven indicators for project performance: respect for the project budget, specifications and time, contributing to the achievement of the organization, creating and transferring knowledge, commercial success and financial success. Chan, Scott and Lam (2002) advanced a framework of performance measures for construction projects in which they proposed that managers distinguish between objective measures and subjective measures and, measure the success of a project at the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. This approach was further refined by Chan and Chan (2004) who proposed a set of subjective and objective indicators for measuring construction projects’ performance. Objective indicators: project delivery time, delivery speed, completion time variance, unit cost, cost variance, net present value, accident occurrence rates and, environmental impact assessment scores. Subjective indicators: client satisfaction, contractor satisfaction, design team satisfaction, functionality, quality realized and, the satisfaction of beneficiaries. Freeman and Beale (1992) suggested the efficiency of project delivery, technical success realized, personal growth, managerial achievement, organizational success, technical innovation achieved and completeness as project performance indicators. Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) and, Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir, Lipovetsky and Lechler (2002) proposed: efficiency of the project, customer impact, resulting in business success, contribution to the organization and prospects for the future. Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) suggested: organizational learning achieved, resource productivity, personal growth and satisfaction, time-to-market, and customer satisfaction. Other sets of project performance indicators have been proposed by Lim and Mohammed (1999); Sadeh, Dvir, and Shenhar (2000); and Atkinson (1999).
This study adopted a blend of Chan and Chan (2004) indicators of project performance to measure the performance of construction projects undertaken in Somaliland public primary schools within five years as meeting set standards, the realization of planned deliverables, variance from initial plans, functionality, end-user satisfaction, and construction team satisfaction with the project outcome.
School Infrastructure Policy Implementation
Policy entails both explicit and implicit decisions that outline directives, which are to be used as guidelines for future decisions, to initiate actions or cause delay of actions and guide
implementation of present and earlier decisions (Haddad and Demsky, 1995). Education policy has been described as the collection of regulations, rules and laws governing the operations of an education system (Boundless Political Science [BPS], 2017). Among the various regulations that make up the education policy is the infrastructure policy that regulates physical infrastructure development and investments in infrastructure in educational institutions (BPS, 2017; UNESCO, 2014).
In their school infrastructure policy, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MoEHRD] (2011), of Solomon Islands sets the vision of the policy as to ensure that all pupils and students shall be taught in quality educational facilities that guarantee universal and equitable access to education in a fit-for-purpose, learning environment that is safe and hygienic, and that incorporates the best practice available locally and sustainable engineering designs which complies with all the agreed minimum standards for schools. The policy scope is set to apply to all school infrastructures development done by all stakeholders and includes all new constructions; repairs, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing and future school infrastructures in the country (MoEHRD, 2011). These statements capture the concept and purpose of a school infrastructure policy.
School infrastructure policy often covers finance capitation, expenditure guidelines, management and institutional guidelines; and vary by country owing to differences in macro-environmental factors among them: political, historical, sociological, economic, and current forces such as globalization (Shizha and Kariwo, 2011; Tiongson, 2005). School infrastructure policy also includes partnerships and community participation guidelines; as well as institutions that are set up by the government to oversee, supervise, monitor and evaluate schools (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013).
Regulatory policies have no impact if they are not implemented (Tiongson, 2005). School infrastructure policy implementation refers to the aspects of interpreting and applying the policy by regulatees on one hand and administration/ governance or enforcement of the policy by the regulator on the other (Coglianese, 2012). It is operationalized into policy interpretation and policy governance (Brown, Stern, Tenenbaum and Gencer, 2006). The study aimed to determine if, school infrastructure policy implementation influences performance of construction projects directly through the various restrictions it provides on project aspects such as scope, and indirectly
through its determination of the project management practices that the school can and cannot engage in.
Policy Interpretation
Policy interpretation comprises of policy substance interpretation and policy resource interpretation. Policy substance is the ‘what’ aspect of the policy or the content of the policy regulations. Policy substance interpretation refers to the ‘which’ aspect of the policy and entails inferring the meaning of the content and provisions of the policy, which should be done rationally without constraining or extending the provisions and the spirit of the policy regulation or what it rationally contemplates (Coglianese, 2012). Policy resource interpretation is determining the resources, capacity and other requirements needed to implement the policy (Brown et al., 2006). For school infrastructure policy, the substance to be interpreted includes the aspects and details of the policy, types of infrastructure projects facilities, quality of delivered facilities, financing activities, partnership engagements, projects’ scope, reporting system, school development planning, and school management obligations for school construction projects (Brown et al., 2006). Even when the policy substance is the same, implementers and stakeholders often tend to have varying policy interpretations due to: varying levels of education, varying exposure to the policy, individual efforts made to familiarize with the policy content, personal interest, access to the policy, and policy substance ambiguity among others (Haddad and Demsky, 1995).
Policy regulation substance can be contained in one piece of regulation or a collection of regulations (Coglianese, 2012). When the latter is the case, policy interpretation may vary even more among implementers and stakeholders, as not all will have access to the entire collection of the regulations or even be aware of its full extent (Coglianese, 2012). In this study, policy interpretation is used to refer to school infrastructure policy interpretation. The study sought to examine the influence of school infrastructure policy interpretation on the performance of construction projects.
Policy Governance
Policy governance refers to the ‘how’ aspect of the policy. It stipulates how the policy regulation functions, is administered and implemented and by who. It lays out the scope within which decisions accruing from the implementation of the policy are made, processes and procedures that are followed and the bodies who do those tasks (Brown et al., 2006). It denotes the design (legal
and institutional), of the regulation system itself and how it is built to function (Brown et al., 2006). In the case of school infrastructure policy, policy governance covers aspects such as schools’ infrastructure policy administration structure, school infrastructure facility inspections practices, policy predictability, regulator accountability, regulator independence, and regulator transparency among others.
Policy governance varies by the laid out policy administration system, in that, where the policy is being implemented by various separate bodies; their implementation approaches, practices, and stringency in enforcement tend to vary, especially where each policy administrator is designated a separate region or scope to administer and the overall regulator lacks capacity and resources to verify or closely supervise the policy administrators or lacks powers to punish them (Brown et al., 2006; Coglianese, 2012; Folz, 1999). This is the case in Somaliland’s MoEHS, in that, policy administration is devolved through the ministry’s regional and district administration structure with all the three levels (national, regional and district) short of resources and capacity needed to effectively administer MoEHS education policies (MoEHE, 2015). As a result, the administration of school infrastructure policy by the regulator varies from region to region and district to district (MoEHS, 2017). Just as different managers would manage the same organization differently and realize different results, District Education Officers (DEOs) and Regional Education Officers (REOs) differ in their managerial styles, and leadership styles, and activities due to differences in personal attributes, experience, education level, knowledge of the policy, policy interpretation, diligence, commitment to duty, motivation and dedication among others; which results to variances in the way the infrastructure policy is administered. In this study policy governance refers to school infrastructure policy governance. The study aimed to determine the influence of policy governance on the performance of construction projects
Community Participation
Until the mid-20th century, the obligation for educating the children lay on the community (Williams, 2004). Communities can be regarded as consisting of persons in social interactions and having common ties that they are aware of and which may change over time (Burns and Taylor, 2000). Such persons may be living in the same geographical area or be interconnected using communication technology and may have overlapping community membership (Etzioni, 1993;
Hillery, 1955; Atkinson and Cope, 1997). Modern communities have shifting and overlapping memberships and represent varied, competing and conflicting interests.
The basic understanding of participation is to take part in ‘something’ and therefore this concept is applied to a range of experiences. A participatory orientation promotes the active inclusion of ‘the public’ or community in decision-making causes (Bishop and Davis, 2012; Foster, 2012, Rosener, 2008). Participation varies by level from low to high depending on the participant’s interest and power. The levels range from: inform, consult, collaborate, partner, empower to control in that order from low to high participation (Awortwi, 2009; Clayton, Dent and Dubois, 2013). Successful participation results to empowered communities able to engage in multiple aspects of education support including willingly contributing resources (human, material, and economic) for the benefit of education, thereby increasing the likelihood of the education initiatives being both successful and sustained over time. (De Wit, 2010; Adeniyi, 2010; Gertler, Patrinos and Rubio-Codina, 2008). One approach to deliver this outcome is Community Based Development (CBD), which refers to projects that participate beneficiaries actively in the entire project cycle (Cooke and Kothari, 2010) founded on the tenets of inclusion, empowerment, sustainability, good governance, poverty reduction, effectiveness and efficiency (Chambers, 2013).
The results of community participation in school projects include improved equitable access, better quality facilities, higher retention, and improved general school performance (Adeniyi, 2010; Burki, Perry and Dillinger, 2009; Bengle and Sorensen, 2016). In this study, community participation is regarded in the context of local communities participating in school construction projects in local public primary schools within the community. The study postulated that community participation moderates the influence of school infrastructure policy implementation on schools’ performance of construction projects.
Project Management Practices
Project management practices are the ‘how’ aspect of project management which comprise of the project management activities that are applied in a project from its start to completion. Although different scholars have put forward varying proposals about project management practices, they all incline to agree that the practices are centred on one concept: the project cycle. The Project
cycle is a continuous process comprising of distinct but complementary stages, each having its features and each preceding the next one (Muller and Turner, 2007; Chambers, 2013). It is supposed that one stage paves the way for the other and therefore the last stage leads back to the first stage in a continuous cycle (Muller and Turner, 2007; Borgatti and Ofem, 2010; Chambers, 2013).
Project inception is the basic stage of the project cycle and entails collecting, processing and analysing data on the needs and or problems being experienced (Borgatti and Ofem, 2010). Based on the needs/problems identified, projects are proposed and a selection, analysis and appraisal process used to identify the project that will be implemented (Wekwete, 2008).
Project designing and planning is the second stage of the project cycle also known variously as project write-up, project formulation or project preparation (Jiang and Carroll, 2009). It entails an analysis of information coming from the inception stage to formulate the project documents. The project’s intended results and dimensions are specified in context, among them; project description, scope, schedule, budget, objectives, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact, and the necessary plans for organizing and managing of the project formulated (Castells, 2011). This stage’s activities include design, project presentation, project negotiation, financing, registration and licensing.
Project implementation commences after resources are dedicated to undertaking the project. Implementation entails the transformation of a project proposal to an actual project by putting into practice the project plans developed earlier (Jiang and Carroll, 2009). It results in the attainment of the project’s outputs and objectives (Borgatti and Ofem, 2010). Project control in the form of project monitoring and evaluation takes place during project implementation (Castells, 2011). Once implementation is complete, the project is deployed. Testing is done, where necessary, and the results analysed to inform any alterations or modifications to the project, project operating staff are trained and documentation such as user manuals are prepared (Jiang and Carroll, 2009).
Once the project is confirmed to realize the specifications of output, quality and other results and deliverables specified during planning; then contractual termination, post-implementation transition, lessons learned and handing over processes are undertaken and the project is regarded as completed (Castells, 2011). Project management practices is a crucial determinant of project
success. The study sought to examine if project management practices mediate the influence of school infrastructure policy implementation on the performance of construction projects.
Statement of the Problem
Globally the effects of civil war on education are felt in terms of destruction of school infrastructure, diversion of state funds from education to war, the collapse of educational institutions, stoppage of learning and conscription of school pupils and students to the military or rebel forces (Lai and Thyne, 2007). These effects are felt many years after the end of the war. To restore education, reconstruction of schools is gradually undertaken. Construction projects are mounted across the schools to restore school infrastructure and establish new school facilities. Performance of school construction projects is influenced by other variables among them school infrastructure policy (UNESCO, 2014).
Somaliland’s school infrastructure was vastly ravaged and destroyed during the Somalia civil war in the 1980s and early 1990s. Somaliland restored its independence in 1991 and began restoring peace. With financing from international donors, Somaliland declared free primary education in 2011. At the time, it was estimated that the free primary education policy would result to an additional 25,000 new enrolments at grade one and with them, a commensurate expansion of the accompanying infrastructure requirements of classrooms, desks, seats and textbooks among others (MoEHE, 2012). The actual result was a 26.5% increase in demand for placement at grade one and an estimated 10,000 children denied enrolment at grade one. With no expansion of existing school infrastructure, MoEHE resulted to shift-schooling in secure regions where a school would admit up to twice its capacity with half the pupils attending school during the morning hours and the other half attending in the afternoon. Yet, even with such a measure, an estimated 16,000 grade one pupils did not get placement and were put on the waiting list which highlights the extent of shortage of school infrastructure capacity.
Between 1991 and 2007, when Somaliland National Education Act was enacted, no meaningful school construction projects had been achieved across the state (MoEHE, 2012). This was attributed to lack of policy leadership and guidelines. The Education Sector Strategic Development Plan [ESSDP] policy of 2007-2011 set out to close that gap but was largely unimplemented due to financial constraints, lack of capacity, and lack of ownership of the donor-developed plan (MoEHE, 2012). Up to 2012, no significant expansion of school infrastructure capacity had been
realized and the schools’ infrastructure – ravaged during the war – remained unrehabilitated (Yussuf, 2012). To correct the problem, the ESSP II of 2012-2016 and the National Development Plan [NDP] of 2012-2016 policies were launched in 2012. ESSP II placed a major emphasis on community-driven development of schools and outlined a community participation mechanism for community participation in public schools’ development and management. The NDP set seven strategies for developing education in the state; three of which entailed establishing new school infrastructure capacity and expanding existing schools’ infrastructure capacity (Government of Somaliland [GoS], 2012). These two policy frameworks have gradually begun to yield results with Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) leading in the construction of new schools and community-driven approaches restoring school infrastructure damaged during the war (MoEHE, 2015). Among the things that these policies sought to do was to influence the performance of construction projects through guiding school project management practices by creating a regulatory scope within which schools would undertake their construction projects. How construction projects’ performance in schools has been affected by the implementation of these policy provisions has not been evaluated, a gap this study sought to fill.
