Through the client's lens: factors impacting project document quality in the South African construction industry

The quality of project documentation is widely recognised as one of the key determinants of project success in the construction industry. High-quality documents provide technical clarity to the project team, coordinate project delivery and underpin sound project management practices, factors that collectively contribute to the timely and cost-effective delivery of construction projects (Khan et al., 2021; Govender et al., 2022). Project documentation encompasses a broad range of items, including contracts, specifications, drawings, bills of quantities, and design reports, all of which play critical roles throughout the project lifecycle by guiding project development and delivery (Govender et al., 2022).

Despite the importance of documentation, several interrelated factors influence its quality. Prior studies have identified issues such as project fee constraints and time pressures as common challenges impacting the production of high-quality documents (Dosumu et al., 2017; Akampurira and Windapo, 2018; Abu Fatawu et al., 2020; Govender et al., 2025a, b). However, most existing research has primarily captured the perspectives of consultants and contractors, with limited attention paid to the insights of clients (key stakeholders who commission, fund, and oversee project delivery).

This study addresses this gap by examining the views of public sector clients on the factors influencing the quality of project documentation in South Africa. Specifically, it investigates two central questions: (1) What are the key factors that impact the quality of project documents in the construction industry? and (2) To what extent do fees influence document quality?

To explore these questions, qualitative case studies were conducted with four public sector client organisations responsible for procuring built environment professional services. Thematic analysis was applied to the data to identify recurring themes and insights. The findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how clients perceive different factors to impact on document quality. By foregrounding the client perspective, this paper offers evidence-based insights that can support better alignment between document standards and client expectations, ultimately contributing to enhanced construction outcomes and greater client satisfaction.

Project documents are an important component of construction project delivery, supporting communication, procurement, and coordination throughout the project lifecycle. According to Watermeyer (2018), shortcomings in project documents can affect tendering processes, construction activities, and, in some cases, the overall performance of built infrastructure.

In the construction sector, project documents represent the formal expression of a client's requirements, covering technical, financial, and procedural information. These typically include the bill of quantities or schedule of rates, specifications, drawings, contract conditions, and instructions to tenderers (ISO 10845; Laryea, 2011). In the South African context, documents such as drawings, specifications, and bills of quantities are particularly relevant during the tender and construction phases (Govender et al., 2022). This study focuses on these three document types within the South African construction industry. These documents serve not only as technical references but also as tools that facilitate project planning, implementation, and oversight.

Within construction, the quality of project documents has a direct and measurable impact on project performance. Errors and ambiguities in documents can lead to misinterpretations, design conflicts, rework, budget overruns, and delays (Love et al., 2020). Watermeyer (2018) offers a sector-specific definition of quality as “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”.

Assessing the quality of project documents generally involves several criteria, including completeness, consistency, accuracy, and clarity (Andi and Minato, 2003; Love et al., 2020). A more recent South study by Govender et al. (2022) formalised a framework for evaluating document quality based on input from a panel of infrastructure experts. They identified six key indicators: accuracy, clarity, completeness, standardisation, relevance, and certainty.

This current study adopts Govender et al.’s (2022) indicators as the benchmark for defining project document quality. Govender et al.’s (2022) indicators were adopted as the benchmark for this study for three key reasons. First, unlike earlier models that were developed primarily from consultant or contractor perspectives, the framework by Govender et al. (2022) was explicitly formulated with consideration of public sector procurement processes, making it particularly suited to a public sector client-focused investigation. Second, the inclusion of indicators such as standardisation, relevance, and certainty extends beyond traditional quality measures and aligns closely with public sector requirements for compliance and risk management, concerns that are central to client organisations but underrepresented in earlier frameworks. Third, the framework was developed and validated within the South African construction context, enhancing its applicability and analytical relevance to this study.

Quality is therefore conceptualised as a high level of conformance to these six indicators, which collectively support effective communication, transparent procurement, and reliable project delivery within the public sector construction environment.

Several studies have investigated the factors that influence the quality of project documentation in the construction industry. These studies span countries including Australia (Tilley and McFallan, 2000), Ghana (Abu Fatawu et al., 2020), Japan (Andi and Minato, 2003), Nigeria (Awolesi and Ayedun, 2012; Dosumu and Iyagba, 2013; Dosumu et al., 2017), Saudi Arabia (Bubshait et al., 1999; Darwish, 2005), South Africa (Akampurira and Windapo, 2018; Govender et al., 2025a), and Syria (Zidan, 2013). Collectively, these studies have identified a range of recurring factors that affect project document quality, including low professional fees, limited time, frequent client changes, and consultants' experience. These key factors are summarised in Table 1.

While this body of work has made significant contributions, several limitations remain. Notably, most of these studies rely on survey methods and aggregate data from multiple stakeholder groups, such as architects, engineers, contractors, and quantity surveyors. As a result, the specific views of clients are either underrepresented or indistinguishable within the data. Only two studies – Darwish (2005) and Wimalasiri et al. (2010) – explicitly include client perspectives, but even these studies do not isolate or explore those perspectives in detail. Both studies were conducted over a decade ago.

Moreover, prior research tends to use quantitative approaches, which may not fully capture the nuanced and context-specific insights needed to understand how and why certain factors affect project document quality. In particular, little is known about the role of professional fees from the client's point of view, despite its frequent appearance as a significant factor by consultants and contractors.

This study addresses these gaps by focusing explicitly on the perspectives of public sector clients in South Africa. It seeks to gain a deeper insight into the factors that clients believe influence the quality of project documents, including the extent to which fees influence quality. By doing so, this research provides a more focused understanding of client expectations and challenges, offering a perspective that has been largely overlooked in the literature to date.

This study adopts a qualitative multiple-case study design to explore the factors influencing the quality of project documents from the perspective of public sector clients in the South African construction industry. A case study approach is appropriate for examining complex, context-dependent phenomena and enables an in-depth understanding of real-world practices within their organisational settings (Yin, 2014). The approach is well established in construction management research, particularly for studies seeking to capture stakeholder perspectives and organisational processes.

Given the aim to explore both the factors influencing project document quality and the specific role of fees in shaping that quality, a multiple-case design was deemed necessary. This approach facilitates comparison across different public sector client organisations and enhances the robustness and generalisability of the findings. As Yin (2014) notes, multiple-case designs support both literal replication (where similar results are expected across cases) and theoretical replication (where differences are anticipated based on theoretical expectations).

In this study, replication logic was applied by examining four distinct public sector client bodies that procure built environment professional services. Each organisation represents a separate case, allowing for the identification of cross-case patterns and context-specific insights. This design also accommodates potential variability in document practices, fee structures, and expectations across different organisational and project contexts.

Four public sector client organisations responsible for procuring built environment professional services were selected as individual case studies. The cases were chosen to capture variation in organisational context and project type. Participants were client-side project managers with direct responsibility for consultant procurement and project delivery. Additionally, participants had a minimum of ten years' professional experience and were registered with the relevant built environment professional councils. This enabled meaningful cross-case comparison and enhanced the robustness of the findings.

All interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams. The researcher took detailed field notes and recorded the sessions using the platform's built-in functionality, allowing for accurate verbatim transcription. Transcripts were produced by the researcher and securely stored on a password-protected laptop to ensure data confidentiality. Client participants in the study were selected based on the following criteria:

1. Participants must have served as project managers on projects and been responsible for the procurement of consultants and be directly involved in projects.

2. Participants must have a minimum of 10 years of professional experience.

3. Participants must be registered professionals with one of the built environment professional councils.

Consistent with Yin's (2014) case study framework, a clear distinction is made in this study between the unit of analysis and the unit of data collection. The unit of analysis is defined as the client-side perspective on project document quality.

The unit of data collection, comprised semi-structured interviews conducted with client-side project managers within public sector organisations who are responsible for the procurement and oversight of built environment professional services. These individuals constitute the analytical focus of the study, as they possess decision-making authority and direct accountability for the quality of project documentation.

Data were collected primarily through semi-structured interviews, a method well suited to exploratory qualitative research where in-depth understanding of participant perspectives is required (Yin, 2014; Patton, 2002). This approach enabled consistency across cases while allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate on context-specific experiences related to project document quality.

Interviews focused on two core areas aligned with the research objectives: (1) factors influencing the quality of project documentation, and (2) the perceived influence of professional fees on documentation quality. Participants were encouraged to reflect on specific projects to ground responses in their experiences. Table 2 provides a summary of the case studies and interviews.

While several cases in this study relied on a single interviewee, these participants were selected as key informants with extensive experience and organisational authority over project documentation processes. Yin (2014) notes that single-informant case studies are appropriate where individuals occupy central roles and possess comprehensive oversight of the phenomenon under investigation. In this study, all participants had a minimum of ten years' professional experience and direct responsibility for consultant procurement and document review, enhancing the credibility and depth of their accounts.

Analytical triangulation was achieved through cross-case comparison and thematic pattern matching across the four client organisations. Recurring themes identified independently across cases, such as experience, competence, team composition, procurement systems, and work ethic, provided internal corroboration and strengthened construct validity. Additionally, findings were interpreted in relation to established literature on document quality and professional fees, further supporting analytical rigour.

Although the inclusion of additional data sources (e.g. multiple respondents per case) could enhance depth, the study's design was appropriate for its exploratory aim of eliciting client perspectives.

The interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, a widely recognised approach for coding qualitative data. Boyatzis (1998) describes thematic analysis as a comprehensive method for identifying patterns within qualitative data. Braun and Clarke (2006), whose work is frequently cited in thematic analysis research, define it as “a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data”. They emphasise its flexibility in qualitative research.

Following Braun and Clarke's (2006) detailed guidelines, this study employed an inductive approach, allowing themes to emerge directly from the data rather than being driven by pre-existing frameworks (Patton, 2002). The thematic analysis process used in this study followed six key stages. First, familiarisation with the data was achieved by thoroughly reading the interview transcripts, making initial notes, and identifying preliminary ideas. This immersion helped develop an early understanding of potential themes. Next, initial coding was conducted, where the data was broken down into meaningful segments and systematically labelled with relevant codes. Each interview response was analysed in detail to ensure consistency in coding. In the third stage, searching for themes, the coded data was examined for patterns, and related codes were grouped into potential themes. These themes were then reviewed to ensure they accurately represented the dataset and that no inconsistencies or redundant themes were present. Further refinement and naming of themes followed, where themes were streamlined, clearly defined, and assigned appropriate names to best capture their essence. Finally, in the reporting phase, the themes were finalised and supported with relevant extracts from the interview transcripts. These findings were then analysed in relation to the research objectives and existing literature on construction project documentation, providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping document quality from the client's perspective.

By following this structured thematic analysis approach, key themes related to the factors influencing document quality and the impact of fees were systematically identified and compared across the four case studies. This process facilitated a nuanced assessment of commonalities and differences in client perspectives, contributing to a richer understanding of the subject matter.

A structured and systematic coding process was employed. Initial coding was conducted whereby interview transcripts were reviewed line-by-line and assigned descriptive first-order codes that closely reflected participants' language and expressed meanings (e.g. consultant experience, specialist expertise, resource constraints, commitment to quality, procurement requirements).

These first-order codes were subsequently examined for conceptual similarity and grouped into second-order categories representing broader patterns in the data, such as consultant capability, team dynamics, organisational and procurement practices, and professional behaviour. Through iterative comparison across cases, these categories were further refined into higher-order themes that directly addressed the research questions.

This hierarchical coding structure ensured a transparent progression from raw interview data to interpretive themes, consistent with established qualitative analysis approaches (e.g. Braun and Clarke, 2006). Table 3 presents an overview of the coding structure, illustrating how first-order codes informed second-order categories and final themes.

Participants identified five key factors influencing the quality of project documents, namely: experience, competence, team composition, procurement system, and work ethic (Figure 1). These themes emerged consistently across cases and reflect both technical and organisational influences on document quality. The findings are presented below, with each theme discussed concisely and supported by illustrative excerpts from the interview data.

A detailed analysis of the key factors is provided below:

Participants consistently emphasised experience as a critical determinant of project document quality. Experienced consultants were perceived as better equipped to anticipate technical challenges, apply appropriate standards, and produce accurate and reliable documentation, particularly on complex or high-value projects.

This theme was consistently identified across multiple cases, indicating its perceived importance in shaping project document quality from the client's perspective.

Beyond general experience, participants highlighted consultant competence as a distinct and important factor influencing document quality. Competence was associated with specialist expertise, professional qualifications, and the availability of in-house technical knowledge across disciplines. Consultants with strong internal capabilities were seen as producing more comprehensive and technically robust documentation.

This theme shows the importance clients place on demonstrable technical capability rather than reputation alone.

Team composition emerged as a key organisational factor affecting document quality. Participants noted that even highly reputable firms could produce poor-quality documentation if inappropriate personnel were assigned or if teams lacked cohesion. The balance of skills, coordination between team members, and alignment between roles were viewed as essential.

This finding highlights clients' focus on who delivers the work, rather than solely which firm is appointed.

Participants emphasised that the procurement system plays a foundational role in shaping document quality by influencing consultant selection. Robust procurement processes were viewed as essential for ensuring that suitably qualified and experienced consultants are appointed.

This theme reflects clients' recognition of procurement as an active quality-control mechanism rather than a purely administrative process.

Work ethic emerged as a distinct behavioural factor influencing document quality. Participants associated strong work ethic with commitment, responsiveness, and a willingness to go beyond minimum contractual requirements. Consultants who demonstrated ownership of their work were perceived as delivering higher-quality documentation.

This theme illustrates the role of professional culture and motivation in shaping documentation outcomes.

Participants expressed mixed views regarding the extent to which professional fees influence the quality of project documents. Some participants perceived a direct relationship, arguing that low fees constrain time and resources, which can negatively affect documentation quality. Others maintained that factors such as consultant competence, experience, and resource management practices play a more decisive role than fee levels alone.

Several participants highlighted that when consultants submit low fees to secure work, this often results in reduced time allocation and increased pressure to limit effort, which may lead to compromised documentation quality.

Other participants emphasised that fee constraints can influence how consultants allocate resources and manage design responsibility, potentially affecting the robustness of project documentation.

Conversely, several participants indicated that high-quality outcomes could still be achieved under modest or full fee arrangements where consultants demonstrated strong competence, commitment, and effective resource management.

Overall, the findings suggest that while professional fees influence the level of effort and resource allocation available for project documentation, they are not a standalone determinant of quality.

This study set out to explore the factors influencing the quality of project documentation in the construction industry from the perspective of public sector clients, with particular attention to the role of professional fees. By focusing on the client viewpoint, the findings extend existing knowledge beyond consultant and contractor focused accounts.

The findings reaffirm the importance of experience and competence as foundational determinants of project document quality, consistent with prior studies conducted in developing countries (Busbshait et al., 1999; Dosumu et al., 2017; Assaf et al., 2018; Govender et al., 2025a, b). However, this study advances understanding by demonstrating how clients distinguish between these two concepts. Experience was associated with exposure to similar project types and the ability to anticipate risks, while competence was linked to specialist expertise, qualifications, and in-house technical capability. This distinction has been largely implicit in earlier literature but is made explicit through client interpretations in this study.

More importantly, the emergence of team composition, procurement systems, and work ethic as key factors represents a substantive contribution to the literature. These factors have received limited attention in previous studies, largely because clients have been underrepresented as a stakeholder group. Clients occupy a unique position that allows them to observe how procurement decisions translate into team structures, how individuals are deployed within consulting firms, and how professional behaviour manifests during project delivery. The identification of these factors suggests that document quality is not solely a technical output, but also reflects organisational and behavioural influences.

The relationship between professional fees and document quality has often been treated simplistically in the literature, with low fees frequently cited as a direct cause of poor documentation (Andi and Minato, 2003; Slater and Radford, 2012; Dosumu et al., 2017). The findings of this study suggest a more nuanced causal pathway, particularly from the client's perspective.

Rather than acting as a direct determinant of document quality, fees influence quality indirectly by shaping consultants' ability to allocate time, deploy appropriate expertise, and sustain adequate levels of effort during design and documentation processes. Participants' accounts indicate that low fees constrain resources, leading consultants to limit hours spent on documentation, reduce internal reviews, or reassign design responsibility to contractors. These observations help explain how fee pressures may translate into compromised document quality.

At the same time, the findings demonstrate that fee levels alone do not inevitably result in poor-quality documentation. Several participants reported satisfactory or high-quality outputs even under modest fee arrangements, provided that consultants possessed strong competence, effective resource management practices, and a high level of professional commitment. This suggests that fees operate as an enabling or constraining condition and cannot be considered a key determinant of quality in isolation. This interpretation aligns with recent work by Govender et al. (2025a, b).

From a theoretical perspective, these findings can be interpreted through a resource-based lens, where professional fees represent a key input that enables the mobilisation of human and organisational resources necessary for high-quality documentation. However, resources alone are insufficient; how they are configured and managed determines their effectiveness. The identification of work ethic and team composition as key factors supports this view, highlighting the role of organisational culture and professional behaviour in converting resources into quality outputs.

Furthermore, the findings highlight the importance of procurement systems as mediating structures that shape the relationship between fees and document quality. Procurement approaches that prioritise cost minimisation without adequate consideration of competence, team structure, and resource planning may inadvertently undermine documentation quality, even when formal fee levels appear adequate. Conversely, procurement systems that emphasise capability, experience, and quality assurance can mitigate some of the negative effects associated with fee constraints.

By articulating these relationships, the study advances understanding of the research problem in three key ways. First, it reframes document quality as a multidimensional outcome influenced by technical, organisational, behavioural, and economic factors. Second, it clarifies the role of professional fees as part of a broader system of influences rather than as an isolated variable. Third, it demonstrates the analytical value of incorporating client perspectives, which reveal causal mechanisms that are less visible to consultants or contractors.

Overall, the findings suggest that improving project document quality in the public sector requires more than adjusting fee levels. It necessitates procurement strategies that align fees with realistic resource requirements, careful consideration of team composition, and active oversight of professional conduct and performance. These insights contribute to both theory and practice by offering a more integrated and evidence-based understanding of how document quality is produced within complex construction environments.

From a theoretical perspective, this study advances existing knowledge in three key ways. First, it extends the literature on project document quality by foregrounding the perspectives of public sector clients, a stakeholder group that has been largely underrepresented in prior research. By doing so, the study shifts the analytical focus from technical deficiencies in documentation to the broader organisational, behavioural, and institutional conditions under which documents are produced.

Second, the findings refine existing explanations of how professional fees influence document quality. Rather than treating fees as a direct or singular causal factor, the study demonstrates that fees operate indirectly by shaping resource availability, time allocation, and consultant behaviour. This nuanced understanding contributes to theory by positioning fees as a contextual enabler or constraint.

Third, the identification of team composition, procurement systems, and work ethic as key determinants of document quality expands current theoretical models, which have traditionally focused on experience, time, and fees. These findings suggest that document quality should be conceptualised as an organisational outcome influenced by governance structures and professional culture, rather than solely as a technical output of design activities.

From a practical and policy perspective, the findings have direct relevance for public sector clients and policymakers in South Africa, where infrastructure delivery plays a critical role in socioeconomic development. Poor-quality project documentation has been widely associated with cost overruns, delays, disputes, and underperforming infrastructure, all of which place pressure on constrained public budgets and ultimately affect service delivery outcomes.

The study's findings suggest that procurement policies that prioritise fee minimisation without adequate consideration of consultant capability, team composition, and resource planning may inadvertently undermine document quality. Policymakers and public sector institutions may therefore need to reconsider procurement frameworks to achieve a better balance between cost control and quality assurance. This could include placing greater weight on consultant competence, demonstrated experience, proposed project teams, and internal quality management processes during consultant selection.

At an organisational level, public sector clients can use these insights to strengthen internal procurement and oversight practices. For example, clearer expectations regarding team composition, minimum resource allocation, and review processes could help mitigate the negative effects of fee constraints on documentation quality. Such measures are particularly important in the South African context, where public infrastructure projects are often complex, resource-intensive, and subject to high levels of public scrutiny.

At a broader socioeconomic level, improving the quality of project documentation has the potential to enhance infrastructure delivery performance, reduce wasteful expenditure, and improve value for money in public projects. Given the role of infrastructure in supporting economic growth, service delivery, and social development in South Africa, the findings highlight the importance of treating document quality as a strategic policy issue rather than a purely technical concern.

The sample size of eight participants is consistent with qualitative case study research that prioritises depth, contextual understanding, and analytical insight over statistical generalisation (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2014). The objective of this study was not to achieve representativeness, but to develop a rich, exploratory understanding of how public sector clients perceive factors influencing project document quality.

Data saturation was evident as themes recurred across participants from different organisations and project contexts. The consistency of key themes across cases suggests that the sample size was sufficient to address the research aims. Future research could build on these findings by expanding the sample or incorporating additional stakeholder perspectives to further test and refine the identified themes.

This study explored the factors influencing the quality of project documentation in the South African construction industry, with a particular focus on the perspectives of public sector clients. Through a qualitative case study approach involving four government departments, the research uncovered a set of key factors, namely experience, competence, team composition, procurement system, and work ethic, that clients perceive as having a significant impact on document quality. While some of these factors, such as experience and competence, have been acknowledged in previous research, others, particularly team composition, procurement approaches, and professional work ethic, emerged as new and important insights, largely absent from earlier studies due to the limited inclusion of client voices.

A central aim of the study was to examine how professional fees influence the quality of project documents. While findings confirm that low fees can constrain resources and lead to rushed or poor-quality work, participants also highlighted that fees are not the sole determinant of quality. Instead, the interplay between fee structures, consultant expertise, and resource management practices was found to be critical. These insights reinforce the need for a more holistic approach to procurement, one that evaluates both financial and non-financial indicators when awarding contracts.

This research contributes to the academic literature by addressing a significant gap: the limited understanding of client perspectives in evaluating project documentation quality. It also builds on existing work by offering a deeper, context-specific examination of how fees and other project variables influence documentation standards in the South African public sector. Practically, the findings point to actionable recommendations for improving procurement systems, including placing greater weight on consultant competence, demonstrated experience, proposed project teams, and internal quality management processes during consultant selection.

Ultimately, by amplifying the client's voice, this study lays the groundwork for more balanced and informed strategies to improve documentation practices in construction projects.

Ethics clearance granted by the University of the Witwatersrand, human research ethics committee (non-medical) protocol number: H22/01/05.