## 4 Results and Discussion
### Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)  
The purpose of EFA is to simplify and extract the information data with the aid of a small number of dimensions for representation and interpretation of original data structure. Therefore, the two tests were carried out to know the adequacy of the data (a) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and (b) Bartlett test. To confirm that the initial factors have strong correlations, the KMO test and the Bartlett test must be performed. The KMO test essentially focuses on the properly distributed values on the factor analysis measurement sample, which needs a minimum KMO coefficient of 0.8 [107]. In this study, the value of the KMO test was 0.945, which means that the results are suitable for further analysis. In addition, the significance of the Bartlett test was 0.000, which was less than 0.01, indicating that the findings were sufficient for more exploratory factor analysis. Table 3 summarizes the results of EFA after varimax rotation. The three CSFs with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, having a variance of 74.235%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Critical Success Factors**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall Respondents**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Contractors’ Perspective**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Consultants’ Perspective**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Client’s Perspective**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** & **Mean Value** & **Rank** \\ \hline CSF16 & Reduce clashes in design & 2.80 & 15 & 3.05 & 11 & 3.02 & 11 & 2.50 & 17 \\ \hline CSF15 & Improve the accuracy of as-built drawings & 2.73 & 16 & 2.92 & 15 & 2.87 & 15 & 2.48 & 18 \\ \hline CSF9 & Enhance project quality & 2.76 & 17 & 2.98 & 14 & 2.79 & 17 & 2.58 & 14 \\ \hline CSF14 & Prevent and reduce materials wastage & 2.66 & 18 & 2.78 & 18 & 2.77 & 18 & 2.46 & 19 \\ \hline CSF11 & Reduce project cost & 2.64 & 19 & 2.75 & 19 & 2.66 & 20 & 2.56 & 15 \\ \hline CSF13 & Reduced claims and litigation risks & 2.56 & 20 & 2.63 & 20 & 2.76 & 19 & 2.30 & 20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Initial Eigenvalues**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Total** & **\% of Variance** & **Cumulative \%** & **Total** & **\% of Variance** & **Cumulative \%** & **Total** & **\% of Variance** & **Cumulative \%** \\ \hline CSF18 & 11.728 & 58.640 & 56.640 & 11.728 & 56.640 & 58.640 & 8.178 & 40.890 & 40.890 \\ \hline CSF11 & 2.118 & 10.588 & 69.228 & 2.118 & 10.588 & 69.228 & 3.119 & 15.596 & 56.486 \\ \hline CSF17 & 1.002 & 5.008 & 74.235 & 1.002 & 5.008 & 74.235 & 2.053 & 10.264 & 66.750 \\ \hline CSF3 & 0.762 & 3.811 & 78.047 & 0.762 & 3.811 & 78.047 & 1.678 & 8.391 & 75.142 \\ \hline CSF7 & 0.630 & 3.148 & 81.194 & 0.630 & 3.148 & 81.194 & 1.211 & 6.053 & 81.194 \\ \hline CSF4 & 0.563 & 2.815 & 84.010 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF16 & 0.408 & 2.038 & 86.047 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF20 & 0.401 & 2.007 & 88.054 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF9 & 0.359 & 1.794 & 89.848 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF1 & 0.310 & 1.552 & 91.400 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF13 & 0.281 & 1.403 & 92.803 & & & & \\ \hline CSF12 & 0.255 & 1.273 & 94.076 & & & & & \\ \hline CSF2 & 0.220 & 1.098 & 95.174 & & & & \\ \hline CSF14 & 0.205 & 1.026 & 96.200 & & & & \\ \hline CSF15 & 0.181 & 0.907 & 97.106 & & & & \\ \hline CSF19 & 0.150 & 0.751 & 97.888 & & & & \\ \hline CSF5 & 0.138 & 0.692 & 98.550 & & & & \\ \hline CSF8 & 0.103 & 0.516 & 99.065 & & & & \\ \hline CSF10 & 0.099 & 0.494 & 99.560 & & & & \\ \hline CSF6 & 0.088 & 0.440 & 100.000 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Interpretation of total variance in the exploratory factor analysis.