## 3 Methodology
### Survey Design and Distribution  
The results of this article were principally based on the MCA, in which the enabling elements of digital infrastructure were considered as the alternatives of the analysis, while project management success indicators were used as the criteria. To collect the required comparison data for both the criteria and the alternatives, three surveys were designed and distributed. As a first step, it was necessary to calculate the weights of the criteria of the analysis before starting to compare the alternatives. Nevertheless, the number of the identified criteria was 11, which necessitated conducting Survey 1 to collect the required data, which was first used to reduce the number of the criteria using AHP by eliminating the least weighted criteria at a specific weight cut-off limit specified by the significant weight difference between the criteria. Survey 1 also aimed to provide the necessary data to calculate the criteria weights in the MCA analysis and, hence, measured the relative importance of project management success indicators in comparison to each other. The data collected from Survey 1 was used again, after eliminating the comparison numbers of the excluded criteria, as an input for a FAHP analysis to compare the shortlisted criteria and calculate their associated weights to be used in the next step of the MCA. Accordingly, Survey 1 was designed on the basis of a table incorporating 55 entries representing 55 pairwise comparisons between each one of the 11 criteria with each other. The shortlisted criteria were used as the final criteria in Survey 3. The second step was to shortlist the digital infrastructure enabling elements associated with digital readiness since these elements identified in the literature review have noticeably outnumbered the elements identified in association with the two other pillars (digital tools and digital fitness). Therefore, Survey 2 aimed to measure the relative importance of the seven enabling elements associated with digital readiness by comparing these elements with each other through 21 pairwise comparisons. The comparison numbers from Survey 2 provided the required data for the FAHP analysis that will eliminate the least weighted enabling elements at a specified weight cut-off limit. The shortlisted enabling elements associated with digital readiness were used alongside the four other digital infrastructure enabling elements (associated with digital tools and digital fitness) in designing the questions of Survey 3. Survey 3 aimed to collect experts' responses on the importance of each digital infrastructure enabling element in achieving project management success in terms of each of the project management success indicators (criteria) shortlisted in Survey 1. Survey 3 was designed on the basis of a table incorporating 56 entries representing 56 questions. Each set ofseven questions was assigned to one of the final eight enabling elements, to measure the importance of this element in achieving project management success in terms of each  
Figure 1: Research Methodology Diagram. one of the seven final criteria. Figure 2 presents a diagram illustrating the survey design process, detailing the inputs provided for each of the three surveys. Survey 1 was distributed to 32 respondents who identified as project management experts with more than 15 years of experience as project managers. Surveys 2 and 3 were distributed to 99 respondents who identified as experienced individuals in both project management and Industry 4.0. The combination of expertise in both fields was important in surveys 2 and 3 to establish a link between digital infrastructure and project management. Therefore, respondents of surveys 2 and 3 had to align with the criteria of more than 5 years of experience in both fields.