P.Xu et aL Energy Policy 39(2011)7389-7398 7393 3.2.Questionnaire survey equal to 4 were recognized as CSFs based on the consensus of the respondents.Twenty-one factors were recognized as CSFs that Further data were collected through questionnaire survey data significantly influenced the success of EPC for sustainable BEER. for analyzing the significance of the list of selected factors in Table 2 shows the ranking of these factors based on mean values Table 1.In responding to the questionnaire,respondents were From Table 2 it was found that the most important five factors invited to indicate the level of significance of each of the factors. are accurate M&V,trust,control mechanism of sustainable devel- The level of importance is measured on a 5-point Likert scale, opment strategy,available technology,and effective coordination. where 5 denoted extremely important,4 important,3 neutral. Measurement and Verification(M&V)is to identify the project 2 unimportant,and 1 extremely unimportant.At the beginning of result and energy savings.The reliable and undisputable M&V is the questionnaire,basic information of respondents was also very important for EPC projects success(Xu and Chan,2010). collected,such as their position,experience,type of enterprise During the interview,nearly all the interviewees mentioned this etc.The survey was conducted during Oct.-Nov.2010.The ques issue and believed it is one of the most important factors.Trust is tionnaires were distributed via e-mail,MSN,and personal deliv- an important success factor for partnering (Cheng and Li,2002: ery to increase the rate of response and sample representation Chan et al.,2008).EPC mechanism is one type of partnering A total of 400 questionnaires were delivered to the respondents,91 between clients and ESCOs in nature.Both experts from hotels valid copies were retrieved(22.75%return rate).among which 22 and ESCOs worried about their partners'credit.There is still a lack respondents (24.2%)were from hotels (project owner),39 (42.8%) of credit history for ESCOs and customers in China.This will from energy service companies (ESCOs)(project contractors). impact project financing from the third party institute.Lacking of 30 (33.0%)respondents were professionals from governments, credit and trust during project organization also causes project academics,consultancies,etc. failure.As there is no reliable standard for M&V,it is also difficult to agree with each other about the result of energy saving.if they do not trust each other (Xu and Chan,2011).All the respondents 4.Data analysis and findings from the three categories gave a high priority to this factor.The goal of sustainable BEER is to achieve sustainability in project The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the level.Control mechanism of sustainable development strategy as Social Sciences (SPSS).The reliability of the five-point scale used a success factor was proposed by an expert in academics during in the survey was determined using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. interview.However,it was only given higher priorities by experts which measures the internal consistency among the factors.The from ESCOs and hotels than other professionals.Retrofit technol- value of the test was 0.879,which was greater than 0.7,indicating ogies reflect new equipment,new energy resources,new energy that the five-point scale measurement was reliable.Two statis- audit technologies,and new technologies of improvement mea- tical analyses,namely,scale ranking and factor analysis,were sures.Affordable and appropriate technologies in BEER decide the undertaken on the data.The procedure,findings.and relevant feasibility of these projects and the energy savings potential. discussion of the analyses are detailed in the following sections. which is indeed a key factor for EPC project success.Effective coordination is another import success factor for achieving 4.1.Ranking of CSFs sustainable BEER under EPC mechanism.Coordination is a tool to eliminate gaps and duplication in service,which determines an The first analysis ranked the nominated factors according to appropriate division of responsibility and establishes a framework their mean values of the responses.If two or more factors for information sharing,policy agreements,program collabora- happened to have the same mean value,the one with the lowest tion,and joint planning (IFRC,2000).The study also found that standard deviation would be assigned the highest importance the Top 5 success factors in ESCO category and hotel category ranking among these factors.The factors with means exceeding or were the same as the final general Top 5 success factors.Only the Table 2 Ranking of CSFs for EPC in sustainable BEER in hotel buildings Success factors Total (N=91) ESC0(N=39) Hotel (N=22) Professionals(N=30) Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank CSF1 Accurate M&V 4.45 0.68 4.37 0.86 4.67 0.52 4.09 0.79 CSF2 Trust 4.32 0.75 4.24 0.90 441 0.78 4.36 0.64 CSF3 Control mechanism of sustainable development strategy 4.27 0.74 4.20 0.88 3 436 0.73 409 0.79 9 CSF4 Available technology 4.27 0.79 4 4.20 0.93 4.44 0.67 2 4.14 0.69 CSF5 Effective coordination 4.26 0.69 4.19 0.86 5 438 0.66 CSF6 Sustainable development strategy planning 4.25 0.70 6 4.18 0.86 6 433 0.65 46 4.41 0.58 4.05 0.64 11 CSE7 Savings share 4.25 0.76 4.18 0.90 4.26 081 4.09 0.73 CSF8 Project financial status 4.23 0.76 4.16 0.89 4.33 0.76 0.82 9 4.14 0.87 12 397 0.79 6 CSF9 Credit of ESCOs and clients 4.21 0.93 4.26 4.00 0.85 4 CSF10 Task and Risk allocation 4.20 0.71 10 4.12 0.86 4.26 0.67 3.86 0.87 CSF11 Project objectives control mechanism 4.19 0.68 11 411 0.83 11 428 0.68 9 423 0.73 CSF12 Hotel operation status 4.18 0.72 4.10 0.86 4.31 0.65 3.95 0.82 CSF13 Economic environment 4.18 13 4.10 0.94 13 4.21 0.94 4.05 0.71 12 CSF14 Clients'and ESCOs'awareness to SD theory 4.05 4.13 0.76 5F15 Policy support 8 4.05 886 45 4.13 0.91 89 835 59 CSF16 Clients'awareness of to EPC 4.09 16 4.02 1.00 16 4.15 0.77 16 3.91 0.95 17 5F17 Organizing skill of leader 4.04 8 1 3.98 0.88 4.10 0.67 4.27 0.75 CSF18 Technical background of project team 4.03 18 3.96 0.84 19 4.15 0.70 4.00 0.74 13 CSF19 Appropriate organization structure 4.03 3.97 0.89 4.15 0.66 4.18 0.89 5P20 Financing institutes'awareness to EPC 4.03 3 3.96 0.93 4.08 0.69 21 3.73 0.75 0 CSF21 Availability of financing market 4.00 0.78 21 202 0.90 21 412 0.69 3.59 0.72 213.2. Questionnaire survey Further data were collected through questionnaire survey data for analyzing the significance of the list of selected factors in Table 1. In responding to the questionnaire, respondents were invited to indicate the level of significance of each of the factors. The level of importance is measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 denoted extremely important, 4 important, 3 neutral, 2 unimportant, and 1 extremely unimportant. At the beginning of the questionnaire, basic information of respondents was also collected, such as their position, experience, type of enterprise, etc. The survey was conducted during Oct.-Nov. 2010. The ques￾tionnaires were distributed via e-mail, MSN, and personal deliv￾ery to increase the rate of response and sample representation. A total of 400 questionnaires were delivered to the respondents, 91 valid copies were retrieved (22.75% return rate), among which 22 respondents (24.2%) were from hotels (project owner), 39 (42.8%) from energy service companies (ESCOs) (project contractors), 30 (33.0%) respondents were professionals from governments, academics, consultancies, etc. 4. Data analysis and findings The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The reliability of the five-point scale used in the survey was determined using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, which measures the internal consistency among the factors. The value of the test was 0.879, which was greater than 0.7, indicating that the five-point scale measurement was reliable. Two statis￾tical analyses, namely, scale ranking and factor analysis, were undertaken on the data. The procedure, findings, and relevant discussion of the analyses are detailed in the following sections. 4.1. Ranking of CSFs The first analysis ranked the nominated factors according to their mean values of the responses. If two or more factors happened to have the same mean value, the one with the lowest standard deviation would be assigned the highest importance ranking among these factors. The factors with means exceeding or equal to 4 were recognized as CSFs based on the consensus of the respondents. Twenty-one factors were recognized as CSFs that significantly influenced the success of EPC for sustainable BEER. Table 2 shows the ranking of these factors based on mean values. From Table 2 it was found that the most important five factors are accurate M&V, trust, control mechanism of sustainable devel￾opment strategy, available technology, and effective coordination. Measurement and Verification (M&V) is to identify the project result and energy savings. The reliable and undisputable M&V is very important for EPC projects success (Xu and Chan, 2010). During the interview, nearly all the interviewees mentioned this issue and believed it is one of the most important factors. Trust is an important success factor for partnering (Cheng and Li, 2002; Chan et al., 2008). EPC mechanism is one type of partnering between clients and ESCOs in nature. Both experts from hotels and ESCOs worried about their partners’ credit. There is still a lack of credit history for ESCOs and customers in China. This will impact project financing from the third party institute. Lacking of credit and trust during project organization also causes project failure. As there is no reliable standard for M&V, it is also difficult to agree with each other about the result of energy saving, if they do not trust each other (Xu and Chan, 2011). All the respondents from the three categories gave a high priority to this factor. The goal of sustainable BEER is to achieve sustainability in project level. Control mechanism of sustainable development strategy as a success factor was proposed by an expert in academics during interview. However, it was only given higher priorities by experts from ESCOs and hotels than other professionals. Retrofit technol￾ogies reflect new equipment, new energy resources, new energy audit technologies, and new technologies of improvement mea￾sures. Affordable and appropriate technologies in BEER decide the feasibility of these projects and the energy savings potential, which is indeed a key factor for EPC project success. Effective coordination is another import success factor for achieving sustainable BEER under EPC mechanism. Coordination is a tool to eliminate gaps and duplication in service, which determines an appropriate division of responsibility and establishes a framework for information sharing, policy agreements, program collabora￾tion, and joint planning (IFRC, 2000). The study also found that the Top 5 success factors in ESCO category and hotel category were the same as the final general Top 5 success factors. Only the Table 2 Ranking of CSFs for EPC in sustainable BEER in hotel buildings. Success factors Total (N¼91) ESCO (N¼39) Hotel (N¼22) Professionals (N¼30) Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank CSF1 Accurate M&V 4.45 0.68 1 4.37 0.86 1 4.67 0.52 1 4.09 0.79 9 CSF2 Trust 4.32 0.75 2 4.24 0.90 2 4.41 0.78 3 4.36 0.64 2 CSF3 Control mechanism of sustainable development strategy 4.27 0.74 3 4.20 0.88 3 4.36 0.73 5 4.09 0.79 9 CSF4 Available technology 4.27 0.79 4 4.20 0.93 4 4.44 0.67 2 4.14 0.69 7 CSF5 Effective coordination 4.26 0.69 5 4.19 0.86 5 4.38 0.66 4 4.41 0.58 1 CSF6 Sustainable development strategy planning 4.25 0.70 6 4.18 0.86 6 4.33 0.65 6 4.05 0.64 11 CSF7 Savings share 4.25 0.76 7 4.18 0.90 7 4.26 0.81 11 4.09 0.73 8 CSF8 Project financial status 4.23 0.76 8 4.16 0.89 8 4.33 0.76 7 3.91 0.79 16 CSF9 Credit of ESCOs and clients 4.21 0.82 9 4.14 0.93 9 4.26 0.87 12 4.00 0.85 14 CSF10 Task and Risk allocation 4.20 0.71 10 4.12 0.86 10 4.26 0.67 10 3.86 0.87 18 CSF11 Project objectives control mechanism 4.19 0.68 11 4.11 0.83 11 4.28 0.68 9 4.23 0.73 4 CSF12 Hotel operation status 4.18 0.72 12 4.10 0.86 12 4.31 0.65 8 3.95 0.82 15 CSF13 Economic environment 4.18 0.82 13 4.10 0.94 13 4.21 0.94 13 4.05 0.71 12 CSF14 Clients’ and ESCOs’ awareness to SD theory 4.12 0.72 14 4.05 0.86 14 4.13 0.76 18 4.18 0.72 5 CSF15 Policy support 4.12 0.89 15 4.05 0.99 15 4.13 0.91 19 3.77 0.85 19 CSF16 Clients’ awareness of to EPC 4.09 0.91 16 4.02 1.00 16 4.15 0.77 16 3.91 0.95 17 CSF17 Organizing skill of leader 4.04 0.75 17 3.98 0.88 17 4.10 0.67 20 4.27 0.75 3 CSF18 Technical background of project team 4.03 0.70 18 3.96 0.84 19 4.15 0.70 15 4.00 0.74 13 CSF19 Appropriate organization structure 4.03 0.78 19 3.97 0.89 18 4.15 0.66 14 4.18 0.89 6 CSF20 Financing institutes’ awareness to EPC 4.03 0.82 20 3.96 0.93 20 4.08 0.69 21 3.73 0.75 20 CSF21 Availability of financing market 4.00 0.78 21 3.93 0.90 21 4.13 0.69 17 3.59 0.72 21 P. Xu et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7389–7398 7393