Key performance indicators for measuring construction success

The construction industry is dynamic in nature. The concept of project success has remained ambiguously defined in the construction industry. Project success is almost the ultimate goal for every project. However, it means different things to different people. While some writers consider time, cost and quality as predominant criteria, others suggest that success is something more complex. The aim of this paper is to develop a framework for measuring success of construction projects. In this paper, a set of key performance indicators (KPIs), measured both objectively and subjectively are developed through a comprehensive literature review. The validity of the proposed KPIs is also tested by three case studies. Then, the limitations of the suggested KPIs are discussed. With the development of KPIs, a benchmark for measuring the performance of a construction project can be set. It also provides significant insights into developing a general and comprehensive base for further research.

Final report : feasibility study linking best value procurement assessment to outcome performance indicators

This feasibility study was established to investigate the application of the concept of ‘best value’ in construction procurement in Australia. In the case of ‘best value’ in the business enterprise, ‘best value’ is that which returns greatest value to the business enterprise’s shareholders. However, in the case of the public sector, ‘best value’ is more complex. For that reason, this research project focuses mainly on public sector construction project procurement.

Key performance indicators for innovation implementation : perception vs. actual usage

This paper aimed to explore the proportion associated with the perceived importance and the actual use of performance indicators from manufacturing and non manufacturing industries. The sample was 86 small and medium sized-organizations in Thailand. The perceived importance and the actual use of financial and non financial indicators were found to be significantly related among manufacturing and non manufacturing industries. KPI 3, 9, and 12 (i.e. sales and sales growth; quality of products and /or services; and process time) were perceived the most importance among manufacturing managers (85.3%, 79.4% and 76.5% respectively). While KPI 6, 9, and 12 (i.e. customer satisfaction, quality of products and /or services; and process time) were perceived the most importance among non manufacturing managers (84.8%, 93.5%, and 84.8% respectively). Interestingly, the most used KPIs for manufacturing were sales and sales growth (64.7%); profit margins (61.8%); and customer satisfaction (84.8) while non manufacturing used quality products/services (60.9%); sales and sales growth (54.3%) and employee development (54.3%) respectively. Limitation and implication were also discussed.

Agree or disagree? Level of alignment between project manager and stakeholders on performance indicators

Studies indicate project success should be viewed from the different perspectives of the individual stakeholders. Project managers are owner’s agents. In order to allow early corrective actions to take place in case a project is diverted from plan, to accurately report perceived success of the stakeholders by project managers is essential, though there has been little systematic research in this area. The aim of this paper is to report the findings of an empirical study that compares the level of alignment between project managers and key stakeholders on a list of project performance indicators. A telephone survey involving 18 complex project managers and various key project stakeholder groups was conducted in this study. Krippendorff’s Kappa alpha reliability test was used to assess the alignment levels between project managers and stakeholders. Despite the overall agreement level between project manager and stakeholders is only medium; results have also identified 12 performance indicators that have significant level of agreement between project managers and stakeholders.

Safety culture research, lead indicators, and the development of safety effectiveness indicators in the construction sector

Construction sector application of Lead Indicators generally and Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) particularly, are largely seen by the sector as not providing generalizable indicators of safety effectiveness. Similarly, safety culture is often cited as an essential factor in improving safety performance, yet there is no known reliable way of measuring safety culture. This paper proposes that the accurate measurement of safety effectiveness and safety culture is a requirement for assessing safe behaviours, safety knowledge, effective communication and safety performance. Currently there are no standard national or international safety effectiveness indicators (SEIs) that are accepted by the construction industry. The challenge is that quantitative survey instruments developed for measuring safety culture and/ or safety climate are inherently flawed methodologically and do not produce reliable and representative data concerning attitudes to safety. Measures that combine quantitative and qualitative components are needed to provide a clear utility for safety effectiveness indicators.

Firm social, cultural and intellectual capital : strategic indicators of international client satisfaction

Despite the increasing significance of the construction industry as an emerging sector of the Australian economy, there is inadequate research performed on construction design firms in terms of theoretical and empirical foundations. Although past research has identified the barriers and success factors for firm market entry, evidence suggests that to date no research has explicitly explored the sustainability of construction design firms in international markets. SMEs and their approach to firm internationalisation differ significantly from large manufacturing firms and a vast majority of construction design firms operate as SMEs. This paper develops a sustainable business model for construction design SMEs, which rely upon the development of clear Client Following (CF) versus Market Seeking (MS) strategies to support internal firm strategic and operational management. The understanding of these strategies is vital as the application of either will shape the design management approach of firms, which would in turn impact on the sustainability of these firms in foreign markets. Long-term sustainability of firms in international markets relies heavily upon client satisfaction. Client and project team participants’ communication during various design processes has often been problematic and the added difficulty of communicating across international boundaries further compounds the problem of capturing and maintaining client’s requirements. Therefore this paper develops a model for economic sustainability of Australian construction design firms working in international markets by exploring factors that affect client satisfaction across international boundaries, through the development of business performance indicators. These include not only the critical financial capital but also other ‘softer’ indicators, namely: social, cultural and intellectual capital. These act as a firm’s measure of success and the acquisition of this type of capital will provide significant advantages to firms’ success, hence sustainability in international markets.

Safety effectiveness indicators project workbook

The Safety Effectiveness Indicators (SEI) Project has used extensive research to determine what safety effectiveness measures can be developed by industry, for industry use to improve its safety performance. These indicators can measure how effectively the 13 safety management tasks1 (SMTs) selected for this workbook are undertaken. Currently, positive performance indicators (PPIs) are only able to measure the number of activities undertaken. They do not provide information on whether each activity is being undertaken effectively, and therefore do not provide data which can be used by industry to target areas of focus and improvement. The initial workbook contained six SMTs, and was piloted on various construction sites during August 2008. The workbook was refined through feedback from the pilot, and 13 SMTs were used in a field trial during the months of October, November and December 2008. The project team also carried out 12 focus groups in Brisbane, Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne during April, May and June 2008, and developed an initial format of this workbook through these groups and team workshops. Simplification of the language was a recurring theme, and we have attempted to do this throughout the project. The challenge has been to ensure we keep the descriptions short, to the point and relevant to all companies, without making them too specific. The majority of the construction industry participants also requested an alteration to the scale used, so a ‘Yes’/‘No’/’Not applicable’ format is used in this workbook. This workbook, based on industry feedback, is for use on site by various construction companies and contains 13 SMTs. However, you are invited to personalise the SEI tools to better suit your individual company and workplaces.

Monitoring the Performance of Complex Projects from Multiple Perspectives over Multiple Time Frames

When complex projects go wrong they can go horribly wrong with severe financial consequences. We are undertaking research to develop leading performance indicators for complex projects, metrics to provide early warning of potential difficulties. The assessment of success of complex projects can be made by a range of stakeholders over different time scales, against different levels of project results: the project’s outputs at the end of the project; the project’s outcomes in the months following project completion; and the project’s impact in the years following completion. We aim to identify leading performance indicators, which may include both success criteria and success factors, and which can be measured by the project team during project delivery to forecast success as assessed by key stakeholders in the days, months and years following the project. The hope is the leading performance indicators will act as alarm bells to show if a project is diverting from plan so early corrective action can be taken. It may be that different combinations of the leading performance indicators will be appropriate depending on the nature of project complexity. In this paper we develop a new model of project success, whereby success is assessed by different stakeholders over different time frames against different levels of project results. We then relate this to measurements that can be taken during project delivery. A methodology is described to evaluate the early parts of this model. Its implications and limitations are described. This paper describes work in progress.

Safety culture research, lead indicators, and the development of safety effectiveness indicators in the construction sector

Construction sector application of Lead Indicators generally and Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) particularly, are largely seen by the sector as not providing generalizable indicators of safety effectiveness. Similarly, safety culture is often cited as an essential factor in improving safety performance, yet there is no known reliable way of measuring safety culture. This paper proposes that the accurate measurement of safety effectiveness and safety culture is a requirement for assessing safe behaviours, safety knowledge, effective communication and safety performance. Currently there are no standard national or international safety effectiveness indicators (SEIs) that are accepted by the construction industry. The challenge is that quantitative survey instruments developed for measuring safety culture and/ or safety climate are inherently flawed methodologically and do not produce reliable and representative data concerning attitudes to safety. Measures that combine quantitative and qualitative components are needed to provide a clear utility for safety effectiveness indicators.

Sustainability performance of construction : conceptual models of satisfaction levels in construction projects

In general, the performance of construction projects, including their sustainability performance, does not meet optimal expectations. One aspect of this is the performance of the participants who are independent and make a significance impact on overall project outcomes. Of these participants, the client is traditionally the owner of the project, the architect or engineer is engaged as the lead designer and a contractor is selected to construct the facilities. Generally, the performance of the participants is gauged by considering three main factors, namely, time, cost and quality. As the level of satisfaction is a subjective issue, it is rarely used in the performance evaluation of construction work. Recently, various approaches to the measurement of satisfaction have been made in an attempt to determine the performance of construction project outcomes - for instance, client satisfaction, customer satisfaction, contractor satisfaction, occupant satisfaction and home buyer satisfaction. These not only identify the performance of the construction project but are also used to improve and maintain relationships. In addition, these assessments are necessary for the continuous improvement and enhanced cooperation of participants. The measurement of satisfaction levels primarily involves expectations and perceptions. An expectation can be regarded as a comparative standard of different needs, motives and beliefs, while a perception is a subjective interpretation that is influenced by moods, experiences and values. This suggests that the disparity between perceptions and expectations may possibly be used to represent different levels of satisfaction. However, this concept is rather new and in need of further investigation. This chapter examines the methods commonly practised in measuring satisfaction levels today and the advantages of promoting these methods. The results provide a preliminary review of the advantages of satisfaction measurement in the construction industry and recommendations are made concerning the most appropriate methods to use in identifying the performance of project outcomes.

Technology strategy and competitive performance in bridge construction

Pragmatic construction professionals, accustomed to intense price competition and focused on the bottom line, have difficulty justifying investments in advanced technology. Researchers and industry professionals need improved tools to analyze how technology affects the performance of the firm. This paper reports the results of research to begin answering the question, “does technology matter?” The researchers developed a set of five dimensions for technology strategy, collected information regarding these dimensions along with four measures of competitive performance in five bridge construction firms, and analyzed the information to identify relationships between technology strategy and competitive performance. Three technology strategy dimensions—competitive positioning, depth of technology strategy, and organizational fit—showed particularly strong correlations with the competitive performance indicators of absolute growth in contract awards and contract award value per technical employee. These findings indicate that technology does matter. The research also provides ways to analyze options for approaching technology and ways to relate technology to competitive performance for use by managers. It also provides a valuable set of research measures for technology strategy.

Strategies for appropriate technology and competitive performance in infrastructure construction

Earlier research developed theoretically-based aggregate metrics for technology strategy and used them to analyze California bridge construction firms (Hampson, 1993). Determinants of firm performance, including trend in contract awards, market share and contract awards per employee, were used as indicators for competitive performance. The results of this research were a series of refined theoretically-based measures for technology strategy and a demonstrated positive relationship between technology strategy and competitive performance within the bridge construction sector. This research showed that three technology strategy dimensions—competitive positioning, depth of technology strategy, and organizational fit— show very strong correlation with the competitive performance indicators of absolute growth in contract awards, and contract awards per employee. Both researchers and industry professionals need improved understanding of how technology affects results, and how to better target investments to improve competitive performance in particular industry sectors. This paper builds on the previous research findings by evaluating the strategic fit of firms' approach to technology with industry segment characteristics. It begins with a brief overview of the background regarding technology strategy. The major sections of the paper describe niches and firms in an example infrastructure construction market, analyze appropriate technology strategies, and describe managerial actions to implement these strategies and support the business objectives of the firm.

Quality management system and construction performance

This paper discusses the level of effectiveness of quality principles and quality management system implementation and the relationship with performance of ISO9000 certified Indonesian contractors. It also discusses the statistical relationship between quality management systems (QMSs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) amongst a large sample of Indonesian construction companies. Data collected is from questionnaire surveys involving Quality Managers, Managers, and Project and Site Engineers representing 77 different companies. Results indicate that even though some contractors have not yet effectively implemented an effective QMS, most of the KPIs of respondent companies are still at the level of high performance. The statistical results show that the relationship between variables of ISO9000 QMS principles and contractors’ KPIs is significant. These results suggest that an increment in the implementation level of QMS principles can increase KPIs, however that much effort is still required for Indonesian contractors to fully effectively implement QMS principles and thus substantially improve performance against KPIs.