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.

Using vulnerability performance indicators to attain food supply chain robustness

High effectiveness and leanness of modern supply chains (SCs) increase their vulnerability, i.e. susceptibility to disturbances reflected in non-robust SC performances. Both the SC management literature and SC professionals indicate the need for the development of SC vulnerability assessment tools. In this article, a new method for vulnerability assessment, the VULA method, is presented. The VULA method helps to identify how much a company would underperform on a specific Key Performance Indicator in the case of a disturbance, how often this would happen and how long it would last. It ultimately informs the decision about whether process redesign is appropriate and what kind of redesign strategies should be used in order to increase the SC's robustness. The applicability of the VULA method is demonstrated in the context of a meat SC using discrete-event simulation to conduct the performance analysis.