Liu, A M M (1997) Developing a research model for project outcome evaluation. In: Stephenson, P (ed.) Proceedings of 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1997, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
The construction procurement process is initiated by the client organisation in response to the environmental stimuli. Project performance is a complex construct that reflects the criteria and value judgements adopted by the evaluators. This paper develops a research model for the evaluation of project outcome underpinned by goal setting theory and expectancy value theories. Project outcome is perceived to be of two levels which are affected by project complexity and goal commitment. The model examines the relationship between goal commitment, project complexity and the perceived outcome based on the behaviour-performance-outcome paradigm.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | evaluation; expectancy; performance; project complexity; outcome |
| Index terms: | client organization, commitment, project complexity, construction procurement, project outcome, project performance, paradigm |
| Subjects: | organizational theory, psychology, project management theory and practice, project completion, client relations, contractual arrangements, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here