Olatunde, N A; Fidelis, I M; Awodele, I A and Adebayo, B O (2024) Stakeholders prioritization of key performance indicators on public and private tertiary educational projects in Osun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 42(5), pp. 881-892. ISSN 2398-4708
Abstract
Purpose: The study assessed the stakeholders prioritization of key performance indicators (KPIs) on public and private tertiary educational projects in Osun State, Nigeria intending to enhance their performance. Design/methodology/approach: The study used a total enumeration survey to purposively select built environment professionals working in the Physical Planning and Development Unit (PPDU) and procurement units of 17 tertiary educational institutions (7public and 10 private) in Osun State Nigeria for data collection. A quantitative research approach was adopted for the study using a questionnaire. A total of 102 questionnaires were retrieved from the respondents and used for analysis. Analysis of data was done using frequency, percentile, mean score (MS), Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, t-test, and Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings: The study found that in the overall opinion of the respondents the most prioritized KPIs for tertiary educational projects are for the project to meet specifications (MS = 4.17), the project must be on time (MS = 4.01), and efficient use of resources (MS = 3.96). The important KPIs for the public tertiary educational projects is that the project should meet specifications (MS = 4.08), deliver the projects on time (MS = 3.96), and be under cost (MS = 3.84). While, the most prioritized KPIs for private tertiary educational projects are for the project to meet specifications (MS = 4.25), efficient use of resources (MS = 4.14), on time, and doing the right thing (effectiveness) (MS = 4.06) each. More findings indicated that there is no significant difference in the manner built environment professionals prioritized KPIs. However, there is only a 7% significant difference in the manner professionals working in the public and private tertiary educational institutions in Nigeria ranked KPIs. Practical implications: There is a significant difference in the ways and manner built environment professionals working with the public and private tertiary educational institutions in Nigeria view resource utilization on their projects. As such, working environment either as public or private has a significant impact on resource utilization for tertiary educational construction projects. Originality/value: The study compared opinions of professionals working with public and private tertiary educational institutions on KPIs to enhance project performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | key performance indicators; private; public; tertiary educational projects |
| Index terms: | methodology, variance, survey, construction project, built environment, tertiary, effectiveness, resource utilization, quantitative research, project performance, Nigeria, key performance indicator, specification, educational project, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | Geography, research methods, production management, data analysis and analytics, site logistics, curriculum development, contractual condition, measurement and scaling, project management theory and practice, performance management, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, project delivery |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Education, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Quality Management, Project Management, Urban Studies, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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