Ugwu, O O and Haupt, T C (2005) Key performance indicators for infrastructure sustainability: a comparative study between Hong Kong and South Africa. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 3(1), pp. 30-43. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
This paper reports on research that investigated perceptions and prioritization of key performance indicators (KPI) for infrastructure sustainability, from a cross section of construction industry stakeholders in Hong Kong and Republic of South Africa. The results show that although there is general agreement on the indicators, there are noticeable differences in stakeholder ranking, which measures their prioritisation of the various indicators. These differences are closely linked to the level of development of the respective country and hence macro-level priorities in formulating their sustainable development agenda. The most significant agreements are on indicators related to health and safety, while there are significant disagreements on some indicators related to environment, economy and project management and administration. The study provides empirical evidence of such underlying differences. The paper discusses the implications and challenges in addressing sustainability and sustainable development in developed and developing countries. The paper discusses the findings from the twocountry comparative studies and provides validated indicators for infrastructure sustainability. Recommendations are given on the application of these indicators for decision support and integrated sustainability appraisal in infrastructure project (SUSAIP).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design support; Hong Kong; infrastructure development; key performance indicators; multi-criteria decision-making; project management; South Africa; sustainability assessment; sustainability framework; sustainable construction |
| Index terms: | developing country, sustainability assessment, decision support, multi-criteria decision-making, sustainable construction, health and safety, sustainable development, infrastructure development, evidence, South Africa, appraisal, level of development, Hong Kong, key performance indicator, infrastructure sustainability, comparative study, infrastructure project, construction industry, project management, agreements |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, infrastructure engineering, sustainable construction, development economics, Geography, health safety and environment, factor and component analysis, sustainability assessment, design practice, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, sustainable engineering, research design and methodology, evaluation and assessment methods, project delivery, contract formation |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, Design Practice, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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