Relationship between project interaction and performance indicators

Pocock, J B; Hyun, C T; Liu, L Y and Kim, M K (1996) Relationship between project interaction and performance indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 165-176. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Researchers and practicing engineers have recently paid considerable attention to alternative approaches to project integration, such as partnering, design-build, constructability, and combinations of these. Each approach may improve a project's integration by increasing the quality and/or quantity of interaction between designers and builders. It is generally accepted that project performance can be enhanced when interaction occurs on a regular basis, beginning early in the project, in an open and trusting environment. This paper presents a method for measuring a project's degree of interaction (DOI), and verifies the relationship between DOI and performance indicators such as cost growth, schedule growth, and number of modifications. The writers apply the analytic hierarchy process technique in weighting criteria for measuring DOI. Data were collected from 25 recently completed public-sector projects using traditional and alternative approaches. The projects with low DOI have a wide range of cost and schedule growth and number of modifications, while projects with high DOI tend to have better and more consistent performance indicators.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: builder, performance indicator, integration, designer, engineer, partnering, interaction, constructability, schedule growth, project performance
Subjects: profession, practitioner, organizational analysis, partnership management, project controls, behavioral psychology, construction integration, performance management, project management theory and practice
Topics: Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Time Control, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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