Mahmoud, S Y and Scott, S (2002) The development and use of key performance indicators by the UK construction industry. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
The UK construction industry is considered to be one of the pillars of the domestic economy, but the industry underachievement highlighted in recent government reports has urged it to rethink the way it executes its work and challenged it by setting targets for improvement. Associated with these proposals was a strong recommendation to create an industry-wide performance measurement system to enable good companies to demonstrate their abilities and allow clients to select contractors and consultants on the basis of reliable data. In this context, this paper will describe the development of the construction Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and raise some issues that are considered to be important about their use. Through a series of discussions with professionals in the industry and a number of interviews, it has been possible to gain an insight into some of these areas. Preliminary results have shown that the most noteworthy problems with the use of KPIs relate to the extent of their use by the industry, their definition and their interpretation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | egan report; key performance indicator; performance evaluation |
| Index terms: | performance evaluation, construction industry, key performance indicator, interview, performance measurement, proposal |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project planning, project delivery, performance measurement, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTE |
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