Yeung, J F Y; Chan, A P C; Chan, D W M; Chiang, Y H and Yang, H (2013) Developing a benchmarking model for construction projects in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(6), pp. 705-716. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper attempts to incorporate both leading and lagging KPIs and apply the reliability interval method (RIM) to formulate a benchmarking model to assess project success in Hong Kong. A list of leading and lagging KPIs was complied based on a comprehensive literature review. This list of KPIs was used to develop a survey questionnaire and RIM was subsequently used to analyze the survey results and determine the relative importance and rankings of various leading and lagging KPIs. The results reveal that the top 10 KPIs to evaluate the success of construction projects in Hong Kong (in descending order) were (1) safety performance, (2) cost performance, (3) time performance, (4) quality performance, (5) client's satisfaction, (6) effectiveness of communication, (7) end user's satisfaction, (8) effectiveness of planning, (9) functionality, and (10) environmental performance. Finally, a composite performance index (CPI) was derived by means of RIM to provide a comprehensive assessment of construction project success in Hong Kong. Different construction projects can now be assessed on the same basis for benchmarking and project monitoring purposes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; composite performance index; Hong Kong; key performance indicators; reliability interval method |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, quality performance, composite, cost performance, environmental performance, relative importance, satisfaction, literature review, Hong Kong, functionality, time performance, construction project, survey, questionnaire, project success, end user, safety performance, benchmarking, key performance indicator, project monitoring |
| Subjects: | performance management, project management theory and practice, materials science, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, project delivery, control systems, performance measurement, risk assessment, economics, Geography, production management, sustainability assessment, project controls, data analysis and analytics, design features, stakeholder |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Time Control, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Project Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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