Dawood, N; Sikka, S; Marasini, R and Dean, J (2006) Development of key performance indicators to establish the benefits of 4D planning. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
Performance measurement has received considerable attention by both academic researchers and industry over a past number of years. Researchers have considered time, cost and quality as the predominant criteria for measuring project performance. In response to the Latham and Egan reports to improve the performance of construction processes, the UK construction industry has identified a set of non-financial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Following an increased utilisation of IT based technology in the construction industry and in particular 4D (3D+time) planning. A literature review reveals that a systematic measurement framework to evaluate the value of such systems at both quantitative and qualitative levels does not exist. The aim of this ongoing research is to develop a suitable measurement framework to identify and analyse key performance indicators for 4D applications. Two major issues have been addressed in this research: an absence of a standardised set of 4D based KPIs and lack of existing data for performance evaluation. This paper reports on the first stage of the research study for the identification of 4D performance measures. The ultimate objective of this research is to deliver project based 4D performance measures and to identify how project performance can be improved by the utilisation of 4D planning.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | 4D planning; information technology; performance measurement; value; visualisation |
| Index terms: | performance measurement, Latham, 4D planning, key performance indicator, literature review, performance measure, construction process, project performance, visualization, construction industry, performance evaluation, information technology |
| Subjects: | building construction, industry policy reports, industry analysis, performance measurement, design practice, project management theory and practice, visualization, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, computing systems |
| Topics: | Site Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Quality Management, Governance, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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