Langston, C (2013) Development of generic key performance indicators for PMBOK® using a 3D project integration model. Construction Economics and Building, 13(4), pp. 78-91. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Since Martin Barnes' so-called 'iron triangle' circa 1969, much debate has occurred over how best to describe the fundamental constraints that underpin project success. This paper develops a 3D project integration model for PMBOK® comprising core constraints of scope, cost, time and risk as a basis to propose six generic key performance indicators (KPIs) that articulate successful project delivery. These KPIs are defined as value, efficiency, speed, innovation, complexity and impact and can each be measured objectively as ratios of the core constraints. An overall KPI (denoted as s3/ctr) is also derived. The aim in this paper is to set out the case for such a model and to demonstrate how it can be employed to assess the performance of project teams in delivering successful outcomes at various stages in the project life cycle. As part of the model's development, a new PMBOK® knowledge area concerning environmental management is advanced.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | integration; key performance indicators; pmbok® knowledge areas; project management; success criteria; tetrahedron |
| Index terms: | integration, success criteria, project success, key performance indicator, project management, project team, project delivery, efficiency, complexity, life cycle, environmental management |
| Subjects: | performance management, sustainability assessment, organizational analysis, systems engineering, assessment methods, value management, project delivery, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Project Management, Organizational Design, Quality Management |
| 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