Beheiry, S M A (2005) Examining the impact of corporate commitment to sustainability. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation presents the culmination of a research study, started atthe University of Texas at Austin in August 2003. The main objective of the studywas to establish a research mechanism to investigate the impact of corporatecommitment to all three pillars of sustainability on capital project planning andcapital project performance. The research hypothesis was that a higher balancedcommitment to the three pillars of sustainability leads to better capital projectplanning and ultimately to better cost and schedule performance in large industrialand building projects, by mitigating the risks in project execution. To achieve theobjectives of this study, sustainability indicators were condensed into twoempirical indices. The first index measured Corporate Commitment to the threepillars of sustainability. It is referred to as the Corporate SustainabilityCommitment Index (CSCI). The second index measured the degree of integration of sustainable practices in capital project planning. It is referred to as theSustainability Component of Project Planning Index (SCPPI).The research study then focused on the two most important projectperformance measures, cost and schedule predictability. Project success istypically referred to as meeting business objectives, on time, and within budget.Therefore, 38 Fortune 100 multinationals were contacted and data on CSCI,SCPPI and project performance was collected from 20 of these organizations.Seventeen of the 20 organizations were owners and three were top contractors.Owner data was focused on and analyzed to examine the nature of the relationshipbetween sustainable practices and project performance, while contractor dataadded perspective and helped establish the nucleus for further research comparingthe sustainability practices of both owner and contractor companies.The study concludes that the survey instrument and research premise areuseful foundations for further examination of the relationship between ownercommitment to sustainability and capital project performance. The data collectionand analysis, albeit very statistically constrained by the sample size, lay thegroundwork for further research. More data collections should lead to morestatistically significant relationships and conclusive trends. Finally, thisdissertation provides several recommendations to aid in the implementation of thestudy findings and the learning experience from industry input.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; foundations; integration; learning; project planning; project success; project performance; sample size; owner |
| Index terms: | integration, project planning, schedule performance, sustainability indicator, commitment, survey, capital project, project performance, implementation, foundations, dissertation, learning experience, sustainable practice, project success, owner, sample size |
| Subjects: | sustainability assessment, structural engineering, project management theory and practice, sustainable practices, sociology, organizational analysis, project controls, research design and methodology, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, control systems, learning methods, psychology, strategic project management, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Education, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Time Control, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| 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