Kaplanoglu, S B (2007) Impact of pre-project peer review on project success. PhD thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
Construction is a risky business. Contractors and construction managers (CMs) have been utilizing tools such as Pre-Project Peer Reviews (PPPRs) to mitigate their risks on high-risk lump sum or Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contracts. PPPR is an internal process used by a company in order to mitigate its risks associated with delivering projects on-time, meet or beat the client and company budget and to satisfy clients. PPPRs allow reviewers to evaluate the status of a project prior to committing to a GMP or lump sum and to provide objective feedback to the project team on ways to mitigate or reduce risks. Based on their expertise, the reviewers may focus on the planning and logistics, staffing, agreement with owner, price, general conditions, profit, subcontractor issues, safety, quality of workmanship, customer satisfaction, regulatory issues, and information technology. In the absence of literature on this topic, an industry survey pinpoints practices and expectations. In addition to industry survey, it defines the formal PPPR process. It discusses the twelve indicators that measure the effectiveness of PPPR and tries to clarify their importance relative to PPPR through a literature survey. A literature survey of project success indicators and their selection process are also presented. The study utilizes structural equation modeling (SEM) methodology to model the relationship between PPPR and project success and test the models by using data collected in a local company in order to identify the PPPR indicators with most impact on project success. The models establish the relationship between the effectiveness of PPPR and project success while generating pointers for efficient implementation of PPPR leading to project success. This study empirically confirms the opinion of most construction professionals that there is a positive relationship between the effectiveness of PPPR and project success. It strongly suggests that a follow-up process is imperative for a PPPR to have an impact on project success. The study uses data collected in a local company and therefore cannot be generalized, but the methodology can be used by different companies to implement PPPR effectively.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Arditi, D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | effectiveness; project team; feedback; information technology; logistics; project success; safety; workmanship; client; owner; professional; subcontractor |
| Index terms: | information technology, subcontractor, workmanship, methodology, construction manager, structural equation modelling, survey, profit, peer-review, implementation, project team, construction professional, customer satisfaction, effectiveness, owner, project success |
| Subjects: | research methods, performance management, professional development, project management theory and practice, service delivery, contractual condition, sociology, statistical analysis, data collection methods, profession, practitioner, computing systems, project delivery, economic analysis, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Quality Management, Project Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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