Wu, S and Udeaja, C (2008) Developing a framework for measuring collaborative working and project performance. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
There is evidence that higher degrees of collaborative working can generate more successful project performance, but there has been only limited research to systematically examine the specific impact of collaborative working on project performance. In particular, there is a lack of exploration of appropriate approaches to quantify the impact. In order to fill in this gap, this research aims to differentiate the different degrees of collaborative working that reflect a corresponding project performance. In doing so, the association could be made between collaborative working and project performance. In order to test the association, two key concepts (collaborative working and project performance) will have to be transferred into a form which is measurable. In this process, the concepts will be broken down into indicators, and further down into items, based upon which, Likert scales will be used to design the measurement of the concepts. By measuring the concepts, a range of collaborative working and their impact on project performance can be identified.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative working; measurement; project performance; taxonomy |
| Index terms: | Likert scale, taxonomy, exploration, evidence, project performance |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, project management theory and practice, environmental resource management, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
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