Ball, M and Chambers, M (2009) An incentivisation scheme for a major transportation infrastructure project in the UK. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
Much of the discussion of key performance indicators (KPIs), quantitative benchmarks and other performance measures is concerned with engendering a new culture of collaborative working and partnerships in the construction industry with the ultimate objective of improving performance, predictability, and efficiency on individual projects. However, there can only be an effective implementation of these measures if constructors are truly engaged in the process of collaborative working. Therefore this research analyses the development and implementation of an incentive framework that is aimed at motivating both the Client and the Construction Partner to adopt new methods of working. A case study of a major infrastructure project in the UK is used to outline one such incentive framework. The principles of the incentive framework are analysed. The constraints, critical success factors, environment, and key deliverables of the project are examined. These aspects are then evaluated to show how they collectively informed behaviours and the potential to realise the incentivisation. The research has identified a two stage incentive scheme. The incentive scheme ensures the Delivery Partner Organisation (DPO) can gain from meeting performance criteria at stage 1. In addition the DPO will also share in any cost savings made at final account up to a capped limit. The DPO is prepared to share the in risk of financial loss at final account up to a capped limit.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behaviours; critical success factors; incentivisation; key performance indicators; pain/gain; partnering |
| Index terms: | key performance indicator, case study, efficiency, pain, partnering, performance criteria, performance measure, partnership, transportation infrastructure, incentivization, final account, critical success factor, implementation, construction industry, infrastructure project, cost saving |
| Subjects: | performance management, economics, performance measurement, health conditions and diseases, partnership management, payment, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, risk assessment, data collection methods, control systems, project delivery, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Contract Administration, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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