Kulatunga, U (2008) Influence of performance measurement towards construction research and development. PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK.
Abstract
The UK construction industry is being challenged to produce economically, socially and environmentally acceptable products; to satisfy its stakeholders, to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the construction processes and to address resource constraints and sustainable goals. In this context research and development (R&D) activities are identified as vital to address the challenges faced by the construction industry. Despite the importance, there are number of issues that hinder the success of construction R&D activities such as lack of accountability of the R&D resources, inadequate mechanisms to evaluate the success, output not addressing the requirements of the stakeholders, lack of communication and coordination between the parties involved in the R&D process etc. Consequently, these issues have resulted in producing research results with low applicability and have discouraged the investment towards construction R&D. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the cause of a majority of the issues in construction R&D is directly or indirectly rooted with the lack of evaluation mechanisms implying the need for performance measurement (PM). Therefore this study addresses this eminent need by exploring the influence of PM on the construction R&D. The study was argued to be residing in the interpretivism paradigm. A single case study method was used to refine a conceptual framework developed through literature review and expert interviews. Semi structured interviews and a questionnaire survey were used as the data collection techniques. Content analysis and cognitive mapping techniques were used for the analysis of the semi structured interviews whilst descriptive and inferential statistics were used for analysis of the questionnaire survey. The study reveals critical success factors (CSFs) which need to be managed by PM to influence the success of construction R&D. Further, the study reveals that there is a discrepancy between the importance and implementation of CSFs thus, justifying the need for PM within the construction R&D. Moreover, the study introduces a Performance Measurement System, which evaluates the success of construction R&D activities.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accountability; case study; communication; content analysis; coordination; critical success factor; interview; questionnaire survey; stakeholders; UK |
| Index terms: | resource constraint, questionnaire, construction process, research and development, critical success factor, conceptual framework, interpretivism, interview, survey, accountability, content analysis, literature review, effectiveness, paradigm, cognitive mapping, coordination, implementation, construction industry, statistics, case study, efficiency, performance measurement |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, education and knowledge transfer, management, performance measurement, performance management, cognitive psychology, building construction, research management, industry analysis, liability law, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, control systems, operations management, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Project Management, Organizational Design, Site Management, Research Practice |
| 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