Wu, S; Steel, G and Greenwood, D (2009) Measuring the associations between collaborative working and project performance. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
There is evidence that higher degrees of collaborative working can produce more successful project performance, but there is only limited research to systematically examine the specific associations between collaborative working and project performance. In particular, there is a lack of exploration of appropriate approaches to test these associations. In order to test these associations in an appropriate approach, the concepts of collaborative working and project performance in this research are transformed into a measurable form in terms of the philosophy of AHP (analytic hierarchy process). In the process of measurement design for collaborative working and project performance, a Likert Scale is adopted. After refining the final measures through unidimensionality and reliability testing, as a part of PhD study, this paper presents the results of the association exploration between collaborative working and project performance. The produced conclusion is strongly supporting that there is a strong positive linear relationship between collaborative working and project performance.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative working; measurement; project performance; association |
| Index terms: | philosophy, testing, Likert scale, evidence, project performance, exploration |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, philosophical studies, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, environmental resource management, professional practice |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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