Dodd, J R (2021) Maximizing benchmarking initiatives in the built environment for sustained continuous improvement. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA.
Abstract
While continuous improvement initiatives such as benchmarking have a history of utilization for core business objectives, their successful utilization in the built environment industries, such as construction and facilities management is not nearly as well documented or researched. This study identifies how the built environment fields are using continual improvement initiatives, evaluates how effectively these initiatives are being utilized, and identifies critical success factors for improving and leveraging these techniques to achieve the sustained continuous improvement initiatives that will be necessary to meet long-term sustainability goals in relation to the operations of the built environment. This study takes place in three parts; a case study of a novel way to benchmark and identify areas for improvement in an existing construction manufacturer’s performance management system, a large-scale (N = 585) multi-national, multi-sector survey of how facility managers are using benchmarking and their involvement in benchmarking networks, and an analysis of the relationship of organizational learning culture and the role that it plays in facilitating and supporting benchmarking initiatives with a quantitative analysis and four case studies. The results of this research suggests that the field of facilities management is engaging in benchmarking at a rate similar to general industry, however there are some noted differences in how practitioners are engaging in the process. Most notably, there is a lack of involvement in benchmarking networks and an underutilization of process benchmarking. This research provides the first-of-its-kind survey and assessment of how practitioners in the built environment are utilizing benchmarking compared to their counterparts in general industry. The results of this project serve to assist facility practitioners in developing, leveraging, and strengthening their continuous improvement initiatives to sustain ongoing change critical for the success of long-term organizational goals related to the built environment lifecycle. This is accomplished through the provision of practitioner and researcher-oriented quantitative and qualitative data that can be used to leverage critical success factors and develop and sustain continuous improvement.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Smithwick, J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; continuous improvement; culture; sustainability; benchmarking; facilities management; learning; lifecycle; organizational learning; critical success factor; quantitative analysis; case study |
| Index terms: | survey, manager, organizational learning, manufacturer, benchmarking, critical success factor, facilities management, quantitative analysis, history, practitioner, strengthening, continuous improvement, case study, performance management, core busines, built environment, lifecycle |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, practitioner, professional development, management, performance measurement, infrastructure and transport systems, control systems, business, data collection methods, architectural and construction history, project delivery, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| 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