Meng, K (2021) Performance measurement for UK construction projects. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
As construction projects become more complicated, practitioners and researchers always deliberate on performance improvement. However, it is ambiguous for the definition of performance and how to measure it. Researchers with different theoretical backgrounds develop the functional performance measurement models from independent perspectives. However, these frameworks coexist simultaneously because every framework merely studies one of the multi-facets of performance with an obscure classification principle. Through critically reviewing literature from 1987 to 2020, 17 latent variables and 54 observable factors are identified covering broad aspects including finance, operation, quality, safety, client satisfaction, and development potential. A research method is required in conjunction with purpose; therefore, a quantitative method is used in this research to proceed with theory testing underpinned by a set of epistemological foundations with a large sample size. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is justified owing to its competency in effectively imputing the relations between unobservable and observable constructs. After data collection from UK contractors, High-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (HCFA) through software named Mplus is implemented for data analysis. Model simplification, comparison and modification are determined based on the discussion of data analysis results. This research gives clear theoretical contributions by filling the research gap, which is the lack of the integrated construction project performance measurement model. HPMMCP model is developed to comprehensively consider financial and non-financial performance, internal and external stakeholders, current performance and developmental potential, for UK construction projects from the contractor perspective. In practice, utilising HPMMCP model assists the UK contractors to evaluate the to-date performance and manage stakeholders. HPMMCP model could further be coded as a plug-in of computer software to evaluate project performance automatically and momentarily. Keywords: Construction Projects; Performance Measurement; Construction Contractors; Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus; Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Fenn, F |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | measurement; foundations; client satisfaction; performance improvement; safety; client; UK; factor analysis; project performance; sample size; construction project; construction contractor; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | data analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modelling, practitioner, quantitative method, construction project, financial performance, external stakeholder, construction contractor, performance measurement, sample size, client satisfaction, project performance, factor analysis, performance improvement, testing, simplification, foundations |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, research design and methodology, sociology, statistical analysis, performance measurement, management, project management theory and practice, professional practice, client relations, practitioner, structural engineering, business analysis, production management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| 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