Ofori, G; Dulaimi, M F and Ling, F Y Y (2004) Improving performance of construction industry in Singapore: motivators, enablers and lessons for developing countries. Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), pp. 267-289. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Clients in industrialized and developing countries complain about the poor performance of the construction industry. In Singapore, construction performs poorly when compared with other economic sectors in terms of quality, productivity and safety. The review of the industry under the Construction 21 initiative found that its performance lags behind those of its counterparts in industrialized countries. It offered recommendations to restructure the industry's practices and procedures, and thereby, enhance performance on projects. This paper reports on a study to assess the motivators and enablers of efforts to improve the level of professionalism in Singapore's construction industry, and the quality and maintainability of built items. A questionnaire-based survey of companies was conducted. Various statistical techniques were applied. Lessons for developing countries are drawn. Appropriate initiatives identified include overcoming enhancing skills and professionalism, and adopting appropriate procurement arrangements.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | professionalism; skills levels; maintainability; quality; integration |
| Index terms: | construction industry, motivator, productivity, Singapore, professionalism, questionnaire, integration, survey, maintainability, developing country |
| Subjects: | psychology, maintenance engineering, development economics, Geography, data collection methods, organizational analysis, industry analysis, management, professional development |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Human Resources, International Construction, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| 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