Ramsay-Dawber, P A (1995) A critique of the business performance measures of UK construction companies. Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(2), pp. 100-110. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
This paper uses previous studies to review how the business performance of companies has been measured in the past and questions the relevance of these primarily financial measures to the construction industry. It argues the case for a more comprehensive and standardised approach to the measurement of the corporate performance of United Kingdom contractors, and suggests the use a composite measure which uses quantitative and qualitative non-financial and financial measures which reflect the interests of all stakeholders of the industry, more specifically the client. This would provide a holistic approach to the measurement process which, it is suggested, would ultimately assist in the pre-selection process, and procurement of construction work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business performance, construction firm, UK |
| Index terms: | business performance, construction firm, construction company, United Kingdom, corporate performance, construction industry, construction work, holistic approach, critique, composite |
| Subjects: | Geography, operations management, evaluation and assessment methods, organization, materials science, industry analysis, performance measurement, business |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| 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