Hurtado, K C; Smithwick, J B; Pesek, A E and Sullivan, K T (2018) Public school facility underfunding: A new tool to maximize construction dollars and improve performance outcomes. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14(3), pp. 218-231. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Public education systems are facing pressure on the performance of existing infrastructure amid a growing population, while also decreasing costs and meeting tight deadlines. However, this area also presents opportunities to improve the students’ experience, produce high-performing infrastructure, and positively impact learning conditions. A longitudinal study of improvement projects at a Midwestern school district was conducted to analyze project performance and contractor response to a selection and project management initiative. The initial data reviewed were: hit rate, proposal performance, proposal cost, and interview performance. The school district also achieved exceptional performance results: the overall contractor-generated cost and schedule changes was.001%, with overall cost and schedule changes at 3.5%. Charting contractor response over time shows that the number of contractors proposing did not significantly impact cost. Public school districts can use this research as they seek to improve efficiencies through alternative selection and management initiatives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor competition; facility management; performance metrics; public schools |
| Index terms: | project performance, project management, school district, public school, efficiency, performance outcome, population, competition, interview, performance metric, proposal, improvement project |
| Subjects: | project planning, market analysis, demography, production management, educational management, data collection methods, value management, educational institutions, performance measurement, performance management, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Research Practice, Education, Quality Management, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CE |
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