Anderson, S d (1989) Potential for construction industry improvement. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation identifies specific determinants of project management practice and performance relevant to engineering/construction projects. The project management practices are principles and recommendations embraced by the Business Roundtable's Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Study, and are from recent research published by the Construction Industry Institute. The following key determinants (situational variables) of the level of utilization are identified: (1) project size; (2) project manager attributes; (3) project type; and (4) knowledge of key management principles. The principles and recommended practices themselves are considered key determinants of project performance. Significant relationships between key situational variables, extent of utilization on projects of the principles and recommendations, and project performance are confirmed using survey research techniques and multiple regression. The database for this analysis contains over 1900 surveys. Of this total, respondents from owner companies contributed 773, those from architectural/engineering firms provided 465, and from construction contractors 664 responses were received. All sectors of the construction industry are represented in the database. Within each sector, small to large companies are included, as well as a range of different project sizes. Regression models are developed for owners, architect/engineers, and construction contractors. These models demonstrate that project size (cost and/or project team size), project manager attributes (leadership skills and administration experience), project type (Heavy Engineering, Building, Industrial projects) and knowledge of key management principles (familiarity with CII/CICE findings) positively influence the level of utilization of key principles and recommended practices. Model results also confirm that an increased use of these practices is positively related to improving project performance. Conclusions from a cost benefit analysis suggest that a potential 25% gross savings of total project cost is achievable with maximum implementation at a 15:1 benefit to cost ratio. Finally, potential improvements are offered for owners, architect/engineers, and contractors.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Tucker, R L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architect; cost benefit analysis; leadership; multiple regression; owner; project cost; project management practice; project manager; project performance; project team; skills |
| Index terms: | Construction Industry Institute, construction project, architect, determinant, dissertation, project team, cost-effectivenes, project performance, regression model, savings, engineering firm, multiple-regression, engineer, owner, cost benefit analysis, construction contractor, project management practice, project manager, construction industry, implementation, survey, project cost, database |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, industry analysis, firms, economic analysis, practitioner, project delivery, research dissemination and communication, risk assessment, profession, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, production management, economics, data management, statistical analysis, sociology, data analysis and analytics, research organizations |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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