Tuffaha, F M; Assaf, S; Yasar Zakaria, Z and Hadidi, L A (2021) A framework for the performance assessment of construction contractors in Saudi Arabia. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(2), pp. 195-213. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
In this work, a framework for assessing construction contractors' performance in Saudi Arabia is developed. Usually, a contractor's assessment is based on financial aspects, which are lagging indicators in nature, and can ignore other nonfinancial aspects. Hence, a more detailed contractors' assessment framework is needed for the construction industry in Saudi Arabia. A framework that integrates financial and nonfinancial aspects in one model will enable contractors to better benchmark their performance to the rest of Saudi Arabia's construction industry. Initially, the literature is reviewed and the most commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs) are identified and surveyed through contractors' feedback to ensure their proper alignment with Saudi Arabia's construction industry. The adopted set of KPIs will be further prioritized through the relative importance index (RII) method based on the surveyed contractors' perceptions. Furthermore, the important set of KPIs will be factored into various groups using principle component analysis (PCA). Finally, the findings are validated through expert judgment. All key performance indicators (KPIs) have proven to be significant, except for the environmental factor, which happens to be nonsignificant and hence has been omitted from further consideration. The remaining KPIs have been factored through the principle component analysis method. Five generic dimensions were identified: Performance, Satisfaction, Actual Metrics, Estimated Metrics and Compliance. The model has been validated by expert feedback, and it was found to be reliable. The proposed model establishes an assessment framework to aid building construction contractors in assessing their performance in real time, in addition to postconstruction assessment for business development and retrofitting purposes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor performance; critical success factors; decision support system; performance assessment; user satisfaction; construction costs; principal components analysis; retrofitting; Saudi Arabia; UK; USA |
| Index terms: | real time, user satisfaction, component analysis, construction industry, critical success factor, dimension, construction contractor, environmental factor, performance assessment, business development, retrofitting, compliance, key performance indicator, judgment, Saudi Arabia, decision support, satisfaction, building construction, relative importance index, construction cost, contractor performance |
| Subjects: | control systems, practitioner, dispute resolution, risk assessment, client relations, business, environmental science, data analysis and analytics, health monitoring assessment and metrics, financial and cost management, project delivery, Geography, health safety and environment, contract management, renovation and retrofit, industry analysis, project controls, decision analysis, assessment methods, building construction |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Human Resources, Time Control, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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