Fraser, C (1999) A non-results-based effectiveness index for construction site managers. Construction Management and Economics, 17(6), pp. 789-798. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A method is presented for non-results-based effectiveness indexing of construction site managers (CSMs). The 52 competence element index is based on previous research on construction-specific competency elements and stakeholder assessment systems. The method was qualitatively assessed through industry focus groups and quantitatively validated through an empirical study. The performance of 61 Australian CSMs was evaluated by 329 peers, superiors and subordinates. The measurement tool successfully measured each individual's level of ability on each competence element and produced an individual effectiveness score for each CSM. The application of the method resulted in the identification of three levels of effectiveness: a distinct and homogeneous 'elite' group of very effective CSMs; a very low performing control group of former CSMs; and a group of CSMs that are adequately effective. The development and validation of the method are provided, plus some insights into the characteristics of each of the groups identified.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competence; effectiveness; index; site managers; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | manager, focus group, construction site, competence, validation, site manager, empirical study, effectiveness, indexing |
| Subjects: | professional development, personnel development, research methods, performance management, information systems, practitioner, data collection methods, work location |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Quality Management, Site Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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