Best, R and Langston, C (2006) Evaluation of construction contractor performance: A critical analysis of some recent research. Construction Management and Economics, 24(4), pp. 439-445. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
International comparisons of construction industry performance are notoriously difficult. A recent comparative study, extensive in scope and using an innovative approach, is reviewed and questions raised regarding various aspects of the methodology adopted, the validity of the conclusions drawn and manner in which outcomes were reported. Particular areas of concern include the unequivocal statement of conclusions that are based on a small sample, and the use of data from that sample that are, in fact, no more than estimates of project performance. Attention is drawn to the limitations of the research reported and the reliability of the methods used, and the data gathered is examined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction research; industry comparisons; international construction; purchasing power parity |
| Index terms: | methodology, construction contractor, international comparison, project performance, international construction, comparative study, estimate, construction industry performance, validity, purchasing |
| Subjects: | research methods, project management theory and practice, procurement strategy, industry analysis, research design and methodology, strategic management, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | International Construction, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| 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