Hwang, B G; Thomas, S R; Degezelle, D and Caldas, C H (2008) Development of a benchmarking framework for pharmaceutical capital projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(2), pp. 177-195. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Benchmarking is a proven technique for improving project performance and, as such, is a critical component of any mature project delivery system. Competitive benchmarking requires industry-specific metrics in absolute terms since processes vary by industry, and any metrics used within a single industry must be attuned to its particular processes. A framework is developed for evaluating pharmaceutical capital facility projects using metrics specific to the characteristics of these unique projects. Establishment of the framework made possible the development of a set of industry-specific metrics and a flexible data collection and reporting system for measuring project performance. Preliminary findings from an initial sample of 40 pharmaceutical projects confirm that meaningful industry-specific metrics can be produced for pharmaceutical capital facilities benchmarking. Developing such a framework enables the industry to measure project performance more accurately, get meaningful project performance comparisons, and ultimately establish credible norms for project performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; pharmaceutical project; project management; project performance |
| Index terms: | capital project, project performance, project delivery, project management, norms, benchmarking |
| Subjects: | project delivery, strategic project management, sociology, performance measurement, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Project Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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