Balatbat, M C A; Lin, C Y and Carmichael, D G (2011) Management efficiency performance of construction businesses: Australian data. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(2), pp. 140-158. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose-Construction businesses are perceived uncertainly by investors, and are generally assumed to represent more risk than other businesses. Added to this is the perception of poor business management practices being adopted by construction companies, sometimes resulting in business-failure. Fluctuations in construction workload contribute to investor anxiety. In this light, the paper aims to present a study of the comparative management efficiency performance of construction companies. Design/methodology/approach-Publicly listed Australian construction companies over the ten-year period 1998-2007 are examined. Performance is compared with a select number of "blue chip" companies as a benchmark. In total, 19 management efficiency measures are used including asset management ratios, debt and safety ratios, and cash flow ratios. The construction companies used in the study engage in work covering the full range of construction activities. Findings-The results indicate that construction companies perform as well as, and in some cases better than, other businesses, dispelling some of the misconceptions about construction businesses. Originality/value-The paper's finding will be useful to those investing in the construction industry, and will lead to a better public perception of construction businesses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; benefit-cost ratio; construction industry; investment appraisal; management effectiveness |
| Index terms: | investment appraisal, construction industry, investor, efficiency, construction activity, Australia, methodology, anxiety, business management, cash flow, management effectiveness, asset management, workload, construction company |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, construction operations, mental health and wellbeing, organization, business, asset management, sociology, industry analysis, performance management, research methods, performance measurement, management, financial management, Geography |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| 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