Benchmarking the DB

8/9/2019 Benchmarking the DB

1/15

Benchmarking the performanceof design-build projects

Development of project success index

Edmond W.M. Lam, Albert P.C. Chan and Daniel W.M. Chan Department of Building and Real Estate,

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

Purpose – The paper aims to develop a project success index (PSI) to benchmark the performance of design-build projects from a number of key performance indicators (KPIs).

Design/methodology/approach – This research collected 92 responses from Design and Build(D&B) project participants of the Hong Kong construction industry via ordinary postal mail. In

addition, a project success equation is formulated from the principal components analysis.

Findings – D&B project participants suggests that time, cost, quality and functionality should be theprincipal success criteria for D&B projects. A single index can also be computed from the projectsuccess equation to apply different weightings to the respective KPI with different significance.

Practical implications – The concept of success remains vague among project participants, whichmakes it difficult to assess whether the performance of a project is a success or failure. Thedevelopment of PSI can quantify the success concept in a scientific manner.

Originality/value – PSI indicates the success level of a construction project for benchmarkingpurposes. It also enables project stakeholders to measure the success of a D&B project and to comparethe relative success level among different D&B projects in a scientific manner.

Keywords Project management, Benchmarking, Critical success factors, Construction industry,Hong Kong

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionA construction project is mostly initiated by the needs of the client. In order to satisfythe client’s requirements in terms of time, cost and quality, various procurementmethods are used to increase the chance of success for the complex sequence of activities. The traditional design-bid-build method has been commonly used indelivering construction projects for many decades. It has become the dominant methodfor project delivery in Hong Kong and is still popularly used in the USA (Rowlinson,1997; Friedlander, 1998). However, the extensive number of disputes and the growingemphasis on client’s requirements have brought to the need for other alternativeprocurement systems (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994; Moore and Dainty, 2001).

The growing emphasis on meeting clients’ needs and improving projectperformance has increased the use of fully integrated design-build (D&B) projectteams (Moore and Dainty, 2001). D&B integrates design and construction to overcomesome of the fragmentation in the US construction industry (Yates, 1995;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

The authors gratefully acknowledge the respondents for their generous contributions to theempirical survey and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for providing funding to supportthis research effort.

BIJ14,5

624

Benchmarking: An International

Journal

Vol. 14 No. 5, 2007

pp. 624-638

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1463-5771

DOI 10.1108/14635770710819290


2/15

Retherford, 1998). It has been extensively used in western countries for decades but ithas only been introduced to the East since the last 15 years. In Hong Kong, the use of aD&B contract in the private sector is used only occasionally when compared with theuse in the public sector (Chan et al., 2001).

Benchmarking has emerged as a reaction to growing competitive pressures ininternational markets, and the concept of benchmarking has become increasinglysynonymous with successful performance of business organizations (Rohlfer, 2004).However, success means different things to different people. Measuring project successis a complex task since the concept is an intangible feeling of perspective that canrarely be agreed upon. Collin (2002) advocated that KPIs are general indicators of performance that focus on critical aspects of outcomes. Later researchers have appliedthe concept of KPIs to measuring success of construction projects and in particularD&B projects (Chan and Chan, 2004; Chan et al., 2002). However, KPIs measuredifferent key result areas of a construction project (Collin, 2002) and so there is a lack of common base for comparison. For instance, Project A may excel in time performance,but mediocre in cost performance and poor in quality. Whereas Project B may be poorin time performance; but it is superb in cost performance and only mediocre in qualityperformance. In such cases, it is difficult to compare the overall performance of the twoprojects and there is a need for a single success index to make comparison possible.One approach to better indicate the success level of D&B projects is the development of a project success index (PSI-D&B). With the extensive use of D&B worldwide and itsdistinctive features dealing with the problems inherent with the traditionaldesign-bid-build method, an investigation into the project success for D&B can helpset a benchmark for future projects.

This paper is divided into four parts. It firstly provides a summary of the earlier workof the authors in the development of KPIs in construction projects (Chanetal.,2002;Chanand Chan, 2004), with particular emphasis on developing success criteria for D&B

projects. Then the process of conducting the empirical study with D&B projectparticipants in the construction industry of Hong Kong will be outlined. The results of generating an equation to compute the success index for D&B projects will also bepresented and discussed, and the conclusions will be drawn at the end of the paper.

Benchmarking success and criteria for construction projectsBenchmarking is currently considered as one of the most effective approaches to help acompany improve its performance (Maire et al., 2005). Many companies consider that itis the search for “best practice” and many initiatives were launched to count, classifyand propose best practices. In fact, the definition of success often changes from projectto project but Parfitt and Sanvido (1993) claimed that the criteria for success can

commonly be developed to assess the performance of a project. Traditionally, successis defined as the degree to which project goals and expectations are met. It should beviewed from different perspectives of individuals and the goals related to a variety of elements, including technical, financial, educational, social and professional issues(Parfitt and Sanvido, 1993; Lim and Mohamed, 1999).

Project success seems to be the goal, which can be achieved through the objectives of budget, schedule and quality. Each project has a set of goals to accomplish, which serve asa standard to measure performance. Indeed, Lim and Mohamed (1999) defined criteria as

Performance ofdesign-build

projects

625


3/15

the set of principles or standards by which judgment is made, and Chan et al. (2002) showthe relationship among goals, performance measures and project success (Figure 1).

While success can be measured in terms of goal attainment, there is ambiguity indetermining whether a project is a success or failure. A gradual change in the

assessment criteria of project success has been observed over the last 15 years.

Assessing success for construction projectsProject participants have different perceptions towards the ambiguous concept of project success. As a result, the lack of consensus makes it difficult to tell whethera project is successful or not. A review of related previous studies suggests thatresearch measuring project success has progressed through a number of stages.

Chan et al. (2002) described different views of previous researchers on projectperformance by focusing on meeting objectives. This was followed by taking a globalapproach of the topic, and more recently, the focus has been considerations beyond theproject. They conducted a comprehensive literature review over the last 15 years andthey suggested that project success should be something much more important than

simply meeting cost, schedule and performance specifications. They quoted the earlierwork of Chan (1996) to assess the success of construction projects from both objectiveand subjective points of view. They also provided a review of the contemporary workof Shenhar et al. (1997), Atkinson (1999), and Lim and Mohamed (1999) and concludedthat the scale of project success measures extends far away from the project itself.

Chan and Chan (2004) introduced the concept of KPIs to the framework of successcriteria. They divided KPIs into two groups: objective and subjective measures. Theformer uses mathematical formulae to calculate the respective values while the latteruses subjective opinions and personal judgement of stakeholders. They also appliedthe KPIs to some hospital projects and concluded that each project has unique results.

Criteria of success for design-build projectsMolenaar and Gransberg (2001) defined D&B as an alternative project delivery methodthat encompasses both project design and construction under one contract. Thisprocurement method has become a popular mode of procuring construction work andresearchers have gradually started to investigate the topic of success criteria for D&Bprojects. Added to the review of literature on construction projects in a generic sense,Chan et al. (2002) further provided a comprehensive desk study on the topic of successcriteria for D&B projects over the last 15 years (Table I).

Ndekugri and Turner (1994) stated that the performance of the D&B project can beconsidered a success if the client’s criteria are met. Songer and Molenaar (1996, 1997)

Figure 1.Relationship among goals,performance measuresand project success

Goals/

Objectives

Performance

Measures/

Criteria

PROJECT

SUCCESS

Source: Chan et al. (2002)

BIJ14,5

626


4/15

found that the primary success criteria for D&B projects are consistent with those for

construction projects in a generic sense, which are on budget, on schedule andconforms to user’s expectations. Chan (2000) focused the research on the enhanced typeof D&B and assessed project performance based on the criteria of time, cost, quality,functionality and safety requirements.

Time. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined time as the degree to which thegeneral conditions promote the completion of a project within the allocated duration.Naoum (1994) and Chan (1996) measured this criterion by time over run andconstruction time, respectively. Songer and Molenaar (1997) also considered “onschedule” as one success criterion for D&B projects.

Cost . Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined cost as the degree to which thegeneral conditions promote the completion of a project within the estimated budget.It was measured by Naoum (1994) and Chan (1996) as cost overrun and unit cost,

respectively. Songer and Molenaar (1997) also considered “on budget” as one successcriterion for D&B projects.

Health and safety. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined health and safety as thedegree to which the general conditions promote the completion of a project withoutmajor accidents of injuries. In fact, accidents are caused by a combination of unsafeacts and unsafe conditions, and the measure of safety can be represented by theinjury/accident rate per 1,000 workers (Labour Department, 2000).

Quality. Bubshait and Almohawis (1994) defined quality as the degree to which thegeneral conditions promote meeting of the project’s established requirements of materials and workmanship. It is also expressed in terms of technical specification,function and appearance. While Songer and Molenaar (1997) considered “high qualityof workmanship” as one success measure, Chan (2000) considered “quality” as one

success criterion for D&B projects. Functionality (technical performance). The requirements of technical performance

are normally established in specifications and its performance is best measured by thedegree of variations from those listed in specifications. This criterion correlates withexpectations of project participants and can best be measured by the degree of conformance to all technical performance specifications. In D&B projects, a clear projectbrief is the most important prerequisite for success (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994).While Songer and Molenaar (1997) considered “meeting specifications” as one success

Previous studies

Types D&B project success criteriaChan(2000)

Ndekugri andTurner(1994)

Songer andMolenaar(1996, 1997)

Objective Time, cost, quality U U USafety U

Subjective Meeting specifications/employer’s requirements (ER) UConformance to expectation of project team members USatisfaction of project team members U UFunctionality UAesthetics UReduction in dispute U U

Source: Chan et al. (2002)

Table I.Literature on success

criteria for D&B projects


projects

627


5/15

criterion for D&B projects, Chan (2000) considered “functionality” as one successmeasure.

Satisfaction. Satisfaction describes the level of “happiness” of key project participantsin a project, including the client, architect, contractor, various subcontractors, surveyors,

and engineers, and end-users. Previous researchers, like Torbica and Stroh (2001)considered satisfaction an attribute of success. Other criteria, such as aesthetics,professional image, and educational and social aspects may also be considered to evaluateproject success. Ndekugri and Turner (1994), and Songer and Molenaar (1996, 1997) alsoconsidered satisfaction of project team members, aesthetics and reduction in disputes assuccess criteria for D&B projects.

Environmental sustainability. The generation of construction waste is one of themajor negative impacts from a construction project on the environment, which canbe measured by the difference between the amount of the total delivery of materials tothe site and the amount of work completed (Skoyles, 1987).

Benchmarking has become a prevalent tool used by organizations to determine howwell they are doing in comparison to other organizations and how to improveoperations (Kowalski and Swanson, 2005). In the construction field of study, a set of criteria have been identified by previous researchers to measure success for D&Bprojects. However, each criterion assesses the performance of a particular aspect of outcomes only and so it is difficult to compare the overall performance of differentD&B projects. An empirical study has been conducted with the D&B practitioners inthe Hong Kong construction industry to identify the principal success criteria for D&Bprojects. The technique of principal components analysis was employed to formulate aproject success equation and a PSI for D&B contracts (PSI-D&B) is calculated so thatthe performance of different D&B projects can be compared and project participantscan be aware of the relative performance level of their D&B projects.

Methodology and data collectionThe current research aims to solicit views from industry participants on the (KPIs) forD&B projects from ranking the criteria of success reported in literature. A set of questionnaire was prepared to request D&B project participants for their personalviews on the success criteria for D&B projects. The success criteria identified fromreported literature can be divided into 11 components, namely:

(1) time;

(2) cost;

(3) quality;

(4) functionality;

(5) health;(6) safety;

(7) the satisfaction level of participants on project expectations;

(8) claims performance;

(9) aesthetics;

(10) learning value; and

(11) professional image.

BIJ14,5

628


6/15

Data from the ranking exercise were synthesized by principal components analysis togenerate an equation. The targets of the research were those participants in theconstruction industry of Hong Kong who have gained abundant experience in runningat least one D&B project so that the D&B projects can be assessed by the hands-on

experience of project participants. Since, there is no public list of D&B projectparticipants in Hong Kong, the target respondents were identified by referring to trademagazines and web-pages of local construction organizations associated with D&Bactivities. Conventional means of contacts with project participants like e-mailings andtele-communications were adopted to make sure that the information was updated.

The research questionnaires were sent to 248 D&B participants in the constructionindustry of Hong Kong. About 21 questionnaires were returned undelivered forreasons such as removal of office, thus reducing the number of questionnaires sent outto 227. Finally, a total of 92 valid responses were received and analyzed with aresponse rate of 41 percent. More than half (58 percent) of the responses received werefrom persons holding senior positions at the directorial and managerial level in their

respective D&B firms. Moreover, the respondents represented major stakeholders inD&B projects. Almost, half of the respondents (43 percent) work for contractororganizations while nearly one-quarter of them (24 percent) work for clients. One-thirdof the respondents (33 percent) were from consultancies, with 11 percent fromarchitectural firms, 10 percent from quantity surveying (QS) consultancy firms,10 percent from engineering consultancy firms and 2 percent from project managementconsultancy firms (Figure 2).

The respondents were asked to rate each attribute for the construct of successcriteria on a seven-point Likert scale to indicate the level of importance, ranging from“1” equal to “Highly Unimportant” to “7” equal to “Highly Important”. The data wereinput into SAS for statistical analysis. The measurement reliability is essential to thevalidity of the results of the questionnaire survey (Shen, 2003). It was evaluated by

Cronbach’s a coefficients to investigate the internal consistency among the attributesfor the success criterion construct on the Likert scale. The larger the value, the betterthe reliability in each component will be. Since, the coefficient obtained (0.84) is largerthan the acceptable threshold (0.7), it indicates a high degree of reliability.

Figure 2.Types of organizations to

which respondents wereaffiliatedMain Contractor

43%

Client organization

24%

Architectural firm

11%

Engineering

consultant

10%

Project management

consultant

2%

Q.S. consultant

10%

Consultants

33%


projects

629


7/15

Key performance indicators for design-build projects in Hong KongThe mean values of the 11 success criteria were then determined to indicate the degreeof importance of the project success criteria for D&B projects from the perspectives of client, contractor and consultant (Table II).

In the questionnaire, the seven-point Likert scale was used to measure theperceptions of the D&B project participants on the relative importance of indicators forD&B project success. If the respondent gave a score of “6” or above to a particularsuccess criterion, then such a criterion would be considered as “important” or “highlyimportant” as a measure of success for D&B projects. Songer and Molenaar (1996,1997), and Chan (2000) considered quality and functionality as important indicators of success for D&B projects. In earlier research, Cheng (2001) and Chan et al. (2003)represented the level of critical importance by a score of “4” on a five-point Likert scalein their partnering studies, a common threshold in most construction research.

The pro-rata technique gives a score of “5.6” to represent the level of importance on aseven-point Likert scale. Therefore, a score of “5.5” or above in the mean value is taken asthe cut-off point for determining the important success criteria for D&B projects in thecurrent study. The mean values of time, cost, quality and functionality met this thresholdand were considered as the principal success criteria for D&B projects (Figure 3).

Item Criteria Mean

A Time 6.09B Cost 6.04C Quality 5.86D Functionality 5.92E Low accident rate 5.49F Minimal claims and disputes 5.38G Environmental consciousness 5.21H Aesthetic purpose 4.97I Learning value 4.60

J Expectations of project participants 5.12K Professional image 4.85

Note: The shaded area represents the key performance indicators (KPIs) for D&B projects

Table II.Mean values of successcriteria for D&B projects

Figure 3.Key performanceindicators (KPIs) for D&Bprojects Quality

Successcriteria for

D&B

projects

Time

Cost Functionality

BIJ14,5

630


8/15

The concept of Pareto rule, also known as 80/20 rule, applies which states that an80 percent improvement in performance can be expected by eliminating 20 percent of the causes of unacceptable performance (Cooper and Schindler, 2003). This is agrouping method to concentrate on the important criteria rather than the unimportant

ones (Littlechild and Shutler, 1991). Therefore, time, cost, quality and functionality areconsidered as the KPIs for D&B projects.

Alternative procurement systems have evolved to cater for the increasingcomplexity of projects and the growing emphasis on client’s requirements. D&B is onesuch system which has been applied worldwide for better project performance. As aresult, the chance of attaining project success can be higher because of better projectprocurement method. One qualitative measure for project performance is theapplication of KPIs, which are indicators of the respective project outcomes. Although,KPIs can be used to measure project performance, each KPI serves to measure aparticular aspect of outcomes only and there is no indication on the overallperformance of the construction project. Mrinalini and Nath (2006) describe the task of benchmarking as comparing certain yardsticks based on some indices that will

measure the relative efficiency of relevant practices. To better indicate the overallsuccess level of D&B projects from a number of KPIs, a PSI for D&B projects(PSI-D&B) was developed with the use of principal components analysis, and theresults of the PSI-D&B in Hong Kong are presented and discussed.

Determination of success index for design-build projects (PSI-D&B)In reality, some KPIs are more influential than others in assessing the successfulperformance of a D&B project and so it is necessary to apply different weightings todifferent KPIs in developing a single index. This was accomplished by the technique of principal components analysis which merges the various KPIs into a single index. As aresult, a new variable (index) was formed, which are linear composites of the original

variables (success criteria). Therefore, the computation of an index can help incomparing the degree of success among different D&B projects.

Principal components analysisThe technique can be applied to compositional data, which consists of observations x1; x2; . . . ; xn, for which each element of x i is a proportion, and the elements of xi areconstrained by the sum of the unity (Jolliffe, 2002). Assuming that there are p variables,the use of the principal components analysis gives the following p linear combinations:

j 1 ¼ w11 x1 þ w12 x2 þ · · · þ w1 p x p

j 2 ¼ w21 x1 þ w22 x2 þ · · · þ w2 x p· · ·

j p ¼ w p1 x1 þ w p2 x2 þ · · · þ w pp x p

where j 1; j 2 . . . ; j p are the p principal components and wij is the weight of the jthvariable for the i th principal component. Moreover, this relationship is expressed as:

W 2i 1 þ W 2i 2 þ · · · þ W

2ip ¼ 1; i ¼ 1; . . . ; p

Sharma (1996) believed that the principal components analysis is an appropriatetechnique for developing an index. In the equation of the project success index for D&B


projects

631


9/15

projects (PSI-D&B), the sum of the squares of the weights of the KPIs is equal to oneand the variances of the principal components are the Eigenvalues of the matrix(Manly, 1986). According to Kaiser’s rule, any principal components with a varianceless than 1 are not worth retaining and the first principal component, j 1, accounts for

the maximum variance in the data (Jolliffe, 2002).The D&B project participants perceived that the success of D&B projects can

be measured by time, cost, quality, and functionality, which were identified asthe variables to form the principal components scores. The results of the SAS analysisare summarized in Table III.

The Eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule states that only those variables whoseEigenvalues are greater than one are retained; as a result, only the Ist order wasretained. The Eigenvectors give the weights that are used in forming the followingproject success equation for D&B projects (PSI-D&B):

PSI–D&B ¼ 0:54 Time þ 0:55 Cost þ 0:47 Quality þ 0:42 Functionality

and the sum of the squared weights of each principal component is one, i.e.

0:542 þ 0:552 þ 0:472 þ 0:422 ¼ 1

Table IV demonstrates the loadings and coefficients of the identified KPIs in theequation for PSI-D&B.

In fact, the higher the loading of a variable, the more influential the variable is informing the project success index for D&B projects. All the loadings are greater than

Order Item KPIs Eigenvectors Eigenvalues

1st A Time 0.54 2.19B Cost 0.55C Quality 0.47D Functionality 0.42

2nd A Time 20.48 0.84B Cost 20.39C Quality 0.39D Functionality 0.69

3rd A Time 0.07 0.61B Cost 0.16C Quality 20.79D Functionality 0.59

4th A Time 0.69 0.36B Cost 20.72C Quality 20.02

D Functionality 0.08

Table III.Principal componentsanalysis of KPIs for D&B

projects

KPIs Time Cost Quality Functionality

Loadings 0.797 0.819 0.703 0.626Coefficients 0.54 0.55 0.47 0.42

Table IV.Loadings and coefficientsof KPIs in PSI-D&Bequation

BIJ14,5

632


10/15

the cut-off point of 0.5, indicating that the KPIs are all influential in forming the PSI forD&B projects. Moreover, the magnitudes of the coefficients agree with those of theloadings. Therefore, the strengths of the KPIs affecting the overall success of a D&Bproject can be represented by their corresponding coefficients. Time and cost were

shown to be indicators of success by the empirical study of the D&B projectparticipants as well as by previous researchers. Moreover, D&B offers reduction inproject time from the overlapping of design and construction, and better“value-for-money” option through the selection of alternative design proposals.Therefore, the performance of time and cost of a D&B project can significantly affectthe overall success level as represented by the PSI, PSI-D&B.

Applying the concept of PSI in assessing performance for 40 D&B projectsIn order to apply PSI to actual practice, the respondents were asked to rate eachattribute for the construct of satisfaction with performance on a seven-point Likertscale to indicate the level of satisfaction, and the score for each KPI was entered into

the equation.The PSI-D&B scores provide an indicator for comparing the success level of D&Bprojects and set a benchmark for quantifying the successful performance of a D&Bproject. While, the performance of D&B projects can be measured objectively in termsof hard data, the perceptions of D&B project participants concerning projectperformance can be quantified by the PSI-D&B. Table V presents the PSI-D&B scoresof 40 D&B projects in Hong Kong.

The respondents assessed the performance of their D&B projects in terms of time,cost, quality and functionality, and the PSI-D&B scores were calculated using theequation developed in the study. A score of “1” was given to each of the four criteria inthe equation if the respondent was not at all satisfied with the performance of the D&Bproject. Consequently, the smallest possible value of the PSI-D&B is 1.98 (in the event

that each criterion scores “1”) while, the largest possible value is 13.86 (in the event thateach criterion scores “7”). Therefore, Project 21 was the most successful, as it has thehighest PSI-D&B score.

Developing a PSI curveFigure 4 shows the cumulative percentage of PSI-D&B values for the D&B projects. Themean value is 9.88 and the median is 10.11. The percentiles can make project participantsaware of how their projects score in relation to the average D&B projects. For instance, aproject success index of 8.9 for a D&B project indicates that only 38 percent of the D&Bprojects scored below this figure, signifying that the performance of the project is notsatisfactory. Therefore, project participants should review the performance of the KPIsfor improvement. By contrast, a PSI-D&B score of 13 would indicate that the

performance of a D&B project is highly satisfactory, with 98 percent of all the surveyedD&B projects scoring below this figure. PSI-D&B quantifies the overall D&B projectperformance and the plot of PSI-D&B provides a continuum of the performance of theD&B projects from the individual discrete scores. This enables project participants toknow the relative position of the performance of their projects so that improvements canbe made. In fact, benchmarking can be used to compare a whole organization or aparticular process (Tyler, 2005). A benchmark is thus, a point of reference fromwhich measurements of any sorts may be made (Massa and Testa, 2004).


projects

633


11/15

Construction companies can therefore benchmark their performance to enable them to

identify strengths and weaknesses. In this manner, the performance of D&B projects can

be compared for benchmarking purposes. The concept of benchmarking has been

applied by the construction industry institute – Texas based in the USA as a diagnostic

tool to support continuous improvement. Data can be conveniently added to the

database as projects proceed and comparisons can be made at multiple levels for all

performance measures (http://cii-benchmarking.org/). Such benchmarking analysis has

established significant links between practice use and project performance.

Project PSI-D&B

1 9.522 9.32

3 10.254 8.855 11.496 11.407 10.838 10.319 9.78

10 10.9911 10.9112 11.8813 7.2014 8.8215 8.68

16 8.9017 8.9018 9.9919 10.0220 10.2021 13.3922 8.2523 12.3724 8.5825 3.2426 7.5927 8.0528 6.9629 12.77

30 11.4131 10.6332 8.1133 10.5234 10.6935 8.2436 11.6537 11.8838 12.9739 10.7640 8.81

Table V.PSI-D&B scores for 40D&B projects

BIJ14,5

634


12/15

ConclusionsAlternative procurement systems, like design and build, have been gradually adoptedto overcome the problem of fragmentation of the traditional design-bid-build method.While project success is an abstract concept, the identification of success criteriaenables project performance to be improved. This paper provides a review of successcriteria for construction projects in a generic sense, with particular emphasis on D&Bprojects. An empirical study has also been conducted with the D&B practitioners inHong Kong and it was discovered that the success criteria of D&B projects can berepresented in terms of time, cost, quality and functionality. The concept of projectsuccess has also been quantified by establishing a success index for D&B projects fromthe perceptions of D&B project participants. Benchmarking practice and performancemeasures indeed provide a reasonable indication of the adequacy of a managementsystem (Stevanovic et al., 2005). As a result, the successful performance of D&Bprojects can be compared by an index, which provides an indicator to compare overallperformance levels among individual projects.

The research has provided a good understanding of the D&B method in the local

context and constructive insights into the knowledge of construction procurement.It should be useful for project stakeholders to compare the success level with otherD&B projects and even forecast the performance of future projects. It should also helpin setting up an effective project management system to undertake high performanceD&B projects while enriching academic programmes in construction management.The scope of the study can further be extended to the international arena to aid theunderstanding of managing D&B projects under different working cultures in othercountries.

Figure 4.Cumulative frequency

distribution of PSI-D&Bscores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.1-3.0 3.1-5.0 5.1-7.0 7.1-9.0 9.1-11.0 11.1-13.0 13.1-15.0

PSI-D&B Scores

C u m u l a t i v e P e r c e n t a g e ( % )


projects

635


13/15


14/15

Moore, D.R. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2001), “Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performanceimprovement in UK design and build projects: a call for change”, Construction

Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 559-62.

Mrinalini, N. and Nath, P. (2006), “Comparative evaluation of practices: lessons from R&D

organizations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 214-23.Naoum, S.G. (1994), “Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional contracts”,

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol. 120 No. 4, pp. 687-705.

Ndekugri, I. and Turner, A. (1994), “Building procurement by design and build approach”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 243-55.

Parfitt, M.K. and Sanvido, V.E. (1993), “Checklist of critical success factors for building projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering , Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 243-9.

Retherford, N. (1998), “Project delivery and the US department of state”, Journal of Management in Engineering , Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 55-8.

Rohlfer, S. (2004), “Benchmarking concepts in the UK and Germany a shared understandingamong key players?”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 521-39.

Rowlinson, S. (1997), “Procurement systems: the view from Hong Kong”, CIB W92 Procurement – A Key to Innovation, University de Montreal, Montreal, 20-23 May, pp. 665-72.

Sharma, A. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY.

Shen, Q. (2003), “An investigation of the use of information technology among quantitysurveying firms in Hong Kong”, Proceedings at the 7th Pacific Association of QuantitySurveyors Congress, Tokyo, 31 October-3 November , pp. 62-70.

Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997), “Mapping the dimensions of project success”, Project Management Journal , Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 5-13.

Skoyles, E.R. (1987), Waste Prevention on Site, Mitchell, London.

Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1996), “Selection factors and success criteria for design-build inthe US and UK”, Journal of Construction Procurement , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1997), “Project characteristics for successful public-sectordesign-build”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol. 123 No. 1,pp. 34-40.

Stevanovic, V., Feek, C. and Kay, R. (2005), “Using routine data for benchmarking andperformance measurement of public hospitals in New Zealand”, Benchmarking:

An International Journal , Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 498-507.

Torbica, Z.M. and Stroh, R.C. (2001), “Customer satisfaction in home building”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 82-6.

Tyler, M.C. (2005), “Benchmarking in the non-profit sector in Australia”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 219-35.

Yates, J.K. (1995), “Use of design-build in E/C industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering ,Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 33-8.

Further reading

Lam, E.W.M. (2005), “A conceptual model of success for design and build projects in the publicsector of Hong Kong”, unpublished PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,Hong Kong.

Ng, S.T., Luu, D.T., Chen, S.E. and Lam, K.C. (2002), “Fuzzy membership functions of procurement selection criteria”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 285-96.


projects

637


15/15

Walker, D.H.T. (1996), “The contribution of the construction management team to goodconstruction time performance – an Australian experience”, Journal of Construction

Procurement , Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 4-18.

About the authorsEdmond W.M. Lam obtained his BSc(Hons) degree in Construction Economics and Managementwith commendation (First in Class). He completed his PhD in 2005 and he is currently a ProjectFellow at the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Dr Lam has published several research papers on the theme of construction procurementmanagement in refereed academic journals and international conference proceedings.Edmond W.M. Lam is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Albert P.C. Chan had five years hands-on experience in the field of construction projectmanagement before changing to an academic career in 1987. He is a Chartered Builder, Engineer,Project Manager, and Quantity Surveyor by profession. Professor Chan is currently AssociateHead of the Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, anAdjunct Professor of the Queensland University of Technology, Australia and the University of South Australia; and a Founding Director of the Construction Industry Institute, Hong Kong.

His current research interests are in construction management, construction partnering,construction safety, and project management. E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel W.M. Chan is currently an Assistant Professor in Construction Management andEngineering at the Department of Building and RealEstate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.He is a project manager and construction manager by profession. He has published several researchpapers on the broad theme of project management in refereed academic journals and internationalconference proceedings. His current research interests include construction procurement systems,project partnering and strategic alliancing, construction safety management, public privatepartnership and target cost contracting. E-mail: [email protected]

BIJ14,5

638

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Benchmarking the DB

Documents

Transcript of Benchmarking the DB