Benchmarking: An International Journal

Emerald Article: Key performance indicators for measuring construction success Albert P.C. Chan, Ada P.L. Chan

Article information:
To cite this document: Albert P.C. Chan, Ada P.L. Chan, (2004),"Key performance indicators for measuring construction success", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss: 2 pp. 203 - 221 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770410532624 Downloaded on: 02-07-2012 References: This document contains references to 40 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 12578 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Simon Beatham, Chimay Anumba, Tony Thorpe, Ian Hedges, (2004),"KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use in construction", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss: 1 pp. 93 - 117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770410520320 Albert P.C. Chan, C.M. Tam, (2000),"Factors affecting the quality of building projects in Hong Kong", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 4 pp. 423 - 442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710010298445 Edmond W.M. Lam, Albert P.C. Chan, Daniel W.M. Chan, (2004),"Benchmarking design-build procurement systems in construction", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss: 3 pp. 287 - 302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770410538763

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Key performance indicators for measuring construction success

Albert P.C. Chan
School of Construction Management and Property, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Key performance indicators

203

Ada P.L. Chan

Department of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Keywords Project management, Performance measurement (quality), Construction industry Abstract The construction industry is dynamic in nature. The concept of project success has remained ambiguously dened in the construction industry. Project success is almost the ultimate goal for every project. However, it means different things to different people. While some writers consider time, cost and quality as predominant criteria, others suggest that success is something more complex. The aim of this paper is to develop a framework for measuring success of construction projects. In this paper, a set of key performance indicators (KPIs), measured both objectively and subjectively are developed through a comprehensive literature review. The validity of the proposed KPIs is also tested by three case studies. Then, the limitations of the suggested KPIs are discussed. With the development of KPIs, a benchmark for measuring the performance of a construction project can be set. It also provides signicant insights into developing a general and comprehensive base for further research.

Introduction Most industries are dynamic in nature and the construction industry is no exception. Its environment has become more dynamic due to the increasing uncertainties in technology, budgets, and development processes. A building project is completed as a result of a combination of many events and interactions, planned or unplanned, over the life of a facility, with changing participants and processes in a constantly changing environment (Sanvido et al., 1992). Temporary, fragment and short-term are also signicant characteristics inherent in the construction industry. Such characteristics greatly affect the effectiveness of project team, especially the project managers. The concept of project success is developed to set criteria and standards by which project managers can complete projects with the most favourable outcomes. However, this concept has remained ambiguously dened among construction professionals. Many project managers still attend to this topic in an intuitive and ad hoc fashion as
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for providing funds to support this research effort.

Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 11 No. 2, 2004 pp. 203-221 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-5771 DOI 10.1108/14635770410532624

BIJ 11,2

204

they attempt to manage and allocate resources across various project areas (Freeman and Beale, 1992). Although a number of researchers had explored this concept, no general agreement has been achieved. Project success means different things to different people. The criteria of project success are constantly enriched. Therefore, a systematic critique of the existing literature is needed to develop framework for measuring construction success both quantitatively and qualitatively. This paper is based on the earlier work by Chan (1996, 1997) and Chan et al. (2002) and it is aimed to develop a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring construction success. The denitions and development of project success will rst be discussed, followed by a critical review of the literature over the last decade. Based on earlier research, a set of KPIs is developed to measure project performance. To demonstrate the application of proposed KPIs, case studies are assessed. Limitations in using the proposed KPIs have been identied and discussed. Finally, the signicance of this paper is presented. Criteria of project success Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) consider a project as the achievement of a specied objective, which involves a series of activities and tasks that consume resources. From the Oxford Dictionary (1990), criterion is dened as a standard of judgement or principle by which something is measured for value. Lim and Mohamed (1999) advocate a criterion as a principle or standard by which anything is or can be judged. The Oxford Dictionary further denes success as a favourable outcome or the gaining of fame or prosperity. When combining these terms together, criteria of project success can be dened as the set of principles or standards by which favourable outcomes can be completed within a set specication. Project success means different things to different people. Each industry, project team or individual has its own denition of success. Pariff and Sanvido (1993) consider success as an intangible perceptive feeling, which varies with different management expectations, among persons, and with the phases of project. Owners, designers, consultants, contractors, as well as sub-contractors have their own project objectives and criteria for measuring success. For example, architects often consider aesthetics rather than building cost as the main criterion for success. However, client may value other dimensions more. Moreover, even the same persons perception on success can change from project to project. Denitions on project success are dependent on project type, size and sophistication, project participants and experience of owners, etc. Changing measures of project performance over the last 10 years Over the last 10 years, a number of researchers have shown intense interests in this topic. Chan (1996, 1997) undertook a comprehensive review of

measurement of project success in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. More Key performance literature has emerged since Chans review. This paper attempts to bridge the indicators gap by providing a critical review of project success in the last decade. In the early 1990s, project success was considered to be tied to performance measures, which in turn were tied to project objectives. At the project level, success was measured by the project duration, monetary cost and project 205 performance (Navarre and Schaan, 1990). Time, cost and quality are the basic criteria to project success, and they are identied and discussed in almost every article on project success, such as that of Belassi and Tukel (1996), Hatush and Skitmore (1997) and Walker (1995, 1996). Atkinson (1999) called these three criteria the iron triangle. He further suggested that while other denitions on project management have been developed, the iron triangle is always included in the alternative denitions. In addition to these basic criteria, Pinto and Pinto (1991) advocated that measures for project success should also include project psychosocial outcomes which refer to the satisfaction of interpersonal relations with project team members. Subjective measures such as participants satisfaction level are known as soft measurs. The inclusion of satisfaction as a success measure is suggested by Wuellner (1990). Pocock et al. (1996) further suggested to include the absence of legal claims as an indicator of project success. This then calls for including safety as a success indicator as well, since it is reasonable to expect that if accidents occur, both contractors and clients may be subject to legal claims, as well as nancial loss and contract delay in the construction project. Kometa et al. (1995) used a comprehensive approach to assess project success. Their criteria include: safety, economy (construction cost), running/maintenance cost, time and exiblity to users. Songer and Molenaar (1997) considered a project as successful if it is completed on budget, on schedule, conforms to users expectations, meets specications, attains quality workmanship and minimises construction aggravation. Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996) included a variety of criteria in their study of project evaluation. These include meeting budget, schedule, quality of workmanship, client and project managers satisfaction, transfer of technology, friendliness of environment, health and safety. Shenhar et al. (1997) proposed that project success is divided into four dimensions. As shown in Figure 1, these four dimensions are time-dependent. The rst dimension is the period during project execution and right after project completion. The second dimension can be assessed shortly afterwards, when the project has been delivered to the customer. The third dimension can be assessed after a signicant level of sales has been achieved (1-2 years). Finally the fourth dimension can only be assessed 3-5 years after project completion. Atkinson (1999) similarly divided project success into three stages: the rst stage is the delivery stage: the process: doing it right; the second is post

BIJ 11,2

206

Figure 1. The four dimensions of project success

delivery stage: the system: getting it right and the last stage is the post delivery stage: the benets: getting them right. Figure 2 is used to show Atkinsons model of measuring project success. Lim and Mohamed (1999) believed that project success should be viewed from different perspectives of the individual owner, developer, contractor, user, and the general public and so on. The authors proposed to evaluate project

Key performance indicators

207

Figure 2. Atkinsons model of measuring project success

success from both the macro and micro viewpoints. Figure 3 shows two viewpoints of project success. Sadeh et al. (2000) divided project success into four dimensions. The rst dimension is meeting design goals, which applies to contract that is signed by the customer. The second dimension is the benet to the end user, which refers to the benet to the customers from the end products. The third dimension is benet to the developing organization, which refers to the benet gained by the developing organization as a result of executing the project. The last dimension is the benet to the technological infrastructure of the country and of rms involved in the development process. The combination of all these dimensions gives the overall assessment of project success. Table I shows the success dimensions and measures. Over the last decade, researchers have proposed different criteria for measuring project success. Figure 4 presents a consolidated framework for measuring success of construction projects.

BIJ 11,2

208

Figure 3. Micro and macro viewpoints of project success

Success dimension Meeting design goals

Success measures Functional specications Technical specications Schedule goals Budget goals Meeting acquisition goals Answering the operational need Product entered service Reached the end user on time Product has a substantial time for use Meaningful improvement of user operational level User is satised with product Had relatively high prot Opened a new market Created a new product line Developed a new technological capability Increased positive reputation Contributed to critical subjects Maintained a ow of updated generations Decreased dependence on outside sources Contributed to other projects A combined measure for project success

Benet to the end user

Benet to the developing organization

Benet to the defence and national infrastructure Table I. Success dimension and measures (Sadeh et al., 2000)

Overall success

Key performance indicators

209

Figure 4. Consolidated framework for measuring project success

KPIs The purpose of the KPIs is to enable measurement of project and organisational performance throughout the construction industry (The KPI Working Group, 2000). Collin (2002) advocates that the process of developing KPIs involved the consideration of the following factors. . KPIs are general indicators of performance that focus on critical aspects of outputs or outcomes. . Only a limited, manageable number of KPIs is maintainable for regular use. Having too many (and too complex) KPIs can be time- and resource-consuming. . The systematic use of KPIs is essential as the value of KPIs is almost completely derived from their consistent use over a number of projects. . Data collection must be made as simple as possible. . A large sample size is required to reduce the impact of project specic variables. Therefore, KPIs should be designed to use on every building project. . For performance measurement to be effective, the measures or indicators must be accepted, understood and owned across the organisation.

BIJ 11,2

KPIs will need to evolve and it is likely that a set of KPIs will be subject to change and renement. Graphic displays of KPIs need to be simple in design, easy to update and accessible.

210

With these factors in mind, a set of KPIs including objective indicators and subjective ones is developed to measure the performance of a construction project. With reference made to Chans (1996, 1997) and Naoums (1994) earlier research, each KPI will be discussed in detail and practical approaches to measure these KPIs will be introduced. The calculation methods of the proposed KPIs are divided into two groups. The rst group uses mathematical formulae to calculate the respective values. Formulae will be presented after the detail explanations of each KPI, such as time, cost, value, safety and environmental performance. The other group uses subjective opinions and personal judgement of the stakeholders. This group includes the quality, functionality of building and the satisfaction level of various stakeholders. A seven-point scale [1] scoring system is adopted to measure these KPIs. As discussed in the following paragraphs, there are nine KPI categories in total, each may include one or more measuring methods. Figure 5 shows a graphical representation of the KPIs.

Figure 5. KPIs for project success

Time Key performance Time refers to the duration for completing the project. It is scheduled to indicators enable the building to be used by a date determined by the clients future plans (Hatush and Skitmore, 1997). Related to time is the concept of effectiveness. Alarcon and Ashley (1996) dened effectiveness as a measure of how well the project was implemented or the degree to which targets of time and cost were 211 met from the start-up phase to full production. They proposed to include time as a criterion for project success. According to Chan (1997) and Naoum (1994), there are three formulae under the time category, namely construction time, speed of construction and time variation. Construction time is the absolute time that is calculated as the number of days/weeks from start on site to practical completion of the project. Construction time Practical completion date 2 Project commencement date Speed of construction is the relative time, which is dened by gross oor area divided by the construction time. Speed of construction Gross floor area m2 Construction time days=weeks

Time variation is measured by the percentage of increase or decrease in the estimated project in days/weeks, discounting the effect of extension of time (EOT) granted by the client. Time variation Construction time 2 Revised contract period Revised contract period 100 per cent where Revised contract period Original contract period EOT Cost Cost is another important measure. Cost is dened as the degree to which the general conditions promote the completion of a project within the estimated budget (Bubashait and Almohawis, 1994). Cost is not only conned to the tender sum, it is the overall cost that a project incurs from inception to completion, which includes any costs arise from variations, modication during construction period and the cost arising from the legal claims, such as litigation and arbitration. Cost can be measured in terms of unit cost, percentage of net variation over nal cost.

BIJ 11,2

Unit cost is a measure of relative cost and is dened by the nal contract sum divided by the gross oor area. Unit cost Final contract sum Gross floor area m2

212

Percentage net variation over nal cost (per cent NETVAR) is the ratio of net variations to nal contract sum expressed in percentage term. It gives an indication of cost overrun or underrun. Yeongs (1994) approach in measuring this term is used: Net value of variations 100 per cent Final contract sum where Net value of variations Final contract sum 2 Base Per cent NETVAR Base Original contract sum Final rise and fall 2 Contingency allowance Value and prot Alarcon and Ashley (1996) dened the measure of value as evaluating the satisfaction of owners needs in a global sense. It includes the realization for the owner of quantity produced, operational and maintenance costs, and exibility. It can be considered as business benet derived from the completed project. Most projects are prot-oriented. The clients and developers try to maximise prot. Therefore, value and prot is an important success criterion, especially in the handover stage where value and prot materialise. The most common measure of nancial achievement is net present value (NPV). NPV
n X NCFt 1 rt t 0

where NPV is net present value, NCF is net cash ow, and r is the discount rate. Health and safety Health and safety are dened as the degrees to which the general conditions promote the completion of a project without major accidents or injuries (Bubshait and Almohawis, 1994). The issue of safety has been raised for a long time (Kometa et al., 1995; Partt and Sanvido, 1993; Sanvido et al., 1992) and cannot be overlooked. The measurement of safety is mainly focused on the construction period as most accidents occur during this stage. The methodology adopted by the Hong Kong Labour Department for calculating the annual accident rate on construction sites forms the base for calculating the

accident rate in a specic project (Construction Industry Review Key performance Committee, 2001). indicators Accident rate Total no: of reportable construction site accidents= Total no: of workers employed or man-hours worked on a specific project 1; 000 Environmental performance Construction industry has been regarded as a major contributor to environmental impacts. Construction projects affect the environment in numerous ways across their life cycle (Shen et al., 2000). For example, 14 million tonnages of waste have been put into landll in Australia each year, of which 44 per cent came from the construction/demolition industry (Songer and Molenaar, 1997). About 62-86 per cent domestic productions of non-metallic minerals, such as glass, cement, clay, lime and so on in developing regions are consumed by the construction industry (UNIDO, 1985). The Technical Committee (TC) formed in January 1993 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed a series of standards known as ISO14000 series to provide guidance on environmental management. ISO14000 provides a benchmark of a proper environmental management practice. Environmental issues are a global concern. The UN and some economics blocs such as the European Community and ASEAN have introduced environmental protection model laws or directives to member countries (Wong and Chan, 2000). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance is now a widely accepted statutory framework for prediction and assessment of potentially adverse environmental impacts from development projects (Environmental Protection Department, 2000). The enforcement of EIA Ordinance provides a good measure for environmental aspects. However, the EIA only covers those projects that are to be built with Buffer Zone 1 or 2 of Deep Bay, or in other ecologically sensitive areas, such as sites of special scientic interest, or in country parks, as well as those residential developments proposing more than 2,000 ats that are located in unsewered areas (Wong and Chan, 2000). Compared to the EIA, the Pollution Control Ordinances, including noise pollution, water pollution, air pollution, asbestos control and waste disposal, have signicant impact on construction and property development (Wong and Chan, 2000). To conclude, the application of ISO14000, the EIA score and the total number of complaints received during the construction can be used as an indicator to reect the environmental performance of a given project. Quality Quality is another criterion that is repeatedly cited by previous researchers. However, the assessment of quality is rather subjective. In the construction

213

BIJ 11,2

214

industry, quality is dened as the totality of features required by a product or services to satisfy a given need; tness for purpose (Partt and Sanvido, 1993). Nowadays, quality is the guarantee of the products that convinces the customers or the end-users to purchase or use. The meeting of specication is proposed by Songer et al. (1996) and Wateridge (1995) as one way to measure quality. They dened specication as workmanship guidelines provided to contractors by clients or clients representatives at the commencement of project execution. The measure of technical specication is to the extent that the technical requirements specied can be achieved. Actually, technical specication is provided to ensure that buildings are built in good standard and in proper procedure. Freeman and Beale (1992) extended the denition of technical performance to scope and quality. Hence meeting technical specication is grouped under the quality category. The measurement of quality will be measured subjectively using the seven-point scale mentioned earlier. Functionality Kometa et al. (1995) opine that there would be no point in undertaking a project if it does not full its intended function at the end of the day. The importance of functionality is highlighted. This indicator correlates with expectations of project participant and can best be measured by the degree of conformance to all technical performance specications (Chan et al., 2002). Quality, technical performance, and functionality are closely related and are considered important to the owner, designer, and contractor. A similar seven-point scale will be used to measure functionality. User expectation and satisfaction Users are those who actually work or live in the nal products. They are the ones who spend most of time in the constructed facilities. It is essential that the completed projects meet the users expectation and satisfaction. Liu and Walker (1998) consider satisfaction as an attribute of success. Torbica and Stroh (2001) believe that if end-users are satised, the project can be considered being successfully completed in the long run. This measure is placed in the second stage (maintenance period), as the users will normally be involved after the project is completed. Again, a seven-point scale will be used to measure this criterion. Participants satisfaction Participants satisfaction has been proposed as an important measure in the last decade (Cheung et al., 2000; Partt and Sanvido, 1993; Sanvido et al., 1992). Key participants in a typical construction project include: client, design team leader and construction team leader. Their level of satisfaction can be taken as an indicator of project success and is measured by the seven-point scale discussed above.

Case studies application of KPIs Key performance A set of KPIs is developed in the previous section. In order to demonstrate the indicators application of KPIs in the construction industry, the authors have examined three case studies. Details to be analysed in each case study are its performance on time, cost, quality, accident rates, environmental friendliness, overall satisfaction level and functionality. Table II shows the summary of the 215 background information and the results of different KPIs of these cases. The details and the explanations of each case will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Case 1 design and build procurement, large and complex hospital project It is a 618-bed acute general hospital which was built in part of a 67,500 m2 site. This construction project comprised 65,000 m2 gross oor area of which a building complex of eight blocks, each block consisting of two to seven levels is included. There are altogether 340 car parking lots, with associated access roads, site work and landscaping. The total estimated cost of the project was approximately HK$1.3 billion at March 1993 prices. This included design, construction, supervision, commissioning, project management, furniture and
Case 1 Background Nature of project Type of project Procurement method GFA Original contract sum Final contract sum Original contract period Project commencement date Practical completion date Total agreed E.O.T. No. of accidents arose during the construction period KPIs result Construction time Speed of construction Time variation Unit cost Value and prot Health and safety Environmental performance Quality Functionality Stakeholders satisfaction Overall project performance New work Acute hospital Enhanced design and build 65,000 m2 HK$960 million HK$990 million 910 days 9 September 1994 31 May 1997 87 days 77 997 days 65 m2/day 0 per cent 0.02 million/m2 N/A 77 accidents ISO 14000 Certied Satised Satised Satised Successful Case 2 New work Acute hospital Enhanced design and build 65,000 m2 HK$1,160 million HK$1,180 million 1,100 days 12 April 1996 16 April 1999 0 day 20 1,100 days 59 m2/day 0 per cent 0.02 million/m2 N/A 20 accidents No information Satised Very satised Satised Successful Case 3 Extension Non-acute hospital Traditional 30,000 m2 HK$407 million HK$401 million 660 days March 1995 July 1997 180 days Nil 840 days 36 m2/day 0 per cent 0.01 million/m2 N/A No information No information Satised Satised Satised Very successful

Table II. Summary of the case studies

BIJ 11,2

216

equipment. The project was procured in the form of design-and-build delivery method. The level of success of this project can be measured according to the proposed criteria. The construction time of this project is counted according to the total number of days during the period from 9 September 1994 to 31 May 1997, so there are totally 997 days. The speed of construction is calculated as the construction time spent on each unit of GFA built, therefore the speed is about 65 m2 per day. The revised contract period of this project is 997 days, which is the same as the construction time, so the time variation is 0 per cent. The unit cost is calculated on the cost spent on each unit of GFA built, so it is about 0.02 million per m2. As there is no information on the contingency allowance, the percentage net variation over nal cost cannot be made. There were a total of 77 reported accident cases in this project and all were minor site accidents mainly due to the recklessness of the workers. However, the accident rate for this project cannot be calculated because of the lack of information on the total number of workers employed or man-hours spent for this project. Since it is a public project and is not aimed at creating prot, the category of value and prot is not applicable in this case. The satisfaction of the environmental friendliness of this project is ascertained because the contractor has been certied by ISO14000 in this project. For the subjective measurement, a questionnaire was designed and sent to project participants to seek their personal judgement according to the seven-point scale. The average score of the performance on the quality, satisfaction and functionality is 6, which reveals that the stakeholders are satised with the project performance. In conclusion, it is a successful project. Case 2 design and build procurement, large and complex hospital project This hospital was built on a 3.7 ha site which comprises three ten-storey high triangular ward blocks which are set behind a six-storey clinic block and a ve-storey rectangular diagnostic and treatment block. It provides a total of 458 beds, with facilities such as surgery, orthopedics, obstetrics, gynaecology, paediatrics, intensive/coronary care and special baby care. It also provides ambulatory care services, 24-h accident and emergency (A and E) service and out-patient and community services. The project was procured in enhanced design and build form. Applying the same measurement principle as in the rst case, the construction time of this project is counted according to the total number of days during the period from 13 April 1996 to 16 April 1999, so there are totally 1,100 days. The speed of construction is about 59 m2 per day. The project was completed within the original contract period, so there is no time variation. The unit cost for this project is 0.02 million per m2. Again it is a non-prot making project, the category of value and prot is not applicable in this case. There were a total of 20 accident cases in this project. For the subjective

measurement, the scores of the performance on the quality, functionality and Key performance satisfaction are 6, 7, and 6, respectively, which reveal that the stakeholders are indicators satised with the project performance. In conclusion, the overall project performance is considered to be successful. Case 3 traditional procurement, extension hospital project The extension project involved the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a low-rise non-acute hospital accommodating 316 in-patients, a low-rise Annex building containing a school of nursing, trainee nurses accommodation, minor staff accommodation and a staff kitchen/canteen. The construction time of this project is 840 days which counted from March 1995 to July 1997. The speed of construction is about 35.7 m2 per day. As 180 days were granted for E.O.T., the revised contract period of this project is 840 days, which is the same as the construction time, so the time variation is 0 per cent. The unit cost for this project is 0.01 million per m2. As the nal contract sum is less than the original contract sum, therefore there is a 1.5 per cent of cost underrun. The category of value and prot is not applicable in this case again. The accident rate and the environmental friendliness level of this project cannot be obtained as there is no information available. For the subjective measurement, the scores of the performance on the quality, functionality and satisfaction are all 6 which reveal that the stakeholders are satised with the project performance. In conclusion, the overall project performance is considered to be very successful with cost underrun. Discussion on the KPIs result With the help of the case studies, we can nd that each project has unique results. The results of each project as shown in Table II vary due to the difference in project scope, project complexity, procurement methods, etc. When comparing the time performance of these cases, the speed of construction of case 3 is far behind than that of case 1 and 2. The fast-track result can be attributed to the factor of procurement method adopted. Cases 1 and 2 used the enhanced design and build method and case 3 used traditional procurement method. Lam (2000) states that the traditional approach has been found to be failing to satisfy clients needs as hospital projects are becoming larger and more sophisticated, and coupled with greater difculty in the management of complex design and construction. Therefore, the design and build gives a fresh approach for project delivery, it provides the necessary true multi-disciplinary approach and integration because it forms a designer-contractor team at an early stage in the process. By overlapping the design and construction, the total project duration is reduced. As for cost performance, the unit cost of case 3 is smaller than that of cases 1 and 2 by 50 per cent. The nature and type of projects are the main sources of difference. Cases 1 and 2 are both acute hospitals, which comprise a large diversity of medical departments and naturally require more advanced and

217

BIJ 11,2

218

costly equipment. For case 3, it is a low-rise non-acute hospital which has less GFA and provides less number of in-patient beds, therefore, the construction cost of case 3 is substantially lower. Other qualitative KPIs provide an indication on how well the key participants perceived on the performance of the project. It can be seen that in general the participants were satised with the project performance in terms of quality, functionality, and stakeholders satisfaction. The last KPI included in this study, i.e. the overall project performance, enables the participants to provide a summative assessment on the performance of the project in which they were involved. Limitations on the application of KPIs The proposed KPIs are largely developed from a theoretical ground. When applying the proposed KPIs to the case studies, some practical difculties were encountered. First, certain project information, especially those related to monetary values, are sensitive and condential and so the stakeholders may not be willing to disclose for analysis. The second limitation relates to the measurement of health and safety. The proposed formula of calculating accident rate relies on an accurate record of the total number of accidents occurred and the total number of workers engaged in construction projects in a year. However, the total number of workers is difcult to obtain as there is a complicated sub-contracting system and a rapid ow of labour in the construction industry. This gure can be obtained relatively easier in the public sector since the contractors are required to submit a Monthly Return of Site Labour Deployment and Wages Rates in the Construction Industry (Form GF527) to the Census and Statistics Department. However, there is no such requirement in the private sector. Thirdly, the calculation of the projects value and prot also poses some problems. The data are difcult to obtain because of its condential nature. Besides, the concept of value and protability is not appropriate if the project is publicly funded. Usually, the main aim of the public project is to serve the citizens and not prot-making. Therefore, this category may only be useful in private projects. The last limitation is on the measurement of environmental friendliness. The measurement method of EIA is only applicable in limited designated projects, such information may not be available across all projects. As an alternative, the implementation of ISO 14000 system and the number of the complaints received from the environmental departments for pollution are better indicators in this category. Signicance of the study Success is always a debatable topic. In the construction industry, time, cost and quality have long been dened as the basic criteria of measuring success. However, different ideas have emerged in the last decade. Therefore, a comprehensive review of KPIs is essential.

First, if one wants to have outstanding performance, one must know what is Key performance the denition of success in order to make correct measures to achieve this goal. indicators Without a general agreement on how to measure success, project managers will manage their resources by nothing more than their perceiving intuition. They cannot ensure whether their actions are correct or not. The proposed framework provides an unambiguous methodology for measuring project 219 performance. It can also enhance clients, contractors, and designers understanding of running a successful project and set a base for them to improve the project performance. It is benecial to project managers by providing helpful information that is necessary for the achievement of a successful construction project. Assessment of likely project outcomes can be ascertained during construction. The current study also helps set a benchmark for measuring the performance of a project. It develops a general and comprehensive base for future research, especially in the determination of success factors. This paper provides an overview of success measures that can be applicable either in a general construction project, or in a specied type of project, such as health-care or hotel projects. Conclusion Project success has been a recurring topic in the construction management eld for many decades. The review of journals on project success reveals that cost, time and quality are the three basic and most important performance indicators in construction projects. Other measures, such as safety, functionality and satisfaction, etc., are attracting increasing attention. A set of KPIs, measured both quantitatively and qualitatively, are developed as a result of this comprehensive review. To verify the practicality and usefulness of these KPIs, case studies on three hospital projects were examined. It was shown that the identied KPIs are in general good indicators of the performance of construction projects. They provide a useful framework for measuring and comparing project performance for future studies. They also furnish project managers, clients and other project stakeholders useful information to implement a project successfully.
Note 1. 1 very dissatised; 2 dissatised; 3 slightly dissatised; 4 neither dissatised nor satised; 5 slightly satised; 6 satised; 7 very satised. References Alarcon, L.F. and Ashley, D.B. (1996), Modeling project performance for decision making, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 1222 No. 3, pp. 265-73. Atkinson, R. (1999), Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-42.

BIJ 11,2

220

Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-51. Bubshait, A.A. and Almohawis, S.A. (1994), Evaluating the general conditions of a construction contract, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 133-5. Chan, A.P.C. (1996), Determinants of project success in the construction industry of Hong Kong, unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide. Chan, A.P.C. (1997), Measuring success for a construction project, The Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors Referred Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 55-9. Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Lam, E.W.M. (2002), Framework of success criteria for design/build projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 120-8. Cheung, S.O., Tam, C.M., Ndekugri, I. and Harris, F.C. (2000), Factors affecting clients project dispute resolution satisfaction in Hong Kong, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 281-94. Collin, J. (2002), Measuring the success of building projects improved project delivery initiatives, July 2002. Construction Industry Review Committee (2001), Construct for excellence, Report of the Construction Industry Review Committee, January 2001. Cowie, A.P. (Ed.) (1990), Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Environmental Protection Department (2000), Review of the operation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance and the continuous improvement measures, Environmental Protection Department, Environmental Assessment and Noise Division, March 2000. Freeman, M. and Beale, P. (1992), Measuring project success, Project Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 8-17. Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. (1997), Evaluating contractor prequalication data: selection criteria and project success factors, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 129-47. Kometa, S., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Harris, F.C. (1995), An evaluation of clients needs and responsibilities in the construction process, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 45-56. The KPI Working Group (2000), KPI Report for the Minister for Construction, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, January 2000. Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Thorpe, A. (1996), Systematizing construction project evaluations, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 34-9. Lam, K.C. (2000), Management of building services procurement for highly serviced health-care facilities, Building Journal Hong Kong China, pp. 70-80. Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8. Liu, A.M.M. and Walker, A. (1998), Evaluation of project outcomes, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 209-19. Munns, A.K. and Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996), The role of project management in achieving project success, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 81-7. Naoum, S.G. (1994), Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional contracts, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 687-705. Navarre, C. and Schaan, J.L. (1990), Design of project management systems from top managements perspective, Project Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 19-27.

Partt, 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. Pinto, M.B. and Pinto, J.K. (1991), Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in the project implementation process, Project Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 13-20. Pocock, J.B., Hyun, C.T., Liu, L.Y. and Kim, M.K. (1996), Relationship between project interaction and performance indicator, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 2, pp. 165-76. Sadeh, A., Dvir, D. and Shenhar, A. (2000), The role of contract type in the success of R&D defence projects under increasing uncertainty, Project Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 14-21. Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Pariff, K., Guvents, M. and Coyle, M. (1992), Critical success factors for construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 94-111. Shen, L.Y., Bao, Q. and Yip, S.L. (2000), Implementing innovative functions in construction project management towards the mission of sustainable environment, Proceedings of the Millennium Conference on Construction Project Management Recent Developments and the Way Forward 2000, pp. 77-84. 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. Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1997), Project characteristics for successful public-sector design-build, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 34-40. Songer, A.D., Molenaar, K.R. and Robinson, G.D. (1996), Selection factors and success criteria for design-build in the US and UK, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 69-82. Torbica, Z.M. and Stroh, R.C. (2001), Customer satisfaction in home building, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 82-6. UNIDO (1985), The building materials industry: The sector in gures, Sectoral Studies Series, Vol. 16 No. 2, Sectoral Studies Branch, Division for Sectoral Studies, UNIDO, UNIDO/IS.512/ADD.1. Walker, D.H.T. (1995), An investigation into construction time performance, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 263-74. Walker, D.H.T. (1996), The contribution of the construction management team to good construction time performance an Australian experience, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 4-18. Wateridge, J. (1995), IT projects: a basis for success, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 169-72. Wong, W.S. and Chan, E.H.W. (2000), Building Hong Kong: Environmental Considerations, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Wuellner, W.W. (1990), Project performance evaluation checklist for consulting engineers, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 270-81. Yeong, C.M. (1994), Time and cost performance of building contracts in Australia and Malaysia, MSc thesis, University of South Australia, Australia, Adelaide.

Key performance indicators

221