Journal of Facilities Management

A critical review of performance measurement in construction

Huan Yang John F.Y. Yeung Albert P.C. Chan Y.H. Chiang Daniel W.M. Chan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Huan Yang John F.Y. Yeung Albert P.C. Chan Y.H. Chiang Daniel W.M. Chan, (2010),"A critical review of
performance measurement in construction", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 269 - 284
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725961011078981
Downloaded on: 22 February 2017, At: 02:40 (PT)
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5172 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(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
(2005),"Business performance measurement practices in construction engineering organisations",
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 13-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040510588800

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173423 []
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
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 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 current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

A review of
A critical review of performance performance
measurement in construction measurement
Huan Yang
Department of Building and Real Estate, 269
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China and
Institute of Finance and Economics Research, Received December 2009
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China, and Accepted June 2010

John F.Y. Yeung, Albert P.C. Chan, Y.H. Chiang and

Daniel W.M. Chan
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Department of Building and Real Estate,

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the literature of performance
measurement both in general and in the construction industry in particular. By doing so, it seeks to
provide valuable insights into how to construct a comprehensive performance measurement model for
the construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a comprehensive literature review on performance
measurement, the paper presents a critical review of the development of performance measurement,
with a special focus on the construction sector. The strengths and weaknesses of most previous
measurement frameworks and techniques are investigated. Performance information that each can
generate is analyzed in the context of the construction industry.
Findings – The research findings showed that performance measurement studies in construction can
be divided into three levels: project, organizational, and stakeholder levels. In addition, the major
frameworks of performance measurement in construction were found to be: European Foundation for
Quality Management excellence model, balanced scorecard model, and key performance indicators
model. The most frequently applied research techniques of performance measurement in construction
included: gap analysis, integrated performance index, statistical methods, and data envelopment
analysis method. The performance information generated from the measurement encompasses
frameworks and hierarchical indicators, and functions and score.
Research limitations/implications – The research focuses on the performance measurement of
construction. Further research work should be conducted to cover other industries.
Practical implications – The paper provides an innovative and useful approach to defining the
process of performance measurement in construction, which can be of great use to both the research
community and industrial practitioners.
Originality/value – The paper summarizes the recent performance measurement research studies in
construction, integrates the whole process of the performance measurement, and offers useful insights
into future areas of research in this field.
Keywords Performance measurement (quality), Research, Construction industry, Standards
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Facilities Management
Vol. 8 No. 4, 2010
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Building and Real Estate of The Hong Kong pp. 269-284
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Polytechnic University for providing funding to support this research study via the Departmental 1472-5967
Postdoctoral Fellowship Scheme (Project Account Code: BRE-1-ZV97). DOI 10.1108/14725961011078981
 JFM Introduction
Over the past few decades, the complex global business environment and increasing
8,4 business competitiveness have highlighted the importance of performance
measurement. Niven (2002) stated that the performance measurement methods were
widely adopted in many industries and they had received more and more attention.
Neely (1999) stated that during the period from 1994 to 1996, a total of 3,615 articles
270 regarding performance measurement were published, and in 1996 a new book in this
subject area was published in every two weeks within the USA.
The construction industry has long been criticized for its underperformance (Lee et al.,
2000; Kagioglou et al., 2001; Smith, 2001). Many researchers place strong emphasis on
the importance of adopting the performance measurement methods to improve the
current sate of the construction industry (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998). According to a
critical review of performance measurement in construction, Lin and Shen (2007)
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

concluded that the relevant papers published in this field have greatly increased in
recent years. They attributed this increase to:
. the rapid development of application of performance measurement methods in
other sectors;
.
the increasing complexity of construction projects; and
.
the development of both management and technology in construction.
Accordingly, performance measurement in construction has gained more and more
attention.
However, there are few, if any, documentations critically reviewing the papers on
performance measurement in construction. In order to fill this gap, the purpose of this
paper is to critically review the literature of performance measurement both in general
and in construction in particular in terms of its major contents, frameworks, and
research techniques. By doing so, it provides valuable insights into how to generate a
comprehensive performance measurement model for the construction industry.

Definitions of performance measurement

Performance measurement is the process whereby an organization establishes the
parameters within which programs, investments, and acquisitions are reaching the desired
results (Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) Enterprise Architecture Program
2007). Neely et al. (2002) defined performance measurement as the process of quantifying
the efficiency and effectiveness of past actions, and a performance measure was defined
as a parameter used to quantify the efficiency and/or effectiveness of past actions.
Bititci et al. (1997) explained the distinction between performance management and
measurement and defined the performance measurement as the process of determining
how successful organizations or individuals have been in attaining their objectives, while
the performance management as a closed loop control system which deploys policy and
strategy, and obtains feedback from various levels in order to manage the performance
of the system. The process of performance measurement is usually determined by the
metric of a number of indicators, which include both financial and non-financial indicators.
Performance measurement in construction focuses on project performance in
terms of time, cost, and quality (Ward et al., 1991; Kagioglou et al., 2001). With the
development of performance measurement in the construction industry over the past
decade, the performance measurement target has extended to the construction company
 level and the project stakeholder level. The focus of performance measurement has also A review of
changed, as shown in Table I. In recent years, the most important performance indicators performance
include client satisfaction, business performance, health, safety, environment, and so on
(Yu et al., 2007). measurement

Levels of performance measurement in construction

Based on the review of performance measurement studies in construction from 1998 to
271
2009, it can be concluded that research in this area has focused on three levels, including:
(1) project level;
(2) organizational level; and
(3) stakeholder level.
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Project level
The performance measurement in construction was first conducted at project level.
Lin and Shen (2007) reviewed the performance measurement studies in construction
from 1998 to 2004. They found that the total number of papers conducted at project
level take the largest proportion (68 percent) of the total. As a construction project is
usually complicated and unique, and involves many stakeholders, performance
measurement would receive different assessments when judging on different processes,
aspects, environment and standpoints of different participants (Liu and Walker, 1998).
Some research papers are based on the overall performance measurement, but others
would focus on partial and special aspects. Lin and Shen (2007) classified the different
aspects of the papers into:
.
environmental performance;
.
human resource performance;
.
technology innovation;
. procurement performance;
.
safety performance;
.
design performance;
.
post-occupancy evaluation;
.
maintenance;

Traditional performance measurement systems Innovative performance measurement systems

Based on cost/efficiency Value based

Trade-off between performances Performance compatibility
Profit oriented Customer oriented
Short-term orientation Long-term orientation
Prevalence of individual measures Prevalence of team measures
Prevalence of functional measures Prevalence of transversal measures Table I.
Comparison with standard Improvement monitoring Main changes and trends
Aim at evaluating Aim at evaluating and involving in development of
performance
Source: Anderson and McAdam (2004) measurement systems
 JFM .
thermal and air conditioning;
8,4 . participant’s satisfaction;
.
cost performance;
.
quality performance; and
.
time performance.
272
In addition, some academic researchers are interested in the performance measures of
different types of projects. For example, Lam et al. (2007) studied the design-and-build
construction projects; Pillai et al. (2002) focused on the research and development
(R&D) projects; Fang et al. (2004) measured the performance of safety management in
Mainland China; and Yeung et al. (2007) measured the partnering performance of
construction projects in Hong Kong.
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Organizational level
The importance of identifying an organization’s performance is evident throughout
the global markets. Owing to the simultaneous implementation of various projects and
the control of many input resources within the construction industry, it becomes more
acute to carry out performance measurement at company level (Lin and Shen, 2007).
Bassioni et al. (2005) reported that in the construction industry, the research focus has
shifted from project level to organizational level. Based on the literature review in this
research area, it was found that research studies have focused on establishing the
performance measurement frameworks for construction companies. Bassioni et al.
(2004) further addressed the evolution of performance measurement of construction
companies from financial aspects to the mixture of both financial and non-financial
aspects. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2005) developed a benchmarking
program called CII Benchmarking and Metrics, which is composed of cost, schedule,
safety, change, and rework. Lin and Shen (2007) reported that a key performance
indicator (KPI) framework was developed in the Construction Best Practice Program
(CBPP) in the late 1990s. This is now used extensively by many European construction
organizations. Some popular frameworks, such as balanced scorecard (BSC) model, and
the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model, have
been adopted and adapted for use within the construction industry (Lin and Shen, 2007).

Stakeholder level
The relationship among different contracting parties in the construction industry is
complicated as it involves many project stakeholders, such as owners, contractors,
and consultants. In a study of relationships between the stakeholders’ performance and
project success, Wang and Huang (2006) proved that the owner, supervisor, and
contractor’s performances are significantly related to the criteria of project success.
Therefore, measuring the performance of various project stakeholders is all the more
important. However, research studies in this field are not as many as those at project and
organizational levels. In addition, most of these research studies have solely focused on
the manager’s aspects. Cooke-Davies (2001) took a view that the performance of the
managers is the most significant factor to project success as it is the people they manage
who deliver the projects. Effective project management can be seen to be dependent
upon the project manager’s competency and authority (Jaselskis and Ashley, 1991).
 Ahadzie et al. (2008a, b) analyzed the performance of project managers in the construction A review of
phase of mass house building projects. They concluded that the performance of the performance
managers can be predicted by their job knowledge, dedication, time management, ability
to solve conflicts, and approachability and voluntary acumen. Dainty et al. (2003) measurement
attempted to identify performance criteria for construction project managers, including:
.
team building;
.
leadership; 273
.
decision making;
.
mutuality and approachability;
.
honesty and integrity;
.
communication;
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

. learning, understanding, and application;

.
self-efficacy; and
. external relations.

Frameworks of performance measurement in construction

A performance measurement framework is a complete set of performance measures
and indicators derived in a consistent manner according to a forward set of rules or
guidelines (Brown and Devlin, 1997). With the development of performance measurement,
the frameworks have become more and more comprehensive and practicable. The
primary performance measurement frameworks applied in the construction industry are as
follows.
European foundation for quality management excellence model
The EFQM business excellence model was developed in 1989 by 14 multi-nationals
grouped in the EFQM to improve the quality of management in western Europe. It is
used to measure and improve the overall quality of an organization. The structure of the
EFQM excellence model is shown in Figure 1.
One of the essential characteristics of the EFQM excellence model is that the model
distinguishes result areas (results that an organization has achieved) and enabler’s
areas (management of the organization) (Westerveld, 2003). Although the EFQM model
was developed generically, it has been adopted by many construction companies in
recent years. Bassioni et al. (2005) developed the construction EFQM excellence model,
and defined the enabling criteria as:
.
leadership;
.
customers and stakeholder focus;
.
strategic management;
. information and analysis;
.
people, partnerships, suppliers, physical resources, intellectual capital, and risk
work culture; and
.
process management.

The results criteria included: internal stakeholder, project, external stakeholder, and
organizational business results. The EFQM excellence model is usually applied at the
 JFM
8,4 Enablers Results

People People results

274
Key
Policy and Customer
Leadership Process performance
strategy results
results
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Partnerships and
Society results
relationships

Figure 1. Innovation and learning

The EFQM excellence
model
Source: Moeller et al. (2000)

organizational level. However, Westerveld (2003) developed a project excellence model,

which extends the application of the EFQM excellence model in the construction industry.

Balanced scorecard model

Kaplan and Norton (1992) introduced the BSC, which is “a management system that
enables organizations to clarify their vision and strategy and translates them into
action”. The BSC framework allows most organizations to look at their performance
from four perspectives:
(1) financial: “How do we look to our shareholders”;
(2) customers: “How do our customers see us”;
(3) innovation and improvement: “How can we continue to improve our processes”;
and
(4) internal process: “What must we excel at” (Punniyamoorthy and Murali, 2008).

The structure of the BSC is as shown in Figure 2.

The BSC framework, which includes a range of “leading and lagging” indicators,
is considered to be clearer and more comprehensive than the EFQM excellence models
(Robinson et al., 2005). It is also the most frequently used model for the performance
measurement of the construction companies. Kagioglou et al. (2001) studied the strong
points and disadvantages of the BSC, and formed a performance management system
that construction organizations could adopt. Luu et al. (2008) integrated the BSC and
strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats matrix to evaluate the strategic
performance of large construction contractors in Vietnam.
 A review of
Customer and external Dimensions performance
stakeholder
measurement
Value to the beneficiaries
of the organization

275

Internal business progress Innovation and development

Information
Value to the way the asset Value to the employees and the
organization operates organization
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Financial

Value to the bottom line of

the organization
Figure 2.
The balanced scorecard
model
Source: Punniyamoorthy and Murali (2008)

Key performance indicators model

The KPIs model, which is developed generically, has been widely applied in the
construction industry. A KPI framework was developed through the CBPP in the late
1990 (Lin and Shen, 2007). The purpose of the KPI framework is to enable measurement
of both project and organizational performance throughout the construction industry
(The KPI Working Group, 2000). The indicators developed by the CBPP are divided into
two levels, project level and company level. The KPI in project level include construction
cost, construction time, predictability cost, predictability time, defects, client
satisfaction-product, and client satisfaction-service. The company level indicators
involve safety, profitability, and Productivity (CBPP-KPIS, 2002).
The calculation methods of the proposed KPIs are usually divided into two groups.
The first group uses mathematical formulae to calculate the respective values, which is
called the objective measures. The other group uses subjective opinions and personal
judgment of the project stakeholders. Chan and Chan (2004) summarized both objective
and subjective measures for the project performance measurement.
In addition, the performance measurement of the project stakeholders is often based
on the KPI model. Dainty et al. (2003) generated a KPI model composed of nine indicators,
to measure the performance of construction project managers. In a study of predicting
the performance of project managers in the construction phase of mass house building
projects, Ahadzie et al. (2008a, b) set up a KPI model to measure the performance of
project managers and divided the indicators to be task and contextual performance
indicators. The task performance indicators include cognitive ability, job knowledge,
 JFM task proficiency, and experience while the contextual performance indicators comprise
8,4 job dedication and interpersonal facilitation.
While there are other frameworks for performance measurement implemented
within the construction industry, the EFQM excellence model, the BSC model, and the
KPIs model are the most frequently used models for performance measurement in
construction. In a study of utilization of performance measurement frameworks by the
276 leading UK construction firms (Robinson et al., 2002), it was found that the EFQM
excellence model, the BSC model and the KPIs model take important roles in the
performance measurement of the UK construction firms (Figure 3).
Neely et al. (2001) explained that performance is multi-faceted and that each
framework holds its advantages and limitations. As shown in Table II, no single
framework fits all. Thus, it is important to choose a proper performance measurement
model under a specific circumstance. There also exists a demand in both practice and
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

research to develop more comprehensive performance measurement frameworks for

reference by the construction industry at large.

Research techniques for performance measurement in construction

There are many research techniques that have been applied by academic researchers in
the performance measurement studies. With these techniques, both the efficiency and
effectiveness of performance can be measured quantitatively. The most frequently used
techniques are mentioned below.

Gap analysis
Some of the popular gap analysis-based techniques for performance measurement in
construction are the “spider” or “radar” diagrams, and the “Z” chart. These tools are
graphical in nature and could be easily understood because they are capable of showing
multiple dimensions simultaneously. However, it causes inconvenience because all elements
are integrated into a single picture (Wong and Wong, 2008). Jones and Kaluarachchi (2008)
introduced an improved radar diagram to the performance measurement of construction
projects, which is called “Bulls Eye”. Each sector of the diagram represents a single KPI and

26.4% KPI related models

3.8%
0%
3.8%
Balanced scorecard
Figure 3. Excellence models 7.5%
13.2%
Utilization of performance 22.5%
measurement frameworks
by the leading UK
construction firms
Source: Robinson et al. (2002)
 Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)
Model Main advantages
EFQM excellence Provides a perspective to integrate result areas (lagging
model indicators) and organization areas (leading indicators)
in one model. (Lin and Shen, 2007)
BSC model Provides a balance between economic and operating
performance, financial and customer outcomes, short-
and long-term objectives of an organization
(Luu et al., 2008)
Provides leading and lagging indicators to evaluate
congruence between the performance of an organization
and its strategic goals. Focusing the organization’s efforts
on a relatively small number of measures with relatively
low costs (Kagioglou et al., 2001)
KPIs model Provide a tool to benchmark activities both at a strategic
level and at an operational level, such as rectifying defects
and meeting the expectations of clients (The KPI Working
Group, 2000)
construction
performance
measurement in
Main frameworks of
Table II.
Main criticisms Application
Resistance to change, inexperience with the model, Organizational level and
documentation difficulties, and insufficient time and funds project level
allocation. Less difficult than the BSC
model in terms of determining and monitoring
indicators (Watson and Seng, 2001)
Vague and underrated in the areas of improvement,
innovation, and supplier partnership strategies
(Bassioni et al., 2004)
First, it does not make any attempt to identify the Organizational level
relationship between the measures developed for certain
goals. It seems to assume that all measures will be specific
to a particular goal. Second, it ignores the divergence of
different stakeholders in a project (Kagioglou et al., 2001)
Four perspectives of the BSC are insufficient, such as
competition and employee, as well as application-specific
perspectives, such as project and supplier for construction
(Schneiderman, 1999)
It is somewhat difficult and time consuming to
implement a comprehensive BSC approach in a large
organization (Luu et al., 2008)
Ignoring the market perspective and the absence of any
mention of suppliers and disregarding the human element
(DeWaal_pages, 2007)
Some practical difficulties are encountered, such as some Project, organizational,
project information and some measurement defined by the and stakeholder level
KPIs cannot be calculated practically (Chan and
Chan, 2004)
Offer little indication from a business point of view;
lack a holistic viewpoint on the relationship between
the different indicators; none of the indicators deals
with the “innovation and learning perspective”
(Kagioglou et al., 2001)
KPIs have been rated lower by construction firms than
the BSC model and the EFQM excellence model
(Robinson et al., 2002)
performance
measurement
277
A review of
 JFM each segment has a 10 percent performance band. The performance of a construction project
8,4 is analyzed by shading the segment that contains the KPI score.

Integrated performance index

Based on different aims and frameworks, there are different integrated performance
indices. These indices could measure the performance of a construction project in respect
278 of different aspects. The calculations of some of the performance indices are based on the
developed formulae. Pillai et al. (2002) established an integrated performance index,
which included different aspects, such as the merit, risk, project status, cost
effectiveness, and production preparedness of the project. With a comprehensive
literature review, all of these indices are calculated by the well-established formulae. In
some other performance indices, the indicators and their weightings are developed via
empirical questionnaire surveys. For example, Yeung et al. (2007) developed a
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

partnering performance index to measure the partnering performance of construction

projects in Hong Kong. It should be noted that in order to identify the most important
indicators and develop their appropriate weightings, analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
and principal components analysis (PCA) are frequently adopted.
AHP maturity matrix utilizes a weighted score in the analysis of various benchmarks
and provides a single score using perceptual values set forth by decision makers
(Eyrich, 1991). This is a multi-attribute utility technique. Though this method helps to
quantify measures and provide managerial inputs, it is subjugated to high degree of
subjectivity. In addition, the rank-reversal problem in AHP reduces its usefulness
(Wong and Wong, 2008). However, this method has been widely used in the performance
measurement of the construction industry. Based on four aspects of the BSC model
(learning and growth, internal process, financial, and customer), Punniyamoorthy and
Murali (2008) established an AHP model to evaluate the achievement of the strategic
goals of the company. In a study of construction companies, Yu et al. (2007) also
developed an AHP model to evaluate the performance score of a certain company.
PCA can be applied to compositional data. It can reduce data dimensionality by
performing a covariance analysis between factors. As such, it is suitable for data sets in
multiple dimensions. Sharma (1996) believed that the PCA is an appropriate technique
for developing an index. Lam et al. (2007) developed an integrated performance index
for design-and-build construction projects with the PCA method.

Statistical methods
Statistical methods, such as regression analysis and various descriptive statistics are used
to analyze data in performance measurement. Although strong theoretical foundation of
statistical tools, such as multiple regression, is able to provide meaningful interpretation of
the data, there is a major limitation in the number of simultaneous inputs and outputs that
needs to be carefully handled (Vromen, 1995). Regression equations can only analyze one
single output at a time and one must repeat the regression analysis as often as the number
of criteria included. In addition, regression analysis can only determine average values,
which probably do not actually occur in any of the units examined. Therefore, the results
can hardly serve as benchmarks because they neither represent “best practice” nor they
exist in the real world. Furthermore, regression analysis inherits the assumption that all
observers combine their input factors in the same way. However, in practice, the observers
typically vary (Wong and Wong, 2008).
 It should be noted that multiple regression analysis not only measures but also A review of
predicts the performance of the project, organization, and stakeholder. Ahadzie et al. performance
(2008a ,b) established a regression model to calculate the effect of the project manager’s
performance on the output of the project, in which the output of the project is based on measurement
the environment, safety, customer satisfaction, quality, cost, and time. It was found that
the best predictors of the project manager’s performance were job knowledge,
dedication, time management, ability to solve conflicts, and approachability and 279
voluntary acumen. Fang et al. (2004) measured safety management performance on
construction sites, and developed a regression model to relate the safety management
index to the safety performance index.

Data envelopment analysis

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) adopts the linear programming technique to evaluate
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

the efficiencies of the analyzed units. DEA is able to evaluate the performance
quantitatively as well as qualitatively, hence enabling managers to exercise reasonable
judgment on the efficiency of the resource usage (Wong and Wong, 2008). In DEA,
the organization under study is called a decision-making unit (DMU). A DMU is
regarded as the entity responsible for converting inputs (i.e. resources, personnel,
money, etc.) into outputs (i.e. sales, profits, customer satisfaction, metrics of performance,
etc.). In the study of the construction industry, the DMU of interest is often the
construction firms. EI-Mashaleh et al. (2007) adopted the DEA method to measure the
construction firm performance on a company-wide basis, foster trade-off analyses
among various performance metrics, and tie the resources expended by construction
firms to how well those firms perform.

Information generated by performance measurement frameworks

The main purpose of performance measurement is to measure and improve the
efficiency and the quality of the performance, and identify opportunities for progressive
improvements in performance (Wegelius-Lehtonen, 2001). Pillai et al. (2002) asserted
that performance measurement on project can help evaluate the overall performance of
a project at any point of time during its life cycle. Luu et al. (2008) advocated that
performance measurement can help firms identify their strategies, quantify the
strategic performance, and improve their competitive advantage. Ahadzie et al.
(2008a, b) considered that the performance measurement of project managers can help
predict the performance of project manager at the very beginning of the projects and
offer a reference to the managers to improve themselves. It can be concluded that the
performance information generated by the performance measurement frameworks help
answer two questions:
(1) Are functions and departments doing the right things?
(2) Are they doing them well? (Lynch, 1991).

Frameworks and indicators

One of the most important performance information generated by the performance
measurement in the construction field is frameworks with hierarchical indicators. With
these frameworks and indicators, it is easier to answer the question of what factors
work or what factors effect on the performance of project/organization/stakeholder.
The participants can easily judge whether they are doing the right things or not,
 JFM whether the resources allocated to main indicators are influencing the performance.
8,4 The participants can readily identify the factors that need to be controlled. Haapasalo
et al. (2006) argued that one purpose to establish frameworks is to check whether the
strategy is realistic overall and what kind of goals should be used on a daily basis to
reach long-term goals. The indicators can also be considered as one of the ultimate goals.
While BSC and EFQM models are usually used to develop strategic frameworks, the KPI
280 model is applied in the operational level. With questionnaire method, statistical method
and DEA technique, the information usually contains of hierarchical indicators as well
as their coefficients. Many frameworks have been set up in the special environment of
the construction industry, including the measurement of partnering performance
of construction projects (Yeung et al., 2008), performance measurement of construction
firms in developing countries (Luu et al., 2008), and performance measurement of project
managers (Ahadzie et al., 2008a, b).
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Functions and scores

Functions and scores are another form of information generated from performance
measurement. Many frameworks are established to evaluate and compare the
performance of projects/organizations/stakeholders. The techniques of gap analysis and
integrated performance index can quantify performance. The participants can identify
their gap with the competitors, and benchmark their performance in relation to the
average and top performers. With KPI model and integrated performance index, Lam
et al. (2007) developed a project success index and compared the performance scores of
40 design-build projects in Hong Kong. Yu et al. (2007) carried out a performance
evaluation and comparison on 34 Korean construction companies, using BSC model, KPI
model and integrated performance index. Pillai et al. (2002) established and applied an
integrated performance index on two projects and compared their performance.

Conclusions
This paper has conducted an extensive literature review on the performance
measurement both in general and in construction in particular. There are four major
contributions from this paper. First, it has been found that performance measurement
studies in construction can be divided into three levels:
(1) project level;
(2) organizational level; and
(3) stakeholder level.

Second, this paper has summarized the major frameworks for performance
measurement in the construction industry, including:
.
EFQM excellence model;
.
BSC model; and
.
KPIs model.

Among them, the EFQM excellence model and the BSC model are the most frequently
applied to the organizational level, except that the project excellence model, which is
developed from the EFQM excellence model, is applied to the project level.
 The empirical research studies proved that the KPI model can be used at project, A review of
organizational and stakeholder level. Each of the three frameworks has its own performance
advantages and disadvantages. No single framework fits all the situations. Therefore, it
is an important task to develop a more comprehensive performance measurement measurement
framework in construction in the future. The third contribution from this study is to
identify the most important research techniques used in the performance measurement
of the construction industry. These techniques encompass: 281
.
gap analysis;
. integrated performance index;
.
statistical methods; and
.
DEA method.
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

These research tools for performance measurement are very effective and practical
because they help to evaluate the performance levels in a more quantitative and
objective manner. However, each tool has its own limitations and their efficacies can be
escalated to a large extent, unless they are carefully chosen and applied under different
suitable environments. These contributions provide an innovative and useful approach
to defining the process of performance measurement in the construction industry,
which can be of great use to both research community and industrial practitioners. Based
on the discussions of this paper, academic researchers and industrial practitioners can
clearly define the research contents, easily choose proper frameworks and techniques for
their further studies, and establish a more comprehensive and applicable performance
measurement methods. By doing so, these promote the study and application of the
performance measurement in construction.

References
Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D.G. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (2008a), “Critical success criteria for mass
house building projects in developing countries”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 675-87.
Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D.G. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (2008b), “Model for predicting the
performance of project managers at the construction phase of mass house building
projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 4, pp. 618-29.
Anderson, K. and McAdam, R. (2004), “A critique of benchmarking and performance
measurement: lead or lag?”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 465-83.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2004), “Performance measure in construction”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 42-50.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2005), “Building a conceptual framework for
measuring business performance in construction: an empirical evaluation”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 495-507.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and McDevitt, L. (1997), “Integrated performance measurement systems:
a development guide”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 522-34.
Brown, J. and Devlin, J. (1997), “Performance measurement – the ENAPS approach”,
The International Journal of Business Transformation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 73-84.
 JFM CBPP-KPIs (2002), Construction Best Practice Program – Key Performance Indicators, available
at: www.cbpp.org.uk/cbpplthemes/bm/KPIs/
8,4
Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-21.
CII (2005), Construction Industry Institute, available at: http://cii-benchmarking.org/
Cooke-Davies, T. (2001), “The ‘real’ success factors on projects”, International Journal of Project
282 Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-90.
Dainty, A.R.J., Cheng, M.I. and Moore, D.R. (2003), “Redefining performance measures for
construction project managers: an empirical evaluation”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 209-18.
DeWaal_pages (2007), “Brief history of performance management systems”, available at:
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/10/04712057/0471205710.pdf (accessed 9
September 2007).
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, London.
EI-Mashaleh, M.S., Minchin, R.E. and O’Brien, W. (2007), “Management of construction firm
performance using benchmarking”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 10-17.
Eyrich, H.G. (1991), “Benchmarking to become the best of breed”, Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 40-7.
Fang, D.P., Huang, X.Y. and Hinze, J. (2004), “Benchmarking studies on construction safety
management in China”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130
No. 3, pp. 424-32.
Haapasalo, H., Ingalsuo, K. and Lenkkeri, T. (2006), “Linking strategy into operational
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 701-17.
Jaselskis, E.J. and Ashley, D.B. (1991), “Optimal allocation of project management resources
for achieving success”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 321-40.
Jones, K. and Kaluarachchi, Y. (2008), “Performance measurement and benchmarking of a major
innovation programme”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 124-36.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2001), “Performance management in construction: a
conceptual framework”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
(The) KPI Working Group (2000), KPI Report for the Minister for Construction, Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Lam, E.W.M., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2007), “Benchmarking the performance of
design-build projects: development of project success index”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 624-38.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.
Lee, A., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2000), “A methodology for designing performance measures
for the UK construction industry”, paper presented at Bizarre Fruit Postgraduate Research
Conference on the Built and Human Environment, Salford.
Lin, G.B. and Shen, Q.P. (2007), “Measuring the performance of value management studies
in construction: critical review”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 2-9.
 Liu, A.M.M. and Walker, A. (1998), “Evolution of project outcomes”, Construction Management A review of
and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 202-19.
performance
Luu, T.V., Kim, S.Y., Cao, H.L. and Park, Y.M. (2008), “Performance measurement of construction
firms in developing countries”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, measurement
pp. 373-86.
Lynch, C. (1991), Measure Up! – Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement, Wiley, Oxford.
Moeller, J., Breinlinger-O’Reilly, J. and Elser, J. (2000), “Quality management in German health 283
care- the EFQM excellence model”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 254-8.
Neely, A. (1999), “The performance revolution: why now and what next?”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-28.
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Crowe, P. (2001), “The performance prism in practice measuring
excellence”, Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

Neely, A., Adams, C. and Kenerley, M. (2002), “The performance prism: the scorecard for
measuring and managing business success”, Financial Times, Prentice-Hall, London.
Niven, P.R. (2002), Balanced Scorecard Step-By-Step, Wiley, New York.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) Enterprise Architecture Program (2007), Treasury
IT Performance Measures Guide, US Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Pillai, A.S., Joshi, A. and Rao, K.S. (2002), “Performance measurement of R&D projects in a
multi-project, concurrent engineering environment”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 165-77.
Punniyamoorthy, M. and Murali, R. (2008), “Balanced score for the balanced scorecard:
a benchmarking tool”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 420-43.
Robinson, H.S., Anumba, C.J., Carrillo, P.M. and Al-Ghassani, A.M. (2005), “Business
performance measurement practices in construction engineering organizations”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Robinson, H.S., Carrillo, P.M., Anumba, C.J. and Al-Ghassani, A.M. (2002), Business Performance
Measurement and Improvement Strategies in Construction Organizations, Loughborough
University, Loughborough.
Schneiderman, A. (1999), “Why balanced scorecards fail”, Journal of Strategic Performance
Measurement, January, pp. 6-11 (special edition).
Sharma, A. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY.
Smith, M. (2001), “Getting construction back on track. In: beyond the bottom line, the industry
in developing countries”, Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB,
November 2002, South Africa.
Vromen, J.J. (1995), Economic Evolution: An Enquiry into the Foundations of New Institutional
Economics, Routledge, New York, NY.
Wang, X. and Huang, J. (2006), “The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: performance of Chinese construction supervising
engineers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-60.
Ward, C.S., Curtis, B. and Chapman, C.B. (1991), “Objectives and performance in construction
projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 343-54.
Watson, P. and Seng, L.T. (2001), “Implementing the European foundation for quality
management model in construction”, Construction Information Quarterly, construction
paper, p. 130.
 JFM Wegelius-Lehtonen, T. (2001), “Performance measurement in construction logistics”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 107-16.
8,4 Westerveld, E. (2003), “The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical success
factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 411-18.
Wong, W.P. and Wong, K.Y. (2008), “A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance
measures”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-51.
284 Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2008), “Establishing quantitative indicators for
measuring the partnering performance of construction projects in Hong Kong”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 277-301.
Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M. and Li, L.K. (2007), “Development of a partnering
performance index (PPI) for construction projects in Hong Kong: a Delphi study”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1219-37.
Yu, L., Kim, K., Jung, Y. and Chin, S. (2007), “Comparable performance measurement system for
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

construction companies”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 131-9.

Further reading
Jaselskis, E.J., Keim, G. and Medcof, J.W. (2000), “Realistic criteria for project manager selection
and development”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 23-32.
Menches, C.L. and Hanna, A.S. (2006), “Quantitative measurement of successful performance
from the project manager’s perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132 No. 12, pp. 1284-93.

Corresponding author
Huan Yang can be contacted at: yhkeyao@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Debby Willar Manado State Polytechnic Manado Indonesia Indonesia . 2017. Developing attributes for
evaluating construction project-based performance. The TQM Journal 29:2. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Che Khairil Izam Che Ibrahim, Seosamh B. Costello, Suzanne Wilkinson. 2016. Validation of a team
integration assessment tool in road infrastructure alliance projects. International Journal of Construction
Management 1-14. [CrossRef]
3. Che Khairil Izam Che Ibrahim Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah
Alam, Malaysia Seosamh B. Costello Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Suzanne Wilkinson Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand . 2016. Application of a team integration
performance index in road infrastructure alliance projects. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:5,
1341-1362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Kattiya Samee, Jakrapong Pongpeng. 2016. Structural equation model for construction equipment
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

management affecting project and corporate performance. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 20:5,
1642-1656. [CrossRef]
5. Syed Shujaa Safdar Gardezi, Nasir Shafiq, Noor Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi, Muhd Faris Khamidi, Syed
Ahmad Farhan. 2016. A multivariable regression tool for embodied carbon footprint prediction in housing
habitat. Habitat International 53, 292-300. [CrossRef]
6. Xiancun Hu, Chunlu Liu. 2016. Profitability performance assessment in the Australian construction
industry: a global relational two-stage DEA method. Construction Management and Economics 34:3,
147-159. [CrossRef]
7. Foad Marzoughi, Tiru Arthanari. 2016. A Conceptual Framework for a Navigational Support System for
Construction Projects. Procedia Computer Science 100, 449-457. [CrossRef]
8. Dr Anna Walker Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi Department of Construction Economics and Management,
University of Cape Town, South Africa. Abimbola Olukemi Windapo Construction Economics and
Management, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. James Olabode B. Rotimi School of
Engineering, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. . 2015. Measuring strategic
performance in construction companies: a proposed integrated model. Journal of Facilities Management
13:2, 109-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Dhaval R. Gajjar, Dean T. Kashiwagi, Kenneth T. Sullivan, Jacob Kashiwagi. 2015. Postoccupancy
Performance Evaluation of Time-of-Installation Factors: Seven-Year Study of SPF Roofing. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 29:2, 04014044. [CrossRef]
10. Menoka Bal, David Bryde. 2015. Measuring Performance to Engage the Extended Project Team in
Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 5:1, 1-10. [CrossRef]
11. Craig Langston Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, Bond University, Gold Coast,
Australia . 2014. Construction efficiency: a tale of two developed countries. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 21:3, 320-335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Asad Ullah Khan University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland . 2014. Effects of cultural assimilation on the
performance of a construction project – evidence from UAE. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:3,
430-449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Yuming Hong Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung
Hom, Hong Kong, China Daniel W.M. Chan Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, China . 2014. Research trend of joint ventures in
 construction: a two-decade taxonomic review. Journal of Facilities Management 12:2, 118-141. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
14. Pooria Rashvand, Muhd Zaimi Abd Majid. 2014. Critical Criteria on Client and Customer Satisfaction for
the Issue of Performance Measurement. Journal of Management in Engineering 30:1, 10-18. [CrossRef]
15. Che khairil Izam Che Ibrahim, Seosamh B. Costello, Suzanne Wilkinson. 2013. Development of a
conceptual team integration performance index for alliance projects. Construction Management and
Economics 31:11, 1128-1143. [CrossRef]
16. Josef BlasiniDepartment of Management Information Systems, University of Regensburg, Regensburg,
Germany Susanne LeistDepartment of Management Information Systems, University of Regensburg,
Regensburg, Germany. 2013. Success factors in process performance management. Business Process
Management Journal 19:3, 477-495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Alberto De MarcoManagement and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy Timur
NarbaevManagement and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. 2013. Earned
value‐based performance monitoring of facility construction projects. Journal of Facilities Management
Downloaded by Heriot Watt University At 02:40 22 February 2017 (PT)

11:1, 69-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Menoka Bal, David Bryde, Damian Fearon, Edward Ochieng. 2013. Stakeholder Engagement: Achieving
Sustainability in the Construction Sector. Sustainability 5:2, 695-710. [CrossRef]
19. Wai Peng Wong, Hassan Fereidouni Gholipour, Ebrahim Bazrafshan. 2012. How efficient are real
estate and construction companies in Iran's close economy?. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 16:4, 392-413. [CrossRef]
20. Ioannis E. Tsolas. 2011. Modelling profitability and effectiveness of Greek-listed construction firms: an
integrated DEA and ratio analysis. Construction Management and Economics 29:8, 795-807. [CrossRef]