آنسوی "مثلث آهنی":برداشت ذینفعان از شاخص های کلیدی عملکرد (کی پی آی ها) برای پروژه های توسعه ای بخش دولتی در مقیاس بزرگ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|8770||2010||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6160 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 28, Issue 3, April 2010, Pages 228–236
Performance measurement criteria vary from project to project. Despite much work on the subject, there is no commonly agreed framework of performance measurement on mega projects. To bridge this gap, this research targets to investigate the perception of the key performance indicators (KPIs) in the context of a large construction project in Thailand. The study explores the significance of key performance indicators in perspective of various construction stakeholders (client, consultants, and contractors). Findings indicate that the traditional measures of the iron triangle (on-time, under-budget and according to specifications) are no more applicable to measuring performance on large public sector development projects. Other performance indicators such as safety, efficient use of resources, effectiveness, satisfaction of stakeholders, and reduced conflicts and disputes are increasingly becoming important. This implies that the Thai construction industry is slowly departing from the traditional quantitative performance measurement to a rather mix of both quantitative and qualitative performance measurement on large-scale public sector development projects.
Project success means different to different stakeholders. A project that may seem successful to the client may be a completely unsuccessful venture for contractors or end users (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008). Invariably, stakeholders have distinct vested interests in a particular project and therefore the perception of success may also vary across various stakeholders (Bryde and Brown, 2005). Particularly, in case of public development projects, where number of stakeholders usually large, it is important to assimilate the viewpoint of all interest groups about the project success. Cox et al. (2003) note that the perception of project success may even vary according to management’s perspective. They ascertain that there is a substantial difference between the perception of construction executives and project management about KPIs. It is, therefore, not surprising that different participants think differently while they analyze the performance of a project (Cox et al., 2003). To clarify some ambiguities related to the scale of project success, Lim and Mohamed (1999) argue that there are two possible viewpoints: macro-level success and micro-level success. The macro viewpoint takes care of the question “does the original concept tick?” Usually the end users and project beneficiaries are the ones looking at project success from the macro viewpoint. The micro viewpoint concerns the construction parties such as consultants and contractors. Furthermore, micro success pertains to traditional triangle of whether the project is on time, within budget, and according to specifications. Briefly, macro success is more concerned about the eventual operation/functions or long-term gains of the project; whereas micro success pertains to profitability or short-term gains. Cookie-Davies (2002) also offers a distinction between project success – which is measured against the overall objectives of the project – and project management success – which is measured against the widespread and traditional measures of performance against cost, time, and quality. Cookie-Davies (2002) also highlights the difference between the success criteria and success factors. Success factors are those which contribute to achieving success on a project. On the other hand, success criteria are the measures by which the success or failure of a project will be judged. Factors constituting the success criteria are commonly referred to as the key performance indicators or KPIs. Cox et al. (2003) observe that the KPIs are helpful to compare the actual and estimated performance in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and quality of both workmanship and product. In short, success factors are the efforts made – or strategy adopted – to achieve the success on project. Whereas, KPIs are the compilations of data measures (either by quantitative or qualitative data) used to access the performance of the construction operation. Despite extensive research, there is no general agreement on a set of KPIs for construction projects to-date (Chan et al., 2004). Therefore, there is need for identifying a set of common indicators to be used by construction executive and project managers in measuring construction performance at the project level (Cox et al., 2003). However, it seems difficult as every project has certain unique features and limitations and therefore generalizing the taxonomy of KPIs for all kinds of projects looks fairly impractical. Regardless of these limitations, it is important to comprehend the perception of KPIs on different types of projects carried out in different contexts. Such research endeavors are helpful in sharing the lessons learnt on different projects and to expand the existing taxonomies of KPIs for future projects. Considering these implications of research on project performance management, the current research attempted to achieve the following objectives: 1. to capture the perception of various stakeholders (client, consultants, contractors) about KPIs on mega construction projects, 2. to investigate if the perception of KPIs differs across: a. various construction stakeholders, b. firms working independently and in joint ventures, and c. various levels of professionals’ overall experience and experience as project managers.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Performance measurement is one of the important aspects of project management. As there are different needs and different goals of any given project, performance measurement should also be tailored for each project. However, a general framework can be used as a guide to measure the success of a project at macro and micro levels. Iron triangle (on time, under budget, according to specifications) has been widely accepted criteria during last couple of decades. However, with shifting functions of buildings, changing demands of users, evolving environmental regulations, the same old-fashioned performance criteria can no more be the sole determinant of project success. Success of future projects will be increasingly measured on the criteria of strategy, sustainability, and safety. Future buildings and infrastructure will be evaluated based on their operational flexibility, maintainability, energy efficiency, sustainability, and contribution to the overall well-being of their end users. Therefore, future frameworks of project performance measurement need to be more comprehensive and should include not only the quantitative and objective criteria but also more subjective and qualitative criteria. Modern needs, future demands, expectations of the stakeholders, and regulations must also be incorporated into an inclusive index that can explain if the project is a successful public facility or just another mass of concrete and steel.