اندازه گیری اثر مدیریت پروژه بر خروجی های ساخت و ساز: یک روش جدید

The precise nature of the influence that project management has upon building project performance in terms of time, cost and quality outputs is not well defined. In this paper we present a new approach to the measurement of the effect of Building Project Management (BPM) on these key outputs using 15 `cases' derived from UK data. Within the UK construction industry there is doubt as to the added value of BPM. We argue that it is essential that an objective analysis of the value added potential of BPM is undertaken with a view to demonstrating whether BPM in the UK does or does not improve the efficiency of the construction process and thereby add value to the output. The modelling strategy adopted attempts to achieve this. The evaluation undertaken in this paper demonstrates that BPM as it is presently implemented in the UK fails to perform as expected in relation to the three predominant performance evaluation criteria; time, cost and quality. If these criteria are considered to be joint products, the results presented suggest that BPM does not represent added value for UK construction clients.

Building project management (BPM) has two principal purposes; first, to identify the most appropriate project objectives, typically expressed in relation to time, cost and quality, having taken due cognisance of the project's intended purpose, its client and its environment[1]. Second, project management must establish an organisational structure which allows a project to be managed by its agreed objectives with respect to its technology, its contributors and the environment in which it takes place[1], [2] and [3]. This must allow for the integration of a large number of contributors who must be made aware that the delivery of the project's core objectives is their common goal. However, in the case of the UK construction industry, it is apparent that the use of consultant project managers specifically to secure successful project delivery is questionable. This paper is concerned with evaluating the effectiveness of the project management discipline in delivering successful project outputs where successful outcomes are measured in terms of time, cost and quality. The structure of the paper is as follows: first we provide a brief discussion of what the purpose of BPM is meant to be. Subsequently, we present a theoretical framework to evaluate the effectiveness of building project management in terms meaningful to clients, and operationalise this by developing a path model using 15 case studies from the UK. Finally we offer a number of conclusions focusing on the requirements for future research in this area.

The continuing poor record of projects in relation to the delivery of objectives suggests that project management is not yet implemented properly in relation to the body of knowledge which has been developed to support it, or that the present project management discipline is not equal to the task of managing the contemporary building project. Models currently available are not ideally suited to the task of performing a meaningful and objective assessment of the effectiveness of project management upon building project performance from the perspective of the construction client. Instead, these models consider the efficiency of `project management' in terms of the success that the project management system demonstrates in controlling the operational or task systems of the project. Although useful, such evaluations of effectiveness are not particularly helpful from the client's perspective in determining whether or not the application of project management realises tangible benefits. The approach to measurement proposed herein represents a new direction aimed at obtaining objective measurements of the true influence of project management upon building project performance, where performance is considered in terms meaningful to client organisations. The focus on technical and cost efficiency implicit within the best practice frontier framework enables this objectivity to be realised. The implementation of this framework via path analysis thus represents a useful platform from which to further develop the line of argument put forward in the paper. However, even the preliminary results presented here do tend to support the perceptual ambiguity which characterises the UK construction view of BPM. The industry now appears to be looking to alternative parties (i.e. those not established in the specific discipline of project management) for solutions to performance difficulties. There is a danger that large UK construction clients may reject the practice of project management as embodied in the appointment of consultant project managers. Such a rejection may have reasonable grounds if it can be demonstrated that the discipline of project management in the UK has become confused with that which concerns solely the monitoring and control of projects once activity has begun. However this would be an inappropriate response. Understanding the precise influence that PM presently has upon construction outputs and understanding why BPM has apparently failed to produce the expected results will be of more value to the industry in the UK than a change of direction towards new ways of delivering construction projects.