Performance Measurement in Construction

H. A. Bassioni, S.M.ASCE1; A. D. F. Price2; and T. M. Hassan, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Performance measurement has been subject to a considerable amount of research and attention over the past 15 years. The
inadequacy of traditional financially based performance measurement systems and the introduction of nonfinancial measures have been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the triggers for much of this research. The purpose of this paper is to review the main performance measurement frameworks and their
application by U.K. construction firms and to identify gaps in knowledge and practice that suggest future research. The contemporary
performance measurement frameworks are reviewed, including the Balanced Scorecard and the European Foundation for Quality Man-
agement Excellence Model. The status of performance in the U.K. construction industry is discussed, in addition to project/operational-
level performance measurement and the linkage between performance measurement and strategic management. Gaps in knowledge and
practice are overviewed both in general and for the construction industry in specific, thus suggesting future research.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0742-597X共2004兲20:2共42兲
CE Database subject headings: Performance evaluation; Construction industry; Strategic planning; United Kingdom.

Introduction important to note that the paper focuses on performance measure-

In a time of globalization and an increasingly competitive envi-
ronment, measuring performance has become critical to business
success. Research in performance measurement has been sub-
jected to considerable attention over the past 15 years. Neely
共1999兲 described it as a revolution where, in the period from 1994
to 1996, some 3,615 articles have been published, and in 1996 a
new book appeared on the subject in the United States every 2
weeks. He also reflected on the fact that Business Intelligence, a
professional conference-organizing company based in the U.K.,
hosted 23 conferences on performance measurement in the period
from 1994 to 1999.
The performance measurement revolution has spread to many
industries, including the construction industry. Reports on the per-
formance of the industry have identified many areas of improve-
ment and emphasized the need for performance measurement
共Latham 1994; Egan 1998兲. Additionally, a significant number of
construction firms in the U.K. have implemented performance
measurement frameworks within the last 5 years 共Robinson et al.
2002兲.
The purpose of this paper is to review the main performance
measurement frameworks and their application to U.K. construc-
tion firms and to identify gaps in knowledge and practice. It is
1 the time. By 1925, many of the financial performance methods
Assistant Lecturer, Dept. of Construction and Building Engineering,
Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport,
Alexandria, Egypt; PhD Student, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineer-
ing, Loughborough Univ., Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
2
Professor of Project Management and Director of Postgraduate
Studies, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough Univ.,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
3
Lecturer of Construction Management and Director of European
Union Research Group, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering,
Loughborough Univ., Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on October 22, 2002; approved on May 30, 2003. This
paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 20, No.
2, April 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2004/2-42–50/$18.00.
ment for the purpose of internal management of the firm and not
for evaluation by clients or shareholders. Moreover, a ‘‘perfor-
mance measurement system’’ refers to the measurement system
implemented by a company, while a ‘‘performance measurement
framework’’ is a general theoretical framework developed in re-
search that can act as the basis for a company’s performance
measurement system. Additionally, construction firms are consid-
ered firms that undertake construction of civil or building facili-
ties and can include a design function. The paper is divided into
two main sections: advancements in performance measurement,
and performance measurement in construction.
Advancements in Performance Measurement
Performance measurement is an integral part of management and
thus may have been exercised ever since management has existed.
However, in the modern business literature, performance mea-
surement has been traced back to the use of planning and control
procedures by U.S. railroads in the 1860s and 1870s 共Chandler
1977; Kaplan 1984兲. In the first quarter of the 20th century, the
DuPont firm introduced the return on investment 共ROI兲 measure
and the pyramid of financial ratios, and the General Motors Com-
pany developed innovative management accounting practices of
and techniques used today had been developed 共Chandler 1977;
Kaplan 1984; Neely et al. 2000兲. Other models and methods have
been developed ever since, such as discounted cash flow 共DCF兲,
residual income 共RI兲, economic value added 共EVA兲, and cash
flow return on investment 共CFROI兲.
The dissatisfaction with financially based performance mea-
surement started in the 1950s and has built momentum since the
late 1970s. Its shortcomings have been well documented by a
plethora of authors 共Kaplan 1984; Eccles 1991; Letza 1996;
Bourne et al. 2000; Norreklit 2000兲. The main problem lies in the
fact that financial information is lagging, in the sense that it de-
scribes the outcome of managerial actions/decisions after they
occur by at least one reporting period. However, managers need
current, up-to-date, and mostly nonfinancial information to be
able to take better decisions/actions.

42 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004

J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. The Performance Pyramid. Cross and Lynch, Copyright ©
1988/1989 National Productivity Review, John Wiley & Sons.
Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Contemporary Performance Measurement Frameworks
After a long dependence on financial measures, Keegan et al.’s
共1989兲 performance matrix promoted the classification of perfor-
mance measures into cost and noncost measures, and Maskell
共1989兲 advocated the use of performance measures based on
world-class manufacturing 共WCM兲 measures such as quality,
time, process, and flexibility. Cross and Lynch 共1988 –1989兲 pre-
scribed underlying relationships among the basic performance cri-
teria 共performance dimensions兲 in the performance pyramid
shown in Fig. 1. Dixon et al. 共1990兲 recognized the need for
performance systems to identify areas of improvement and work
on developing them, thus devising the performance measurement
questionnaire 共PMQ兲. Brignall et al. 共1991兲 applied the nonfinan-
cial concept to the service industry and suggested the idea of
dividing performance criteria into determinants and results. Az-
zone et al. 共1991兲 promoted the importance of the time criteria in
their matrix for time-based companies.
Kaplan and Norton’s 共1992, 1993兲 Balanced Scorecard intro-
duced a new concept to performance measurement frameworks
with four broad perspectives: financial, customer, internal pro-
cesses, and innovation. The scorecard was further promoted as a
strategic management system 共Kaplan and Norton 1996,
2001a,b兲. Sinclair and Zairi 共1995a,b,c兲, Flapper et al. 共1996兲,
Bititci et al. 共1997兲, Ghalayani et al. 共1997兲, Medori 共1998兲, and
Oliver and Palmer 共1998兲 all developed advanced performance
measurement frameworks that contained additional design and
implementation features.
The performance prism of Neely and Adams 共2001兲 looked at
performance measurement from another new perspective. All pre-
vious frameworks stressed the fact that performance measurement
should be derived from strategy. Neely and Adams 共2001兲, how-
ever, considered this a fallacy and advocated that performance
measurement focus first on measuring stakeholders’ needs and
contributions and then on the required strategies, processes, and
capabilities.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004 / 43
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
Performance measurement frameworks exist, other than those
mentioned, that are sometimes national in nature, such as the
performance scorecard or ‘‘tableau de bord’’ in France 共Mendoza
and Zrihen 2001兲. A separate review of the Balanced Scorecard
and Excellence Model are to follow, due to their international
recognition and use.
Balanced Scorecard
The Balanced Scorecard has been described as one of the most
influential business ideas of the past 75 years by the Harvard
Business Review and is estimated to be used by 40% of the For-
tune 1,000 companies at the end of 2001 共Marr 2001兲. The score-
card is divided into four perspectives, as shown in Fig. 2. It has an
important underlying principle, which is cause and effect between
perspectives. Innovation and learning develop new processes and
technologies that decrease costs and increase efficiencies in the
internal business perspective, which in turn provides more value
to the customer and therefore satisfies them, and will finally reap
improved financial results.
Although the Balanced Scorecard has gained popularity in re-
search and industry, it still has its shortcomings. Schneiderman
共1999兲 and Neely and Bourne 共2000兲 reported that the majority of
Balanced Scorecard implementation initiatives in firms fail, and
that the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard have been
considered insufficient. Additional general perspectives have been
identified, such as competition 共Neely et al. 1995兲 and employee
共Neely 2002兲, as well as application-specific perspectives, such as
project and supplier for construction 共Kagioglou et al. 2001兲.
Other examples of additional or modified perspectives can be
found in Hasan and Tibbits 共2000兲, Letza 共1996兲, and Niven
共2001兲. Furthermore, Norreklit 共2000兲 analyzed the assumptions
that the Balanced Scorecard is built on, which are the cause-and-
effect relationship between perspectives, and the Balanced Score-
card being a strategic management system. He logically defeated
them and anticipated using the Balanced Scorecard to produce
faulty performance indicators and suboptimal performance.
The Balanced Scorecard appeared at a time of high reliance on
financial measures 共Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1993兲 and has been
an excellent contribution to performance measurement. This does
not mean it is complete or comprehensive, as reviewed above.
Nevertheless, it was at the top of a wave of performance measure-
ment frameworks that developed as a natural and gradual evolu-
tion of performance measurement.
Quality-Based Performance Excellence Models
Over the last few decades many quality management models have
been adopted for the purpose of improving performance. The
most-utilized models are the European Foundation for Quality
Management 共EFQM兲 Excellence Model in Europe, the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award 共MBNQA兲 in the United States,
and the Deming Prize in Japan.
The EFQM and Baldrige models have gained much popularity
in the last 10 years. However, three basic issues have been raised
against the models. First, are the models a good representation for
or equivalent to total quality management 共TQM兲? Although
based on TQM principles, both models evolved from the classic
total quality concept 共management of quality兲 to a more business
excellence 共quality of management兲 approach 共Adebanjo 2001兲.
The second issue raised against the models, and TQM in general,
is their success in affecting bottom-line financial results. Conflict-
ing studies exist, yet the mainstream of research supports the
quality models and TQM in reaping financial results, but in the
long term and subject to effective implementation 共Zairi et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. The Balanced Scorecard Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review, From ‘‘The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive
Performance,’’ by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, January–February, 1992. Copyright © 1992 by the Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation, all rights reserved.

1994; Przasnyski and Lawrence 1999; Macleod and Baxter 2001; 5. Little consideration for existing performance systems and
NIST 2002兲. The third criticism of quality models relates to their their interaction with the model/framework.
limitations as excellence models. The EFQM criteria have been
described as vague and underrated in the areas of improvement,
Gaps in Knowledge and Practice
innovation, and supplier partnership strategies 共Azhashemi and
Ho 1999兲. Garvin 共1991兲, a previous member of the MBNQA Many performance measurement frameworks and performance
board of overseers, said ‘‘Baldrige is in no way a complete award improvement initiatives/methods exist 关e.g., Balanced Scorecard,
for corporate excellence,’’ criticizing its lack of important areas, EFQM, just-in-time 共JIT兲, benchmarking, and activity-based man-
such as innovation, marketing savvy, strategic positioning, and agement兲. Each is different in the way it measures performance,
organization design. A good overview of the business excellence yet they can coexist simultaneously. How is that possible? Is any
models’ limitations can be found in Leonard and McAdam one better or more valid than the others? They all are valid but
共2002兲.
Although originally intended as business excellence models,
the EFQM and Baldrige models have been used as performance
measurement frameworks. They both contain criteria that require
measuring of results, and their criteria can be used to identify
dimensions of performance measurement. Fig. 3 shows the crite-
ria of the EFQM Excellence Model.
A general critique of the deficiencies of the overviewed per-
formance measurement frameworks and excellence models indi-
cates that they have one or more of the following limitations:
1. Limited/noncomprehensive performance criteria/
perspectives;
2. No relations among criteria, or if relations exist, they are
simple and do not simulate actual complexities;
3. No measure development or design process;
4. Lack of implementation guidelines and long-term mainte-
Fig. 3. The EFQM Excellence Model—2002 © EFQM. The EFQM
nance of the framework to adapt to the changing environ-
Excellence Model is a registered trademark.
ment; and

44 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004

J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.

 measure different aspects of performance. Neely and Adams
共2001兲 explain that performance is multifaceted and that each
framework or method addresses a unique perspective of perfor-
mance. Furthermore, no one answer exists for all situations. How-
ever, there is a demand in practice and research to develop more
comprehensive performance measurement frameworks 共Neely
and Adams 2001兲. This demand represents a considerable gap in
performance measurement knowledge.
Other gaps in knowledge exist, each suggesting a potential
area for future research. The following points provide a review of
these gaps:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Managers want as easy solutions as possible, with minimum
alterations of their existing company measurement systems,
which might follow a certain performance measurement
framework or a bespoke method, or even be unrelated perfor-
mance indicators used by management. On the other hand,
Eccles 共1991兲 advocates that performance measurement sys-
tem design should start from scratch. Barsky and Bremser
共1999兲, however, showed how budgeting can be used in a Bal-
anced Scorecard environment. Research needs to identify how
contemporary performance measurement frameworks should
interact with existing company measurement systems. For ex-
ample, surveys of existing systems can be conducted in differ-
ent disciplines to identify frameworks’ utilization, or the mea-
sures most used in the industry. Methods for evaluating
whether to use existing systems/measures/information or to
develop a totally new system need to be developed. Further-
more, techniques are required to identify how the existing
measures/information can be used within a certain perfor-
mance measurement framework or in a newly designed sys-
tem.
• Procedures for designing performance measures/indicators
have been described in many publications. However, the issue
of target- and standard-setting of measures is still problematic
for firms. Target-setting techniques have been covered in re-
search 共Sinclair and Zairi 2000兲, yet target values are usually
negotiated rather than studied 共Flapper et al. 1996; Schneider-
man 1999兲. Research still needs to identify how managers
could be encouraged to adopt target- and standard-setting tech-
niques. It is possible that other techniques are needed, or it
might just be a problem of awareness.
• Financial measures have historically been easily aggregated
over organizational levels and across functions. However, with
the introduction of nonfinancial measures, different units of
measurement exist and aggregation is no longer a simple task.
Suwignjo et al. 共2000兲 and Bititci et al. 共2001兲 have provided
quantitative models that structure measures hierarchically,
evaluate their effect on each other, and quantify relative effects
using the standard analytic hierarchy process 共AHP兲. Schrank
共1998兲 has also presented a quantification methodology for
aggregating measures within a ‘‘goal-oriented performance
evaluation’’ approach. On the other hand, Palmer and Parker
共2001兲 have argued, based on the recent applications of uncer-
tainty and chaos theory to management, that measures should
not be broken down into their components. They stated that
the performance of a measure is affected by numerous factors,
and a small change in any of these factors can result in a major
effect on the resulting measure, thus making aggregation ef-
forts pointless. Research is still limited in this area and needs
to indicate the validity, usability, and practicality of aggrega-
tion methods and to probably suggest new techniques.
• Implementation of performance measurement systems has
been discussed by a plethora of authors 共Eccles and Pyburn
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004 / 45
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
1992; Kaplan and Norton 1993; Vitale and Mavrinac 1994;
Flapper et al. 1996; Medori 1998; Oliver and Palmer 1998;
Bourne et al. 2000兲. Implementation problems can lead to the
failure of even the best-designed performance measurement
systems 共Neely and Bourne 2000兲. Research needs to develop
more robust implementation techniques that adopt change
management as an integral part of the implementation process.
• Performance measurement systems in companies are over-
loaded with measures. New measures are added, but obsolete
measures are rarely deleted 共Neely 1999; McJorrow and Cook
2000兲. Dynamism and flexibility should be characteristics of
measurement systems, where the systems are modified with
the occurrence of relevant external and internal changes. These
issues have been discussed by a number of authors 共Ghalayani
et al. 1997; Neely et al. 1997; Bititci and Turner 2000兲. Cur-
rent knowledge and techniques are sufficiently mature in this
area, but many performance measurement systems are still
static 共Bititci and Turner 2000兲. The need remains for research
to further address the dynamism and flexibility of performance
measurement systems.
• Performance measurement systems have no use if not used as
guidance to management decisions. The feedback loop and
consequent decision making are necessary to convert measure-
ment systems into management systems. This notion has been
discussed by Grady 共1991兲 and Medori 共1998兲. Failure to take
actions and manage with measurement data has been consid-
ered an ultimate management sin, but has however been a
common and increasing issue in many modern organizations
共Neely and Bourne 2000兲. Research needs to identify the rea-
sons for failure to translate measurement information into ac-
tion and suggest necessary remedies.
Performance Measurement in U.K. Construction
The construction industry in the U.K. and many other developed
countries has a long track record of less than optimal performance
共Kagioglou et al. 1999; Lee et al. 2000; Smith 2001兲. A number
of industry reports and investigations, dating back to the Simon
report in 1944 共Banwell 1964兲, have indicated the need for
change and improvement. The more recent reports of Latham
共1994兲 and Egan 共1998兲 have shed more light on the current status
of the industry and the areas and tasks required for performance
improvement. The Latham report advocated improvement in the
efficiency and competitiveness of the industry through reforms in
contracting, tendering, design process, quality management, pro-
ductivity, training, education, and other issues. In his report to the
government, Rethinking Construction, Egan 共1998兲 described
how the U.K. construction industry, at its best, displays excel-
lence. However, he had deep concerns that the industry is under-
achieving and that substantial improvements in quality and effi-
ciency are possible. He further elaborated that the industry has
low profitability and invests too little in capital, research and de-
velopment, and training, and moreover, too many clients are dis-
satisfied with its overall performance. Egan 共1998兲 identified spe-
cific targets for improvements in terms of productivity, profits,
quality, safety, and project performance, and most important for
this paper, he emphasized the importance of ambitious targets and
the role of performance measurement in delivering improvement.
Following Egan’s 共1998兲 report, many government and insti-
tutional schemes and initiatives have been aligned to address the
implementation of Egan’s principles 共DTI 2002a兲. A further report
by Fairclough 共2002兲, Rethinking Construction Innovation and
 Research, reviewed government R&D policies and practices. Ad-
ditionally, construction organizations have shown significant in-
terest in performance measurement 共Robinson et al. 2002兲.
Recent performance improvement trends have developed in
the industry and have had their effects on performance measure-
ment. Sustainable construction is one example that has received
growing interest in both the private and public sectors. The U.K.
government published a strategy for sustainable development, ‘‘A
Better Quality of Life,’’ in May 1999 共DTI 2002b兲. Researchers
as well as companies are looking for ways to improve construc-
tion sustainability and subsequently to measure it. Another ex-
ample of performance improvement trends is social responsibility.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Companies worldwide and across industries have had increased

interest in the issue. Quality assurance standards, such as the ISO
14000 family, and business excellence models, such as EFQM,
have addressed the subject. Other trends also exist, but it is out of
the scope of this paper to sufficiently address or numerate them.
Examples are knowledge management, lean construction, and Fig. 4. The utilization of performance measurement frameworks in
concurrent construction. leading U.K. construction firms 共adapted from Robinson et al. 2002兲.

Project and Operational Performance Measurement

The construction industry is a project-oriented industry where
each project is unique and could be considered as a prototype,
although a similar set of process stages is involved in every
project 共Wegelius-Lehtonen 2001兲. It remains that the focus of
performance measurement on the project more than the organiza-
tional level 共Love and Holt 2000; Kagioglou et al. 2001兲.
Construction projects are typically evaluated in terms of cost,
time, and quality 共Ward et al. 1991; Kagioglou et al. 2001兲. These
three categories of project measures have been described as in-
sufficient by Ward et al. 共1991兲, who argued that other factors,
such as the quality of relationships among participants and flex-
ibility, can influence customer satisfaction and thus affect the
success/failure of the project. They further explain that what re-
mains in the mind of participants after project completion is not
so much financial success or early completion, but memories of
harmony, goodwill, and trust, or conversely, arguments, distrust,
and conflict.
In addition, productivity has been a dominant issue in project
management, promising efficient usage of resources and cost sav-
ings and ultimately affecting the bottom line of every effort in the
construction process 共Olomolaiye et al. 1998兲. A review of the
literature on productivity measurement in construction can be
found in Motwani et al. 共1995兲. Despite the overemphasis on pro-
ductivity, it has not reaped its expected results for company per-
formance, thus creating a productivity paradox 共Skinner 1986兲.
Organizational Performance Measurement
tion, whereas the focus of this paper is on performance measure-
ment for internal management purposes.
The following issues describe the implementation of perfor-
mance measurement frameworks in construction firms and the
linkage between performance measurement and strategic manage-
ment within firms.
Implementation of Performance Measurement
Frameworks
The three main performance measurement frameworks that exist
in the U.K. construction industry are the key performance indica-
tors 共KPI兲, Balanced Scorecard, and EFQM Excellence Model.
Robinson et al. 共2002兲 conducted a survey that showed the utili-
zation of performance measurement frameworks by leading con-
struction firms in the U.K. 共top 100 contractors and top 70 con-
sultants兲, as shown in Fig. 4. Literature also has cited cases of
performance framework implementation, such as that of the Mor-
rison Construction Group 共Robertson 1997兲. A discussion of the
implementation of each framework is to follow.
Key Performance Indicators
As a result of Egan’s 共1998兲 report, Rethinking Construction, the
construction best practice program launched the KPI for perfor-
mance measurement 共CBPP-KPI 2002兲. The indicators are for
both project and organizational levels and directly reflect the per-
formance targets developed by Egan 共1998兲. The indicators are
shown in Table 1.

Organizational performance measurement in construction has tra-

ditionally relied on efficiency, return on capital, and profitability,
which have been criticized as narrow, reactive, and mostly finan- Table 1. Key Performance Indicators for Construction Firms 共CBPP-
cial. A longer-term and broader focus is needed that considers KPI 2002兲
corporate strategy, business processes, and stakeholder needs Project performance Company performance
共Love and Holt 2000兲. Recently, construction companies have
Construction cost Safety
used a more balanced approach with the monitoring of nonfinan-
Construction time Profitability
cial measures. Robinson et al. 共2002兲 have reported the increased
Predictability—cost Productivity
use of customer aspects, impact on society, and internal stake-
Predictability—time
holders in performance measurement. Moreover, literature has
Defects
cited frameworks to evaluate the organizational performance of
Client satisfaction—product
contractors that include nonfinancial aspects. However, these
Client satisfaction—service
frameworks were concerned with tendering and contractor selec-

46 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004

J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.

 The KPI have received significant criticism. Kagioglou et al.
共2001兲 raised some questionable issues including the KPI being
noncomprehensive and focusing more on project rather than or-
ganizational performance. Additionally, the KPI are designed as a
benchmark for the whole industry, where companies can bench-
mark themselves against national performance and identify areas
for improvement. The KPI do not give insight into the means of
improving performance and therefore have limited use for inter-
nal management decision making. Furthermore, the KPI have
been lesser rated by construction firms in a comparison with Bal-
anced Scorecard and EFQM 共Robinson et al. 2002兲. On a five-
point level scale 共very poor, poor, neutral, good, and very good兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
EFQM and Balanced Scorecard were nearly equally rated, with
ratings ranging between neutral and very good; however, KPI and
bespoke models’ ratings ranged from poor to good.
Balanced Scorecard
One of the first reported applications of Kaplan and Norton’s
Balanced Scorecard was by a leading engineering and construc-
tion company, Brown & Root/Halliburton; the company’s original
scorecard can be found in Kaplan and Norton 共1993兲. Kagioglou
et al. 共2001兲 suggested a conceptual framework for application of
the Balanced Scorecard by construction firms and added two per-
spectives important to the construction industry: project and sup-
plier perspectives. Additionally, the framework rationalizes the
relationships between performance measures and goals derived
from strategy to indicate potential areas for improvement, through
a process-performance measurement relationship matrix. Kagio-
glou et al. 共2001兲 argued that methods used to measure perfor-
mance in construction projects fall into the three main categories
of the Balanced Scorecard:
1. Financial perspective: for example, cash flow and cost ben-
efit analysis;
2. Internal business processes: for example, critical path analy-
sis; and
3. Customer perspective.
Organizational learning is emerging within the fourth Bal-
anced Scorecard perspective of innovation and learning, given by
Kagioglou et al. 共2001兲, who stated that organizational learning
can be problematic since participants in construction projects are
only temporarily joined. However, Kululanga et al. 共2001兲 pre-
sented a framework for organizational learning measurement by
construction contractors that explained definition difficulty and
used dimensions and supporting factors to measure the degree of
organizational learning.
European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence
Model
Beatham et al. 共2002兲 reported different uses of the EFQM model
applied to construction. The self-assessment process is used to
identify key areas for improvement 共AFI兲 and initiate perfor-
mance improvement projects. The RADAR 共results, approach, de-
ployment, assessment, and review兲 logic of the EFQM model is
used to deliver continuous improvement. Moreover, the model
was used to ensure that all issues related to the business 共hard and
soft issues兲 are incorporated in the development of critical success
factors 共CSF兲 and in-house KPI, as shown in Fig. 5. This was
done as part of a review of business/project objectives, key busi-
ness processes 共KBP兲, and sub-KBP. It should be noted that the
KPIs here are different than the previously discussed KPI of
CBPP-KPI 共2002兲.
The implementation of TQM has traditionally been faced with
problems in construction, due to its contrasts with manufacturing,
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004 / 47
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
Fig. 5. Identifying KBP, CSF, and in-house KPI using EFQM Ex-
cellence Model 共Beatham et al. 2002兲 © Swets & Zeitlinger.
where TQM originated 共Ahmad and Sein 1997; Stockdale 1997兲.
However, the EFQM model, unlike its TQM parent, is a well-
defined model and has been reported to be easier for construction
companies to understand and implement 共Watson and Seng 2001兲.
Nevertheless, some implementation problems exist and can be
summarized as resistance to change, inexperience with the model,
documentation difficulties, and insufficient time and fund alloca-
tion 共Watson and Seng 2001兲. Additionally, Robinson et al.
共2002兲 reported that construction firms considered the EFQM
model less difficult than the Balanced Scorecard in terms of de-
termining and monitoring indicators. They regard this as due to
the presence of enabling factors in the EFQM model, which are
not clear or comprehensive in the Balanced Scorecard.
Linking Strategic Management to Performance
Measurement
Performance measurement is an important part of the strategic
management process, as shown in Fig. 6. In order to control a
business strategy, it has to be measured. Therefore, many of the
contemporary performance measurement frameworks are used to
measure strategy deployment. Kaplan and Norton 共1996, 2001a,b兲
showed how the Balanced Scorecard should be used as a strategic
management system. Leonard and McAdam 共2002兲 presented a
grounded model of the strategic application of business excel-
lence models, but reported that managers found difficulties in
attempting to use the model in a strategic manner.
The main aspects of strategic management in construction are
described by Price and Newson 共2003兲 and Price et al. 共2004兲,
based on an industry survey. These aspects and their implications
for performance measurement are listed here.
• Strategic planning has a low profile in construction and re-
ceives a low level of attention. In addition, strategic manage-
ment is not entrenched in construction organizations, but is
usually performed by top management in a top-bottom ap-
proach, with little involvement of the lower echelons of the
organization, customers, partners, or suppliers 共stakeholders兲.
Moreover, construction firms tend to focus on operational ef-
fectiveness 共performing similar activities better than rivals兲 at
the expense of strategic positioning 共performing activities dif-
ferent from those of rivals or similar activities in different
ways兲 共Edum-Fotwe 1995兲. In this situation, performance
measurement will not likely be used as a strategic deployment
tool.
• Firms traditionally pursue a cost leadership 共operational effec-
tiveness兲 strategy, mostly by default rather than by design.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. The Basic Strategic Management Model. Wheelan and Hunger, Strategic Management and Business Policy, 7/E © 2000, p. 9. Reprinted
by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J.
However, with the increased focus on the customer, a shift to
differentiation 共strategic positioning兲 strategies is emerging.
Companies will need to monitor their new strategic efforts and
align them throughout the organization. Therefore, the need
for strategic measurement systems is expected to grow.
It is evident that with the current situation of strategic man-
agement, performance measurement systems will not likely be
used to deploy strategy. However, the need exists and is expected
to grow as firms shift toward differentiation strategies.
Gaps in Knowledge and Practice
Construction companies have implemented a number of perfor-
mance measurement frameworks, such as KPI, the Balanced
Scorecard, and the EFQM Excellence Model. Each looks at per-
formance measurement from a different angle while they either
overlap or complement one another. Therefore, a need exists for a
comprehensive or integrated performance measurement frame-
work in construction. This gap is similar to that identified in the
previous section of this paper. However, the needs or critical suc-
cess factors of construction might differ from those of other in-
dustries, and the required performance measurement framework
might be different and needs to be developed for the industry in
particular.
The various gaps in knowledge and practice identified in the
previous section were for performance measurement frameworks
in general, and also apply to construction firms. Moreover, but
specific to the construction industry, additional gaps are reviewed.
• The applications of the Balanced Scorecard, EFQM, and KPI
are in their early years. Much can be learned from the prob-
lems faced in their implementation, and research is still limited
in this area.
• Specific measurement issues for performance in construction,
particularly relating to soft issues, need more research: for
example, leadership, people, innovation, learning, partnership,
and technology management.
• The design of measures/indicators has been covered by many
publications, but the design of measures specific and appropri-
ate to construction has not been well addressed. Additionally,
the cascading and aggregation of measures vertically between
the organizational and project levels has not been adequately
researched.
• Strategic management in the construction industry opens many
areas of research, particularly the measurement of strategy de-
ployment. This issue should be accounted for when developing
or applying any performance measurement framework.
48 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Performance measurement has been the subject of considerable
research and attention in the last 15 years. The inadequacy of
traditional financially based performance measurement frame-
works and the introduction of nonfinancial measures have trig-
gered much of this research, in what has been considered a re-
search revolution. The contemporary performance measurement
frameworks have been reviewed, including the Balanced Score-
card and quality-based performance excellence models, such as
the European Foundation for Quality Management 共EFQM兲
model. However, their simultaneous existence, in addition to
many other performance improvement methods 共e.g., activity-
based management, benchmarking, and JIT兲, and their differences
in nature, prompt two questions: How can they all coexist simul-
taneously? Is any one better or more correct than the others? The
answer is that they are all valid and correct, but look at the mul-
tifacets of performance from different angles 共Neely and Adams
2001兲. A research need exists to develop more comprehensive
performance measurement frameworks that incorporate the rel-
evant aspects of different performance frameworks, models, and
improvement methods. This remains a main gap in knowledge
that should be further addressed by research and supported by
practice.
Additional gaps in knowledge have been identified that apply
across industries, including construction. They cover the issues of
how existing performance measurement systems in companies
can interact with newly developed systems, the setting of targets
and standards for performance measures, measures’ aggregation,
difficulties in implementing new performance measurement sys-
tems, dynamism and flexibility of measures, and using perfor-
mance information to take managerial action.
The status of performance measurement in the U.K. industry
and the usage and implementation of performance measurement
frameworks 共KPI, Balanced Scorecard, and EFQM model兲 in
U.K. construction firms has been reviewed. Further gaps in
knowledge relevant to the construction industry include the
implementation of contemporary performance measurement
frameworks in construction firms, measuring of specific areas,
especially soft issues, the design of measures specific to construc-
tion, cascading of measures between organizational and project
levels, and the effects of strategic objectives deployment in con-
struction firms on the development of performance measurement
systems.
Finally, the identified gaps in knowledge are in no way com-
prehensive, and others surely exist. However, this paper attempts
 to highlight the main gaps/weaknesses in knowledge evident in
the general business and construction literature so as to suggest
potential areas of future research.
References
Adebanjo, D. 共2001兲. ‘‘TQM and business excellence: Is there really a
conflict?’’ Measuring Bus. Excellence, 5共3兲, 37– 40.
Ahmad, I. U., and Sein, M. K. 共1997兲. ‘‘Implementing TQM principles in
construction projects: Difficulties and remedies.’’ Int. Conf. on Lead-
ership and Total Quality Management in Construction and Building,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CI Primier Conference, Singapore, 47–54.
Azhashemi, M. A., and Ho, S. K. M. 共1999兲. ‘‘Achieving service excel-
lence: A new Japanese approach versus the European framework.’’
Managing Service Quality, 9共1兲, 40– 46.
Azzone, G., Masella, C., and Bertele, U. 共1991兲. ‘‘Design of performance
measures for time-based companies.’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Man-
age., 11共3兲, 77– 85.
Banwell, H. 共1964兲. The placing and management of contracts for build-
ing and civil engineering work—Report of the committee, HMSO,
London.
Barsky, N. P., and Bremser, W. G. 共1999兲. ‘‘Performance measurement:
Budgeting and strategic implementation in the multinational enter-
prise.’’ Manage. Finance, 25共2兲, 3–15.
Beatham, S. M., Anumba, C. J., and Thorpe, A. 共2002兲. ‘‘Utilizing the
EFQM excellence model to drive business improvement.’’ Advances
in concurrent engineering, R. Gancalves, R. Roy, and A. Steiger-
Garcao, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 413– 422.
Bititci, U. S., Carrie, A. S., and McDevitt, L. 共1997兲. ‘‘Integrated perfor-
mance measurement systems: A development guide.’’ Int. J. Operat.
Product. Manage., 17共5兲, 522–534.
Bititci, U. S., Suwignjo, P., and Carrie, A. S. 共2001兲. ‘‘Strategy manage-
ment through quantitative modeling of performance measurement sys-
tems.’’ Int. J. Production Econ., 69共1兲, 15–22.
Bititci, U. S., and Turner, T. 共2000兲. ‘‘Dynamics of performance measure-
ment systems.’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 20共6兲, 692–704.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., and Platts, K. 共2000兲. ‘‘De-
signing, implementing and updating performance measurement sys-
tems.’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 20共7兲, 754 –771.
Brignall, T. J., Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., and Silvestro, R. 共1991兲.
‘‘Performance measurement in service businesses.’’ Manag. Account.,
London, 69共10兲, 34 –36.
Chandler, A. D. 共1977兲. The visible hand: The managerial revolution in
American business, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Construction Best Practice Program—Key Performance Indicators
共CBPP-KPI兲. 共2002兲. 具http://www.cbpp.org.uk/cbpplthemes/bm/
KPIs/典.
Cross, K. F., and Lynch, R. L. 共1988 –1989兲. ‘‘The SMART way to define
and sustain success.’’ Nat. Product. Rev., 9共1兲, 23–33.
Department of Trade and Industry 共DTI兲. 共2002a兲. Industries and sectors:
Construction, building and property services overview. 具http://
www.dti.gov.uk/sectorsគbuilding.html典, London.
Department of Trade and Industry 共DTI兲. 共2002b兲. Sustainable construc-
tion, 具http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/sustain/典, London 共Sept.
2002兲.
Dixon, J. R., Nanni, A. J., and Vollmann, T. E. 共1990兲. The new perfor-
mance challenge: Measuring operations for world class competition,
Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, Ill.
Eccles, R. 共1991兲. ‘‘The performance measurement manifesto.’’ Harvard
Bus. Rev., 69共1兲, 131–137.
Eccles, R. G., and Pyburn, P. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Creating a comprehensive sys-
tem to measure performance.’’ Manage. Account., Montvale, 74共4兲,
41– 44.
Edum-Fotwe, F. 共1995兲. ‘‘A framework for improving the strategic man-
agement of construction contractors.’’ PhD thesis, Loughborough
Univ., Loughborough, U.K.
Egan, J. 共1998兲. Rethinking construction, Dept. of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, London.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004 / 49
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
Fairclough, J. 共2002兲. Rethinking construction innovation and research: A
review of government R&D policies and practices, Dept. of Trade and
Industry, London.
Flapper, S. D. P., Furtuin, L., and Stoop, P. P. M. 共1996兲. ‘‘Towards
consistent performance management systems.’’ Int. J. Operat. Prod-
uct. Manage., 16共7兲, 27–37.
Garvin, D. A. 共1991兲. ‘‘How the Baldrige award really works.’’ Harvard
Bus. Rev., 69共6兲, 80–93.
Ghalayini, A., Noble, J., and Crowe, T. 共1997兲. ‘‘An integrated dynamic
performance measurement system for improving manufacturing com-
petitiveness.’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Econ., 48, 207–225.
Grady, M. W. 共1991兲. ‘‘Performance measurement, implementing strat-
egy.’’ Manage. Account., Montvale, 72共12兲, 49–53.
Hasan, H., and Tibbits, H. 共2000兲. ‘‘Strategic management of electronic
commerce: An adaptation of the balanced scorecard.’’ Internet Res.:
Electron. Netw. Appl. Policy, 10共5兲, 439– 450.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., and Aouad, G. 共1999兲. ‘‘Re-engineering the
UK construction industry: The process protocol.’’ 2nd Int. Conf. on
Construction Process Re-Engineering, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., and Aouad, G. 共2001兲. ‘‘Performance man-
agement in construction: A conceptual framework.’’ Constr. Manage.
Econom., 19共1兲, 85–95.
Kaplan, R. S. 共1984兲. ‘‘The evolution of management accounting.’’ Ac-
count. Rev., 59共3兲, 390– 418.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 共1992兲. ‘‘The balanced scorecard—
Measures that drive performance.’’ Harvard Bus. Rev., 70共1兲, 71–79.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 共1993兲. ‘‘Putting the balanced scorecard
to work.’’ Harvard Bus. Rev., 71共5兲, 134 –147.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 共1996兲. ‘‘Using the balanced scorecard as
a strategic management system.’’ Harvard Bus. Rev., 74共1兲, 75– 85.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 共2001a兲. ‘‘Transforming the balanced
scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management:
Part I.’’ Account. Horizons, 15共1兲, 87–104.
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. 共2001b兲. ‘‘Transforming the balanced
scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management:
Part II.’’ Account. Horizons, 15共2兲, 147–160.
Keegan, D. P., Eiler, R. G., and Jones, C. R. 共1989兲. ‘‘Are your perfor-
mance measure obsolete?’’ Manage. Account., Montvale, 70共2兲, 45–
50.
Kululanga, G. K., Edum-Fotwe, F. T., and McCaffer, R. 共2001兲. ‘‘Mea-
suring construction contractors’ organizational learning.’’ Build. Res.
Inf., 29共1兲, 21–29.
Latham, M. 共1994兲. Constructing the team, HMSO, London.
Lee, A., Cooper, R., and Aouad, G. 共2000兲. ‘‘A methodology for design-
ing performance measures for the UK construction industry.’’ Bizarre
Fruit: Postgraduate Research Conf. on the Built and Human Environ-
ment, University of Salford, Salford, U.K.
Leonard, D., and McAdam, R. 共2002兲. ‘‘The role of the business excel-
lence model in operational and strategic decision making.’’ Manage.
Decision, 40共1兲, 17–25.
Letza, S. R. 共1996兲. ‘‘The design and implementation of the balanced
scorecard.’’ Bus. Process Re-engineering Manage. J., 2共3兲, 54 –76.
Love, P. E. D., and Holt, G. D. 共2000兲. ‘‘Construction business perfor-
mance measurement: The SPM alternative.’’ Bus. Process Manage.,
6共5兲, 408 – 416.
Macleod, A., and Baxter, L. 共2001兲. ‘‘The contribution of business excel-
lence models in restoring failed improvement initiatives.’’ Eur. Man-
age. J., 19共4兲, 392– 403.
Marr, B. 共2001兲. ‘‘Scored for life.’’ Finan. Manage., 79共4兲, 30.
Maskell, B. 共1989兲. ‘‘Performance measurement of world class manufac-
turing.’’ Manage. Account., 67共5兲, 32–33; 67共6兲, 32–33; 67共7兲, 48 –
50; 67共8兲, 64 – 66.
McJorrow, S., and Cook, T. 共2000兲. ‘‘Balanced scorecard: The first gen-
eration.’’ Manage. Account.: Chartered Accountants Journal of New
Zealand, 70共3兲, 4 – 8.
Medori, D. 共1998兲. ‘‘The development and implementation of an inte-
grated performance measurement framework.’’ Performance
measurement—Theory and practice, A. D. Neely and D. B. Waggoner,
 eds., vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Mendoza, C., and Zrihen, R. 共2001兲. ‘‘Measuring up.’’ Finan. Manage.,
79共4兲, 26 –29.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., and Novakoski, M. 共1995兲. ‘‘Measuring con-
struction productivity: A practical approach.’’ Work Study, 44共8兲, 18 –
20.
Neely, A. 共1999兲. ‘‘The performance revolution: Why now and what
next?’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 19共2兲, 205–228.
Neely, A. 共2002兲. ‘‘Spotlight on Andy Neely.’’ Spotlight interview, Emer-
ald Now, 具http://www.emeraldinsight.com/now/spotlight.htm典. 共Apr.
2002兲.
Neely, A., and Adams, C. 共2001兲. ‘‘The performance prism perspective.’’
Journal of Cost Management, 15共1兲, 7–15.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Neely, A., and Bourne, M. 共2000兲. ‘‘Why measurement initiatives fail.’’
Measuring Bus. Excellence, 4共4兲, 3– 6.
Neely, A., et al. 共1997兲. ‘‘Designing performance measures: A structured
approach.’’ Int. J. Operat. Product. Manage., 17共11兲, 1131–1152.
Neely, A., et al. 共2000兲. ‘‘Performance measurement system design: De-
veloping and testing a process-based approach.’’ Int. J. Operat. Prod-
uct. Manage., 20共10兲, 1119–1145.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., and Platts, K. 共1995兲. ‘‘Performance measure-
ment system design: A literature review and research agenda.’’ Int. J.
Operat. Product. Manage., 15共4兲, 80–116.
National Institute of Standards and Technology 共NIST兲. 共2002兲. Baldrige
National Quality Program, 具http://www.quality.nist.gov/典, Gaithers-
burg, Md.
Niven, P. R. 共2001兲. ‘‘Examining the endurance of the balanced score-
card.’’ J. Cost Manage., 15共3兲, 18 –24.
Norreklit, H. 共2000兲. ‘‘The balance on the balanced scorecard—A critical
analysis of some of its assumptions.’’ Manage. Account. Res., 11共1兲,
65– 88.
Oliver, L., and Palmer, E. 共1998兲. ‘‘An integrated model for infrastruc-
tural implementation of performance measurement.’’ Performance
measurement—Theory and practice, A. D. Neely and D. B. Waggoner,
eds., vol. 2, Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Olomolaiye, P. O., Jayawardane, A. K. W., and Harris, F. C. 共1998兲.
Construction management productivity, Chartered Institute of Build-
ing, Ascot, and Longman, London.
Palmer, E., and Parker, D. 共2001兲. ‘‘Understanding performance measure-
ment systems using physical science uncertainty principles.’’ Int. J.
Operat. Product. Manage., 21共7兲, 981–999.
Price, A. D. F., and Newson, E. 共2003兲. ‘‘Strategic management: Consid-
eration of paradoxes, processes and associated concepts as applied to
construction.’’ J. Manage. Eng., 19共4兲, 183–192.
Price, A. D. F., Newson, E., and Ganiev, B. V. 共2004兲. ‘‘Current strategic
management practice within UK construction organizations.’’ Strate-
gic Change, in press.
Przasnyski, Z. H., and Lawrence, S. T. 共1999兲. ‘‘Stock market reaction to
Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award announcements: Does
quality pay?’’ Total Quality Manage., 10共3兲, 391– 400.
Robertson, H. W. 共1997兲. ‘‘A construction company’s approach to busi-
ness performance measurement.’’ Total Quality Manage., 8共2–3兲,
254 –255.
Robinson, H. S., Carrillo, P. M., Anumba, C. J., and Al-Ghassani, A. M.
共2002兲. ‘‘Business performance measurement and improvement strat-
50 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2004
J. Manage. Eng. 2004.20:42-50.
egies in construction organizations.’’ Loughborough Univ., Loughbor-
ough, U.K.
Schneiderman, A. 共1999兲. ‘‘Why balanced scorecards fail.’’ J. Strategic
Perform. Measure., Special Edition, January, 6 –11.
Schrank, R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Goal oriented performance evaluation 共GOPE兲: A
model-based approach.’’ Performance measurement—Theory and
practice, A. D. Neely and D. B. Waggoner, eds., vol. 2, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Sinclair, D., and Zairi, M. 共1995a兲. ‘‘Effective process management
through performance measurement. Part I: Applications of total
quality-based performance measurement.’’ Bus. Process Re-
engineering Manage. J., 1共1兲, 75– 88.
Sinclair, D., and Zairi, M. 共1995b兲. ‘‘Effective process management
through performance measurement. Part II: Benchmarking total
quality-based performance measurement for best practice.’’ Bus. Pro-
cess Re-engineering Manage. J., 1共2兲, 58 –72.
Sinclair, D., and Zairi, M. 共1995c兲. ‘‘Effective process management
through performance measurement. Part III: An integrated model of
total quality-based performance measurement.’’ Bus. Process Re-
engineering Manage. J., 1共3兲, 50– 65.
Sinclair, D., and Zairi, M. 共2000兲. ‘‘Performance measurement: A critical
analysis of the literature with respect to total quality management.’’
Int. J. Manage. Rev., 2共2兲, 145–168.
Skinner, W. 共1986兲. ‘‘The productivity paradox.’’ Harvard Bus. Rev.,
64共4兲, 55–59.
Smith, M. 共2001兲. ‘‘Getting construction back on track.’’ Beyond the bot-
tom line, The Industrial Pioneer, Birmingham, U.K., and For a
Change Magazine, London.
Stockdale, D. J. 共1997兲. ‘‘Can total quality management ‘add value’ in
construction?’’ Construction papers, P. Harlow, ed., Chartered Insti-
tute of Building, Ascot, U.K.
Suwignjo, P., Bitici, U. S., and Carrie, A. S. 共2000兲. ‘‘Quantitative models
for performance measurement system.’’ Int. J. Production Econ., 64,
231–241.
The construction best practice program—Key performance indicators
共CBPP-KPI兲. 共2002兲. 具http://www.cbpp.org.uk/cbpp/themes/bm/
KPIs/典.
Vitale, M. R., and Mavrinac, S. C. 共1994兲. ‘‘New process financial score-
card: A strategic performance measurement system.’’ Plan. Rev.,
22共4兲, 12–16.
Ward, C. S., Curtis, B., and Chapman, C. B. 共1991兲. ‘‘Objectives and
performance in construction projects.’’ Constr. Manage. Econom., 9,
343–354.
Watson, P., and Seng, L. T. 共2001兲. ‘‘Implementing the European Foun-
dation for Quality Management Model in construction.’’ Construction
Information Quarterly, Construction paper 130, Chartered Institute of
Building, Ascot, U.K.
Wegelius-Lehtonen, T. 共2001兲. ‘‘Performance measurement in construc-
tion logistics.’’ Int. J. Production Econ., 69共1兲, 107–116.
Wheelan, T. L., and Hunger, J. D. 共2000兲. Strategic management and
business policy, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Zairi, M., Letza, S. R., and Oakland, J. S. 共1994兲. ‘‘Does TQM impact on
bottom-line results?’’ TQM Mag., 6共1兲, 38 – 43.