Measuring the performance on stakeholders’ perspective in small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction industry

In Vietnam, the study and application of performance measurement (PM) of construction project

is still in the initial stage especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These

enterprises have adopted traditional PM that focuses solely on financial performance measures

(PMs). Whereas, financial PMs are no longer adequate to evaluate organisations’ performance in

today’s rapid changing business environment. To overcome the defects of the traditional PM

system and introduce balanced PMs on the perspective of stakeholder, this study has chosen

Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a theoretical framework to form the PM system of small and mediumsized construction enterprises in Vietnam. Moreover, this study used Fuzzy-Delphi Analytic

Hierarchy Process (FD-AHP) for assigning the weight for each Key performance indicators (KPIs)

defined.

Finding out this study introduced accurate and systematic PM system with the success factors (SFs),

(KPIs) based on BSC for stakeholder’s perspective that construction SMEs in Vietnam can adopt to

assist managers in having a complete point view of the organization, and providing them consistent

feedback for controlling goals and evaluating the performance.

pdf20 trang | Chia sẻ: Thục Anh | Ngày: 24/05/2022 | Lượt xem: 284 | Lượt tải: 0download
Nội dung tài liệu Measuring the performance on stakeholders’ perspective in small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction industry, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
rebi Dansoh, (2017), ‘A review of stakeholder management performance attributes inconstruct ion projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 35 (2017), 1037 – 1051. Hronec, S. M. (1993), ‘Vital signs: using quality, time and cost performance measurements to chart your company’s future’, Amacom, New York, NY. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2001), ‘Performance management in construction: A conceptual framework’, Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), 85–95. Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton (1992), ‘The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance’, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 71-9. 713 Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P.(2004), ‘Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes’, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Kelly Jo Kime (2015), ‘The balanced scorecard: from customer perspective to stakeholder perspectives’, Master of Business Administration, A Project Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University, July 2015. Lawson, R., Hatch, T., & Desroches, D. (2008), ‘Scorecard Best Practices: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation’. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son. Moullin, M. (2003), ‘Defining performance measurement perspectives on performance’ 2(2), 3. Neely, A. (2005), ‘The evolution of performance measurement research’, Int Oper Prod Manager, 5(12),1264–1277 Neely, A. (1998), ‘Three models of measurement: theory and practice’, International Journal of Business Performance Management, 1(1), 47-64. Neely, A. D., C. Adams, (2002), ‘The performance prism : the scorecard for measuring and managing business success’, London, Prentice Hall Financial Times. Pineno, C. C., (2002), ‘The balanced scorecard: an incremental approach model to health care management’, Journal of Health Care Finance, 28(4), pp. 69-80. PMI. (2001), ‘A guide to the project management body of knowledge’ Soetanto, R., Proverbs, D. G. and Holt, G. D. (2001), ‘Achieving quality construction projects based on harmonious working relationships: clients and architects' perceptions of contractor performance’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18, 528-548. 714 APPENDICES Table 1: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 1 One-Sample Test COST Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper CC1 7.699 96 .000 .74227 .4889 .9956 CO1 6.708 96 .000 .69072 .4201 .9613 CO2 6.986 96 .000 .87629 .5466 1.2059 CO3 .984 96 .328 .11340 -.1896 .4164 CE1 7.867 96 .000 .80412 .5355 1.0727 CE2 2.110 96 .037 .23711 -.0582 .5324 CS1 7.276 96 .000 .81443 .5203 1.1086 CS2 .695 96 .489 .09278 -.2583 .4438 CS3 4.333 96 .000 .59794 .2353 .9606 CCO1 8.039 96 .000 .78351 .5274 1.0396 CCO2 8.013 96 .000 .93814 .6305 1.2458 CCO3 9.669 96 .000 1.07216 .7808 1.3636 CCO4 5.571 96 .000 .62887 .3322 .9255 CEV1 5.414 96 .000 .68041 .3501 1.0107 CEV2 11.166 96 .000 1.16495 .8908 1.4391 CEV3 -3.000 96 .003 -.34021 -.6383 -.0422 715 Table 2: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 2 One-Sample Test TIME Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper TC1 8.562 96 .000 .86598 .6002 1.1318 TC2 -1.835 96 .070 -.23711 -.5768 .1025 TC3 -6.908 96 .000 -.89691 -1.2381 -.5557 TC4 2.415 96 .018 .30928 -.0273 .6458 TC5 5.471 96 .000 .60825 .3161 .9004 TO1 8.607 96 .000 .87629 .6087 1.1438 TO2 4.029 96 .000 .45361 .1577 .7495 TO3 -9.580 96 .000 -.88660 -1.1298 -.6434 TO4 2.636 96 .010 .37113 .0011 .7412 TO5 4.774 96 .000 .67010 .3012 1.0390 TE1 4.541 96 .000 .55670 .2345 .8789 TE2 3.930 96 .000 .45361 .1503 .7569 TE3 .557 96 .579 .07216 -.2685 .4129 TE4 7.454 96 .000 .88660 .5740 1.1992 TE5 11.155 96 .000 1.02062 .7802 1.2611 TS1 6.825 96 .000 .80412 .4945 1.1138 TS2 4.461 96 .000 .44330 .1822 .7044 TS3 -.078 96 .938 -.01031 -.3580 .3374 TS4 -1.380 96 .171 -.20619 -.5988 .1865 TCO1 -1.680 96 .096 -.23711 -.6081 .1339 TCO2 5.196 96 .000 .59794 .2955 .9004 TEV1 1.957 96 .053 .19588 -.0671 .4589 TEV2 7.276 96 .000 .81443 .5203 1.1086 716 Table 3: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 3 One-Sample Test QUALITY Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper QC1 5.427 96 .000 .48454 .2499 .7192 QC2 8.118 96 .000 .87629 .5926 1.1600 QC3 3.268 96 .002 .38144 .0747 .6882 QO1 4.919 96 .000 .49485 .2305 .7592 QO2 7.833 96 .000 .81443 .5412 1.0877 QE1 7.531 96 .000 .76289 .4967 1.0291 QE2 10.749 96 .000 1.02062 .7711 1.2702 QE3 -4.099 96 .000 -.45361 -.7444 -.1628 QS1 -2.226 96 .028 -.26804 -.5845 .0484 QS2 -1.793 96 .076 -.22680 -.5592 .1056 QS3 3.910 96 .000 .56701 .1859 .9481 QCO1 5.794 96 .000 .70103 .3830 1.0190 QEV1 1.935 96 .056 .29897 -.1071 .7050 Table 4: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 4 One-Sample Test SAFETY Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper SC1 1.012 96 .314 .13402 -.2140 .4820 SC2 -3.174 96 .002 -.36082 -.6596 -.0620 SO1 -2.587 96 .011 -.29897 -.6026 .0047 SO2 .984 96 .328 .11340 -.1896 .4164 SO3 3.412 96 .001 .46392 .1066 .8212 SO4 6.939 96 .000 .74227 .4611 1.0234 SE1 2.498 96 .014 .30928 -.0161 .6346 SE2 1.765 96 .081 .25773 -.1260 .6415 SE3 6.678 96 .000 .64948 .3939 .9051 SS1 4.548 96 .000 .49485 .2089 .7808 SS2 5.735 96 .000 .50515 .2737 .7366 SCO1 5.983 96 .000 .72165 .4047 1.0386 SCO2 6.069 96 .000 .71134 .4033 1.0194 SEV1 2.921 96 .004 .35052 .0352 .6659 SEV2 1.860 96 .066 .19588 -.0809 .4726 SEV3 5.173 96 .000 .68041 .3348 1.0261 717 Table 5: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 5 One-Sample Test MINIMUM SITE DISPUTES Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper DC1 6.320 96 .000 .75258 .4396 1.0655 DC2 2.958 96 .004 .38144 .0425 .7204 DC3 5.803 96 .000 .71134 .3892 1.0335 DO1 -8.525 96 .000 -.65979 -.8632 -.4564 DO2 1.682 96 .096 .20619 -.1159 .5283 DE1 -1.215 96 .227 -.13402 -.4238 .1558 DE2 5.485 96 .000 .51546 .2685 .7624 DE3 7.326 96 .000 .82474 .5289 1.1206 DS1 3.240 96 .002 .28866 .0545 .5228 DS2 6.883 96 .000 .79381 .4907 1.0969 DCO1 4.833 96 .000 .45361 .2069 .7003 DCO2 6.684 96 .000 .75258 .4567 1.0485 DCO3 1.216 96 .227 .15464 -.1797 .4889 DEV1 5.583 96 .000 .50515 .2674 .7430 DEV2 -1.802 96 .075 -.21649 -.5323 .0993 Table 6: The output analysis from SPSS for Hypothesis 6 One-Sample Test ENVIROMENTA L IMPACT Test Value = 3 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 99% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper EC1 7.328 96 .000 .69072 .4430 .9384 EO1 2.358 96 .020 .37113 -.0425 .7847 EE1 7.438 96 .000 .83505 .5400 1.1301 EE2 1.307 96 .194 .20619 -.2085 .6209 EE3 -.903 96 .369 -.14433 -.5645 .2758 ES1 1.966 96 .052 .26804 -.0902 .6263 ES2 3.951 96 .000 .50515 .1691 .8412 ES3 -1.129 96 .262 -.13402 -.4460 .1780 ECO1 3.954 96 .000 .51546 .1729 .8580 EEV1 3.175 96 .002 .45361 .0782 .8290 718 Table 7: KPIs for stakeholders perspective in Vietnam small and medium construction enterprises Stakeholdes KPIs Cost Time Quality Safety minimum site disputes environmental impact Customers CC1 Variace between actual cost allocated for the work in place, copleted to date and the contract value TC1 On – time deliveries: Construction time = Practical completion date – Project commencement date. QC1 Quality thresholds are show in the contract. DC1 Number of conflicts with customers EC1 The environmental treatment cost in the total value of the contract QC2 Amount of the contract appropriate for quality thresholds SC2 Clearly defining the contractor and the investor’s responsibility for construction safety in the contract DC2 Ratio of Number of conflicts to number of contracts TC3 Usable life expectancy QC3 Project execute time appropriate quality thresholds DC3 Losses caused by disputes with customers (finacial, time, reputation) TC5 Losses due to late payment Owners/ managers CO1 Unit cost = Final contract TO1 On – time deliveries: Speed of Construction = QO1 Variace between the actual and standard SO1 The change in number of accidents DO1 Ratio of contribution/ share EO1 Owners and managers’ support for 719 Stakeholdes KPIs Cost Time Quality Safety minimum site disputes environmental impact sum/Ground Floor Area Ground Floor Area/Construction Time (days/weeks) Time variation = Construction time - Revised Contract Period Where RCP = Original Contract time – effect of extension of time cost of man-hours, material for repairing or rehandling or safety-related problems on the job site. capital to equity environmental protection CO2 Variace between actual cost allocated for the work in place, completed to date and standard cost TO2 The total value of the punch list items versus total contract amount QO2 Efficient quality control system TO3 The man-hours for punch items SO3 Efficient internal control system on safety TO4 Losses caused by contributing capital slowly SO4 Losses interruption production due to accidents TO5 Ready for contributing 720 Stakeholdes KPIs Cost Time Quality Safety minimum site disputes environmental impact capital Employees CE1 Labor cost per man- hours TE1 On-time payment of wages QE1 Experienced and skilled employees to fulfill those positions, SE1 Worker trained on safety issues EE1 Trained employees in environmental protection TE2 On – time deliveries QE2 Losses caused by a employees’s mistake. DE2 Number of employeeS quit due to conflicts QE3 Employee’s initiative to improve quality of the project SE3 Losses interruption production due to labor accidents DE3 Losses related to conflicts with emloyees ( fianacial. time, reputation) TE4 Man - hours wasted TS5 Labor productivity Suppliers CS1 Variace between actual and standard input cost TS1 Loss for late delivery SS1 Losses caused by the contractor does not comply with safety regulations (finacial, time, reputation) DS1 Number of disputes with suppliers TS2 SS2 DS2 ES2 721 Stakeholdes KPIs Cost Time Quality Safety minimum site disputes environmental impact Days of late payment The number of accidents caused by the contractor The ratio of losses caused by the dispute with the suppliers to the total value of the contract Losses caused by subcontractors’ poor awareness of environmental protection (fianacial, time, reputation) CS3 Losses due to delayed deliveries TS3 Penalties for late payment QS3 Losses caused by poor quality inputs Community CCO1 Ratio local labor cost to total labor cost QCO1 Community supervision of the project SCO1 Number of accidents involving the community DCO1 Number of conflicts with community ECO1 Community’s support for environmental treatment (technology, equipment, fianacial) CCO2 Cost savings in compensation for site clearance TCO2 Number hour of carrying out administrative procedures SCO2 Losses caused by the community does not comply with safety regulations (finacial, time, reputation) DCO2 Losses due to disputes with the community CCO3 cost of local administrative procedures 722 Stakeholdes KPIs Cost Time Quality Safety minimum site disputes environmental impact CCO4 The variance between the local labor unit price and the other labor unit price Enviroment CEV1 Cost of environmental restoration QEV1 Support for environmental treatment solutions SEV1 Certifying construction projects up to environmental protection standards DVE1 Fines due to environmental violations EEV1 Consultation on environmental protection solutions CEV2 Cost of reducing waste TEV2 The number of days of inactivity due to failure to meet the requirements of environmental protection CEV3 Ratio cost of recyclable materials to total material cost SEV3 Support to adjudicate environmental disputes between enterprise and communities

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • pdfmeasuring_the_performance_on_stakeholders_perspective_in_sma.pdf
Tài liệu liên quan