PHD ThesisfgITBV in Construction Industry - Dec 2012 HardCover Final-06!06!2013
PHD ThesisfgITBV in Construction Industry - Dec 2012 HardCover Final-06!06!2013
PHD ThesisfgITBV in Construction Industry - Dec 2012 HardCover Final-06!06!2013
December 2012
Page i of 332
DECLARATION
I certify that except where due acknowledge has been made, this
report (as part of PhD thesis) is produced by the undersigned alone.
The report is submitted under the University of Salford regulations
for the award of a PhD degree by research; it has not been submitted
before, in whole or in part to any university or other institute of
learning to qualify for any academic award.
Signed:
Page ii of 332
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All Praises are due to God for all His Mercies.
I would like to express my deep, profound and sincere gratitude to my
supervisor, Dr. Jason Underwood, Head of Construct IT For Business Manager,
Director of Ph.D. Program Admissions and Training, School of the Built
Environment, University of Salford. He provided me with inspiration and
encouragement through motivation that asked me to believe in myself and enjoy
the challenge of questioning and learning.
I am deeply grateful to my external supervisor, Dr. Benny Raphael an Assistant
Professor in the School of Design and Environment of National University of
Singapore. His wide knowledge and logical thinking process have challenged,
encouraged and provided me great value and personal guidance that created
good basis for the present thesis.
I wish to thank Professor Vian Ahmed Director of Postgraduate Research for
inspirational leadership providing vital information and guidance on the
requirements for the successful delivery of PhD within the program.
I also wish to recognise and thank all the support team of MERIT Program of
Salford University for their unflinching support and rapid responses to my
constant requests. They include Ms Rachel Lilley, Ms Sarah Ricketts.
I extend my appreciation to all the participants from the numerous Engineering,
Construction, Architectural and project management organisations that took part
in the discussions, comments and survey data collection.
I would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the Nigerian
Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF). The financial support of the
University of Salford is also gratefully acknowledged.
I wish to thank my family for their support and enduring my absence during the
study period. Special thanks to my wife for her patience and encouragement, my
children, Fawziyyah, Yasir for the help in typing some of the manuscript and AlKassim and Khadija for enduring my absence.
DEDICATIONS
Dedicated to:
My wife Fatima who has always supportive of all my endeavours
My Children: Fawziyyah, Yasir, Al-Kassim, and Khadija;
They paid the price of living without total dedication
of husband and father during the
period of this study.
Page iv of 332
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...............................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................iii
DEDICATIONS ...............................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................v
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................xi
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1
1.0
Background................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 9
2.1
Concepts of Competitiveness..................................................................................... 11
2.2
2.2.1
Porters Theory......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Page v of 332
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.13.1
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.16.1
2.16.2
2.16.3
2.16.4
2.17
2.18
Chapter Summary..................................................................................................... 46
Introduction................................................................................................................ 47
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
Strategic Planning.................................................................................................... 53
3.2.2
3.2.3
Procurement ............................................................................................................. 55
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.6
Page vi of 332
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
3.8
Output Variables......................................................................................................... 74
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.8.5
3.8.6
3.9
Chapter Summary....................................................................................................... 81
Introduction................................................................................................................ 83
4.1
4.2
Research Philosophy.................................................................................................. 85
4.2.1
Positivism.................................................................................................................. 86
4.2.2
Constructivism.......................................................................................................... 87
4.2.3
Realism ..................................................................................................................... 88
4.2.4
Pragmatism .............................................................................................................. 88
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Triangulation .............................................................................................................. 97
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.14.1
4.14.2
4.14.3
4.15
4.16
4.16.1
4.16.2
4.16.3
4.16.4
4.16.5
4.17
4.17.1
Validity.................................................................................................................. 119
4.17.2
Reliability.............................................................................................................. 119
4.18
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 121
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.4
5.5
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 141
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.2
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.4
CHAPTER SEVEN.......................................................................................................156
CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION ......................................................156
7.0
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 156
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................165
APPENDIX A 1.1: COVER LETTER ...........................................................................229
APPENDIX A 1.2: RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ...............................230
APPENDIX A 1.3: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE..........................................................231
APPENDIX B 1.1.: FRONTIER ANALYST REPORT ..................................................235
PILOT STUDY ............................................................................................................235
APPENDIX B1.1.2:
Page ix of 332
APPENDICES
A. BIBLIOGRAPHY
165
229
230
231
235
240
303
308
Page x of 332
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1
2.2
15
2.3
17
2.4
19
2.5
Conceptualization of ITI
34
2.6
38
3.1
51
3.2
51
3.3
53
3.4
Pre-Project Activities
55
3.5
56
3.7
Procurement Activities
57
3.8
Construction Activities
58
3.9
68
4.1
86
4.2
93
4.3
96
4.4
106
4.5
108
4.6.
108
4.7
DEA Algorithm
118
5.1
125
5.2
Distribution of Turnover
126
5.3
Distribution of Scores
128
Page xi of 332
5.4
130
5.5
130
5.6
131
5.7
131
5.8
132
5.9
133
5.10
134
5.11
136
5.12
137
5.13
142
5.14
142
6.1
145
6.2
152
6.3
153
6.4
154
6.5
156
6.6
157
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1
39
3.1
55
3.2
57
3.3
71
3.4
IT Resources Constructs
70
3.5
77
3.6
78
5.1
Inputs/Outputs Data
118
5.2
Efficiency Scores
120
5.3
135
5.4
136
5.5
140
5.6
141
6.3
155
6.4
157
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BCC
BWE
CA
Competitive Advantage
CCR
CIO
COST
CRS
CUSTO
CVC
DEA
DMU
DRS
EMR
IT
Information Technology
ITBA
ITBV
ITHS
ITI
ITSI
MPSS
PROFI
RBV
Resource-Based View
SAFETY
SCHD
TFP
VC
Value Chain
VRS
MATHEMATICAL NOTATIONS
Symbol
example
Meaning
a A
is an element in set A
a A
A is an empty set
{a A :*}
{x : x
A and x
{x : x
A or x
{x : x
A, x
A\B
A+B
N
B}
B}
B}
x,y
,x
y if and only if xn
1,2,....., N
y if and only if x
y and x
yn
Sum sign
if and only if
for all
there exists
s.t.
subject to
tends to +
Epsilon is a very small positive constant
Page xv of 332
ABSTRACT
The idea that the deployment and strategic utilization of information technology
(IT) resources as factors of production can be used by organisations to improve
performances has been around for many decades. The contributions of the IT
resources in improving organisations performances give rise to what is termed IT
business value (ITBV). There have been varieties of conceptualizations and
attempts to measure the ITBV by different researchers. However, most of these
attempts to quantify ITBV have led to inconsistencies and paradoxes.
Furthermore, a major part of the literature in the area continues to be anecdotal
and primarily descriptive. Therefore, there is little evidence of an accepted
theoretical framework for applying the ideas and there is even less in the way of
empirical evidence concerning the validity and utility of these concepts.
The research adopts multi-theoretical concepts of process-based, resource-based
and microeconomics views as the theoretical framework in order to mitigate the
absence of structured theoretical framework in the previous studies. A non
parametric approach of Data Envelopment Analysis was used for empirical
testing of the model developed.
The findings present an empirically tested model for benchmarking IT-induced
productivity in construction industry. Also the outcome of the research
establishes that IT provides business value in undertaking the engineering and
construction business processes, which leads to significant impact on the
organisations performances in the areas of project delivery, customer relationship
and overall profit growth.
For practical purposes, the model could be used to provide support to managers
in decision making on IT investments, utilization of the IT resources and how
combination of strategic IT resources with other organizational resources could in
increase efficiency in delivering project value chains.
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND
1.0
Background
The strategic impacts of Information Technology (IT) on the organisations
performances have been of interest to both managers and researchers for
decades (Benjamin et al., 1984; Bakos and Treacy, 1986; Tan, 1996; Davis et
al., 2003). Studies in the field have led to the suggestion that IT-enabled
strategies could be used to gain competitive advantage. The argument is
that IT resources do offer strategic advantage to organisations through
efficient and cost effective delivery of the organisations value chain.
However, most of these studies were carried out through imprecise and
unstructured theoretical constructs that seem to lead to equivocal results
(Porter and Millar, 1985; Mahmood and Soon, 1991; Lee, 2001).
Furthermore, there is a dearth of empirically validated frameworks used
in most of the studies (King et al., 1989). Attempts to explain the
inconsistencies in the various studies on the impact of IT on organisation
performance
ascribed
difficulties
associated
with
modelling
and
Page 1 of 332
1.1
1.2
Research Questions
To increase the understanding of the impact of utilization of IT in the
execution of engineering and construction organizations value chains and
their performances; the research study addressed the following question:
"What are the possible impacts of deploying and utilizing IT
resources in the presence of other complementary organisational
resources on the performances of engineering and construction
organisations in United Kingdom?"
1.3
Research Aim
The research was to develop and empirically validate information
technology business value model strategy for engineering and construction
organisations.
1.4
Research Objectives
The objectives of the research include:
To investigate the impact of IT resource utilizing on the performance
of engineering and construction industry in the UK.
To develop a comprehensive process-oriented model of ITBV to
investigate the impact of IT resources on the performance of
engineering and construction organisations.
To use the organisations value chain for delivering construction
project to measure the intermediate impacts of the IT resources and
Page 2 of 332
and
construction
organizations
IT-induced
performances
1.5
Scope of Research
The study considered the level of IT resources deployed and used by the
UK engineering and construction organisations as a form of automation to
investigate and reported the findings of their impact on the organisations
performances. The study integrated three theoretical perspectives of
process-based, microeconomic and resource-based views to develop a
conceptual model for the research. Using a non-parametric technique of
Date Envelopment Analysis (DEA) the conceptual model was empirically
tested and validated.
1.6
competitive
and
advantage,
management,
engineering
construction
and
construction
management
research
Page 3 of 332
experience
on
issues
related
to
the
research
design,
involved
the
choice
of
data
analysis
approach,
tool,
1.7
Contribution to Knowledge
The outcome of the research provides a theoretically improved structured
and empirically tested model for evaluating IT business value in
engineering and construction organisations. The model could be used to
benchmark and establish the relative IT-induced performances of the
organisations within strategic groupings of construction industry. For
Page 4 of 332
1.8
Thesis Structure
The thesis is structured into the following chapters:
Chapter one: This chapter provides the summary of the seven chapters
that made up of this thesis from background to conclusion.
Chapter two: This chapter reviews the literature in detail utilizing the
paradigm funnel approach in the areas of information
Page 5 of 332
technology,
organisation
performance,
construction
etc.
The
chapter
also
Page 7 of 332
Chapter seven: The chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the
analysis and findings of chapter six. It highlights the
contributions to knowledge from the research findings,
recommendations, business management applicability and
future research.
Page 8 of 332
CHAPTER TWO
THE RESEARCH THEORITICAL PARADIGMS
2.0
Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature in detail in the areas of information
technology,
organisation
performance,
construction
management,
2.1
Concepts of Competitiveness
The term competitiveness originated from the Latin word, competer, which
means involvement in a business rivalry for markets. One popular view of
Competitiveness is as a comparative concept denoting the ability and
performance of a given country, industry or an organisation. Thus,
competitiveness is viewed from these three levels of abstraction (Buckley
et al., 1988; Momaya and Selby, 1998; Murths, 1998; Ambastha and
Momaya, 2004; Henricsson et al., 2004; Flanagan et al., 2005; 2007).
The sources of competitiveness for an organisation to gain Competitive
Advantage include its assets and processes. The competitiveness processes
are defined as those processes, which help identify the importance and
current performance of core processes such as strategic management
processes, human resources processes, operations management processes
and technology management processes (Ambastha and Momaya, 2004)
and defined in the organisations value chain.
Porter (1990) argues that there was no accepted definition of
competitiveness, while Turner (1991) submits that the definition of the
concept of competitiveness is not important as long as the outcome of it is
good. On the other hand, Henricsson et al. (2004) stress that defining
competitiveness matters. These and other views led Flanagan et al
(2007:990) to conclude:
..researchers have failed to reach a consensus on the meaning of
competitiveness despite its widespread use in academia and
industry.
Nevertheless there are variety of working definition for the concept of
competitive advantage, theories for the sources of competitive advantage
and sustainable competitive advantage.
Day and Wensley (1994) insist that a complete definition of competitive
advantage must describe not only the state but also how that advantage is
gained. Sustained competitive advantage flows from organizational
Page 11 of 332
2.2
Page 12 of 332
2.2.1
Porters Theory
Porters theory for organisations competitiveness is characterized as the
industrial organization view of CA, which was grounded on the earlier
works of Mason (1939) and Bain (1959) in the area of industrial
organization economics (Flanagan et al., 2007; Kale, 2002). Porter (1986:3)
states:
"Competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of the value a
firm is able to create for its buyers that exceeds the organisation's
cost of creating it. Value is what buyers are willing to pay, and
superior value stems from offering lower prices than competitors for
equivalent benefits or providing unique benefits that more than
offset a higher price. There are two basic types of CA: cost leadership
and differentiation."
Porters definition of competitive advantage seems to implicitly equates
competitive advantage to profitability, and sustainable advantage to
sustainable profitability (Ma, 2000). Major components in Porters theory
are the five competitive forces model, the three generic competitive
strategies, and the value chain.
2.2.2
2.
power of suppliers;
Page 13 of 332
3.
power of buyers;
4.
Figure 2.2 Five Competitive Forces Model (Thompson and Strickland, 2001)
The CA to be gained from powerful supply relationships is greatest when
Page 14 of 332
Page 15 of 332
Page 16 of 332
Page 17 of 332
Page 18 of 332
merits include its simplicity (Miller and Dess, 1993) and its strong
theoretical underpinnings (White, 1986),
Miller and Dess (1993) evaluated Porters model of generic strategies on
the basis of its simplicity, accuracy (predictive and explanatory power),
and generalizability and conclude thus:
Even though it is a simple framework, it captures a great deal of
complexity.
It does not provide a completely accurate portrayal of strategyperformance relationship of the ability and durability of combining
strategic advantage, and
The generalibility of the generic strategies is questionable.
2.2.6
On the other hand, Ma (2000: 16) inquire whether either cost advantage or
differentiation advantage is sufficient and necessary for superior
performance; assuming a negative answer he concluded that competitive
advantage, within Porter's perspective (1980, 1985) at least, does not
equate to performance. He further argues that superior performance
could also come from other types of competitive advantage, such as speed
(Stalk, 1990; Eisenhard and Brown, 1998) or flexibility (Sanchez, 1993,
1995). CA and performance are two different constructs and their
relationship seems to be complex.
2.3
advantages
by
improving
operational
efficiency
of
2.4
rare,
non-substitutable,
imperfect
limitability
and
imperfectly mobile.
An organisation must identify and strengthen those organisation
specific resources in developing its core competence.
Usually, resources here refer to not only the possession of
organisation-specific resources, but also to the effective utilization of
these resources to achieve CA.
The RBV proposed that the deployment and exploitation of valuable, rare
resources, and capabilities contributes to an organisations CA, which in
turn contributes to its performance (Barney, 1991). Based on this paradigm
it could be argued that IT-enabled strategy can improve organisational
performance by creating sustainable competitive advantage via unique,
immobile, and path-dependent strategic resources and capabilities
(Bharadwaj, 2000; Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Newbert, 2008).
The RBV shifts the focus from the industry structure to the resources
developed by an organisation (Flanagan et al., 2007). It is mainly based on
Selznicks (1957) seminal work on distinctive competences and on
Penroses (1959) early argument that an organisation is a collection of
Page 21 of 332
Page 22 of 332
2.5
2.6
Strategic grouping
In addition to using industry structure to determine the performance of an
organisation (Bain, 1956; Scherer, 1970; Porter1981) or using a resource
based approach (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991); a business
could analyse the relationship between industry and the organisation
using strategic grouping (Thompson and Strickland, 2001; Claver et al.,
2003).
A strategic group consists of those rival organisations with similar
competitive approaches and positions in the market. They provide an
intermediate frame of reference between viewing an industry as a whole
and considering each organisation separately (O'Farrell, et al., 1993; Chen,
1996; Flavian and Polo, 1999). There has been limited attention in the field
of research on strategic management and strategic groups in the
construction industry (Claver et al., 2003). Using this concept to answer the
Page 23 of 332
2.7
2.8
2.9
Page 24 of 332
2.10
Santhanam
and
Hartono
(2003),
Ravinchandran
and
Based on this
Page 25 of 332
1991; Mata et al., 1995; Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997; Bharadwaj, 2000;
Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj and Grover, 2003; Newbert, 2008).
Furthermore, RBV recognises the role of resource complementarities in
creating and providing sources of SCA to organisations.
2.11
organizational
capabilities
(marketing-related
and
organizational
resources
include
scale
of
(Feeny
ownership
2001),
structure
physical
(Piccoli
assets
and
(Feeny
Applegate
and
Ives
2003),
1990),
corporate
culture (Barney 1986; Feeny and Ives 1990; Powell and DentMicallef,
1997),
top
management
commitment
(Henderson
and
activity
system
(Siggelkow,
2001)
or
unique
business
relationships
(Dyer
and
Singh
1998),
brand
(Porter
1991).
They
can
be
valuable
components
of
IT-
formulations
organisation
organizational
resources
capital
with
of
Barneys
physical
resources,
(1991)
capital,
the
classification
human
former
two
capital,
of
and
containing
2.12
Page 30 of 332
2.6
2.13
Page 31 of 332
represents
composite
of
shared
technical
components
infrastructure;
extent
of
inter-organisation
integration. She further combined the first three dimensions into one and
called it network infrastructure measuring the extent of network
connectivity and network flexibility. The second component of IT as
conceptualized by Bhatt (2000) was data integration with a measure of
level of availability and consistency of data across different departments
of an organisation.
Bruce et al (2003) operationalised ITI using eight dimensions of Chief
Information Officer (CIO), IT planning, IT security, technology integration,
advisory committee, enterprise model, information integration and data
administration. The CIO dimension measures both technical and business
knowledge of the head of IT section. IT planning views alignment of IT
strategy with business strategy and the security awareness is captured
under IT security dimension. Level of automation and integration is
represented by technology and information integration dimensions. The
advisory committee monitors end user participation and senior managers
participation.
Fink and Neumann (2009) identified three theoretical approaches to ITI
including technical-oriented approach consisting of platforms, networks
and telecommunications, data, and core applications, component-oriented
approach involving technical and human components and processoriented approach which incorporates organizational processes and
activities utilizing the rest of the components.
Fusing McKay and Brockway (1989), Weill (1993) and Bhatt (2000) ITI
concepts, a four-layer conceptualization of ITI is derived (Figure 2.5).
Therefore, for the purpose of this study IT resources are refer to as IT
infrastructure (ITI) that include both tangible and intangible assets of the
organisation, and are conceptualized in four dimensions of shared
technical components, IT Human competence, IT application, and
business process (Bhatt, 2000). The shared technological component of the
ITI model (Figure 2.5) consists of the hardware portion of the
Page 34 of 332
Page 35 of 332
2.14
procurement
of
construction
material,
and
construction
Page 36 of 332
et
al.,
2003;
Skibniewski
and
participating
organizations
significant
integration
in
construction
Page 39 of 332
Skitmore, 1991; Hampson and Tatum, 1997; Kale and Arditi, 2002), and
recently by Flanagan et al., (2005; 2007). However Green et al., (2008) argued
that generally, the understanding of the competitive strategy of
construction firms has stagnated within recent years.
As they gained prominence quickly, the general theories on firms
competitiveness have been introduced into the construction sector.
Introduction, adaptation and application of these theories into the sector
have attracted enduring research interest as the industry has long been
viewed as heterogeneous. Porters theory for firm competitiveness has had
certain popularity in the construction industry (e.g. Male and Stocks, 1991;
Betts and Ofori, 1992, 1994; Langford and Male, 2001). The RBV has also
been explored in the construction sector. Haan et al. (2002) demonstrate its
validity in construction. Kale (2002) engages it as an essential part of his
framework for identifying the sources of competitiveness for construction
firms. The strategic management approach is also used to achieve
construction firms CA. Typical works on strategic management in
construction include Fellows et al., (1983), Newcombe et al. (1990),
Warszawski (1996), Venegas and Alarcon (1997). The above-reviewed
studies have provided different levels of insight into the achievement of
competitive advantage for construction firms. Nonetheless they were
criticized for having adopted an anecdotal or descriptive research approach
(Kale and Arditi, 2002). The lack of rigorous empirical data has resulted in
minimal improvement in our realistic understanding. This leads to recent
empirical competitiveness research at the construction firm level. Some
findings that are different from Porters original propositions have been
reported. For example, contractors in the US market who adopt a neutral
strategy that falls between a narrow and a broad strategy can also achieve
CA (Kale and Arditi, 2002) whereas according to Porter (1980; 1985)
contractors with such a neutral strategy also called stuck in the middle,
possess no CA.
Page 40 of 332
Page 41 of 332
Author
Study/Survey/Research
Arditi
and Factors
that
affected
the
Gutierrez (1991)
competitiveness of US contractors
working abroad during 1980s
Crosthwaite (1998) International performance of British
construction companies.
Ofori (1994)
Formulation of a programme for
developing Singapores construction
industry
Pheng et al. (2004)
Explored the advantages of top
British and Chinese contractors in
the global market
Model
Used
Porters
diamond Model
(1998)
Used internationalisation
ratios in the OLI + S
(ownership, locational and
internalisation advantages
+ specialty advantages)
model,
Oz (2001)
Investigated
the
sources
of Used
Porters
(1998)
competitive advantage of Turkish diamond model
contractors in international markets
Seymour (1987)
Analyse
the
multinational Used Dunnings (2000)
construction industry
eclectic paradigm
Pheng
and Investigated the internationalisation Used Dunnings (2000)
Hongbin (2003
of Chinese construction enterprises
eclectic paradigm
Cuervo and Pheng Analysed
the
significance
of
(2003)
ownership advantage and the
disadvantage factors of Singaporean
transnational
construction
corporations in the international
construction market
Pheng
and Proposed an OLI + S model for Used Dunnings (2000)
Hongbin (2004)
measuring
the
degree
of eclectic paradigm
internationalisation of multinational
corporations
Page 42 of 332
Page 43 of 332
2.17
researchers to examine the lag effects (Devaraj and Kohli, 2000). With the
difficulty in collecting longitudinal data, cross-sectional data to simulate a
time series can provide good insight as suggested by Shafer and Bryd
(2000).
OConnor and Yang (2004) suggested that increased integrated usage of IT
resources may contribute significantly to project performance in terms of
cost and schedule success. El-Mashaleh et al. (2006) found a similar
quantitative result, when they also examined the impact of IT on
construction firm performance specially cost and schedule.
2.18
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the literature on the application of IT from a high
level of a country to the organisational level. While numerous studies have
investigated performance measures and strategy, and information
technology and strategy, research on the combination of performance
measures, strategy and information technology is sparse. Thus, the
literature review highlighted the dearth of research in field of strategic
utilization of IT in construction management evaluate IT induced
productivity.
The review focused on the strategic application of Information Technology
in the execution of engineering and construction business to gain
competitive advantage. The insight gained lead to the research
proposition, aim and objective with the view to contribute and fill in the
vacuum found in the literature of IT business value in engineering and
construction organisations.
The next chapter introduces the conceptual model for the ITBV, which has
been developed using the theories and paradigms described in the
literature along with establishing the hypotheses and identifying the
variables and their measures of the research.
Page 46 of 332
CHAPTER THREE
IT BUSINESS VALUE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
3.0
Introduction
This chapter presents the conceptualization and development of the ITBV
model using the theories and views described in chapter two. ITBV is
viewed as the positive outcome of deployment and implementation of IT
resources in the delivery of engineering and construction projects value
chain as a measure of the performance metrics including cost, schedule,
profitability, safety and customer satisfaction.
The chapter also contains the derivation of hypotheses along with
providing definitions and selections of the input and output variables in
addition to the techniques deployed for quantifying them.
3.1
Page 47 of 332
most
of
these
constructs
do
not
provide
adequate
industry.
Difficulties
in
formulating
performance
al.,
1995;
Powell
and
Dent-Micallef,
1997;
Bharadwaj,
2000;
Page 49 of 332
Procurement
CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn
MMaaiinntteennaannccee
Page 50 of 332
Project
Management
Maintenance and
Operation
Construction &
Commissioning
Procurement
Engineering
Design
Strategic
Planning
Primary
Activities
ITw
1 2 3 4 5
Page 51 of 332
Figure 3.3 Integrated Value Chain with WFs (Kassim et al., 2009, 2010a)
The value chain concept provides a typical business process of an
engineering and construction organisation. The components of the critical
activities (Porter, 1985: 37) representing the work functions for each
primary activity of the value chain are further developed. A critical
activity is one, which has a large impact on the organisational CA. This
means that an activity becomes critical if it creates a large potential for cost
reduction or differentiation (Michael and Deigan, 1989). Using these
guidelines each of the primary activities of the value chain in Figure 3.2
was further broken down at the process level. For example, the primary
activity of strategic planning is subdivided into: (a) market research, (b)
bidding process, (c) contract strategy, and (d) manpower planning etc.
These subdivisions of the primary activities of value chain are referred to
as work functions (WFs) in line with OConner et al., (2000) and ElMashaleh et al., (2006). Production processes in engineering and
construction organisations are significantly different from those in the
manufacturing organisations; thus, work functions where technologies are
identified to be applied were adopted (Seaden et al., 2003). The detail
breakdown of the primary activities of the construction value chain into
the respective critical work functions is presented in Table 3.1. The
Page 52 of 332
3.2
activities
for
conducting
engineering,
procurement
and
3.2.1
Strategic Planning
Generally business strategic planning could be viewed as the selection of
ideas and assets to deliver the long-term goal of an organisation.
Nevertheless, Bob and Ron (2000) insisted that there is no general
Page 53 of 332
3.2.2
Engineering Design
Engineering design is a creative, iterative and often open-ended process of
conceiving
and
developing
components,
systems
and
processes
Page 54 of 332
Figure 3.5 Engineering Design work functions (Back and Moreau, 2000)
Gwendolyn and Vreede (2009) argued that regardless of the domain, the
act of designing involves proving a solution to a problem. Engineering
design is a multi-disciplinary and multi-step process that includes
research, conceptualization, feasibility assessment etc. (Ertas and Jones,
1996; Eggert, 2010).
3.2.3
Procurement
Procurement is viewed as an activity in the project construction life cycle
that involves the acquisition of goods and/or services from preparation
and processing of a requisition through to receipt and approval of the
invoice for payment. It commonly involves (1) development of
specifications (2) issue for inquiry to suppliers (3) analysis and evaluations
of bids submitted and (4) making the purchase (5) expediting the delivery
and (6) contract administration (Shaw, 2010).
Page 55 of 332
3.2.4
Page 56 of 332
3.2.5
Page 57 of 332
3.2.6
Project Management
Project management is a methodical approach to planning and guiding
project processes from start to finish. According to the Project
Management Institute, the processes are guided through stages that
include (1) initiation, (2) planning, (3) executing, (4) controlling, and (5)
closing. The project management concept can be applied to almost any
type of project and industry. A project is typically viewed as any
temporary endeavour with a defined start and end, further constrained
by specification and cost undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives
(Martin, 2002; Paul et al., 2005)
The primary challenge of project management is to achieve all of the
project goals (Lewis, 2006) and objectives while honoring the
preconceived constraints (Paul et al., 2005). Typical constraints are scope,
time, and budget (Harold, 2003). The secondaryand more ambitious
challenge is to optimize the allocation of necessary inputs and integrate
them to meet pre-defined objectives PMI (2010).
3.3
Page 58 of 332
Reference
Dehning
and
Stratopoulos,
2003;
Bharadwaj, 2000; Stratopoulos and
Dehning, 2000)
Sustained
competitive
advantage
through barriers to entry, switching
costs, and mobility barriers
Sustained
competitive
advantage
would require bundling IT with
differences in the value chain
Sustained
competitive
advantage
would require bundling IT with
tangible or human resources
Ciborra, 1994
IT-dependent
strategic
initiatives
contribute to sustained competitive
advantage
Page 59 of 332
project
planning,
scheduling,
cost
control,
project
Page 60 of 332
Strategic
Planning
Primary
Activities
Application Areas
Reference
Bidding Strategy
Integrating simulation
with expert systems
Procurement
Engineering Design
BIM
Cost Estimation
CAD systems
Building Information
Modelling
Construction Material
Information
Material specifications
Page 61 of 332
Maintenance and
Project
Management
3.4
Bar-coding
Radio frequency
identification (RFID)
CAD systems
Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI)
Maintenance History
RFID Tags
Project Monitoring
Cost Estimation
Data communication
Page 62 of 332
(Kettinger et al., 1994; Mata et al., 1995); hence ITenabled strategies may
not provide a platform for a sustainable competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, the theoretical argument for ITBV is that sustainability is
possible and can be attributed to certain IT resources and capabilities that
are difficult to imitate (Feeny and Ives, 1990). When an IT-enabled strategy
is combined with such resources and capabilities, organisations will be
able to gain a sustained competitive advantage through barriers to entry,
switching costs, and mobility barriers, high performance relative to its
peers (Porter, 1979; 1980; Mata et al., 1995; McFarlan, 1984; Sambamurthy,
2000).
The general hypothesis therefore, is that organisations can sustain
strategic IT innovation and differentiate business success by developing
superior IT capabilities (Sambamurthy, 2000). These IT resources include
managerial IT skills, Technical IT skills and IT infrastructure (Melville et
al., 2004; Piccoli and Ives, 2005).
3.5
increase
the
understanding
of
IT
business
value
diffusion,
Page 63 of 332
3.5.1
3.5.2
Page 64 of 332
3.5.3
and managing changes. Such skills are developed over time through
accumulation of experience in a form of organisational learning. The
theoretical concepts of IT management skills lead directly to the following
hypothesis represented by H3 on the conceptual model diagram in Figure
3.8.
H3 Superior IT human capabilities (ITHS) will have a positive impact in
providing a source for engineering and construction organisations
competitive advantage
3.5.4
strategies.
These
complementary
resources
include
the
Page 66 of 332
work functions. This process was facilitated through the experiences of the
researcher in delivering variety of construction projects (Alarcon and
Mourgues, 2002), the literatures such as OConnor and Yang (2003);
OConnor and Yang (2004) and Yang et al. (2006; 2007) and constructions
organisations from different sectors that participated in a pilot study. The
performance measures are represented by six variables of schedule
performance (SCHD), cost performance (COST), customer satisfaction
(CUSTO), growth in contracts (CONTR), safety (SAFETY) and profits
(PROFI) mainly hinged on project performance. Variables such as contract
growth is included to highlight the extent of IT and business strategies
alignment. The selection of the variables was based on a multi-criteria
analysis of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1990) and
attempted to ensure both owners and contractors perspectives were
covered.
3.6
Measuring ITBV
This section provides a detailed description of the technique used for the
quantification of the ITBV variables used for the subsequent data
collection and analysis.
3.7
Input Variables
The above elements of the hypotheses are operationalised as the
independent variables. The measure of the variables are conceptualised at
the level of utilization in conducting the construction business, rather than
their monetary value because of the difficulties in getting monetary value
of organisations IT investments (Kumar, 2004). Tallon and Kraemer (2007)
established that a significant positive correlation exists between objective
(performance measure) and perceptual measures of ITBV. The measure of
the dimensions of ITI and complementary resources are used as input
variables. The following are the descriptions of the inputs variables.
Page 68 of 332
3.7.1
Page 69 of 332
executed over the period of last three years to assess the level of
deployment of the ITBA in executing their work functions. The use of the
average level of inputs over a three-year period was to address the time
lag between investment in IT and the accrual of benefits (Shafer and Byrd
2000).
For each primary activity phase the ITBA index (ITp) is calculated as an
average scope for all the work function under the phase (El-Mashaleh et
al., 2006; Yang, 2007):
3.1
Where:
ITp = automation and integration index (IA) for each primary activity of
the organisations value chain.
ITw = IA work functions score on the Likert scale from 1- 5 for each
primary activities of the organisations value chain
W = the total number of the work functions
An overall project ITBA automation index is computed as the average
score of IA across the six primary activities of the organisations value
chains. These score are at organisation level where projects executed over
a period of three years are to be considered. Therefore, ITBA index as of
the components of the IT resources for this research as an independent
input is calculated as follows:
3.2
Where:
ITBA = Organisation measure of IT business application automation and
integration,
= The number of primary activities in the organisations value chain,
which is 6 for this research
Page 70 of 332
3.7.2
However,
conceptualisation
of
Man
IT
et
al.,
capability
(2008)
suggest
include
that
managerial
previous
capability
(Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1992; Ross, Bealth and Goodhue, 1996). The
lack of appropriate approaches and instruments for measuring ITSI may
have contributed to the scant efforts to empirically study the
characteristics and organizational roles of ITSI.
Kumar (2004) modelled the measures of ITSI using three streams of value
of reliability, the ability to operate with low downtime; flexibility, the ability
to quickly and economically adapt to changing business requirements;
and upgradability, the ability to quickly and economically adapt to or
deploy multiple, complex technologies as required.
ITSI is generally and often intertwined with organizational structure and
business processes thus; it can be either an enabler or a barrier for
planning
and
implementing
new
competitive
strategies
and
can
share
data
and
applications
on
communication networks.
Network architecture can be modified minimum disruption
Page 71 of 332
the
3.7.3
3.7.4
as
encompassing
the
dimensions
of
organisational
Page 73 of 332
Constructs
IT Shared
Infrastructure
(ITSI)
IT Business
Application
Dimension
Physical platform for
Sharing IT Services
Implementation Level
(ITBA)
IT Human Skills
(ITHS)
Complementary
Organisational
Resources
Indicators
Network Architecture Performance
Clients and Suppliers Networking
Remote Accessibility of Corporate
Data
Use of Standard Procedures and
Policies
Level of Deployment and
Integration of Computer
Applications in the Delivery of the
Work Functions
Evaluating Technology
Options
Non- IT Organizational
Resources
Leadership
Employee empowerment
Open communication
Project management competency
Proficiency in System
Analysis and Design,
Programming
(BWE)
3.8
Output Variables
Some of the difficulties associated with the evaluation of the impact of
deployment IT resources on the organisational performance have been
identified in the literature review. The contemporary IT investment
evaluation approach has focused on quantitative financial assessment and
traditional appraisal methods such as Return on Investment (ROI), Net
Present Value (NPV) or Internal Rate of Return (IRR), (Chen et al., 2006;
Tallon and Kraemer, 2006). The popular financial measures used include
sale, return on assets and return on management (Hitt and Brynjolfsson,
1996; Bresnahan et al., 2002; Tallon and Kraemer, 2006). The major
problems with these techniques concern the difficulties involve in
quantifying intangible benefits and costs. To help ease this difficulty
Construct IT For Business (1998) proposes the use of a subjective scoring
mechanism to assess the impacts of improved business effectiveness.
Organizational
performance
measurement
in
construction
has
Page 75 of 332
in
engineering
and
construction
organisations
is
3.8.1
Page 76 of 332
is potentially worsening.
At organisational level schedule performance is measured by averaging
the individual projects performances over a period of time. This could be
expressed as a fraction, percentage or frequency at which the organisation
delivered projects within or above the original scheduled duration of
projects (OConnor and Yang, 2004; Yang et al., 2006; Yang, 2007).
Thus, on organisational level, schedule performance (SCHD) refers to the
measure of the projects schedules that over or under run as a percentage
of the initial estimated durations. The SCHD is measured as the
frequencies at which projects are delivered on/ahead of schedule in the
last 3 fiscal years within a focal organisation. An average is calculated of
the projects with schedule performances within or ahead of the original
estimated duration divided by the total projects delivered within the last
three fiscal years, thus:
3.6
3.8.2
3.7
Page 77 of 332
3.8.3
Page 78 of 332
3.8.4
3.8.5
3.8.6
Measurement Method
Frequency of projects delivered on/ahead of schedule
Frequency of projects delivered on/under budget
Customer
Frequency of repeat business customers
Satisfaction
Safety Performance Annual improvement of safety records
Profit
The dimensions for measuring the inputs and output variables for the
empirical test of the model are presented in Table 3.6 below.
3.9
Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the conceptualization and development of the
ITBV model for engineering and construction organisations. To mitigate
the shortcomings of the previous attempts in developing and measuring
the impact of IT on the organisational performance and to fill in the
Page 81 of 332
Page 82 of 332
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH PARADIGMS AND METHODOLOGY
4.0
Introduction
If philosophical positions determine research findings, then reality has
no input to and control over scientific research. Each and every one of
various incommensurable philosophical positions will determine its own
findings. No research findings can be neutrally assessed, criticized or
falsified. Besides being rather implausible, this view quickly leads to
epistemological relativism (Kai-Man Kwan et al., 2001:1164)
This chapter provides an overview of research philosophies leading to
establishment of the basis for the research stance. Thus, the chapter
explains the researchs paradigm views on what constitutes knowledge
and how it is created and developed (Saunders et al., 2003: 83). The views
facilitated the understanding of the multi-disciplinary positions and how
they interrelate (Basden, 2008) within the context of the research.
The chapter highlights the researchers understanding of the assumptions
of different paradigms and how they were deployed in the research
processes to bring good fit between paradigms and methods (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985; Kirkwood and Campbell-Hunt, 2007).
Thus, the chapter presents the methodology, methods and approaches
adopted in scoping, defining the aim and objectives, developing the
conceptual framework, data collection and analysis leading to the findings
presented in Chapter five.
4.1
Page 83 of 332
area and subject of the research, validating and presented the findings in
the form of new knowledge (Sarantakos, 1993).
The different approaches adopted by researchers in answering their
research questions are referred to as research strategies. These include but
not limited to survey, case study, action research, ethnography and
experiment (Saunders et al., 2003; Oates, 2006).
While the overall strategies adopted for this research were survey
questionnaire and interview; the processes in undertaking the research
involved stages as depicted in Figure 4.1. The stages include reviewing the
existing literature as described in chapter two which provides the basis
and foundation for the research (Davis et al., 1989). The research aim and
objectives were established leading to defining the research question. In
order to provide a medium for answering the research question, a
conceptual model was derived using the theories and paradigms from the
literature. The model derivation was detailed in chapter three. The
remaining parts of the resaerach design including the strategy are
presented in the subsequent chapters. This chapter explain the processes
for determining the research methods appropriate for answering the
research question, the data collection approach and tools. The final
processes involved the choice of data analysis approach and tool;
interpretation and presentation of the findings with conclusion.
Page 84 of 332
Figure 4.1
4.2
Research Philosophy
"Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human
pursuits..." William James - "The Present Dilemma in Philosophy"
Ontology is a philosophical stance concerned with what is known or what
constitutes social reality. The ontological stance of a research represents
the researchers view regarding what makes up social reality (Crotty,
2003). The two prominent ontological positions are positivism and
constructivism. Under the positivism paradigm knowledge is assumed to
be out there waiting to be discovered while constructivism views
knowledge as socially constructed by the interaction of the participants
within the environment. There was no agreed philosophical stance for
conducting research under engineering and construction management
related fields mainly due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the field, from
Page 85 of 332
4.2.1
Positivism
The positivism paradigm assumes implicitly or explicitly that reality can
be measured by viewing it through a one way, value-free mirror (Rana
and Perry, 2006). However, it has been criticised for its exclusion of the
discovery dimensions in inquiry and the under-determination of theory
(Deshpande, 1983; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Despite positivism having
been viewed as a scientific paradigm (Buzzell 1963; Mills 1961; Lee 1965;
Robin 1970; Ramond 1974), it has been argued that positivism could be
used as framework for construction management research (Crook et al.
1996; 2008). The first phase of this research involved a comprehensive
literature review in the relevant fields which led to the development of a
conceptual model using multiple theoretical paradigms as a framework
and hypotheses were developed addressing the research objectives and
scope. Thus, at this level the research adopted a deductive approach
Page 86 of 332
(Loose, 1993) with positivism view because of the reliance on the current
body of knowledge to develop the research model and hypotheses
(Sutrisna, 2009).
4.2.2
Constructivism
Constructivism is one of the varying strands within interpretive paradigm.
Constructivism is a philosophical school of thought arguing that research
is fundamentally theory-dependent. According to constructivists, the
theoretical position held by researchers not only guides their basic
position, but also determines what gets construed as a research problem,
what theoretical procedures are used, and what constitutes observations
and evidence (Boyd, 1991: 202). Thus, constructivists challenge the notion
that research is conducted by impartial, detached, value-neutral subjects,
who seek to uncover clearly discernable objects or phenomena. Rather,
they view researchers as craftsmen, as toolmakers (Spivey, 1995: 314) who
are part of a network that creates knowledge and ultimately guides
practice (Mir and Watson, 2000). The paradigm argues that the world is
constructed by people and that these constructions should be the
driving forces investigated in social science research (Rana and Perry,
2006).
Seymour et al (1997) argued for using constructivist paradigm for
construction management research. Also it has been argued for the
potential of constructivism as a methodology for strategy research
(Spender, 1996; Scherer and Dowling, 1995). Thus, for the second phase of
the research a constructivist view was adopted. This phase involved
validation of the proposed conceptual model through an unstructured
interview and an openended survey questionnaire to validate the
proposed engineering and construction work function as described in
chapter 3. The choice of this approach at this phase of the research is
informed by the requirement to carry out a holistic in-depth investigation
of the complex phenomenon of IT business value of a construction
Page 87 of 332
organisation within the context it occurs (Benbasat et al., 1987; Feagin et al.,
1991; Yin 1994).
4.2.3 Realism
Realism is a philosophical position which posits that reality exists
independently of the researchers mind, that is, there is an external reality
(Bhaskar, 1978). This external reality consists of abstract things that are
born of peoples minds but exist independently of any one person, it is
largely autonomous, though created by us (Magee, 1985, pp 61).
Both
positivism
and
realism
have
been
subjected
to
various
place
of
consciousness,
interpretation,
meaning,
prevailing
worldviews
or
ontological
positions
are
4.2.4 Pragmatism
Pragmatists advocate integrating methods within a single study (Creswell,
1995). Moreover, Sieber (1973) articulated that because both approaches
have inherent strengths and weaknesses, researchers should utilize the
strengths of both techniques in order to understand better social
phenomena. Indeed, pragmatists ascribe to the philosophy that the
research question should drive the method(s) used, believing that
epistemological purity does not get research done (Miles and Huberman,
1984 pp. 21). In any case, researchers who ascribe to epistemological purity
disregard the fact that research methodologies are merely tools that are
designed to aid our understanding of the world (Onwuegbuzie and Leech,
2005).
Page 88 of 332
4.3
Paradigm Incommensurability
Burrell and Morgan (1979) claimed that differences in ontology,
epistemology, and methodology as well as assumptions about human
nature
construct
insurmountable
barriers
between
paradigmatic
organization
studies
against
strong
view
of
paradigm
(1996)
identified
two
metatheoretical
positions
for
doing
Page 90 of 332
Page 91 of 332
Figure 4.2: Multiple Paradigm Approach (Crott, 2003; Kassim et al., 2010c)
Mingers (2001) argues in favour of paradigm pluralism in research by
suggesting that a research study is not usually a single, discrete event but
a process that typically proceeds through a number of phases; these
phases pose different tasks and problems for the researcher. Using this
argument the different phases of the research with the corresponding
paradigm views are illustrated in Figure 4.2. However, research methods
tend to be more useful in relation to some phases than others, so the
prospect of combining them has immediate appeal. The second argument
is that research is not a discrete event but a process that has phases or,
rather, different types of activities, which will predominate at different
times. Particular research methods are more useful for some functions
than others, and so a combination of approaches may be necessary to
provide a more comprehensive research outcome.
Page 92 of 332
4.4
the
choice
of
research
paradigm
is
the
argument
of
4.5
paradigm
approach
is
also
sometimes
referred
to
as
2003).
While
multiple
paradigm
approach
may
be
Page 94 of 332
for
conducting
multi-paradigm
research a
constructivist
4.6
Page 96 of 332
4.7
Triangulation
Denzin (1978) distinguishes different types of triangulations (Cox and
Hassard, 2005):
a)
are all in the similar business and the collection was conducted
within the same time period of the research.
b)
c)
d)
theories
and
concepts
including
information
(Blaikie, 1991; Blaikie, 2000; Scandura and Williams, 2000; Cox and
Hassard, 2005).
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
Data Analysis
The most common data analysis techniques in production and operation
management literature seems to be descriptive statistics with such
measures
as
mean,
median,
standard
deviation,
and
frequency
fuzzy
set
theory,
genetic
algorithm
(GA),
mathematical
techniques involve identify the current problem situation, find a past case
similar to the new one, use the case to suggest a solution to the current
problem, evaluate the proposed solution, and update the system by
learning from this experience (Jeng and Liang, 1995; Shin and Han, 2001).
Critics of CBR however, argued that it is an approach that accepts
anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Thus, without
statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is
no guarantee that generalization derived from such approach could be
correct.
Another powerful tool for solving complex decision problems is the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology developed by Saaty (1980).
AHP is used to organize critical aspects of a problem into a hierarchical
structure similar to a family tree (Chin et al. 1999). It is extensively used in
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. In this approach the
decision problem is structured hierarchically at different levels with each
level consisting of a finite number of decision elements. The upper level of
the hierarchy represents the overall goal, while the lower level consists of
all possible alternatives. One or more intermediate levels embody the
decision criteria and sub-criteria (Partovi 1994). However, the drawbacks
of this approach include the assumption that in the standard separated
analysis, inputs and outputs are considered to have equal weight (Mehmet
et al., 2007).
A prior assumption of functional relationships between input and output
variables is the main philosophy of most parametric data analysis
approaches. This tends to introduce errors as a result of such assumption
and specifications of the functional relationships (Sigala et al., 2004).
Unlike the parametric technique, DEA does not need a priori assumption
on the functional form characterizing the relationships between IT
investment or resources usage and organisation performance measures
(Zhu, 2002). Another major strength of the DEA approach is its relative
simplicity in requiring only the output and input measures without
Page 102 of 332
needing to include the prices. This allows the use of the measure of the IT
resource usage in place of a monetary value which is also difficult to
estimate IT payoffs. DEA is increasingly being adopted for researching the
productivity paradox (Dasgupta et al., 1999; Shafer and Byrd 2000; ElMashaleh et al., 2006).
4.12
envelopment
analysis
(DEA)
is
non-parametric
linear
associated with the IT investments, a data that is not readily available due
to its confidentiality nature. Therefore, the adoption of DEA allows the use
of measure of the IT resource usage in place of a monetary value of the IT
resources to evaluate the IT investment payoffs in engineering and
construction organisations.
There is evidence for deploying DEA to measure the organisational
performances in the literature. El-Mashaleh et al. (2005) used a conceptual
approach with DEA application to measure and compare construction
subcontractor productivity at the organisational level. The final results
helped in benchmarking and ranking the subcontractors performances.
Also El-Mashaleh et al. (2010) measured the relative efficiencies of
construction organisations in utilizing safety expenses as input factors to
minimize accident occurrences using DEA. The outcome identified best
performing organisations with which the inefficient organisations were
benchmarked. Other applications of DEA in construction management
include McCabe et al. (2005), Pilateris and McCabe (2003), Vinter et al.
(2006), Cheng et al. (2007), Chiang et al. (2006) and Xue et al. (2008). Thus,
researchers in construction management fields have quickly recognized
that DEA provides an excellent and easily used methodology for
modelling and evaluating enterprises operational performance including
the IT productivity paradox (Shafer and Byrd 2000; El-Mashaleh et al.,
2006).
Many different DEA models have been developed and deployed by
various researchers depending on the nature type of applications to solve.
Two basic models are CCR (Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes (1978)) and BCC
(Banker, Charnes and Cooper (1984)). However, there are numerous
models and the selection of an appropriate model depends on the nature
of production-technology. In general, these models differ in their
Orientation - Input-orientation, Output-orientation, Returns to Scale,
Constant Return to Scale (CRS), Variable Return to Scale (VRS), etc.
4.13
4.14
DEA Models
There are two basic DEA models named after the respective researchers
who first introduced them: the Charnes Cooper Rhodes (CCR) and the
Banker Charnes Cooper (BCC) models. The two models are normally
distinguished by the type of their envelopment surfaces and orientations.
The envelopment surfaces include the form depicting a constant-return-toscale (CRS) or variable return-to-scale (VRS) represented in the CCR and
the BCC models, respectively. An organisation is said to exhibit CRS if an
increase in inputs will result in a proportional increase in its outputs. The
CRS frontier surface is represented by a straight line that starts at the
origin and passes through the first organisation that it meets as it
approaches the observed population (Figure 4.5). The models orientation
is either input implying that an inefficient organisation may be made
efficient by reducing the proportions of its inputs but keeping the output
proportions constant or output indicating that an inefficient organisation
may be made efficient by increasing the proportions of its outputs while
keeping the input proportions constant (Zhu, 2003).
Figure 4.6. VRS Frontier Surface (Zhu, 2003, Kassim et al., 2010c)
For example in Figure 4.6, frontier AB exhibits increasing return to scale
(IRS); at point B there is constant return to scale (CRS) and sections BC and
CD exhibit decreasing return to scale (DRS) Zhu (2003).
4.14.1
CCR Model
The CCR model evaluates both technical and scale efficiencies via the
optimal value of the ratio. The term 'envelopment' reflects the fact that
DEA measures efficiency within a production possibility set which
envelops all input-output correspondences.
The weights are specified as a mathematical programming problem:
S
max
r 1
r, j0
M
i 1
i , j0
xr
yi
Subject to:
Page 107 of 332
S
r 1
r , j0
M
i 1
i , j0
xr
0; r , i
(4.1)
yi
Where:
= relative efficiency of the j0th organisation;
i=
r
M =number of inputs;
S = number of outputs;
N = number of DMUs (construction organisations);
j0 = index of the organisation being evaluated;
Xij = observed amount of the ith input for the jth organisation,
= non-Archimedean infinitesimal value
The solutions to equation (4.1) involve finding values of
*,
th
0
max
yrj
4.2a
r 1
Subject to:
i ij
4.2b
i 1
S
and
r rj
i ij
r 1
4.2c
0, i, j
i 1
0; r , i
4.2d
th
0
DMU subject to
the constraint that weighted inputs equal one as in equation 4.2b. The
optimal vector weights *,
4.3a
Subject to:
N
j
xij
xi
j 1
S
j rj
j 1
yr
.........4.3b
........ 4.3c
4.3d
Where:
= efficiency score, and
j
= dual variables.
DEA models can be distinguished by the objective of a model: inputoriented model or output-oriented model. The input-oriented model is to
minimize inputs with given outputs as in equation 4.3a; whereas the
output-oriented model is to maximize outputs with given inputs (Adler et
al, 2002, Seol et al.; 2008) such as equation 4.2 a-d.
Solving equations 4.3 a-d provides efficiency scores of the organisations
under consideration.
By setting
= 1 and
= 1 with
equations 4.3 will have real values and the solution implies
* 1. The
4.14.2
BCC Model
To take into account variable returns to scale (VRS) between inputs and
outputs, Banker et al. (1984) extended the CCR model. Banker, Charnes
and Cooper developed the BCC model (named after them) which assumes
that an increase in unit inputs production does not produce a proportional
change in its outputs or VRS.
The linear programming formulation of the CCR model, shown as
equation (4.3a), assumes that outputs increase proportionally when inputs
are increased, i.e. constant returns to scale. However, it is possible that the
outputs may increase at a decreasing rate as the inputs are increased, i.e.
decreasing returns to scale.
Banker et al. (1984) suggested a formulation that captures this
phenomenon of variable returns to scale in DEA, which is referred to as
the BCC model. The BCC model is represented by equations 4.3 a-d, which
is the dual formulation of equations 4.2 a-d with the added convexity
constraint.
Equations 4.4 a-e provide information on how inputs and outputs of
inefficient DMUs can be adjusted as indicated in their respective slacks in
order for them to be considered efficient.
M
max
i 1
Si
S
r 1
Sr
4.4a
Subject to:
N
j i
x ij
Si
y rj
Sr
N
j i
4.4b
y ro ,
4.4c
0 , i, j
j
N
j i
x io
4.4d
4.4e
1
Page 111 of 332
Where:
* represents the efficiency score of an organisation
i, r ; an
i, r
0 where
0 and/or sr *
0;
>
4.14.3
4.15
projects
involving
engineering
design,
procurement
to
and
vector
including
measure
of
cost
and
schedule
4.16
4.16.1
Strategic Grouping
There are always differences in the way organisations are managed that
may lead to different decision making. Therefore, while the objectives of
DEA analysis include identifying the differences in the performances of
the organisations assessed, there is the requirement to have the
organisations to be homogenous (Farrell, 1957).
The homogeneity of the operating enterprise to be assessed using DEA
was ensured by conducting strategic group analysis of the identified
engineering and construction organisations. A strategic group consists of
those rival firms with similar competitive approaches and positions in the
market. The detailed concept of strategic group in the construction
industry was provided in section 2.6 of chapter two. Strategic groups
provide an intermediate frame of reference between viewing an industry
as a whole and considering each firm separately (Flavian and Polo, 1999;
Dikmen et al., 2009).
4.16.2
4.16.3
4.16.4
about
which
we
need
to
determine
its
efficiency
For
j = 1 to N
Initialize
j* j
Define
x0
Increase
If j<1 go to 3
If j=N terminate
xj, y0
yj
4.16.5
Thus
DEA
was
applied
to
identify
construction
2.
b.
b.
(i)
(ii)
The first approach is called the input minimization DEA model, and the
second, the output maximization.
DEA starts by building a relative ratio consisting of total weighted outputs
to total weighted inputs for each organisation in a given data set. The best
organisations in the data set form an efficient frontier and the degree of
the inefficiencies of the other units relative to the efficient frontier are then
determined using a linear programming algorithm (Wber et al., 2004).
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Most importantly, DEA allows for identification of the best practices and
benchmarks for the poor performing units. The ability of DEA to identify
possible peers or role models as well as simple efficiency scores gives it an
edge over other measures such as total factor productivity indices.
4.17
4.17.1 Validity
"An account is valid or true if it represents accurately those features of the
phenomena, that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise"
Hammersley's (1987: p. 69).
Yin (1994) mentions three basic kinds of validity: construct, internal and
external. Construct validity is about establishing correct operational
measures for the concepts being studied. This was ensured through using
several sources of data. Also the process of data collection, questionnaires
were designed to minimise bias.
Validity addresses whether the research explains or measures what it set
to measure or explain. Thus, validity confirms appropriateness of the
research method adopted to answer
4.17.2 Reliability
Generally the concept of reliability is used for testing or evaluating
research that lends itself to objectivist epistemology and positivist
paradigm with quantities method. Thus, Stenback (2001) argues that
reliability has no relevance in qualitative research, therefore irrelevant
matter in the judgement of quality of qualitative research.
On the other hand Patton (2001) insisted that both validity and reliability
are two factors qualitative researcher should be concerned about while
designing a study, analysing results and judging the quality of the study.
Thus, research reliability provides a measure of quality of data collected
and whether published result is replicable by another group of
researchers. Reliability addresses how accurate your research methods
and techniques produce data.
To ensure the reliability of the study adopted Methodological
triangulation, where multiple methods of data collection are used; Theory
triangulation, where different theories are used to interpret a set of data.
Many theories were adopted to form the framework for the research;
however, the analysis of the data was based on the non-parametric
concept. The idea behind triangulation is that the more agreement of
different data sources on a particular issue, the more reliable the
interpretation of the data.
The pilot study presented in next chapter provided the test of the
realibility of research design, and an opportunity to adjust were necessary.
testing/validation/evaluation,
etc.
The
chapter
also
CHAPTER FIVE
PILOT STUDY
5.0
Introduction
In this chapter, analysis of the primary data that was collected from a pilot
study is presented. The pilot study was designed to help test the methods
and procedures proposed for the research. The chapter presents the
outcome of the pilot study; therefore providing a guide on issues related
to the research design, conceptualization and an interpretation of findings
(Kezar, 2000; Nyatanga, 2005; Thabane et al., 2010).
The bulk of the data is coded from qualitative perception to quantitative
and was analysed using Frontier Analyst version 4.
facilities management and the remaining 30% are into infrastructure support
services as shown in Figure 5.1.
Civil
engineering
& building
contracting
10%
Others (oil
and gas,
LNG,
Petrochem)
26%
Infrastructur
e support
services
3%
Construction
management
and project
management
32%
Engineering,
architectural
and
environment
al technical
services
26%
Facilities
management,
building
maintenance
and repair
3%
8
6
4
2
1 billion and above
500 to 1 billion
250 to 500million
100 to 250m
50 to 100million
25 to 50 million
5 to 25 million
ITBA
ITSI
ITHS
BWE
SCHD
COST
SAFETY
CUSTO
CONTR
PROFI
Outputs
DMUs
Inputs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
4.63
4.02
3.51
3.85
3.98
3.20
4.17
4.55
3.81
4.27
3.73
2.83
5.00
3.74
4.02
3.45
4.39
4.26
3.67
1.80
4.20
2.40
2.20
1.40
2.80
2.00
2.00
2.80
2.00
1.60
2.20
1.80
3.00
3.00
3.80
1.20
2.60
2.60
1.40
5.20
2.00
2.60
2.20
2.60
2.40
2.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.60
2.40
3.40
2.40
2.80
1.80
3.00
3.60
1.40
4.60
2.40
2.00
2.20
2.60
1.80
2.80
3.20
2.00
1.60
2.00
2.00
2.60
2.40
3.40
1.00
2.20
2.00
1.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
5.2
DEA BCC,
RTS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
47
76
100
100
86
80
41
100
100
75
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-1
0
0
-1
1
1
0
0
1
0
Outputs
ITBA
ITSI
ITHS
BWE
SCHD
COST
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.9
4.0
3.2
4.2
4.6
3.8
4.3
3.7
2.8
5.0
3.7
4.0
3.5
4.4
4.3
3.7
1.8
4.2
2.4
2.2
1.4
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.8
2.0
1.6
2.2
1.8
3.0
3.0
3.8
1.2
2.6
2.6
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.6
2.4
3.4
2.4
2.8
1.8
3.0
3.6
1.4
4.6
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.6
1.8
2.8
3.2
2.0
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.4
3.4
1.0
2.2
2.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PROFI
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
5.2.1
5.3
5.3.1
Potential improvements
The potential improvement record provides information about the
potential improvements which can be made to the input and output
variables and compares this information to its reference peers, providing
a benchmark to help determine which input variables are most affecting
outputs. The term is the same as slacks in the DEA literature.
A slack represents the under production of output or the over use of
input. It provides for the measure of the improvements needed to make
an inefficient organisation to become efficient. These improvements are
achieved through an increase/decrease of in input or output factors.
The values of slacks for each organisation are generated from the
solutions of equations 4.4 a-e, thus:
*
max
M
i 1
Si
S
r 1
Sr
Subject to:
N
j i
x ij
Si
x io ;
N
j i
y rj
Sr
y ro ;
0 , i, j ;
N
j
j i
i, r ; an
i, r
0 and/or sr *
0;
Input
Output
Table 5.3 and Figure 5.10 gave the indications of how organisation O
utilised the input factors leading to the low performance. To improve its
performance organisation O needs to ensure efficient utilisation of some
of the input variables. From Table 5.3 organisation O was not using its
IT shared infrastructure facilities effectively. The slack of 32.8% indicated
the lost of efficiency in the utilisation of the infrastructure. Since the
dimension for measuring ITSI includes managerial capability, low
performance in the effective utilisation of ITSI provides knock on effect on
the business work environment (BWE). Some of the factors worth
considering for improvement within organisation O include the need
for open communication, project management competency and
general business work practices.
Output variable slacks ( sr ) for organisation O as presented in Table 5.3
are greater than zero. In order to improve the competitiveness of O
relative to its peers in the sample, the aggregate performance of the
projects outputs executed by O have to be improved in the same
percentages indicated in Table 5.3 For example the output slacks required
to be increased ranging from 148% for SCHD to 248% for PROFI.
Target
ITBA
ITSI
ITHS
BWE
SCHD
COST
SAFETY
CUSTO
CONTR
PROFI
3.45
3.80
2.80
3.40
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.45
3.80
2.80
3.40
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Output
Input
Input / Output
Potential
Improvement
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
i, r ); an example of such
sr *
0;
i, r
0 and/or
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.4
H3
Each of the variables (ITBA, ITHS, ITSI, and BWE) was used as the sole
input while maintaining the same output variables to produce the efficiency
score of the organisations shown in Table 5.5. While it can be seen that
some of the parameters led to more efficient organisations compared to
other, it is difficult to establish their level of significance. This is because by
using a single variable in the analysis, zero weights are indirectly imposed
on the rest of the variables. Therefore, the process did not allow for the
From Table 5.6 it can be seen that based on the frequencies of the resources
utilization (ITSI, ITHS, ITBA, BWE) by the efficient organisations, the level
of significance of the variables are in the following descending order: BWE,
ITBA, ITHS and ITSI.
The most significant varables contributing to an organisations ITBV is
found to be complementary organistional resources (BWE). This is also in
agreement with the hypothesis put forward based on the literuature that
Complementary organisational resources (BWE) will have positive impact in
creating ITBV in engineering and construction organisations.
Furthermore, a radar plot is used to present the significance of the input
variables as depicted in Figures 5.13 and 5.14.
ITSI
4.0
PROFI
3.5
ITHS
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
CONTR
ITBA
1.0
0.5
0.0
G
CUSTO
BWE
K
P
Q
SAFETY
SCHD
COST
PROFI
3.5
ITHS
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
CONTR
ITBA
1.0
0.5
0.0
CUSTO
BWE
SAFETY
SCHD
COST
From the plots, it could be deduced that the dominant variable is ITBA,
BWE and ITHS. Furthermore, the most frequent variable as factor used
by the efficient organisations is the ITBA follows by the BWE.
From this observation, a non statistical analysis of the hypotheses, the
parameters ITBA, BWE, ITHS are found to have a significant impact on
the performance of the organisations. ITSI has no significant impact on
the performance of the organisations.
5.5
Chapter Summary
In this chapter the following contributions have been demonstrated:
Validation of the proposed engineering and construction value
chain and the work functions,
Established the effectiveness of the research methodology,
sampling and the internal validity of data collection techniques,
Established the validity of use of DEA in evaluating the survey
data.
Thus, the research from the first test of the pilot study indicates the
validity of the process and contributes to the body of knowledge in the
field of IT and strategic management.
The next chapter extends the validated processes to evaluate and
analyse a more comprehensive data and higher sample size. The higher
sample size is aimed at satisfying the DEA requirement for high
discriminatory power during analysis and minimize errors.
CHAPTER SIX
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
6.0
Introduction
The DEA analysis of the data in pilot study reported in chapter 5 was
characterised by low discriminatory power of the model returning large
number of the sampled organisations as efficient mainly due low ratio of
the sample size to the number of the variables in the data used. Thus, a
wider survey was conducted and the results, analysis and conclusions are
presented in this chapter.
The additional data were collected using the same instrument of
questionnaire described in section 4.10 and deployed when conducting
the pilot study reported in chapter 5. Thus, input and output variables
were identified and measured based on 5-point likert scale. The sampled
organisations were categorized strategic groups as represented in Figure
6.1.
The bulk of the data is coded from qualitative perception to quantitative
values using survey software called Survey Methods. The software is an
online tool that allows designing of questionnaire and launching the same
via e-mails. Responses were collected and exported into Microsoft Excel,
Microsoft Words and Portable Document Format (PDF) for further
analysis. The compiled data was sorted and categorised into input /
output variables before analysed using Frontier Analyst version 4
software. The Frontier Analyst is a Windows based efficiency analysis
tool, which uses DEA technique to examine the relative performance of
organisations or units therein referred to as a decision making units
(DMU).
6.1
and methodology related to data collection and analysis. Some of the keys
issues addressed in sampling the data are related to:
(1) Strategic grouping of the sample.
(2) Homogeneity of the sample;
(3) Variables size and;
(4) How the variables were measured among others (Dyson et al., 2001;
Ibrahim et al., 2011).
6.1.1
Strategic Grouping
Strategic group analysis is the first step in structural analysis of industries
to understand the strategies of all significant competitors (Porter 1980). It
is used to determine the different strategic positions of the rival
organisations, intensity of competitive rivalry within and between
industry groups, the profit potential of the various strategic groups in an
industry, and implications for the competitive position of the firm under
analysis. However, members of a strategic group, while pursuing similar
strategies, are not necessarily in competition with one another. For
example, due to the differences in locations, submarkets, etc., companies
in the same strategic group may not be direct competition.
6.1.2
6.1.3
This is termed as first rule of thumb (Ali et al., 1988; Bowlin, 1987), thus,
N>(S*M). A second rule of thumb is to select a sample size at least two
times the sum of the number of inputs and outputs N 2(S+M) (Dyson et
al., 2001). The data should be collected in a common time frame in order
to arrive at meaningful conclusion (Sherman and Gold, 1985; Avkiran,
2006).
The sample size was derived from 150-targeted organisations involved in
the business of engineering, architectural, construction and project
management in the UK. 55 responded with 6 uncompleted leaving a valid
sample size of 49 representing 32% response rate. There are 4 set of input
variables (M=4) (ITBA, ITSI, ITHS and BWE) derived by calculating the
average scores against each work functions of the primary value chain
activity using equation 1. The output variables are six in number (S=6)
including (SCHD, COST, SAFETY, CUSTP, CONTR and PROFI). This
implies that the sum of the number of the variables is 10 and their
products 24. With a sample size of N=49, the data satisfied the first and
second rules of thumb for a minimum requirement to ensure
discriminatory power from solving equation 4.
6.1.4
6.2
Data Analysis
Borges and Barros (2008) suggested that the choice of input-oriented or an
output-oriented DEA model is based on the market conditions of the
organisations under investigation. Since, in competitive markets,
organisations are output-oriented, with the assumption that inputs are
under their control, the aim of the organisation is to maximize its outputs
subject to market demand. Based on the competitive nature of the
Page 145 of 332
Inputs (Xi)
ITBA
4.55
3.29
4.28
4.45
3.90
3.81
3.83
2.83
5.00
3.31
2.58
3.11
4.63
3.60
4.39
3.74
3.52
4.10
3.85
4.27
3.67
3.11
4.39
3.59
4.47
3.73
3.75
3.74
2.00
3.42
3.75
4.86
3.84
4.63
5.00
4.92
4.93
4.26
2.45
3.51
4.52
3.72
3.35
3.98
3.20
4.02
3.45
4.17
4.02
ITSI
2.00
2.40
2.00
1.80
3.00
2.80
1.80
2.20
1.00
1.80
2.60
2.40
1.20
2.20
1.20
3.00
2.60
1.60
2.20
2.00
2.60
1.40
1.80
3.00
2.00
1.60
2.40
2.00
5.00
1.80
2.20
1.40
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.00
1.00
2.60
3.40
2.40
2.20
2.40
1.80
1.40
2.80
4.20
3.80
2.00
3.00
ITHS
1.83
2.50
1.50
1.33
2.17
2.00
2.17
3.00
1.00
1.33
1.50
2.17
1.17
2.00
1.50
2.83
2.33
2.00
2.17
2.00
3.00
2.33
2.17
2.33
1.83
2.00
2.67
2.33
5.00
1.83
2.00
1.00
1.67
1.17
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.50
3.67
1.67
2.83
2.00
2.83
1.83
2.17
4.33
2.33
2.00
2.00
Outputs (Yj)
BWE
2.80
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.20
1.60
2.00
1.00
2.60
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.20
1.00
2.60
2.40
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
4.20
1.80
1.60
2.80
2.40
3.80
2.00
1.60
1.40
1.60
1.40
2.00
1.00
1.60
2.20
4.00
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.20
2.60
4.60
3.40
1.80
2.40
SCHD
2.00
5.00
1.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
COST
3.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
SAFETY
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
CUSTO
4.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
CONTR
3.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
PROFI
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
6.3
Table 6.2 presents the relative efficiency scores of the organisation, which,
generally indicated that the utilization of IT resources has resulted in values in
the form of efficiency gained.
Table 6.2. Efficiency Scores and Slacks
DMU
CO01
CO02
CO03
CO04
CO05
CO06
CO07
CO08
CO09
CO10
CO11
CO12
CO13
CO14
CO15
CO16
CO17
CO18
CO19
CO20
CO21
CO22
CO23
CO24
CO25
CO26
CO27
CO28
CO29
CO30
CO31
CO32
CO33
CO34
CO35
CO36
CO37
CO38
CO39
CO40
CO41
CO42
Efficiency
Scores %
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
46.67
65.19
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
69.04
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.57
100.00
97.14
100.00
100.00
79.78
97.65
100.00
48.21
100.00
71.74
100.00
100.00
62.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
64.65
RTS
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
1.00
(1.00)
1.00
1.00
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
1.00
(1.00)
1.00
(1.00)
Slacks
ITBA
ITSI
ITHS
BWE
SCHD
COST
SAFETY
CUSTO
CONTR
PROFI
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.28
0.05
0.18
-
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.09
0.13
-
0.07
0.17
0.12
0.02
-
0.30
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.02
0.52
0.21
0.16
0.27
0.06
0.30
-
0.06
0.30
0.25
0.26
0.30
0.26
0.49
0.28
0.20
0.22
0.08
0.30
0.02
0.29
0.06
0.12
0.15
0.27
-
0.11
0.32
0.26
0.44
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.30
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.33
0.46
0.10
0.24
0.03
0.15
CO43
CO44
CO45
CO46
CO47
CO48
CO49
90.60
99.16
100.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
40.91
(1.00)
(1.00)
(1.00)
1.00
1.00
(1.00)
1.00
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.18
0.10
0.01
0.40
-
0.11
0.26
0.08
0.36
-
0.60
0.17
0.25
0.49
0.33
0.19
0.05
-
0.19
0.12
0.38
0.19
0.05
0.13
Using all the input factors, thirty-two organisations were recorded having
efficiency scores of 100% ( *=1) and zero slacks ( si * = sr * = 0; i, r );
making them Pareto efficient. The rest of the organisations scored less
than 100% efficiencies ( *<1) and they recorded none zero slacks,
therefore, are not relatively efficient (Figure 6.2).
6.3.1
0.35
0.03
0.05
0.13
The graph indicates the most efficient organisations since the higher the
frequency of inclusion in the reference sets of other organisations the
more likely the efficient unit is an example of a best performer among the
sample tested. For example, Figure 6.3 shows that organisation CO26 is the
most frequently occurring reference set with frequency of 14.
Organisation CO45, CO17 and CO10 are second in ranking in terms of
efficient utilization of IT resources using their unique complementary
resources recording a frequency of referrers by similar organisations as
peers 6 times. Organisation CO41 has no referral indicating its noncompetitiveness among its peers. It records the efficiency score 79.78% as
indicated in Table 6.5 based all inputs.
6.3.2
6.3.3
Potential improvements
A detailed analysis of each organisation provides information for the
required effort to improve the efficiency rating of each inefficient
organisation. The potential improvement analysis provides information
about improvements which can be made to the input and output variables
and compares this information to its reference peers, providing a
benchmark to help determine which input variables are most affecting
outputs.
By examining the potential improvements suggested by the DEA for one
of the least efficient organisations in the sample it is evident that the
Page 151 of 332
organisation with lowest performance is CO49 with 40.91% and CO41 with
zero reference.
Amongst the organisations with 100% efficiency scores, CO41 recorded
zero reference as shown in Figure 6.3. This implies that the organisation is
not competitive within the set. In order for the organisation CO41 to
improve its competitiveness among its peers, the analysis provided in
Table 6.3 and Figure 6.4 provide guidance.
Output
Input
Actual
Target
Potential
Improvement
ITBA
ITSI
ITHS
BWE
SCHD
COST
SAFETY
CUSTO
CONTR
PROFI
4.52
2.20
2.83
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.62
2.10
2.17
2.00
4.50
4.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
-19.7%
-4.5%
-23.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
Table 6.3 provides a mathematical interpretation of the reasons for the low
performance of the organisation CO41. The negative figures of ITBA and
ITHS imply there is inefficient utilization of such resources to produce
maximum competitive outputs.
The positive values for the input factors gave an indication the percentage
increased required for CO41 to be efficient and competitive within its
peers.
Another example is for CO49 to be efficient it has to more than double
some of its output factors such as the COST, CONTR and PROFI. This
implies that the utilization of IT input factors which are also related to the
IT investment since the resources have to be there to be utilized did not
translate into improve productivity as compared with its peers such as
organisation CO26.
Output
Input
Actual
Target
4.02
3.00
2.00
2.40
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.78
1.93
2.00
2.22
4.89
4.67
2.44
2.78
3.11
3.11
Potential
Improvement
-6.1%
-35.6%
0.0%
-7.4%
144.4%
366.7%
144.4%
177.8%
211.1%
211.1%
Mathematically, as depicted in Figure 6.6 and Table 6.4, some of the inputs
factors such as ITBA, ITSI and BWE could be reduced in order for CO49 to
perform at the same level of the efficient peers. However, physically such
mathematical interpretation may not make sense. For example, the
suggestion to reduce utilization of ITBA will not reduce the cost of the
original investment. The negative input factors for CO49 implies that the
efficient organisations are utilizing their IT resources in more productive
manner than CO49.
6.4
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
7.0
Conclusion
Previous studies on IT business value have not been able to conclusively
establish a strong relationship between IT investments and the
performance of construction organisations.
The literature review in the fields of ITBV, strategic management and
construction management has indicated that the equivocal results of the
previous studies could be attributed to the difficulties in modeling and
measurement of the return of IT investment, lack of structured
theoretical constructs, data availability and choice of dependent variables
among others.
The current research was designed with the overarching aim of
investigating the impact of IT-enabled strategies on the competitiveness
of engineering and construction organisations so as to provide a model
that mitigates some of the drawbacks identified in the literature.
This research adopted multiple theoretical concepts of process-based;
resource-based and microeconomic-views and developed a conceptual
model of ITBV (Kassim et al., 2009a). Then an extension of this model was
derived using the non-parametric technique of Data Envelopment
Analysis (Kassim et al., 2009b).
The model provides a methodology for evaluating the impact of
utilization of IT resources on the productivity of engineering and
construction processes. Using the DEA concept, the model computes
using empirical data a surface (frontier) that envelops the most efficient
organisations. The efficient frontier can be used for benchmarking
organisations' performances and thus, provides a measure for their ITinduced competitive advantage.
Page 156 of 332
framework
for
benchmarking
the
construction
7.1
Research Overview
The research was designed as an attempt to increase the understanding of
the impact of utilization of IT in the execution of engineering and
construction organizations value chains and their performances.
A detailed literature review on how the utilization of IT resources impacts
on performance engineering and construction organisations suggested
that IT-enabled strategies could be used to gain competitive advantage.
Thus, IT resources used as factor of production tend offer strategic
advantage to organisations through efficient and cost effective delivery of
the organisations value chain. However, there were limited empirically
validated of such suggestions. Some of the previous empirical studies
were carried out through imprecise and unstructured theoretical
The final phase involved detailed data collection via online survey
questionnaire designed to include closed-ended items with numerical
responses as well as open-ended items that could support discovery of
new information. Thus, as argued by Lewis & Grimes (1999), in the
analyses of a common phenomenon paradigm images need not operate at
the extremes, but may overlap and foster counterintuitive insights.
Therefore, a sequential overlap of multiple paradigms was deployed
within the different phases of the research.
7.2
Research Findings
After detailed literature review in the field of information technology,
organisation
performance,
construction
management,
strategic
organisation
when
deployed
in
the
presence
of
other
unique
H2:
H3
7.3
Research Contributions
This research makes significant contributions to field of IT business value
in construction organisations research and practice. Some of these
contributions include:
The development of an IT business conceptual model that addresses
the limitations of the existing IT investments evaluation frameworks.
The model was based on multi-theoretical framework addressing the
unique nature of the construction organisation value chains.
Furthermore the empirically tested model addresses the errors
introduced
in
using
parametric
approach
to
establish
the
7.4
Research Limitations
The performances of engineering and construction organisations are
partly attributed to their choices of mode and scope of completion (Kale ,
Page 162 of 332
163 and Arditi, 2002). The analysis of results presented in this thesis did
not take into account this provision that could lead to detail
categorization of the sample organisation thorough strategic group
analysis.
Another limitation of the research is related to DEA as the tool deployed
in data analysis. DEA is a deterministic rather than a statistical technique
and, therefore, is sensitive to measurement error (Rodgers and Assaf,
2006; Odeck, 2007). A wrong estimation of an organisations inputs or
output due to error in perception of the respondents of the research
questionnaire can significantly distorts the shape of the frontier and
reduces the efficiency score of other organizations included in the sample.
Furthermore, since DEA is a nonparametric technique, statistical
hypothesis tests are difficult to undertake (Trick, 1998), thus, the
conclusions based on the non statistic hypothesis has limitations in
interpretations.
7.5
Future Research
Since DEA provides for categorization of sample, future research shall
include the grouping of the engineering and construction organisations
according to their mode and scope of business activities to enhance
better understanding of the competitive impact of utilization of IT
resources by different construction organisations strategic groupings.
This
will
provide
specific
guidance
to
management
of
such
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adnan E.; Sherif ,M. and Ibrahim, M.(2005) Factors affecting accuracy of cost
estimation of building contracts in the Gaza Strip Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction 10(2)
Ahmad, I. and Ahmed, S. M.(2001) Integration in the Construction Industry:
Information Technology (IT) as the Driving Force. The proceedings for the Third
International Conference on Construction Project Management, Singapore 29-30
March,
Ahmad, I. U.; Russell, J. S. and Abou-Zeid, A.(1995) Information technology (IT) and
integration in the construction industry. Construction Management & Economics,
Mar 13 (2), pp. 163-171
Ahmad, I.(1996) Role of Information Technology in Management of AEC Projects:
Current Applications and Future Potentials. International Conference on
Computing and Information Technology for Architecture, Engineering and
Construction, Singapore, May,
Ahmad, I.; Azhar, S. and Ahmed, S. M.(2002) Web-based Construction Project
Management: Scope, Potential and Trends, Proceedings of CIB-W65/W55
International Conference Construction Innovation and Global Competitiveness,
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, September, pp. 599-610
Ahmad. I.(1997) Projects and IT: An Optimal Pairing. PM Network, Project
Management Institute, pp. 31-34.
Ahmed, S. M.; Ahmad I. and Azhar, S.(2002) Current State and Trends in Ecommerce in the Construction Industry: Analysis of a Questionnaire Survey,
Revista Ingeniera de la Construccin (Construction Engineering Journal), 17,
(2), pp. 47-58
Akinci, B.; Karimi, H.; Pradhan, A.; Wu, C. and Fichtl, G.(2008) CAD and GIS
interoperability through semantic web services, ITcon Vol. 13, pg. 39-55,
http://www.itcon.org/2008/3
Akinci, B.; Kiziltas, S.; Ergen, E.; Karaesmen, I. Z. and Keceli, F.(2006) Modeling and
Analyzing the Impact of Technology on Data Capture and Transfer Processes at
Construction Sites: A Case Study.. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, Nov, 132 (11), pp.1148-1157
Aksoy, Y., Chan, I., Guidry, K., Jones, J., and Wood, C.(2004) Mate- rials and asset
tracking using RFID: A preparatory field pilot study. Fully Integrated and
Automated Technology (FIATECH) Rep., Houston.
Alan B and Emma B.(2007) Business research Methods, 2nd ed. Oxford University
Press Incl. New York
Albadvi, A.; Keramati, A. and Razmi. J.(2007) Assessing the impact of information
technology on firm performance considering the role of intervening variables:
organizational
infrastructures
and
business
processes
reengineering.
International Journal of Production Research, 45 (12), pp.2697-2734
Ali E. and Emmanuel T.(2005) A mathematical model for dynamic efficiency using data
envelopment analysis, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 160(2), pp 363378
Ali Emrouznejad, Gholam R. A.(2009) DEA models for ratio data: Convexity
consideration, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(1), January, pp.486-498
Alpar, Pand Kim, M.(1990) A Microeconomic Approach to the Measurement of
Information Technology Value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7
(2), pp.55-69
Curves.
Strategic
Amor R.; Betts M.; Coetzee G. and Sexton, M.(2002) Information Technology for
Construction: Recent Work and Future Directions, ITcon Vol. 7, pp. 245-258,
http://www.itcon.org/2002/16
An, S; Kim, G. and Kang, Kyung-I.(2007) A case-based reasoning cost estimating
model using experience by analytic hierarchy process. Building & Environment,
Jul, 42(7), pp.2573-2579
Anakwe, U. P. and Anandarajan, M.(1999) Information technology usage dynamics in
Nigeria: An empirical study. Journal of Global Information Management, Apr-Jun,
7 (2), pp. 13-21
Anaman, K. A. and Osei-Amponsah, C.(2007) Analysis of the causality links between
the growth of the construction industry and the growth of the macro-economy in
Ghana.. Construction Management & Economics, Sep, 25 (9), pp.951-961
Andreas M R.(2003) Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature
review with "hands-on" applications for each research phase.. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 6 (2), pp.75-86
Andresen, J.(2000) The unidentified value of IT in construction industry, in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology in
Construction, Hong Kong, pp. 93-105.
Andresen, J., Baldwin, A., Betts, M., Carter, C., Hamilton, A., Stokes, E., and Thorpe,
T. (2000) A framework for measuring IT innovation benefits, Electronic Journal
of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), http://itcon.org, 5, pp. 57-72
Andrew M C.; Brian L A.; Martin P B. and David A S.(1999) Benchmarking the Use of
IT to Support Supplier Management in Construction , ITcon Vol. 4, pp. 1-16,
http://www.itcon.org/1999/1
Aniekwu, A.(1995) The business environment of the construction industry in Nigeria.
Construction Management & Economics, Nov, 3 (6), pp. 445-456
Ankrah, N. A.; Proverbs, D. and Debrah, Y.(2009) Factors influencing the culture of a
construction project organisation. Engineering Construction & Architectural
Management, 16 (1), pp.26-47
Anne-Marie A.; Patricia A. A.; Peter A. and Daniel F. D.(1995) Understanding and
Evaluating Qualitative Research, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 57, No.
4. Nov., pp. 879-893
Anonymous
(2011)
UK
Construction
Industry
KPI
Report
http://www.glenigan.com/PDF/2011_UK_Construction_Industry_KPI_Report.pdf
Aouad G, Cooper R, Kagioglou M, Hinks J, Sexton M.(1998) A synchronised process/IT
model to support the co- maturation of processes and IT in the construction
sector, Bjork B C, Jagbecj A (ed.); The life-cycle of construction IT innovations. Technology transfer from research to practice. [Conference Proceedings / ISBN
91-7171-281-4] Stockholm (Sweden) 3-5 June 1998 http://itc.scix.net/cgibin/works/Show?w78-1998-9
Aouad, G. Alshawi, M. and Bee, S.(1996) Priority topics for construction information
technology, Construction Information Technology 4(2), pp. 45-66
Aouad, G. and Price, A.D.F.(1994) Construction planning and information technology
in the UK and US construction industries: a comparative study Construction
Management and Economics; 12 (2), pp97-106
Aouad, G. F.; Ford, S. R.; Kirkham, J. A.; Brandon, P. S.; Brown, F. E.; Child, T.;
Cooper, G. S.; Oxman, R. E. and Young, B.(1994) Knowledge elicitation using
protocol analysis in a workshop environment. Construction Management &
Economics, May 12 (3), pp. 271-279
Aouad, G. F.; Kirkham, J. A.; Brandon, P. S.; Brown, F. E.; Cooper, G. S.; Ford, S.;
Oxman, R. E.; Sarsha, M. and Young, B.(1993) Information modelling in the
construction industry: The information engineering approach. Construction
Management & Economics, Sep, 11 (5), pp. 384-397
Aouad, G., Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Hinks, J. and Sexton, M.(1999) Technology
management of IT in construction: A driver or an enabler? Logistics Information
Management,12 (1/2), pp. 130-7
Aouad, Ghassan; Price, Andrew D. F.(1994) Construction planning and information
technology in the UK and US construction industries: a comparative study.
Construction Management & Economics, Mar, Vol. 12( 2), pp. 97-106p97, 10p
Aound, G. Lee, A. and Wu S.(2005) From 3D to nD modelling, ITcon Vol. 10, Special
Issue From 3D to nD modelling , pp. 15-16, http://www.itcon.org/2005/2
Aral, S. and Weill, P.(2007) IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities, and Firm
Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain
Performance Variation. Organization Science, Sep/Oct, 18 (5), pp.763-780
Artiba, A.; Aghezzaf, E. H.(1997) An architecture of a multi-model system for planning
and scheduling. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,
Sep97, Vol. 10 Issue 5, p380-393
Atkin, B.(1995) Special Issue on Information Technology in Construction. Construction
Management & Economics, Sep, 13 (5), pp. 367-268
Back, W. E., and Moreau, K. A.(2000) Cost and Schedule Impacts of Information
Management on EPC Process. Journal of Management in Engineering,
Mar/Apr2000, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p59, 12p,
Bain, J.S.(1959) Industrial Organization, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York
Baker, M. J.(2000) Writing a Literature Review Marketing Review, Marketing Review,
Winter, Vol. 1 Issue 2
Bakos, J. Y. and Treacy, M. E.(1986) Information Technology and Corporate Strategy:
A Research Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 106-120
Banker, R. D., Kauffman, R.J. and Morey R.C.(1990) Measuring gains in operational
efficiency from information technology: a study of the positran deployment at
Hardees Inc. Journal of Management Information Systems 1990;7(2) pp2954
Barney, J. B.(1991) Firms Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of
Management, 17(1) pp. 99-120
Barney, J. B.(2001) Is the Resource-Based "View" A Useful Perspective for Strategic
Management Research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, Jan, 26 (1),
pp.41-56
Barney, J. B.(2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year
retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27 (6), pp.
643-650
Barney, J. B.(2007) Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 3rd ed, Upper
Saddle River, N.J. Prentice Hall
Barney, J.; Wright, M. and Ketchen Jr., D. J.(2001) The resource-based view of the
firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27 (6), pp. 625-631
Barrett, P. S. and Barrett, L. C.(2003) Research as a Kaleidoscope on Practice.
Construction Management & Economics, 21 (7), pp. 755-766
Bart, C. K. and Baetz, M. C.(1998) The relationship between mission statements and
firm performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, Nov,
35(6), pp. 823-845
Barthlemy, J and Geyer, D.(2005) An Empirical Investigation of IT Outsourcing
Versus Quasi-outsourcing in France and Germany.. Information & Management,
42 (4), pp. 533-543
Bartlett, D. and Payne, S.(1997) Grounded theory: its basis, rationale and procedures,
in McKenzie, G., Powell, J. and Usher, R. (Eds), Understanding Social Research:
Perspectives on Methodology and Practice, Falmer Press, London
Barua, A.; Kriebel, C. H. and Mukhopadhyay, T.(1995).Information Technologies and
Business Value: An Analytic and Empirical Investigation. Information Systems
Research, Mar, 6 (1), pp. 3-23
Bassioni, H. A.; Price, A. D. and Hassan, T. M.(2004) Performance Measurement in
Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, Apr, 20 (2), pp.42-50
Bassioni, H. A.; Price, A. D. F.; Hassan, T. M.(2005) Building a conceptual framework
for measuring business performance in construction: an empirical evaluation.
Construction Management & Economics, Jun, 23 (5), pp.495-507
Becerik-Gerber, B. and Kensek, K.(2010) Building Information Modeling in
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction: Emerging Research Directions and
Trends. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice,
Jul2010, 136(3), pp.139-147
Becker, J. and Niehaves, B.(2007) Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a
framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions.
Information Systems Journal, Apr, 17 (2), pp. 197-214
Beckett, C and Clegg, S.(2007) Qualitative Data from a Postal Questionnaire:
Questioning the Presumption of the Value of Presence. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, Oct, 10 (4), pp. 307-317
Bee-Lan O.; Drew, D. S. and Runeson, G.(2010) Competitor analysis in construction
bidding. Construction Management & Economics, Dec2010, Vol. 28 Issue 12,
p1321-1329
Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D. K. and; Mead, M.(1987) The Case Research Strategy in
Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, Sep, 11 (3), pp.369-386
Benjamin, R. I.; Rockart, J.F. and Scott Morton, M.S.(1984) Information technology: a
strategic opportunity. Sloan Management Review 25 (3), pp. 310.
Benjaoran, V. and Bhokha, S.(2010) An integrated safety management with
construction management using 4D CAD model. Safety Science, Mar2010, Vol.
48 Issue 3, pp.395-403
BenTov, S.(2001) Using IT for Competitive Advantage: A Case Study. Information
Strategy: The Executive's Journal, Summer, 17 (4), pp 24-28
Berends, K.(2007) Engineering and construction projects for oil and gas processing
facilities: Contracting, uncertainty and the economics of information. Energy
Policy, Aug, 35 (8), pp. 4260-4270
Bergen, M. and Peteraf, M. A.(2002) Competitor Identification and Competitor
Analysis: A Broad-Based Managerial Approach. Managerial & Decision Economics,
Jun-Aug, 23 (4/5), pp. 157-170
of
Information
Technology.
activities
Charnes, A.; Cooper,W. W. and Rhodes E.(1981) Evaluating Program and Managerial
Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Program Follow
Through Management science, 27 (6), pp.668-697
Charoenngam, C.; Coquinco, S. T. and Hadikusumo, B. H. W(2003). Web-based
application for managing change orders in construction projects. Construction
Innovation, 3(4), pp. 197-215
Chau K.; Raftery, J. and Walker, A.(1998) The baby and the bathwater: research
methods in construction management. Construction Management & Economics,
Jan, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p99, 6p
Chau, K. W.(1997) The ranking of construction management journals, Construction
Management Economics, 15, 387398.
Cheah, C. Y. J.; Jian K. and Chew, D. A. S.(2007) Strategic analysis of large local
construction firms in China. Construction Management & Economics, Jan, 25 (1),
pp. 25-38
Chen, M.(1996) Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical
integration. Academy of Management Review, Jan, 21(1), pp. 100-1035
Chen, T.(2002) Measuring firm performance with DEA and prior information in
Taiwan's banks. Applied Economics Letters, Feb, 9 (3), pp. 201-204
Chen, X. and Xu, H.(2005) Integrated finance management information system for
construction industry, Proceedings of the Fourth IASTED International
Conference on Communications, Internet, and Information Technology, CIIT
2005, Proceedings of the Fourth IASTED International Conference on
Communications, Internet, and Information Technology, CIIT 2005, 2005, p 8085
Chen, Y. and Kamara, J. M.(2011) A framework for using mobile computing for
information management on construction sites. Automation in Construction, Nov,
20 (7), p776-788
Chen, Y. and Zhu, J.(2004) Measuring information technologys indirect impact on firm
performance, Information Technology and Management Journal, 5 (1-2), p. 9-22
Chen, Y.; Liang, L.; Yang, F. and Zhu, J.(2006) Evaluation of information technology
investment: a data envelopment analysis approach. Computers and Operations
Research, 33 (5), pp.1368-1379
Chen, Yiche Grace; Hsieh, Pi-Feng.(2008) A Service-based View of Porter's Model of
Competitive Advantage. International Journal of Management, 25(1), pp.38-53
Cheng, Q. Z. and Ruijin; Tian, Y.(2008) Study on information technology capabilities
based on value net theory of the International Symposium on Electronic
Commerce and Security, ISECS 2008, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security, ISECS 2008, , pp.1045-1050,
Compendex
Chiang K.(2006) Interval efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis with
imprecise data European Journal of Operational Research, 174(2), pp.1087-1099
Child, J.(1997) Strategic Choice in the Analysis of Action, Structure, Organizations and
Environment: Retrospect and Prospect. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter
GmbH & Co. KG.), 18 (1), pp.43-77
Chin, K.S., Chiu, S. and Tummala, V.M.R.(1999) An evaluation of success factors
using the AHP to implement ISO 14001- based ESM. International of Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 16, pp.341361
Chinowsky, P. S.(2001) Strategic Management in Engineering Organizations... Journal
of Management in Engineering, Mar/Apr, 17 (2), pp. 60-69
Cho, D. S. and Moon, C.H.(2000) From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of
competitiveness theory, World Scientific Publishing Company Ltd., Singapore
Choon S. L.; Eun J. Y.; Byeong W. K.; Seon D. S.and Jong H. C.(2007) Advances in
Concept, Framework and Methodology for Measuring the Business
Competitiveness through IT; Convergence Information Technology, 2007.
International Conference on 21-23 Nov. 2007 pp.497 502
Chrisna D. P.(2007) A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing
countries, Construction Management and Economics, 25 (1) January, pp. 67 76
Christensen, C. M.(2001) The Past and Future of Competitive Advantage. MIT Sloan
Management Review, winter, 42 (2), pp. 105-109
Christian N. and Madu, C. K.(1998) Application of data envelop analysis in
benchmarking International Journal of Quality Science; 3 (4)
Christine J. Y. and Arpana G. I.(2007) Qualitative Data Analysis and Interpretation in
Counseling Psychology: Strategies for Best Practices, The Counseling
Psychologist, 5(35), pp. 369 - 403.
Christopher, M.(1999) Gaining competitive advantage through superior logistics
Conference at the Irish Management Institute, 9 March, Dublin.
Chua, D. K. H. and Loh, P. K.(2006) CB-Contract: Case-Based Reasoning Approach to
Construction Contract Strategy Formulation. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, Sep/Oct, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p339-350,
Churchill Jr., Gilbert A.(1979) A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Feb79, 16 (1), pp.64-73
Ciborra, C.(1994), The grassroots of IT and strategy, in Ciborra, C. and Jelassi, T.
(Eds), Strategic Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 3-24.
Clambaneva, S.(2004) Technology innovation in the construction industry, Structural
Engineer, 82 (3), Feb, pp. 23-24
Clark, C.E.; Cavanaugh, N.C.; Brown, C.V. and Sambamurthy, V.(1997) Building
change-readiness capabilities in the IS organization: insights from Bell Atlantic
experience, MIS Quarterly 21 pp. 425 455.
Claver, E.; Molina, J. F. and Tari, J. J(2003) Strategic groups and firm performance:
the case of Spanish house-building firms... Construction Management &
Economics, Jun, 21(4), pp. 369-378
Clemons, E. K., and Row, M. C.(1991a) Information Technology at Rosenbluth Travel:
Competitive Advantage in a Rapidly Growing Global Service Company, Journal of
Management Information Systems (8:2), pp. 53-79
Clemons, E.K. and Row, M. C.(1991b) Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural
differences. MIS Quarterly 15 (3), pp. 275292.
Clemons, E.K.(1986) Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage.
Information and Management 11 (3), pp. 131136.
Clemons, E.K.(1991) Competition and strategic value of information technology.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 7 (2), pp. 58.
Clemons, Eric K.(1990) Special Section: Competitive and Strategic Value of
Information Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(2),
pp.5-7
Cline, M.K. and Guynes, C. S.(2001) The Impact of Information Technology
Investment on Enterprise Performance: A Case Study. Information Systems
Management, Fall, 18(4), pp 70-76
Cockburn, I. M.; Henderson, R. M. and Stern, S.(2000) Untangling the origins of
competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1123-1145
Cohen, L.; Lawrence, M. and Morrison, K.(2000). Research Methods in Education (5 th
Ed.). London
Colin C.H.(2000) What Have We Learned about Generic Competitive Strategy? A MetaAnalysis Strategic Management Journal (Feb.), 21 (2) pp. 127-154
Collis, D.J.(1994) Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities?;
Strategic Management Journal, 1994 Vol. 15, No2 pp. 143-152,
Computerworld.(2008) Making Business Sense of IT. Computerworld, 42 (8), pp2-2
Cook, W. D. and Kress, M.(1996) Data envelopment analysis in the presence of both
quantitative and qualitative factors, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
Jul, 47 (7), pp.945-954
Cool, K. and Schendel, D.(1988) Performance Differences Among Strategic Group
Members.. Strategic Management Journal, May/Jun, 9 (3), pp. 207-224
Cooper, W., Seiford, L., and Tone, K.(2000). Data envelopment analysis: a
comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver
software, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London.
Cooper,W.W;. Seiford, L.M. and Zhu J.(2004), Data Envelopement Analysis: Models
and Interpretations, Chapter 1, 1-39, in Cooper, W.W.; Seiford, L.M. and Zhu,
J., eds, Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publisher,
Boston, 2004.
Cortada, J.W.(2007) Studying the Role of IT in the Evolution of American Business
Practices: A Way Forward; Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE , 29(I4),
Oct.-Dec., pp.28 39
Cox, R. F; Issa, R. R.A. and Ahrens, D.(2003) Management's perception of key
performance indicators for construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 129 (2), March/April, pp. 142-151
Cox, R.E.(1999) Realising the business benefits of information technology [in electric
utilities, Integrating Technologies Into Distribution Systems (Ref. No. 1999/078),
IEE Seminar on 13 May pp.3/1 - 3/5
Crawford, K and Cox, J.(1990) Designing performance measurement systems for just
in time operations. International Journal of production research, 28(11), 202536
Cribb, R. E.(2002) IT Construction - Facts and Future Trends. Transactions of AACE
International, pp. 02.1-02.22
Cronk, M. C. and Fitzgerald, E. P.(2002) Constructing a theory of 'IS business value'
from the literature. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, November,
Vol. 1 Issue 1
Crook D, Rooke J, and Seymour D.(1996) Research techniques in construction
information technology, Turk Z (ed.); Construction on the information highway.
CIB proceedings, May, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia http://itc.scix.net/cgibin/works/Show?w78-1996-133
Crook D, Rooke J, and Seymour D.(2008) Research techniques in construction
information technology construction informatics and information technology in
civil engineering and construction of http://itc.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?w781996-133 [ 6 Apr 2008]
Cross, G. A.; David, C. S.; Graham, M. B..; Thralls, C. and Rogers, P. S.(1996)
Thinking and Rethinking Research Methodology.. Business Communication
Quarterly, Sep, 59 (3), pp. 105-116
Crosthwaite, D.(2000) The global construction market: a cross-sectional analysis.
Construction Management & Economics, Jul/Aug, Vol. 18 Issue 5, p619-627, 9p,
Csete, J.M. and Albrecht, R.R.(1994) The best of both worlds: synthesizing
quantitative and qualitative research in the medical setting, 9th Annual Primary
Care Research Methods and Statistics Conference, San Antonia, Texas pp. 13/1
13/15.
Dub, Line; Par, Guy.(2003) Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research:
Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, Dec, 27 (4),
pp.597-635
Due,
revisited.
Information
Systems
Dunn, S., Seaker, R., Stenger, A. and Young, R. (1993), An assessment of logistics
research paradigms, Working Paper, No. 93-5, Center for Logistics Research,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Dunning, J.H.(2000) The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business
theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2), 16390
Duyshart, B.(1997) The digital document: A reference for architects, engineers, and
design professionals, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Duyshart, Bruce; Walker, Derek; Mohamed, Sherif; Hampson, Keith.(2003) An
example of developing a business model for information and communication
technologies (ICT) adoption on construction projects - The National Museum of
Australia project, (Lend Lease Corporation); Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, v 10, n 3, 2003, p 179-192
Earl, M. J.(1993) Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning: Editor's
Comments, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 5.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A.(1991) Management Research: an
Introduction, Sage Publications, London.
Eastman, C. M.; Jeong, Y.-S.; Sacks, R.; Kaner, I.(2010) Exchange Model and
Exchange Object Concepts for Implementation of National BIM Standards.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Jan/Feb2010, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p25-34
Eggert, R. J.(2010) Engineering Design, Second Edition, High Peak Press, Meridian,
Idaho www.highpeakpress.com
Elazouni, A. and Salem, O. A.(2011) Progress monitoring of construction projects
using pattern recognition techniques. Construction Management & Economics,
Apr, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p355-370
El-Ghandour, W. and Al-Hussein, M.(2004) Survey of information technology
applications in construction. Construction Innovation, Jun, 4 (2), pp. 83-98
Elliman, T. and Orange, G.(2000) Electronic Commerce to Support Construction
Design and Supply-Chain Management: A Research Note, International Journal
of Physical Distribution &' Logistics Management, 30 (3), pp.345-360
Elliman, T. and Orange, G.(2003) Developing distributed design capabilities in the
construction supply chain. Construction Innovation, Mar, 3 (1), pp. 15-26
Ellis, Carolyn - Bochner, Arthur - Denzin, Norman - Lincoln, Yvonna - Morse, Janice Pelias, Ronald - Richardson, Laurel.(2008) Talking and Thinking About
Qualitative Research Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2), pp.254-284
El-Mashaleh, M. Obrien, W. and Kang, Y.(2006)The Impact of IT use at the Firm
Level: An Empirical Study of Contractor Performance, Center For Construction
Industry Studies, Report No. 34, The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/org/ccis/a_ccis_report_34.pdf
El-Mashaleh, M. S.(2003) Firm Performance and Information Technology Utilization in
The Construction Industry: An Empirical Study. A Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Florida
El-Mashaleh, M. S.(2007) Benchmarking information technology utilization in the
construction industry in Jordan, ITcon Vol. 12, Special Issue Construction
information
technology
in
emerging
economies
,
pg.
279-291,
http://www.itcon.org/2007/19
Management
&
Fellows, R., and Liu, A.(1997) Research methods in construction, Blackwell Scientific,
Oxford, England.
Feurer, R. and Chaharbaghi, K.(1994) Defining competitiveness: a holistic approach..
Management Decision, 1994, 32 (2), pp 49-58
Fidel, R.(1993) Qualitative methods in information retrieval research, Library and
Information Science Research, 15, pp. 219-247
Fiegenbaum, A.; McGee, J. and Thomas, H.(1988) Exploring the Linkage between
Strategic Groups and Competitive Strategy. International Studies of
Management & Organization, Spring, 18 (1), pp. 6-26
Fink, A.(1998) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the Internet.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fink, L. and Neumann, S.(2009) Exploring the perceived business value of the
flexibility enabled by information technology infrastructure Information &
Management, 46(2), pp.90-99
Finlay, P. N. and Mitchell, A. C.(1994) Perceptions of the benefits from the introduction
of CASE: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 18 (4), pp. 353-360
Fisher, D.; Miertschin, S. and Pollock Jr., D. R.(1995) Benchmarking in Construction
Industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, Jan/Feb, 11 (1), pp.50-58
Fisher, N.(1990) The use of structured data analysis as a construction management
research tool: 1. The technique. Construction Management & Economics, 8 (4),
pp. 341-364
Fitzgerald, G.(1998) Evaluating information systems projects: a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Information Technology, Mar, 13 (1), pp. 15-27
Flanagan, R., Jewell, C., Ericsson, S. and Henricsson, J.P.E.(2005) Measuring
Construction Competitiveness in Selected Countries, Final Report, School of
Construction Management and Engineering, the University of Reading.
Flanagan, R.; Weisheng L.; Liyin S. and Jewell, C.(2007) Competitiveness in
construction: a critical review of research. Construction Management &
Economics, Sep, 25 (9), pp. 989-1000
Flavian, C. and Polo, Y.(1999) Strategic groups analysis (SGA) as a tool for strategic
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (5/6), pp. 548-570
Fleetwood, S.(2005) Ontology in Organization and Management Studies: A Critical
Realist Perspective. Organization, Mar, 12 (2), pp. 197-222
Flood, I.; Issa, R. R.A.; O'Brien, W.(2003) Barriers to the Development, Adoption, and
Implementation of Information Technologies: Case Studies from Construction,
Towards a Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering, Towards a
Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the Fourth
Joint International Symposium on Information Technology in Civil Engineering,
2003, p 335-338
Flynn, B. B.; Sakakibara, S. R.; Schroeder, G.; Bates, K. A. and Flynn, E. J.(1990)
Empirical research methods in operations management, Journal of Operations
Management 9(2) pp. 250284
Fong, Sik Wah; Cheng, Eddie W. L.(1998) Benchmarking Projects: An Example from
the Construction Industry. International Journal of Management, Dec, 15 (4), pp.
501-506
Fox, P. and Skitmore, M.(2007) Factors facilitating construction industry development.
Building Research & Information, Mar/Apr, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p178-188, 11p
Franco-Santos, M.; Kennerley, M.; Micheli, P.; Martinez, V.; Mason, S.; Marr, B.; Gray,
D.; Neely, A.(2007) Towards a definition of a business performance
measurement system. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 27 (8), pp.784-801
Fried, L. and Johnson, R.(1992) Planning for the competitive use of information
technology. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, 8 (4), pp. 5-14
Fried, V. H.; Oviatt, B. M.(1989).Michael Porter's Missing Chapter: The Risk of
Antitrust Violations. Academy of Management Executive, Feb, 3 (1), p49-56
Fritz, R. B.(1990) Computer Analysis of Qualitative Data. US Department of Health
and Human Services; National Institute on Drug Abuse; The Collection and
Interpretation of Data from Hidden Populations; NIDA Research Monograph 98,
pp. 59-79
Fujun L.; X. Z and Qiang W.(2006) The impact of information technology on the
competitive advantage of logistics firms in China. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 106 (9), pp. 1249-1271
Futcher K. G. and Rowlinson S.(1998) Information Technology Used by Hong Kong
Contractors, Proceedings of the CIB-W78 Conference The Life-Cycle of
Construction IT Innovation - Technology transfer from research to practice
(Bjork B.-C. and Jagbeck A., Editors), Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, pp. 245-256.
Futcher K. G. and Rowlinson S.(1999) I. T. Survey within the Construction Industry of
Hong Kong. 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and
Components, Volume 4 - Information Technology in Construction, CIB W78
Workshop, (Lacasse M. A. and Vanier D. J., Editors), NRC Research Press,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 2306-2315
Galloway, P. D.(2006) Survey of the Construction Industry Relative to the Use of CPM
Scheduling for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, Jul, 132 (7), pp. 697-711
Gann, D.(197) Should governments fund construction research? Building Research &
Information, 25 (5), pp 257-267
Garg, A.K.; Joubert, R. J. O. and Pellissier R. .(2005) Information systems
environmental alignment and business performance: A case study, South African
journal of business management, 36(4), pp 33-53
Garnett, N. and Pickrell, S.(2000) Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice.
Construction Management & Economics, Jan/Feb2, 18 (1), pp.55-63
Garrod, S. A.R.(1998).Strategic Networked Information Technology Applications:
Empirical Results of Competitive Behavior. Industrial & Corporate Change, Dec, 7
(4), pp.637-661
Garvin, D. A.(1987) Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business
Review, Nov/Dec, 65 (6), pp. 101-110
Gautam Appa, H. Paul Williams.(2006) A new framework for the solution of DEA
models European Journal of Operational Research, 172(2), pp.604-615
Genevive B., Blaize H. R. and Izak B.(2001) Information Technology Competence of
Business Managers: A Definition and Research Model Journal of Management
Information Systems
Gerald F.; Supang C. and Amrung C.(1981) Merging Quantitative and Qualitative
Research Techniques: Toward a New Research Paradigm,
Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 12(2) Summer, pp. 145-158
Gerring, J. and McDermott, R.(2007) An Experimental Template for Case Study
Research. American Journal of Political Science, Jul, 51(3), pp.688-701
Gerring, John.(2004) What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American
Political Science Review, May, 98 (2), pp.341-354
Gerstein, M. and Reisman, H. J.(1982) Creating competitive advantage with computer
technology. Business Strategy; 3 (1), pp. 53-61
Gita M.; Kam J. and Tak S. F.(2007) Intangible project management assets as
determinants of competitive advantage. Management Research News, Jun, Vol.
30 (7), pp. 460-475
Glaser, B.(2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2) Retrieved [17-01-08] from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
Goh B. H.(2007) Applying the strategic alignment model to business and ICT
strategies of Singapore's small and medium-sized architecture, engineering and
construction enterprises Construction Management And Economics, 25 (2)
February, pp.157 - 169
Golafshani, N.(2003) Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research, The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), pp. 597-606. Retrieved [01.06.08], from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
Gonzales, A.; Mathur K. S., Betts, M. P. and Tham K. W.(1993) Management of
information
technology
for
construction;
Singapore,
August
http://itc.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?w78-1993-2-35
Gonzlez-Benito, J.(2007) Information technology investment and operational
performance in purchasing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(2),
p201-228
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A.(2007) Future opportunities for offsite in the UK. Construction
Management & Economics, Jun, 25 (6), pp. 585-595
Goodman, R. E. and Chinowsky, P. S.(1997) Preparing construction professionals for
executive decision making. Journal of Management in Engineering, Nov/Dec,
13(6), pp.55-62
Gottschalg, O and Zollo, M.(2007) Interest Alignment and Competitive Advantage.
Academy of Management Review, Apr, 32 (2), pp. 418-437
Goulding, J. S. and Alshawi, M.(2004) A process-driven IT training model for
construction: core development issues. Construction Innovation, Dec, 4 (4), pp.
243-255
Grant, Robert M.(1991) The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage:
Implications for Strategy Formulation.. California Management Review, Spring,
33 (3), pp.114-135
Gratton, L.(1994) Implementing Strategic Intent: Human Resource Processes as a
Force for Change. Business Strategy Review, 5(1), pp. 47-67
Greckhamer, Thomas - Koro-Ljungberg, Mirka - Cilesiz, Sebnem - Hayes, Sharon 2008
Demystifying Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research, Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2);
pp. 307-331
Green, S. D.(2002) The Human Resource Management Implications of Lean
Construction: Critical Perspectives and Conceptual Chasms. Journal of
Construction Research, Mar, 3 (1), pp. 147-165
Green, S. D.; Harty, C.; Elmualim, A. A. Larsen, G. D. and Chung Chin K.(2008) On
the discourse of construction competitiveness. Building Research & Information,
Sep/Oct, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p426-435
approaches
in
international
Hart, C.(1998) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination. London: Sage.
Hartmann, T.; Gao, J. and Fischer, M.(2008) Areas of Application for 3D and 4D
Models on Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 134(10), pp.776-785
Harty, C.; Goodier, C. I.; Soetanto, R.; Austin, S.; Dainty, A. R. J. and Price, A. D.
F.(2007) The futures of construction: a critical review of construction future
studies. Construction Management & Economics, May, 25 (5), pp. 477-493
Hassanein, A. and Moselhi, O.(2005) Accelerating linear projects. Construction
Management & Economics, May2005, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p377-385
Heeks, R.(2002) Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success, and
Local Improvisations. Information Society, Mar, 18 (2), pp. 101-113
for
Hyunchul A., Kyoung-jae K., and Ingoo H.(2007) A case-based reasoning System with
the two-dimensional reduction technique for customer classification, Expert
Systems with Applications, 32(4), pp.1011-1019
Hyvnen, J.(2007) Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information
technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance Management
Accounting Research, Sep,18 (3), pp.343-366
Iain M. C.; Rebecca M. H. and Scott S.(2000) Untangling the Origins of Competitive
Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10/11, Special Issue:
The Evolution of Firm Capabilities pp. 1123-1145
Ian, F.; Raja R. A. I.; and William O.(2003) Barriers to the Development, Adoption,
and Implementation of Information Technologies: Case Studies from
Construction. Proceedings of The Fourth Joint International Symposium on
Information Technology in Civil Engineering, November 15-16, 2003, Nashville,
Tennessee; Sponsored By ASCE Technical Council on Computing Practices
(TCCP), and European Group for Intelligent Computing in Engineering (EG-ICE)
Ibbs, W. and Nguyen, L. D.(2007) Schedule Analysis under the Effect of Resource
Allocation. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, Feb, Vol. 133
Issue 2, p131-138, 8p
Ifenedo, P.(2007) Interactions between Organizational Size, Culture, and Structure
and Some IT Factors in the Context of ERP Success Assessment: An Exploratory
Investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(4), pp.28-44
Im, K.S., Dow K.E. and Grover, V.(2001) Research report: a reexamination of IT
investment and the market value of the firman event study methodology.
Information Systems Research 12(1) pp10317.
Ingirige B and Sexton M.(2007) Intranets in large construction organisations:
exploring advancements, capabilities and barriers , ITcon Vol. 12, pg. 409-427,
http://www.itcon.org/2007/27
Ingirige, B.; Sexton, M.(2007) Intranets in large construction organisations: Exploring
advancements, capabilities and barriers, (Research Institute of the Built and
Human Environment); Source: Electronic Journal of Information Technology in
Construction, v 12, July, pp.409-422
Issa, R. R. A.; Flood I. and Caglasin G.(2003) A survey of e-business implementation
in
the
US
construction
industry,
ITcon
Vol.
8,
pp..
15-28,
http://www.itcon.org/2003/2 [02.02.06]
Not
For
Everyone
In
China.
of
productivity
measures,
Engineering
Information
Systems
Kai-Man Kwan; Tsang and Eric W. K.(2001) Realism and Constructivism in Strategy
Research: A Critical Realist Response to Mir and Watson. Strategic Management
Journal, Dec, 22 (12), pp. 1163 - 1168;
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Trinkunas, V.(2007) A multiple criteria decision
support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, Mar2007, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p163-175
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Trinkunas, V.(2007) A multiple criteria decision
support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, Mar2007, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p163-175
Kala, T. Ch. U. (1998) Domestic petroleum-related expertise utilization and Nigeria's
oil industry survival: A multi-criteria decision analysis... European Journal of
Operational Research, 110 (3), pp. 457-474p
Kale, S. and Arditi, D. (2002) Competitive Positioning in United States Construction
Industry.. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, May/Jun, 128 (3),
pp. 238-248
Kale, S. and Arditi, D.(2003) Differentiation, Conformity, and Construction Firm
Performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, April, 19 (2), pp. 52-60
Kandil, A and El-Rayes, K.(2006) MACROS: Multiobjective Automated Construction
Resource Optimization System. Journal of Management in Engineering, Jul, 22
(3), p126-134
Kanellis, P., Lycett, M. and Paul R J.(1999) Evaluating business information systems
fit: from concept to practical application European Journal of Information
Systems 8, pp.6576
Kaner I, Sacks R, Kassian W, Quitt T.(2008) Case studies of BIM adoption for precast
concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms, ITcon Vol. 13, Special
Issue Case studies of BIM use , pg. 303-323, http://www.itcon.org/2008/21
Kang L-S, Paulson B C, Kwak J-M, Kim C-H (2005) Business Breakdown Structure For
Construction Management And Web-Based Application System, ITcon Vol. 10,
pg. 169-191, http://www.itcon.org/2005/1
Kang, Julian H.; Anderson, Stuart D.; Clayton, Mark J.(2007) Empirical Study on the
Merit of Web-Based 4D Visualization in Collaborative Construction Planning and
Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, Jun, 133 (6),
p447-461
Kanoglu, A. and Arditi, D.(2001) A computer-based information system
architectural design offices. Construction Innovation, Mar, 1 (1), pp. 15-30
for
Klein, G.(1997) Developing Expertise in Decision Making.. Thinking & Reasoning, Nov,
3(4), pp. 337-353
Klein, H.K. & Myers, M.D.(1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating
interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, pp.6794
Knoepfel H.(1992) Theory and practice of project management in construction
International Journal of Project Management, 10 (4) pp. 243-252
Kobelsky, K. W.; Richardson, V. J.; Smith, R. E. and Zmud, R. W.(2008) Determinants
and Consequences of Firm Information Technology Budgets. Accounting Review,
Jul, 83 (4), pp.957-995
Koehn, E. and Tandoor, R. K.(2004) Construction and Corruption in Developing
Regions. AACE International Transactions, preceding p1-1
Kohli, R. and Devaraj, S.(2003) Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A MetaAnalysis of Structural Variables in Firm-Level Empirical Research. Information
Systems Research, Jun, 14 (2), pp. 127-145
Kong, C.W.; Li, H.r. and Love, P.E.D.(2001) An e-commerce system for construction
material procurement. Construction Innovation, Mar, 1 (1), pp. 43-54
Koskela, Lauri
Ballard, Glenn.(2006) Should project management be based on
theories of economics or production? Building Research and Information, v 34, n
2, March/April, 2006, p 154-163
Kropf, R. and Szafran A. J.(1988) Developing a competitive advantage in the market
for radiology services, Hospital and Health Services Administration, 33(2), pp.
213220.
Kuhn, T.S.(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago University of Chicago
Press
Kumar, R. L.(2000) Understanding the value of information technology enabled
responsiveness, Electronic Journal of Information System Evaluation 1,
Kumar, R. L.(2004) A Framework for Assessing the Business Value of Information
Technology Infrastructures. Journal of Management Information Systems, Fall,
21 (2), pp.11-32
Kumaraswamy, M. M.(1998) Identifying international trends in construction
management research. Proc., 2nd National Congress on Civil Engineering
Education, College of Engineering, Central Phillippine Univ., Iloilo City,
Phillippines, 110.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., Chan, D. W. M., Dissanayake, S., and Yogeswaran, K.(1997)
Mapping methodologies and mixing methods in construction management
research. Proc., ARCOM 97 Conf., Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.,
Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Sheffield Hallam Univ.,
Sheffield, U.K., Vol. 2, 471480.
Kumashiro, M. E.(1999) Measuring automation and integration in the construction
industry. MS thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Kuoching F.; Chen, Ed. T.; Wenching L.(2005). Implementation of Knowledge
Management Systems and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, winter, 45 (2), pp.92-104
Kuprenas, J. A.(2007) Design Phase Influences on Construction Change Order Costs.
AACE International Transactions, pp 08.1-08.3
Lacity, M. C. and Janson, M. A.(1994) Understanding qualitative data: A framework of
test analysis methods. Journal of Management Information Systems, Fall, 11 (2),
pp. 137-156
Lado, A. A. and Zhang, M. J.(1998) Expert Systems, Knowledge Development and
Utilization, and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Model.
Journal of Management, 24 (4), pp. 489-509
Lado, A. A.; Boyd, N. G.; Wright, P. and Kroll, M.(2006) Paradox and Theorizing within
the Resource-Based View.. Academy of Management Review, Jan, 31 (1), pp.
115-131
Lai, F.; Zhao, X. and Wang, Q.(2007) Taxonomy of information technology strategy
and its impact on the performance of third-party logistics (3PL) in China.
International Journal of Production Research, 45 (10), pp. 2195-2218
Lakomski, G.(1999) Critical theory. In J. P. Keeves and G. Lakomoki (Eds.), Issues in
Educational Research. Oxford Elsevier Science Ltd., 174-82
Lam, K.C.; Wang, D.; Lee, Patricia T.K.; Tsang, Y.T.(2007) Modelling risk allocation
decision in construction contracts. International Journal of Project Management,
25 (5), pp.485-493
Landajo, M.; De Andrs, J. and Lorca, P.(2008) Measuring firm performance by using
linear and non-parametric quantile regressions. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society: Series Apr, 57(2), pp. 227-250
Langford, D. and Male, S.(2001) Strategic Management in Construction, 2nd edn,
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Langley, A.(1999) Strategies for Theorizing
Management Review, 24 (4), pp. 691-711
from
Process
Data.
Academy
of
tool
for
continuous
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G.(1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Lippert, S.K.; Forman, H.(2005) Utilization of information technology: examining
cognitive and experiential factors of post-adoption behavior; Engineering
Management, IEEE Transactions 52(3), pp.363 381
Li-Ren Y.(2007) Exploring the links between technology usage and project outcomes.
Construction Management & Economics, Oct2007, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p1041-1051
Li-Yin S.; Wei-Sheng Lu; Yam, Michael C. H.(2006) Contractor Key Competitiveness
Indicators: A China Study. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management,
Apr, 132 (4), pp.416-424
Loosemore, M.(1998) The methodological challenges posed by the confrontational
nature of the construction industry. Engineering Construction & Architectural
Management, 5 (3), pp. 285-294
Loosemore, M.(1999a) A grounded theory of construction crisis management;
Construction Management and Economics; 17 (1), pp.9-19
Loosemore, M.(1999b) International construction management research: cultural
sensitivity in methodological design. Construction Management & Economics,
Sep, 17 (5), pp. 553-562
Loukis, E. and Pazalos, K.(2008) The Intervening Role of BPR in the ICT -- Business
Performance Relationship.; Informatics, 2008. PCI '08. Panhellenic Conference
on , 28-30 Aug. 2008 pp. 181 185
Louzolo-Kimbemb, P. and Pettang, C.(2006) A New Approach for Construction
Planning in the Developing Countries:: The Sub-Structure Chaining Diagram
(SSCD). Journal of Construction Research, Mar/Sep, 7 (1/2), pp.159-176
Love,
Alignment.
Information
Systems
Marcel A. F.; Dierckx, and Jan H. M. Stroeken (1999) Information Technology and
Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 60 (2), pp. 149-166
March Xiaochun L., Geoffrey Q. S. and Shichao F.(2010) A case-based reasoning
system for using functional performance specification in the briefing of building
projects, Automation in Construction,
Marchand, M. and Raymond, L.(2008) Researching performance measurement
systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28 (7),
pp.663-686
Marcolin, Barbara L.; Compeau, Deborah R.; Munro, Malcolm C.; Huff, Sid
L.(2000).Assessing User Competence: Conceptualization and Measurement.
Information Systems Research, 11 (1), p.37-60
Maritz, T.; Klopper, C. and Sigle, T.(2005) Developing a national standard/code of
practice for the classification of construction information in South Africa,
(Department of Construction Economics, University of Pretoria); Source: Building
and Environment, v 40, n 7, July, , p 1003-1009
Marsh, L. and Finch, E.(1998) Attitudes towards auto-ID technologies within the UK
construction industry. Construction Management & Economics, 16 (4), pp. 383388
Marsh, L. and Flanagan, R.(2000) Measuring the costs and benefits of information
technology in construction. Engineering Construction & Architectural
Management 7 (4), pp. 423-435
Mary Ellen Foster, Tomas By, Markus Rickert, Alois Knoll (2006) Human-Robot
dialogue for joint construction tasks November ,ICMI '06: Proceedings of the 8th
international conference on Multimodal interfaces, ACM
Mary L.(2000) Strategic Marketing in a Modern Economy. London: Oxford University
Press
Mascarenhas, B. and Aaker, D. A.(1989) Mobility Barriers and Strategic Groups.
Strategic Management Journal, 10 (5), pp. 475-485
Mason, E.S. (1939) Price and production policies of large scale enterprises. American
Economic Review, 29, 6174.
Mei-Tai Chu, Joesph Z. Shyu and Khosla R.(2008) Measuring the relative performance
for leading fabless firms by using data envelopment analysis Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, Volume 19, Number 3 / June, 2008
Melville, N. Kraemer, K. and Gurbaxani, V.(2004) Review: Information Technology and
Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS
Quarterly, Jun, 28 (2), pp. 283-323
Melville, Nigel; Gurbaxani, Vijay; Kraemer, Kenneth.(2007) The productivity impact of
information technology across competitive regimes: The role of industry
concentration and dynamism. Decision Support Systems, Feb, Vol. 43 Issue 1,
p229-242
Menches, Cindy L.; Hanna, Awad S.(2006) Quantitative Measurement of Successful
Performance from the Project Managers Perspective. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, Dec, Vol. 132 Issue 12, p1284-1293
Meng, Zhaoli and Lee, Sang-Yong T.(2007) The value of IT to firms in a developing
country in the catch-up process: An empirical comparison of China and the
United States. Decision Support Systems, Apr, 43 (3), pp.737-745
Menon, N. M.(2000) The Impact of Information Technology: Evidence from the
Healthcare Industry. New York: Garland
Mentor G.(1997) The role of IT in
http://mentorgrp.com/pubs/mrrison.htm
business
process
re-engineering,
Michael Hergert and Deigan Morris.(1989) Accounting Data for Value Chain Analysis,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 175-188
Michael J. R. and Urs S. D.(1999) Rethinking Research Methods for the ResourceBased Perspective: Isolating Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage,
Strategic Management Journal, 20(5) pp. 487-494
Mike Bresnen, Anna Goussevskaia and Jacky Swan.(2004)
Embedding New
Management Knowledge in Project-Based Organizations Organization Studies
2004; 25; 1535
Mike P. and Lew P.(1994) Developing strategic direction: can generic strategies help?
(Competitive strategy) Management Accounting (British) May, 72 (5) pp. 28-30
Milana, C. and Zeli, A.(2004) The impact of ICT on technical efficiency in Italy: a firmlevel evidence using DEA and econometric estimations Industria v.XXV (no. 2),
p317 46 pages.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M.(1984) Qualitative data analysis: A source book for new
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, A. and Dess, G.G.(1993) Assessing Porter's (1980) model in terms of its
generalizability, accuracy and simplicity. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (4),
pp.554-585,
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H.(1986a) Porter's (1980) generic strategies and
performance An empirical examination with American data. Part I Performance
implications;Organization Studies; Vol. 7, pp. 37-55
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H.(1986b) Porter's (1980) generic strategies and
performance An empirical examination with American data. Part II Performance
implications;Organization Studies; Vol. 7, p255-261
Miller, D. and Whitney, J.(1999) Beyond Strategy: Configuration as a Pillar of
Competitive Advantage. Business Horizons, May/Jun, 42 (3), pp. 5
Miller, D.(1988) Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure:
Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal; 31,
pp. 280-308
Miller, D.(1992) The Generic Strategy Trap. Journal of Business Strategy, Jan/Feb,
13(1), pp. 37-42
Miller, D.; Friesen, P. H (1986a) Porter's (1980) generic strategies and performance
An empirical examination with American data Part I Testing Porter;.;
Organizational Studies; Vol. 7, p37-55,
Milorad M.N. and Michael H.(2004) Dual-perspective SWOT: a synthesis of marketing
intelligence and planning. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(1), pp. 84-94
Ming-Jer C.(1996) Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical
Integration. Academy of Management Review, Jan, 21 (1), pp. 100-134
Mintzberg, H.(1987) Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, Jul/Aug, 65(4), pp.
66-76
Mintzberg, H.(1987) The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps For Strategy. California
Management Review, Fall, 30 (1), pp. 11-25
Mintzberg, H.(1987) The Strategy Concept II: Another Look at Why Organizations
Need Strategies. California Management Review, 30(1), pp. 25-33
Mir, R. and Watson, A.(2001) Critical Realism and Constructivism in Strategy
Research: Toward a Synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, Dec, 22 (12), pp.
1169- 1173
Mitropoulos, P. and Tatum, C.B.(2000) Forces Driving Adoption of New Information
Technologies. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 126 (5), pp.
340-348
Mohamed, S.(1999) What do we mean by construction process reengineering?
International Journal of Computer Integrated Design and Construction, 1, pp. 3
9.
Mohamed, S.(2003) Performance in International Construction Joint Ventures:
Modeling Perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, Dec,
Vol. 129 Issue 6, pp.619-626
Mohan, S.(1990) Application of Stochastic Models for Water Use Series, Journal of
Institution of Public Health Engineers, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 50-56, 1990
Momaya, K and Selby, K.(1998) International competitiveness of the Canadian
construction industry: a comparison with Japan and the United states. Canadian
journal of civil engineering, 25, 640-652.
Momaya, K.(2004) Competitiveness of firms: review of theory, frameworks, and
models. Singapore management review, 26(1), 45-61.
Momaya, Kiran and Selby, Kenneth.(1998) International competitiveness of the
Canadian construction industry: a comparison with Japan and the United States
(Indian Inst of Technology); Source: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
25(4), Aug, pp.640-652
Montealegre, R.(1998) Managing information technology in modernizing against the
odds: Lessons from an organization in a less-developed country, Information &
Management 34, pp.103-116.
Moore, A.; Flannery, W.T.(2007) Use of Extreme Programming Methodologies in IT
Application Design Processes: An Empirical Analysis, Management of Engineering
and Technology, Portland International Center for 5-9 Aug.pp.2468 2475
Morey, N. C. and Luthans, F.(1984) An Emic Perspective and Ethnoscience Methods for
Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review, Jan, 9 (1), pp.27-36
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L.(1980) The case for qualitative research, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Morse, J.M.(1991) Approaches to qualitative-quantitative triangulation, Nursing
Research, 40, 120 3.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., and Novakoski, M.(1995) Measuring construction productivity:
A practical approach. Work Study, 44 (8), pp. 1820
Moum A (2006) A framework for exploring the ICT impact on the architectural design
process , ITcon Vol. 11, Special Issue The Effects of CAD on Building Form and
Design Quality , pg. 409-425, http://www.itcon.org/2006/30
Muata-Kweku O and Myung K.(2004).Exploring the relationship between information
technology investments and firm performance using regression splines
analysis.(multivariate adaptive regression splines). Information & Management
42(1) pp.1-13
Muecke, M.(1994) On the evaluation of ethnographies, in Morse, J.M. (Ed.), Critical
Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Sage Publications, London.
Muhammad, S. P. And Chandra B.(2004a) Strategic Management of Information
Technology in Construction Industry: The Indonesian Perspectives (GC192),
Proceedings of the CIB-W78 Conference on Globalization and construction
Meeting the Challenges, Reaping the Benefits, ICT and Global Construction.
http://itc.scix.net/data/contrib/att/3a5d.content.03092.pdf [30.01.2006]
Muhammad, S. P. And Chandra B.(2004b) Management of Information Technology in
construction industry: the Indonesian Experience
Mukhopadhyay, T.; Kekre, S. and Kalathur, S.(1995) .Business Value of Information
Technology: A Study of Electronic Data Interchange. MIS Quarterly, Jun,19 (2),
pp.137-156,
Mukhopadhyay, T.; Rajiv, S. and Srinivasan, K.(1997) Information Technology Impact
on Process Output and Quality. Management Science, Dec 43 (12), pp. 16451659
Mulligan, P.(2002) Specification of a capability-based IT classification framework.
Information & Management, Sep, 39 (8), pp.647-658
Murphy, F. and Panchanadam H. V.(1997) Understanding Linear Programming
Modeling through an Examination of the Early Papers on Model Formulation,
Operations Research, 45(3), pp.341-356
Murray, A. I.(1988) A Contingency View of Porter's 'Generic Strategies.' Academy of
Management Review, July, 13 (3), pp. 390-401
Myers, M. D.(1997) Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, Jun,
21 (2), pp. 241-243
Mykytyn, K., Mykytyn, J. P. P., Bordoloi, B., McKinney, V., and Bandyopadhyay,
K.(2002) The role of software patents in sustaining IT-enabled competitive
advantage: a call for research Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11(1),
pp. 59-82
Nada R. S.(2005) IT Alignment in Supply Chain Relationships: A Study of Supplier
Benefits. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 41:2, 413
Naderpajouh, N.and Afshar, A.(2008) A case-based reasoning approach to application
of value engineering methodology in the construction industry. Construction
Management & Economics, Apr, 26(4), pp.363-372
Nadler, G.(1967) An Investigation of Design Methodology. Management Science, Jun,
13 (10), pp B642-B655
Nahid G.(2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research The
Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 pp 597-607
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B.(1992) Strategies for technology push: lessons from
construction innovations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
118 (3), p507-549
Nandhakumar, J. (1997), Issues in participant observation: a study of the practice of
information systems development, in McKenzie, G., Powell, J. and Usher, R.
(Eds), Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on Methodology and
Practice, Falmer Press, London.
Narasimhan, R. and Soo Wook K.(2001) Information System Utilization Strategy for
Supply Chain Integration.. Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (2), pp. 51-76
Naslund, D. (2002), Logistics needs qualitative research: especially action research,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 321-38.
Nassar, K.(2003) Construction contracts in a competitive market: C[sup 3]M, a
simulation game. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management 10 (3),
pp. 172-181
Nayyar, Praveen R.(1993) On The Measurement of Competitive Strategy: Evidence
From A Large Multiproduct U.S. Firm. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6),
pp.1652-1669
Neary, J. P.(2003) Competitive versus Comparative Advantage. World Economy, Apr,
Vol. 26 Issue 4, pp. 457-470
Neely, A.(2005) The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments
in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 25 (12), pp.1264-1277
Neely, A.; Gregory, M.; Platts, K.(2005) Performance measurement system design: A
literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 25 (12), pp.1128-1263
Nelson I. N.(1979) Organization and management of construction projects in Nigeria.
Building and Environment, 14, (4), pp. 253-256
Nelson, R. R.(1991) Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?; Strategic
Management Journal; Vol. 12, p61-74
Neo, B.S.(1988) Factors facilitating the use of information technology for competitive
advantage: an exploratory study. Information and Management 15 (4) pp. 191
201
Newbert, S. L.(2008) Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm,
Strategic Management Journal 29 (7) pp. 745-768
Newsted, P. R.; Huff, S. L. and Munro, M. C.(1998) Survey Instruments in Information
Systems. MIS Quarterly, 22 (4), pp. 553-555
Ng, P.T. Andy; Lu, Dawei; Li, C.K. and Harry Chan, H.Y.(2005) Strategic lessons of
value migration in IT industry. Technovation, Jan, 25 (1), pp. 45-52
Ng, S. T.; Chen, S. E.; McGeorge, D.; Lam, K. C. and Evans, S.(2001) Current state of
IT usage by Australian subcontractors. Construction Innovation, Mar, 1 (1), pp.
03-13
Ngowi A. B.(1999) What determines the competence of a construction firm?
Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the CIB TG 29 on Construction in Developing
countries, 27-29 October 1999, The Pan Pacific, Singapore
Ngowi, A. B. and Rwelamila, P. D.(1999) What Is a Competitive Advantage in the
Construction Industry? Cost Engineering, Feb, 41 (2), pp. 30-37
Ngowi, Alfred B.; Rwelamila, Pantaleo D.. What Is a Competitive Advantage in the
Construction Industry? Cost Engineering, Feb, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p30, 7p
Nicholas, J.; Edwards, D. J.(2003) A model to evaluate materials suppliers' and
contractors' business interactions. Construction Management & Economics,
Apr/May2003, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p237-245
Nickerson, Jack A.; Hamilton, Barton H.; Wada, T.(2001) Market Position, Resource
Profile, and Governance: Linking Porter and Williamson in the Context of
International Courier and Small Package Services in Japan. Strategic
Management Journal, Mar, 22 (3), pp. 251-273
Oyegoke, A. S.(2006) Construction Industry Overview In The UK, US, Japan And
Finland:: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Construction Research,
Mar/Sep2006, Vol. 7 Issue 1/2, p13-31
z, .(2001) Sources of competitive advantage of Turkish construction companies in
international markets. Construction Management & Economics, Mar, 19 (2),
pp.135-144
Ozorhon, B.; Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M. T.(2005) Organizational memory formation
and its use in construction. Building Research & Information, Jan/Feb, 33 (1),
pp. 67-80
Ozpeynirci, O.; Koksalan, M.(2007) Performance Evaluation Using Data Envelopment
Analysis in the Presence of Time Lags Journal of Productivity Analysis, June
27(3), pp. 221-29
Palaneeswaran, E. and Kumaraswamy, M. M.(2003) Knowledge Mining of Information
Sources for Research in Construction Management. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, Mar/Apr, 129 (2), pp. 182-192
Paolo N. and Emilio P.(2007) Assessing the strategic value of Information Technology:
An analysis on the insurance sector Information & Management September,
44(6) pp.568-582
Par,
Case
Study
Parnell, J. A.(1997). New Evidence in the Generic Strategy and Business Performance
Debate: A Research Note. British Journal of Management, Jun, 8 (2), pp. 175182
Parnell, J. A.(2006) Generic strategies after two decades: a reconceptualization of
competitive strategy. Management Decision, 2006, Vol. 44 Issue 8, p1139-1154,
16p;
Parsons, G. L.(1983) Information Technology: A New Competitive Weapon. Sloan
Management Review, 25 (1), pp. 3-14
Partovi, F.Y.(1994) Determining what to benchmark: an analytic hierarchy process
approach. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, 14,
pp.2539
Partovi, F.Y., Determining what to benchmark: an analytic hierarchy process
approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 1994, 14, 2539.
Pasupathy, K. S. and Medina-Borja, A.(2008) Integrating Excel, Access, and Visual
Basic to Deploy Performance Measurement and Evaluation at the American Red
Cross. Interfaces, 38 (4), pp.324-337
Patton, M. Q.(1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Paul B. and Mark C.(2001)Critical path analysis of TCP transactions June IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking (TON), 9 (3).
Paul B.; Akintola A.; Robert P. and Peter J. E.(2007) Ethical behaviour in the South
African construction industry, Construction Management And Economics, 25 (6)
June , pp. 631 - 648
Paul C. D and Terence J. C.(2005) Right Projects Done Right: From Business S to
Successful Project Implementation" J*ssey-B.ss
Paul W. Chan and Andrew R. J. D.(2007) Resolving the UK construction skills crisis: a
critical perspective on the research and policy agenda, Construction Management
And Economics, 25 (4) April,pp 375 - 386
Paul W. L. Vlaar, Frans A. J. Van den Bosch and Henk W. Volberda.(2004) On The
Relation Between Information Technology And Interorganizational Competitive
Advantage: A Competence Perspective, Advances in Applied Business
Strategy, Volume 8, 2004, Pages 45-68
Analysis?
Scandinavian
Journal
of
Rackoff, N.; Wiseman, C.; and Ullrich, W. A.(1985). Information Systems for
Competitive Advantage: Implementation of a Planning Process. MIS Quarterly, 9
(4), pp. 285-294
Radhakrishnan, A; Zu, X and Grover, V.(2008) A process-oriented perspective on
differential business value creation by information technology: An empirical
investigation. Omega, 36 (6), pp.1105-1125
Radhakrishnan, Abirami; Zu, Xingxing; Grover, Varun.(2008) .A process-oriented
perspective on differential business value creation by information technology: An
empirical investigation. Omega, Dec, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p1105-1125,
Raftery, J.; McGeorge, D. and Walters, M.(1997) Breaking up methodological
monopolies: a multi-paradigm approach to construction management research
Construction Management and Economics, 15 (3), pp. 291-297
Raftery, J.; Pasadilla, B; Chiang, Y. H.; Hui, E. C. M.; Bo-Sin T.(1998) Globalization
and construction industry development: implications of recent developments in
the construction sector in Asia. Construction Management & Economics, Nov, 16
(6), pp.729-737
Rai, A. Patnayakuni, R. and. Patnayakuni, N.(1997) Technology investment and
business performance, Communications of the ACM 40 (7), pp. 8997.
Rai, A. Patnayakuni, R. Patnayakuni N.(1996) Refocusing where and how IT value is
realized: An empirical investigation, Omega, 24 (4), August, pp.399-412
Rajiv D. B.(1996) Hypothesis tests using data envelopment analysis Journal of
Productivity Analysis, 7(2-3 )
Ramarapu, N. K.; Lado, A. A.(1995) Linking information technology to global business
strategy to gain competitive advantage: an integrative model. Journal of
Information Technology (Routledge, Ltd.), Jun, 10 (2), pp.115-125
Ramrez, R. R.; Alarcn, L. F. C. and Knights, P.(2004) Benchmarking System for
Evaluating Management Practices in the Construction Industry. Journal of
Management in Engineering, Jul, 20 (3), pp. 110-118
Ramsay, W.(1989) Business Objectives and
Strategy in The Management of
Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory (edited by P. M. Hillebrandt and J.
Cannon). London: Macmillan.
Rana Sobh, Chad Perry.(2006) Research design and data analysis in realism research,
European Journal of Marketing; 40 (11/12); Conceptual
Ranganathan, C.; Dhaliwal, Jasbir S.; Teo, Thompson S. H.(2004) Assimilation and
Diffusion of Web Technologies in Supply-Chain Management: An Examination of
Key Drivers and Performance Impacts. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 9 (1), pp. 127-161
Ravinchandran, T. and Lertwongsatien, C.(2005) Effect of Information Systems
Resources and Capabilities on Firm Performance: A Resource-Based Perspective.
Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring, 21 (4), pp. 237-276
Ravinchandran, T.; Lertwongsatien, C.(2005) Effect of Information Systems Resources
and Capabilities on Firm Performance: A Resource-Based Perspective. Journal of
Management Information Systems, Spring, 21 (4), pp. 237-276
Ray, G.; Barney, J. B. and Muhanna, W. A.(2004) Capabilities, Business Processes,
and Competitive Advantage: Choosing The Dependent Variable in Empirical Tests
Of The Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (1), pp. 23-39
Ray, G.; Muhanna, W. A. and Barney, J. B.(2005) Information Technology and the
Performance of the Customer Service Process: A Resource-Based Analysis. MIS
Quarterly, Dec, 29 (4), pp. 625-651
Ray, G.; Muhanna, W. A. and Barney, J. B.(2007) Competing With IT: The Role of
Shared IT-Business Understanding. Communications of the ACM, Dec, 50 (12),
pp.87-91
Raza M. and Andrew W.(2000) Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science:
The Case for a Constructivist Methodology Strategic Management Journal,
21(9), Sep., pp. 941-953
Reading. (1996) Research Projects in Construction IT, Construction Management and
Economics,
13:393-400.,
<http://www.construct.rdg.ac.uk/ITsearch/ProjectList.html>.
Reich, B.H. and Benbasat, I.(1990) An empirical investigation of factors influencing
the success of customer-oriented strategic systems. Information Systems
Research, 1 (3), pp. 325347.
Reina, P.(2003) Some Countries Are Bad to the Bone On Bribery. ENR: Engineering
News-Record, 250 (25), pp. 41-43
Remenyi, D. and Sherwood-Smith, M.(1998) Another Look at Evaluation to Achieve
Maximum Value from Information Systems, Henley Management College, Henley
Remenyi, D. B.; Williams, A. M. and Swartz E.(1998), Doing Research in Business and
Management: An Introduction to Process and Method, London: Sage.
Reza Farzipoor S.(2005) Developing a nondiscretionary model of slacks-based
measure in data envelopment analysis Applied Mathematics and Computation,
169 (2), pp.1440-1447
Rezgui Y and Zarli A.(2001) Editorial - Information and Communication technology
advances in the European Construction industry., ITcon Vol. 6, Special Issue
Information and Communication Technology Advances in the European
Construction Industry , pg. 83-83, http://www.itcon.org/2001/7
Rezgui, Y. and Zarli, A.(2006) Paving the Way to the Vision of Digital Construction: A
Strategic Roadmap. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, July,
132 (7), pp767-776
Rezgui, Y.(2007) Knowledge systems and value creation. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 107 (2), pp.166-182
Rezgui, Y.; Boddy, S.; Wetherill, M. and Cooper, G.(2011) Past, present and future of
information and knowledge sharing in the construction industry: Towards
semantic service-based e-construction? Computer-Aided Design, May2011, Vol.
43 Issue 5, p502-515
Richard J. H.(1993) Building Practitioner-Held Theory Through Triangulation, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 3, No. 4 Oct., pp. 431-456
Rindova, V. P. and Fombrun, C. J.(1999) Constructing competitive advantage: The
role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, Aug, 20 (8),
pp. 691-710
Rivard, H.; Froese, T.; Waugh, L. M.; El-Diraby, T.; Mora, R.; Torres, H.; Gill, S. M.
and OReilly T (2004) Case studies on the use of information technology in the
Canadian Construction industry, ITcon 9, pp19-34, http://www.itcon.org/2004/2
Rivard, S.; Raymond, L. and Verreault, D.(2006) Resource-based view and
competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information
technology to firm performance (Journal of Strategic Information Systems, v 15,
n 1, March, p 29-50
Robeiro, F. L. and Love, P. E. D.(2003) Value creation through an e-business strategy:
implication for SMEs in construction. Construction Innovation, Mar, 3 (1), pp. 315
Robert E. J. and Mark J. C.(1999)The impact of information technology in design and
construction: the owners perspective, Automation in Construction, 8 (1), pp. 314
Robert Jacobson and Gary Hansen.(2001) Modeling the Competitive Process,
Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 22, No. 4/5, pp. 251-263, Strategy and
the
Ross, Jeanne W.(2004) Preparing for utility computing: The role of IT architecture and
relationship management. IBM Systems Journal, 43 (1), pp. 5-19
Ross, Jeanne W.; Beath, Cynthia M.(2002)New Approaches to IT Investment. MIT
Sloan Management Review, Winter, 43 (2), pp.51-59
Ross, Jeanne W.; Beath, Cynthia Mathis; Goodhue, Dale L.(1996) Develop Long-Term
Competitiveness through IT Assets. Sloan Management Review, Fall96, Vol. 38
Issue 1, p31-42
Ross, Jeanne W.; Beath, Cynthia Mathis; Goodhue, Dale L.(2003) Developing longterm competitiveness through information technology assets, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management, Working papers:
no. 290
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L.(1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative
and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation
Review, 9, pp 627643
Rowlinson, S.(2007) The temporal nature of forces acting on innovative IT in major
construction projects. Construction Management & Economics, Mar, 25 (3), pp.
227-238
Rowlinson, S; Collins, R.; Tuuli, M. M. and Yunyan J.(2010) Implementation of
Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Construction: A Comparative Case Study.
AIP Conference Proceedings, 5/21/2010, Vol. 1233 Issue 1, p572-577
Ruikar, D.;. Anumba C.J; Duke A.; Carrillo, P.M.; Bouchlaghem, N.M.(2007) Using the
semantic web for project information management. Facilities, Oct, 25 (13),
pp.507-524
Runeson, G.(1997) The role of theory in construction management research:
comment. Construction Management & Economics, May, 15 (3), pp. 299-302
Russell, A.; Staub-French, S.; Tran, N. and Wong, W.(2009) Visualizing high-rise
building construction strategies using linear scheduling and 4D CAD. Automation
in Construction, Mar2009, Vol. 18 Issue 2, pp. 219-236
Ryoo, B. Y.; Skibniewski, M. J.; Kwak, Young H.(2010) Web-Based Construction
Project Specification System. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
Mar/Apr2010, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p212-221
Saaty, T.L.(1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, (McGraw-Hill: New York, NY).
Saaty, T.L.(1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, 1980 (McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY).
Sabherwal, R., and Chan, Y. E.(2001) Alignment between business and IS strategies:
A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems
Research, 12(1), pp. 11-33
Sabherwal, R., and Kirs, P (1994) The Alignment between Organizational Critical
Success Factors and Information Technology Capability in Academic Institutions.,
Decision Sciences, Mar/Apr, 25 (2), pp.301-330
Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., and Goles, T.(2001) The Dynamics of Alignment:
Insights from a Punctuated Equilibrium Model., Organization Science 12 (2),
pp179-197
Sachin L.(2003) Identification and Assessment of the Benefits of Information
Technology in Various Construction Business Processes: A Professional Paper,
Submitted to the Department of Construction Science of Texas A&M University in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
Sacks, R.; Koskela, L.; Dave, B. A. and Owen, R.(2010) Interaction of Lean and
Building Information Modeling in Construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, Sep2010, Vol. 136 Issue 9, p968-980
Sakka, Zr I. and El-Sayegh, S. M.(2007) Float Consumption Impact on Cost and
Schedule in the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, Feb, 133 (2), pp.124-130
Salehi-Sangari, Esmail.(1997) Information technology as a
competitiveness, Competitiveness Review, 7 I(2), pp. 52-58
determinant
of
Page,
Salipante, P.; Notz, W. and Bigelow, J.(1982) A Matrix Approach to Literature Reviews.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, pp.321-349
Sally T.; Louise J.; Margaret H. K.; George N. and Margarete S.(2004) Qualitative
Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological
Agenda, Qualitative Health Research, 12 2004; vol. 14: pp. 1342 - 1365.
Salmela, H. and Turunen, P.(2003) Competitive implications of information technology
in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16 (1),
p. 8-26
Sambamurthy, V.(2000) Business strategy in hypercompetitive environments:
rethinking the logic of IT differentiation. In: Zmud, R.W., (Ed.), Framing the
Domains of IT Management, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati, OH, pp.
245261.
Index.
Business
Sevkli, M.; Koh, S. C. L.; Zaim, S.; Demirbag, M. and Tatoglu, E.(2007) An application
of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case
study of BEKO in Turkey. International Journal of Production Research,
5/1/2007, Vol. 45 Issue 9, p1973-2003
at
Seymour, D.; Crook, D. and Rooke, J.(1998) The role of theory in construction
management: reply to Runeson. Construction Management & Economics, 16 (1),
pp. 109-113
Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J.A.(1995) The culture of the industry and culture of
research; Construction Management and Economics; 13, pp 511-523
Seymour, H.(1987) The Multinational Construction Industry, Croom Helm, London.
Shafer S. M. and Byrd T. A.(2000) A framework for measuring the efficiency of
organizational investments in information technology using envelopment
analysis. Omega 28 pp 12541
Shafer SM, and Byrd TA.(2000) A framework for measuring the efficiency of
organizational investments in information technology using data envelopment
analysis, Omega, vol. 28 pp.12541
Shah, A.; Zeis, C.; Ahmadian, A. and Regassa, H.(2000). Strategies of Gaining
Competitive Advantage at the Generic and Business Unit Level: A Study.
Multinational, Business Review, spring, 8 (1), pp. 13
Shah, Abhay; Zeis, Charles; Ahmadian, Ahmad; Regassa, Hailu.(2000) Strategies of
Gaining Competitive Advantage at the Generic and Business Unit Level: A
Study... Multinational Business Review, Spring, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p13, 9p
Shah, Sonali K.; Corley, Kevin G.(2006) Building Better Theory by Bridging the
QuantitativeQualitative Divide. Journal of Management Studies, Dec2006, Vol.
43 Issue 8, p1821-1835, 15p,
Shahid, Y. A. G. and Felix, T. M.(1999) Relationship between generic strategies,
competitive advantage and organizational performance: an empirical analysis.
Technovation, 19 (8), pp. 507-518
Shao, B. B. M. and Lin W. T.(2001) Measuring the value of information technology in
technical efficiency with stochastic production frontiers Information and Software
Technology, Volume 43, Issue 7, 1 June 2001, Pages 447-456
Sharif, A. M.; Irani, Z. and Lloyd, D.(2007) Information technology and performance
management for build-to-order supply chains. International Journal of
Operations &
Shaw, F. N.(2010) "The Power to Procure: A Look inside the City of Austin
Procurement Program". Applied Research Projects, Texas State University-San
Marcos. http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/338
Shen, Qiping; Chung, Jacky K.H.(2007) The use of information technology by the
quantity surveying profession in Hong Kong. International Journal of Project
Management, 25 (2), pp.134-142
Sherif M. and Rodney A. S.( (2003). An empirical investigation of users' perceptions of
web-based communication on a construction project, Automation in
Construction, 12 pp. 43 53
Shin, C.C.(1995) Leveraging information technology--the key to competitiveness.
Electrical World, Sep95, Vol. 209 Issue 9, IBM Utility Business Qrt. p1, 2p,
Shin, K. S., and Han, I.(2001) A case-based approach using inductive indexing for
corporate bond rating. Decision Support System, 32, pp. 4252
Shou Qing Wang; Dulaimi, Mohammed Fadhil; Aguria, Muhammad Yousuf.(2004) Risk
management framework for construction projects in developing countries.
Construction Management & Economics, Mar, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p237-252, 16p
Shubik, M.(1987) What is an application and when is a theory a waste of time.
Management Science 33(12) pp. 15111522
Siaw, I and Yu, A.(2004) An Analysis of the Impact of the Internet on Competition in
the Banking Industry, using Porters Five Forces Model. International Journal of
Management, Dec, 21 (4), pp. 514-523
Sigala, M.; Airey, D.; Jones, P. and Lockwood, A.(2004) ICT Paradox Lost? A Stepwise
DEA Methodology to Evaluate Technology Investments in Tourism Settings,
Journal of Travel Research, Nov, 43(2), pp.180-19
Silas Y. and David J E.(2002) Evaluation of business strategies in the UK construction
engineering consultancy. Measuring Business Excellence, 6 (1)
Silvia, S.(2003) Dirty oil. Forbes Inc. Vol. 171, Issue 9 pp. 92-94
Sullivan, G. P.; Pugh, R.
Melendez, A. P. and Hunt W. D. (2010) Operations &
Maintenance Best Practices A Guide to Achieving Operational Efficiency Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory for the Federal Energy Management Program
U.S.
Department
of
Energy
[online]
Available
at
[09
March
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/omguide_complete.pdf
2012]
Simmons, P.(1994) Measurement and the evaluation of I.T. investments, Software
Metrics Symposium, Proceedings of the Second International 24-26 Oct. pp.74 83
Sircar, S.; Turnbow, Joe L. and Bordoloi, B.(2000) A Framework for Assessing the
Relationship between Information Technology Investments and Firm
Performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (4), pp.69-97
Skibniewski, M. J. and Abduh, M.(2000) Web-based project management for
construction: Search for utility assessment tools, paper presented to Proceedings
of the INCITE 2000 Conference on Implementing IT to Obtain a Competitive
Advantage in the 21st Century, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong
Kong.
Skibniewski, M. J. and Ghosh, S.(2009) Determination of Key Performance Indicators
with Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Engineering Construction Firms.
Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, Oct2009, Vol. 135 Issue 10,
p965-978
Skibniewski, M. J. and Nitithamyong, P.(2004) Web-based construction project
management systems: Practical advantages and disadvantages, paper presented
to Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Project
Management (ICCPM), Singapore
Skinner, W.(1986) The productivity paradox. Harvard Bus. Rev. 64(4), pp.5559.
Smith, Brian L.(2002) Software Development Cost Estimation for Infrastructure
Systems. Journal of Management in Engineering, Jul
Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D.(1991) How does information technology affect business
value-A reassessment and research propositions, System Sciences, 1991.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on 811 Jan, Vol. 4, pp.429 - 437
Smith, J.(1991) A Methodology for Twenty-First Century Sociology*. Social Forces,
Sep, 70 (1), pp. 1-17
Smith, K. G.; Grimm, C. M.; Gannon, M. J. and Chen, MJ.(1991) Organizational
Information Processing, Competitive Responses, and Performance in the U.S.
Domestic Airline Industry. Academy of Management Journal, Mar, 34 (1), pp. 6085
Smith, M. L.(1981) Naturalistic Research.. Personnel & Guidance Journal, May, 59 (9),
pp. 585-589
Smith, N.(1990) The case study: a useful research method for information
management. Journal of Information Technology, Sep, 5 (3), pp.123-133
Smyth, H.(2010) Construction industry performance improvement programmes: the
UK case of demonstration projects in the 'Continuous Improvement' programme.
Construction Management & Economics, Mar2010, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p255-270
Stewart, R.A.; Mohammed, S.(2001) Utilizing the balanced scorecard for IT/IS
performance evaluation in construction. Construction Innovation, Sep, Vol. 1
Issue 3, p147-163,
Stewart, V. and Stewart, A.(1997), Business Applications of Repertory Grid, McGrawHill, New
Stratopoulos, T., Dehning, B.(2000) Does successful investment in information
technology solve the productivity paradox? Information and Management 38 (2),
103117.
Straub, D.; Rai, A. and Klein, R.(2004) Measuring Firm Performance at the Network
Level: A Nomology of the Business Impact of Digital Supply Networks. Journal of
Management Information Systems, summer, 21 (1), pp. 83-114
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,
London.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Styhre, Alexander and Josephson, Per-Erik.(2006) Rrevisiting site manager work:
stuck in the middle? Construction Management & Economics, May, 24 (5),
pp.521-528
Su, Y. Y.; Hashash, Y. M. A.; Liu, L. Y.(2006) Integration of Construction As-Built Data
via Laser Scanning with Geotechnical Monitoring of Urban Excavation. Journal of
Construction Engineering & Management, Dec, 132 (12), pp.1234-1241
Sugumaran, V. and Arogyaswamy, B.(2004) Measuring IT Performance: "Contingency"
Variables and Value Modes. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44 (2),
pp.79-86
Suite, Winston H. E.(1984) Role of the Construction Sector in Economic Planning and
Development in a Developing Country.. (Univ of the West Indies, Postgraduate
Programme in Construction Engineering & Management, St. Augustine, Trinidad
& Tobago) Source: Univ of Waterloo, 1984, p 873-881
Sull, Donald N.(2005) strategy as Active Waiting. Harvard Business Review, Sep, Vol.
83 Issue 9, pp.120-129
Susan, M. M.(1994) A Topology of Strategic Choice in Retailing. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 22 (4), pp.32-41
Sutherland, E. and Morieux, Y.(1988) Effectiveness and Competition--Linking Business
Strategy, Organizational Culture and the Use of Information Technology. Journal
of Information Technology, 3 (1), pp. 43-47
Sutrisna, M. and Barrett, P.(2007) Applying rich picture diagrams to model case
studies of construction projects (Research Institute for the Built and Human
Environment, University of Salford); Source: Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, v 14, n 2, , p 164-179
Sutton, B.(1993) The rationale for qualitative research: a review of principles and
theoretical foundations. Library quarterly, 63, pp. 411-430
Tai, S.; Wang, Y.; Anumba, C. J.(2009). A survey on communications in large-scale
construction projects in China.vEngineering Construction & Architectural
Management Vol. 16 Issue 2, pp.136-149
Tai, Y.; Ho, C. and Wu, W.(2010) The performance impact of implementing Webbased e-procurement systems. International Journal of Production Research,
Sep2010, Vol. 48 Issue 18, p5397-5414,
Tallon, P. P. and Kraemer, K. L.(2007) Fact or Fiction? A Sensemaking Perspective on
the Reality behind Executives' Perceptions of IT Business Value. Journal of
Management Information Systems, summer, 24 (1), pp.13-54
Thomas, S. R.; Lee, S.; Spencer, J. D.; Tucker, R. L. and Chapman, R. E.(2004)
Impacts of Design/Information Technology on Project Outcomes. Journal of
Construction Engineering & Management, Jul/Aug, 130 (4), pp. 586-597
Thompson, M.(2011) Ontological Shift Or Ontological Drift? Reality Claims,
Epistemological Frameworks, and Theory Generation in Organization Studies.
Academy of Management Review; Oct2011, Vol. 36 Issue 4, p754-773
Thorpe, A. and Baldwin, A. N.(1990) Information technology for construction cost
estimating, Habitat International, 14 (2/3), pp. 157-157
Thouin, Mark F.; Hoffman, James J.; Ford, Eric W.(2008) The effect of information
technology investment on firm-level performance in the health care industry.
Health Care Management Review, Jan-Mar, 33(1), pp.60-68
Tiamiyu, M. A.(2000) Availability, accessibility and use of information technologies in
Nigerian federal agencies: a preliminary survey. Information Technology for
Development, 9 (2), pp. 91-105
Tianji X.; Smith, N. J.; Bower, D. A. and Chew, A. S.(2004).Development Strategies
for Chinese Design Institutes. Journal of Management in Engineering, Apr, 20
(2), pp. 62-70
Ticehurst, G.W. and Veal, A.J.(2000) Business Research Methods, Longman/Pearson,
Australia.
Timothy M. L.(2007) Impact of globalization on the construction sector in developing
countries Construction Management and Economics, Volume 25, Issue 1 January
, pages 7 - 23
Torrance, H.(2008) Building Confidence in Qualitative Research: Engaging the
Demands of Policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14; (4) pp. 507-527
Tridas Mukhopadhyay, Sunder Kekre and Suresh Kalathur.(1995) Business Value of
Information Technology: A Study of Electronic Data Interchange MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 137-156
Trostel, A. O. and Nichols, M. P.(1982) Privately-held and publicly-held companies: A
comparison of strategic choices and management processes. Academy of
Management Journal, 25, pp. 47-62
Truong-Van Luu; Soo-Yong Kim; Huu-Loi Cao; Young-Min Park.(2008) Performance
measurement of construction firms in developing countries. Construction
Management & Economics, Apr, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p373-386
Tucker, M. l.; Powell, K. S. and Meyer, G. D.(1998) Qualitative Research in Business
Communication: A Review and Analysis. Journal of Business Communication,
Oct, 32 (4), pp. 383-399
Turk, .(2000a) Construction IT: Definition, Framework and Research Issues, M.
Fischiner (ed.) Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering on the doorstep of the
millennium : on the occasion of its 80th anniversary.
Turk, .(2000b) Paradigmatic Framework for Construction Information Technology,
Gudnason, G. (ed.) Construction Information Technology 2000, pp. 948-958
Turk, .(2000c) What is Construction Information Technology, Proceedings AEC2000,
Informacni technologie ve stavebnictvi Praha,
Tyagi R. K.( 2001) Cost leadership and pricing. Economics Letters, 72 (2), pp. 189193
Udayangani Kulatunga; Dilanthi Amaratunga; Richard Haigh.(2007) Performance
measurement in the construction research and development. International
Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, Nov, Vol. 56 Issue 8, p673688
Uko, C. E. A.(1986) Acquisition of Construction Technology by Less Developed
Countries. (Univ of Port Harcourt, Nigeria) Source: International Journal for
Development Technology, v 4, n 3, Sep, pp. 189-195
the
performance
of
engineering
and
construction
organisations in UK.
The
questionnaire
is
designed
to
assess
the
impact
of
cost,
safety,
customer
satisfaction
of
executed
UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD
If you are happy to take part in the research described below we would be
grateful if you could sign the attached consent form
Background Information
Project Title:
I.T SoCA - Information Technology as Source of Competitive
Advantage in Construction Industry
Researchers name:
Supervisors name:
Objectives for the research: This survey is being conducted by Yahuza Kassim of
Salford of University to help derive and test IT-business model for construction
organisations that could be use for IT capacity planning, assessment of IT readiness and
measure of continuous improvement of IT-enable strategy in construction firms.
Details of participation: Participants will be sought from approximately 150 (working on
approximately a 30% success return) large UK construction organisations which will be
identified through established industry contacts/experts that are currently engaged in
the area of construction IT and also have an interested in the focus of this study. The
survey consists of 40 questions and will take 20 minutes to complete.
If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free
to contact Mr. Yahuza Kassim either by telephone +44 (0) 7892 897330 or by e-mail
([email protected] ). This research has been reviewed and conforms to the standards
of the Salford of University Research Governance and Ethics Sub- Committee (RGEC).
100 to 250m
5 to 25 million
25 to 50 million
50
to
250 to 500million
500 to 1 billion
1 billion and
Middle management
No
51 100 people
101
200
Mixed/JV
Others:____________________________________________________________
_
6. How many projects did you deliver in the last three years?
1 10 Projects
Projects
11 20 Projects
21 30 Projects
>
30
Estimation
Execution plan
Interface management
Development of specifications
Issue Inquiry
Bid Evaluation
Inspection
Safety Management
Materials inventory
3. Procurement Process
Document Management
Change Management
Progress reporting
Invoicing process
Employee empowerment
Open communication
1
1
2
2
2
2
A
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
4.50
4.63
3.35
2.00
4.50
1.00
4.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
80.00%
80.00%
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
66.67 %
-12.44 %
25.00 %
25.00 %
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
5.00
5.00
3.51
3.51
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
125.00 %
-27.54 %
125.00 %
300.00 %
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.00
5.00
4.02
3.52
3.00
3.75
4.00
5.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
100.00%
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.00
4.00
3.85
3.20
4.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
33.33 %
-16.88 %
25.00 %
33.33 %
80.00%
E
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
3.00
5.00
3.98
3.73
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
100.00%
66.67%
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
3.00
4.00
4.17
3.20
4.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
66.67 %
-6.28 %
50.00 %
25.00 %
Peers: 0
References: 10
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
4.00
4.00
3.20
3.20
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
80.00%
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvement
33.33 %
-23.26 %
25.00 %
33.33 %
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
3.00
4.50
4.55
3.35
3.00
4.50
2.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
50.00 %
-26.26 %
50.00 %
100.00 %
44.44%
I
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
2.00
4.50
3.81
3.33
2.00
4.50
2.00
4.50
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
44.44%
100.00%
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
125.00 %
-22.13 %
125.00 %
125.00 %
Peers: 0
References: 5
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
5.00
5.00
3.73
3.73
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
125.00 %
-12.73 %
125.00 %
125.00 %
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
2.00
4.50
4.27
3.33
2.00
4.50
2.00
4.50
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
100.00%
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
3.00
3.00
2.83
2.83
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
44.44%
M
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
2.00
4.50
5.00
3.33
2.00
4.50
2.00
4.50
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
80.00%
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
100.00%
Potential Improvement
125.00 %
-33.50 %
125.00 %
125.00 %
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
TargetPotential Improvement
3.00
5.00
66.67 %
3.74
3.45
-7.75 %
1.00
4.00
300.00 %
4.00
5.00
25.00 %
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
40.00%
Peers: 2
References: 0
Peers: 1
References: 0
Actual
1.00
4.02
1.00
2.00
Target
5.00
3.73
3.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
400.00 %
-7.21 %
200.00 %
150.00 %
Peers: 0
References: 8
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
5.00
5.00
3.45
3.45
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
80.00%
Q
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
3.00
5.00
4.39
3.73
1.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
44.44%
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
Potential Improvement
66.67 %
-15.03 %
200.00 %
25.00 %
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
2.00
4.50
4.26
3.33
2.00
4.50
2.00
4.50
Variable
COST
ITBA
PROFI
SCHD
88.89%
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvement
125.00 %
-21.95 %
125.00 %
125.00 %
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements ( )
Actual
Target
4.00
4.50
3.67
3.33
4.00
4.50
4.00
4.50
Potential Improvement
12.50 %
-9.40 %
12.50 %
12.50 %
APPENDIX B1.1.2:
CO01
Peers: 0
References: 1
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.80
2.80
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.55
4.55
1.83
1.83
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
CO01
BWE
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
Input / Output Contributions
1.86 %
0.00 %
98.14 %
0.00 %
19.46 %
0.00 %
41.98 %
38.56 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO01
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO02
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.29
3.29
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
12.53 %
67.85 %
0.00 %
19.62 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
25.75 %
74.25 %
Peers
CO02
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO03
Peers: 0
References: 5
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.28
4.28
1.50
1.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
58.14 %
0.00 %
41.86 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
85.71 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
14.29 %
Peers
CO03
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO04
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.45
4.45
1.33
1.33
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
65.89 %
0.00 %
34.11 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
75.44 %
0.00 %
1.17 %
23.39 %
Peers
CO04
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO05
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.90
3.90
2.17
2.17
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO05
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
46.67%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO06
Peers: 3
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.20
2.97
1.00
3.29
2.00
4.43
1.00
2.29
3.81
3.45
2.00
2.00
2.80
2.69
2.00
4.29
1.00
3.57
2.00
4.29
Potential Improvement
-7.14 %
228.57 %
121.43 %
128.57 %
-9.47 %
0.00 %
-4.08 %
114.29 %
257.14 %
114.29 %
Peer Contributions
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
40.38 %
34.78 %
25.81 %
25.00 %
29.77 %
33.33 %
31.91 %
26.67 %
32.00 %
33.33 %
34.62 %
39.13 %
48.39 %
37.50 %
43.70 %
35.71 %
38.30 %
40.00 %
36.00 %
40.00 %
25.00 %
26.09 %
25.81 %
37.50 %
26.53 %
30.95 %
29.79 %
33.33 %
32.00 %
26.67 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Page 245 of 332
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
0.00 %
42.86 %
0.00 %
57.14 %
Output
Output
Output
Output
Peers
CO24
CO40
CO45
65.19%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO07
Peers: 4
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.60
1.60
2.00
3.07
2.00
4.59
1.00
2.80
3.83
3.83
2.17
1.97
1.80
1.65
2.00
3.07
1.00
1.82
2.00
4.57
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
53.40 %
129.58 %
179.58 %
0.00 %
-9.26 %
-8.34 %
53.40 %
81.85 %
128.45 %
Peer Contributions
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
Page 246 of 332
1.42 %
1.48 %
0.99 %
1.62 %
2.53 %
1.73 %
2.75 %
0.74 %
1.25 %
0.50 %
1.42 %
0.74 %
0.99 %
0.81 %
2.96 %
1.15 %
1.38 %
1.48 %
1.25 %
0.99 %
81.85 %
80.03 %
89.13 %
87.83 %
79.69 %
83.27 %
79.37 %
80.03 %
CO26
CO26
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
90.02 %
89.57 %
15.31 %
17.75 %
8.89 %
9.74 %
14.82 %
13.85 %
16.50 %
17.75 %
7.49 %
8.94 %
68.63 %
31.37 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
25.62 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
74.38 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO03
CO09
CO26
CO48
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO08
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.83
2.83
3.00
3.00
2.20
2.20
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
CO08
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
18.69 %
45.37 %
0.00 %
35.94 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO08
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO09
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO09
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO10
Peers: 0
References: 6
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.60
2.60
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.31
3.31
1.33
1.33
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
35.46 %
64.54 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO10
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO11
Peers: 0
References: 5
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.58
2.58
1.50
1.50
2.60
2.60
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
86.89 %
13.11 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO11
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO12
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.11
3.11
2.17
2.17
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
CO12
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
19.08 %
58.14 %
9.40 %
13.38 %
99.73 %
0.00 %
0.27 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO12
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO13
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
4.63
4.63
1.17
1.17
1.20
1.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
CO13
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
19.23 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
80.77 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
42.86 %
57.14 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO13
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO14
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.20
2.20
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.60
3.60
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.20
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
36.76 %
0.00 %
63.24 %
27.04 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
72.96 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO14
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO15
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
4.39
4.39
1.50
1.50
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
Peers
CO15
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
80.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO16
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.60
2.60
2.00
3.71
3.00
4.29
2.00
3.00
3.74
3.42
2.83
2.36
3.00
2.17
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.71
4.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
85.71 %
42.86 %
50.00 %
-8.55 %
-16.81 %
-27.62 %
200.00 %
35.71 %
25.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
82.42 %
76.92 %
66.67 %
71.43 %
68.83 %
75.76 %
78.95 %
71.43 %
78.95 %
71.43 %
17.58 %
23.08 %
33.33 %
28.57 %
31.17 %
24.24 %
21.05 %
28.57 %
21.05 %
28.57 %
2.55 %
38.04 %
28.85 %
30.55 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
Peers
CO02
CO26
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO17
Peers: 0
References: 6
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.52
3.52
2.33
2.33
2.60
2.60
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
57.46 %
42.54 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
13.61 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
86.39 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO17
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
80.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO18
Peers: 1
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
1.60
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
4.10
3.73
2.00
2.00
1.60
1.60
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
-33.33 %
50.00 %
25.00 %
200.00 %
-9.06 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
50.00 %
100.00 %
66.67 %
Peer Contributions
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
29.96 %
47.07 %
22.97 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO26
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO19
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.85
3.85
2.17
2.17
2.20
2.20
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
CO19
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
84.34 %
0.00 %
15.66 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
18.52 %
74.07 %
7.41 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO19
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
69.04%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO20
Peers: 6
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.18
2.00
4.21
2.00
2.90
4.27
3.68
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.90
2.00
2.90
2.00
4.23
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
58.76 %
110.31 %
44.85 %
-13.82 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
44.85 %
44.85 %
111.60 %
Peer Contributions
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 260 of 332
6.19 %
3.90 %
5.88 %
6.41 %
7.48 %
4.12 %
5.57 %
4.27 %
4.27 %
5.85 %
10.05 %
4.87 %
1.84 %
5.34 %
6.94 %
5.15 %
6.96 %
5.34 %
10.68 %
3.65 %
40.82 %
42.86 %
32.35 %
35.23 %
32.53 %
39.69 %
44.23 %
35.23 %
46.98 %
32.16 %
37.11 %
43.83 %
55.15 %
48.04 %
46.96 %
46.39 %
37.11 %
48.04 %
32.03 %
CO26
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
54.81 %
1.80 %
1.62 %
1.84 %
1.78 %
3.40 %
1.29 %
1.80 %
1.78 %
1.78 %
0.61 %
4.02 %
2.92 %
2.94 %
3.20 %
2.69 %
3.35 %
4.33 %
5.34 %
4.27 %
2.92 %
38.46 %
0.00 %
35.90 %
25.64 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
54.64 %
4.12 %
41.24 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO04
CO10
CO17
CO26
CO32
CO45
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO21
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
3.67
3.00
3.00
2.60
2.60
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
CO21
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO21
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO22
Peers: 0
References: 5
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.11
3.11
2.33
2.33
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
60.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
40.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
61.39 %
0.00 %
38.61 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO22
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO23
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.39
4.39
2.17
2.17
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
CO23
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
79.55 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
20.45 %
55.42 %
16.87 %
14.46 %
0.00 %
13.25 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO23
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO24
Peers: 0
References: 4
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
4.20
4.20
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.59
3.59
2.33
2.33
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
55.98 %
44.02 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
Peers
CO24
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
90.57%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO25
Peers: 6
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.80
1.80
3.00
3.31
2.00
3.49
2.00
2.21
4.47
3.93
1.83
1.83
2.00
1.80
3.00
3.31
2.00
2.21
2.00
3.45
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
10.42 %
74.48 %
10.42 %
-12.25 %
0.00 %
-10.10 %
10.42 %
10.42 %
72.40 %
Peer Contributions
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO09
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 266 of 332
6.08 %
3.30 %
6.27 %
4.95 %
13.93 %
5.97 %
6.08 %
6.60 %
4.95 %
6.34 %
50.93 %
50.31 %
35.82 %
37.74 %
38.24 %
45.45 %
50.98 %
50.31 %
56.60 %
36.25 %
28.24 %
28.77 %
45.52 %
43.16 %
30.16 %
34.66 %
28.27 %
28.77 %
28.77 %
46.07 %
1.62 %
1.26 %
1.79 %
1.89 %
2.58 %
1.14 %
1.62 %
1.26 %
1.89 %
CO32
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
0.60 %
3.24 %
4.40 %
2.09 %
3.30 %
4.58 %
1.99 %
2.03 %
1.10 %
3.30 %
2.11 %
9.90 %
11.95 %
8.51 %
8.96 %
10.50 %
10.80 %
11.01 %
11.95 %
4.48 %
8.61 %
83.08 %
0.00 %
16.92 %
0.00 %
37.50 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
37.50 %
25.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO09
CO14
CO26
CO32
CO37
CO48
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO26
Peers: 0
References: 14
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.60
1.60
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.73
3.73
2.00
2.00
1.60
1.60
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
13.06 %
60.30 %
6.24 %
20.40 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO26
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
97.14%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO27
Peers: 4
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.80
2.29
4.00
4.12
2.00
3.35
2.00
2.35
3.75
3.73
2.67
2.32
2.40
2.40
4.00
4.12
2.00
2.06
3.00
3.18
Potential Improvement
-18.07 %
2.94 %
67.65 %
17.65 %
-0.31 %
-12.87 %
0.00 %
2.94 %
2.94 %
5.88 %
Peer Contributions
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 269 of 332
5.13 %
7.14 %
7.02 %
7.50 %
6.14 %
5.49 %
7.35 %
5.71 %
2.86 %
7.41 %
30.77 %
21.43 %
21.05 %
22.50 %
11.58 %
27.85 %
25.00 %
17.14 %
42.86 %
16.67 %
13.33 %
8.57 %
14.04 %
15.00 %
10.08 %
10.97 %
13.73 %
14.29 %
22.86 %
14.81 %
50.77 %
62.86 %
57.89 %
55.00 %
72.20 %
55.70 %
53.92 %
62.86 %
31.43 %
CO48
SCHD
61.11 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
39.22 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
58.82 %
1.96 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO05
CO39
CO45
CO48
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO28
Peers: 0
References: 2
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.74
3.74
2.33
2.33
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
44.44 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
55.56 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
3.10 %
40.00 %
56.90 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO28
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO29
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.80
3.80
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
CO29
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
48.57 %
51.43 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO29
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
79.78%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO30
Peers: 5
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.51
1.00
3.71
2.00
2.51
3.42
3.42
1.83
1.83
1.80
1.80
1.00
2.47
1.00
2.58
1.00
3.87
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
25.35 %
270.97 %
25.35 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
146.65 %
158.17 %
287.20 %
Peer Contributions
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 273 of 332
21.09 %
12.94 %
4.37 %
12.94 %
15.68 %
11.80 %
16.22 %
13.16 %
25.14 %
8.38 %
19.85 %
6.60 %
8.92 %
6.60 %
12.47 %
13.53 %
23.89 %
6.71 %
19.22 %
8.54 %
9.92 %
7.92 %
5.35 %
7.92 %
6.02 %
8.42 %
5.15 %
5.36 %
7.69 %
5.13 %
47.47 %
71.01 %
79.98 %
71.01 %
64.63 %
64.73 %
52.75 %
72.17 %
45.97 %
CO26
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
76.63 %
1.67 %
1.54 %
1.38 %
1.54 %
1.20 %
1.52 %
2.00 %
2.60 %
1.99 %
1.33 %
10.42 %
62.54 %
23.59 %
3.45 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO10
CO11
CO22
CO26
CO45
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
97.65%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO31
Peers: 4
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.60
1.60
2.00
2.53
2.00
3.44
2.00
2.40
3.75
3.75
2.00
1.81
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.05
2.00
2.05
2.00
3.09
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
26.66 %
71.84 %
19.88 %
0.00 %
-9.64 %
-9.01 %
2.41 %
2.41 %
54.37 %
Peer Contributions
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 275 of 332
21.84 %
27.59 %
20.33 %
29.15 %
39.88 %
29.00 %
34.91 %
17.06 %
17.06 %
11.32 %
18.98 %
4.99 %
7.36 %
5.28 %
8.71 %
10.50 %
16.43 %
6.18 %
18.53 %
8.20 %
20.33 %
21.40 %
15.77 %
16.96 %
12.74 %
17.50 %
17.60 %
19.85 %
26.47 %
17.56 %
38.86 %
46.02 %
56.53 %
48.62 %
38.66 %
43.00 %
31.06 %
56.91 %
37.94 %
CO26
SCHD
62.93 %
51.48 %
48.52 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
2.80 %
97.20 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO03
CO11
CO17
CO26
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO32
Peers: 0
References: 3
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
4.86
4.86
1.00
1.00
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
CO32
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
61.25 %
0.00 %
12.50 %
26.25 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO32
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
48.21%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO33
Peers: 6
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.60
1.60
1.00
2.41
1.00
3.05
1.00
2.41
3.84
3.84
1.67
1.67
1.80
1.80
1.00
2.07
1.00
2.07
1.00
2.87
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
140.70 %
204.99 %
140.70 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
107.43 %
107.43 %
187.46 %
Peer Contributions
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 278 of 332
21.45 %
28.52 %
22.51 %
28.52 %
38.17 %
30.89 %
38.14 %
16.55 %
16.55 %
11.94 %
32.19 %
16.46 %
6.50 %
16.46 %
17.04 %
15.85 %
19.81 %
19.10 %
38.20 %
13.78 %
1.61 %
0.45 %
0.71 %
0.45 %
0.72 %
0.97 %
1.55 %
0.52 %
1.56 %
0.75 %
41.25 %
51.41 %
67.62 %
51.41 %
39.99 %
49.50 %
36.67 %
59.66 %
39.77 %
CO26
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
71.75 %
2.64 %
2.51 %
1.98 %
2.51 %
3.63 %
2.11 %
3.02 %
2.91 %
2.91 %
1.05 %
0.85 %
0.65 %
0.69 %
0.65 %
0.44 %
0.68 %
0.82 %
1.27 %
1.01 %
0.73 %
41.25 %
42.72 %
14.63 %
1.40 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
20.60 %
79.40 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO03
CO10
CO11
CO26
CO34
CO45
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO34
Peers: 0
References: 2
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.63
4.63
1.17
1.17
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
CO34
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO34
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
71.74%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO35
Peers: 5
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.94
2.00
3.91
2.00
2.79
5.00
3.59
2.00
1.93
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.79
2.00
2.79
2.00
4.12
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
46.97 %
95.45 %
39.39 %
-28.23 %
-3.54 %
0.00 %
39.39 %
39.39 %
106.06 %
Peer Contributions
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 281 of 332
27.58 %
14.43 %
5.43 %
15.22 %
19.55 %
14.66 %
21.21 %
15.22 %
30.43 %
10.29 %
18.18 %
20.62 %
15.50 %
16.30 %
14.87 %
18.32 %
21.89 %
16.30 %
21.74 %
14.71 %
4.55 %
3.09 %
2.33 %
3.26 %
2.63 %
3.66 %
2.36 %
2.17 %
3.26 %
2.21 %
46.06 %
58.76 %
73.64 %
61.96 %
59.80 %
59.69 %
51.18 %
61.96 %
41.30 %
CO26
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
CO28
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
69.85 %
3.64 %
3.09 %
3.10 %
3.26 %
3.16 %
3.66 %
3.37 %
4.35 %
3.26 %
2.94 %
38.83 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
61.17 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
39.39 %
9.09 %
51.52 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO10
CO17
CO22
CO26
CO28
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO36
Peers: 0
References: 1
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.92
4.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
CO36
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
55.56 %
0.00 %
44.44 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO36
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO37
Peers: 0
References: 4
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.60
1.60
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.93
4.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
57.14 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
42.86 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO37
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
62.75%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO38
Peers: 3
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.20
2.10
3.00
4.78
2.00
3.56
1.00
2.78
4.26
3.99
2.50
2.05
2.60
2.60
2.00
3.34
1.00
1.59
2.00
3.47
Potential Improvement
-4.55 %
59.38 %
78.13 %
178.13 %
-6.40 %
-17.92 %
0.00 %
67.19 %
59.38 %
73.44 %
Peer Contributions
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO05
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
65.48 %
71.90 %
77.19 %
74.16 %
67.21 %
72.59 %
79.33 %
82.24 %
43.14 %
79.28 %
16.67 %
18.30 %
12.28 %
15.73 %
27.03 %
10.66 %
8.41 %
6.54 %
27.45 %
12.61 %
17.86 %
9.80 %
10.53 %
10.11 %
5.76 %
16.75 %
12.26 %
11.21 %
29.41 %
8.11 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
98.44 %
0.00 %
Page 285 of 332
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
0.00 %
0.00 %
1.56 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO05
CO37
CO39
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO39
Peers: 0
References: 4
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.45
2.45
3.67
3.67
3.40
3.40
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
82.54 %
17.46 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO39
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO40
Peers: 0
References: 2
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
3.51
3.51
1.67
1.67
2.40
2.40
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
CO40
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
62.50 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
37.50 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO40
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO41
Peers: 2
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
4.50
3.00
3.00
4.52
3.62
2.83
2.17
2.20
2.10
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.50
Peer Contributions
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
Input / Output Contributions
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
33.33 %
0.00 %
66.67 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO17
CO26
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
16.67 %
50.00 %
0.00 %
-19.75 %
-23.53 %
-4.55 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
50.00 %
60.00 %
57.14 %
44.44 %
50.00 %
48.58 %
53.85 %
61.90 %
50.00 %
66.67 %
44.44 %
40.00 %
42.86 %
55.56 %
50.00 %
51.42 %
46.15 %
38.10 %
50.00 %
33.33 %
55.56 %
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
64.65%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO42
Peers: 5
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.21
2.00
3.21
1.00
2.54
3.72
3.72
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.32
1.00
2.30
2.00
3.09
2.00
3.09
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
220.99 %
60.55 %
154.20 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
-3.23 %
129.98 %
54.69 %
54.69 %
Peer Contributions
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO03
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO10
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO11
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 290 of 332
12.11 %
15.09 %
15.09 %
19.06 %
27.85 %
18.16 %
20.86 %
10.53 %
7.83 %
7.83 %
9.26 %
4.44 %
2.22 %
5.61 %
6.34 %
4.75 %
5.52 %
6.20 %
9.21 %
4.61 %
2.23 %
0.58 %
1.16 %
0.73 %
1.29 %
1.39 %
2.08 %
0.81 %
1.80 %
1.20 %
2.69 %
3.35 %
5.02 %
2.11 %
6.34 %
4.03 %
2.77 %
2.34 %
1.74 %
CO15
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
CO17
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
6.94 %
73.71 %
76.54 %
76.52 %
72.49 %
58.18 %
71.66 %
68.77 %
80.13 %
79.42 %
79.42 %
56.58 %
34.68 %
8.73 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
97.07 %
2.93 %
Peers
CO03
CO10
CO11
CO15
CO17
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
90.60%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO43
Peers: 4
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.40
3.00
3.31
1.00
4.12
2.00
2.95
3.35
3.35
2.83
2.33
1.80
1.80
1.00
2.85
1.00
2.77
2.00
3.99
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
10.38 %
311.69 %
47.49 %
0.00 %
-17.89 %
0.00 %
185.48 %
176.80 %
99.31 %
Peer Contributions
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO14
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
CO39
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 292 of 332
4.61 %
6.07 %
3.66 %
3.41 %
5.40 %
4.32 %
6.14 %
7.04 %
5.44 %
3.78 %
40.75 %
29.54 %
23.76 %
33.16 %
30.27 %
32.70 %
25.36 %
22.84 %
35.33 %
24.54 %
32.88 %
44.68 %
59.89 %
50.15 %
54.79 %
42.40 %
43.84 %
51.82 %
35.63 %
61.86 %
21.77 %
19.72 %
12.69 %
13.28 %
9.54 %
20.58 %
24.67 %
18.30 %
23.59 %
CO39
SCHD
9.83 %
21.96 %
57.79 %
0.00 %
20.26 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO14
CO22
CO26
CO39
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
99.16%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO44
Peers: 4
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.20
1.68
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.87
2.00
2.50
3.98
3.98
1.83
1.78
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.18
1.00
1.97
4.00
4.03
Potential Improvement
-23.61 %
0.84 %
29.14 %
24.79 %
0.00 %
-3.06 %
0.00 %
9.25 %
96.63 %
0.84 %
Peer Contributions
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO15
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO22
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
CO37
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
Page 294 of 332
9.50 %
10.55 %
12.36 %
6.40 %
17.61 %
13.47 %
13.68 %
7.31 %
8.12 %
15.83 %
22.48 %
12.49 %
9.75 %
15.14 %
9.86 %
16.53 %
12.59 %
11.53 %
19.21 %
9.37 %
50.41 %
52.51 %
68.34 %
63.65 %
49.61 %
59.59 %
60.51 %
72.70 %
53.86 %
65.63 %
17.61 %
24.45 %
9.55 %
14.82 %
22.92 %
10.41 %
13.21 %
8.46 %
18.81 %
CO37
SCHD
9.17 %
0.00 %
35.55 %
0.00 %
64.45 %
34.50 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
65.50 %
Peers
CO15
CO22
CO26
CO37
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO45
Peers: 0
References: 6
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.60
2.60
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.20
3.20
2.17
2.17
2.80
2.80
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
CO45
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
42.87 %
57.13 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
30.14 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
69.86 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO45
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
80.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO46
Peers: 3
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
4.60
3.80
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.13
2.00
2.50
4.02
3.50
4.33
2.37
4.20
2.95
3.00
3.75
3.00
3.75
4.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
-17.39 %
33.33 %
37.50 %
25.00 %
-13.04 %
-45.19 %
-29.76 %
25.00 %
25.00 %
25.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO02
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
19.74 %
25.00 %
24.24 %
30.00 %
23.52 %
26.32 %
20.34 %
20.00 %
20.00 %
25.00 %
69.08 %
62.50 %
60.61 %
50.00 %
64.13 %
61.40 %
63.56 %
66.67 %
66.67 %
62.50 %
11.18 %
12.50 %
15.15 %
20.00 %
12.34 %
12.28 %
16.10 %
13.33 %
13.33 %
12.50 %
28.48 %
22.92 %
24.68 %
23.92 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Page 297 of 332
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
Peers
CO02
CO24
CO47
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO47
Peers: 0
References: 2
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
3.40
3.40
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.45
3.45
2.33
2.33
3.80
3.80
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
CO47
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
50.70 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
49.30 %
Peers
CO47
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
100.00%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO48
Peers: 0
References: 4
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
1.80
1.80
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
4.17
4.17
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
Potential Improvement
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peer Contributions
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
CO48
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
10.35 %
0.00 %
89.65 %
24.77 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
75.23 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Peers
CO48
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
40.91%
Variable
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
CO49
Peers: 3
References: 0
Potential Improvements
Actual
Target
2.40
2.22
1.00
3.11
1.00
4.67
1.00
2.78
4.02
3.78
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.93
1.00
3.11
1.00
2.44
2.00
4.89
Potential Improvement
-7.41 %
211.11 %
366.67 %
177.78 %
-6.14 %
0.00 %
-35.56 %
211.11 %
144.44 %
144.44 %
Peer Contributions
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO04
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO24
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
CO26
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
BWE
CONTR
COST
CUSTO
ITBA
ITHS
ITSI
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
10.00 %
7.14 %
9.52 %
12.00 %
13.10 %
7.41 %
10.34 %
7.14 %
9.09 %
9.09 %
42.00 %
28.57 %
19.05 %
16.00 %
21.12 %
25.93 %
34.48 %
28.57 %
36.36 %
22.73 %
48.00 %
64.29 %
71.43 %
72.00 %
65.78 %
66.67 %
55.17 %
64.29 %
54.55 %
68.18 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
100.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Page 301 of 332
Input
Input
Input
Input
Output
Output
CUSTO
PROFI
SAFETY
SCHD
0.00 %
0.00 %
11.11 %
88.89 %
Peers
CO04
CO24
CO26
Output
Output
Output
Output
UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD
Research Governance and Ethics Committee
Ethical Approval Form for Post-Graduates
Ethical approval must be obtained by all postgraduate research students (PGR)
prior to starting research with human subjects, animals or human tissue. A PGR
is defined as anyone undertaking a Research rather than a Taught masters degree, and
includes for example MSc by Research, MRes, MPhil and PhD. The student must
discuss the content of the form with their dissertation supervisor who will advise them
about revisions. A final copy of the summary will then be agreed and the student and
supervisor will sign it off.
The applicant must forward a hard copy of the Form to the Contracts Office
once it is has been signed by their Supervisor and an electronic copy emailed to
the Research Governance and Ethics Committee through Max Pilotti
[email protected].
(The form can be completed electronically; the sections can be expanded to the size
required)
Name of student:
Course of study:
School:
Supervisor:
Research Institute:
2.
Project focus
The project will focus on an investigation into IT as a source of competitive
advantage within the UK construction industry.
3.
4.
5.
8.
More specifically, how will you ensure you gain informed consent from
anyone involved in the study?
9.
Are there any data protection issues that you need to address?
If YES what are these and how will you address them?
YES
It is believed that no data protection issues need to be addressed as the focus of
the study is at the organisational level and complete anonymity of individuals will
remain. However, along with ethical approval, this will be further discussed with
each organisation to ensure that the issue of data protection is in no way
contravened.
10.
Are there any other ethical issues that need to be considered? For
example - research on animals or research involving people under the
age of 18.
NO
11.
(a) Does the project involve the use of ionising or other type of
radiation
NO
(b)
Is the use of radiation in this project over and above what would
normally be expected (for example) in diagnostic imaging?
NO
(c)
NO
(d)
NO
Page 305 of 332
(e)
NO
If the answer to any of the questions 11(a)-(e) is YES, a risk assessment of the project
is required.
12.
Please attach:
To this end please find enclosed ten research questionnaires for your kind
response. Any personally identifiable information will be kept strictly
confidential and all the data will be used only for research purposes. The
outcome of the research will form part of partial fulfilment of requirements
for degree of PhD. Your cooperation is highly important to the success of
the project. A consent form is also attached explaining our undertaking to
protecting your confidentiality and confirming your consent to participate.
A draft consent form again in whatever media is suitable for your research purposes
/ population.
A copy of any posters to be used to recruit participants
Remember that informed consent from research participants is crucial, therefore your information
sheet must use language that is readily understood by the general public.
Projects that involve NHS patients, patients records or NHS staff, will require ethical approval by
the appropriate NHS Research Ethics Committee. The University Research Governance and Ethics
Committee will require written confirmation that such approval has been granted. Where a project
Page 306 of 332
forms part of a larger, already approved, project, the approving REC should be informed about,
and approve, the use of an additional co-researcher.
I certify that the above information is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and correct. I
understand the need to ensure I undertake my research in a manner that reflects good principles
of ethical research practice.
In signing this form I confirm that I have read and agreed the contents with the student.
Allocative efficiency
BCC
Benchmarking
Categorical variable
CCR
Composite unit
Constant returns to
scale
Controlled
(discretionary) inputs
Convexity constraint
Correlation coefficient
Cost efficiency
Data Envelopment
Analysis. (DEA).
Data set
The data set is the group of DMU's and the values of their
inputs and outputs to be included in the analysis.
Decreasing returns to
scale. (DRS).
Dual model
The dual model and the primal model provide two ways of
looking at the same problem and the efficiency scores
calculated are the same with both. Mathematically, the dual
model is much faster to solve.
composite unit.
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Efficient/ efficiency
frontier
Efficiency score
Efficiency study
Envelopment form
Epsilon ( )
Environmental factor
Facet
Global leader
Homogeneous
Increasing returns to
scale
Inefficient unit
Inputs
Input minimization
Input orientated
Input/output mix
Linear program
Multiplier form
Ordinal variable
Outlier
Output
Output maximization
Output orientated
Peer group
Production function
Productive efficiency.
(Efficiency).
Productivity
Radial measure
Both the BCC and CCR models are called ratio models
because they define efficiency as the ratio of weighted
outputs divided by weighted inputs.
Reference set
Results
Scale efficiency
Slack(s)
Surrogate measures
Targets
Technical efficiency
Uncontrolled
(exogenously fixed)
inputs/ outputs
Unit
Variable
Virtual input/output
Virtual multipliers
Weight flexibility.
(Weighting/ User
defined weights).
Weights
Window analysis
unit for each time period. The efficiency of a given unit over
each of the time periods is treated as a new unit.
Not Used