Measuring Project Success in the Construction Industry

Shawn W. Hughes, PE, Constellation Generation Group

Donald D. Tippett, The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Warren K. Thomas, PE, UT-Battelle

T
Abstract: The measurement of project success in the he ability to identify key attributes of project success is
construction industry has traditionally been grounded important to project owners, engineers, and contractors.
in the industry-accepted classic objective success metrics: Understanding the attributes of success contributes to
cost, schedule, performance, and safety. Initial research has the efficient execution of the construction project (Chua, Loh,
indicated that there are more subjective considerations that, Kog, and Jaselskis, 1997). The challenge in determining project
while being difficult to quantify, can have an important impact success is the lack of a standardized approach (Dvir, Raz, and
on perceptions of project success. During ongoing project Shenhar, 2003).
management research, the authors recognized the need for a Traditionally, the industry-accepted classical success metrics
measurement tool that would account for subjective as well for construction projects have been cost, schedule, and quality/
as objective metrics in assessing project success. The tool performance (Kerzner, 2003). The construction industry, led
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

would have to provide the flexibility necessary to account by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) of Austin, TX,
for the fact that every project is different. The resulting has also institutionalized use of a metric relating to the safety
Construction Project Success Survey (CPSS) instrument performance of the project (Construction Industry Institute,
is designed to investigate how experienced construction 1997). Industry professionals have recognized that, on some
project management personnel perceive project success, both projects, safety performance can be the primary determinant
objectively and subjectively. The engineering manager can use of success, regardless of the outcome of the other classical
this tool to identify important success metrics before the start metrics. This is especially true of the public sector (government)
of a project, and to evaluate the level of success achieved at construction market.
project completion. While cost, schedule, performance, and safety data provide
objective metrics that are fairly easily quantifiable, there are other
aspects of a project, including the level of “quality” achieved,
Keywords: Construction, Project Success, Metrics that may be more subjective. Additionally, when subjectivity is
involved, the “eye of the beholder” becomes a major factor in
evaluating how well a project performed and how successful it
EMJ Focus Areas: Program & Project Management was perceived.
The objective of this research is to incorporate existing
construction project success measurements into a technique that

About the Authors

Shawn W. Hughes, PE, received his MS in civil engineering from the University of Tennessee (UT) and a BS in civil engineering from
the University of New Hampshire. He is a graduate student in the engineering management program at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville and is pursuing his PhD. He is currently the manager of Nuclear Projects for the Constellation Generation Group of
Constellation Energy. His previous experience includes project and construction management assignments with Washington Group
International, Morrison Knudsen, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Donald D. Tippett holds a MS and PhD in industrial engineering from Texas A&M University, and a BS in mechanical engineering
from the U.S. Naval Academy. He is an associate professor of engineering management at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
His previous experience includes 10 years’ active duty as a carrier-based naval aviator with the U.S. Navy. He also held a project
management position in materials management information systems with Union Carbide Corporation and has served as program
manager, advanced technology with Newport News Shipbuilding.
Warren K. Thomas, PE, received his MS degree in environmental engineering, an MBA degree, and a BS degree in mechanical
engineering from UT. He is a graduate student in the engineering management program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and is pursuing his PhD. He is the principal engineer for UT-Battelle on several major construction projects. His experience includes
engineering design, project management, and consulting assignments in the chemical process and power generation industries for
consulting engineering companies including Gilbert Commonwealth, IC Thomasson, and United Engineers and Constructors.
Contact: Shawn W. Hughes, Constellation Generation Group, 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 500, Annapolis, MD
21401; phone: 410-897-5103; fax: 410-897-5062; [email protected]

Refereed management tool manuscript. Finalist in the Merritt Williamson Best Conference Paper award at ASEM 2003.

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004 31

 accounts for the subjective, as well as objective, metrics in order The CPSS instrument is designed to investigate how
to enable more insightful conclusions about a project’s success. experienced construction project management personnel
In addition, this research has the potential to provide a means of evaluate the characteristics of project success, both objectively
identifying attributes important to success at the onset of projects and subjectively. For a particular construction project, the
so that better planning can be done. CPSS measures and scores the attributes of industry-recognized
project success metrics; it also assesses how construction project
Objective and Subjective Success Metrics managers evaluate the more subjective aspects of projects. The
Previous research by Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1974) has instrument is also useful as a planning tool with which engineers,
shown the relevance of subjective attributes as determinants of contractors and customers can review a broad set of attributes
construction project success, in spite of the difficulty in measuring and establish priorities and contingency plans in support of
them. They investigated over 650 projects and produced the successful project outcomes.
following definition of project success: This article explores alternative methods of determining
If the project meets the technical performance specifications project success based on expectations and baseline plans rather
and/or mission to be performed, and if there is a high level than exclusively relying on externally established criteria that
of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among key may not reflect project management’s view of the outcome in
people in the parent organization, key people in the client the context of the performance challenges, strategic objectives
organization, key people on the project team, and key users or the marketplace. Meeting this objective begins with a survey
or clientele of the project effort, the project is considered an instrument that is grounded in the traditional project success
overall success. metrics (cost, schedule, quality/performance, and safety). The
Since perceptions play such a strong role in this definition, next step is to allow respondents to add a subjective component
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

they note it is more appropriate to speak in terms of “perceived by assessing their perceptions of how these factors were managed
success of a project.” against expectations and factors beyond the control of the project
This article suggests that objective project metrics cannot team (e.g., labor supply, material availability, regulatory climate).
provide the whole story regarding project success without It should be noted that cost and schedule variances, OSHA
elucidating the context in which the project success attributes safety statistics, and quality inspection results can be grossly
were observed. In fact a completely erroneous conclusion misinterpreted without context. For example:
regarding project success could be arrived at by project analysts • Management may elect to bid jobs at a financial loss to enter
if they only considered the classical project success metrics (cost, a new market or win a prized client. Outcomes with negative
schedule, quality/performance, and more recently, safety) while cost variances might be viewed as a success in this context.
neglecting subjective success metrics. It is probably also true that • Below standard, but well-managed, safety performance,
subjective metrics are only meaningful when considered from the as measured by OSHA Total Recordable Injury Rates or
point of view of a particular observer. In other words, what would workers compensation costs, might be viewed as acceptable
be construed as successful to the construction project manager or commendable by management if the project required
may or may not resonate the same way with the construction the excessive use of travelers (craftsmen not out of the local
project owner, project engineer, operator, or maintenance staff; union hall) or apprentices to staff the project.
therefore, one must clearly specify the point of view when • A project bid and performed to an unaggressive customer
measuring subjective success attributes. schedule baseline (common in public sector work with
One typical example of this dichotomy is the case where all incremental funding) may produce a significant positive
objective cost, schedule, performance, and safety metrics indicate schedule variance that still doesn’t meet management’s
a successful construction project outcome, but in the final expectations.
analysis, the project did not meet the expectations of the owner
and/or the construction project manager and was therefore Ammeter and Dukerich (2001), investigated factors leading
judged to be unsuccessful. to high performance project teams. Though not the focus of
their research, they compared “perceptions” of high performance
Establishing the Need for the Construction Project factors with more objective metrics (i.e., project cost and schedule
Success Survey data) and found high correlation between the objective cost and
Benchmarking and metrics defining construction project schedule metrics and those characterized by “perceptions.” The
success have been established through research conducted by CII pursuit of “perception” measurement in this research is modeled
(Construction Industry Institute, 1997). This work has produced after the process used by Ammeter and Dukerich (2001).
standardized cost, schedule, and safety metrics indicative of
successful projects. During ongoing research, the authors Construction Project Success Survey Development
recognized the need for a measurement tool that would account Interviews were conducted with a group of 10 experienced
for subjective feedback (such as achieving “quality” objectives), construction project managers to collect qualitative or “anecdotal”
and perceptions, as well as objective metrics in assessing project perceptions of factors that define construction project success
success. The tool would have to provide flexibility necessary in terms of internal baselines or management’s expectations.
to account for the fact that every project is different. Effective Project managers were selected due to their critical impact on the
measurement of success would provide a means to adapt criteria administration of a construction project, their control over the
to the important success characteristics for a given project. In allocation of key project resources, by the fact that they are normally
order to fill the gap that exists with current research tools, the considered to be the single point of responsibility for all matters
Construction Project Success Survey (CPSS) tool was developed. related to the project, and by the fact that they are the individuals

32 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004

 who are ultimately held accountable for success or failure of a success. Each statement was formulated using different key
project. The construction project managers were solicited from attributes of project success. Subsequent review of the statements
around the United States, representing large engineering and revealed instances where an attribute needed to be further
construction companies. All had prior professional interfaces with subdivided into component parts (i.e., separate statements)
the researchers where practical construction project management to avoid grouping items that might otherwise elicit different
expertise was demonstrated. Each had an extensive background in responses. The survey uses a Likert scale to assess levels of
a variety of project settings, contract types, and work locations. All agreement with the statement, ranging from –3 (strongly
but two are graduate engineers whose careers have migrated into disagree) to +3 (strongly agree) for each attribute. This scale was
construction project management. used for two reasons: first, the positive and negative values more
The interview process was accomplished using an open- clearly connote a positive/negative sentiment of agreement, with
ended questionnaire that solicited observations related to the “zero” easily interpreted as neutral; second, the symmetry of scale
interpretation of construction project performance metrics reinforces the notion of balance in response options. In addition,
throughout their careers. The response rate for the questionnaire each statement included an importance rating: low importance
was 90%. Respondents were encouraged to think beyond the (assigned a numerical value of 1), medium importance (assigned
obvious, objective metrics and reflect on those factors involving a value of 2), high importance (assigned a value of 3), along with
perceptions and subjective judgments that supplement the “hard” a “not applicable” option.
numbers. This questionnaire was utilized only to collect input CPSS scoring is as follows:
for the development of the final survey instrument and had no 1. The value for each individual response is the product of the
further use in this research effort. The interview questions are “agreement” rating (-3 to +3) and the importance rating (1,
shown in Exhibit 1. 2 or 3).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

2. A composite score for each of the six survey sections (cost,

Exhibit 1. Interview Questions—Project Success
schedule, performance, quality, safety, and operating
environment) is calculated by dividing the sum of the
1. What characteristics are useful in measuring construction
products in step 1 for each section by the sum of the
project success? importance values for that section.
Cost Variance 3. In order to consider differences in the relative value of the
Schedule Variance six survey sections from project to project, the respondent is
Performance asked to assigned relative importance weighted percentages
Safety Performance (e.g., OSHA statistics) to each section such that the six weightings total 100%.
Quality (e.g., Inspection Success Rate)
Other__________________________ The six survey section scores are multiplied by their relative
weighting to calculate the final composite survey score.
2. Is it your belief that the success of construction projects The survey instrument was reviewed with the construction
relative to one another could be determined by merely project managers to refine survey phraseology to assure the
comparing performance metrics? Explain. use of unambiguous terminology. For example, some feedback
suggested that the use of the term “performance metric” implied
some form of documented, codified measurement structure,
3. Explain how your career experience might influence your
while others viewed it in its broader, more generic sense. The
interpretation of project success metrics?
other objective of the review was to confirm that the survey
addressed the full range of issues related to the interpretation
4. What other types of information about the project of construction project success metrics and the practical value
environment might be useful when evaluating project success of “perceptions” and context in assessing results. The objective
metrics? was not simply to create an instrument that aligns subjective
perceptions with the objective metrics.
5. Can you describe a situation in your experience where the
result of a project performance metric was misinterpreted or Validation and Reliability
misrepresented the true outcome? The literature is expansive in defining the attributes of
construction project success. Without exception, success is at
a minimum measured in terms of four basic attributes: cost,
schedule, performance, and safety, in addition to a less-defined
The construction project managers’ responses were analyzed quality measure. The quality attribute ranges from the more
and segmented into discrete project success attributes. Similar objective measures such as acceptable inspections, tests, or
items were grouped together and ranked by frequency. Six other quantifiable functional metrics to more subjective factors
predominant categories emerged (cost, schedule, performance, such as “customer satisfaction” or “meeting expectations.” The
quality, safety, and operating environment) and aligned with process of defining the range of “perceptive” project success
the five categories included in the CII work and other related measurements began with open-ended questions shown in
research. The sixth category, operating environment, collects Exhibit 1. The questions were formed around these five basic
items primarily related to business and regulatory factors. and industry-accepted measurement categories. This approach
The CPSS instrument was developed from the project was designed to establish a baseline and set a context for quickly
manager feedback using positive statements reflecting project moving beyond the realm of the obvious into the more subtle

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004 33

 and subjective factors of success. The composite project manager only 5%. Any accident or injury would have brought down the
feedback defined the range of objective and subjective project safety component of the total CPSS score, and the overall score.
success factors sufficient to develop the initial instrument draft. The follow-up validation interview revealed a clear emphasis
The project managers providing feedback were then briefed on project cost, performance, and quality, with tolerance for
on the objectives and theories related to the survey instrument schedule slippage. The results of the cost and schedule variances
and a review of the draft was conducted to confirm adequate (superior cost performance, inferior schedule performance)
coverage of the subject matter and consistent interpretation of aligned with the priorities of the project manager. The relatively
survey questions. high CPSS score when compared with the other two validation
The construct validation process was performed using projects was driven by the highly weighted importance and
three recently completed construction projects where actual scoring of cost and quality, which produced an overall project
cost, schedule, and safety performance data were known and success assessment much higher than would be supported by
the cost and schedule variances could be calculated using the objective metrics alone. The lack of consideration for subjective
Construction Industry Institute methodology. The relative performance factors and their relative weighting would lead to an
successes of the projects, based on the general perceptions of the incomplete or inconsistent conclusion of the project manager’s
researchers having some familiarity with the work, were judged perception of the level of project success achieved.
to be good, mediocre, and poor, respectively. The three project
managers were given the CPSS instrument and asked to evaluate Project B. This project manager rated performance, quality
the success of their projects. The initial results for each project and safety as primary attributes of interest, comprising 50%
showed inconsistencies between the cost and schedule variance of the overall project importance weighting. These are also the
metrics and the CPSS scores. Specifically, the project managers’ categories with the highest average attribute score on a –3 to +3
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

ratings of performance for their respective projects did not reflect Likert scale (+1.82 for Performance and Quality and +2.75 for
what would typically be expected based strictly on the objective Safety). The final CPSS score was heavily influenced by exemplary
metrics of cost and schedule. As can be seen in Exhibit 2, a cost safety performance (no OSHA recordable injuries over three
or schedule variance greater than 1.0 that would normally be months) and the strong endorsement of quality workmanship
indicative of a poor performing project does not necessarily received from the client at the final project turnover.
adversely impact the CPSS scoring. Follow-up interviews with The follow-up interview revealed that the project bidding
the project managers were conducted in order to evaluate these was extremely competitive with no expectation of profit. This
scoring discrepancies. Several important considerations were was reflected in the relatively lower importance and performance
revealed in the interviews and are detailed. ratings for cost attributes. The project manager was extremely
critical of his ability to control cost and schedule performance
Exhibit 2. CPSS Validation Results
early in the project. The cost baseline for the project was set at
no profit and the survey scored a “neutral” response against the
Project Cost Schedule CPSS Score
objective cost attributes.
Variance Variance
The project manager declared that market penetration
and the opportunity to demonstrate performance capabilities
A (Successful) 0.831 1.636 1.905
and safe work practices in a new, highly regulated environment
B (Mediocre) 1.051 0.954 1.640 were important. Within the “Operating Environment” category,
the attribute related to improving market position achieved the
C (Poor) 1.492 1.000 0.246
highest possible scores and importance factors. He also indicated
he was slow to adjust to the expectations of regulatory oversight
which initially created a credibility gap with the client. This
Project A. This project manager indicated that cost (40%), situation improved steadily throughout the project, and the
performance, and quality (another 40%) outweighed all other survey revealed a final rating of +2 along with the highest possible
considerations in determining the level of project success. The importance weighting.
average survey cost score of +2.18 is a clear indicator of strong The industry-standard cost and schedule variances would
performance in this area, with baseline management and suggest this project merely meets baseline expectations; however,
contingency management statement scoring the highest. This the higher CPSS score more accurately reflected the factors of
result is supported by the objective cost variance of 0.83 (17% special importance and the accomplishments reported by the
better than plan). The average performance and quality scores project manager on the subjective quality, customer satisfaction,
of 2.10 also contributed significantly to the overall high CPSS safety, regulatory compliance, and market penetration attributes
score. Success in meeting project operational goals was the largest he highlighted in the follow-up interview.
“performance” score contributor.
Though a schedule baseline was maintained (and ultimately Project C. This project manager rated “operating environment”
over-run), this had little or no bearing on the project’s terminal as the most critical category (25% of overall weighting) in
objective (as evidenced by a 10% weighting factor). “Schedule” determining project success. The work environment included
produced the survey’s only negative average score (-0.182). In the rigorous access controls due to radiological contamination. The
post-survey interview, the project manager indicated that high contamination also governed the level of work controls and
safety standards are the norm in this nuclear work environment. regulatory oversight. Successfully coping with these challenges (an
Safety performance on the survey was rated strong (average score average score of +1.54), and strong safety performance (a score of
of +2.82), but the safety category importance was weighted at +1.55) contributed to an overall positive CPSS score. Cost was

34 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004

 rated as the area of poorest performance (average score of –1.80), alignment of expectations early on and throughout the life-cycle
but also received the lowest “importance” rating in the project of the project.
manager’s attribute weighting (15%). Since the project was As a post-project evaluation tool, the CPSS offers a means
working with a “time and material” cost structure, the client was of addressing the management of both subjective and objective
assuming all risks associated with cost over-runs. Similarly, the success factors. This might involve evaluating the identification
client was granting construction “day-for-day” schedule baseline and management of risks that influenced project-specific success.
slips during design troubleshooting, producing a schedule Results can be incorporated into updated project planning and
variance of 1.00. This approach to schedule management renders execution methodologies, including engineering inputs (such
the objective schedule variance meaningless. In summary, this as site and material selections), and constructability issues
project appears to be an under-performer, but once again, the impacting methods of accomplishment.
measures reflecting the project manager’s subjective assessments The CPSS is also useful as a research tool whereby
of success metrics compute a net “positive” project success, and construction project success can be measured and compared
align with the results of the interview. to a broad range of moderating factors such as labor relations,
In the final analysis, the three projects used to test the design development, and project team training. Evaluating the
CPSS produced empirical evidence supporting the importance relationships of such factors to project success might suggest
of evaluating individual project settings and objectives when opportunities for process improvements.
determining project success. The interviews and evaluations The engineering manager can use the CPSS to evaluate the
clearly distinguished the results of the objective metrics from effectiveness of project design documents and change controls
the perceptive subjective measures included in the CPSS. The contributing to project success. Continuous improvement
CPSS results demonstrated close alignment with the sentiments programs implemented by engineering and design organizations
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

revealed by the project managers through the interview process can use the instrument as a means of scoring project success
regarding their final assessment of success. Furthermore, the for the purpose of measuring improvement and deficiency
scores produced a more accurate representation of project trends. Similarly, lessons learned programs can incorporate
success outcomes for the three projects relative to one another the CPSS as a source of project success feedback beyond the
than did the objective metrics. framework of objective metrics alone. In this case, the relative
One traditionally acceptable method of determining reliability importance scores of various project activities can contribute
of survey instruments is through the test-retest coefficient, often to the knowledge base of the project organizations, which can
called the coefficient of stability (Rogelberg, 2002). The coefficient help to balance priorities and the application of resources in
of stability measures the correlation of the same measure for the future projects.
same case at two or more points in time (Price and Mueller, 1986).
The test-retest reliability method was utilized to determine the Conclusion
coefficient of stability for the three projects used for validation. The Construction Project Success Survey, included in
The results are shown in Exhibit 3. The time interval between T1 Appendix 1, clearly demonstrates the value of a project success
and T2 was approximately five months. assessment instrument that focuses on attributes outside the
classical objective metrics of cost, schedule, performance, and
Exhibit 3. CPSS Test-Retest Results
safety. The CPSS provides a method of measuring subjective
project success attributes that can ultimately lead to a successful
Project CPSS Score CPSS Score outcome of a project regardless of the values associated with the
Time = T1 Time = T2
traditional objective success attributes. Without the benefit of the
CPSS, a construction project’s status could be misconstrued by
A 1.905 1.691
only analyzing and accepting the status imparted by the classical
B 1.640 1.636 objective success metrics.
Additionally, the CPSS provides context to subjective success
C 0.246 0.264 attributes by acknowledging the importance of specifying which
individual is being asked to render the project success assessment.
In the case of the CPSS, the perspective chosen is that of the
The Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient of project manager of the construction project. The development
r=.993 is indicative of relatively high positive correlation between of the CPSS exclusively utilized input from professional project
the two data sets and demonstrates survey instrument stability managers in the construction industry. The result is a tool
over time. that accurately reflects the project manager’s knowledge base
and covers the range of applicable success metrics related to
Application construction projects that are not confined to the classical
In addition to assessing project outcomes following project objective success metrics (cost, schedule, performance,
completion, the CPSS can be used by the project team early and safety).
in the project planning phase to help identify those attributes
important to achieving success. One approach would involve References
scoring attribute “importance” factors and the overall category Ammeter, Anthony P., and Janet M. Dukerich, “Assessing the
weighting as a means of communicating project priorities. The Impact of Leadership, Team Building and Team Member
project manager, engineering manager, customer, and other Characteristics in Creating High Performance Project
stakeholders can thus reconcile their views to assure better Teams,” Proceedings of the 2001 National Conference,

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004 35

 American Society for Engineering Management (2001). of the Relationship Between Project Planning and Project
Baker, Bruce N., David C. Murphy, and Dalmar Fisher, Success,” International Journal of Project Management, 21:2
“Determinants of Project Success,” National Technical (2003) pp. 89–95.
Information Services, N-74-30392 (Sept. 15, 1974). Kerzner, H., Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning,
Chua, D.K.H., P.K. Loh, Y.C. Kog, and E.J. Jaselskis, “Neural Scheduling and Controlling, Van Nostrand Reinhold (2003).
Networks for Construction Project Success,” Expert Systems Price, James L., and Charles W. Mueller, Handbook of
with Applications, 13:4 (1997), pp. 317–328. Organizational Measurement, Pitman Publishing, Inc.
Construction Industry Institute, “Benchmarking and Metrics (1986).
Report for 1996,” Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Rogleberg, Steven G., Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial
TX, (1997) pp. 145–147. and Organizational Psychology, Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
Dvir, Dov, Tzvi Raz, and Aaron J. Shenhar, “An Empirical Analysis (2002).

Appendix 1
Construction Project Success Survey

Please respond to the following statements by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Circle the appropriate
number that most closely corresponds to your choice:
-3 – Strongly Disagree
-2 – Disagree
-1 – Somewhat Disagree
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

0 – Neutral or Undecided
+1 – Somewhat Agree
+2 – Agree
+3 – Strongly Agree

After choosing your response, please indicate how important you feel this issue is in determining the overall success of the project. Circle the
appropriate response that most closely corresponds to your evaluation:
A – Low Importance
B – Medium Importance
C – High Importance
NA – Not Applicable

Cost
1) Overall project cost performance was met based -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
on baseline goals, targets, or expectations.
2) Rework costs were well managed. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA

3) Budget contingencies were well managed. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA

4) Net profit targets were met. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
5) Market competition was well understood. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA

Schedule
6) Overall project schedule performance was met -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
based on baseline goals, targets, or expectations.
7) Material availability was well managed. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
8) Equipment availability was well managed. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
9) Labor availability was well managed. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
10) Schedule float management was optimized. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA

Quality
11) Overall project quality objectives were met based -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
on baseline goals, targets, or expectations.
12) Customer satisfaction was evidenced by direct feedback. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
13) Customer satisfaction was evidenced by the opportunity -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
for follow-on work.
14) The customer’s true goals and expectations were -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
properly reflected in contract performance incentives.

Performance
15) Project operational performance goals were met. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
16) A formalized method was established for managing -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
project performance data (metrics).
17) Project performance data (metrics) updates were -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
accurate throughout the life of the project.

36 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004

 18) Project performance data (metrics) were in good -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
alignment with informal customer feedback.
19) The performance data (metrics) were predictive of the -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
final project outcomes.
20) Project personnel participated in the formulation of -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
performance measurements.
21) Project personnel remained cognizant of performance -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
measurements throughout the project.

Safety
22) Overall project safety performance was met based -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
on baseline goals, targets, or expectations involving
OSHA total recordable injury rate.
23) Overall project safety performance was met based -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
on baseline goals, targets, or expectations involving
OSHA lost or restricted workday rates.
24) Project safety performance was commensurate with the -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
experience levels of the craft workforce.
25) Hazard mitigation measures were well managed by the -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
project team.
26) The trades and labor personnel were supportive of project -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
safety practices as evidenced by the frequency of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:34 23 June 2015

complaints and/or grievances.

Operating Environment
27) Vendors and subcontractors complied with project -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
schedule requirements.
28) Vendors and subcontractors complied with project -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
documentation requirements.
29) The deployment of new technologies improved -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
project performance.
30) The management of rework and repair conformed to -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
baseline targets/expectations.
31) Regulator involvement (e.g., EPA, NRC, OSHA) was -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
effectively managed, minimizing delays, rework, or
harmful publicity.
32) The training and experience gained on this project by the -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 A B C NA
project team improves the marketplace qualifications of
the organization.

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 3 September 2004 37