Introduction
In the context of public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria, project success can only be realized when stakeholder performance is evaluated against a performance evaluation framework. A performance evaluation framework provides well established and evaluated standard measures against which the performance of project stakeholders can be measured to evaluate various aspects of project implementation which are in line with project objectives. According to (Atkinson et al., 1997; Wateridge, 1998), a stakeholder has the potential to influence the performance of a project’s final outcomes and outputs. Drawing from Atkinson et al., (1997) and Wateridge’s (1998) definition of a stakeholder as an individual or a group of individuals with the potential to impact on project outcomes, the government of Nigeria, the public, local and international contractors, and suppliers were project stakeholders in phase one of the Abuja public construction projects. It is worth noting that other project stakeholders such as suppliers of raw materials in the supply chain of construction materials have been left out in this study.
However, different researchers provide different definitions and views on performance evaluation. Some authors argue that performance evaluation should be based on project objectives while others agree that a performance evaluation framework should be based on project goals. However, based on the need for a performance evaluation framework, it is worth mentioning that both project goals and objectives are integral to the framework.
On the other hand, a performance evaluation framework is a tool for project to stakeholders to implement projects leading to project completion to remain within time and cost schedules to achieve project quality objectives for which public infrastructure are being developed. The main objective of a successful project is client satisfactions. Thus, a successful project which triggers client satisfaction is based on the contribution of each participant in each phase of project lifecycle (Liu & Walker, 1998). Many researchers only view project success from the perspective of employee productivity by focusing on inputs and outputs without integrating a framework to evaluate the aspect of stakeholder evaluation in project implementation.
Productivity can only lead to project success if stakeholder performance is evaluated against standard measures which evaluate the productivity of the stakeholder. Productivity, therefore, is one variant of project successful factors.
It is important therefore, to derive the true meaning of performance evaluation to inform the study. Performance evaluation is Stakeholder participants in the Abuja construction project included the government of Nigeria, international and local contractors, the public who were also end users of the public infrastructure, and other stakeholders. The evaluation process yields valuable information about the productivity of the stakeholder in the.
Thus, to achieve quality, time, and cost schedules, stakeholders have to be evaluated for their effectiveness in implementing project objectives. Project objectives can only be met by employing a framework to measure stakeholder performance that provides methods of identifying key deviations from project objectives, identifying key aspects of a project to be measured, and formulating key performance measures and key performance indicators. It is therefore important to look at the background of Abuja construction projects to inform the study about the need for a performance evaluation framework.
Project Background
Public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria have remained behind schedule, experienced cost overruns and the original project plan has been distorted to meet dynamically changing infrastructure demands from the original master plan. Such distortions, cost, and schedule overruns have been experienced due to the failure of the stakeholders to integrate a performance evaluation framework in the entire project implementation lifecycle.
A snapshot of the situation on the ground reveals that of the total 84 awarded projects, 80 projects experienced cost overruns constituting 92.3 % of the entire projects awarded in the construction industry. On the other hand, of the 80 projects that experienced cost overruns, 24 projects constituting ~25% of the entire projects experienced cost and schedule overruns. On the other hand, 56 projects, which constitute ~ 67% of the projects, experienced schedule overruns.
Literature Review
There is no documented evidence of any evaluation mechanism integrated into the project implementation at every phase of project lifecycle. Lack of a performance evaluation framework to evaluate the performance of stakeholders in each phase of project lifecycle has evidently led to cost and schedule overruns. An analysis of the performance of contractors working in the public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria reflects the fact that client interests are not accounted for, project costs are not accounted for, and project implementation schedule is not accounted for. Thus, the viability of a well implemented project that stays on schedule, does not experience cost overruns, and attains project quality perspectives. Project success thrives on stakeholder performance evaluation measures not evaluated in public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria include:
- Client characteristics
- Project characteristics
- Management structure
- Stakeholder conflicts
- External and internal project attributes
- Attributes of the end user of the public infrastructure
- Performance of the contractors.
On the other hand, different author identify different indicators as performance evaluation parameters to be measured. Egan (1998), Mbugua et al, (1999), and Camp (1989) aggregate these parametric indicators to constitute construction cost, time, client satisfaction, productivity, time predictability, risk, public interest, safety, and cost predictability. Not only are the latter measures definitive of what should be measured, but also sets targets for performance measurements, defines benchmarks for minimum acceptable standards, establishes performance tracking measures, sets procedures for evaluating and measuring performance, and sets standards for performance monitoring (Artley & Stroh, 2001).
Mbugua, et al, (1999), in their study on performance critical success factors have established the fact that a performance evaluation framework not only reflects the needs for the stakeholder working groups in each phase of project implementation process, but also an evaluation of stakeholders through each project development phase, a view reinforced and generally accepted by (Pillai et al., 2002). The evaluation process against established standards ensures corrective actions are taken to improve stakeholder performance. Artley and Stroh (2001) clarifies on the types of performance measures with specific attributes including human capital that determines resources for.
Research Methodology
This is a qualitative and quantitative research that primarily focuses on establishing the need for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria through a literature review. The research methodology was integrative through a conceptual model formulated from the literature review, with a quantitative survey conducted based on the administration of structured close ended questionnaires on respondents based on the researcher’s knowledge and experience in the construction industry. That has led to the conclusion on the need for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework in public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria.
Data Analysis
The transformative process of cleaning, modeling, and selecting the most appropriate data for use will start by physical inspections during the coding stage prior to data entry and analysis. Statistical tool such as SPSS software and excel data processing tools will be integrated into analyzing the data.
Measures
Qualitative and quantitative data was collected to inform the inquiry. Qualitative data collected for the inquiry was highly subjective and targeted the subject of inquiry into the need for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework (Naoum, 2007). Accroding to Naoum (2007) different terms such as “attribute” can be measured on a scale between poor and perfect.However, some difficulties encountered include the reliability, availability, coding of qualitative data, and assigning numerical values to qualitative data (Bouma & Atkinson, 1995). Typically, it revolves around an analogy on researchers’ in the construction industry’s perceptions about the need for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework. With a multipronged approach to the study, the inquiry will use quantitative data that will draw from the percentage of completed projects and incomplete projects according to Abuja Master Plan, cost overruns incurred in the construction process, and other quality aspects.
Questionnaires and Observations
Observations constituted critical tool in the study by borrowing from Trochim’s (2006) arguments that observations are unconstructive and provide direct information about the extent of a project’s progress. Dai et al. (2009), Park (2006), and Ying (2004) researches significantly contribute their knowledge to the use of questionnaires as successful data capturing tools.
Validation
Evidence suggests that performance measures and performance indicators suggested integral components to the stakeholder performance evaluation framework leading to project success. It is analogically clear to see a linear relationship between a performance evaluation framework and stakeholder performance in terms of project success factors.
Thus, in order to validate the results from the study, a series of questionnaires were later administered on the respondents and further qualitative research conducted to validate the results.
Other tools used in the study to determine the impact of a stakeholder’s performance evaluation framework and project success included the Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation.
Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation
Eze et al., (2005) provides statistical methods for evaluating the correlation between variables involved in the study. Borrowing from the statistical knowledge of Eze et al., (2005), the correlation provides a measure to evaluate the impact of the variables on the performance of the stakeholder with gradual implications on project success factors. Critical issues to consider in this case are the relationship between performance measurements, performance indicators, and project success factors. These factors are the baseline for evaluating the performance of the stakeholder in driving the project progress to successful completion. On the other hand, the correlation coefficient informs about the frequency with which the variables occur, prioritisation of the factors, and the gradual implications on project success (Eze et al., 2005).
However, statistical application software tool that integrates SPSS software can be used to analyse the collected data to provide the final value for the purpose of making informed decisions.
It is important, therefore to conceptualize the research variables that are used in the study.
Borrowing from Phaobunjong (2002), a list of methods for selecting research variables includes:
- Well selected variables specific to the specific area of measurement
- Variables should reflect factors identified in the conceptual framework on the theoretical baseline of the study.
- Variables identifiably related to cause and effect
- Variables that can be assigned numerical values.
The study captures a combination of variables to afford the rationale for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework. These variables include:
Results and Analysis
A sample statistic was randomly taken to test need for stakeholder performance evaluation framework in public construction projects in Abuja, Nigeria. Hypotheses were formulated based on captured data to conduct the test. The hypotheses were to test an association between a stakeholder performance evaluation framework and successful implementation of public const5ruction projects. Two test statistic samples, A and B were used to test the association. A x2 was used to test and evaluate the association, yielding a test statistic of 3.545. Thus, a 5% significance test was conducted to test the validity of the association.
The results were tabulated as follows.
Expected values are calculated based on: (row*column)/total
Hypotheses:
- Ho: Results from A and B are independent.
- H1: An association between the framework and successful project implementation exists.
Thus, v (Yate’s constant) =2=1*2=2. Thus on a 5% significance test, X2=5.991 from mathematical tables, indicating that Ho>5.991, hence, Ho is rejected. The results validate alternative hypothesis with the evidence of the existence of a strong correlation between a stakeholder performance evaluation framework and successful project implementation outcomes and outputs.
The above analysis can further be detailed and modified for use in different public construction projects environments. Typically, the target environments are the public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. It is important to note that the findings indicate a strong correlation between the outcomes and outputs of project success factors and a stakeholder performance evaluation framework. In conclusion therefore, a stakeholder performance evaluation framework is strongly correlates with a successful project.
Discussion
A number of findings have been established from the research and data analysis indicates that a stakeholder performance evaluation framework is a critical component in contributing to the success of construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. The results are drawn from a qualitative analysis of available literature, a study conducted with a comparative evaluation of the knowledge gaps that exist in the literature of different authors in the construction industry. Software simulations of the conceptual model were also conducted using researched variables as inputs into the study to crystallize the need for a stakeholder performance evaluation framework. Wide are the views that could result in the implications of evaluating the performance of the stakeholder. These implications range from the contribution of the stakeholder to project outcomes and outputs, the need to incorporate a stakeholder into the entire project implementation process, and project success factors. However, the study was bias towards the use of a stakeholder performance evaluation framework in line with project success factors.
The need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to crystallize the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Typically, cost overruns, late project completion time, and unmet quality expectations not only form the basis for the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework, yet a framework has to be selected and formulated to reflect the performance of construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Much literature has been written on performance evaluation frameworks but not much literature is available to guide management of construction firms on the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework specifically formulated for the construction industry in Abuja Nigeria.
Abstract
Implementing public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria can only lead to successful implementation of the public construction projects based on an integrated performance evaluation framework model specifically tailored for the construction industry in Abuja Nigeria. The study will be subject to test hypotheses to test the validity of the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. The performance process model is tripartite based on inputs from the end users who are the public in this case, management and prioritizations in decision making processes, and client priorities. Researches into performance based management processes are factors hardly integrated into the management of stakeholders and contractors awarded construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Outcomes where over 90% of the projects have experienced time overruns and over 60% experienced cost overruns are evidenced from document analysis and examination of related literature. That not only calls for an evaluation framework tailored for the specific Nigerian construction industry, but due to the significance of the construction industry and the overall impact on the entire Nigerian economy, and other developing economies, the rationale for establishing an integrated performance evaluation framework cannot be overemphasized.
Introduction
The need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects comes at a time when public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria have experienced cost and schedule overruns as has been evident from the outcomes of phase 1 of the public construction projects. Emphasis on a specific model for a specific construction industry and implications of the construction industry on the Nigerian economy reinforce the rationale to select the most appropriate model of a performance evaluation framework. The construction industry is the third most contributor to the national economy making a 29.6% GDP (Gross Development Product) which is 69% of the Nigeria’s Gross Fixed Capital Formation (Federal Office of Statistics, 1997). Literature in favor of formulating an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in the construction industry is minimal. Thus the need to reconstruct available literature for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria.
Literature Review
According to the Federal Office of Statistics (1997), the Nigerian economy, like many economies of the world significantly thrives on the construction industry. Drawing from Sinclair and Zairi (1995) and Mbugua et al., (1999), the size and complexity of public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria not only need a performance evaluation framework as a standard measure against which the success of a construction project can be evaluated, but the need an integrated performance evaluation framework specifically formulated for the Abuja construction industry environment is necessary.
A performance evaluation framework not only borrows widely from the classical approaches of the common definitions of performance evaluation frameworks, but also incorporates other views that include business goals, stakeholder interests, employee involvement, measurements validations, performance evaluation plan, and a conceptual framework.
The planning element in the integrated performance evaluation framework maps out elements and components included in the framework that define strategic organizational goals, clearly defined and set out objectives, both short term and long term strategic requirements that provide a link between the project goals and the link to project strategies.
It is important, then, to crystallize the meaning of a performance measurement, measures, and the rationale for the measures. In addition to that, is important to answer the inquiry on the components constituting an integrated performance evaluation framework and a need to establish a performance evaluation system.
According to Sinclair and Zairi (1995), the numerical values which are also indicators assigned on some numerical scale are identified as performance measures. These performance measures provide key indicators on the functionality of the contractors, the management, and other stakeholders in the current and subsequent public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Thus, the measures could provide adequate project progress information on the need to make intelligent decisions, provide adequate guidance on deviations from project goals and adequate measures to stay on the course of project goals, and identify areas of continuous improvements. Performance measurement is defined by Sinclair and Zairi (1995) and Mbugua et al., (1999) as a method that provides a systematic approach for evaluating project progress in terms of inputs and outputs in the construction industry. These measures, according to Artley and Stroh (2001) quantify outcomes for the construction industry by assigning numerical performance indicators comparable to desired construction project goals. Thus, the reliability of the measures provide a bridge between items identifiably to be measured and corrective actions taken to point a construction project to stated goals.
Kangari et al, (1992), Kay (1993), Brown and Lavenrick (1994), and Kaka et al, (1995) agree to the point that approaches of formulating performance evaluation measures should be based on the target industry. However, Cordero (1990) deviates from the classical assumptions made by Kangari et al. (1992), Kay (1993), Brown and Lavenrick (1994), and Kaka et al., (1995) on performance measurements and derives these measures based on the area of measurement and the purpose for which the measures are formulated. According to Love et al., (2000), a balance can be drawn between definitions by different authors by integrating the concept of the stakeholder. Artley and Stroh (2001) borrowing from other authors classifies performance measures to include 1.) Effectiveness which, according to Mbugua et al., (1999) and Artley and Stroh (2001) evaluate the contractor and other stakeholders on project implementation course by measuring inputs and outputs, a variant component of productivity. Artley and Stroh (2001) further suggests that the degree of conformity of the public infrastructure to client and end user needs provides an actual measure of quality. Another variant of performance measures are efficiency, a measure of process characteristics which provide indicators on the course of action being taken that are consistent with project needs. On the other hand, the next performance measure, according to Artley and Stroh (2001) includes efficiency. According to Artley and Stroh (2001) efficiency provides a measure of the extent to which project goals and objectives are attained with minimum time and cost schedules. The next measure, 3) quality, measures the extent to which outputs and outcomes conform to end user needs. The next performance measure,4) productivity which is a widely used measure to evaluate the value added to a project outcome and output defines the capital and labor inputs against project inputs.
One can sanguinely argue that a knowledge gap in inherent in many of the authors suggestions and research findings compelling the need to borrow across industries to formulate an integrated performance evaluation framework typically tailored for the Abuja public construction projects. Typical are the knowledge gaps inherent in the works of Olomolaiye & Harris (1995), Love et al., (2000), and Brown and Lavenrick (1994), but an aggregation of the knowledge contributions forms a strong basis for a flexible performance evaluation framework.
According to Artley and Stroh (2001), productivity, a measure of the ration between process, labor, and capital consumptions have been suggested to be integral components to the integrated performance evaluation framework. Productivity can therefore be mathematically be related to inputs and output based on the following relation: (Olomolaiye & Harris, 1995).
Productivity = output/ inputs.
Olomolaiye and Harris (1995) consider inputs to be specifically tailored to meet performance items being measured for a specific project and industry. Therefore, productivity is a composite factor of efficiency, a desirable element in the integrated performance evaluation system. On the other hand, Olomolaiye & Harris (1995) and Artley and Stroh (2001), concur that an integrated performance evaluation framework constitutes performance measures which are effective and standard measures of change and the requirements to be changed. Thus, the framework provides quantifiable measures for benchmarking construction activities. The KPI Working Group (2003) in addition to suggestions made by other studies conducted by several other authors in the construction identify benchmarking in the construction industry to include the integration of key performance indicators that provide a basis for evaluating client satisfaction with both products and services, adherence to project schedule in terms of cost and time, the level of safety, the degree of project stability, and productivity. In addition to that, benchmarking thieves on evaluating the performance and competitiveness of internal and external organizational activities and is based on key performance measures and indicators in the construction industry. On the other hand, productivity can be evaluated at individual or project levels, as may be determined significant by the specific industry under evaluation.
Thus, the integrated performance evaluation framework focuses on the selection and inclusion of measures that are specifically meant to address the plight in the construction industry in Abuja Nigeria that has led to cost and schedule overruns. These are due to factors evidently driving the deviation of project due date, due costs, ineffective planning, cost complaints, and risk rates that are higher than projected.
An integrated performance evaluation framework therefore provides the key to the evaluation of a successful framework for evaluating the critical success factors of construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Success, as has been identified in the construction industry relates to efficient project implementation approaches that lead to client satisfaction and the fulfillment of project goals and objectives.
Conceptual Framework
Borrowing from the literature review and experience of the researcher and based on observations in the construction industry, it is well worth to formulate a conceptual model that captures various elements for inclusion into the industry.
The above conceptualized framework drawing on the theories of.
Methodology
Researching into the need and formulation of an integrated performance evaluation framework is based on a qualitative and extensive literature survey to identify contributions of different authors and their perspectives about the application of performance measures in the construction industry. On the other hand, a quantitative study will be conducted on the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework by conducting interviews targeting the management of various contractors working at the construction site in phase 1 of the construction projects. On the other hand, questionnaires will be administered on employees working at the construction firms on their perspectives about a framework for evaluating their construction activities against standard key performance measures.
The findings will be subjected to a hypotheses test to validate the need for a performance evaluation framework in the public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria.
Role of the Researcher
The role of the researcher is to identify appropriate methods for collecting and analyzing data, identify appropriate subjects to whom questionnaires are administered and to be interviewed, evaluate the best mechanism for coding and reporting data, and identify the rate at which the performance measures are to be applied in the construction industry. In addition to that,
Validations
Data collection can be validated for accuracy by employing various data validation techniques. The validity of information captured when conducting interviews
Measurements
Data analysis will be based on the coding of various success factors on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:
Entirely dissatisfied-1, Mostly dissatisfied-3, Lie between dissatisfied and satisfied-4, Satisfied-5, fully satisfied-6.
On the other hand, other factors include project completion on schedule which includes: Project tie which is the actual period a project takes to be completed which is expressed as a percentage of the project completion time and the actual projected completion time.
Project cost forms another variable introduced into the integrated performance evaluation framework which is expressed as a percentage of the actual cost versus the cost overruns.
Hypotheses Formulation
A survey conducted to test the findings on the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework at management level consisted of a random sample of 100 participants. It was noted that mean value of managers in support of the integrated performance evaluation framework is 45 with a standard deviation on the population equivalent to 18. A 5% level significance test is conducted to test the validity of the assumption. Then:
- Ho: Management finds the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for project success.
- H1: The claim for an integrated performance evaluation framework is incorrect.
Defining the test variable as X, then:
- Ho: µ=45 (There is need for the framework)
- H1:#45 (There is no need for a framework)
A test statistic of a sample size of 100 was used with a large value of n, thus, borrowing from the central limit theorem (Fischer, 2010); the relation can be expressed as follows:
X~N (µ, α2/n) where the value of α=18 and n=100.
According to Fischer (2010), the central limit theorem can be used to estimate the above test findings to a normal approximation.
A 5% two tailed significance test provides the level of test for use in the findings.
Suppose Ho us true, then µ=45. Thus, the test is to establish if a change in the value of µ occurs, then X~N (45, 182/100).
On the other hand, Ho can only be rejected if z<-1.96 or z>1.96, implying that the modulus of z, |z|>1.96.
From these calculations, z=1.888, where |z|<1.96, hence confirming the hypothesis that, the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework cannot be disputed.
On the other hand, a further mathematical analysis needs to be conducted on different test sizes of test samples and the sampling technique tested for the validity of the samples used in the study. Further to that, the above test follows a normal distribution, thus the distribution of the test samples have to be verified against an appropriate statistic technique.
Conclusion
Findings from the study indicate a significant level of confidence on the need for an integrated performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. A survey of the literature on the performance framework identifiably incorporates authors with different knowledge gaps that can be bridged within an integrated performance evaluation framework identifiably defined by various measures such as project progress report, project guidelines, continuous improvements, inputs/outputs measures, and project goals and objectives. On the other hand, these factors have led to effectiveness in project implementation, quality control, and project progress remaining on schedule, efficient fulfillment of project goals, high levels of client satisfaction, safety of the employee and working environment, and high levels of productivity. On the other hand, improved communication and activity justification are among the benefits resulting from an integrated performance evaluation framework.
A Total Quality Management (TQM) Performance Evaluation Framework for Public Construction Projects in Abuja Nigeria
Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study is to conduct an inquiry into a total quality management evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Total quality management is a relatively new concept. It is a philosophy that has not been widely applied in the construction industry. The success of the concept in other industries has called for its adaptation into the construction industry to help reap the benefits associated with cost and schedule problems that are widely experienced in the construction industry. A theoretical proposition is based on Deming who identified the value of integrating the concept into manufacturing industry as a new approach on continuous improvements and as a cost cutting measure.
Abstract
The theoretical proposition of the study for total quality management is based on Deming’s fourteen points based on four total quality management (TQM) principles outlined to include an appreciation management structures and systems within the contracted firms in Abuja public construction projects. In addition to that, procurement of the knowledge about variations in the perceptions about continuous quality improvements, integrating the theory of knowledge on construction management, and understanding the phycology of the human factor in the construction industry. The need for a total quality management performance evaluation draws heavily on the need for firms awarded construction work in Abuja Nigeria to meet client needs in this case the public, who are also the end users of public infrastructure. In addition to that, lack of value and insistency in quality, failure to meet project schedule and cost overruns reinforce the need for a framework to implement continuous improvements through a continuous a total quality management framework. Thus, not only does the TQM framework present a management style as a strategy to eliminate waste and low productivity, some of the leading causes of schedule and cost overruns, but also leads to end user satisfaction, continuous improvements, management leadership in total involvement, and a new approach that leads to the improvement of stakeholder activities that contribute to project success.
Introduction
The philosophy of total quality management (TQM) as a performance evaluation framework to enhance productivity, quality, timeliness, and cost reductions in public construction projects is driven by the nature, size, risks, and complexity of the public construction projects. In addition to that, the need for improvements in public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria could lead to better construction methods to minimize costs and manage time schedules. Typically, the outcome and outputs of construction work in Abuja Nigeria do not reflect value for the client, but reflect poor quality work.
A glimpse into the size and complexity of the Abuja public construction projects covering five regional districts and the resulting failures to meet project deadlines while experiencing cost overruns reinforces the need to integrate TQM evaluation framework. The city of Abuja occupies 713 Km2 surface area and lies on a time zone of WAT (UTC+1). The city is divided into 5 districts each with unique geophysical characteristics. Phase 1 of area of the construction project covers five districts which include Garki District, central, wesu, Asoskor, and Maitama districts. Complexity results from failure to identify entire project implementation factors, failure to capture details about the construction site, lack of team work, environmentally overlapping events, and lack of flexibility of the working environment.
Phase 1 of the Abuja public construction projects were awarded to both local and international construction firms. A summary of the outcomes of construction projects indicated cost and schedule overruns and poor perceptions about the final quality of project outcomes for the entire contractor spectrum.
Kometa & Olomolaiye (1997) have lamented the fact that, despite the construction industries being major contributors to the economy of any country, the case with public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria have suffered low productivity, poor quality work, and failure for standards against which the performance can be evaluated. In addition to that, low productivity, quality problems, and high levels of fragmentation are some of the leading causes of cost and time overruns (Abd, Majid & McCaffer, 1998).
No evidence has been presented or documented about the use of the TQM concept in public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. The management structure of these contractor firms took after the traditional approaches of directing employees to obey and execute orders as directed by the management during the entire phase one of the project implementation. Quazi and Padibjo (1997) see the traditional approach to project management as a legacy. Taking the arguments of Quazi and Padibjo (1997) further, and on the basis of Motwani’s (2001) arguments, TQM is a paradigm lacking in Abuja Public construction projects since no competitiveness, organizational flexibility, strategic priorities, and organizational processes for performance evaluation have been evident in each phase of the Abuja public project construction phases.
Management approaches to project implementation in pursuit of project success factors lacks total quality management project success factors including organizational employee and client satisfaction, accident free working environment, well informed decision making processes during the advent of construction work and at during the entire phase of construction work, team involvement, contractor evaluation of internal and external processes, and strategies for continuous improvements.
Literature Review
There is no documentary evidence indicating that construction firms awarded public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria embraced the philosophy of total quality management, a concept widely adopted by other firms in other industries. The strength of the arguments of evaluating public construction projects on a performance evaluation framework integrating the concept of total quality management draws from the potential role TQM plays in influencing organizational culture in pursuing continuous project improvements, budgetary allocations, corrective actions, timeliness, management commitment to quality, coordination, efficiency, safety, and a raft of other TQM items. That marks a radical departure from the traditional approach of evaluating a firm’s success factors from the management perspective of directing employees to perform assigned duties and the productivity of the employees.
Different researchers have espoused the concept of total quality management performance measures as a tool and strategic approach to driving organizations into deriving benefits that have been experienced in other industries (Burati et al, 1992; Belle, 2000; & Oakland, 1995).
Drawing a parallel from other industries which have successfully applied TQM into the construction industry, massive infrastructure development has been witnessed in the recent past without the potential for gains associated with infrastructure development. Some of the most significant parameters for a successful construction project are timely delivery of a project, cost schedule, and project quality leading to end user satisfaction (Kanji & Wong, 1998). These elements are not evidently adhered to in the implementation of public construing projects in Abuja Nigeria.
Construction firms are struggling to understand the concept of total quality management with the conflicts that come with the adoption and integration of the philosophy into the operational functionality of the firms. Many contractors are solely interested in financial gains with little focus on the quality and timely delivery of construction the final product quality.
An investigation by Kanji and Wong (1998) identified lack of attitude with the management of construction firms, lack of training, use of too many measures and failure to prioritize these measures integrating the whole concept of TQM performance evaluation measures.
Borrowing from the Pakistani construction industry, Burati, Matthews and Kalindi (1991) lack of expertise, employee commitment, failure to treat cost and schedule as a priority, lack of top management commitment and training, lack of employee commitment and understanding of TQM measures, and difficult in changing the behavioral attitudes of employees and the organizational culture to be some of the issues and challenges faced when implementing a TQM performance evaluation framework in the Abuja construction projects.
Management approaches to project implementation in pursuit of project success factors lacks total quality management project success factors including organizational employee and client satisfaction, accident free working environment, well informed decision making processes during the advent of construction work and at during the entire phase of construction work, team involvement, contractor evaluation of internal and external processes, and strategies for continuous improvements.
Drawing on Deming’s total quality management principles, it is arguable that contractors both from the international and local consortiums involved in public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria are identifiably lacking in consistency of purpose to identify areas in need of corrective actions to remain within tie and cost schedules, are identifiably characterized by short term thinking in staying in the business of the construction industry, have failed to evaluate and use figures that indicate project progress, have incurred excessive cost overruns. A lack of personal review systems as one of the components in a total quality management evaluation framework for conducting personal merit ratings of organizational employees to evaluate their productivity and contributions top project success is another failure with direct implications on the construction industry.
On the other hand, a framework for total quality management to thrive a construction firm on the fringes of success should recognize top management involvement in continuous quality improvements, customer involvement and satisfaction at each level of project implementation, and employee involvement characterized by the following total quality management principals as integrated into the performance evaluation framework.
- Continuous expression of quality to employees, quality factors leading to better employee performance.
- Worker involvement in quality improvements to enhance productivity
- Workers working within the total quality performance evaluation framework have to work within the process.
- Total quality management performance evaluation framework is a strategic management choice that integrates organizational performance work criteria.
- The framework should integrate the concept of employees and the contractor firms of getting it right at the first time and to continuously pursue do get work done correctly.
- Safer and cleaner working sites should form the basis of the environment employees conduct their work.
- Scientific methods should be integral to the variations that may occur during the implementation process.
Thus, the main goal of a construction have been viewed by various authors to draw on contributions to Deming prize’s (2004) theory by MBNQA (2004), Saraph et al (1989), Black and Porter (1996), Pheng and Wei (1996), Ang et al. (2000), Zhang et al. (2000), Nwabueze (2001), Thiagarajan et al (2001). Oakland (1993), Flynn et al. (1994), and Babbar and Aspelin (1994). Each of the authors draw on various experiences and research literature in the formation of a framework for total quality management evaluation for public construction projects, a learning point that can be integrated into Abuja Nigeria.
Findings in the research literature include a prioritisation of factors critical to the total quality management evaluation framework have been prioritised as tabulated in the following framework as adopted from (Metri, 2005).
According to Metri (2005), critical success factors integral to the total quality performance evaluation framework are assigned numerical values as follows.
- Top management commitment
- Strategic quality management
- Design quality management
- Process quality management
- Education and training
- Supplier quality management
- Employee involvement
- Customer satisfaction
- Business results
- Culture
Thus, the conclusion on the approach total quality management paradigm as a continuous improvement process can be exemplified in the framework below.
The TQM work process is repetitive as conceptualized above.
Methodology
The methodology will focus on qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry to investigate the need for a total quality performance evaluation framework for public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria. Qualitative methods will constitute a literature review of various researches and authors on total quality management critical success factors, a strategy that can be integrated into a performance evaluation framework based on the theoretical proposition by Deming and the contribution of other authors tabulated elsewhere in the research literature.
The researcher plays a critical role by integrating construction management knowledge the process of capturing data for analytical purposes. Analyses of the findings are based on documentary evidence on the need for a total quality performance evaluation framework that draws on the literature developed on the subject of TQM.
15 structured closed ended questionnaires were administered to stakeholders in the public construction projects in Abuja Nigeria to evaluate their understanding and use of the total quality management as a tool for continuous improvements. The questionnaires provided a glimpse into the need for a total quality management framework for project success. Statistical software can be used to simulate the results.
Analysis of Findings
Findings from the study indicates various factors that influence total quality management as a tool for successful project implementation based on various factors which are ranked according to priority. These findings are tabulated below. These factors include top level management commitment to quality as one of the critical success factors (CSF), Quality culture that is reflected in a construction firm’s organizational culture, design, process quality, Knowledge about project quality, and other variables that are specific to a specific project. The conclusion that the strategy to adopt total quality management (TQM) is a paradigm for continuous process improvement, a strategy that focuses on successful project implementation in Abuja Nigeria is valid.
References
Abd. Majid, and McCaffer, R. (1998). Factors of non excusable delays that influence contractor’s performance. J. Management in Engineering, Vol.14, No. 3, pp. 42-49.
Ang, C. L., Davies, M. and Finlay, P N.( 2000). Measures to assess the impact of information technology on quality management, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 42-65.
Babbar, S. and Aspelin, D. (1994). J. TQM it is as easy as ABC. The TQM magazine, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 32-38.
Black, S. And Porter, L. (1996). Identification of critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Belle, R. A. (2000). Benchmarking and enhancing best practices in engineering and construction sector. J. Management in Engineering, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 40-47
Burati J.L., Matthews M.F., Kalindi S.N. (1991). Quality management in construction Industry, Journal of construction Engineering and Management 117(2): 341-359.
Deming Prize (2004). Guide for Deming application prize – 2004. Web.
Kanji, G. and Wong, A. (1998). “Quality Culture in the Construction Industry.” Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 9, No. 4&5, pp. 133-140.
Metri, B. A. (2005). TQM critical success factors for construction firms. MBNQA (2004). Baldrige national quality program – 2004. Web.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Novakoski, M. (1995). Measuring Construction Productivity: a practical approach. Work Study, 44(8): 18–20.
Nwabueze, U. (2001). How the mighty have fallen: the naked truth about TQM. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.16, No. 9, pp. 504-513.
Oakland, J.S. (1993). Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance. Butterworth-Hienman Limited, Oxford, pp. 128 – 157.
Pheng, L. S., and Wei, V. A. (1996). Framework for implementing TQM in construction. The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 39-46.
Quazi, H. A., & Padibjo, S. R. (1997). ‘‘A journey toward total quality management through ISO 9000 certification-a Singapore experience.’’ The TQM Magazine, 9~5!, 364–371.
Saraph, J. V., George Benson, P., and Shroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision sciences, Vol. 20, No.4, pp. 811-829.
Thiagarajan, T., Zairi, M. and Dale, B.G. (2001). A proposed model of TQM implementation based on an empirical study of Malaysian industry. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 289-306.
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. and Wijngaard, J. (2000). An instrument for measuring TQM implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 730-755.
Artley, W. & Stroh, S. (2001). The Performance-Based Management Handbook. A Six- Volume Compilation of Techniques and Tools for Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Establishing an Integrated Performance Measurement System. Vol (2)
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H., and Wells, R.B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review; Cambridge, 38 (3) pp 25-37.
Bouma, G. and Atkinson, G. (1995) A Handbook of Social Science Research: A Comprehensive and Practical Guide for Students. UK: Oxford University Press.
Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. New York: Quality Press.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P. M., Maloney, W. F., and Srinivasan, C. (2009). Latent Structures of the Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(5): 397- 406.
Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking construction: report of the construction task force on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region, London.
Eze, J.I., Obiegbu, M.E. and Jude-eze, E.N. (2005). Statistices and Quantitiative Methods for Construction and Business Managers. Lagos, Nigeria: The Nigerian Institute of Building.
Liu, A.N.N., & Walker, A. (1998). Evaluation of project outcomes. Journal of Construction Management & Economics, 16, pp 209-219.
Mbugua, L.M., Harris, P., Holt, G.D., and Olomolaiye, P.O (1999). A framework for determining critical success factors influencing construction business performance. In: Hughes, W. (ed) Procs. 15Th Annual ARCOM Conference. Reading: ARCOM. 1 pp. 255-264.
Naoum, S.G. (2007). Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students. London: Elsevier Ltd.
Pillai, A. S., Joshi, A., Rao, K.S. (2002). Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multiproject, concurrent engineering environment. International Journal of Project Management, 20 (2002), pp 165-177.
Park, H. (2006). Conceptual Framework of Construction Productivity Estimation. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 10 (5): 311 – 317.
Phaobunjong, K.(2002). Parametric Cost Estimating Model for Conceptual Cost Estimating of Building Construction Projects. Dissertation presented to the University of Texas at Austin in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base, Web.
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success. International Journal of Project Management, 16 (1), pp 59-63
Ying, Z. (2004). Significant Factors Affecting Construction Productivity. M. Eng. Thesis,Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore 1 – 117.
Artley, W. & Stroh, S. (2001). The Performance-Based Management Handbook. A Six- Volume Compilation of Techniques and Tools for Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Establishing an Integrated Performance Measurement System. Vol (2).
Cordero, R. (1990). The measurement of innovation performance in the firm: an overview. Research Policy, Vol. 19 pp 185-192.
Federal Office of Statistics (1997). Review of Nigeria Economy, FOS, Abuja, Nigeria.
Fischer, H. (2010). A History of the Central Limit Theorem: From Classical to Modern Probability Theory, Springer.
Love, P.E.D., and Holt, G.D (2000). Construction business performance measurement: the SPM alternative. Business Project Management Journal, 6 (5) pp 408-416.
Mbugua, L.M., Harris, P., Holt, G.D., and Olomolaiye, P.O (1999). A framework for determining critical success factors influencing construction business performance. In: Hughes, W. (ed) Procs. 15Th Annual ARCOM Conference. September 5-7, Reading: ARCOM. 1 pp. 255-264.
Olomolaiye P.O. & Harris, F.C. (1995). Construction Productivity Management Organizational Productivity – A case study of materials management in UK construction firms”. Construction paper, No44.
Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M. (1995). Effective process management through performance measurement. Part III-an integrated model of total quality-based performance measurement. Business Project Re-engineering & Management Journal, 1 (3) pp 50-65.
The KPI Working Group (2003). Key Performance Indicators for M&E contactors: handbook and guidance. BSRI Report 1663, 1 London.