Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 9 Issue 06, June-2020

Project Performance Indicators for Measuring

Construction Performance in Mumbai
Monika Meshram1; Rachel Gitty2; Vinay M. Topkar Ph.D3
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute,
Mumbai, India.

Abstract:- The aim of the study is to evaluate and rank a range the next step to improve efficiency and effectiveness of
of performance indicators that industrial experts regard as products and processes.” Previous studies by [3], [4], [5],[6]
important, with the key identified indicators being those describes project success and associated key performance
associated with the overall project characteristics. This paper indicators. However, a pertinent question is how success/
presents the result of survey of indicators for measuring the
performance of construction projects in Mumbai. A list of
performance can be measured to effectively test the validity
performance indicators is prepared based on a comprehensive of proposed performance measurement system. This is
literature review. These indicators grouped under 11 categories because of the long timescales involved in real-life projects
denoted as Key Performance Indicators are used to develop a and possible influence of control actions taken by project
survey questionnaire and RII is subsequently used to analyze the management between the various processes [7].
survey results and determine the relative importance and
rankings of various PIs. The results reveal that the top Key A Key Performance Indicator is the measure of performance
Performance Indicators to evaluate the success of construction of an activity that is crucial to the success of an organization.
projects (in descending order) are- cost, time, safety, They are compilation of data measures used to assess the
productivity, satisfaction, quality, knowledge and service.
performance of a construction process [8].
Keywords— Performance Indicators; Project monitoring; Key
performance indicators; cost; Quality; Relative importance index. The purpose of KPI is to deliver projects: on time, on budget,
free from defects, efficiently and safely by profitable
1. INTRODUCTION companies. [2] has identified seven indicators of
performance – capital cost, construction time, predictability,
Performance measurement is integral to any project and defects, accidents, productivity and turnover & profits.
provides a basis for continuous improvement in performance.
Highly competitive nature of the construction industry and [9] developed KPIs Framework for the UK construction
profound technological changes are forcing construction industry with seven groups. These are: time, cost, quality,
executives to continuously improve the performance of their client satisfaction, client changes, business performance and
projects. It is commonly accepted that project success is health & safety. [10] identifies eight KPIs for all
measured by the performance of a project in terms of cost, construction as follows: (1) client satisfaction - product,
time and quality [1]. service and value for money(2) defects; (3) predictability
(cost and time); (4) profitability; (5) productivity; (6) safety;
The construction sector is labour-intensive, including (7) construction cost; and (8) construction time. [11])
indirect jobs, provides employment to millions of people. investigated project management (PM) practices adopted by
Considering the variety of construction projects across Singaporean construction firms. The study finds that certain
various sectors of economy like energy, housing, transport practices do affect project performance. The most important
etc., it is necessary to identify a set of common indicators and of these are the practices relating to scope management, such
develop a measurement scale to standardize the measures of as controlling the quality of the contract document, quality of
construction project performance. response to be perceived, variations and extent of changes to
the contract.
2. OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH Performance measurement is integral to performance
management and provides a basis for performance
The aim of the research presented is to assess the improvement programs. To improve performance,
project performance process for its efficiency. This study organizations should both measure their performance
will forward references for improvement of process based and compare with benchmark [12].Performance
on conclusions of the study. Key Performance Indicators measurement however does not automatically result in
(KPI) are identified from the research work considering the improved performance. These are approaches to determine
working of Indian construction industry. The study also if a process has obtained the desired result. Performance
provides indications to effect improvements in the existing measurement enables organizations to identify areas in their
work patterns. operations where improvements are needed.

According to [2], “performance measurement is the heart of

ceaseless improvement. As a general rule, benchmarking is

IJERTV9IS060635 www.ijert.org 911

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 9 Issue 06, June-2020

3. METHODOLOGY basis of cumulative percentage of its weightage. It is

For the current study, performance indicators (PI) were commonly accepted that project success is measured by the
pooled together from the literature review. Subsequently performance of a project in terms of cost, time and quality
they were rationalized by merging some of them together, [13]. In the present study, quality is ranked as sixth
deleting some as they were described in different terms and important KPI.
some of them were split to improve accuracy of
measurement. The 59 PIs were reduced to 40 for the purpose TABLE 1.1 Classifications of KPIs.
Sr. No. KPIs Performance Indicators
of the current study. These performance indicators were
classified under 11 performance perspectives (KPIs) namely; 1. Cost Total construction cost
cost, time, satisfaction, quality, people, legal, knowledge, Profitability
safety, productivity, service and risk by conducting a Variance cost
preliminary survey from five construction industry experts
2. Time Total project duration
including project managers, engineers and academicians. Schedule/Time performance
The classified 40 PIs (as shown in Table 1.1) formed the
basis of questionnaire survey 3. Safety Health and safety
Recordable accident rate
Labour safety management
The questionnaire is divided into four major parts. The first Lost workday case incident
part contains questions about the details of construction firm
and the respondent. The second part consists of questions 4. Productivity Productivity
pertaining to the extent, importance and mechanism of Supplier performance
Resource management
applying PIs in construction projects and the respondents
Client satisfaction
were asked to rate each PIs on a five points Likert scale 5. Satisfaction Contractor satisfaction
based on its influence on project performance. The third part End-user satisfaction
contains additional comments and in fourth part, ranking the Project team/ participant satisfaction
KPIs for bench marking the construction projects in Quality control
6. Quality Quality management
Mumbai. Number of non-conformities
Staff experience
A total of 110 questionnaires were delivered to building 7. Knowledge Contractor experience
construction contractors in Mumbai for the purpose of Innovation and improvement/learning
Project management
survey. Out of which 22 responses were received. Mean, Environmental performance
standard deviation, variance and Relative importance index 8. Service Sustainability
(RII) and the ranking of 40 performance indicators are Functionality
shown in Table 1.2. Variance of each indicator was Site management
Extent of sub-contracting
relatively small enough to conclude and the respondents Motivation
agreed on its importance. 9. People Communication/Effective communication
Trust and respect
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Harmonious working relationship
Employees attitude
Decision effectiveness
All PIs met the requirement of reliability based on Long-term business relationships
Cronbach’s alpha value. Cronbach’s alpha value ranging Professional image establishment
from 0.944 to 0.948 and small variances indicate that the Top management support
opinions of the survey are highly consistent. 10. Risk
Effectiveness of risk management
In order to identify the order of KPIs for project 11. Legal Claim avoidance
performance measurement, mean of PIs grouped under each Litigation avoidance
KPIs were calculated and arranged in its descending order
as shown in Table 1.3. Top eight KPIs were selected on the
TABLE 1.2 Ranking of PIs

Sr. no. Performance Indicators Mean Std. dev. Variance RII % Rank
1 Total Project Duration 4.68 0.57 0.32 93.64 1
2 Project management 4.68 0.65 0.42 93.64 2
3 Health and safety 4.64 0.79 0.62 92.73 3
4 Client satisfaction 4.55 0.80 0.64 90.91 4
5 Quality control 4.55 0.80 0.64 90.9 5
6 Total Construction Cost 4.50 0.60 0.36 90.00 6
7 Labour safety management 4.50 0.91 0.83 90.00 7
8 Variance Cost 4.45 0.80 0.64 89.09 8

IJERTV9IS060635 www.ijert.org 912

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 9 Issue 06, June-2020

9 Quality management 4.41 0.85 0.73 88.18 9

10 Communication/ Effective communication 4.36 0.90 0.81 87.27 10
11 Recordable accident rate 4.36 0.90 0.81 87.27 11
12 Resource management 4.36 0.73 0.53 87.27 12
13 End user satisfaction 4.32 0.89 0.80 86.36 13
14 Decision effectiveness 4.32 0.84 0.70 86.36 14
15 Top management support 4.32 0.95 0.89 86.36 15
16 Supplier performance 4.32 0.89 0.80 86.36 16
17 Site management 4.32 0.95 0.89 86.36 17
18 Profitability 4.27 0.83 0.68 85.45 18
19 Productivity 4.27 0.83 0.68 85.45 19
20 Functionality 4.23 0.75 0.56 84.55 20
21 Staff experience 4.14 0.89 0.79 82.72 21
22 Project team/ Participation satisfaction 4.09 0.87 0.75 81.81 22
23 Innovation and improvement learning 4.09 0.81 0.66 81.81 23
24 Professional image establishment 4.05 1.21 1.47 80.90 24
25 Environmental performance 4.05 0.72 0.52 80.90 25
26 Effectiveness of risk management 4.00 0.87 0.76 80.00 26
27 Sustainability 4.00 0.93 0.86 80.00 27
28 Contractor experience 3.95 0.95 0.90 79.09 28
29 Claim avoidance 3.95 0.84 0.71 79.09 29
30 Extent of subcontracting 3.95 0.95 0.90 79.09 30
31 Long term business relationships 3.91 1.06 1.13 78.18 31
32 Schedule/ Time performance 3.91 1.06 1.13 78.18 32
33 Motivation 3.86 1.08 1.17 77.27 33
34 Trust and respect 3.82 1.05 1.11 76.36 34
35 Lost workday case incident rate 3.82 1.22 1.49 76.36 35
36 Harmonious working relationships 3.82 1.05 1.11 76.36 36
37 Number of non-conformities in audits 3.82 0.91 0.82 76.36 37
38 Litigation avoidance 3.73 1.12 1.26 74.54 38
39 Contractor satisfaction 3.73 0.94 0.87 74.54 39
40 Employees attitude 3.68 1.17 1.37 73.63 40

TABLE 1.3 Ranking of KPIs

KPIs Mean % weightage Cumulative weightage Rank
Cost 4.40 9.516 9.516 1
Time 4.37 9.450 18.966 2
Safety 4.33 9.364 28.330 3
Productivity 4.31 9.321 37.651 4
Satisfaction 4.27 9.234 46.885 5
Quality 4.24 9.170 56.055 6
Knowledge 4.15 8.975 65.030 7
Service 4.15 8.975 74.005 8
People 4.11 8.888 82.893 9
Risk 4.07 8.802 91.695 10
Legal 3.84 8.304 99.999 11
Sum 46.24 99.999

IJERTV9IS060635 www.ijert.org 913

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 9 Issue 06, June-2020

.5. CONCLUSION

The study indicates that the performance measurement

though essential is not an easy task for construction
projects considering the number of indicators involved
and data that needs to be collected on continuous basis for
reasonable and acceptable levels of accuracy. Based on
ranking of KPIs, only few of the top ranking indicators
can be used to assess the performance to make the task
easier. Considering importance of each of these
indicators, a weighed indicator can also be developed to
indicate the performance in one single number. Individual
indicator level measurements will help to make corrective
actions to keep project on track.

REFERENCES:
[1]. Chan C., Albert P., David Scott and Edmond W. M.
Lam,“Framework of Success Criteria for Design-Build
Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol 18, pg
120-128, 2002.
[2]. Lee, S., Thomas, S.R. & Tucker, R.L., “The relative impacts of
selected practices on project cost and schedule. Construction
Management and Economics,2005, 23(5), pp.545–553
[3]. Sir John Egan “Rethinking Construction” The report of the
Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John
Prescott, UK construction,1998.
[4]. Toor, S.-U.-R.,Ogunlana, S.O, Beyond the “Iron Triangle”:
Stakeholder Perception of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for
Large-Scale Public Sector Development Projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 28, 228-236, 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005.
[5]. Hany Abd Elshakour M.Ali, Ibrahim A. Al-Sulaihi, Khalid S. Al-
Gahtani(2013) “Indicators for measuring performance of building
construction companies in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”,Journal of
King Saud University- Engineering Sciences 25, 125-134
[6]. John F. Y. Yeung; Albert P. C. Chan; Daniel W. M. Chan; Y. H.
Chiang; and Huan Yang,”Developing a Benchmarking Model for
Construction Projects in Hong Kong.”Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management”, 2013, Vol. 139, pp. 705-716.
[7]. Tatsiana Haponava; Saad Al-Jibouri. “Proposed System for
Measuring Project Performance Using Process-Based Key
Performance Indicators.” Journal of Management in
Engineering, 2012, Vol 28, pp 140-149.
[8]. Robert F. Cox; Raja R. A. Issa; and Dar Ahrens “Management’s
Perception of Key Performance Indicators for Construction.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2003, Vol
129, pp. 142-151.
[9]. KPI working group report, “KPI Report for The Minister for
Construction.” UK 2000
[10] Constructing Excellence, KPI Annual report 2010
https://constructingexcellence.org.uk/kpi-annual-report-2010/
[11]. Florence Yean Yng Ling, Sui Pheng Low, Shou Qing Wang,
Hwee Hua Lim, “Key management practices affecting
Singaporean firms’ project performance in China. International
Journal of Project Management” 2008, 27(1), 59-71
[12]. S.M Beatham, C.J Anumba, A. Thorpe, I.W Hedges, KPI’s – a
critical appraisal of their use in construction benchmarking”- An
Internationl journal, 2004, 11 (1), pp. 93-117
[13]. Albert P.C, Chan, Ada P.L. Chan, (2004) “Key performance
indicators for measuring construction
success", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11
Issue: 2, pp.203-221.

IJERTV9IS060635 www.ijert.org 914

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)