PhD Final Thesis April 2013.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Thesis Keith Gale 2013Table 7.7: Key performance indicators adapted from Yeung et al (2008)Weighting Key Performance Quantitative IndicatorIndicator0.167 Time performance Variation in time againstprogramme0.160 Cost performance Variation in cost againstbudget0.150 Management commitment Percentage of meetingsattended by projectmanagers and directors0.143 Quality performance Cost of rectifying defectsor number of defects,number of complaints0.143 Trust and respect Speed of resolvingdisputes, satisfaction scores0.131 Communication Number of letters andemails sent between parties0.106 Innovation Cost and time savingsexpressed as a percentageof project totalsYeung’s indicators form critical success factors – with outcomes that are deemed bya client as making a project successful. There can be no limit to the number ofsuccess factors chosen by a client but conclusions reached by Yuan et al (2009)regarding selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators alliedto public-private partnerships, determined that the amount of collected data (keyperformance indicators) needs to be low in order to be manageable and effective.This also requires a consensus between conflicting objectives from stakeholders.The model proposed by Yeung et al (2008) recognises a strong correlation totraditional views of performance to price, time and quality – but introduces fourother critical success factors, albeit with lesser weightings. Validation of the modelwas achieved through the research, but conclusions made by Yeung et al recognisedthe need to produce specific critical success factors for different clients and variedproject situations. It would also be for the client and his advisory team to decide theimportance of each factor by choosing a weighted apportionment.Identification of critical success factors for this research was obtained through groupmeetings with officers of the organisation, where both identification of a criticalsuccess factor and weighted apportionment was decided to reflect project outcomes.As the organisation already enjoyed a good reputation of financial management138