Identification and Prioritization of Key Performance Indicators for the Construction Small and Medium Enterprises

Abstract

The central purpose of this study is to propose a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the performance of construction small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that have been ignored in the performance management literature so far. Secondly, this study aims to determine the most crucial KPIs by using the fuzzy VIKOR method to improve cost-effectiveness in the performance measurement of construction SMEs. At the first stage of this study, KPIs proposed by the existing studies were identified via a literature survey. Then, the KPIs extracted from the literature survey were verified, and eight new KPIs were proposed as a result of focus group discussions with 12 participants who are owners/managers of construction SMEs. Additionally, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) was modified in line with the needs of construction SMEs, and each KPI was grouped into a BSC perspective. A questionnaire survey followed this grouping to gather data associated with the KPIs. Based on these data, KPIs were prioritized by using the fuzzy VIKOR. It is found out that external indicators such as “effectiveness of monitoring market conditions” are determined as the most important KPIs, in contrast to the findings in the studies about large-scale companies. Furthermore, “Attracting new customers”; “Reliability of financial performance” and, “Competency of managers” are identified as important indicators. Four KPIs proposed by experts during the focus group discussion are placed among the most important KPIs, which highlights the need for a specific performance measurement system (PMS) for construction SMEs.

Keywords

• Performance Measurement
• KPIs
• Construction SMEs
• Fuzzy VIKOR
• MCDM
• Construction Management

References

1. Ali, H. A. E. M., Al-Sulaihi, I. A., and Al-Gahtani, K. S.Indicators for measuring performance of building construction companies in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci., 25, 2, 125–134, 2013.
2. Aragón‐Sánchez, A., and Sánchez‐Marín, G.Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: A study of Spanish SMEs. J. small Bus. Manag., 43, 3, 287–308, 2005.
3. Bacalan, R., Cupin, M., Go, L. A., Manuel, M., Ocampo, L., and Govind, M.The Incubatees’ Perspective on Identifying Priority Enabling Factors for Technology Business Incubators. Eng. Manag. J., 31, 3, 177–192, 2019.
4. Banham, H. C.External environmental analysis for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). J. Bus. Econ. Res., 8, 10, 19–26, 2010.
5. Bannock, G., and Peacock, A.Government and Small Business. Sage Publications Ltd., London1989.
6. Baños-Caballero, S., García-Teruel, P. J., and Martínez-Solano, P.Working capital management, corporate performance, and financial constraints. J. Bus. Res., 67, 3, 332–338, 2014.
7. Bassioni, H. A., Price, A. D. F., and Hassan, T. M.Performance measurement in construction. J. Manag. Eng., 20, 2, 42–50, 2004.
8. Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T., and Hedges, I.KPIs: A critical appraisal of their use in construction. Benchmarking An Int. J., 11, 1, 93–117, 2004.

9. Belghitar, Y., and Khan, J.Governance mechanisms, investment opportunity set and SMEs cash holdings. Small Bus. Econ., 40, 1, 59–72, 2013.
10. Bourne, M., Franco-Santos, M., Micheli, P., and Pavlov, A.Performance measurement and management: A system of systems perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res., Taylor & Francis, 56, 8, 2788–2799, 2018.
11. Budayan, C., Okudan, O., and Dikmen, I.Identification and prioritization of stage-level KPIs for BOT projects – evidence from Turkey. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 13, 6, 1311–1337, 2020.
12. Buser, M., and Carlsson, V.Is anybody home? The role of company websites for small building contractors in Sweden. Proccedings 30th Annu. ARCOM Conf., Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Portsmouth, 977–9862014.
13. Chan, A. P. C., and Chan, A. P. L.Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking An Int. J., 11, 2, 203–221, 2004.
14. Chan, T. K.Measuring performance of the Malaysian construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ., 27, 12, 1231–1244, 2009.
15. Cheng, E. W. L., and Li, H.Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: Quantitative investigation. J. Manag. Eng., 18, 4, 194–202, 2002.
16. Construction Excellence.UK Industry Performance Report2017.
17. Cox, R. F., Issa, R. R. A., and Ahrens, D.Management’s perception of key performance indicators for construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 129, 2, 142–151, 2003.
18. Cui, C., Liu, Y., Hope, A., and Wang, J.Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag., Elsevier Ltd and Association for Project Management and the International Project Management Association, 36, 5, 773–794, 2018.
19. Dainty, A. R. J., Ison, S. G., and Briscoe, G. H.The construction labour market skills crisis: the perspective of small–medium‐sized firms. Constr. Manag. Econ., 23, 4, 387–398, 2005.
20. Department for Business Innovation & Skills.Business Population Estimates 20122012.
21. Fernandes, K. J., Raja, V., and Whalley, A.Lessons from implementing the balanced scorecard in a small and medium size manufacturing organization. Technovation, 26, 5, 623–634, 2006.
22. Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, T. J., Silvestro, R., and Voss, C.Performance measurement in service businesses. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants London1991.
23. Garengo, P., Biazzo, S., and Bititci, U. S.Performance measurement systems in SMEs: A review for a research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev., 7, 1, 25–47, 2005.
24. Garengo, P., and Bititci, U.Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: an empirical study in Scottish SMEs. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 27, 8, 802–825, 2007.
25. Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., and Lisboa, J. V.Benchmarking competitive methods and strategic choices of Portuguese SMEs. Benchmarking An Int. J., Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 16, 6, 729–740, 2009.
26. Gul, M., Ak, M. F., and Guneri, A. F.Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR-based approach for safety risk assessment in mine industry. J. Safety Res., 69, , 135–153, 2019.
27. Gupta, H.Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. J. Air Transp. Manag., Elsevier Ltd, 68, , 35–47, 2018.
28. Horta, I. M., Camanho, A. S., and Da Costa, J. M.Performance assessment of construction companies integrating key performance indicators and Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 136, 5, 581–594, 2010.
29. Hudson Smith, M., and Smith, D.Implementing strategically aligned performance measurement in small firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 106, 2, 393–408, 2007.
30. Institution of Civil Engineering.Blockchain Technology in The Construction Industry: Digital Transformation for High Productivity2018.
31. Johnson, H. T.The search for gain in markets and firms: A review of the historical emergence of management accounting systems. Accounting, Organ. Soc., 8, 2–3, 139–146, 1983.
32. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., and Aouad, G.Performance management in construction: a conceptual framework. Constr. Manag. Econ., 19, 1, 85–95, 2001.
33. Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D.The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business School Press, Boston1996.
34. Karwowski, W., and Mital, A.Applications of approximate reasoning in risk analysis. Appl. Fuzzy Set Theory Hum. Factors, 227–2431986.
35. Kennerley, M., and Neely, A.Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 23, 2, 213–229, 2003.
36. Kolehmainen, K.Dynamic Strategic Performance Measurement Systems: Balancing Empowerment and Alignment. Long Range Plann., Pergamon, 43, 4, 527–554, 2010.
37. Lee, P. T. W., and Yang, Z.Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Maritime Studies and Logistics. Springer, Switzerland2018.
38. Li, X., Segarra Roca, P., and Papaoikonomou, E.SMEs’ responses to the financial and economic crisis and policy implications: an analysis of agricultural and furniture sectors in Catalonia, Spain. Policy Stud., 32, 4, 397–412, 2011.
39. Lin, C. T., Chiu, H., and Chu, P. Y.Agility index in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 100, 2, 285–299, 2006.
40. Lin, Q.-L., Liu, L., Liu, H., and Wang, D. J.Integrating hierarchical balanced scorecard with fuzzy linguistic for evaluating operating room performance in hospitals. Expert Syst. Appl., 40, 6, 1917–1924, 2013.
41. Liu, A., Xiao, Y., Lu, H., Tsai, S. B., and Song, W.A fuzzy three-stage multi-attribute decision-making approach based on customer needs for sustainable supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod.2019.
42. Liu, H. J., Love, P. E. D., Smith, J., Irani, Z., Hajli, N., and Sing, M. C. P.From design to operations: a process management life-cycle performance measurement system for Public-Private Partnerships. Prod. Plan. Control, 29, 1, 68–83, 2018a.
43. Liu, J., Love, P. E. D., Davis, P. R., Smith, J., and Regan, M.Conceptual framework for the performance measurement of Public-Private Partnerships. J. Infrastruct. Syst., 21, 1, 04014023, 2015.
44. Liu, P., and Wu, X.A competency evaluation method of human resources managers based on multi-granularity linguistic variables and VIKOR method. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., Taylor and Francis Ltd., 18, 4, 696–710, 2012.
45. Liu, Y., Wang, H., and Tzeng, G.-H.From Measure to Guidance: Galactic Model and Sustainable Development Planning toward the Best Smart City. J. Urban Plan. Dev., 144, 4, 04018035, 2018b.
46. Loucks, E. S., Martens, M. L., and Cho, C. H.Engaging small and medium-sized businesses in sustainability. Sustain. Accounting, Manag. Policy J., 1, 2, 178–200, 2010.
47. Love, P. E. D., and Holt, G. D.Construction business performance measurement: the SPM alternative. Bus. Process Manag. J., 6, 5, 408–416, 2000.
48. Luu, T. Van, Kim, S. Y., Cao, H. L., and Park, Y. M.Performance measurement of construction firms in developing countries. Constr. Manag. Econ., 26, 4, 373–386, 2008a.
49. Luu, V. T., Kim, S.-Y. Y., and Huynh, T.-A. A.Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 7, 758–769, 2008b.
50. Madsen, D. Ø.The balanced scorecard in the context of SMEs: A literature review. Rev. Bus. Res., 15, 3, 75–86, 2015.
51. Madsen, D. Ø., and Stenheim, T.Perceived benefits of balanced scorecard implementation: some preliminary evidence. Probl. Perspect. Manag., 12, 3, 81–90, 2014.
52. Malagueño, R., Lopez-Valeiras, E., and Gomez-Conde, J.Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance. Small Bus. Econ., 51, 1, 221–244, 2018.
53. McAuley, A.Looking back, going forward: Reflecting on research into the SME internationalisation process. J. Res. Mark. Entrep., 12, 1, 21–41, 2010.
54. Melnyk, S. A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J., and Andersen, B.Is performance measurement and management fit for the future? Manag. Account. Res., 25, 2, 173–186, 2014.
55. Monte, A. P., and Fontenete, C. N. S. M.Balanced scorecard in SMEs–a proposal for small gas stations in Portugal. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66, 6, 244–255, 2012.
56. Navon, R.Company-level cash-flow management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 122, 1, 22–29, 1996.
57. Neely, A.The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., MCB UP Ltd, 19, 2, 205–228, 1999.
58. Neely, A., and Bourne, M.Why measurement initiatives fail. Meas. Bus. Excell., 4, 4, 3–6, 2000.
59. Neely, A. D., Adams, C., and Kennerley, M.The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. Prentice Hall Financial Times London2002.
60. Neetu, Y., and Mahim, S.Performance measurement and management frameworks: Research trends of the last two decades. Bus. Process Manag. J., Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 19, 6, 947–971, 2013.
61. Ogunyomi, P., and Bruning, N. S.Human resource management and organizational performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., 27, 6, 612–634, 2016.
62. Okudan, O., Budayan, C., and Dikmen, I.Development of a conceptual life cycle performance measurement system for build–operate–transfer (BOT) projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., ahead-of-p, ahead-of-print2020.
63. Opricovic, S.Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 10, 12983–12990, 2011.
64. Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G. H.Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 156, 2, 445–455, 2004.
65. Oyewobi, L. O., Windapo, A. O., and Rotimi, J. O. B.Measuring strategic performance in construction companies: a proposed integrated model. J. Facil. Manag., 13, 2, 109–132, 2015.
66. Padachi, K.Trends in working capital management and its impact on firms’ performance: an analysis of Mauritian small manufacturing firms. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap., 2, 2, 45–58, 2006.
67. Parmenter, D.Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey2007.
68. Pun, K. F., and Hui, I. K.An analytical hierarchy process assessment of the ISO 14001 environmental management system. Integr. Manuf. Syst., MCB UP Ltd, 12, 5, 333–345, 2001.
69. Radujković, M., Vukomanović, M., and Dunović, I. B.Application of key performance indicators in South‐Eastern European construction. J. Civ. Eng. Manag., 16, 4, 521–530, 2010.
70. Rezgui, Y., and Miles, J.Exploring the potential of SME alliances in the construction sector. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 136, 5, 558–567, 2010.
71. Rogulj, K., and Jajac, N.Achieving a Construction Barrier–Free Environment: Decision Support to Policy Selection. J. Manag. Eng., 34, 4, 04018020, 2018.
72. Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., and Sabaghi, M.Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecol. Indic., Elsevier B.V., 49, , 188–203, 2015.
73. Schneiderman, A.Why balanced scorecards fail. J. Strateg. Perform. Meas., 2, 11, 6–11, 1999.
74. Skibniewski, M. J., and Ghosh, S.Determination of key performance indicators with enterprise resource planning systems in Engineering Construction Firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 135, 10, 965–978, 2009.
75. Smallbone, D., Deakins, D., Battisti, M., and Kitching, J.Small business responses to a major economic downturn: Empirical perspectives from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Int. Small Bus. J., 30, 7, 754–777, 2012.
76. Smallbone, D., and Welter, F.The Role of government in SME development in transition economies. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep., 19, 4, 63–77, 2001.
77. Soenen, L. A.Cash conversion cycle and corporate profitability. J. Cash Manag., 13, , 53–57, 1993.
78. Sofiyabadi, J., Kolahi, B., and Valmohammadi, C.Key performance indicators measurement in service business: a fuzzy VIKOR approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., 27, 9–10, 1028–1042, 2016.
79. Sousa, S., and Aspinwall, E.Development of a performance measurement framework for SMEs. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., 21, 5, 475–501, 2010.
80. Suganthi, L.Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: An integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR / DEA methodology. Sustain. Cities Soc., Elsevier Ltd, 43, , 144–156, 2018.
81. Tauringana, V., and Adjapong Afrifa, G.The relative importance of working capital management and its components to SMEs’ profitability. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev., 20, 3, 453–469, 2013.
82. Taylor, A., and Taylor, M.International Journal of Production Research Factors influencing effective implementation of performance measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms: a perspective from Contingency Theory Factors influencing effective implementation of performance measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms: a perspective from Contingency Theory2013.
83. Tripathi, K. K., Hasan, A., and Neeraj Jha, K.Evaluating performance of construction organizations using fuzzy preference relation technique. Int. J. Constr. Manag., 1–14, 2019.
84. Tripathi, K. K., and Jha, K. N.An Empirical study on performance measurement factors for construction organizations. KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 22, 4, 1052–1066, 2018.
85. Turner, J. R., and Müller, R.On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 21, 1, 1–8, 2003.
86. Turner, T. J., Bititci, U. S., and Nudurupati, S. S.Implementation and impact of performance measures in two SMEs in Central Scotland. Prod. Plan. Control, 16, 2, 135–151, 2005.
87. Ulubeyli, S., Kazaz, A., and Sahin, S.Survival of construction SMEs in macroeconomic crises. J. Eng. Des. Technol., 16, 4, 654–673, 2018.
88. US. Small Business Administration.Do economic or industry factors affect business survival?2012.
89. Volmohammadi, C.Using the analytic network process (ANP) in business strategy selec- tion: A case study. Australian. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 4, 10, 5205–5213, 2010.
90. Wiesner, R., McDonald, J., and Banham, H. C.Australian small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs): A study of high performance management practices. J. Manag. Organ., 13, 3, 1–29, 2007.
91. Williams, T.Identifying success factors in construction projects: A case study. Proj. Manag. J., 47, 1, 97–112, 2016.
92. Wu, H.-Y. Y.Constructing a strategy map for banking institutions with key performance indicators of the balanced scorecard. Eval. Program Plann., 35, 3, 303–320, 2012.
93. Yu, I., Kim, K., Jung, Y., and Chin, S.Comparable performance measurement system for onstruction companies. J. Manag. Eng., 23, 3, 131–139, 2007a.
94. Yu, I., Kim, K., Jung, Y., Chin, S., Asce, A. M., Jung, Y., Chin, S., and Asce, M.Comparable performance measurement system for construction companies. J. Manag. Eng., 23, 3, 131–139, 2007b.