Perception of Various Performance Criteria by Stakeholders in the Construction Sector in Hong Kong

Construction Management and Economics (April 2010) 28, 377–391 Perception of various performance criteria by stakeholders in the construction sector in Hong Kong IVAN K. W. LAI1* and FRANKIE K. S. LAM2 1 2 Faculty of Management and Administration, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Taylor and Francis Received 8 March 2009; accepted 1 December 2009 10. 1080/01446190903521515 All construction projects in Hong Kong have in common a cast of key contract participants, consisting of clients, consultants (designers) and contractors. The aim of this research is to examine, from different points of view, these practitioners in regard to the importance of perceived performance criteria and their respective performance outcomes in a construction project. A research model is structured based on nine performance criteria and their respective performances. The data were collected from 324 practitioners who have participated in construction projects in Hong Kong. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated measures ANOVA are used to analyse the data. The relative importance of nine performance criteria and their performances are measured. Timely completion of the project is the most important performance criterion, followed by profit, environmental protection and quality. There are differences in the importance of the performance criteria with respect to performance. The differences in the perceptions of performance that are identified are: (i) among different practitioners in a construction project; (ii) due to different project types; and (iii) between different functional roles in the partnering organizations. In order to further understand the importance of the performance criteria with respect to performance, the status quo of roject partnering and congeniality problems in the construction industry is reviewed. It is intended to stimulate interest in the further exploration of solutions to improve the overall performance of the construction industry in Hong Kong. Keywords: Performance improvement, performance evaluation, partnering, supplier relationship, performance criteria. Introduction At the beginning of con struction projects, various targets are set as ‘performance criteria’ to be achieved among the key contract participants, consisting of clients, consultants (designers) and contractors. However, different participants have their own perceptions of various performance criteria, and they perform differently according to their perceptions. The aim of this study is to examine, from different points of view, these participants in regard to the importance of the perceived performance criteria and their respective performance outcomes in a construction project. The differences between the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their respective performance outcomes represent areas for the improvement of performance, which these participants should address. Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email  protected] edu. mo In the present study, nine specific performance criteria are used; they are: (1) profit; (2) time; (3) no claims or contractual disputes; (4) job satisfaction; (5) quality; (6) safety; (7) environment; (8) generation of innovative ideas; and (9) effectiveness. A research model was formulated to test the significant difference between these perfo rmance criteria with respect to their performance. There are also tests available to assess the performance of these performance criteria from the perspective of the respondents in different roles (i. . clients, consultants and main contractors); the types of construction projects (i. e. government, public/private utility and private development); and different functional roles of the staff within the organization (i. e. managerial, frontline supervisory and consultancy staff). This research was conducted through a questionnaire survey with construction practitioners in Construction Management and Economics ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online  © 2010 Taylor & Francis http://www. informaworld. com DOI: 10. 1080/01446190903521515 378 Hong Kong. The overall discussion that follows is based on the results of the statistical analysis of the performance criteria and their respective performances as well as the major differences between the different perspectives of the participants. There are significant differences between the performance criteria with respect to performance, and conclusions are drawn from patterns noted in these results. This study indicates some areas for the improvement of performance. The limitations of this research and further research opportunities will be identified. Lai and Lam eam considers to be relevant in the pursuit of successful project delivery (Swan and Khalfan, 2007). Construction delays not only result in cost overruns and poor quality, but lead to increased disputes (Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly, 1999). Odeh and Battaineh (2002) observed that most claims cases are related to the time of the project delivery. No claims or contractual disputes. It has been observed that the adaptive ability to man age changes without unnecessary claims is often critical in the routine assessment of subcontractors’ performance (Mbachu, 2008). The absence of claims or contractual disputes is a fair indicator of project success (Chan and Chan, 2004). Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction refers to the extent to which persons gain enjoyment or satisfaction from their efforts at work (Fogarty, 1994). It is a ‘soft’ measure, and has often been benchmarked with a company’s performance (Beatham et al. , 2004). Pinto and Pinto (1991) advocated that measures for project success should include project psychosocial outcomes, which refer to the satisfaction of interpersonal relations among project team members. Quality. Quality is defined as the degree to which general conditions promote meeting the project’s established requirements for materials and workmanship (Bubshait and Almohawis, 1994). The improvement of quality can reduce the resources and costs that must be devoted to reworking, which, when reduced, increases profitability (Ling et al. , 2009). The costs of rectifying defects and reworking have been estimated to be as high as 6. 2% and 12%, respectively, of the profit for a construction project (Thomas et al. 2002). Safety. Safety is defined as the degree to which general conditions promote the completion of a project without major accidents or injuries (Bubshait and Almohawis, 1994). Accidents during a project can be detrimental to the project in terms of time, costs and the reputation of the company (Chan and Chan, 2004). Environment. Environmental issues, such as waste management and public nuisance, have been regarded as negative environmental impacts on construction ( Shen et al. , 2000). Considerable attention has been directed towards finding out how to minimize construction waste and restrict environmental nuisance (Wong and Chan, 2000). Companies invest in the improvement of environmental protection because of cost factors (Tam et al. , 2001; Shen (3) Theoretical background Definition of performance criteria ‘Performance criteria’ are commonly shared mechanisms for monitoring and demonstrating project success (Krima et al. , 2007). Their use allows practitioners to understand their competitive position better and potentially to improve their performance (ElMashaleh et al. 2001). By looking at the deviations between the levels of importance of the performance criteria and performance outcomes, practitioners can review whether certain criteria underperform or overperform (Soetanto et al. , 2001). Ideally, performance outcomes of the performance criteria should be on a par with their normal performance, or, even better, their so-called ‘optimum per formance’, which are satisfactory to practitioners. Performance criteria of a construction project Atkinson (1999) stated that time, cost and quality make up the ‘iron triangle’ for project success. Loosemore et al. (2003) highlighted the importance of job satisfaction for the well-being of the construction industry. Fenn (2006) listed the typical performance criteria of commercial projects: time, cost, quality, project delays, delay claims, scheduling, monitoring and control. Lam and Wong (2009) argued that safety is a measure of project performance, as well as time, cost and quality. After reviewing the literature, nine performance criteria were selected: (1) Profit. Norris (1990) measured profit as the increment by which revenues exceed cost. Profit in terms of cost benefits has been identified as a key performance indicator (KPI) (Beatham et al. , 2004). Cost benefits can typically be achieved by savings and the early completion of projects (Soetanto et al. , 2001). Time. Time refers to the duration for completing a project (Chan and Chan, 2004). Time, cost and quality are the key factors a project (4) (5) (6) (7) (2) Performance criteria and Tam, 2002). For example, energy-efficient design allows both environmental friendliness and cost effectiveness across the project life cycle (Yao et al. , 2006). Generation of innovative ideas. Innovation is the actual novel use of a non-trivial change and improvement in a process, product or system (Slaughter, 1998). Innovation in construction leads to the improvement of working conditions, lowering construction costs, and decreasing construction time (Eaton et al. , 2006) so as to improve efficiency in the industry (Egbu, 2004). Effectiveness. Effectiveness is a characteristic of the overall performance of a project, in terms of whether it is being carried out within the budget, performed on schedule, and maintaining quality (Love et al. , 2004). Project effectiveness is dependent on conceptual level, skills and communicative abilities (Goodwin, 1993), which are important factors that affect project success (Krima et al. , 2007). Practitioners always intend to continually improve the effectiveness of the work process (Naoum, 2003). 379 importance of the performance criteria and their respective performance outcomes in a construction project in Hong Kong (as shown in Figure 1). In this study, three questions were addressed about the life of a construction project: Figure 1 A research model of importance of the performance criteria and their performance outcomes 8) (1) (2) (3) (9) What are the relative levels of importance of the performance criteria from the practitioners’ perspectives? What are the differences between the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their respective performance? What are the differences in the perception of performance from the practitioners’ perspectives? Research hypot heses The following hypotheses are formulated based on two variables: the importance of the performance criteria and their respective performance outcomes. Owing to the different dimensions of business-driven benefits and the degree of objective alignment (Thompson and Sanders, 1998), the levels of importance of the performance criteria may be different. H1: There are significant differences within the importance of the performance criteria. Research method Research model and research questions A research model is developed to examine, from different practitioners’ points of view, the levels of There are always levels of difference in the performance elements for construction (Soetanto et al. , 2001). The levels of importance of the erformance criteria may vary with respect to their performance outcomes. Figure 1 A research model of importance of the performance criteria and their performance outcomes 380 H2: There are significant differences between the importance of the performance criteria and their performance. Lai and Lam such as Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited; and a private development project may include somethin g like a residential development project. The respondents include a staff of clients, architectural and engineering consultants who represent clients, and main contractors. The respondents are also classified into three functional roles (i. e. managerial, frontline supervisory and consultancy staff). This study only focuses on the performance of the key contract participants—neither suppliers nor subcontractors are included in this survey. Questionnaire development and administration A questionnaire is designed to gather information from people engaged in partnering projects in Hong Kong. A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted in July 2006 with academics and construction practitioners in order to confirm the general validity and reliability. After the initial pre-test, a further pilot test was undertaken to check the suitability and appropriateness. The final questionnaire consists of two sections. Section 1 is about the background of the respondents and Section 2 is concerned with the views of the respondents on the levels of importance of the performance criteria of the project and on their performance outcomes. Respondents are asked to pick a rating using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘1’ (the least important, or very unsatisfied) to ‘5’ (the most important, or very satisfied) in respect of the criteria and the outcomes. A total of 850 questionnaires were distributed in person to the respondents in August 2006. From the 209 questionnaires that were collected, 71. 8% were from the main contractors during the first three months. Thereafter, another 100 questionnaires were distributed only to accessible clients and consultants in October 2006. Statistical analyses are conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 12. 00 software package. Different stakeholders have different views and expectations of performance in a construction project (Newcombe, 2003). Different roles (i. e. clients, consultants, and main contractors) in a construction project may have different views on the same performance. H3: There are significant differences among incumbents in different roles in a construction project in the perception of performance among partners. There are differences between government and private projects in the respective business procurement and the relationship with contractors (Burnes and Coram, 1999). Different types of construction projects (i. e. overnment projects, public/private utility and private development) may require different types of performances. H4: There are significant differences in the perception of performance due to different types of construction projects. Partnering involves teamwork and collaborative activities for achieving goals and resolving problems (Pheng and Hong, 2005; Ingirige and Sexton, 2006). Staff in different functional roles (i. e. managerial, frontline supervisory and consultancy staff) may have different views on performance. H5: There are significant differences among staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations in the perception of performance. Sampling method In Hong Kong, more than 500 construction companies are certificated with ISO 9001 (HKQAA, 2007). Because of the large number and different types of construction firms, the different sizes and types of construction works that are undertaken and the constraints of time and resources for the research, purposive sampling (Sekaran, 1996) is used to focus on the respondents who have participated in a partnering project. Contractors, consulting firms, government departments and private developers who are active participants in the construction market in Hong Kong are selected. Government departments and private developers are classified as clients of the construction projects. There are three types of project: a government project is a public project that is initiated from a government department such as the Housing Authority; a public/private utility project is usually an infrastructure project, for example, one initiated by a mass transportation services provider, Performance criteria of the construction project Research samples Over the six months prior to March 2007, 950 sets of questionnaires were distributed, from which a total of 324 were collected. The response rate is 34. 1%. The backgrounds of the respondents are shown in Table 1. Statistical analysis Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be used when sample members have been matched Performance criteria Table 1 The background of the respondents Numbers of response Role in a construction project Clients Consultants Main contractors Others Total Type of construction project Government projects Public/private utilities Private development Others Total Functional role in the organization Managerial Frontline supervisory Consultancy Others Total Percentage Table 2 The rating of performance criteria Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Performance criteria Timely completion of project Profit to all involved parties Improvement of environmental protection Improvement of quality Improvement of safety Effectiveness of the construction process No claims or contractual disputes Job satisfaction of staff Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method Mean 4. 2778 4. 2037 4. 1265 4. 1173 4. 1019 3. 9105 3. 8920 3. 8395 3. 7747 381 Std. deviation 0. 65127 0. 69174 0. 60904 0. 61846 0. 60350 0. 72634 0. 74903 0. 68068 0. 74350 123 51 149 1 324 112 121 87 4 324 131 157 21 15 324 38. 0 15. 7 46 . 0 0. 3 100 34. 6 37. 3 26. 9 1. 2 100 40. 4 48. 5 6. 5 4. 6 100 ccording to some important characteristic (ACITS, 1997). In this study, sample members are matched, and measurements across conditions are treated like repeated measures. Therefore, repeated measures ANOVA is used to find the rating among the performance criteria. Table A1 in the Appendix shows Mauchly’s test of sphericity. This is a test of compound symmetry or the homogeneity of covariance, an important assumption for this statistical test. If the test of sphericity is significant (i. e. , p-value < 0. 05), then the assumption H0 is met. Consequently, the univariate (more powerful) output (Tests of Within-Subject Effects) can be used. In this test, the p-value is less than 0. 5 and H1 is therefore accepted. This means that there are significant differences in the performance criteria. In order to elucidate the differences between them, Bonferroni’s test (see Table A2 in Appendix) is applied. The relati ve rating of the performance criteria is shown in Table 2 where time has the highest mean score, followed by profit, environment, quality, safety, effectiveness, no claims, job satisfaction, and the generation of innovative ideas. An individual paired-samples T-test is used to determine whether there are significant differences among the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their respective performances. The mean scores and standard deviations of the importance of the performance criteria and their performance outcomes are reported in Table 3. It shows that all of the factors have significant differences. The p-value is less than 0. 05. Therefore, H2 is accepted. Time has the highest positive paired mean difference, suggesting that the timely completion of a project, among the other performance criteria, seriously underperforms. One-way ANOVA is used to determine whether, among partners in different roles in a construction project (i. e. clients, consultants and main contractors), there are significant differences in the perception of performance. Table 4 indicates that there are significant differences in the perception of performance— with the exception of quality—among the three groups. The p-values for all of the factors (except for quality) are less than 0. 05. Therefore, H3 is accepted. The comparisons of the different groups are made using post hoc tests, after an overall significant difference has been obtained. The Tukey HSD table (Table 5) compares each group with every other group to determine the significance of the difference. Table 6 indicates that there is no significant difference (p-value > 0. 05) in the perception of performance due to the types of projects and between staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations. Therefore, H4 and H5 are rejected. Discussion The levels of importance of the performance criteria The relative ratings for the highest levels of importance of the performance criteria are: (1) time; (2) profit; (3) environment; (4) quality; (5) safety; (6) effectiveness; (7) no claims or contractual disputes; (8) job satisfaction; and (9) generation of innovative ideas. Time, cost 382 Table 3 Mean scores and paired-samples t-test for the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their performance outcomes Mean scores and standard deviations (N = 324) Mean Mean 4. 2037 3. 4568 4. 2778 3. 4568 3. 8920 3. 3117 0. 6173 0. 6574 0. 6636 0. 6698 0. 74903 0. 72870 0. 04161 0. 04048 0. 5803 0. 90221 0. 65127 0. 81091 0. 03618 0. 04505 0. 8210 0. 91024 0. 69174 0. 70028 0. 03843 0. 03890 0. 7469 0. 94631 Std. deviation Std. rror mean Paired differences Std. deviation Std. error mean 0. 05257 14. 207 0. 000 t Paired-samples t-test (df = 323) Sig. (2-tailed) 0. 05057 16. 235 0. 000 0. 05012 11. 577 0. 000 0. 81500 0. 81201 0. 77 566 0. 82841 0. 04528 0. 04511 0. 04309 0. 04602 13. 633 14. 573 15. 399 14. 553 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 3. 8395 3. 2222 4. 1173 3. 4599 4. 1019 3. 4383 4. 1265 3. 4568 3. 7747 3. 2130 3. 9105 3. 2901 0. 71755 0. 72634 0. 76843 0. 74350 0. 04131 0. 03986 0. 04035 0. 04269 0. 68068 0. 69049 0. 61846 0. 65003 0. 60350 0. 65781 0. 60904 0. 72204 0. 03782 0. 03836 0. 03436 0. 03611 0. 03353 0. 03654 0. 03384 0. 04011 0. 5617 0. 94388 0. 05244 10. 712 0. 000 Pair 1 Profit to all involved parties Profit to all involved parties with good performance Pair 2 Timely completion of project Timely completion of project with good performance Pair 3 No claims or contractual disputes No claims or contractual disputes with good performance Pair 4 Job satisfaction of staff Job satisfaction of staff with good performance Pair 5 Improvement of quality Improvement of quality with good performance Pair 6 Improvement of safety Improvement of safety with good performance Pair 7 Improvement of environmental protection Improvement of environmental protection with good performance Pair 8 Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method with good performance Pair 9 Effectiveness of the construction process Effectiveness of the construction process with good performance 0. 6204 0. 93157 0. 05175 11. 987 0. 000 Lai and Lam Performance criteria 383 Table 4 One-way ANOVA on signi? a nt differences in perception of performance among participants in different roles in a construction project Performance criteria Profit to all involved parties Timely completion of project No claims or contractual disputes Job satisfaction of staff Improvement of quality Improvement of safety Improvement of environmental protection Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method Effectiveness of the construction process Total 3. 4582 3. 4551 3. 3127 3. 2198 3. 4582 3. 4365 3. 4551 3. 2105 3. 2879 Client 3. 5772 3. 6423 3. 4715 3. 4228 3. 5203 3. 5691 3. 6098 3. 3415 3. 4797 Consultant 3. 5098 3. 4706 3. 4510 3. 0588 3. 3137 3. 0980 3. 1961 2. 9216 3. 0000 Main contractor 3. 423 3. 2953 3. 1342 3. 1074 3. 4564 3. 4430 3. 4161 3. 2013 3. 2282 F-statistic 4. 024 6. 374 8. 684 9. 120 1. 830 9. 752 6. 529 6. 408 8. 208 p-value 0. 019 0. 002 0. 000 0. 000 0. 162 0. 000 0. 002 0. 002 0. 000 Table 5 The Tukey HSD table of the post hoc tests on the performance among partici pants in different roles in a construction project Performance criteria Profit to all involved parties Timely completion of project No claims or contractual disputes Job satisfaction of staff Improvement of safety Improvement of environmental protection Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method Effectiveness of the construction rocess (I) Your role in the construction project Client Client Client Consultant Client Client Client Consultant Client Client Consultant Client Client (J) Your role in the construction project Main contractor Main contractor Main contractor Main contractor Consultant Main contractor Consultant Main contractor Consultant Consultant Main contractor Consultant Main contractor Mean difference (I – J) 0. 23495* 0. 34697* 0. 33732* 0. 31675* 0. 36394* 0. 31538* 0. 47107* ? 0. 34491* 0. 41368* 0. 41989* ? 0. 27977* 0. 47967* 0. 25149* Sig. 0. 016 0. 001 0. 000 0. 018 0. 004 0. 000 0. 000 0. 003 0. 002 0. 001 0. 040 0. 000 0. 018 Note: * The mean difference is signi? cant at the 0. 05 level. and quality are always described as the ‘holy trinity’ (Swan and Khalfan, 2007). Krima et al. 2007) also noted that the importance of time performance is widely accepted. Most construction projects in Hong Kong are developed on a fast track schedule, completed in two to three years (Chan, 1999). The top concern in the construction industry in Hong Kong is always time. Profit generated from partnering normally derives from cost savings and incentives (Soetanto et al. , 2001). Incentives are normally introduced by offering a bonus to contractors achieving the KPIs set for the project (Swan and Khalfan, 2007). Moreover, profit sharing is very popular in construction projects. It is surprising that the improvement of environmental performance is the third most important performance criterion. Zhang and Shen (2000) observed that clients are often concerned with immediate or short-term results and care little about the potential benefits of improving environmental performance. This finding directly contradicts a previous study performed by Swan and Khalfan (2007), who found that time, cost and quality are the key elements for a successful project. Although the improvement of environmental performance is an important performance criterion, compared with the improvement of quality, this finding still needs to be clarified by further studies. The improvement of quality is always referred to in terms of less re-working or no abortive work (Thomas et al. 2002). Quality is also defined as conformity and client satisfaction (Soetanto et al. , 2001). It is always among the top priorities in construction. Safety has always been an issue in construction because of the routinely high accident rate involving deaths and property damage. The creation of the built environment in 384 Table 6 One-way ANOVA on signi? cant differences of performance due to the types of project and between those staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations Due to the types of project Sum of squares df 2 317 319 2 317 319 2 317 319 2 317 319 2 317 319 2 317 319 2 317 319 1. 021 161. 666 162. 688 0. 595 185. 93 186. 388 Between groups Within groups Total 2 317 319 2 317 319 1. 049 0. 415 0. 909 0. 426 0. 728 0. 518 0. 511 0. 510 0. 297 0. 586 0. 527 0. 471 1. 118 0. 087 0. 537 0. 162 0. 851 0. 080 0. 648 0. 124 0. 883 0. 697 201. 872 202. 570 1. 234 162. 403 163. 638 0. 328 1. 972 143. 064 145. 036 2. 528 0. 081 0. 254 129. 889 130. 142 2. 133 0. 120 1. 522 129. 623 131. 146 1. 407 0. 246 0. 309 159. 710 160. 019 1. 001 0. 369 1. 166 158. 989 160. 155 0. 507 0. 603 1. 295 182. 770 184. 065 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 2 306 308 0. 056 0. 472 0. 119 0. 887 1. 560 145. 333 146. 893 2 306 308 Mean square F Sig. Sum of squares df Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total 1. 456 164. 094 165. 550 1. 819 135. 169 136. 987 2. 098 131. 524 133. 622 1. 053 149. 294 150. 347 0. 174 170. 198 170. 372 0. 161 205. 389 205. 550 0. 113 149. 634 149. 747 Mean square 0. 78 0. 475 0. 349 0. 660 0. 617 0. 531 0. 986 0. 468 0. 127 0. 424 0. 761 0. 424 0. 155 0. 522 0. 583 0. 520 0. 648 0. 597 1. 084 0. 339 1. 122 0. 327 Between those staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations F 1. 642 Sig. 0. 195 Performance criteria Profit to all involved parties with good performance Timely completion of project with good performance 0. 529 0. 590 No claims or contractual disputes with good performance 1. 163 . 314 Job satisfaction of staff with good performance 2 . 109 0. 123 Improvement of quality with good performance 0. 299 0. 742 Improvement of safety with good performance 1. 797 0. 168 Improvement of environmental protection with good performance 0. 296 0. 744 Generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method with good performance Effectiveness of the construction process with good performance Lai and Lam Performance criteria 2003 in Hong Kong involved 18% of the total injuries of employees among all industries (OSHC, 2003). Policy makers and the general public always pay great heed to construction safety (Teo et al. , 2005). Effectiveness in construction has received negative commentary (CIRC, 2001). A rating solely on effectiveness itself is taken ordinarily to be insufficient and does not usually prevail. Claims in a project can involve extension of time (EOT), for example, because of inclement weather, or a variation order (VO), for example because of changes of design (Yeo and Ning, 2002). Contractors lose out from not being granted a claim. Although some previous studies suggest that job satisfaction is a measure of project success (Beatham et al. , 2004; Swan and Khalfan, 2007), an analysis of the data fails to find evidence suggesting job satisfaction is a priority in a construction project. Innovative ideas can contribute to cost savings and process expediting, and generating them should be encouraged through reimbursement or benefits sharing (Naoum, 2003). Nevertheless, innovative ideas about construction design and method are very rarely implemented in a construction project because of the relatively short timeline for completion. The differences of performance outcomes with respect to importance The relative ratings for the highest difference in performance with respect to the importance of the performance criteria are: (1) time; (2) safety; (3) quality; (4) environment; (5) profit; (6) job satisfaction; (7) effectiveness; (8) no claims or contractual disputes; and (9) generation of innovative ideas. All of the performance criteria clearly underperform. Timely completion of the project displays the highest difference. To a project owner, delay means loss of revenue due to slackened production and rentable space. To a consultant, delay means either the failure of progress monitoring of contractors or faulty design, or both. To a contractor, delay means penalties and higher overhead costs. It is thus very worthwhile to investigate the cause of delay, the parties who are responsible, and the preventive measures for avoiding it (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). Owing to stringent legal and contractual requirements in Hong Kong, there are ever-increasing demands, expectations and emphasis on safety, quality and environmental protection. Naoum (2003) has argued that there should be a comprehensive incentive scheme to simulate the overall site performance in these categories. Profit is a basic goal for running a business, but in a project, it is always governed by the traditional re-measured contract at a fixed price. 385 Participants in a construction project can only benefit from cost savings or bonuses awarded by accelerating the process for early completion (Tam, 2002). Job satisfaction is among the performance criteria displaying a low performance outcome. Not only are staff members not happy about job satisfaction, but this variable is also in fact rated as the second least important performance criterion (see Table 2). The effectiveness of a construction process needs both good planning and coordination. Given the inherently fragmented nature of construction, work is always accomplished in sequential and unique stages handled by different contractors. Since the design and building processes are normally divided between consultants and contractors (Naoum, 2003), the original designers would thus not help the performance outcome or effectiveness of the construction process once it is underway. No claims or contractual disputes are part of the second-lowest performance outcome. Claims or contractual disputes in a project are very often raised among clients and contractors (Yeo and Ning, 2002). The generation of innovative ideas for construction design and method received the lowest rating concerning performance outcome. In fact, adopting new ideas in construction is always inhibited by the fact that there are always prior specifications governing construction activities (Naoum, 2003). Winch (2003) noted that construction is commonly characterized as a ‘backward industry’, that is, one that fails to innovate in comparison to other sectors. The strong categorical division of responsibility for design and building worsens this situation. The performance perceived by practitioners in different roles in a construction project Profit There are significant differences between clients and the main contractors in the perception of the performance of profit. Clients are more satisfied than are the main contractors (see Table 5). Clients typically set out the budget for a project at the beginning of project planning, whereas contractors concentrate on cost savings (e. g. reducing the opportunity for claims). Time There are significant differences between clients and main contractors in the perception of performance for the timely completion of projects. Clients are more satisfied than are main contractors (see Table 5). They are normally proactive and generally push for timely completion. Main contractors prefer a contract designed with a reasonable duration for the construction 386 time and fair treatment of claims for EOT (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). Any completion delay for a project will be the subject of a penalty for liquidated damages to a contractor (PAH, 2008). In general, clients would consider an incentive bonus for the contractor who completes the project on time or ahead of schedule (Naoum, 2003). Contractors prefer these bonuses as an incentive for finishing on time or early. No claims or contractual disputes There are significant differences between clients, consultants and main contractors in the perception of the performance of no claims or contractual disputes. Clients and consultants are more satisfied than are main contractors (see Table 5). When initiating a contract, clients normally would have a contingency plan to provide additional money for any claim, for a delay in the project or for a change of design. In general, clients and main contractors take a different stand on claims. Clients suffer from claims, while the main contractors benefit. Traditionally, clients are perceived as distrustful and suspicious, while the main contractors are perceived as opportunistic and greedy (Kadefors, 2004). Consultants tend to have a passive attitude to claims, and do not like to see any claims or contractual disputes, as they might be taken to reveal their own faulty design or their failure to perform their duty of supervising the main contractors’ performance. Job satisfaction There are significant differences between clients, consultants and main contractors in the perception of the performance of the job satisfaction of staff. Staff members, as consultants and main contractors, are less satisfied than are clients (see Table 5). Staff from clients may participate in the partnering projects more than do the staff from consultants and main contractors. Since the levels of participation for different parties are different, they show differences in regard to this issue. Quality There is no significant difference between clients, consultants and main contractors in the perception of the performance of quality. This seems to illustrate that all partners in the construction project hold consistent views on the performance of quality. Safety There are significant differences between clients, consultants and main contractors in the perception of the performance of safety. Consultants are less satisfied than are clients and main contractors (see Table 5). Clients simply do not like to see any accidents. The Environment Lai and Lam responsibility for onsite safety is therefore ascribed to the consultants and the contractors (Teo et al. , 2005). Consultants take a passive role in safety during the operations (Teo et al. , 2005); they like to have sufficient planning and budgets for the design of safety at the beginning of a project (Wong and Chan, 2000). The main contractors bear most of the legal liability for safety performance (Chan and Chan, 2004); they commit to ensuring safety under a contractual requirement. There are significant differences between clients and consultants in the perception of the accomplishment of environmental performance. Consultants are generally less satisfied than are clients (see Table 5), who showed less concern in improving environmental performance. This empirical finding agrees with Yao et al. ’s (2006) basic argument. The design of environmentally friendly projects involves reduced use of natural resources, recycling of construction waste, and the avoidance of being a nuisance in the neighbourhood (Tam et al. , 2004). The green construction concept demands that, at the inception of a project, approval is sought from the client. Although consultants are reactive on this specific issue, they can propose some guidelines for administering a contract’s environmental requirements (e. g. contractors should prepare a comprehensive onsite waste management plan). Clients should consider covering all of the costs incurred in those contract specifications satisfying these environmental requirements. On the other hand, contractors do not totally disagree with this concept and are usually willing to follow some guidelines, such as avoiding environmental hazards and following safety procedures. Indeed, clients should regularly take the initiative to monitor and closely inspect contractors’ performance of environmental management. Generation of innovative ideas There are significant differences between clients, consultants and main contractors in how they perceive the accomplishment of innovative ideas about the construction design and method. Consultants are less satisfied than are clients and main contractors (see Table 5). In general, consultants play a significant role in generating new ideas about the construction method and the design (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000). The main contractors usually do not put too much effort into promoting innovative ideas unless it is a designand-build project. However, consultants are reluctant to accept a contractor’s design proposal (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000). In fact, the best innovative ideas for construction design and method should be developed by consultants during the planning phase. However, Performance criteria given the zero-growth budgets and tight schedules for construction projects, consultants seldom take the initiative to generate innovative ideas even though they should. Effectiveness There are significant differences between clients, consultants and main contractors in the perception of the relative effectiveness of a construction process. Clients are more satisfied than are consultants and main contractors (see Table 5). Consultants, as designers, play an important role by providing good, reliable and complete designs that are buildable. Main contractors play an active role in the construction process (Arobos, 2002; Errasti et al. , 2007), dealing with most of the problems raised during the construction stage along with the consultants. Most of the problems generated at the site level and the effective solutions do not involve the clients. The performance of important aspects of different types of construction project There is no significant difference between the three groups in the perception of the performance of government project, public/private utility and private development. This means that there appears to be no relationship between performance outcomes and the types of projects. The performance perceived among staff in different functional roles in partnering organizations There is no significant difference between the three staff groups: managerial, frontline supervisory and consultancy, in terms of the perception of performance. This means that there is no relationship between the performance outcomes and the staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations. 387 and management of, a project, exacerbate the adverse effects of the fragmented nature of construction. There are many methods for trying and overcoming the barriers to optimum performance. For example, the ideas of the public–private partnership (PPP) and the private finance initiative (PFI) projects, which create a favourable partnering atmosphere between clients and the main contractors (Li et al. , 2005), could help diminish the abovementioned problems. PPP and PFI embrace all of the elements in a successful construction project of design, build and finance, which means a longer project timeframe and a contract sum sufficiently large so as to sustain the partnering atmosphere. Other methods, such as awarding contracts based on quality bids, as well as prices and partnering frameworks, are also recommended. Limitations Owing to the large numbers of the sample size and frame and the limited time and resources available, the selection of questionnaire respondents was based on the rationale of purposive sampling, aiming to select some specific categories in the populations. This may cause bias and error. The collected data were mainly from the main contractors and clients (84% of the total respondents) and may have led to biases that render the result inaccurate. A holistic supply chain must be expansive, embracing the vertical networks of subcontractors and suppliers for better partnering. There were also geographical limitations in this study. The survey was only carried out in Hong Kong. It would be beneficial to have the opportunity to test the theory elsewhere. Further research opportunities The results indicate that timely completion of a project is both the most important performance criterion and the highest in terms of the difference in the outcome of the performance with respect to importance. Future studies should seek to elaborate on this factor, exploring how to improve the time actor in a construction project. A new research tradition can be built on a more detailed model that specifies not only the relationships between the independent and dependent variables, but also the relationships between the independent variables. This means an investigation of the correlation between the factors of two variables as well as within the factors. In such a study, there should be a deeper focus on the correlation among the performance criteria. Regarding the significant difference from the perspectives of clients, consultants and main contractors about the performance outcomes, further additional research is necessary in order to elaborate on the Implications, limitations and further research Implications The present results reveal that, in order to achieve optimum performance, a company should improve its operations by managing the presence of the nine performance criteria. The differences in the perceptions of performance among the key contract participants in a construction project reveal the congeniality problems in the construction industry. The rule of the contract game, or that the lowest price wins, still very much dominates the final decision on the selection of contractors. The division of roles between designing and building, and the distinct roles of consultants for 388 more subtle rationale of these differences. A more qualitative data collection method through intensive interviews with participants would provide richer and more in-depth data. Lai and Lam more fairly when claims are made. Practitioners have less concern about the generation of innovative ideas for a construction method and design that make least deviations from performance. Finally, there is no difference in the perception of performance due to the types of projects, or between those staff in different functional roles in the partnering organizations. This study in Hong Kong examined, from the points of view of practitioners, the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their respective performance in construction projects. The research reviews the status quo of partnering and the congeniality problems in the industry, and it is intended to stimulate interest in Hong Kong for further exploration of solutions for improving the overall performance of the construction industry. Conclusions Here, we rate the performance criteria in a construction project in Hong Kong. The order of importance of the performance criteria is: (1) time; (2) profit; (3) environment; (4) quality; (5) safety; (6) effectiveness; (7) no claims or contractual disputes; (8) job satisfaction; and (9) generation of innovative ideas. There are differences among the levels of importance of the performance criteria with respect to performance. The positive differences between the levels of importance of the performance criteria and their performance outcomes indicate a common pattern: all of the performance criteria underperform. The results of the greatest differences are, in order, (1) time; (2) safety; (3) quality; (4) environment; (5) profit; (6) job satisfaction; (7) effectiveness; (8) no claims or contractual disputes; and (9) generation of innovative ideas. Timely completion of the project is the most important performance criterion, but it displays the highest deviation of its performance when compared with its importance. This implies that time management is the most critical factor for the performance of a construction project. In Hong Kong, events pertaining to quality, safety and environmental issues during construction always generate a great deal of publicity. In fact, there are quite regular incidents regarding substandard work, serious accidents on construction sites, and complaints regarding pollution and nuisance generated from construction activities. The performance of these three performance criteria can be improved by providing a greater budget during the planning of the project, or by allowing a larger budget for design and incentives to achieve good performance. Most clients are satisfied with the performance of profit, although the main contractors are less happy, reflecting the fact that, with the prevailing lowest-pricewins and the procurement practice in construction, the main contractor still stands to lose. In general, most respondents are not satisfied with job satisfaction. The job satisfaction of staff should be enhanced through personal development, job security and encouragement from colleagues and superiors. Most clients are satisfied with the performance of the effectiveness of the construction process. Consultants should strive to improve the effectiveness of the construction process early in the design stage of a project and should suggest adopting more design-and-build types of contracts. Clients are satisfied with fewer claims and contractual disputes. However, contractors would like to be treated References ACITS (1997) Repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS MANOVA. Usage Note: Stat-38, ACITS, The University of Texas at Austin Statistical Services, 475-9372, available at http://www. utexas. edu/cc/docs/stat38. html (accessed 12 January 2010). Al-Khalil, M. I. and Al-Ghafly, M. A. (1999) Important causes of delays in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction Management and Economics, 17(5), 647–55. Arobos, L. (2002) Design of a rapid response and high ef? ciency service by lean production principles: methodology and evaluation of variability of performance. International Journal Production Economics, 80(2), 169–83. Assaf, S. A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006) Causes of delay in large construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 349–57. Atkinson, R. (1999) Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–42. Beatham, S. , Anumba, C. , Thorp, T. nd Hedges, I. (2004) KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use in construction. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(1), 93–117. Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000) Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, prelims and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics, 18(2), 229 œ37. Bubshait, A. A. and Almohawis, S. A. (1994) Evaluating the general conditions of a construction contract. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 133–5. Burnes, B. and Coram, R. (1999) Barriers to partnerships in the public sector: the case of the UK construction industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 4(1), 43–50. Chan, A. nd Chan, A. P. L. (2004) Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), 203–21. Chan, K. L. (1999) Home building quality: collaborative effort in enhancing building quality, in Proceedings of Housing Performance criteria Conference—Better Homes in the Next Millennium, Hong Kong Housing Authority, Hong Kong, 24–25 November, available at http://www. housingauthority. gov. hk/eng/ events/conf/conferen/pdf/echankl. pdf (accessed 12 January 2010). CIRC (2001) Construct for Excellence, Report of the Construction Industry Review Committ ee, Hong Kong, available at http://www. devb-wb. gov. k/FileManager/EN/ archives/rpt_construction_ind_review_committee/reporte. pdf (accessed 12 January 2010). Eaton, D. , Akbiyikli, R. and Dickinson, M. (2006) An evaluation of the stimulants and impediments to innovation with PFI/PPP projects. Construction Innovation, 6(2), 63–77. Egbu, C. O. (2004) Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organisational innovations in the construction industry: an examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 301–15. El-Mashaleh, M. , O’Brien, W. J. and London, K. (2001) Envelopment methodology to measure and compare subcontractor productivity at the ? m level, in Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 6–8 August. Errasti, A. , Beach, R. , Oyarbide, A. and Santos, J. (2007) A process for developing par tnerships with subcontractors in the construction industry: an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 250–6. Fenn, P. (2006) Con? ict management and dispute resolution, in Lowe, D. and Leiringer, R. (eds) Commercial Management of Projects, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 234–69. Fogarty, T. (1994) Public accounting experience: the in? uence of demographic and organisational attributes. Managerial Auditing Journal, 9(7), 12–20. Goodwin, R. S. C. (1993) Skills required of effective project managers. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(3), 217–26. HKQAA (2007) Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency Buyer’s Guide, Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency, Hong Kong, available at http://hkqaa. org/index. html (accessed 12 January 2010). Ingirige, B. and Sexton, M. (2006) Alliance in construction: investigating initiatives and barriers for long-term collaboration. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(5), 521–35. Kadefors, A. (2004) Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175–82. Krima, N. A. Wood, G. , Aouad, G. F. and Natush, Z. (2007) Assessing the performance of Libyan supervising engineers. Construction Management and Economics, 25(5), 509–18. Lam, P. and Wong, F. (2009) Improving building project performance: how buildability benchmarking can help. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 41–52. Li, B. , Akintoye, A. , Edwards, P. J. and Hardcastle, C. (2005) Perceptions of positive and negative factors in? uencing the attractiveness of PPP/PFI procurement for construction projects in the UK. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(2), 125–48. 389 Ling, F. Y. Y. , Low, S. P. , Wang, S. Q. and Lim, H. H. 2009) Key project management practices affecting Singaporean ? rms’ project performance in China. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 59–71. Loosemore, M. , Dainty, A. and Lingard, H. (2003) Human Resource Management in Construction Projects: Strategic and Operational Approaches, Spon Press, London. Love, P. E. D. , Irani, Z. and Edwards, D. F. (2004) A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 43–56. Mbachu, J. (2008) Conceptual framework for the assessment of subcontractors’ eligibility and performance in the co nstruction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26(5), 471–84. Naoum, S. 2003) An overview into the concept of partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 71–6. Newcombe, R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 21(8), 841–8. Norris, W. E. (1990) Margin of pro? t: teamwork. Journal of Management in Engineering, 6(1), 20–8. Odeh, A. M. and Battaineh, H. T. (2002) Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 67–73. OSHC (2003) Occupational safety and health survey of injured employees in Hong Kong, Occupational Safety and Health Council, Research Committee, Hong Kong, available at http://www. oshc. org. k/download/research/2/ 2/Report% 20Injured%20Workers_2003_English. pdf (accessed 12 January 2010). PAH (2008) Project Administration Handbook for Civil Engineering Works, 2008 Edition, Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, available at http:// www. cedd. gov. hk/eng/publications/standards_handbooks/ stan_pah. htm (accessed 12 January 2010). Pheng, L. S. and Hong, S. H. (2005) Strategic quality management for the construction industry. The TQM Magazine, 17(1), 35–53. Pinto, M. B. and Pinto, J. K. (1991) Determinants of crossfunctional cooperation in the project implementation process. Project Management Journal, 22(2), 13–20. Sekaran, U. (1996) Research Method for Business, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Shen, L. Y. and Tam, W. Y. (2002) Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 535–43. Shen, L. Y. , Bao, Q. and Yip, S. L. (2000) Implementing innovative functions in construction project management towards the mission of sustainable environment, in Proceedings of the Millennium Conference on Construction Project Management—Recent Developments and the Way Forward, Hong Kong, 24 October, pp. 77–84. Slaughter, E. S. (1998) Models of construction innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), 226–32. Soetanto, R. , Proverbs, D. G. and Holt, G. D. (2001) Achieving quality construction projects based on harmonious 390 working relationships—clients’ and architects’ perceptions of contractor performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(5), 528–48. Swan, W. and Khalfan, M. A. (2007) Mutual objectives setting for partnering projects in the public sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(2), 119–30. Tam, A. (2002) The Development of the MTR Tseung Kwan O Extension, Hong Kong, MTRC. Tam, C. M. , Tam, V. W. Y. and Tsui, W. S. 2004) Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 563–73. Tam, V. , Bao, Q. and Wu, D. (2001) Experience gained in implementing ISO 14000 in Hong Kong construction industry, in Proceedings of 2001 CRIOCM International Research Symposium on Development of Construction Management, Shenzhen, China, 17–18 November, pp. 99–113. Teo, E. A. L. , Ling, F. Y. Y. and Chong, A. F. W. (2005) Framework for project managers to manage construction safety. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 329–41. Thomas, R. , Marosszeky, M. , Karim, K. , Davis, S. and McGeorge, D. (2002) The importance of project cultures in achieving uality outcomes in construction, in Proceedings Lai and Lam of 10th Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Gramado, Brazil, 2–8 August, available at http://www6. ufrgs. br/norie/ iglc10/papers/98-ThomasEtAl. pdf (accessed 12 January 2010). Thompson, P. J. and Sanders, S. R. (1998) Partnering continuum. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(5), 73–8. Winch, G. (2003) How innovative is construction? Comparing aggregated data on construction innovation and other sectors—a case of apples and pears. Constructi on Management and Economics, 21(6), 651–4. Wong, W. S. and Chan, E. H. W. (2000) Building Hong Kong: Environmental Considerations, The Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Yao, H. Ou, X. and Shen, L. Y. (2006) Review on environmental management performance in construction business, in Shen, L. Y. (ed. ) Key Issues of Sustainable Performance for Construction Projects, SDP Research Group, Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, pp. 55–72. Yeo, K. T. and Ning, J. H. (2002) Integrating supply chain and critical chain concepts in engineer-procure-construct (EPC) projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(4), 253–62. Zhang, Z. H. and Shen, L. Y. (2000) Promoting urbanization towards sustainable development in China. Journal Tsinghua University, 40(1), 2–6. Appendix Table A1 Mauchly’s test of sphericityb Within Subjects Effect Mauchly’s W Approx. chi-square df Sig. Epsilon a Greenhouse-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Factor 0. 049 966. 660 35 0. 000 0. 682 0. 695 Lower-bound 0. 125 Notes: Test the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of signi? cance. b Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: factor. Performance criteria Table A2 Bonferroni test on rating of performance criteria (pairwise comparisons) (I) factor (J) factor Mean difference (I – J) Std. error Sig. a 391 5% confidence interval for differencea Lower bound Upper bound 0. 033 0. 474 0. 507 0. 227 0. 243 0. 219 0. 583 0. 441 0. 534 0. 576 0. 281 0. 300 0. 278 0. 661 0. 502 0. 206 ? 0. 070 ? 0. 052 ? 0. 073 0. 279 0. 140 ? 0. 146 ? 0. 125 ? 0. 145 0. 198 0. 069 0. 073 0. 061 0. 481 0. 337 0. 020 0. 470 0 . 330 0. 498 0. 355 ? 0. 012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 9 ?0. 074 0. 312* 0. 364* 0. 086 0. 102 0. 077 0. 429* 0. 293* 0. 386* 0. 438* 0. 160* 0. 176* 0. 151* 0. 503* 0. 367* 0. 052 ? 0. 225* ? 0. 210* ? 0. 235* 0. 117 ? 0. 019 ? 0. 278* ? 0. 262* ? 0. 287* 0. 065 ? 0. 071 0. 015 ? 0. 009 0. 343* 0. 207* ? 0. 25 0. 327* 0. 191* 0. 352* 0. 216* ? 0. 136* 0. 033 0. 050 0. 044 0. 044 0. 044 0. 044 0. 048 0. 046 0. 046 0. 043 0. 037 0. 038 0. 039 0. 049 0. 042 0. 048 0. 048 0. 049 0. 050 0. 050 0. 049 0. 041 0. 042 0. 044 0. 041 0. 043 0. 018 0. 022 0. 043 0. 040 0. 014 0. 044 0. 043 0. 045 0. 043 0. 038 0. 969 0. 000 0. 000 10. 000 0. 731 10. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000 0. 005 0. 000 0. 000 10. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000 0. 705 10. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 10. 000 10. 000 10. 000 10. 000 0. 000 0. 000 1. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 017 ?0. 182 0. 150 0. 221 ? 0. 054 ? 0. 039 ? 0. 065 0. 275 0. 145 0. 238 0. 300 0. 040 0. 052 0. 25 0. 345 0. 232 ? 0. 101 ? 0. 381 ? 0. 368 ? 0. 396 ? 0. 044 ? 0. 177 ? 0. 410 ? 0. 399 ? 0. 430 ? 0. 069 ? 0. 211 ? 0. 042 ? 0. 079 0. 204 0. 076 ? 0. 069 0. 184 0. 053 0. 206 0. 077 ? 0. 260 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Notes: Based on estimated marginal means. * The mean difference is signi? cant at the 0. 05 level. a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Copyright of Construction Management & Economics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.