Unveiling relationships between contractor inputs and performance outputs

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to unveil any underlying relationships between contractor inputs and performance outputs. The outcome of the reported study is intended to help identify the inputs, which have more significant impacts on contractor performance outputs and therefore, help formulate more reliable “upfront” (ex ante) performance assessment criteria, hence improving approaches to the contractor‐selection process.

Design/methodology/approach

A case study was conducted on the Performance Assessment Scoring System (PASS) of a large public client in Hong Kong to determine the Pearson product‐moment correlation between the scores of various input assessments and output assessments.

Findings

The findings revealed relationships between some of the input assessment scores and the output results. Emerging as positive, all the discerned relationships confirmed that better outputs did in fact relate well to better inputs.

Research limitations/implications

The PASS system is designed to be very objective, hence the criteria and assessment of inputs may be restricted to easily measurable items. The sample size obtainable was small, but still considered to be adequate for this initial study.

Practical implications

Construction clients could choose to improve their contractor selection processes by identifying and incorporating contractor input factors that are seen to influence performance outputs. Contractors can also improve their outputs by focusing on the identified critical inputs.

Originality/value

Few studies have sought to discern relationships between contractor inputs and their performance outputs through a quantitative approach. This case study provided a methodology, incorporating a statistics‐based approach along with examples and explanations of how inputs can influence contractor outputs.

Citation

Tao, L. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2012), "Unveiling relationships between contractor inputs and performance outputs", Construction Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171211197517