Search results
1 – 4 of 4Emmanuel Dele Omopariola, Abimbola Olukemi Windapo, David John Edwards, Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa, Sunday Ukwe-Nya Yakubu and Onimisi Obari
Previous studies have postulated that an advance payment system (APS) positively impacts the contractor's working capital and is paramount to ensuring an efficient and effective…
Abstract
Purpose
Previous studies have postulated that an advance payment system (APS) positively impacts the contractor's working capital and is paramount to ensuring an efficient and effective project cash flow process. However, scant research has been undertaken to empirically establish the cash flow performance and domino effect of APS on project and organisational performance.
Design/methodology/approach
The epistemological design adopted a positivist philosophical stance augmented by deductive reasoning to explore the phenomena under investigation. Primary quantitative data were collected from 504 Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) registered contractors (within the grade bandings 1–9) in South Africa. A five-point Likert scale was utilised, and subsequent data accrued were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM).
Findings
Emergent findings reveal that the mandatory use of an APS does not guarantee a positive project cash flow, an improvement in organisational performance or an improvement in project performance.
Practical implications
The ensuing discussion reveals the contributory influence of APS on positive cash flow and organisational performance, although APS implementation alone will not achieve these objectives. Practically, the research accentuates the need for various measures to be concurrently adopted (including APS) towards ensuring a positive project cash flow and improved organisational and project performance.
Originality/value
There is limited empirical research on cash flow performance and the domino effect of APS on project and organisational performance in South Africa, nor indeed, the wider geographical location of Africa as a continent. This study addresses this gap in the prevailing body of knowledge.
Details
Keywords
Vartenie Aramali, George Edward Gibson, Hala Sanboskani and Mounir El Asmar
Earned value management systems (EVMS), also called integrated project and program management systems, have been greatly examined in the literature, which has typically focused on…
Abstract
Purpose
Earned value management systems (EVMS), also called integrated project and program management systems, have been greatly examined in the literature, which has typically focused on their technical aspects rather than social. This study aims to hypothesize that improving both the technical maturity of EVMS and the social environment elements of EVMS applications together will significantly impact project performance outcomes. For the first time, empirical evidence supports a strong relationship between EVMS maturity and environment.
Design/methodology/approach
Data was collected from 35 projects through four workshops, attended by 31 industry practitioners with an average of 19 years of EVMS experience. These experts, representing 23 organizations, provided over 2,800 data points on sociotechnical integration and performance outcomes, covering projects totaling $21.8 billion. Statistical analyses were performed to derive findings on the impact of technical maturity and social environment on project success.
Findings
The results show statistically significant differences in cost growth, compliance, meeting project objectives and business drivers and customer satisfaction, between projects with high EVMS maturity and environment and projects with poor EVMS maturity and environment. Moreover, the technical and social dimensions were found to be significantly correlated.
Originality/value
Key contributions include a novel and tested performance-driven framework to support integrated project management using EVMS. The adoption of this detailed assessment framework by government and industry is driving a paradigm shift in project management of some of the largest and most complex projects in the U.S.; specifically transitioning from a project assessment based upon a binary approach for EVMS technical maturity (i.e. compliant/noncompliant to standards) to a wide-ranging scale (i.e. 0–1,000) across two dimensions.
Details
Keywords
Oliver Disney, Mattias Roupé, Mikael Johansson and Alessio Domenico Leto
Building information modeling (BIM) is mostly limited to the design phase where two parallel processes exist, i.e. creating 2D-drawings and BIM. Towards the end of the design…
Abstract
Purpose
Building information modeling (BIM) is mostly limited to the design phase where two parallel processes exist, i.e. creating 2D-drawings and BIM. Towards the end of the design process, BIM becomes obsolete as focus shifts to producing static 2D-drawings, which leads to a lack of trust in BIM. In Scandinavia, a concept known as Total BIM has emerged, which is a novel “all-in” approach where BIM is the single source of information throughout the project. This paper's purpose is to investigate the overall concept and holistic approach of a Total BIM project to support implementation and strategy work connected to BIM.
Design/methodology/approach
Qualitative data were collected through eight semi-structured interviews with digitalization leaders from the case study project. Findings were analyzed using a holistic framework to BIM implementation.
Findings
The Total BIM concept was contingent on the strong interdependences between commonly found isolated BIM uses. Four main success factors were identified, production-oriented BIM as the main contractual and legally binding construction document, cloud-based model management, user-friendly on-site mobile BIM software and strong leadership.
Originality/value
A unique case is studied where BIM is used throughout all project phases as a single source of information and communication platform. No 2D paper drawings were used on-site and the Total BIM case study highlights the importance of a new digitalized construction process.
Details
Keywords
Krishna Chauhan, Antti Peltokorpi, Rita Lavikka and Olli Seppänen
Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on…
Abstract
Purpose
Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on personal preferences and the evaluation of direct costs. Researchers and practitioners have debated appropriate measurement systems for evaluating the impacts of prefabricated products and for comparing them with conventional on-site construction practices. The more advanced, cost–benefit approach to evaluating prefabricated products often inspires controversy because it may generate inaccurate results when converting non-monetary effects into costs. As prefabrication may affect multiple organisations and product subsystems, the method used to decide on production methods should consider multiple direct and indirect impacts, including nonmonetary ones. Thus, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria method to evaluate both the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabrication solutions to facilitate decision-making on whether to use prefabricated products.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing upon a literature review, this research suggests a multi-criteria method that combines the choosing-by-advantage approach with a cost–benefit analysis. The method was presented for validation in focus group discussions and tested in a case involving a prefabricated bathroom.
Findings
The analysis indicates that the method helps a project’s stakeholders communicate about the relative merits of prefabrication and conventional construction while facilitating the final decision of whether to use prefabrication.
Originality/value
This research contributes a method of evaluating the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabricated products. The research underlines the need to evaluate the diverse benefits and sacrifices that stakeholder face when considering production methods in construction.
Details