




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (4), pp. 106-1112, November, 
2013. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Measuring the performance of contractors in 
government construction projects in developing 

countries: Uganda’s context 
 

Benon C. Basheka
1
* and Milton Tumutegyereize

2
 

 
1
Uganda Management Institute, Kampala, Uganda.  

2
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public assets Authority, Uganda. *Corresponding author. 

E-mail: bbasheka@yahoo.co.uk. 
 

Accepted 12 June, 2013 
 

Traditionally, the success of projects is measured on time, cost and quality parameters; although, most 
construction projects in Uganda have not performed well on each of these parameters. In this paper, we 
identify important indicators that are useful for measuring contractors’ performance in Uganda’s 
context. The paper develops a simple performance measurement framework for measuring 
performance of contractors. It also identifies a set of challenges faced by contractors in Uganda that 
need the attention of policy makers and those in managerial positions. The findings are original and 
add to the stock of existing knowledge in understanding the unique context of the construction 
industry in developing countries. 

 
Key words: Performance management, construction projects, customer satisfaction. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
There is probably no  sector  that  has significant  impli- and  dynamics  of  most  construction  projects  create  
cations on the daily lives of human creatures than the difficulties for even the best project managers (Nguyen et  
construction industry. It is universally accepted that for al., 2004). This complexity extends to even attempting  
example, the wells and bore holes where human beings measuring  the  sector‟s  performance.  In  Uganda,  con- 
get water as a source of life, the buildings where we live struction  firms  pay  direct  taxes  to  local  and  central  
and work, the roads and bridges we drive on, the utility government  through  the  normal  taxable  incomes  and  
distribution systems we use, the railways, airports, ferries mandatory taxes before participating in public procure-  
and harbours we travel and trade from, dams and power ment  as  provided  by  the  county‟s  procurement  legal  
lines that give us electricity, are all products of this vital regimes. In an indirect way, these firms still pay taxes  
industry. The  construction  industry  accounts  for  a through  the  materials  they  purchase  for  construction  
significant portion of the world‟s gross domestic product.     works in various government projects.  
In the developing world, the construction sector provides Construction  project  development involves numerous  
a substantial  source of  employment  to the majority of parties, various processes, phases and stages of work  
poor citizens of those countries. In this connection, the and  a  great  deal  of  inputs  from  both  the  public  and  
sector offers a sound basis for revenue collections that private sectors with the major aim of bringing the project 
enable governments collect direct and indirect taxes to to a successful conclusion (Takim and Akintoye, 2002).  
provide public services. The level of success in carrying out construction projects  

In developing countries, the biggest customer of  the depends on the quality of management, financial, tech-  
private construction industry is the government (Okpala nical and organizational  performance of the respective  
and Aniekwu, 1988). The intrinsic complexity,  uncertainty parties. This needs taking into account the associated risk 

 



  
 
 
 
Table 1. Showing construction real GDP growth rates, 2003/04 to 2007/08. 
 
 FY 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 
 % contribution 10.0 14.9 23.2 14.3 6.0 
 
Source: Uganda Background to the Budget 2008/09. 

 
 
 
management, business environment, economic and poli-
tical stability. The finished product in any industry 
requires satisfying a certain standard to provide customer 
satisfaction and value for money (VFM).  

In the construction industry, achieving quality of the 
finished product is no less than in any other industry 
(Chan and Tam, 2000). A construction project is 
acknowledged as successful when it is completed on 
time, within budget, and in accordance with specifications 
and in accordance to stakeholder‟s satisfaction (Takim 
and Akintoye, 2002). In the same argument, Teo and 
Ofori (1999) inform us that the main rationale and 
impetus for the development and implementation of 
procurement arrangements for construction projects is to 
increase the likelihood of the participants in the 
construction process to satisfy the client's objectives. 
However, as recently observed by Eshassi et al. (2009) 
the business environment for the construction sector 
continues to change rapidly. In such circumstances the 
changes from the environment affect the way contractor‟s 
performance is measured.  

In South Africa for example, Hanson et al. (2003) in-
forms us of several factors including conflict, poor 
workmanship, and incompetence of contractors identified 
as dissatisfaction factors negatively affecting project 
performance). Relatedly, a study by Mbachu and Nkando 
(2007) in South Africa established that quality and 
attitude to service were some of the factors that affected 
delivery of projects. Such contextual analysis enables us 
have unique examples for understanding the measure-
ment challenges for contractor performance.  

In Uganda, the liberalization of the economy since the 
1990s promoted development in all sectors. Our interest 
in this paper, however, is directed to the building and 
construction sectors. In line with the requirements of the 
development partners, the Government of Uganda 
reformed its road sub-sector in an effort to accelerate its 
economic growth. In the past 10 years, a lot of emphasis 
was placed on the development and maintenance of the 
national road network. The Government‟s commitment in 
this effort was manifested by increased funding to the sub 
sector to a tune of Ushs 1.1 trillion budgeted for the FY 
2008/2009. This sector is estimated to have grown by an 
average of 5.7% per annum for the last 10 years with 
benefits to the entire economy. The country‟s economy 
has more than doubled; estimated to have had an 
average growth of about 6.0% per annum. The country‟s 
GDP series which estimate the real size of the economy 
(measured at factor cost) indicates an 8.9% p.a estimate 
during FY2007/08 compared to a 7.4% in FY2006/07. 

 
 
 
The contribution of the construction industry to the real 
GDP growth is shown in Table 1.  

In line with the subject of procurement, Rwelamila et al. 
(1999) informs us that most African construction practi-
tioners adopt procurement approaches, which do not 
consider local factors, leading to inconsistent and 
unpredictable outcomes. He suggests that the poor con-
struction performance in most African countries emanates 
from lack of adequate consideration for cultural issues of 
project management parties (Rwelamila et al., 1999). 
Uganda has not had a known construction policy for 
several years. Consequently, for a long time, the private 
sector represented by an association of contrac-tors [the 
Uganda National Association of Building and Civil 
Engineering Contractors (UNABCEC)] has been 
pressurizing government to put in place such a policy to 
spell out the required standards and processes for an 
effective construction industry. In return, the government 
has now accepted such pressures and a policy now 
approved by cabinet awaits Parliamentary approval. With 
the policy in place standards to bring value for money in 
construction services has received significant attention. 
Contractors will be expected to follow prescribed proce-
dures as well as their services to the required standards 
and quality; failure of which would attract sanctions. 
 
 
Purpose of the study 
 
In the last few years, multiple works about supply chain 
performance management have appeared in the 
specialized literature, although this discipline is relatively 
recent (Saiz et al., 2007). Since the late 1980s, perfor-
mance management in government has received increa-
sing interest fostered by the „re-inventing government‟ 
movement (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Performance 
measurement has been viewed as critical for realizing the 
short and long terms goals of an organization. Its results 
can be used by decision makers to improve programme 
performance.  

Increasing the efficiency of public services has been 
promoted by new public management theorists. Due to 
this new approach to running government business, 
cutting through red tape, minimizing public waste and 
value for money have been important drivers for the 
introduction of performance measurement in the public 
sector as suggested to us by Greiling, (2006). While 
studies have been done to measure the performance of 
the entire public sector machinery, limited scholarly 
studies have been done to the study of contractor 

Basheka and Tumutegyereize               106 



107       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
performance and an understanding of the challenges that 
contractors themselves encounter in delivering their 
crucial services. In this study, we sought to undertake 
such a study as a way of exploring the measurement 
indicators for the performance of contractors in Uganda‟s 
context. Secondly, our study was driven by the desire to 
identify the industry-specific challenges that affect con-
tractors and presumably limit them from offering quality 
services. In this regard, our study aimed at providing 
answers to two important questions: namely (1) what 
critical performance measurement variables should be 
considered for assessing contractors‟ performance in 
Uganda? and; (2) what major challenges are faced by 
contractors in Uganda? By answering such questions, a 
ground work for subsequent empirical studies on this 
sector would be provided to the academic community but 
also lessons of application to the practicing managers will 
be discerned. 
 
 
LITERATURE 
 
Neely (2005) tells us that performance measurement is 
the process of quantifying the efficiency and effective-
ness of actions. For a performance measurement system 
to be regarded as a useful management process, it 
should act as a mechanism that enables assessment to 
be made, provides useful information and detects pro-
blems, allowing judgment against certain predetermined 
criteria to be performed. More importantly, the system 
should be reviewed and updated as an ongoing process 
(Ong and The, 2008).  

With the increased interest in performance measure-
ment, a systematic shift of emphasis from financial per-
formance measures to non-financial measures of 
performance has emerged quite significantly. Traditional 
accounting and financially-oriented performance mea-
surement systems are no longer adequate to evaluate the 
firm‟s performance. Traditionally performance mea-
surement involved management accountants through the 
use of budgetary control and the development of purely 
financial indicators such as return on investment 
(Chenhall, 1997). As Busi and Bititci, (2006) ably observe 
performance measurement has developed into a relatively 
broad body of literature to cover both financial and non-
financial measures but the areas of under-development 
still exist. Measuring performance of government should 
draw a considerable amount of attention from profes-
sional associations, scholars and practitioners as 
suggested to us by Holzer and Kloby, (2005).  

For construction projects, there have been different 
measurement indicators. The generally perceived factors 
that influence quality performance can be grouped under 
the headings of client, project, project environment, 
project team leaders, project procedures and project 
management procedures (Chan and Tam, 2000). 
Research has documented that sophisticated and 
specialized clients having a better chance of success are 

 
 
 
 
critical variables. The nature of the client (whether from 
the public or private sector), the clarity of the project 
mission, their competency in terms of ability to brief, 
make decisions, and define roles, have been found to 
significantly contribute to the quality of a project 
(Naoum,1991). According to Walker (1994), project 
scope, nature of the project and complexity of the project-
(the project characteristics)- also have an influence on 
the performance of projects; in addition to the 
environment in which a project operates.  
Unlike in Uganda, other developing countries have 
witnessed a number of studies that have examined the 
factors affecting the performance of projects. For 
example, Farid and El-Sayegh (2006), gives us 
interesting findings on the significant factors causing 
delays in the United Arab Emirate (UAE) construction 
industry. The study reports shortage of skills of 
manpower, poor supervision and poor site management, 
unsuitable leadership, shortage and breakdown of 
equipment as some of the major causes of delays in 
construction projects. In a recent study of the factors 
affecting the performance of construction projects in the 
Gaza Strip, Enshassi et al. (2009), reports to us a large 
number of related performance factors such as time, cost, 
quality, client satisfaction, client changes, business 
performance, health and safety, productivity and 
innovation, and environmental characteristics, among 
others. In a study of the Thai highway contractors, 
Prasertrungruang and Handikusumo (2007) observed 
that the construction business is a sector that relies 
primarily on high utilization of machinery. Further, Day 
and Benjamin, 1991, contend that equipment has long 
been considered as one of the key factors for improving 
contractors‟ capability in performing their work efficiently 
and effectively. However, contractors usually face diffi-
culties in getting all the equipments they need, especially 
capital investments, in the acquisition phase, due to 
financial constraints. It is estimated that the procurement 
of equipment constitutes up to 36% of the total 
construction project cost (Yeo and Ning, 2006). As the 
project progresses to the implementation phase, the 
problems of contractors also change. One of the major 
problems faced during this phase is the high breakdown 
rates of the equipment and accidents from unskilled 
operator abuse as well as poor training on equipment use 
(Edwards and Nicholas, 2002; Gann and Senkar, 1998). 
Other problems in the subsequent phases relate to 
maintenance and determining the economic life of the 
equipments before their disposal.  

While these factors may be regarded in the context of a 
particular study, they can be applicable in other contexts. 
Naoum, (1991) believes that the changes in the environ-
ment can create uncertainty not only regarding prices but 
also in terms of investment in the work of the organi-
zation, which will affect the demand for the building. In 
this same debate, the procedures adapted during the 
construction process, like the form and method of 
tendering, are key variables for quality performance 



Basheka and Tumutegyereize               108 
 
 

 
(Serpell and Alarcon, 1998). Together with a project 
team, a group of construction professionals and person-
nel from one or more organizations can combine to fulfil 
the necessary design, detailing and construction func-
tions comprising the construction project that is committed 
to their professional work ethics and construction projects 
and can achieve excellent performance. Beale and 
Freeman (1991) believe that the performance of the 
project team on construction projects will, to a great 
extent, depend on the skills and experience of several 
key project leaders. 
 
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
The methodology adopted in the study was two-fold. Firstly, there 
was administration of a self administered questionnaire to a group 
of construction professionals. These professionals included engi-
neers who prepare solicitation documents (SDs) for construction 
works, supervise works and certify completion of works and the rest 
of these engineers were managers and policy makers under the 
central and local government levels but coordinated by the Uganda 
National Roads Authority. In this category, 133 respondents out of 
the expected 167 randomly selected respondents returned the 
usable survey questionnaire suggesting a response rate of 76.9%. 
The returned questionnaires were checked for completeness before 
quantitative data was entered into the SPSS package, cleaned and 
then subjected to preliminary analysis partially check for outlier 
variables. The study tested for the reliability of the data using 
Cronbach alpha coefficient which returned a value of 0.85. We used 
exploratory factor analysis to determine content and construct 
validity.  

Secondly, we conducted in-depth interviews with the repre-
sentatives of the Uganda National Association of Building and Civil 
Engineering Contractors (UNABCEC), as well as Ministry of Works 
and Transport officials, to get their own view of the performance of 
the construction sector in Uganda. In this way, we benefited from 
methodological triangulation and validation of results which had 
been obtained from the first categories upon whom the question-
naire was administered.  

The first set of results for this study was generated from 133 res-
pondents. In terms of gender, 103 (77.4%) were male respondents 
compared to only 30 (22.6%) who were female respondents. This 
information reflects the long perceived gender differences between 
men and women. Traditionally, the construction and engineering 
professions have been the dominated by males as opposed to 
females which resorted to social science and education subjects. It 
is only in the late 1990s when the Government of Uganda initiated a 
deliberate gender affirmative policy, which has seen majority of the 
females now join traditionally male dominated disciplines.  

Our study involved 21 (15.8%) of the respondents as having 
been in top management positions, compared to 84 (63.2%) in 
middle management and 28 (21.1%) in lower management 
positions. The respondents had different levels of experience in the 
construction sector. For example, of the 133 study respondents, 65 
(48.9%) had experience in central government construction sector, 
35 (26.3%) in the local government construction sector while 32 
(24.1%) had their experience in both the public and private sectors. 
 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Descriptive analysis Results 
 
Before the multivariate techniques (factor  analysis),  we 

 

  
 
 

 
examined the descriptive results for 20 variables using 
means and standard deviations to get the normality of 
our data. We tested for reliability coefficient and the 
questionnaire results were found to be reliable (alpha = 
0.85) (Table 2).  

Nineteen variables were used to measure respondents‟ 
perceptions on the performance of contractors in the 
construction sector of Uganda. A comparative analysis of 
the results for each of the items presented in Table 2 
reveals important information concerning the strength of 
each of the performance measurement indicator as 
related by the study respondents. Items with a high mean 
score suggest key areas where contractors‟ performance 
in the context of Uganda is satisfactory and those areas 
with low means suggest the lowest evaluation by the 
respondents and in which contractors in Uganda need 
improvement. For example, one of the items with low 
mean score is on contractors providing adequate training 
to their employees as a strategy of ensuring success of 
the construction projects.  

When respondents‟ opinions were sought on the extent 
to which contractors in Uganda actually provided training 
to their employees, it was found that the majority of 
respondents disagreed that this was the practice in the 
construction sector in Uganda. It was found, for example, 
that of the 102 male respondents, 25 (24.5%) strongly 
disagreed that contractors provided training to their 
employees and 49 (48.0%) disagreed suggesting that 
overall, 74 (72.5%) of the male respondents disagreed 
that contractors were providing training to their 
employees. Of the 30 female respondents, 22(73.3%) of 
the respondents also disagreed. This contradicts the 
findings of Beale and Freeman (1991) who confirmed 
that the performance of the project team on construction 
projects will to a great extent depend on the skills and 
experience of several key project leaders and once the 
construction firms in Uganda do not invest in improving 
the skills of their employees, through training, the 
performance of construction firms will remain poor as 
demonstrated by the numerous client complaints.  

Respondents who had long experience also shared the 
above perception. This was for both respondents who 
had working experience at the central and local 
government levels. The study found that of the respon-
dents who had less than 5 years of working experience, 
30 (75%) believed that contractors were not providing 
adequate training to their employees. 25 (62.5%) 
respondents with working experience of between 5 and 
10 years, did not support this fact while 44 (77.5%) 
respondents with more than 10 years of experience, also 
disagreed. This was a high number of the 53 
respondents who were in this category. 
 
 
Factor analysis results 
 
After examination of the descriptive results, we applied 
exploratory factor analysis to identify some of the most 



     

  Table 2. Descriptive results for the performance measurement indicators.    
       

   Performance measurement items M SD N 
   Contractors‟ ability to do the right job first time 3.28 1.35 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to adopt to changes and meet needs 3.28 1.08 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to provide their own resources 3.10 1.20 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to complete work on time 3.10 1.16 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to identify problems and deficiencies 3.37 1.16 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to quickly correct deficiencies 2.68 1.11 133 
   Contractors providing adequate training to their employees 2.15 0.97 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to keep the environment clean 2.83 1.14 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to keep clients‟ facilities clean 2.95 1.12 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to keep work place safe 2.44 1.10 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to avoid wastage of water 2.65 1.17 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to minimize interruptions of  operations 3.01 1.06 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to use high quality materials 3.02 1.13 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to restore operations after an emergency 3.04 1.12 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to handle hazardous materials 2.68 1.08 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to adopt to new methods of work 3.20 1.16 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to work as team players 3.33 1.09 133 
   Contractors being reasonable in contract changes 3.08 1.04 133 
   Contractors‟ ability to provide correct documentation and invoices 3.27 1.09 133 
 
 

 
important performance indicators critical for measuring 
the performance of contractors in Uganda. In Table 3, we 
present the results from this factor analysis computation.  

Enshassi et al. (2009), in a recent study of the factors 
affecting the performance of construction projects in the 
Gaza Strip, provided a useful categorization of critical 
performance measures for construction projects. Their 
analysis suggested that the factors which affect con-
tractors‟ performance, included cost, time, quality, pro-
ductivity, client satisfaction, regular and community 
satisfaction, people, healthy and safety, innovation and 
learning as well as environmental. In our study, the factor 
analysis results loaded on five principal components. The 
strength of each item in a factor component is determined 
by its factor loading.  

The first principal component had five contractor 
performance measurement items with the lowest factor 
loading being 0.51 and the highest being 0.70. All the 
items that loaded on this component had a percentage 
variance of 27.5%. We noted that all the items that 
loaded on the component relate to the quality dimensions 
clients expect from the contractors on a construction 
project. The study thus concluded that the quality factors 
are the most important measures of contractors‟ 
performance in Uganda. These results confirmed the 
findings by Enshassi et al. (2009) where quality related 
factors were found to be important measures of contrac-
tors‟ performance. The most important quality perfor-
mance indicators in our current study include: 
 
1. Contractors‟ ability to provide training to their staff as  a 

 
 

 
short and long term strategy of meeting client expec-
tations.  
2. The contractors‟ ability to identify problems and then 
making correction of deficiencies (following specifi-
cations).   
3. The contractors‟ ability to safeguard client‟s facilities 
and assets.   
4. The ability of the contractors to keep equipments clean 
(quality of equipment).  

 
Table 3 results indicate that the second component had 

three major items with a total variance of 7.8% and their 
factor loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.70. The ability of 
the contractors to do the right job at the right time, ability 
to provide their own employees and resources, whenever 
need arose, and their ability to adapt to the changes and 
meeting clients‟ needs, were identified as the critical 
performance measures under this component. These 
factors combined two items under client satisfaction 
measures and environmental characteristics suggested 
by the Gaza study.  
The third principle component with a total variance of 
7.0% had four items and these were found to be cost 
measures of contractors‟ performance. The study found 
that in Uganda‟s context, the cost related factors were 
the ability of the contractors to efficiently use materials, to 
work as team players (efficiency of human resources), to 
manage hazardous materials (since their mismana-
gement would have cost implications) and to keep the 
workplace clean.  

The  last  principle  component  in   our  study  was 

109       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



 Basheka and Tumutegyereize               110   

Table 3. Factor analysis results for the performance measurement indicators.       
        

 Component items 1 2 3 4 5  
 Contractors providing training to their employees 0.70      

 Contractors having ability to correct deficiencies in their work 0.61      

 Contractors having ability to safeguard client‟s facilities and assets 0.60      

 Contractors having ability to identify problems and deficiencies 0.53      

 Contractors having ability to keep their equipments clean 0.51      

 Contractors having the ability to do the right job the first time  0.70     

 Contractors having ability to provide their employees and resources  0.69     

 Contractors having ability to adapt to changes and meet client needs  0.69     

 Contractors having the ability to efficiently use materials   0.78    

 Contractors having the ability to work as team players   0.70    

 Contractors having ability to manage hazardous materials   0.56    

 Contractors having ability to keep work place clean   0.54    

 Contractors having ability to use high quality supplies    0.69   

 Contractors having an ability to restore normal operations after an emergency    0.68   

 Contractors having ability to minimize interruptions to client‟s operations    0.54   

 Contractors being reasonable when it comes to contract changes     0.75  

 Contractors having ability to present correct invoices     0.55  

 Percentage variance 27.5% 7.8% 7.0% 6.4% 5.9%  
 
(KMO = 0.801, Chi-Square = 636.658, sig.0.000). 
 
 
 

Table 4. The most important measures of project performance in Uganda. 
 

 Performance measurement variables Factor loading 
 Contractors‟ ability to use resources efficiently 0.78 
 Contractors being reasonable when it comes to contract changes 0.75 
 Contractors‟ ability to work as team  players 0.70 
 Contractors providing training to their employees 0.70 
 Contractors having the ability to do the right job the first time 0.70 
 Contractors‟ ability to use high quality supplies 0.69 

 
 

 
associated with environmental measures of contractors‟ 
performance. On the basis of these components, we 
extracted the most important measures of contractor 
performance in Uganda as illustrated in Table 4.  

From the analysis of the results, we confirmed that 
there are a number of key indicators for measuring the 
performance of contractors in Uganda. A deeper analysis 
of the emerging results suggest that the factors which 
should be considered for performance measurement of 
contractors in Uganda should have a set of quality, cost, 
capacity, ethical and environmental related performance 
indicators (Figure 1).  

Contractor performance is judged based on their (i) 
ability to use resources efficiently, (ii) concern on being 
reasonable during contract modifications, (iii) ability to 
structure and work with teams, (iv) ability to continuously 
improve their internal employee capabilities through 
training, (v) do the right job at the right time, and (vi) use 
of high quality of supplies and materials. These are 

 
 

 
expected of all contractors despite the set of challenges 
such contractors may face in growing economy like 
Uganda (Figure 2).  

Our study found that the industry has not yet been 
organized to form a Registration Board like is the case in 
other East African Counties such as Tanzania. However, 
there is an association of contractors that regulates the 
members (Uganda National Association of Building and 
Civil Engineering Contractors-UNABCEC), while the 
professionals in the industry are respectively regulated 
through the Engineers‟, Quantity Surveyors‟ and Archi-
tects‟ Registration Boards. There is the Uganda Asso-
ciation of Consulting Engineers (UACE), which is an 
association that brings engineering consultants and 
consulting firms in Uganda under one umbrella. Through 
this association, members are able to interact and map 
out solutions to problems facing their industry, carry out 
joint research and regulate their profession. This helps in 
keeping the quality of engineering work at its best. The 



111       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1. Contractors‟ performance framework in Uganda. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2. Contractor performance. 
 
 
 
biggest mission of UACE is to develop and promote the 
consulting industry in Uganda. UACE also helps member 
consultants to keep current in technology. The association 
works hand in hand with other technical and engineering 
bodies to improve the state and to promote the use of 
technology in the country. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Conclusion 
 
The purpose of this study was to examine the key 
performance measurement variables for the construction 
industry in Uganda. It was also to identify the challenges 
faced by contractors in Uganda. In this paper, the key 



Basheka and Tumutegyereize               112 
 
 

 
performance measurement variables in evaluating the 
performance of contractors in Uganda have been exami-
ned. A number of opinions from the different stake-
holders, knowledgeable in the sector, on the challenges 
faced by contractors were assessed and a framework 
matrix on the fundamental challenges faced by contrac-
tors developed. It is our contention that the measurement 
of performance of contractors in a sector which is critical 
for the country‟s development is essential for policy 
making, a managerial decision making and, above all, 
improving the performance of the sector. The paper has 
discussed key themes of interest to the managers of the 
construction firms, the client organisations and the policy 
makers in government. Improvements in the performance 
of the construction sector require the commitment and 
involvement of each of the stakeholders. Our results are 
original and appeal to both local and international 
audiences. These results confirm the international lite-
rature on the critical performance measurement variables 
within the construction sector. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Beale P, Freeman M (1991). „Successful project execution: a model‟  

Project Manage. J. 22(4):23-30.  
Busi M, Bititci US (2006). „Collaborative performance management: 

present gaps and future research‟, Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 
55(1): 7-25.  

Chan APC, Tam CM (2000). Factors affecting the quality of building 
projects in Hong Kong, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 17(4/5):423-441.  

Day DA, Benjamin NBH (1991). Construction equipment guide, 2
nd

 
Edition, Wiley, New York, N.Y. 

Edwards DJ,  Nicholas J (2002). „The state of health and safety in the  
UK construction industry with a focus on plant operators‟, Struct. 
Survey 20(2):78-87.  

Faridi AS, El-Sayegh SM (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the 
UAE Construction industry; J. Construction Manage. Econ. 24:1167-
1176.  

Gann D, Senkar P (1998). „Construction skills training for the next 
Millennium‟, Construction Manage. Econ. 16(5):569-80.  

Greatbanks R, Tapp D (2007). The Impact of balanced score cards in a 
public sector environment: Empirical evidence from Dunedin City 
Council, Newzealand, Int. J. Produc. Oper. Manage. 27(8):846- 873.  

Greiling D (2006). Performance Measurement: a remedy for increasing 
the Efficiency of public services? Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 
55(6):448-465. 

 

  
 
 

 
Holzer M, Kloby K (2005) "Public performance measurement: An 

assessment of the state-of-the-art and models for citizen 
participation", Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 54(7):517-532.  

Mbachu J, Nkando R (2007). Factors constraining successful building 
project implementation in South Africa, Construction Manage. Econ. 
25(1):39-54.  

Naoum SG (1991). Procurement and Project Performance: A 
comparison of Management and Traditional contracting. Occasional 
paper No.45. Ascot: CIOB.  

Neely A (2005). "The evolution of performance measurement research: 
Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the 
next", Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 25(12):1264-1277.  

Nguyen DL,. Ogunlana SO, Xuan Lan TD (2004). A study on project 
success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam, 
Engineering, Construction Architectural Manage. 11(6):404-413.  

Okpala DC, Aniekwu AN (1988). „Causes of high costs of construction 
of in Nigeria‟, J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 114( 2):233-244.  

Osborne D, Gaebler T (1992). Reinventing Government: How the 
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. 405 pages.  

Prasertrungruang T, Handikusumo BHW (2007). Heavy Equipment 
Management practices and problems in Thai highway contractors, 
Engineering, Construction Architectural Manage. 14(3): 228-241.  

Rwelamila PD, Talukhaba AA, Ngowi AB (1999). „Tracing the African 
project failure syndrome: The significance of “ubuntu”‟, Eng.  
Construction Architectural Manage. 6(4):335-346.  

Serpell A, Alarcon LF (1998). Construction process improvement 
methodology for construction projects, Int. J. Proj. Manage. 
16(4):215-221.  

Takim R, Akintoye A (2002). “A conceptual model for successful 
construction project performance”, paper presented at the Second  
International Postgraduate Research Conference in Built and Human 
Environment, University of Salford, Salford, 11-12 April.  

Teo S, Ofori J (1999). Management Contracting Procurement Practice 
in Singapore, CIB W55 & W65 Joint Triennial Symposium Customer 
Satisfaction: A focus for research & practice Cape Town: 5-10 
September available online at: http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/ 
CIB3493.pdf-accessed on 9th December 2009.  

Walker DHT (1994). „An investigation into factors that determine 
building Construction time performance‟, PhD thesis, Royal  
Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne.  

Yeo KT, Ning JH (2006). „ Managing uncertainty in major equipment 
procurement in engineering project‟, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 171(1):123-
134. 
 


