Microsoft Word - ETASR_V11_N1_pp6668-6673 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6668 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction Projects in Kenya Magdaline Mbugua Department of Sustainable Materials Research and Technology Centre Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Nairobi, Kenya mbuguamagdaline@gmail.com P. Ajwang' Department of Sustainable Materials Research and Technology Centre Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Nairobi, Kenya ajwang@agr.jkuat.ac.ke Matthew M. O. Winja Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Nairobi, Kenya matthewwinja@yahoo.com Abstract-Building construction projects suffer from many dangers such as cost and time overruns. A major reason for the failure of such projects is the lack of measurements of the construction performance. There is usually a disparity of judgment among the stakeholders when it comes to the perception of failure and success of a building construction project because it is based on personal indices. The aim of this study is to identify and rank the key performance indicators in their relative importance as a way to assist in building construction performance. A thorough literature review was conducted and 10 key performance indicators were identified. A questionnaire survey and interviews were used to collect data and the results were analyzed using the analytical hierarchical process, pair-wise comparison. As a result, the highest prioritized key performance indicator was safety, followed by time effectiveness and client satisfaction. The least prioritized key performance indicator was the environmental performance. The results of this paper may serve as a guideline in improving building construction projects. Keywords-key performance indicators; constrruction performance measurements; building; construction performance management I. INTRODUCTION Performance measurement is a continuous and systematic process of obtaining valid information about the performance of a project and of identifying the factors that affect performance while project performance management uses the generated information [1]. Performance measurement is the heart of a ceaseless improvement and it is utilized for many reasons including decision making, strategic reasons, and benchmarking [2, 3]. Traditionally, the main aspects of construction project performance measurements are cost, schedule, and quality [4]. This is not efficient and inevitably it led to a shift to a modern way of measuring performance. This has been the focus of research since the 1980’s, where increased globalized competition forced companies to consider non-traditional measures [5]. The main reason for the fails of traditional performance is that it lags indicators, because it reports on decisions and results that cannot be improved. The performance should be identified with the ongoing basis also known as ‘Leading’ [5]. Authors in [6] emphasize on the need of balancing both financial and non-financial measures in the construction industry and the need to shift from product- oriented performance to process-oriented performance. Globally, the construction industry is generally considered to underperform when compared to other industries [6]. The lack of general agreement on measuring construction performance makes it hard for the construction top management to make the best decisions on the project [7]. This affects projects in Kenya as well, as Kenyan construction projects seldom go according to the implementation plan [8]. A project faces enormous challenges in quality assurance, cost, schedule, environmental performance, and safety [9]. Despite the high quality of training of consultants in the building industry and regulation of the industry in major urban areas in Kenya, construction projects do not always meet key performance goals. This is unfortunate and failure to try to resolve this key issue, may lead to more poorly performed construction building projects [10]. Authors in [6] recommend the implementation of a performance management framework which will motivate and assist the management team to achieve project success. The aim of this research is to identify and rank the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) according to their priority weight. It can assist in bringing a standard performance measurement framework for building construction projects in Kenya. II. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Performance assessment remains a major problem of the construction sector [11]. Over the years, many industries have come up with effective ways to measure performance [12]. Thus, these methods have been tried to the construction industry. Construction is a complex organization that involves many people, hence it is assured that the degree of coordination is high when compared to other industries [13]. Performance indicators consist one of the ways to measure the performance in an industry. According to [6], most companies assume the financial measure as indicator which is a mistake because it only indicates the results of the past, it indicates when but not how. Indicators should also include non-financial measures such as employees’ motivation, leadership, and many others. Corresponding author: Magdaline Mbugua Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6669 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … According to [14], the performance indicators are defined as factors that have a major influence on the success or failure of a construction project and should be identified in order to improve the project performance. They are also referred as critical success or failure factors. The criteria in which project success/failure has often been assessed have also been called key performance indicators or dimensions [15]. Models developed to measure construction project performance are the integrated performance index, and the KPI. Good examples of KPI are: A. Balance Scorecard Balance scorecard measures the performance with the main indicators which might affect the financial status of the company: customer service, internal and business processes, etc. [16]. B. European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model This excellence model assists in understanding and managing the complexity in business. It gives a cause-and- effect relationship between what the companies do and what results they will achieve [17]. EFQM is based on 8 concepts which are meant to improve the business performance: Result orientation, customer focus, leadership and constancy of purpose, management by processes and facts, people development and involvement, continuous innovation, learning and improvement, partnership development, and corporate social responsibility [18]. C. Analytical Hierachial Process (AHP) AHP is a multi-criteria decision-making method that was originally developed by Thomas Saaty. It is a tool with numerous applications in areas of planning and management [38]. AHP uses a pairwise comparison to generate weightings for criteria instead of listing and ranking their level of importance. AHP prioritizes the KPIs of a framework [38]. D. Literature Summary KPIs are meant to be objective and can be easily measured. Identification of the suitable quantitative interpretations and requirements on all KPIs could reduce the degree of subjectivity and biasness [7]. It should also involve different stakeholders as different stakeholders value different indicators depending on their interests in the project [6]. Authors in [6] describe the construction industry as project-based and construction project managers need to devise mechanisms to measure performance. The identified KPIs could be combined to come up with a comprehensive model. This includes examining various indicators and evaluating their impact on performance. The proposed index could be customized depending on different building projects [7]. Several studies have been conducted to come up with KPIs in construction performance. Most common used indicators have been compiled into a list in the current study. These indicators were discussed among construction professional experts with more than 15 years of experience to check the relevance of each KPI in the Kenyan building construction. Some of the KPIs became performance metrics to the main KPI. The concluded list of the 10 KPIs is shown in Table I. TABLE I. LITERATURE SUMMARY OF 10 KPIs AFFECTING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN KENYA. KPIs Performance metrics Sources Cost Change in cost planning. Effectiveness of predictability of cost planning. [19-24] Time Construction time. Construction speed. On time completion. [7, 19-24] Quality Defects. Quality control. Quality assurance. Rework factor. [7, 19-24] Safety Annual accident rate. Lost time accidents [19-23, 26] Client satisfaction Client’s responsiveness. Proper communication. [19-23, 25] Environment Environmental protection measures. Energy saving. Extended building life cycle. Increased user comfort. Waste management. Environment friendly equipment. [19, 20, 23, 27, 28] Team satisfaction Clear goals. Knowledgeable leadership. Appropriate management of internal conflicts. Effective communication. Matching employees to areas of expertise. [20, 22, 23, 29-32] Project leadership Leader’s professional qualification. Leadership style. Technical skills. Managerial skills. High employee relationship. Management of stakeholders Communication and collaboration. [6, 19-23, 33, 34] Productivity Labor productivity. Machine productivity. Materials consumption. Utilization of advanced technology. Regular equipment maintenance. [20, 22, 23, 28, 35] Proper training and recruitment Availability of skilled manpower. Knowledge and experience. [11, 19, 22, 23, 36] III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The main objective of this research was to develop a performance index for construction building projects in Kenya. The specific objectives were: • Identify and rank the KPIs in Kenya building construction industry. • Integrate and quantify the KPIs in Kenya building construction Industry. IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The distributed questionnaire was based on three sections: • The respondent’s profile, i.e. type of organization they work for and the respondent’s position in the firm. • The respondents' construction experience and their performing measurement tools. • Measuring and prioritizing the KPIs in building construction project. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6670 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … A pilot study was done with 5 experienced professionals with 5-10 years of experience in construction industry and then the questionnaire was revised to reduce the required respond time. Afterwards, it was distributed to the respondents via email, WhatsApp and messages. The target population of this study was professionals in the building construction industry with at least 5 years of experience on Kenya building construction firms. The sample size of this research was based on the number of the registered professionals in Kenya. According to [36], a construction project involves developers, contractors, consultants, and sub-contractors. The sampling method used was random stratified sampling, focused on contractors, consultants, and developers. The sample size was determined by the equation in [37] that provided 95% confidence level. The sample size was found to be 172 and the random stratum sampling was 40%, 20%, and 40% of the sample size, for consultants, developers, and contractors respectively. A developer is considered as a professional company who develops a land through building construction and sells the outcome for a profit. Consultants include construction managers, architects, structural engineers, quantity surveyors, and landscape architects. The pair-wise comparison and the linear Saaty scale on the KPIs [38] were used. The printed questionnaire was filled by 13 respondents while 49 completed the online questionnaire making a total of 62 respondents, representing a response rate of 36% which is accepted and sufficient for research [39]. The data collected were 58.26%, 29.57%, and 12.17% for consultants, contractors, and developers respectively. Incomplete pair-wise comparison occurred as some of the respondents missed a comparison or stopped filling the questionnaire when they were almost done. This did not affect the study as [40] proved that one can delete 50% of comparisons with no significantly affecting the results. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Construction Completion within the Proposed Time and Cost The data collected show that 43% of the construction stakeholders indicated that all their building projects were completed within the proposed time and cost while 54% of them indicated the opposite, as shown in Table II. B. Construction Performance Tools As can be seen in Table III, 59% of the respondents indicated that they use performance measurement tools and 41% did not. The performance measurement tools include earned value-based management, project management software, proposed cost vis-à-vis the actual cost of the project, proposed time the vis-à-vis actual time of the project, contractor experience, and client satisfaction. TABLE II. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETIONS WITHIN PROPOSED TIME AND COST RESULTS Were the construction completed within the proposed time and cost? Frequency Percentage Yes 46 42.99% No 58 54.21% Can't remember 3 2.80% TABLE III. CONSTRUCITON PERFORMANCE TOOLS RESULTS Response Frequency Percentage Yes 61 59.22% No 42 40.78% C. An Evaluation of Priorities of Key Performance Indicators The priority of KPIs was informed by the aggregation of individual judgments. Authors in [41] define the aggregation of individual judgment as aggregation on the individual pair-wise comparisons to obtain a new judgment matrix. The aggregation of individual judgement was achieved through the geometric mean method of what each individual respondent selected as suggested in [42]. This assists group systematic decision making with a holistic vision of reality and subjacent ideas of literal thinking [41]. Table IV is the pairwise comparison matrix and total column summation was conducted for the normalization of the indices. D. Matrix Normalization Matrix normalization was done by total summation of each column with judgment values. Then, each judgment value was divided by the summation. This yields the normalized score of Table IV. The average is also known as the eigen vector and it gives the priority weight of each KPI. When all the averages are added up, the summation is 1. Using the eigen value, the ranking of the KPI is achieved with the highest value being the most prioritized KPI as shown in Table V. The consistency index for this study was 0.04 which is acceptable as the acceptable consistency index should be less than 0.1 [38]. The ranking of the KPIs is shown in Table VI. TABLE IV. COMPARISON MATRIX OF KEY PERMORMANCE INDICES Q CE TE Saf PL EP Prod TS CS PT Quality 1 1.3445 1.5188 0.6936 1.0998 1.3542 1.268 1.3514 0.8593 0.9766 Cost effective 0.7438 1 0.9209 0.8996 0.5223 1.9982 1.1443 0.484 0.8191 1.2153 Time effective 1.9275 1.0859 1 1.0805 1.6763 1.8709 1.1068 1.7076 0.7883 0.6357 Safety 1.4418 1.1116 0.9255 1 1.82 2.1419 2.364 2.8962 1.696 1.6144 Project leadership 0.9093 1.9146 0.5966 0.5495 1 0.8717 0.5293 0.646 1.1795 1.1236 Environmental performance 0.7384 0.5005 0.5345 0.4668 1.1472 1 0.7497 0.938 0.5861 1.0508 Productivity 0.7886 0.8739 0.9035 0.423 1.8893 1.3339 1 1.7797 0.8599 1.9461 Team satisfaction 0.74 2.0661 0.5856 0.3453 1.548 1.0661 0.5619 1 0.6791 1.0993 Client satisfaction 1.1637 1.2209 1.2686 0.5896 0.8478 1.7062 1.1629 1.4725 1 1.6303 Proper training 1.024 0.8228 1.5731 0.6194 0.89 0.9517 0.5138 0.9097 0.6134 1 Total 10.4771 11.9408 9.8271 6.6673 12.4407 14.2948 10.4007 13.1851 9.0807 12.2921 Q:quality, CE: cost effective, TE: time effective, Saf: safety, PL: project leadership, EP: environmental performance, Prod: productivity, TS: team satisfaction, CS: client satisfaction, PT: proper training and recruitment Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6671 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … TABLE V. NORMALIZATION MATRIX OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICES Q CE TE Saf PL EP Prod TS CS PT Total Avg Quality 0.095 0.113 0.155 0.104 0.088 0.095 0.122 0.102 0.095 0.079 1.048 0.105 Cost effective 0.071 0.084 0.094 0.135 0.042 0.140 0.110 0.037 0.090 0.099 0.901 0.090 Time effective 0.184 0.091 0.102 0.162 0.135 0.131 0.106 0.130 0.087 0.052 1.179 0.118 Safety 0.138 0.093 0.094 0.150 0.146 0.150 0.227 0.220 0.187 0.131 1.536 0.154 Project leadership 0.087 0.160 0.061 0.082 0.080 0.061 0.051 0.049 0.130 0.091 0.853 0.085 Environmental performance 0.070 0.042 0.054 0.070 0.092 0.070 0.072 0.071 0.065 0.085 0.692 0.069 Productivity 0.075 0.073 0.092 0.063 0.152 0.093 0.096 0.135 0.095 0.158 1.033 0.103 Team satisfaction 0.071 0.173 0.060 0.052 0.124 0.075 0.054 0.076 0.075 0.089 0.848 0.085 Client satisfaction 0.111 0.102 0.129 0.088 0.068 0.119 0.112 0.112 0.110 0.133 1.085 0.108 Proper training 0.098 0.069 0.160 0.093 0.072 0.067 0.049 0.069 0.068 0.081 0.825 0.083 Total 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10.000 1.000 Q:quality, CE: cost effective, TE: time effective, Saf: safety, PL: project leadership, EP: environmental performance, Prod: productivity, TS: team satisfaction, CS: client satisfaction, PT: proper training and recruitment TABLE VI. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICES RANKING KPI Ranking Priority weight Safety 1 0.154 Time effective 2 0.118 Client satisfaction 3 0.108 Quality 4 0.105 Productivity 5 0.103 Cost effective 6 0.090 Team satisfaction 7 0.085 Project leadership 8 0.085 Proper training and recruitment 9 0.083 Environmental performance 10 0.069 Total 1.000 Safety is the most and environmental performance is the least prioritized KPI. Notably, this research result is not consistent with the traditional iron triangle (cost, time, and quality) as the primary indicators for building construction performance. The top three indicators include only one factor from the iron triangle, time effectiveness. This is in contrast with the findings in [7] and is an indication that the building construction industry in Kenya has already incorporated non- financial measures in performance measurement and this needs to be reflected in the current methodologies. The least three prioritized indicators are project leadership, proper training and recruitment, and environmental performance which are non- financial measures. This results supports most research studies that have identified non-financial measures as the least prioritized [7]. Productivity was ranked as the 5th important indicator, contradicting the findings in [6], which show that productivity has insignificant impact on project performance. The KPIs are similar to the UK KPI report that has been globally used to measure construction performance as it includes cost, time, safety, productivity, client satisfaction, and quality [43]. The current study added more KPIs such as environmental performance, proper training and recruitment, and project leadership, because over the past 10 years, Kenya has been promoting clean and sustainable environment and this has led to authorities such as the NEMA (National Environment Management Authority) to be involved in building construction project approvals. The boards that regulate construction professionals in Kenya have also increased in the last 20 years while currently there is a draft bill that regulates construction professionals. The prioritized KPIs can be integrated to come up with a proposed index that could be used as a guideline in assessing the final outcome of KPIs and the general performance of a building construction project [7]. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The current study confirmed that most construction professionals based the performance of building projects on their opinion which is subjective, biased, and varying across all stakeholders in the same project. This was evidence of the need of this research and the knowledge gap it fills. Safety, time effectiveness, and client satisfaction were most important to most professionals, differentiation the results from traditional performance measurements which focus on the financial measure as the most important KPI. The results support the need to explore modern performance measures, including the reported leading indicators. Quality, which belongs to the iron triangle, was ranked only fourth, below client satisfaction and safety, while proper training and environmental performance were among the KPIs ranked least. These KPIs are social factors, they affect the community and society at large. Most construction professionals (57%) have ways of measuring their performance, however most tools are personal indices or just focus on one indicator in the project. And though this is a big percentage, 41% is also a big number of construction professionals who need to be able to measure their performance. A performance that cannot be measured, cannot be improved. National Construction Authority (NCA) is the regulatory board for contractors in Kenya, and has categorized contractors based on the cost of the projects they have done, with the lowest cost being NCA grade 8 and the highest cost being NCA grade 1. It could be an opportunity for the NCA to increase transparency within the construction industry by grading them according to their performance within the building construction industry. This could enhance the fair competition among the contractors and build confidence of the clients on what the contractors can achieve within their projects. The limitation of this research was that although the number of respondents was acceptable to carry out the analysis, it was rather low. Further research should be conducted on the way KPIs relate to each other and the impact each can cause to the others. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6672 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … APPENDIX Questionnaire This questionnaire aims to collect information related to indicators that have an important impact on perceptions of building project success. This will help in developing a performance index framework for building construction projects in Kenya. Kindly answer the following questions according to the instructions. Section A: Respondent Profile Respondents’ position in the firm Consultant [ ] Contractor [ ] Developer [ ] What type of organization do you work for? Government [ ] Non- Government Organization [ ] Private Firms [ ] Other (specify)……………………………….…. How long have you been involved in building construction projects? Less than 5 years [ ] between 5 to 20 years [ ] above 20 years [ ] don’t remember [ ] Section B: Respondent’s construction experience How many construction projects have you or your firm been involved in? Less than 2 [ ] Between 2 and 5 [ ] Between 5 and 10 [ ] More than 10 [ ] Can’t remember [ ] Were all these construction projects completed within the initial contract period and sum? Yes [ ] No [ ] Can’t remember [ ] Do you have any method in measuring the construction performance of your project? Yes[ ] No[ ] If yes, which method is it? Section C: Ranking of Key Performance Indicator To what extent do the following factors affect performance management in comparison to each other in building construction in Kenya? Table I explains the intensity of importance against the scale used. EXPLANATION OF THE SCALE USED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE Intensity of importance Definition Illustration/ example 1 Equal importance (equal) Element a and b are equally favored 3 Moderate importance of one over the other (slightly favors) Slightly favor element a over b 5 Essential importance (strongly favors) Strongly favor element a over b 7 Demonstrated importance (very strong favors) Element a is favored very strongly over b 9 Absolute importance (extreme favor) The evidence favoring element a over b is of the highest possible order of importance Example: Quality (9) (7) (5) (3) (1) (3) (5) (7) (9) Cost effective Quality is very strongly favored compared to cost effective Time effective (9) (7) (5) (3) (1) (3) (5) (7) (9) Quality Quality is slightly favored compared to time effective. This is the scale that was used to compare the KPIs below. Quality vs Cost effective, Quality vs Productivity, Quality vs Time effective, Quality vs Safety, Quality vs Team satisfaction, Quality vs Client satisfaction, Quality vs Environmental performance, Quality vs Project leadership, Quality vs Proper training, Cost effective vs Time effective, Cost effective vs Environmental performance, Cost effective vs Client satisfaction, Cost effective vs Team satisfaction, Cost effective vs Project leadership, Cost effective vs Safety, Cost effective vs Productivity, Cost effective vs Proper training, Time effective vs Safety, Time effective vs Project leadership, Time effective vs Productivity, Time effective vs Proper training, Time effective vs Environmental performance, Time effective vs Client satisfaction, Time effective vs Team satisfaction, Safety vs Team satisfaction, Safety vs Client satisfaction, Safety vs Proper training, Safety vs Environmental performance, Safety vs Project leadership, Safety vs Productivity, Project leadership vs Productivity, Project leadership vs Client satisfaction, Project leadership vs Proper training, Project leadership vs Environmental performance, Project leadership vs Team satisfaction, Environmental performance vs Productivity, Environmental performance vs Client satisfaction, Environmental performance vs Team satisfaction, Environmental performance vs Proper training, Productivity vs Proper training, Productivity vs Client satisfaction, Productivity vs Team satisfaction, Team satisfaction vs client satisfaction, Team satisfaction vs Proper training, Client satisfaction vs Proper training REFERENCES [1] S. J. Sonson, U. Kulatunga, and C. Pathirage, "Performance measurement and management in construction : a conceptual framework," in 13th International Postgraduate Research Conference, University of Salford, UK, Sep. 2017, pp. 516–528. [2] V. T. Luu, S.-Y. Kim, and T.-A. Huynh, "Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 758–769, Oct. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.002. [3] M. Kagioglou, R. Cooper, and G. Aouad, "Performance management in construction: a conceptual framework," Construction Management and Economics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 85–95, Jan. 2001, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190010003425. [4] A. M. Ghalayini and J. S. Noble, "The changing basis of performance measurement," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 63–80, Jan. 1996, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610125787. [5] B. Maskell and B. Baggaley, Practical lean Accounting. New York, USA: Productivity Press, 2004. [6] P. V. Ingle and G. Mahesh, "Construction project performance areas for Indian construction projects," International Journal of Construction Management, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020. 1721177. [7] H. Mansour, E. Aminudin, B. Omar, and A. Al-Sarayreh, "Development of an impact-on-performance index (IPI) for construction projects in Malaysia: a Delphi study," International Journal of Construction Management, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020. 1762036. [8] H. N. Mbaluku and H. Bwisa, "Delay factors in construction project implementation in the public sector; A case study of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute construction projects," presented at the 1st JKUAT-SHRD Research Conference, Kenya, 2013. [9] M. Githenya and K. Ngugi, "Assessment of the determinants of implementation of housing projects in Kenya," European Journal of Business Management, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 230–253, 2014. [10] M. Muguchu, Access to credit and financial performance in projects, 2012. [11] M. Mwangi, "Factors Influencing Performance of Contractors in the Road Construction Sector: Case of Selected Contractors in Kenya," M.S. thesis, University Of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [12] N. Kim, M. Park, H. S. Lee, and S. Roh, "Performance management method for construction companies," in 24th International Symposium Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021, 6668-6673 6673 www.etasr.com Mbugua et al.: Identification and Ranking of Key Performance Indicators in Building Construction … on Automation and Robotics in Construction Companies, Kochi, India, 2007, pp. 523–529. [13] S. K. J. Lee and K. Yu, "Corporate culture and organizational performance," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 340–359, Jan. 2004, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537927. [14] M. Vukomanovic, M. Radujkovic, and M. M. Nahod, "Leading, lagging and perceptive performance measures in the construction industry," Organization, technology & management in construction : an international journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 103–111, Jul. 2010. [15] A. P. C. Chan and A. P. L. Chan, "Key performance indicators for measuring construction success," Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 203–221, Jan. 2004, https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770410532624. [16] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, "The balance scorecard: measures that drive performance," Harvard Business Review, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 1992. [17] Overview of the EFQM Excellence Model. Brussels, Belgium: EFQM, 2018. [18] S. Tennant and D. Langford, "The construction project balance scorecard," in The construction project balanced scorecard, Cardiff, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2008, pp. 361–370. [19] D. Das and C. Ngacho, "Critical success factors influencing the performance of development projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund projects in Kenya," IIMB Management Review, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 276–293, Dec. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2017.11.005. [20] M. W. Chonge, "An Investigation of the Performance of Local Contractors in Kenya," International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 62–68, Mar. 2017. [21] M. W. Kihoro and E. Waiganjo, "Factors affecting performance of projects in the construction industry in Kenya: A survey of gated communities in Nairobi County," Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, vol. 2, no. 50, pp. 37–66, Jun. 2015. [22] S. Kathiaru, "Factors affecting the performance of construction," M.S. thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2014. [23] P. O. Nyangwara and E. Datche, "Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects: A Survey of Construction Projects in the Coastal Region of Kenya," International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 2250–3153, 2015. [24] J. R. Rankin, A. R. F. R. Fayek, G. M. Meade, C. H. Haas, and A. M. Manseau, "Initial metrics and pilot program results for measuring the performance of the Canadian construction industry," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 894–907, Aug. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1139/L08-018. [25] P. F. RAD, "Project success attributes," Cost Engineering, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 23–29, 2003. [26] Construct for Excellence. Hong Kong, China: Construction Industry Review Committee, 2001. [27] A. Mickaityte, E. K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, and L. Tupenaite, "The concept model of sustainable buildings refurbishment," International Journal of Strategic Property Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 53–68, Mar. 2008, https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-715X.2008.12.53-68. [28] A. A. Sezer, "Construction Performance Measurement: Site Managers in Refurbishment Projects," Ph.D. dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2016. [29] G. Parker, Team Work. Amherst, Massachusetts: HRD Press, 2011. [30] T. Juli, Leadership Principles for Project Success, 1st edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2010. [31] H. Kerzner and F. P. Saladis, Value-driven project management. New Jersey, USA: Wiley, 2011. [32] D. Pratt, Fundamentals of Construction Estimating, 3rd edition. Massachusetts, United States: Cengage Learning, 2010. [33] A. N. Okweto, "An assessment of the organization structure and leadership effects on construction projects’ performance in Kenya: a case study of public building projects within Nairobi region," M.S. thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. [34] A. R. Khoso, J. S. Khan, R. U. Faiz, M. A. Akhund, A. Ahmed, and F. Memon, "Identification of Building Failure Indicators," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4591–4595, Oct. 2019, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.2872. [35] S. Sohu, A. A. Jhatial, K. Ullah, M. T. Lakhiar, and J. Shahzaib, "Determining the Critical Success Factors for Highway Construction Projects in Pakistan," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 2685–2688, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.1866. [36] M. Abas, S. B. Khattak, T. Habib, and U. Nadir, "Assessment of critical risk and success factors in construction supply chain: a case of Pakistan," International Journal of Construction Management, Jun. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1783597. [37] S. A. Assaf, A. A. Bubshait, S. Atiyah, and M. Al-Shahri, "The management of construction company overhead costs," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 295–303, Jul. 2001, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00011-9. [38] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980. [39] O. M. Mugenda and A. G. Mugenda, Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies, 1999. [40] F. J. Carmone, A. Kara, and S. H. Zanakis, "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 538–553, Nov. 1997, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00250-0. [41] J. Aguaron, M. T. Escobar, J. M. Moreno-Jimenez, and A. Turon, "AHP- Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 242, Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/math7030242. [42] J. Aczel and T. L. Saaty, "Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 93–102, Mar. 1983, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7. [43] "The KPI report for the minister for construction," KPI, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, UK, 2000.