Key Performance Indicators for Project Success in

Saudi Arabian Construction Industry

Sharafat Hussain (  [email protected] )
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
Dr. Muhammad Fikri Hasmori
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
Dr. Nor Haslinda Abas
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
Dr. Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
Muhammad Wajidullah Khan
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)

Research Article

Keywords: Construction Project, Key Performance Indicator (KPI), Project Delay, Project Cost, Saudi Arabia

Posted Date: December 1st, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2329589/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Page 1/20
Abstract
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a significant part of every successful construction project.
Establishing KPIs that provide objective criteria for measuring project success is common in performance
measurement on construction projects. A presumption is made that a project is successful if finished on
time, within the agreed budget, and with the desired quality, often known as the "iron triangle." According
to the evidence, this is far from the truth. In addition to the iron triangle, the construction industry must
focus on other crucial success factors. Therefore, this study investigates the essential KPIs for
construction projects in Saudi Arabia. This research employed a questionnaire survey as its major data
source to determine the most critical KPIs for construction projects. The secondary data was collected
from a comprehensive review of relevant literature, and the important performance indicators for
construction projects in Saudi Arabia were selected and then evaluated using a questionnaire survey. The
study found that the most important KPIs are Time, Cost, Quality, Safety, Sustainable Construction, Client
Satisfaction, End-User Satisfaction, Risk management, Productivity of labour, and Profitability. This
research adds to the corpus of knowledge on the Saudi Arabian key performance indicators for
construction projects.

Introduction
The construction industry is crucial to every nation's growth. Buildings, roads, and bridges are physical
infrastructure examples that may gauge economic progress. Developing a construction project requires
many partners, methods, phases and stages of work and much input from the public and private sectors
(Okudan et al., 2022). It is important to note that the degree of success in carrying out construction
project development activities strongly depends on the quality of the different parties' managerial,
financial, technical, and organizational performance (Lee et al., 2013; Takim & Akintoye, 2002). The word
"performance" refers to how well an operation meets fundamental measures to fulfil its clients' demands.
Ahadzie (2007) defines "performance" in terms of competence as the behavioral skills necessary to
achieve the objectives of project-based organizations. The Baldridge National Programmed classifies
performance into four (4) categories: product and service, customer-focused, financial & marketplace, and
operational. While each category reflects performance, their respective focuses vary (Ofori et al., 2016).
Within the framework of a construction project, the success of a project may be evaluated differently by
construction companies based on their aims (Neyestani, 2016). What observed measure of success on
one project may be considered an indicator of utter failure on another? In reality, it is difficult to determine
if a project's performance is a success or a failure since the definition of success is ambiguous among
project participants. When a construction project is completed on schedule, within budget, according to
specifications, and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, either individually or collectively, it is deemed
successful (Omran et al., 2012). The construction projects are unique, novel, specialized, and time-
sensitive. Due to the complexity and unpredictability of projects, project-based organizations face
significant challenges. The success of construction projects is difficult to predict (Sun et al., 2017; Jong et
al., 2019). This study aims to establish the relevance of KPIs to construction project success, identify the

Page 2/20
most important performance measures, and adopt a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to be used
by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian (KSA) construction industry.

THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN KSA

Since the 1970s oil discoveries, KSA has undergone a massive development boom. Saudi Arabia has the
largest construction industry in the Middle East, spending over USD 120 billion annually and employing
over 15% of the country's population (Al-Emad & Rahman, 2017). This surge in the construction industry
increased the demand for governmental and private development projects (Al-Sulamy, 2015). According
to Shoult (2006), Saudi Arabia's construction boom has been fueled by oil exports. His statement that oil
exports account for 80% of the KSA's GDP implies that building activity rises and falls with oil prices.
Saudi Arabia joined the world trade organization (WTO) in December 2005, enabling the construction
sector to reach out to global organizations. Consequently, the country's GDP rose to the Middle East's
highest. Population growth in Saudi Arabia is boosting the need for houses and infrastructures,
promising a successful future for the country's construction industry (Mathar et al., 2020). According to a
2008 Saudi Ministry of Economy and Planning study, the construction industry produced 9% of the
national GDP. The government concentrated on the construction industry with constant stimulation
(Alharbi, 2020). In terms of infrastructure, the government was building railroads linking the north and
south. Another line connects Jeddah to Dammam's king Abdul Aziz Port and Jubail's King Fahd Port. An
extension of the holy city railway commenced in 2008. It serves Dammam, Jubail, Jeddah, Makkah, and
Medina. Riyadh, Makkah, and Medina are all getting railways. Simultaneously, the government promotes
private commercial real estate development initiatives (Alharbi, 2020; AlSehaimi, 2011).

Several significant infrastructure and development projects in Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 are called "Giga
projects." The "New Enterprise Operating Model" (NEOM) aims to build a city on the Kingdom's Red Sea
coast's northwest coast using cutting-edge urban design and automation technologies. Sustainable
technology, zero-carbon infrastructure, and a business-friendly administration will cost $500 billion in the
NEOM future metropolis (Dasari et al., 2020). "THE LINE" is a million-person city that retains 95% of
nature within NEOM, with no cars, no streets, and carbon emissions (Balabel & Alwetaishi, 2021). The
second "Giga project" is the Red Sea. Large-scale tourist resort on Saudi Arabia's Red Sea coast. The
Saudi Arabian government allocated more than $23 billion to build a full metro network in Riyadh, the
capital city of the Kingdom and one of the largest cities in the Middle East. Riyadh Metro Project, 176 km
across six lines and 85 stations, has been under construction since 2013 (Alshalalfah et al., 2018).
Riyadh metro project is also part of vision 2030 and one of KSA's "Giga projects" (Habibi, 2019).

Page 3/20
THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The New York Bureau of Municipal Research introduced performance assessment as a distinct procedure
in the 1940s. The idea grew and improved during the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1970s, the accounting
industry employed financial indicators (lagging indicators) to assess performance. The 1980s witnessed
the rise of zero-based budgeting, which became a major concern in the 1990s (Nudurupati et al., 2007;
Maya, 2016). Performance measurement can help answer three key questions: "How well does an
organization perform?" "How well does an individual perform?" How well is the organization doing? "How
much has the organization improved since last time?" (Maya, 2016). Performance measurement aims to
improve program efficiency and organizational or project effectiveness by evaluating project
performance, including financial and non-financial aspects (Lop et al., 2018). A lack of knowledge, poor
contracts, insufficient planning, and a lack of vision are among the issues listed by Palalani in the year
2000. In a Construction project, essential participants engage in multiple ways, continually cooperating
inside systems. Construction participants are both customers and suppliers, and their capacity to produce
value is vital to successful projects (Love & Holt, 2000). The performance of each stakeholder in the
Construction process is strongly interrelated (Lop et al., 2018). Construction projects are regarded as
successful if they are completed on time, on budget, and to the customer's satisfaction (Lee et al., 2013;
Takim & Akintoye, 2002; Neyestani, 2016; Nudurupati et al., 2007; Maya, 2016).

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC), European Foundation Quality Management (EFQM), Performance PRISM,
KPIs, and Malcolm Baldridge for Performance Excellence (MBNQA) are five common performance
assessment models used internationally for construction projects (Fig. 1) (Omran et al., 2012; Lop et al.,
2018).

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIs)

KPIs were established and introduced as one of the performance measurement tools, and it has since
become the most prominent performance measurement metric in the construction industry, especially
after "Rethinking Construction" (Ittner et al., 2003; Lop et al., 2018). Many construction organizations have
introduced performance measurement via KPIs. KPIs in construction allow the industry to measure
project and organizational performance (Ofori et al., 2016). A KPI measures the performance of an
activity that is crucial to the success of an organization or a project (Okuden et al., 2022).

Generally, it is widely accepted that time, cost, and quality are the most important factors to consider
when evaluating a project's performance. The success of a construction project can be evaluated using
the fundamental criteria of cost, schedule, and quality, which have traditionally been used as hard key

Page 4/20
performance indicators (KPIs) in construction (Chan & Chan, 2014). According to a researcher, these three
key components are known as the "iron triangle" (Atkinson, 1999; Leong et al., 2014).

Soft KPIs like customer and project participant satisfaction are important markers of project success.
External data and project management systems are commonly used to create hard KPIs. On the other
hand, soft KPIs are based on subjective indications supplied by respondents and can be acquired via
surveys or interviews. Soft indicators that measure participant satisfaction with interpersonal interactions
may be used to advocate for the importance of stakeholder collaboration in achieving project goals
(Nzekwe‐Excel et al., 2010).

In response to the Egan Report, established a KPIs Framework for the UK construction sector, including
seven groups: time, cost, quality, client satisfaction, client changes, business performance and health &
safety and are characterized by the headline, operational and diagnostic indicators. The Headline
Indicators measure a firm's overall "rude" state of health. The Operational Indicators bear on specific
aspects of a firm's activities and should enable management to identify and focus on areas for
improvement. The Diagnostic Indicators explain why specific headline or operational indicators changes
may have occurred. Constructing Excellence in the United Kingdom provides KPI Wall charts for several
groups in the UK construction sector each year. These are the UK Economic (all construction),
Environment, Respect for People, Consultants, Construction Products, Repairs & Maintenance and
Refurbishment (Housing), Non-housing, Housing, and infrastructure, and ME Contractor KPIs.

KPIs for the UK construction sector are divided into three categories (Roberts & Latorre, 2009):

1. KPI charts for main sub-divisions;

2. Graphs that provide additional analysis of the headline KPIs; and
3. Additional indicators requested by users (e.g. contractor satisfaction with the client).

The Scottish Construction Industry's (SCI) KPI framework was first launched in 2007 by the Scottish
Construction Centre (SCC) to encourage organizations at all levels within the SCI to use performance
measurement. It comprises nine key performance indicators (KPIs): product, service, quality, time, cost,
safety, environment, people, and business. The SCI KPIs are based on the KPI suite produced for the UK
construction industry by the KPI Working Group. The primary distinction is the addition of "environment"
to the SCC KPIs. While this demonstrates the growing importance of environmental concerns in the built
environment, it is not a major global construction KPI (Crawford & Lewandowski, 2013).

Page 5/20
The Danish construction industry for works have been developed the following fourteen (14) KPIs
published by the Benchmark Centre for the Danish Construction Sector (BEC) in 2005: Actual construction
time;

1. Actual construction time concerning planned construction time;

2. Defect remediation within the first year;
3. The number of problems discovered during the handover process;
4. Frequency of accidents;
5. Ratio of contributions
6. The margin of contribution per man-hour;
7. The margin of contribution per wage crown
8. The intensity of work in man-hours per m2;
9. Productivity of labour;
10. Price changes for the project throughout construction;
11. Price per square meter; and
12. Customer satisfaction with the construction process; (Rasmussen et al., 2017).

The Construction Industry Institute of the United States of America measures contractors' performance
online using four key performance indicators (KPIs): performance, construction productivity, engineering
productivity, and practices (Ofori-Kuragu et al., 2016).

This paper's evaluation addressed a wide variety of construction KPIs. The examination reveals many
current KPIs, making it difficult for organizations unfamiliar with KPIs to choose appropriate KPIs for
measurement. Despite the variety of KPIs reviewed, it is clear that some are utilized more often than
others. The more popular KPIs might be used for construction KPIs for the Saudi Construction sector.
Time, Cost, Quality, Defects, Productivity, and other construction-related KPIs appear to be recurring
themes.

Research Methodology
In order to accomplish the objectives, first, the data was collected via a thorough review of relevant
literature; through the thorough analysis of related literature, the key performance indicators for
construction projects in the Saudi Construction sector were identified. Second, a questionnaire study was
performed as the primary source of data collection for this research in order to establish the most critical
KPIs for the Saudi construction industry.

Page 6/20
Regarding the sample size, the study used the following Slovin's Formula used for the sample data
collection. According to Saudi Council Engineer (Aleqt, 2017), Arabia has 230943 registered engineers.
For more accurate estimates, we have taken the largest number, which resulted from 24,5000 as the
target research population.

C = margin of error, taken as 9% = 0.09.

N= Total population, taken as 245000.

n = Sample size.

Applying the equation:

The respondents were asked to evaluate the most important construction sector KPIs using a five-point
Likert scale, and the researched factors were ranked based on the mean item score.

The quantitative data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a
computer tool designed to analyze data pertaining to social phenomena. The program was used to
generate various statistics, including descriptive statistics, which offer a basic overview of all
components in the data. The advantages of utilizing SPSS include ranking, analyzing quantitative data,
and doing multivariate analysis rapidly (Khosravi & Afshari 2011). SPSS also improves the presentation
of data in a logical format, minimizing the time spent calculating scores. However, the quality of the
outcomes is greatly reliant on the inputs, highlighting the need to capture the questionnaire's data
accurately (Sharma et al., 2017; Sun, 2019).

Page 7/20
The study used a 5-point Linkert scale, which provided a wider range of potential scores and increased
the statistical analyses available to the researcher. The 5-point Linkert scale is in the following agreement
form:

1. Strongly Disagree (SD)

2. Disagree (D)
3. Neutral (N)
4. Agree (A)
5. Strongly Agree (SA)

The 5-point scale was transformed to a mean item score abbreviated as (MIS).

The computation of the Mean Item Score (MIS) was calculated from the total of all weighted responses
and then relating it to the total responses on a particular aspect. The mean item score was adopted to
rank the factors from highest to lowest. The Mean Item Score (MIS) is expressed and calculated for each
item as follows:

Where.

n1 = number of respondents for strongly disagree;

n2 = number of respondents for disagree;

n3 = Number of respondents for neutral;

n4 = number of respondents for agree;

n5 = number of respondents for extremely likely or strongly agree;

N = Total Number of respondents

Descriptive analysis was used to determine the mean item score, and the standard deviation was then
arranged in a descending manner to highlight the height and the least impact. The adequacy of the
Page 8/20
information depends on the reliability of the data collected from the questionnaire survey. The reliability
of the survey data was checked, and the reliability test is important because of the basis for data
analysis. Reliability is generally estimated by examining the consistency with which different items
express the same concept (Shen et al., 2011). In this study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient method was used
to test the reliability of the data. Ceng and Huang (2005) suggested that a value of Cronbach's alpha of
0.7 or higher normally indicates a reliable set of items. However, Hair et al. (2019) consider 0.60 to less
than 0.70 as moderate and adequate for use in the study.

Findings And Discussion

The Saudi Construction Industry Field Survey was conducted using a standardized questionnaire sent to
the respondents. The 106 returned questionnaires, 85% of the 124 sent out, indicate a fairly excellent
return rate (Neuman & Robson, 2014). Findings revealed 19.8% architects, 59.4% civil engineers, 14.2%
electrical and 6.6% mechanical engineers. 60.4% have bachelor's degrees, 34.5% have master's, and 4.7%
have PhD. When asked about respondents' work experience, the finding showed that 28.3% had between
5 and 10 years of work experience, 51.9% had 11-15 years of experience, and 19.8% had 16 years and
above working experience in the construction industry.

Table.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Page 9/20
 Respondents information Frequency Percentage

Education

Bachelor's 64 60.4
Master's 37 34.5
PhD 5 4.7
Profession

Architect 21 19.8
Civil Engineer 63 59.4
Electrical Engineer 15 14.2
Mechanical Engineer 7 6.6
Organization

Client 11 10.4
Consultant 42 39.6
Contractor 53 50.0
Discipline

Planning & Management 16 15.1

Design 25 23.6
Construction 65 61.3
Working Experience

5-10 years 30 28.3

11-15 years 55 51.9
16 years and above 21 19.8

The respondent's extensive expertise is essential to acquiring high-quality data for any research. In a
recent study, these knowledgeable respondents will offer the information needed based on their years of
experience. Respondents with a combined employment history of over 11 years dominated the sample,
making up 72% of the responses. This finding amply demonstrates the quality of the data gathered
during the primary survey. According to the respondents, the most important performance indicators are
as follows, based on the ranking using the computed standard devotion (SD), mean

score ( ), and Rank (R) for the listed construction industry's Key Performance Indicators (Table-2); time of
project construction (SD=0.57852; x̅=4.3868; R=1); cost of project (SD=0.68726; x̅=4.1792; R=2); quality
(SD=0.74232; x̅=4.1038; R=3); safety (SD=0.69732; x̅=4.0943; R=4); Sustainable Construction
(SD=0.70888; x̅=4.0472; R=5); Client Satisfaction (SD=0.71040; x̅=3.9906; R=6); End-User Satisfaction
(SD=0.78628; x̅=3.9717; R=7); Risk management (SD=0.78628; x̅=3.9528; R=8); Productivity of Labor
(SD=0.81451; x̅=3.9434; R=9); and Profitability (SD=0. 79605; x̅=3.9340; R=10).

Page 10/20
 Table 2 - Construction Projects' Key Performance Indicators

KPIs Mean item score Standard deviation Rank

Time of Project 4.3868 0.57852 1
Cost of Project 4.1792 0.68726 2
Quality of Project 4.1038 0.74232 3
Safety 4.0943 0.69732 4
Sustainable Construction 4.0472 0.70888 5
Client Satisfaction 3.9906 0.71040 6
End-User Satisfaction 3.9717 0.78628 7
Risk management 3.9528 0.82094 8
Productivity of Labor 3.9434 0.81451 9
Profitability 3.9340 0.79605 10
Defects 3.9245 0.75212 11
Procurement 3.9057 0.73715 12
Maintainability 3.8962 0.79197 13
Human resource management 3.8774 0.69970 14
Business Performance 3.8019 0.85546 15

The SPSS statistical package was used to analyze the data. The reliability of the five-point scale used in
the survey was determined using Cronbach's coefficient alpha, which determines internal consistency
among variables. If Cronbach's alpha is 0.7 or more, the items are likely reliable (Shen et al., 2011; Xu et
al., 2012). Item-total Statistics are shown in table no. 4; the first two columns indicated the scale mean
and variance if the item was deleted. The mean and variance of the summated scores, excluding item 1,
are 55.8302 and 23.399, respectively. The caption "Corrected Item-Total Correlation" were designed to
identify the correlation of the item designated with the summated score for all other items, and
summated score for all items is above 0.40. A rule of thumb is that these correlation coefficients should
be at least 0.40, indicating that the correlation is fair (Sharma, 2016). The next caption, "Squared Multiple
Correlation", is the predicted square of multiple correlation coefficient obtained by regressing the identified
individual item on all the remaining items. Squared Multiple Correlation (R²) is the sample squared
correlation coefficient between the response variable and the regression model's predicted value. It is
between 0 and 1. The linear relationship between the response variable and predictors is better the closer
it is to 1. The linear relationship gets worse the closer it is to 0 (Cohen et al., 2014). The predicted Squared
Multiple Regression Correlation is for Items 1 and 2, 0. 674 and 0.440. Furthermore, the section
"Cronbach's alpha if item Deleted" meant that if the researcher deleted one of the items, Cronbach's alpha
values were almost the same, even smaller than the items deleted. It followed what had been said that
the instrument had a higher consistency and reliability, so it was unnecessary to delete any item from the

Page 11/20
scale. Hair et al. (2019) consider the study moderate and adequate to be 0.60 to less than 0.70. That
means that the five-point scale measurement was accurate because the overall value of the Coefficient
alpha test was 0.717, which shows in Table 3, greater than 0.70, which means that this test was credible.

Table 3 – Internal Consistency (Cronbach's)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
0.717 0.723 15

Table 4- Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
Cost of Project 55.8302 23.399 .430 .674 .712
Time of Project 55.6226 22.771 .416 .440 .696
Quality of Project 55.9057 21.972 .413 .414 .692
Safety 55.9151 22.307 .496 .327 .695
Sustainable 55.9623 22.437 .566 .420 .698
Construction
Client 56.0189 21.638 .493 .419 .684
Satisfaction
End-User 56.0377 22.360 .626 .497 .702
Satisfaction
Productivity of 56.0660 21.377 .446 .665 .687
Labour
Profitability 56.0755 22.280 .531 .698 .702
Procurement 56.1038 22.665 .612 .557 .704
Risk 56.0566 24.111 .476 .486 .732
management
Maintainability 56.1132 22.730 .471 .408 .709
Defects 56.0849 21.964 .407 .518 .693
Human resource 56.1321 24.116 .516 .442 .724
management
Business 56.2075 22.471 .571 .635 .709
Performance

Page 12/20
While the performance of the Saudi construction industry remains a cause of concern, it is anticipated
that adopting a set of KPIs would improve construction industry participants in evaluating their
performance to improve overall performance levels. The KPIs established in this research were part of a
wider pool identified from the literature review and existing KPIs in leading economies with high-
performing construction sectors. The approach in this study ensures that the outcomes of the literature
study, questionnaire-based survey, and high return rate for the survey could be due to the respondents'
high interest in the subject and, in part, to a short questionnaire design that made it easy to complete and
return the questionnaires. The returns rate of 82% shows the respondent group as a good representation
of the sample and thus reinforces generalizations that can be made for the overall Saudi construction
industry. The accumulated total provided a measure of the respective measures' relevance, with higher
Mean item score values indicating greater relevance and lower Mean item score values indicating less
relevance. The indicators were ranked in order of relative importance to each other. Time of construction
received the highest Mean Item score, followed by Cost of Construction and Quality. The fourth place with
less score was safety and sustainability construction, followed by Client Satisfaction. Maintainability and
Human resource management scored lower, and Business Performance obtained the lowest Means Item
Score.

The inclusion of Quality, Cost, and Time in the first three KPIs is consistent with popular construction
management literature, which identifies these measures as the ultimate goals of every construction client.
The KPIs proposed in this paper are not the only important KPIs. They are the ones deemed most
pertinent to the KSA construction industry. These KPIs can serve as a starting point for those in the KSA
construction sector who are new to KPIs and performance measurement. They can be used as the
foundation for benchmarking performance against best-in-class organizations, measuring performance,
and setting targets for improving performance to internationally competitive levels by KSA construction
players.

Conclusion
Construction projects significantly impact developing countries' economic, social, and environmental
activities. When considering implementation, their sustainability performance should be thoroughly
evaluated. Because effective evaluation indicators are rarely available in practice, the sustainability of
construction projects is frequently under-assessed. Numerous performance measures are in use, and the
sheer number of measures can cause issues for the construction project. Too many, too few, or
inappropriate performance measures can have a negative impact on overall performance. In this paper,
existing KPI groups were investigated in order to identify the most popular KPIs and the first formal set of
KPIs for the KSA construction industry. Popular KPIs identified in the literature were subjected to a survey
of selected individuals, and the survey results were validated. This paper established that using
performance measures is an effective strategy to enhance project management success.

Page 13/20
According to all respondents, the ten most significant key performance indicators for construction
projects in Saudi Arabia are construction time, construction cost, quality, safety, sustainable construction,
client satisfaction, end-user satisfaction, risk management, labour productivity, and profitability. Moreover,
according to the reviewed literature, the most important key performance indicators (KPIs) for
construction projects are scope and quality. Further investigation revealed that cost, time, and quality are
the three basic and most important performance indicators in construction projects: safety, functionality,
and Client Satisfaction.

However, these findings regarding KPIs indicate that project management, risk management, and quality
assurance are all regarded as key indicators in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. This
demonstrates the Saudi Arabian construction industry's dynamic character since the KPIs mentioned
earlier has never been included in prior research of this kind. It is also recommended that future research
be conducted to establish methods for measuring the qualitative indicators in the KPI suite developed in
this research.

References
Ahadzie, D. K. (2007). A Model for Predicting the Performance of Project Managers in Mass House
Building Projects in Ghana. Journal of International Real Estate and Construction Studies, 1(1), 95.
Al-Emad, N., & Rahman, I. A. (2017). An initial investigation on the challenges of managing
construction workforce in Saudi Arabia. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering (Vol. 271, No. 1, p. 012033). IOP Publishing.
Aleqt, 2017.230 thousand engineers in Saudi Arabia. 92% foreigners.
(2017). Http://Www.Aleqt.Com/2016/03/29/Article_1042551.Html.
Alharbi, F. (2020). Critical delay factors in housing construction projects in Saudi Arabia: assessment
and solutions. Nottingham Trent University (United Kingdom).
Alidi, A. S. (1996). Use of the analytic hierarchy process to measure the initial viability of industrial
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 205-208.
AlSehaimi, A. (2011). Improving construction planning practice in Saudi Arabia by means of lean
construction principles and techniques (Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford).
Alshalalfah, B., Nafakh, J., Al Banna, Y., & Kaysi, Traffic management of mega infrastructure
construction projects: Success story and lessons learned from the Riyadh metro project. International
Journal of Transport Development and Integration (2018).
Al-Sulamy S., (2015). "Developing A Performance Measurement Framework for Municipal
Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia", PhD thesis, Edinburgh Napier University.

Page 14/20
Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H. M., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Harun, Z. (2011). Future criteria for success of building
projects in Malaysia. International journal of project management, 29(3), 337-348.
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), 337-342
Balabel, A., & Alwetaishi, M. (2021). Towards Sustainable Residential Buildings in Saudi Arabia
According to the Conceptual Framework of "Mostadam" Rating System and Vision
2030. Sustainability, 13(2), 793.
Ceng, W. Y., and Huang, B. Y. (2005). "Analysis on the reliability and validity of questionnaire." Forum
Stat. Inf., 20(6), 11–16.
Chan, A. (2001). A quest for better construction quality in Hong Kong.
Chan, A. P., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success. Benchmarking: an international journal.
Chan, A. P., Scott, D., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Factors affecting the success of a construction
project. Journal of construction engineering and management, 130(1), 153-155.
CIDB, M. C. O. (2007). Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur.
Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Psychology press.
Crawford, C., & Lewandowski, K. (2013). Review of Scottish public sector procurement in
construction. Scottish Government.

Dasari, H. P., Desamsetti, S., Langodan, S., Krishna, L. R., Singh, S., & Hoteit, I. (2020). Air-quality
assessment over the world's Most Ambitious Project, NEOM in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 489, No. 1, p. 012025). IOP Publishing.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., & Abushaban, S. (2009). Factors affecting the performance of
construction projects in the Gaza strip. Journal of Civil engineering and Management, 15(3), 269-
280.
Gudienė, N., Banaitis, A., & Banaitienė, N. (2013). Evaluation of critical success factors for
construction projects–an empirical study in Lithuania. International journal of strategic property
management, 17(1), 21-31.
Habibi, N. (2019). Implementing Saudi Arabia's vision 2030: an interim balance sheet. Middle East
Brief, 127, 1-9.
Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.
Hussein, B. A. (2012). An empirical investigation of project complexity from the perspective of a
project practitioner. In Proceedings of IWAMA 2012-The Second International Workshop of Advanced
Manufacturing and Automation (pp. 335-342).

Page 15/20
Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003). Performance implications of strategic performance
measurement in financial services firms. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(7-8), 715-741.
Jong, C. Y., Sim, A. K., & Lew, T. Y. (2019). The relationship between TQM and project performance:
Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry. Cogent Business & Management.
Kärnä, S., & Junnonen, J. M. (2016). Benchmarking construction industry, company and project
performance by participants' evaluation. Benchmarking : An International Journal.
Khandar, A. M. A., Pathak, S., & Sawant, S. K. (2018). Performance Management through Quality
Measurement at Construction Site, Pune. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT).
Khosravi, S., & Afshari, H. (2011, July). A success measurement model for construction projects.
In International Conference on Financial Management and Economics IPEDR (Vol. 11, pp. 186-190).
IACSIT Press Singapore.
KPI Working Group. (2000). Report for the Minister of Construction the Department for
Environmet. Transport and Regions London.
Lee, M. R., Ismail, S., & Hussaini, M. (2013). Key performance indicator (KPI) of contractor on project
performance for housing construction in Malaysia, 1st Int. Conf. on Human Capital and Knowledge
Management (HCKM 2013), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Leong, T. K., Zakuan, N., Mat Saman, M. Z., Ariff, M. S. M., & Tan, C. S. (2014). Using project
performance to measure effectiveness of quality management system maintenance and practices in
construction industry. The Scientific World Journal.
Lop, N. S., Ismail, K., Isa, H. M., & Khalil, N. (2018). An effective approach of performance
measurement systems (PMS) for adoption in construction projects. Journal of Engineering Science
and Technology, 13(12), 3951-3963.
Love, P. E., & Holt, G. D. (2000). Construction business performance measurement: the SPM
alternative. Business process management journal.
Mathar, H., Assaf, S., Hassanain, M. A., Abdallah, A., & Sayed, A. M. (2020). Critical success factors
for large building construction projects: Perception of consultants and contractors. Built Environment
Project and Asset Management.
Maya, R. A. (2016). Performance management for Syrian construction projects. International Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 5(3), 65-78.
Murray, M. (2003). Rethinking construction: the egan report (1998) (pp. 178-195). Blackwell Science,
Oxford, UK.
Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
Neyestani, B. (2016). Impact of ISO 9001 Certification on the Projects' Success of Large-Scale (AAA)
Construction Firms in the Philippines. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social
Sciences (IRJMIS), 3(11), 35-45.

Page 16/20
Nudurupati, S., Arshad, T., & Turner, T. (2007). Performance measurement in the construction
industry: An action case investigating manufacturing methodologies. Computers in Industry, 58(7),
667-676.
Nzekwe‐Excel, C., Nwagboso, C., Georgakis, P., & Proverbs, D. (2010). Integrated framework for
satisfaction assessment in construction sector. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
Ofori-Kuragu, J. K., Baiden, B. K., & Badu, E. (2016). Key performance indicators for project success in
Ghanaian contractors.
Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction projects: Evidence from
Thailand construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 420-430.
Okudan, O., Budayan, C., & Arayici, Y. (2022). Identification and Prioritization of Key Performance
Indicators for the Construction Small and Medium Enterprises. Teknik Dergi, 33(5).
Omran, A., Abdalrahman, S., & Pakir, A. K. (2012). Project performance in Sudan construction
industry: A case study. Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Reseacrh.
Palalani, K. (2000). Challenges facing the construction industry: A Botswana perspective.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference of the CIB Task Group 29 on construction in
developing Countries (pp. 23-30).
Phusavat, K., Anussornnitisarn, P., Helo, P., & Dwight, R. (2009). Performance measurement: roles and
challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems.
Pillai, A. S., Joshi, A., & Rao, K. S. (2002). Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multi-
project, concurrent engineering environment. International Journal of Project Management, 20(2),
165-177.
Rasmussen, G. M. G., Jensen, P. L., & Gottlieb, S. C. (2017). Frames, agency and institutional change:
the case of benchmarking in Danish construction. Construction management and economics, 35(6),
305-323.
Roberts, M., & Latorre, V. (2009). KPIs in the UK's construction industry: Using system dynamics to
understand underachievement. Revista de la Construcción, 8(1), 69-82.
Sharma, B. (2016). A focus on reliability in developmental research through Cronbach's Alpha among
medical, dental and paramedical professionals. Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences, 3(4), 271-
278.
Sharma, V. K., Chandna, P., & Bhardwaj, A. (2017). Green supply chain management related
performance indicators in agro industry: A review. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 1194-1208.
Shen, L., Wu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2011). Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure
projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137(6), 441-451.
Shoult, A. (2006). Doing business with Saudi Arabia. London: Kogan Page.

Page 17/20
 Stevens, J. D. (1996). Blueprint for measuring project quality. Journal of management in
engineering, 12(2), 34-39.
Sun, C., Jiang, S., Skibniewski, M. J., Man, Q., & Shen, L. (2017). A literature review of the factors
limiting the application of BIM in the construction industry. Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, 23(5), 764-779.
Sun, Z. (2019). A study on the educational use of statistical package for the social
sciences. International Journal of Frontiers in Engineering Technology, 1(1).
Takim, R., & Akintoye, A. (2002). Performance indicators for successful construction project
performance, 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, pp. 545-555.
Takim, R., Akintoye, A., & Kelly, J. (2003). Performance measurement systems in construction. In 19th
annual ARCOM conference (Vol. 1, pp. 423-432). University of Brighton, Association of Researchers
in Construction Management.
Winch, G., & Carr, B. (2001). Benchmarking on-site productivity in France and the UK: a CALIBRE
approach. Construction Management & Economics, 19(6), 577-590
Xu, P. P., Chan, E. H., & Qian, Q. K. (2012). Key performance indicators (KPI) for the sustainability of
building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) in hotel buildings in China. Facilities.

Figures

Page 18/20
Figure 1

Performance measurement models (Khnadar et al., 2018)

Page 19/20
Figure 2

Performance measurement System developed Internationally

(Source: Takim et al., 2003; Pillai et al., 2002; Murray, 2003; Winch and Carr, 2001; Alidi, 1996; Chan, 2001;
Stevens, 1996; and CIDB Malaysia, 2007)

Page 20/20