See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369469958

Project performance measures and metrics framework

Chapter · March 2023

DOI: 10.4337/9781802207613.00007

CITATIONS READS
0 3,830

1 author:

Riaz Ahmed
Bahria University Islamabad Campus
49 PUBLICATIONS 560 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Riaz Ahmed on 06 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 To be cited as:
Ahmed, R. (2023). Project Performance Measure and Metrics. In “Research Handbook on Project
Performance”. (pp. 11-22) Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, United Kingdom.

Project Performance Measures and Metrics Framework

Riaz Ahmed1
1
Bahria Business, School, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract

This chapter aims to enhance understanding of project performance measures and metrics from a
project management perspective. Although, the concept and criteria of project performance
success have been discussed in the literature, in addition to different dimensions used for the
measurement of project performance in different phases of projects. Yet, several challenges are
faced by the organization to measure project performance due to the non-availability of a
performance standardized framework. To overcome such challenges, a comprehensive framework
for the measurement of project performance is proposed based on performance criteria and critical
dimensions of project performance, which can be pragmatically utilized by various types of
projects, organizations, and industries to enhance project performance success. Moreover,
different levels of performance and priority levels have been classified to increase the likelihood
of project management success based on critical factors influencing project performance during
different phases of the project life cycle.

Keywords: Project performance, performance measures, performance dimensions, performance

metrics, project performance framework, project management success.

1. Introduction

A project is considered as a temporary effort in organizations that is structured to perform a set of

activities for creating a unique result with a predetermined beginning and end defined by time
boundedness and limited resources. According to PMI (2017), "a project is a temporary endeavor
undertaken to create a unique product or service". Project performance denotes the extent to which
project outputs and outcomes satisfy budget goals, schedule goals, operational and technical
1
specifications, and ultimately, the business needs of the client (Ali et al., 2018, p.457). The
traditional approach associated with the performance of a project includes the evaluation of scope,
quality, and cost. Indeed, the process of measuring the action leads to quantifying project
performance which is considered as efficiency and effectiveness of action in the context of projects
(Głodziński, 2019). To measure such actions, various metrics and measures of performance are
required in projects which are different from each other.

The performance measure is "a set of metrics that aids in assessing the efficiency and/or efficacy
of an action", according to Neely et al. (1995). The performance measures allow project managers
and other project stakeholders to assess project performance at the phase level, allowing proactive
measures to be implemented based on current project reviews (Yun et al., 2016). According to
Kaplan (1990) "no measures, no improvement". For such manifestation, any given performance
target that project or process participants wish to establish and track, one or more performance
metrics can be identified. Identifying a vital variable that measures, reflects, or significantly
influences a specific performance objective is a guiding principle in selecting a performance metric
(Sullivan et al. 2004). More comparisons of metric results based on various project characteristics
can be possible, which can be extremely valuable in evaluating and analyzing phase-level
performance indicators (Yun et al., 2016).

Project performance is considered as a trade-off between several measurements and dimensions

specifically emphasizing what is done, such as scope and quality versus, the resources such as time
and cost used to do the project activities (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019; Zheng et al., 2019). The
concept of project performance has been discussed in the literature as the extent or degree to which
a project fulfills its intended purpose (Szatmari, Deichmann, van den Ende, & King, 2021).
Although project performance has been studied both academically and practically in the field of
research, however, the key question is to decide "what will be measured" and more importantly,
to select a mechanism of performance indicators (Zheng et al., 2019). Indeed, the overall
conceptualization of project performance includes schedule performance, quality performance,
innovation performance, and benefit performance (Chen & Lin, 2018). On the other hand, project
management practitioners emphasized that project performance is all about the success of projects
which must be in line with the organizational long-term goals. In other words, project management
literature often defined project performance with the fundamental triple constraints of time, cost,
and quality (Barbosa et al., 2021; Younus & Younis, 2021). Nonetheless, different stakeholders
have different stakes in the project, therefore various components and dimensions are also used to
measure the project performance success, such as client satisfaction in addition to time, cost, and
scope parameters (Zhu et al., 2021).

2. Project Performance Metrics, Measures, and Dimensions

2.1 Metrics of Project Performance

2
A metric is a "method of calculating" a value (price, weight height, etc.) which is also a numerical
measure used to track and evaluate the progress of an activity. Indeed, metrics are quantitative
assessment measures that are routinely used to evaluate, compare, and track the performance of
projects or production. A project metric represents that how much a system, component, or process
contains a specific attribute. Project metrics are essential indicators that can be used to track the
progress of a project. Also, metrics support the implementation of corrective actions when the
numbers do not match the expectations in projects. In addition to tracking the progress of a project,
an effective project manager must keep track of the team's progress and guide them toward the
project's objectives. In other words, a metric is a measurement that is used to gauge the
performance of a project. To put it another way, it is a term that assesses how well something was
done. For instance, project management metrics are used as a tool to assess the project's success
(or performance). Indeed, project management metrics enable project managers to analyze a
project's status, anticipate hazards, and assess the team’s productivity and quality of work,
allowing them to determine the success of a project. In a project context, a performance metric can
be in a tabular or figure format to provide an easily interpreted sign of performance.

Rankin et al. (2008) defined cost, time, quality, safety, scope, innovation, and sustainability as
performance indicators that could be applied to projects, in addition to capacity-based metrics,
such as cost per unit and time per unit. Ling et al. (2009) identified essential project management
strategies for different project measures that were found to have a significant impact on project
performance, in terms of budget, schedule, quality, owner satisfaction, profitability, and public
satisfaction. Similarly, Swarup et al. (2011) identified performance criteria influencing project
goals in terms of schedule, cost, quality, and post-occupancy evaluation. Such performance metrics
can be used by the practitioners to assess the outcomes of projects (Yun et al., 2016). Nevertheless,
the improvement measures were developed using activity-based costing theory and controllability
engineering theory, as well as monitoring metrics such as efficient project time, value-added,
subcontracting percentage, number of invoices per day, invoice amount, disposal costs, tender
reply percentage, and the number of changes in subcontract (Wegelius-Lehtonen, 2001).

2.2 Measures of Project Performance

A measure is a quantifiable indication of performance gathered when actions are being carried out.
In contrast, a metric is a measurement or calculation that is linked to performance. Metrics are
repeated measures that are used as benchmarks for comparing variation to a set of project goals
which can be gathered by a variety of methods, such as tracking the number of days late or the
number of flaws discovered. A metric is also called an indicator, or a key performance indicator
when it is utilized in a monitoring system to analyze a project through performance information.
In projects, performance information is a piece of additional information needed to make sense of
performance measures and indicators – such as the time of day, the outside temperature, and the

3
size of the crowd. Although metric is anything that can be measured and a criterion is a
characteristic that is used to choose anything. Indeed, the criterion is a defined value of a measure
for which a decision must be made based on whether the parameter is above or below it. There are
always several attributes that allow choosing anything that is a measurement, but there is no other
connection between the two terms. Nevertheless, there are certain project success criteria used as
measurable terms that describe what the project's ultimate result should be that is acceptable to the
end-user, customer, and stakeholders. In other words, project success factors are actions or
elements that must be present for the projects to be completed successfully.

In project management literature, one of the most common and frequently used measures of project
performance is the 'Iron triangle'. The Iron triangle refers to the cost, time, and quality which is
believed to be the unique information among customers and project stakeholders (Maqsoom et al.,
2020). These three elements of the ‘iron triangle’ are considered part of the project throughout the
project life cycle, commencing with the planning and design stages and concluding with the final
closing stage (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019). Owing to which it is considered important to monitor
the progress of the projects beyond time, cost, and other areas according to their complications.
Nonetheless, monitoring and control phases should not only consider the time and cost issues but
also the other issues and behaviors that can be identified during the project execution phase in
different knowledge areas such as project value, image, and reputation (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi,
2019).

Several challenges are associated with the measures of the 'iron triangle'. An increasing challenge
to the ‘iron triangle’ is that most of the project performances are measured with the performance
criteria such as time, cost, and quality which are identified and explained in most of the research
studies as the critical success factors of the project. On the other hand, some research studies have
explained other basic criteria to measure project performance, such as interpersonal skills or
relationships among the project team members. Nonetheless, efforts have not been made to
combine all such project performance measures into a comprehensive framework that can be used
to quantify the overall project performance success (Shdid, Andary, Chowdhury, & Ahmad, 2019).
To overcome this challenge, various measures and metrics used in the extant literature to determine
project performance during different phases of the projects are synthesized in Figure 2.1.

4
 Pereira and ima 201 ) abirifar and Pereira and ima 201 ) Gunduz and ah a
ojtahedi 2019) hen et a . 2019) arsen et 201 ) im and u en 201 ) it aiboon et
a . 201 ) a . 2019) abahi and Parast 2020) hamd et
a . 201 ) abirifar and ojtahedi 2019)
a soom et a . 2020) hen et a . 2019)
arbosa et a . 2021) arsen et a . 201 ) ohi
et a . 2020)

Pereira and ima 201 ) Gunduz and ah a Pereira and ima 201 ) zatmari et a 2021)
201 ) Tri athi and ha 201 ) n e and Gunduz and ah a 201 ) im and u en
ahesh 2020) it aiboon et a . 2019) abahi 201 ) ounus and ounis 2021) n e and
and Parast 2020) abirifar and ojtahedi
ahesh 2020) it aiboon et a . 2019) hamd
2019) a soom et a . 2020) hen et a . et a . 201 ) abirifar and ojtahedi 2019)
2019) arbosa et a . 2021) arsen et a .
201 ) a soom et a . 2020) hen et a . 2019)
arbosa et a . 2021) arsen et a . 201 ) ohi
et a . 2020)

Figure 2.1: Synthesis of project performance measures and metrics used in the project lifecycle

2.3 Dimensions of Project Performance

In the project management context, various performance criteria and dimensions associated with
projects at strategic, tactical or operational levels are increasingly been used to measure
performance that leads to project success. Such dimensions include; schedule performance, quality
performance, innovation performance, benefit performance, project scope, time, cost, procurement
management, associated risk, human resource, customer satisfaction, learning & innovation, senior
management support and skills, integration of resources, safety, financial performance,
stakeholder satisfaction, and effective communication (Szatmari et al., 2021; Maqsoom et al.,
2020). Such performance dimensions have been explained in different contexts and ways. For
instance, cost performance appraise that project is completed within the budget, the schedule
performance determines whether the project is finished within a given time frame; quality
performance ensures that project deliverables meet the contractual requirements; innovation
performance refers to whether the project generates useful ideas and new professional knowledge
and techniques, and benefit performance measures to achieve the effectiveness of project outcomes
in terms of promoting the organization competitiveness (Chen & Lin, 2018).

5
Indeed, the importance of project performance is to keep project stakeholders informed about the
status of the project because the progress of projects is measured by the project managers and the
appropriate stakeholders. On the other hand, inadequate performance indicators provide
incomplete information for decision-making that results in reduced project outcomes (Zheng et al.,
2019). Moreover, project performance is also used for financial objectives and goals achieved at
the end of the projects. Such financial gains are reported by the project leader who highlights the
actual cost savings and revenue increased as a result of project outcome (Dasí, Pedersen, Barakat,
& Alves, 2021). As a result, performance criteria and indicators are the critical aspects of project
management which highlight that measures of project performance need to be considered
following the different phases of the project and significance of project types, in addition to the
development and evaluation of important performance indicators that enable to describe the
characteristics affecting project outcome (Zheng et al., 2019).

According to Sekar et al., (2018), dimensions of project performance include cost, time, quality
safety, and financial performance. However, the cost and financial performances are not the same.
Indeed, project performance is a multi-dimensional construct and the ‘iron triangle’ is most
commonly used to measure project performance which is made up of three important dimensions:
cost, time, and quality. As such, cost and time performance are typically quantified as a percentage
divergence from the initial plan, whereas quality performance is measured in terms of contractual
agreements and technical standards compliance. Moreover, cost performance is concerned with
the completion of project within the allocated budgeted cost that includes both direct and indirect
cost, whereas the financial performance of a project is related to return on investment, return on
equity, return on assets, earning profits, and the overall contribution of the project in organization's
financial success (Sekar et al., 2018). Such dimensions give useful and important information
about project performance, especially in terms of task-related characteristics. Enumerating the
customer’s re uirement, or even ex andin it to inc ude the satisfaction of the stakeholder, is an
additional significant factor. Such intangible criteria, which focus on perceptions and attitudes, are
seen to be a useful addition to measuring project performance (Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2018).
Therefore, various dimensions of project performance used in the extant literature are summarized
in Table 2.1.

6
Table 2.1: Literature review summary on dimensions of project performance

Financial Performance
Schedule Performance

Stakeholder Influence
Quality Performance

Process Performance

safety performance
Time Performance
Cost performance

Future potential
Dimensions/
Authors

Scope
Głodziński 2019) x x

(Wang et al., 2021) x x

(Ahmed &
x x x x
Anantatmula, 2017) x
(Assaad et al., 2020) x x
Sekar et al., 2018 x x x x x
(Szatmari et al., 2021) x x
(Gupta et al., 2019) x x x
(Unterhitzenberger &
Bryde, 2018) x x x x
(Aldhaheri et al., 2018) x x x x x x
(Lee et al., 2020) x x x x x x
(Salvador et al., 2021) x
(Mahmoudi et al., 2021) x x x
(Adamtey, 2019) x x x
(Mossalam, 2020) x x x x x x

3. Analyzing Challenges of Project Performance

Although, some measures, metrics, and dimensions have been used to measure project
performance, however, there are yet several challenges associated with the performance of
projects. Indeed, every project is always different or unique, and project success is judged in terms
of the roject’s com etion, and roject data can be used to examine and track roject success or
performance to build a knowledge base and improve the project management success (Ahmed &
Anantatmula, 2017). On the other hand, project safety and quality can influence the performance
of projects during the design and planning stages, where project management tools and procedures
are used extensively (Sekar et al., 2018). Moreover, due to the evaluation bias, a project is more

7
likely to be accepted and sustained within an organization regardless of its quality, increasing the
likelihood that the organization will undertake low-quality initiatives that will perform poorly on
the external market (Szatmari et al., 2021). However, similarities and variations in project
monitoring and performance assessment methodologies under various scenarios (e.g., process
improvement, R&D, etc.) have received less attention (Gupta et al., 2019).

There are several issues and challenges faced to measure project performances in different phases
of the project. Sometimes the project during its development phase can lose the balance and deviate
from its established initial objectives which require a need for a correction plan. To avoid such
corrections, there should be a mechanism to identify any deviation at the earlier stage. To deal
with such divergence situations, performance indicators are established to discover and provide
timely information to develop action plans and maintain the project balance (Pereira & Lima,
2018). Additionally, another similar challenge is that despite the efforts of project managers as
well as employing different project management tools, still most of the projects are unable to
achieve their targeted performance due to the inability of the organization to implement effective
control mechanisms for the projects and manage the level of complexity in projects (Maqsoom et
al., 2020).

The most vital issues affecting the project performance success are poor project planning and
control which further results in poor performances. The development of effective standards and
planning at the beginning of the project are the main critical factors of project success that should
not be ignored. Likewise, the financial benefit is another concern in projects which plays a
significant role during the project initiation phase which is common among all project
stakeholders. The project initiation without adequate design, estimation, and planning eventually
lead to project failure (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019). Furthermore, another important factor that
needs to be considered is flexibility in projects during the planning and implementation phases of
the projects which cannot only be accomplished by flexible decisions but also making adjustments
in the entire planning system, departing from plans, changing them, or sidestepping them together
(Sohi, Bosch-Rekveldt, & Hertogh, 2020).

Indeed, initial acceptance and moving forward with low-quality projects is a severe problem for
businesses, because product-related decision-making is prone to decision traps, which can result
in significant project failures (Szatmari et al., 2021). Given the global monetary worth of project
work, under-performance is a major economic concern, and management approaches normally
utilized in project management are required to increase the likelihood of project performance
success. One of the main challenges for the project manager is to finish the project within the time
framework determined by the project stakeholders. Indeed, project managers always had difficulty
in reducing project duration while taking into account the factors affecting the project's
implementation. Although, cost and time are considered important in project completion whereas
the quality is usually ignored in certain cases which impacts the overall performance of the project

8
(Mahmoudi & Feylizadeh, 2018). Furthermore, poor project performance can be caused due to a
lack of planning by the project management team, a lack of human resources, a lack of cost control,
and scope modifications throughout the project (Sekar et al., 2018).

Projects are implemented for the customers and customer satisfaction is one of the big challenges
faced in measuring the project performance. The term 'customer satisfaction' refers to how the
customer sees the end product's performance, which includes adherence to a set of pre-defined
goals; if expectations were lower than actual performance, customer satisfaction would be
achieved (Tam et al., 2020). Moreover, customer satisfaction is regarded as a reliable measure of
project performance which is positively associated with organizational success (Szatmari et al.,
2021). Nevertheless, a project should meet the customer specification of the finished product in
terms of quality and quantity (Aldhaheri et al., 2018). Indeed, the performance of a project cannot
be fully appraised until it has been delivered and used by the customer (Ahmed & Anantatmula,
2017). For instance, complex projects have a complicated nature and project complexity may cause
unintended consequences toward project performance. Although the complexity of the project
adversely affects the cost performance that can negatively impact the project performance. Owing
to difficult technical and organizational project complexity, complexity has a detrimental impact
on project performance. Therefore, it would be possible to improve project performance by using
complexity and uncertainty reduction measures, in addition to developing a comprehensive project
performance framework (Safapour et al., 2018).

4. Project Performance Framework

Many organizations have struggled to deliver high-quality projects, products, and services on time
and at a low cost despite a lack of adequate performance measures and metrics, which include
tangibles, intangibles, financial, and non-financial factors (Gunasekaran et al., 2015). In such
situations, financial metrics are often used as performance indicators. These measures gave current
information about the organization's performance but did not provide estimates for the future
(Mishra et al., 2018). Although financial performance measurements were useful in the early years,
according to Kaplan and Norton (1992), now organizations must consider them in projects to stay
competitive. However, a few studies have proposed using a "balanced scorecard", to establish
strategy alignment by balancing financial and non-financial measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
On the other hand, few researchers proposed various frameworks to manage performance from the
beginning to the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, including the performance measurement matrix
(Keegan et al., 1989), performance pyramid (Lynch and Cross, 1991), results-determinants
framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991), balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992), Cambridge
Performance Measurement Process (Neely et al., 1995), and the performance prism (Neely et al.,
2002). However, these performance frameworks are not adequate to comprehensively measure the
performance of projects.

9
According to Neely (1994), "a performance measurement system can be characterized as a set of
metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions". Performance measures
are required in projects due to which many research efforts have proceeded over the last many
years to create acceptable measures for evaluating project performance. The majority of
performance measures are used to analyze project performance outcomes at the project level, many
performance studies have chosen key performance indicators (KPIs) from among frequently
accepted performance measures (Yun et al., 2016). Following KPIs, Shohet (2006) defined phase-
specific performance measures during the operations and maintenance activities which are divided
into four categories: 1) asset development metrics such as built area, asset occupancy, and asset
age; 2) organization and management metrics such as the number of employees per built area,
scope of facility management outsourcing, management span of control, and maintenance
organizational structure; and 3) performance management metrics such as a building performance
indicator used to assess the overall state of building portfolio aligned with the performance of its
systems and components; and 4) maintenance efficiency metrics such as annual maintenance
expenditure, maintenance efficiency indicator used to examine the investment associated with the
performance of facilities.

Performance frameworks of projects are still being developed to support better assessment
procedures. Continuing efforts to compile a comprehensive compendium of performance models,
such as the International Council for Building (CIB) Performance, are included in building and
facility performance frameworks (Sullivan et al. 2004). The practice of quantifying the efficiency
and effectiveness of action through different frameworks is known as performance measurement
(Neely et al., 1995). All of the frameworks used in projects have performance objectives/criteria
linked to efficiency, however, generally lack quantifiable indicators related to priority and
performance levels that can be used to specify and track project performance. Moreover, work on
creating performance metrics that are meant to explicitly describe the performance objectives for
a project using quantitative criteria in a dynamic, organized style is also required in this area
(Sullivan et al. 2004). Therefore, a comprehensive project performance framework emphasizing
the level of performance as well as the level of performance priority in different types of projects
is developed for adoption across the project life cycle in various environments and cultures to
further improve project performance success (see Figure 4.1).

10
 eve
ctivit

Project eve

r anizationa eve
Figure 4.1: Project performance framework

6. Conclusions

As a project is always unique and measuring the performance of each project is critical for project
stakeholders. So, to monitor project performance, various measures and metrics have been
discussed in the literature but still, there is limited research on developing a comprehensive
framework of project performance that can be adopted across the industries. Therefore, this chapter
proposes a comprehensive framework encompassing different measures and metrics based on the
extant literature that can help the organizations to monitor and enhance the performance of
different types of projects in various cultures and environments. The proposed framework
emphasis gives significant importance to project objectives, project value, project complexity,
customer satisfaction, and stakeho ders’ satisfaction, in addition to achieving cost, time, scope,
and quality parameters while ensuring project performance success. Furthermore, the project
performance dimensions, measures, and metrics highlighted in this chapter enable the project
managers and team members to remain focused on accomplishing strategic, tactical or operational
objectives and goals while measuring the project performance success more effectively and

11
efficiently across the projects. Finally, the developed project performance framework can be
adopted, tested, and used pragmatically across various cultures, industries, and sectors to enhance
the likelihood of project management and project performance success.

References

Adamtey, S. A. (2019). A Case Study Performance Analysis of Design-Build and Integrated

Project Delivery Methods. International Journal of Construction Education and Research,
17(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2019.1696903
Ahmed, R., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2017). Empirical Study of Project Managers Leadership
Competence and Project Performance. Engineering Management Journal, 29(3), 189–205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2017.1343005
Ahamd, U., Ibrahim, Y. B., & Bakar, A. B. A. (2018). Malaysian public-private partnership
projects: project success definition. International Journal of Engineering Technology,
7(3.30), 33-37.
Aldhaheri, M., Bakchan, A., & Sandhu, M. A. (2018). A structural equation model for enhancing
effectiveness of engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) major projects.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(9), 1226–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-07-2017-0130
Ali, I., Musawir, A. U., & Ali, M. (2018). Impact of knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity
on project performance: the moderating role of social processes. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(2), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2016-0449
Assaad, R., El-Adaway, I. H., & Abotaleb, I. S. (2020). Predicting Project Performance in the
Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(5),
04020030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001797
Barbosa, A. P. F. P. L., Salerno, M. S., de Souza Nascimento, P. T., Albala, A., Maranzato, F. P.,
& Tamoschus, D. (2021). Configurations of project management practices to enhance the
performance of open innovation R&D projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 39(2), 128-138.
Chen, H. L., & Lin, Y. L. (2018). Goal orientations, leader-leader exchange, trust, and the
outcomes of project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5),
716-729.
Dasí, À., Pedersen, T., Barakat, L. L., & Alves, T. R. (2021). Teams and project performance: An
ability, motivation, and opportunity approach. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 75-89.
Fitzgerald, L., Johnson, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R. and Voss, C. (1991), Performance
Measurement in Service Business, CIMA, London.

12
Głodziński, E. 2019). Performance measurement of com ex roject framework and means
supporting management of project-based organizations. International Journal of
Information Systems and Project Management, 7(2), 21-34.
Gunasekaran, A., Irani, Z., Choy, K. L., Filippi, L., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Performance
measures and metrics in outsourcing decisions: A review for research and
applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 161, 153-166.
Gunduz, M., & Yahya, A. M. A. (2018). Analysis of project success factors in construction
industry. Technological Economic Development of Economy, 24(1), 67–80.
Gupta, S. K., Gunasekaran, A., Antony, J., Gupta, S., Bag, S., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Systematic
literature review of project failures: Current trends and scope for future research.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 274–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.002
Ingle, P. V., & Mahesh, G. (2020). Construction project performance areas for Indian construction
projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-12.
Jitpaiboon, T., Smith, S. M., & Gu, Q. (2019). Critical success factors affecting project
performance: An analysis of tools, practices, and managerial support. Project Management
Journal, 50(3), 271-287.
Kabirifar, K., & Mojtahedi, M. (2019). The impact of Engineering, Procurement and Construction
(EPC) phases on project performance: A case of large-scale residential construction
project. Buildings, 9(1), 15.
Kaplan, R.S. (1990), Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R. . and orton, D.P. 1992), “The ba anced scorecard-measures that drive erformance”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70(1), 71-79.
ee an, D.P., Ei er, R.G. and ones, C.R. 19 9), “ re our erformance measures obso ete?”,
Strategic Finance, Vol. 70(12), 45-60.
Kim, S.-Y., & Nguyen, V. T. (2018). A Structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship
traits on project performance in construction. Production Planning Control, 29(2), 170-183.
Larsen, J. K., Lindhard, S. M., Brunoe, T. D., & Jensen, K. N. (2018). The relation between pre-
planning, commissioning and enhanced project performance. Construction Economic
Building, 18(2), 1-14.
Lee, J., Chou, I., & Chen, C. (2020). The effect of process tailoring on software project
performance: The role of team absor tive ca acit and its know ed e‐based enab ers.
Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12303

13
Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q., Lim, H.H., 2009. Key project management practices
affecting Singaporean firms' project performance in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27(1), 59–
71.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure Up, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Mahmoudi, A., & Feylizadeh, M. R. (2018). A grey mathematical model for crashing of projects
by considering time, cost, quality, risk and law of diminishing returns. Grey Systems:
Theory and Application, 8(3), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/gs-12-2017-0042
Mahmoudi, A., Javed, S. A., & Deng, X. (2021). Earned duration management under uncertainty.
Soft Computing, 25(14), 8921–8940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05782-6
Maqsoom, A., Hamad, M., Ashraf, H., Thaheem, M. J., & Umer, M. (2020). Managerial control
mechanisms and their influence on project performance: an investigation of the moderating
role of complexity risk. Engineering, Construction Architectural Management, 27(9),
2451-2475.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Dubey, R. (2018). Supply chain performance
measures and metrics: a bibliometric study. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 25(3), 932-967.
Mossalam, A. (2020). Developing a multi-criteria index for government projects performance.
HBRC Journal, 16(1), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2020.1819743
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Kennerley, M. (2002), The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for
Measuring and Managing Business Success, Prentice, London.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. 1995), “Performance measurement s stem desi n a
iterature review and research a enda”, nternationa ourna of erations and Production
Management, 15(4), 80-116.
ee , .D. 1994), “Performance measurement s stem desi n – third hase”, Performance
Measurement System Design Workbook, April.
’ u ivan, D. T. ., eane, . ., e iher, D., & Hitchcock, R. . 2004). m rovin bui din
operation by tracking performance metrics throughout the building lifecycle
(BLC). Energy and buildings, 36(11), 1075-1090.
Pereira, M. S., & Lima, R. M. (2018). Definition of a Project Performance Indicators Model:
Contribution of Collaborative Engineering Practices on Project Management. Management
and Industrial Engineering, 289-296.
PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (6th ed.).
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute (PMI).
Pollack, J., Helm, J., & Adler, D. (2018). What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?
International journal of managing projects in business

14
Rankin, J., Fayek, A.R., Meade, G., Haas, C., Manseau, A., 2008. Initial metrics and pilot program
results for measuring the performance of the Canadian construction industry. Can. J. Civ.
Eng. 35(9), 894–907.
Sabahi, S., & Parast, M. M. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship orientation on project
performance: A machine learning approach. International Journal of Production
Economics, 226, 107621.
Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., Habibi, M., & Shane, J. (2018, April). Resource-based exploratory
analysis of project complexity impact on phase-based cost performance behavior.
In Proceedings of Construction Research Congress (2-4).
a vador, F., ba, C., adiedo, . P., Tenhiä ä, ., & endo , E. 2021). Project mana ers’
breadth of experience, project complexity, and project performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 67(6), 729–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1140
Sekar, G., Viswanathan, K., & Sambasivan, M. (2018). Effects of Project-Related and
Organizational-Related Factors on Five Dimensions of Project Performance: A Study
Across the Construction Sectors in Malaysia. Engineering Management Journal, 30(4),
247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2018.1485000
Shdid, C., Andary, E., Chowdhury, A., & Ahmad, I. (2019). Project performance rating model for
water and wastewater treatment plant public projects. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 35(2), 1-20.
Shohet, I.M., 2006. Key performance indicators for strategic healthcare facilities maintenance. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 132(4), 345–352.
Sohi, A. J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Hertogh, M. J. I. J. o. M. P. i. B. (2020). Does flexibility in
project management in early project phases contribute positively to end-project
performance?, 13(4), 1753-8378.
Swarup, L., Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., 2011. Project delivery metrics for sustainable, high-
performance buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137(12), 1043–1051.
Szatmari, B., Deichmann, D., van den Ende, J., & King, B. G. (2021). Great Successes and Great
Failures: The Impact of Project Leader Status on Project Performance and Performance
Extremeness. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1267–1293.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12638
Tam, C., Moura, E., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-
going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management,
38(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001
Tripathi, K., & Jha, K. (2018). An empirical study on performance measurement factors for
construction organizations. Journal of civil engineering, 22(4), 1052-1066.

15
 Unterhitzenberger, C., & Bryde, D. J. (2018). Organizational Justice, Project Performance, and the
Mediating Effects of Key Success Factors. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818808984
Wang, D., Wang, X., Wang, L., Liu, H. J., & Jia, X. (2021). A performance measurement system
for public–private partnerships: integrating stakeholder influence and process trans-period
effect. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0408.

Wegelius-Lehtonen, T., 2001. Performance measurement in construction logistics. Int. J. Prod.

Econ., Productivity, Performance and Valuation 69, 107–116.
Younus, A. M., & Younis, H. (2021). Conceptual Framework of Agile Project Management,
Affecting Project Performance, Key: Requirements and Challenges. International Journal
of Innovative Research in Engineering Management, 8(4), 10-14.
Yun, S., O'Brien, W.J., Mulva, S.P., 2012. A Quantitative Approach for Measuring Managerial
Interfaces in the Development of a Capital Project. Proceedings of Construction Research
Congress. ASCE, pp. 1410–1419.
Zheng, L., Baron, C., Esteban, P., Xue, R., Zhang, Q., & Yang, S. (2019). Using leading indicators
to improve project performance measurement. Journal of Systems Science Systems
Engineering, 28(5), 529-554.
Zhu, F., Wang, X., Wang, L., & Yu, M. (2021). Project manager's emotional intelligence and
project performance: The mediating role of project commitment. International Journal of
Project Management 39(7), 788-798.

A ’ B :

R zA PhD, P P) is Professor and Director, Post Graduate Pro rams at ahria Universit ,
s amabad, Pakistan. He obtained his PhD de ree from the University Technology a a sia
UT ), a a sia, with distinction receivin the “ est Post raduate tudent ward.” He is
certified Project ana ement Professiona P P) from P ,U . He has been workin in hi her
education institutions for 20 ears. He has ub ished a number of scho ar artic es in re uted
journa s inc udin Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, En ineerin
ana ement ourna , Qua it and Quantit , nternationa ourna of nformation Techno o
ana ement, and nternationa ourna of odern Project ana ement, nternationa ourna of
Productivit and Performance ana ement, etc.

16

View publication stats