A Review of Contextual Factors Influencing Performance Measurement System Adoption in the Construction Industry


Abdulwadod Saeed Abdulwasea Hassan , Norshahrizan Nordin , Adi Anuar Azamin ,

Download Full PDF Pages: 01-09 | Views: 806 | Downloads: 201 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3631213

Volume 9 - January 2020 (01)


Adopting the performance measurement system (PMS) is one of the most important initiatives introduced in different industries and sectors, such as the construction sector of many countries. However, in practice, it has been noted that despite the enormous possible advantages that the PMS could provide, some   organizations are facing difficulties in its adoption, and failing to achieve the full potential of the system or, worse still, fail totally in adopting it. Through an extensive review of previous studies in the literature, this paper will discuss the contextual factors that affect the adoption of such a system in the construction industry. Several factors are determined as important enablers of PMS adoption among construction firms and are classified as external and internal factors. More specifically, this review paper addresses external factors such as environmental uncertainty, stakeholder involvement, and competition, besides, internal factors such as leadership, strategy, information system, and quality management practices


PMS; adoption; construction; internal; external; factors


i.        Abdel-Kader, M., and Luther, R., (2008). The Impact of Firm Characteristics on Management Accounting Practices: A UK-Based Empirical Analysis. The British Accounting Review. 40(1), pp.2-27.

ii.      Abubakar, A., Saidin, S., & Ahmi, A. (2015). Adoption of the performance measurement system in the Nigerian public sector: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, 6(10), 1424.

iii.    Akbar, R., Pilcher, R., & Perrin, B. (2012). Performance measurement in Indonesia : the case of local government. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140581211283878

iv.     Alharthi, S. J. (2014). Critical Success Factors in the Implementation of Performance Management Systems in Uae Government Organisations (University of Southampton; Vol. 93). Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/158357/

v.       Al-mamary, Y. H., Shamsuddin, A., & Aziati, N. (2014). Factors Affecting Successful Adoption of Management Information Systems in Organizations towards Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2(5), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajss-2-5-2

vi.     Al-shareem, K. M., Ernawati, N. Y., & Kamal, M. (2015). External Factors Influencing the Readiness for Implementing Public- Private Partnerships among Public and Private Organizations in Yemen. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, (January). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-07-2014-0030

vii.   Ambler, T., Kokkinaki, F., & Puntoni, S. (2004). Assessing Marketing Performance: Reasons for Metrics Selection. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3–4), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725704323080506

viii. Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2009). Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum038

ix.     Choe, J. M. (2003). The effect of environmental uncertainty and strategic applications of IS on a firm’s performance. Information and Management, 40(4), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00008-3

x.       De Waal, A. A. and Counet, H., (2009) ‘Lessons Learned from Performance Management Systems Implementations’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 367-390

xi.     de Waal, A., & Kourtit, K. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(5), 446–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2012-0118

xii.   Fleming, D. M., Chow, C. W., & Chen, G. (2009). Strategy , performance-measurement systems , and performance : A study of Chinese firms . International Journal of Accounting, 44(3), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2009.06.004

xiii. Garengo, P., & Bititci, U. (2007). Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 802–825. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710763787

xiv. Garengo, P., & Sharma, M. K. (2014). Performance measurement system contingency factors: A cross analysis of Italian and Indian SMEs. Production Planning and Control, 25(3), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.663104

xv.   Gosselin, M. (2011). Contextual factors affecting the deployment of innovative performance measurement systems. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 12(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/09675421111187692

xvi. Havenvid, M. I. (2015). Competition versus interaction as a way to promote innovation in the construction industry. IMP Journal, 9(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/imp-02-2015-0005


xviii.         Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003

xix. Johnston, R. and Pongatichat, P., (2008) ‘Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping strategies’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 941-967

xx.   Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). 18. 8238-Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60668-0

xxi. Keathley, H. R. (2016). Empirical Investigation of Factors that Affect the Successful Implementation of Performance Measurement Systems. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

xxii.           Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1222–1245. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450293

xxiii.         Khan, H., Halabi, A. K., & Sartorius, K. (2011). The use of multiple performance measures and the balanced scorecard (BSC) in Bangladeshi firms. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 1(2), 160–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/20421161111138512

xxiv.          Krishnamurthy, R., Desouza, K. C., Dawson, G. S., & Ho, A. T. (2018). Factors Promoting the Collection of Performance Measurement : Evidence from US Local Governments 2 . Performance Measurement and ICT. 9, 2266–2275.

xxv.            Kroll, A. (2015). Public Performance & Management Review Drivers of Performance Information Use : Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. (July). https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1006469

xxvi.          Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. (2015). Relationship between leadership styles and project success in the South Africa construction industry. Procedia Engineering, 123, 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.091

xxvii.        Lisi, I. E. (2015). Translating environmental motivations into performance: The role of environmental performance measurement systems. Management Accounting Research, 29, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.06.001

xxviii.      Mansor, N. N. A., Chakraborty, A. R., Yin, T. K., & Mahitapoglu, Z. (2012). Organizational Factors Influencing Performance Management System in Higher Educational Institution of South East Asia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.234

xxix.          Masry, M. H. (2013). Performance Measurement Systems in Service SME : A Brunei Case Study 2013. Manchester Business School.

xxx.            Neyestani, B., & Juanzon, J. B. P. (2016). Developing an Appropriate Performance Measurement Framework for Total Quality Management (TQM) in Construction and Other Industries. IRA-International Journal of Technology & Engineering (ISSN 2455-4480), 5(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.21013/jte.v5.n2.p2

xxxi.          Nguyen, V.H., (2016). Factors hinder the use of ABC method in Vietnamese enterprises. Doctoral thesis. University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.

xxxii.        Nudurupati, S. S., Bititci, U. S., Kumar, V., & Chan, F. T. S. (2011). State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 60(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2010.11.010

xxxiii.      Ofori, G., & Toor, S. ur R. (2012). Leadership and construction industry development in developing countries. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 17(SUPPL. 1), 1–21.

xxxiv.      Oyetunji, A., Adebiyi, J., & Olatunde, N. (2019). Leadership Behaviour and Worker Performance in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.122.1264

xxxv.        Pedersen, E. R. G., & Sudzina, F. (2012). Which firms use measures?: Internal and external factors shaping the adoption of performance measurement systems in Danish firms. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 32(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211195718

xxxvi.      Pimentel, L., & Major, M. J. (2014). Quality management and a balanced scorecard as supporting frameworks for a new management model and organisational change. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 25(7–8), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.904568

xxxvii.    Qadri, M. M., Azhar, T. M., & Imam, A. (2013). Organizational Determinants as a Barrier of Balanced Scorecard Adoption for Performance Measurement in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(20), 7–22.

xxxviii.  Quesado, P. R., Aibar-Guzmán, B., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2016). Extrinsic and intrinsic factors in the Balanced Scorecard adoption: An empirical study in Portuguese organizations. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 25(2), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redeen.2016.03.002


xl.     Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovatons (3ed Editio). NEW YORK: THE FREE PRESS.

xli.   Scott, W. R. (1987). The Adolescence of Institutional Theory The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. 32(4), 493–511.

xlii. Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D., & Pipan, K. K. (2010). Quality Improvement Methodologies – PDCA Cycle , RADAR Matrix , DMAIC and DFSS. 43(1), 476–483.

xliii.           Taticchi, P., Balachandran, K., & Tonelli, F. (2012). Performance measurement and management systems: State of the art, guidelines for design and challenges. Measuring Business Excellence, 16(2), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041211230311

xliv.           Taylor, A., & Taylor, M. (2013). Antecedents of effective performance measurement system implementation: An empirical study of UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5485–5498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.784412

xlv. Tran, N.H., (2016). Factors influencing the use of management accounting in SMEs in Vietnam. Doctoral thesis. University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.

xlvi.           Trang, D. H., & Huyen, L. M. (2017). Factors Affecting to The Success of The Contemporary Management Accounting Practices in Vietnamese Enterprises. International Conference For Young Researchers In Economics And Business, ICYREB 2017, 194–202. Retrieved from https://tmu.edu.vn/uploads/tmu/news/2017_11/ky-yeu-ht-phan-1.pdf#page=238

xlvii.         Tuan, L. T. (2010). Organisational culture, leadership and performance measurement integratedness. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 9(3), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2010.037066

xlviii.       Willar, D. (2017). Developing attributes for evaluating construction project-based performance. The TQM Journal, 29(2), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2016-0036

xlix.           Yang, H., Yeung, J. F. Y. Y., Chan, A. P. C. C., Chiang, Y. H., & Chan, D. W. M. C. (2010). A critical review of performance measurement in construction. 8(4), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725961011078981

Cite this Article: