ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea)
https://www.revistaespacios.com Pag. 50
Vol. 42 (16) 2021 • Art. 4
Recibido/Received: 24/06/2021 • Aprobado/Approved: 09/07/2021 • Publicado/Published: 30/08/2021
DOI: 10.48082/espacios-a21v42n16p04
A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case
study for the civil construction sector in Brazil
Un nuevo sistema flexible de monitoreo de evaluación comparativa: un estudio de caso
para el sector de la construcción civil en Brasil
ALBERTIN, Marcos R.
1
PONTES, Heráclito L.J.
2
ARAGÃO JUNIOR, Dmontier P.
3
PRATA, Bruno A.
4
BALTAZAR, Marcos C.P.
5
Abstract
This paper aims at presenting a new flexible benchmarking model in civil construction. It describes an
explanatory case study whereby data are collected through an internet benchmarking system with
multi-criteria performance. This case study was based on the Production Arrangements Monitoring and
Benchmarking System (SIMAP), the authors describe a flexible benchmarking model considering 46
criteria classified into 7 subsystems. The proposed benchmarking system can be used by companies
from other countries with proper adaptations.
Keywords: multi-criteria performance, civil construction supply chain, decision analysis.
Resumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo presentar un modelo nuevo de benchmarking flexible en la
construcción civil. Describe un estudio de caso explicativo en el que se recopilan los datos por el internet
a través de un sistema de benchmarking con un rendimiento de criterios múltiples, basado en el Sistema
de Monitoreo y Benchmarking de Arreglos de Producción (SIMAP) considerando 46 criterios clasificados
en 7 subsistemas. Este procedimiento puede ser utilizado por empresas de otros países con las
adaptaciones adecuadas.
Palabras clave: desempeño de criterios múltiples, cadena de suministro de construcción civil, análisis
de decisiones
1. Introduction
In recent decades, globalization has highlighted the inability of companies to aggregate all the skills necessary
for their survival. As a result, corporate interrelationships are not only seen as trade relations but opportunities
1
Associate Professor. Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Federal Univ. of Ceará. Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, 60440-554. Contact: albertin@ot.ufc.br.
2
Associate Professor. Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Federal Univ. of Ceará. Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, 60440-554. Contact: hjaguaribe@ufc.br
3
Assistant Professor. Federal Univ. of Ceará. Russas, Ceará, Brazil, 62900-000. Contact: dmontier.aragao@ufc.br.
4
Associate Professor. Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Federal Univ. of Ceará. Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, 60440-554. Contact: baprata@ufc.br.
5
EBTT Professor. Logistics Coordination, Federal Institute of Alagoas. Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, 57084-649. Contact: marcos.charles@ifal.edu.br.
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 51
to add value and complementarities. Thus, there is a rapid growth in relationships as collaborative networks and
supply chains; clusters, virtual companies, joint ventures, consortiums, alliances, among others, referred to in
this work as productive arrangements (PAs).
Johnson (2008) notes that benchmarking surveys have been made with a focus on intra-relationships, instead of
business interrelationships and business networks. Simatupang (2004) states that there is a positive correlation
between collaboration and performance ratios, and encourages collaborative efforts among the participants in
a supply chain to improve its operating results.
Civil construction is an important sector in the Brazilian economy, which is growing fast in recent years. With
this growth, competitiveness in the sector has played a key role for companies in the market. Therefore, national
companies have sought to promote continuous improvement in their operations based on modern and
flexible managerial techniques.
Concerning the application of benchmarking and performance measurement in civil construction, several papers
have been reported in the literature. The proposition of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and benchmarking
models are presented by Beatham et al. (2004), Chan & Chan, (2004), Fang et al. (2004), Ramirez et al. (2004),
Lee et al. (2005), Park et al. (2005), Costa et al. (2006), Cox et al. (2006), El-Mashaleh et al. (2007), Yeung et al.
(2007), Yeung et al. (2008), Yeung et al. (2009a), Yeung et al. (2009b), Ahuja et al. (2010), Yeung et al. (2013),
Abbasian-Hosseini et al. (2014) and Vogl & Abdel-Wahab (2015). However, studies which approach the
proposition of flexible benchmarking models in the civil construction sector are scarce in the literature.
The main objective of this paper is to propose a new flexible benchmarking monitoring system to evaluate the
performance of civil construction companies. Furthermore, we present a case study with Brazilian companies.
The contributions of the paper are threefold: (1) the application of an innovative web computer system for the
implementation of a flexible benchmarking model in the civil construction sector, (2) the application of a multi-
criteria benchmarking model based on a flexible system available on the internet, and (3) the presentation of a
case study based on the Brazilian reality.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section two, we present the proposed flexible
benchmarking model. In section three, we describe a case study with real-world data. Finally, in the last section,
we provide some concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.
2. Proposed flexible benchmarking model: SIMAP
The SIMAP (Production Arrangements Monitoring and Benchmarking System – in Portuguese) has as its purpose
monitoring companies, links (processes) as well as productive chains of the main PAs in Brazil (Albertin et al.,
2015; Albertin et al., 2016). Through agile and clear communication, all the stakeholders in the analyzed PAs
perform collaborative actions (in the form of benchmarking), making information available about strategic
performance, managerial technologies, processes, and products, guiding actions and efforts for systemic
competitiveness.
The SIMAP is an interactive benchmarking tool created to help companies, developing agencies, and
policymakers identify challenges and opportunities for improving their performance. Through a significant
sample of collected data, the system allows for a more productive dialogue among government and companies
based on information updated dynamically, avoiding inefficient and unfocused actions. To sum up, a company
can compare itself with the average of the registered companies, in the state and local where they act. It can
also identify benchmark companies, which are a reference of efficiency (performance) and effectiveness (results)
to other companies that belong to the same link or have a similar process (Albertin et al., 2014).
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 52
Implementation and monitoring of a benchmarking system is a complex process because a group of companies
is observed and not just an isolated company. A system like SIMAP is a part of a dynamic and complex market,
requiring continuous monitoring that identifies bottlenecks and technological constraints cooperatively and
collaboratively, considering performance indicators previously defined.
SIMAP is an innovative internet benchmarking and monitoring system that provides an online benchmarking
analysis that addresses the need for performance assessment tools. With this innovative tool any firm, in the PAs
previously mapped can participate and view the individual performance analysis results in real-time. The
information of each company is confidential, and aggregated data are presented only as statistical parameters
for comparison.
The inclusion of data in SIMAP occurs with the indication of the location, which can be local, regional, or national,
as represented in the axis "territory" in Figure 1. This figure illustrates some possible comparisons in SIMAP. The
axis "activities" provides the benchmarking by activity (process) of a supply chain compared to other links of the
same or different production chains. It is possible, for example, for a machining company to compare itself with
the average performance of companies from other states and countries, and with its direct competitors in the
same supply chain (territory) or the same state. It is possible to draw a value chain, a supply chain, cluster, or
other types of productive arrangements (PA), and make restricted or unrestricted access comparisons.
Figure 1
Possible comparisons on SIMAP
Source: compiled by authors
The 46 criteria (C1, C2, ..., C46) shown in Figure 2 were grouped by similarity on seven subsystems: Integrated
Management System (GP01), Production Management (GP02), Products Management (GP03), Strategic
Management (GP04), Logistic Management (GP05), Human Resources Management (GP06), and Financial
Management (GP07).
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 53
Figure 2
Application of SIMAP. Source: authors
Source: compiled by authors
Each criterion has a growing performance metric adapted from a Likert scale of five levels (0, 25, 50, 75, 100),
featuring categorized qualitative data. These criteria represent best practices as technologies of product,
processes, and management associated with indicators and methods. There is the possibility of "not applicable"
when the same cannot be implemented in a particular company.
The criteria and performance levels derive from the requirements established in the Malcolm Bridge Award, as
well as in the Toyota Production System, ISO / TS 16949, and ISO 9001. Each subsystem was set based on
interviews with companies and professionals to identify the most important tools. A minimal or desirable
performance (requirement) to delivery to a focal company was identified for each PA (Figure 3). The performance
requirements (dotted line) were established by the focal firm in the supply chain or by experts and were
considered dynamic and market pre-requisites desired by potential suppliers. The data was collected by
interviews, technical visits, and mainly by internet. As a method to analyze the collected dates we are using: (a)
bars graphics and means, and (b) individual and collective visual gaps analysis. It is observed in Figure 3 the
performance of a company (bar chart) and the mean comparison of performance in the GP01 to GP07
subsystems (Albertin et al., 2014). The differences between the performance (bars) and industry requirements
(dotted line) are called bottlenecks or gaps. As shown SIMAP allows viewing "online and on time" gaps for any
company registered for free. Gaps are considered technical barriers to supply the local production chain.
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 54
Figure 3
Individual performance (bars) and
the average performance (line)
Source: compiled by authors
The system architecture of SIMAP, which was adapted from the work of Johnson et al. (2010), is represented in
Figure 4. We use a three-tier application consisting of a web system, a database, and statistical tools.
Figure 4
SIMAP System Architecture
Source: adapted from Johnson et. al., (2010)
System Architecture - Main Components (web server)
Data
management
Benchmarking
Analysis
Cooperation Tools
Peer group
Benchmark
Best Practices
Technologies
Methods
Indicators
Gap analysis
Analysis
Comparison of spatial
productive chain
Comparison of process,
products and services by
region, country and spatial
productive chain
(Gaps) Market
requirements
Sharing information
and strategies
Initiatives
Competitive and
collaborative
environment
(Non-) commercial
information
Statistical Analysis
Identificati
on of
outliers
Cause-
effect
analysis
Best
Pratices
Reports on line
Bar graph and mean
And-or reports
Flexible reports
Pie charts and
tables
Productive
Arrangement
Evaluation
Monitoring
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 55
The web system is based on open-source software that allows adjustments on demand. This makes the system
more attractive since different PAs and others customizations can be implemented into the system. This web
system makes it possible to provide a flexible survey form directly to the companies. Among all the information
collected, could be highlighted the levels of adoption of technologies, best practices, methods, and indicators.
With this kind of knowledge, it is possible to verify the market requirements, the gap of the companies of this
market requirements, besides a lot of other benchmarking information.
The information collected in the web system is stored in a database, which is a structured collection of records
stored in a computer allowing further consultations for retrieval of information. The database is responsible for
storing and querying data stored using it for a relational structure, where tables have links to each other.
The storage of the information in the database as it was modeled ensures that the system is resilient to events
such as the creation or extinction of a PA, a link, a subsystem, or even a criterion. This flexibility preserves the
information already captured, and the system administrator, or even the companies themselves, must update
the records already made in the system, thus preventing the need for collecting any information again.
About the statistical tools, the third tier of SIMAP, the one can see some online statistical analysis. However,
SIMAP administrators could use different tools for offline statistical analysis.
The online statistical analysis indicates the need for improvements in the 46 performance criteria. The SIMAP
collects, processes and reports information in real-time to any company in any place, PAs, or links. The greater
the number of registered companies the greater the possibilities of comparison and the more representative the
database will be. The database can be continually updated by the companies, enabling individual and collective
tracking of the PAs. The main online graphics enabled in the SIMAP are (i) bar and sequential reports; (ii) Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA); (iii) Flexible report on the administrative area; and (iv) Flexible reports open to
companies.
In turn, the offline analysis uses the data exported from the database, this data is imported could be used in
software like “Project R”, this tool is an open-source initiative and have contributions from hundreds of
researchers. With tools like that, several analyses could be made: identification of outliers, cause-effect analyses,
best practices identification, different scatter plots, among others. This analysis improves the benchmarking with
very useful information.
The freedom to access SIMAP through the internet allows the partner firm to perform several comparisons and
simulations, as: (i) positioning the company relative to the average performance of competitors; (ii) performance
of a firm against the average of all companies in the same link in the same chain; (iii) comparative acting against
other links, supply chains or location; (iv) performance of a firm against the average of all listed companies; (v)
performance of the benchmarking company against the average of all companies in the same link in the same
chain; (vi) performance by business size (small medium and large business) and (vii) the development gaps for a
given technology.
3. Case study
To demonstrate the application of the proposed benchmarking model, we used data from a real case, which
consists of a group of 82 civil construction companies in Brazil with operations in the areas presented in Table 1.
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 56
Table 1
Activities of the companies understudy
Company Activity (Link)
Number of
companies
Company Activity (Link)
Number of
companies
Mortar and whitewash
3
Sawmill
2
Sand and gravel
3
Retail trade of building materials
1
Cement
2
Projects
6
Merchant bars and metal
structures
8
Machine and equipment rental
4
Electric materials
3
Outsourced labor
3
Glassware
1
Housing
1
Red ceramic
25
Machine and equipment
manufactures
2
White ceramic
1
Builders and developers
24
Tiles
6
Wholesale stores of building
materials
4
Pipes and connections
4
Plastic materials
1
Sanitary equipment and
metal segment
6
Wall and floor covering
2
Inks and varnishes
5
Others
13
Source: compiled by authors
The observed companies were obtained from the SIMAP database via the internet, allowing for flexible and low-
cost data gathering. The results for the calculated performance indicators for each criterion in each subsystem
are presented in Table 2.
The average performance of firms by size is shown in Figure 5. It can be observed that the average performance
of large companies is around the range of 50-75%, the performance of medium-sized companies is close to 50%,
while the performance of small businesses oscillates around 25%. The range of 25% indicates an effort towards
the formalization and standardization of processes. The overall performance of all companies is represented by
the 3rd line (overall average) in the range between 25 and 50%.
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 57
Table 2
Company performance for each criterion in each subsystem
Source: compiled by authors
-----
Figure 5
Company performance for each in each subsystem
Source: compiled by authors
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 58
The results obtained for subsystem 1 (Integrated Management System, criteria 1 to 5) point out a lack of formal
procedures for small-size companies. We can be observed that some of the standard requirements are legal
provisions (safety and health standards) and are required by the market. The certification (100%) to international
standards ISO 9001 (C1) is not implemented yet in most small and mid-size companies. Better performance in
these criteria is strongly recommended for a general improvement of the analyzed sector.
Criteria 8 (capability studies) presents an average performance of 22%, meaning that the analyzed companies
have, in general, instabilities in their processes and difficulties in controlling them. The processes of small
businesses are unstable and they generate excessive costs with control, rework and scrap. Several companies
may not reach the prices demanded by potential clients because of the excess control of the products and the
high rejection rates.
Criteria 16 (use of technical norms) presents an average performance greater than 50%, indicating that the
analyzed companies know the main technical norms about their products and services. Several types of products,
services, and qualifications are specified by national or international norms, and the ignorance of or the non-
fulfillment of these specifications does not qualify a given company for the supply chains.
In the Strategic Management subsystem, the average values for indicators 22 to 27 indicate that a centralized
style in management does not create a good environment for innovation and continuous improvement of
processes. In general terms, the analyzed companies adopted a centralized management model, which is often
an inhibitor to the best managerial practices.
Regarding criteria 40, 41, and 42, the human resource departments of the analyzed companies are, in general
terms, in a stage of incipient implementation. Thus, they do not promote programs with discretionary
participating features and competence assessment systems. Finally, about Financial Management, one can
observe that the greater part of the analyzed companies uses informal tools for their financial management.
4. Conclusions
The benchmarking method described in this paper is promising for evaluating civil construction companies,
considering several fields of activities and multiple criteria. The approach proposed in this paper is a useful tool
to support decision-making in civil construction, aimed at identifying the best managerial practices in the sector.
Regarding the presented case study, we can be observed that larger size companies presented a better
performance than the small and medium-sized companies, except for the Logistics Management subsystem, in
which medium-sized companies have performed somewhat better. Beyond this particular area, larger size
companies presented a significant superiority in all the subsystems, expressed by the average values for the
performance indicators evaluated. Thus, the development of mechanisms for the transference of good
management practices is of great importance for the improvement of the sector as a whole. The average
performance of small businesses indicates that they are in transition to standardization for Quality and Process
Control.
As a research limitation, we can observe that for monitoring and trending analysis more data and time is needed.
This three-year application shows that it takes a long time to build a database that can be meaningful for
benchmarking and monitoring purposes management. It also requires management maturity, performance
systems, and procedures to invite companies to collect and input data online.
As a further development of the work presented in this paper, the authors are currently working on an extension
of the database, considering companies from other regions of Brazil, as well as expanding the benchmarking
system with supplementary financial indicators (Lima et al., 2017). Furthermore, the methodology adopted here
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 59
could be extended to other types of companies, such as logistics and transportation firms (Chin et al., 2005;
Siaudzionis Filho et al., 2018).
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Federal Institute of Alagoas (IFAL) for funding this work.
References
Albertin, M. R., Pontes, H. L. J., Frazzon, E. M., & Frota, E. R. (2014). Industrial performance assessment through
the application of a benchmarking and monitoring system. In: 4th International Conference on Dynamics
in Logistics.
Albertin, M. R., Pontes, H. L. J., Frazzon, E. M., & Frota, E. R. (2016). Industrial Performance Assessment through
the Application of a Benchmarking and Monitoring System. In Dynamics in Logistics (pp. 643-653). Springer,
Cham.
Albertin, M.R., Pontes, H. L. J., Frota, E. R., & Assunção, M. B. (2015) Flexible benchmarking: a new reference
model. Benchmark. Int. J., v. 22 (5), 920-944.
Abbasian-Hosseini, S. A., Hsiang, S. M., Leming, M. L., & Liu, M. (2014). From Social Network to Data Envelopment
Analysis: Identifying Benchmarks at the Site Management Level. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 140(8), 1-10.
Ahuja, V., Yang, J., & Shankar, R. (2010). Benchmarking Framework to Measure Extent of ICT Adoption for Building
Project Management. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(5), 538-545.
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T., & Hedges, I. (2004). KPIs: A critical appraisal of their use in construction.
Benchmark. Int. J., 11(1), 93–117.
Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success.
Benchmark. Int. J., 11(2), 203–221.
Chin, S. Y., Pontes, H. L. J., & Porto, A. L. V. (2005) Retrieving process analysis in a parts distribution center: a case
study of manual trolley fleet substitution. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference 2005.
Costa, D. B., Formoso, C. T., Kagioglou, M., Alarcón, L. F., & Caldas, C. H. (2006). Benchmarking initiatives in the
construction industry: Lessons learned and improvement opportunities. J. Manage. Eng.,22(4), 158–167.
Cox, R. F., Issa, R. R. A., & Ahrens, D. (2003). Management’s perception of key performance indicators for
construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(2), 142–151.
El-Mashaleh, M. S., Minchin, R. E., & O’Brien, W. J. (2007). Management of construction firm performance using
benchmarking. J. Manage. Eng., 23(1), 10–17.
Fang, D. P., Huang, X. Y., & Hinze, J. (2004) Benchmarking Studies on Construction Safety Management in China.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(3), 424-432.
Johnson, A., Chen, W. C., & Mcginnis, L. F. (2010) Large-scale Internet benchmarking: Technology and application
in warehousing operations. Computers in Industry [S.I.], v. 61, n. 3, p. 280-286.
Johnson, W. H. (2008) Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix
collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28, 495–505.
ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 42, Nº 16, Año 2021
ALBERTIN, Marcos R. et al. «A new flexible benchmarking monitoring system: a case study for the civil
construction sector in Brazil»
Pag. 60
Lee, S. H., Thomas, S. R., & Tucker, R. L. (2005) Web-Based Benchmarking System for the Construction Industry.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(7), 790-798.
Lima, R. S., Albertin, M. R., Loos, M. J., & Vital, T. (2017). Análise de compras por pregão eletrônico na modalidade
licitatória em uma empresa do setor de distribuição energética. Espacios (Caracas) (38), 10 – 22.
Park, H. S., Thomas, S.R., & Tucker, R.L. (2005) Benchmarking of Construction Productivity. J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 131(7), 772-778.
Ramirez, R. R, Alarcón, L. F. C., & Knights, P. (2004). Benchmarking system for evaluating management practices
in the construction industry. J. Manage. Eng., 20(3), 110–117.
Siaudzionis Filho, F. A. B., Pontes, H. L. J., Albertin, M. R., de Lima, R. L. M., & de Castro Moraes, T. (2018).
Application of visual management panel on an airplane assembly station. International journal of
productivity and performance management (67), 1045 –1062.
Simatupang, T. M. (2004) Benchmarking supply chain collaboration An empirical study. Benchmarking: an
International Journal, 11 (5), 484 – 503.
Vogl, B., & Abdel-Wahab, M. (2015) Measuring the Construction Industry’s Productivity Performance: Critique of
International Productivity Comparisons at Industry Level. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 141(4), 1-10.
Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2008). Establishing quantitative indicators for measuring the
partnering performance of construction projects in Hong Kong. Constr. Manage. Econ., 26(3), 277–301.
Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2009a). A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking
the partnering performance of construction projects. Autom. Constr., 18(8), 1099–1113.
Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2009b). Developing a performance index for relationship-based
construction projects in Australia: Delphi study. J. Manage. Eng., 25(2), 59–68.
Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., & Li, L. K. (2007). Development of a partnering performance index
(PPI) for construction projects in Hong Kong: A Delphi study. Constr. Manage. Econ., 25(12), 1219–1237.
Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., Chiang, Y. H., & Yan, H. (2013) Developing a Benchmarking Model
for Construction Projects in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 139(6), 705-716.