The study Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project Outcomes aims at examining the effects of job performance on project performance. Four categories task, behavior, management, and self of job performance dimensions were extracted by means of an exploratory factor analysis. A hypothesized model is developed, which specifies the relationships between the four job performance categories independent variables and overall project... Đề tài Hoàn thiện công tác quản trị nhân sự tại Công ty TNHH Mộc Khải Tuyên được nghiên cứu nhằm giúp công ty TNHH Mộc Khải Tuyên làm rõ được thực trạng công tác quản trị nhân sự trong công ty như thế nào từ đó đề ra các giải pháp giúp công ty hoàn thiện công tác quản trị nhân sự tốt hơn trong thời gian tới.
m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final Project Outcomes tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x Eddie W L Cheng1; Heng Li2; and Paul Fox3 xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 Abstract: Job performance is argued to be substantially influential to project performance However, existing construction management literature pays less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring the relationship between job performance and project performance This study therefore aims at examining the effects of job performance on project performance Four categories 共task, behavior, management, and self兲 of job performance dimensions were extracted by means of an exploratory factor analysis A hypothesized model is developed, which specifies the relationships between the four job performance categories 共independent variables兲 and overall project performance 共the dependent variable兲 The model was tested using path analysis Results indicate that the task category of job performance 共consisting of nine dimensions兲 is significantly related to final project outcomes Specifically, for the success of a project, a construction company must consider how to ensure employees are equipped with such attributes as responsibility, quality of work, ability, job knowledge, experience, efficiency, accuracy, judgment, and initiative 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 e 60 vư DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2007兲133:8共592兲 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g gy 9h CE Database subject headings: Personnel management; Project management; Construction management; Organizations; Statistics 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u Introduction u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln ob c bb fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc Project success is the ultimate goal of every construction project To determine whether the project is completed as expected, final project performance must be evaluated 共Barraza et al 2004兲 It is common that there are various degrees of variation between the predicted and the actual project performance This mismatch is known to be associated with the fact that project performance is influenced by such project characteristics as job performance, project complexity, equipment and materials, techniques, and tools, to name just a few In order to ensure the achievement of project success, it is crucial to understand the impacts of these characteristics on project performance Among other project characteristics, job performance is argued to be substantially influential to project performance According to Ireland 共2004兲, project costs would reduce by up to 10% and project times by up to 20% if project participants possessed the required professional standards He further supported the achievement of good project performance through greater commitment to job performance Katerberg and Blau 共1983兲 stated that, at a more general level, successful job performance is important to both individuals and organizations As compared to processes and sys- tems, people are active players in achieving project outcomes 共Cooke-Davies 2001兲 Due to the “fragmented” nature of construction projects, job performance evaluation is more vital to project management since employees play a crucial role in such project activities as communication, coordination, problem solving, and project team cooperation 共Cheng et al 2000兲 This is consistent with Borman and Motowidlo 共1997a兲 who envisaged that more emphasis should be placed on understanding contextual aspects of job performance 共e.g., cooperation, interest兲 due to the synthesis of team-based organizational structure Although employee performance is expected to directly affect organizational performance, job performance evaluation, also known as performance appraisal 共Woods et al 1998兲, is surprisingly not a usual practice of many construction companies As revealed in a study conducted by Hanna and Brusoe 共1997兲, only 31% of the respondents in the United States admitted that their companies had job performance evaluations and companies with less income or smaller size are less willing to evaluate employee performance Since construction projects involve many interdependent work processes, job performance has to be measured on multiple dimensions, such as the quality and quantity of work 共Borman 1991; Meyer et al 1989兲 It is argued that different dimensions may have different levels of impact on organizations 共including project performance兲 共Conway 1999; Vinchor et al 1998; Viswesvaran et al 1996兲 Revealing their individual effects helps construction companies improve their current human resource practices For example, Moore et al 共2003兲 stressed the role played by performance management in selection and development, which can alleviate interest and role conflicts by selecting newcomers with the attribute of conflict avoidance and by developing current staff with the ability to manage conflict resolution However, existing construction management literature pays less attention to job performance issues, not to mention exploring the relationship between job performance and project performance Moore et al 共2003兲 empirically identified key behavioral competencies for superior construction managers They focused jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f Lecturer, School of Management, Queensland Univ of Technology, George Str., Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia 共corresponding author兲 E-mail: e.cheng@qut.edu.au Professor, Dept of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong Assistant Professor, Dept of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong Note Discussion open until January 1, 2008 Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on October 14, 2005; approved on February 22, 2007 This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol 133, No 8, August 1, 2007 ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/ 2007/8-592–599/$25.00 kk ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ri ưm 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 592 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s mainly on specific contextual performance attributes maintaining work-related behavior More recently, Parker and Skitmore 共2005兲 found that turnover has a significant, negative relationship with project team performance as well as project performance In considering the findings of these studies, the present research goes a step further to examine the effects of various aspects of job performance on project performance It attempts to understand how performers can facilitate the success of a project It addresses the research problem by use of empirical research, and the objectives are stated at the end of the literature review Following the review of relevant literature, the paper explains sequentially the research methods, the measures used, the analysis, and the results Finally, there is a discussion section and conclusion sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e 42 zh Literature Review of Job Performance and Project Performance lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z Job Performance Measures ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln ob c bb fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr Project Performance Measures hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg In the construction industry, project participants are concerned very much about project performance Project performance evaluation is essential to determine if a project is a success or failure It appears that time 共schedule兲, cost, and quality are among the most well known measures of project performance 共e.g., Brown and Adams 2000; McKim et al 2000兲 Moreover, other useful performance measures have been explored For example, safety measure is suggested 共e.g., Oberlander 1993兲 Constructs of value and effectiveness were also suggested 共e.g., Alarcón and Ashley 1996, 1998兲 Work progress was used in the study of Barraza et al 共2000兲 Different theoretical frameworks have been developed to understand the mechanisms underlying project performance issues 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f For the workforce to improve constantly, employee performance must be evaluated and monitored regularly 共Hanna and Brusoe 1997兲 Employee performance can be defined as the achieved work outcomes for each job function during a specified period of time 共Deadrick and Gardner 2000兲 As noted by Shaout and AlShammari 共1998, p 323兲, performance evaluation or appraisal is “a formal, structured system of measuring and evaluating an employee’s job related attributes, behaviors, and outcomes to assess an employee’s productivity and judge whether he or she will perform as or more effectively in the future, so that the employee, the organization, and society all benefit.” Through the years, job performance has been a primary topic of empirical inquiry in applied psychology and management areas Of the different ways to measure job performance, researchers have debated about the use of subjective 共less quantifiable兲 and objective 共easily quantified兲 measures 共Horowitz and Zappe 1995; Vinchor et al 1998兲 Proponents of objective measures have suggested their advantages to reduce both intentional and unintentional biases 共e.g., leniency and halo errors兲 共e.g., Siders et al 2001兲 Yet, the most prevalent method is by means of performance ratings, which are subjective evaluations obtained from sources including supervisors, peers, subordinates, self, or even customers, with supervisors being the most commonly used source followed by peers 共Bernardin and Beatty 1984; Cascio 1998; Cleveland et al 1989; Viswesvaran et al 1996兲 It is also noted that when studying dimensions of performance, researchers usually measure job performance using subjective supervisory ratings 共Meyer et al 1989; Steers 1977兲 On the other hand, job performance measures are known to be criterion measures 共Campbell et al 1993; Cleveland et al 1989兲 Researchers of this school have investigated different clusters of performance criteria For example, Borman and Motowidlo 共1997b兲 classified job performance into task performance 共jobspecific behaviors, such as core job responsibilities兲 and contextual performance 共nonjob-specific behaviors, such as cooperation, interest兲 Viswesvaran et al 共1996兲, in their metaanalysis study of the reliability of job performance ratings, cited the work of Viswesvaran 共1993兲 who empirically identified ten popular component dimensions of job performance and stated that they comprehensively represented the entire job performance domain They are productivity, quality, leadership, communication competence, administrative competence, effort, interpersonal compe- tence, job knowledge, compliance with or acceptance of authority, and overall job performance Recently, the study of Hanna and Brusoe 共1997兲 identified 26 criteria for evaluating supervisors’ job performance in electrical construction contractors, which include leadership, personal conduct, communication skills, quality of work, ability to deal with problems, delegation of responsibility, work ethic, initiative, accepts responsibility, ability to work with others, and knowledge of work Dainty et al 共2003兲, based on their logistic regression analysis, found 12 competencies helping to distinguish between superior and average performers These competencies are achievement orientation, initiative, information seeking, focus on client’s needs, impact and influence, directiveness, teamwork and cooperation, team leadership, analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, self-control, and flexibility Empirical studies have also been carried out in extracting different categories of job performance dimensions 共e.g., Borman and Motowidlo 1997b兲 For example, Conway 共1999兲 studied the contextual and task performance distinction to managerial work Results suggested that while both the interpersonal facilitation and job dedication facets of contextual performance and the technical–administrative task performance would contribute significantly to overall managerial performance, peers and supervisors paid more attention to interpersonal facilitation and task performance, respectively Lee and Nagaraj 共1988兲 used secondary data of a sample of assembly bench workers in an electronics company to examine eight job performance attributes They performed factor analysis and extracted two principal components, which are called as positive 共job knowledge, speed, quality, attitude and attendance兲 and negative 共initiative, leadership and communication兲 Igbaria 共1991兲 studied the antecedents and consequences of job performance of management information system 共MIS兲 professionals The resulting factor analysis of 17 job performance qualities produced two categories of job performance measures Task category consists of ability, job knowledge, productivity, creativity, quality of work, initiative, judgment, planning, accuracy, and responsibility Relationship category consists of cooperation, honesty, interpersonal relationship, attitude, dependability, communication skills, and punctuality Another research group in the United Kingdom, when studying superior managers’ behavioral attributes, extracted nine factors of performance effectiveness criteria for construction, which are team building, leadership, decision making, trust, honesty and integrity, communication, understanding and applications, self-motivation, and external relations 共Moore et al 2003; Dainty et al 2003兲 Due to their small sample size 共n = 20兲 and the unfavorable extraction summary of their factor analysis, more rigorous empirical research is worth undertaking ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ưm ri JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 593 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy ferred to as the measure of how well the job was done 共Viswesvaran et al 1996兲 All of the variables were also randomly ordered in the instrument to reduce potential response bias A five-point rating scale that ranged from 共⫽not important兲 to 共⫽the most important兲 was used A pilot test was administered to several construction professionals for clarifying and refining the questionnaire By incorporating their comments, a final questionnaire was created, which consisted of three sections—questions relating to the demographic profile of respondents, job performance instrument, and project performance instrument A description note for the variables was attached to the final questionnaire, which was then dispatched to a number of construction companies including clients, contractors, consultants, and subcontractors Altogether there were 137 responses, of which seven were removed due to incomplete data Using a standard deviation of 3.00 as a criterion 共Robitschek and Cook 1999兲, two univariate outliers were identified and deleted As a result, 128 responses were used for subsequent analyses An analysis of the demographic profile of the respondents reveals that an overwhelming majority 共82%兲 of the respondents were male The majority of the respondents 共57%兲 were in the age group of “25–34” followed by “35–44” 共18.8%兲, “at least 45” 共12.5%兲, and “less than 25” 共11.7%兲 The job titles of the respondents suggest that the sample consists of mostly nonmanagerial staff 共82%兲 Organizations were mainly contractors 共62.5%兲, followed by clients 共16.4%兲, consultants 共10.9%兲, and subcontractors 共10.2%兲 Out of the 128 responses, 43% were very large organizations 共n ⬎ 999兲, followed by small organizations 共number of employees⬍ 100, 28.1%兲, medium-sized organizations 共100– 499, 22.7%兲, and large organizations 共500–999, 6.3%兲 7s sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln Measures ob c bb Dulaimi and Langford 共1999兲 tested the relationship between project managers’ 共PMs兲 behavior 共five categories兲 and project performance 共time, cost兲 Their results suggested that certain aspects of a PM’s behavior 共e.g., organizing and coordinating兲 are related significantly to project performance Gransberg et al 共1999兲 studied the effect of partnering on project performance They found that the continuous application of partnering results in improved project performance across the entire program Brown and Adams 共2000兲 investigated the impact of building project management 共BPM兲 on project outputs Their results indicate that BPM fails to perform as expected for project performance Odusami et al 共2003兲 examined the effects of project leadership and team composition on overall construction project performance in Nigeria Results indicate that significant relationships were found among a project leader’s professional qualification, his leadership style, team composition, and overall project performance, but the project leader’s profession was not related significantly to overall project performance Ling 共2004兲, studying factors affecting design–build 共DB兲 project performance, found that contractor characteristics are the key determinants of most project performance metrics Such contractor characteristics as key personnel management ability, prior work relationship, and staffing level are associated with job performance However, research into job performance as an independent variable to explore its relationship with project performance is lacking The present study represents an original inquiry that contributes to the existing literature by focusing on the following research objectives: Extracting factor components from job performance dimensions to form job performance categories; Examining the effects of job performance categories on overall project performance; and Determining crucial job performance dimensions for improving final project outcomes fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z fzư Job Performance o2 j jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 Research Method An exploratory factor analysis of the 25 items associated with the job performance dimensions was performed An N factor, principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation was employed It produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than one and accounted for 63.47% of the common variance A scree plot was also performed, which showed that the contributions are relatively low after the fourth component, consistent with the preceding conclusion that four factors provide a reasonable summary of the data The results achieved the factor loading criteria suggested by the existing literature 共e.g., Kim and Mueller 1978; Morse and Wagner 1978兲 Specifically, item-total correlations for all 25 items exceeded 0.40 共p ⬍ 0.001兲 with 5–9 items loaded on individual factors The scales are of acceptable content validity and internal consistency reliability according to the recommended criteria 共e.g., APA 1974; Nunnally 1978兲 The four extracted factors were labeled as follows: The label “task” contains the following nine items 共shown with their factor loadings兲: job knowledge 共0.80兲, quality of work 共0.79兲, ability 共0.73兲, judgment 共0.63兲, experience 共0.61兲, accuracy 共0.60兲, responsibility 共0.59兲, efficiency 共0.53兲, and initiative 共0.45兲 These items were associated with qualities required to complete a task; The label “behavior” contains six items of honesty 共0.75兲, personal care 共0.65兲, punctuality 共0.63兲, cooperation 共0.53兲, attitude 共0.49兲, and equity 共0.47兲 These items were associated with the essential behavioral attributes at work; z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f A forced-choice methodology was administered As a multifaceted term, job performance is more often measured by multiple variables As Viswesvaran et al 共1996兲 suggested, the broader the meaning of tested variables, the more useful the variables are for general studies, although such variables are more ambiguous The most important is to make sure the variables are defined properly 共e.g., Greenhaus et al 1990; Touliatos et al 1984兲 An initial step was to consult a group of construction practitioners to identify a set of concrete variables for job and project performance It is noted that some of these variables had different labels but with similar meaning By theoretical considerations, a single label was used for similar variables 共Campbell et al 1993兲 Then, the variables were reviewed and only those which possessed a broad definition and are popular in construction were selected In other words, variables that were not well received were omitted For example, contract value was not included because it is a project characteristic rather than a project performance criterion 共Dulaimi and Langford 1999兲 Finally, an inventory of 25 job performance dimensions and four project performance criteria were developed for the present study The 25 job performance dimensions stemmed from the existing literature 共e.g., Touliatos et al 1984; Greenhaus et al 1990; Igbaria 1991; Viswesvaran et al 1996; Brown and Adams 2000; Cheng et al 2000兲 For example, ability is defined as the general cognitive task analysis skills 共Conway 1999兲, while quality of work is re- ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ri ưm 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 594 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s managerial兲, current job’s years of experience 共experience兲, size of firm, gender, and age on job and project performance were also tested For example, it is postulated that performance attributes may differ somewhat for managers as compared to nonmanagers 共Borman and Motowidlo 1993; Conway 1999兲 This hypothesized model is exhibited in Fig sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh Analysis fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 The hypothesized model was tested by means of path analysis The present study employed multiple regression analyses to estimate  weights for each independent variable having a direct or indirect path with each dependent variable 共Bryman and Cramer 1994兲 Following Grandey and Cropanzano 共1999兲, two regression equations were created for each set of linked variables: 共1兲 the overall project performance variable was regressed onto demographic variables and the job performance categories; and 共2兲 the job performance categories were regressed onto demographic variables 3s 7ư jcc trk Fig Hypothesized model 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 e0 tvt The label “management” contains five items of guest relations 共0.81兲, leadership 共0.73兲, communication skills 共0.71兲, interpersonal relations 共0.62兲, and planning 共0.57兲 These items were associated with management skills that one should possess; and The label “self” contains five items of gender 共0.78兲, age 共0.77兲, interest 共0.65兲, creativity 共0.63兲, and dependability 共0.52兲 These items were associated with a person’s own nature These four categories of job performance were examined separately in all subsequent analyses p6 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy Results 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve gl vb Project Performance s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 Four criteria of project performance were used, which were cost, time 共schedule兲, quality, and profit The selection of these criteria followed the postulation that overall project performance should be measured by final project outcomes Barraza et al 共2004兲 referred to this as the at-completion project performance Therefore, construction process criteria, such as safety and rework, were omitted An exploratory factor analysis was also performed, which produced an unrotated one-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than one and accounted for 63.2% of the common variance Items with their factor loadings are as follows: cost 共0.86兲, time 共0.83兲, profit 共0.75兲, and quality 共0.73兲 To ascertain the effect of job performance on project performance, it was necessary to correlate the four job performance categories 共independent variables兲 with the overall project performance 共dependent variable兲 Excluding other biographic variables with nominal scale, the effects of job nature 共managerial and nonxt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh ob c bb j jj8 q7 8m fln Table presents the mean score, standard deviation, and estimates of internal consistency reliability for interval variables Also shown are two-tailed Spearman rank correlations among all the variables studied The means indicate that respondents rated the highest on task category of job performance 共3.86兲, followed by categories of management 共3.68兲, behavior 共3.53兲, and self 共3.00兲 The overall project performance measures the mean value of the four project performance criteria, which were perceived by the respondents as very important 共4.11兲 The scale reliability of the measures was examined by assessing their internal consistency The alpha coefficients ranged from 0.80 to 0.91, which were found to be acceptable using Nunnally’s 共1978兲 criterion being greater than 0.70 The correlation matrix indicates that job performance categories were significantly related among themselves and to project performance in the anticipated direction In general, the analysis supported the existence of four distinct but correlated components of the job performance instrument Correlations between demographic variables and fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg Table Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m — — — −0.47b −0.14 −0.04 −0.01 0.06 0.11 −0.05 0.09 — — — — −0.10 −0.01 0.21a 0.05 0.15a 0.24b 0.24a — — — — — −0.27b −0.08 −0.07 −0.15 −0.10 0.01 — — — — — — 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.10 0.16 10 11 — — — — — — 共0.91兲 0.74b 0.68b 0.56b 0.67b — — — — — — — 共0.83兲 0.68b 0.56b 0.53b — — — — — — — — 共0.88兲 0.55b 0.52b — — — — — — — — — 共0.82兲 0.41b — — — — — — — — — — 共0.80兲 i4w ưz 3h oi — — — — — 5.27 4.69 0.26b — — −0.06 −0.09 — — 0.15 0.11 — — −0.22a −0.22a 0.42b — — 0.33b b 0.14 3.85 0.69 0.47 0.06 3.51 0.67 0.33b 0.07 3.64 0.84 0.31b 0.32b 3.00 0.76 0.31b b 0.06 4.11 0.75 0.43 coefficient alpha values y3 共1兲 Job nature 共2兲 Years of current position 共experience兲 共3兲 Type of firm 共4兲 Size of firm 共5兲 Gender 共6兲 Age 共7兲 Task 共8兲 Behavior 共9兲 Management 共10兲 Self 共11兲 Overall project performance Note: Parentheses in the diagonal cells are a p ⬍ 0.05 b p ⬍ 0.01, n = 128 9y xq 5y S.D iư Mean m xx Variables b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ưm ri JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 595 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s The content of the four categories is somewhat equivalent to prior studies Some of the extracted task-related dimensions are the same as those in Greenhaus et al 共1990兲 共i.e., ability, job knowledge, accuracy, and judgment兲 and Igbaria 共1991兲 共i.e., ability, job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, judgment, accuracy, and responsibility兲 In essence, similar results in task-related dimensions uphold the validity and reliability of the measures and subsequent analyses based on them, resulting in more valid conclusions that can be drawn from the present study The following two sections highlight research and practical implications sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 t0 kư Fig Path model for variables with significant relationships * denotes p ⬍ 0.05; ** denotes p ⬍ 0.01; dotted arrows represent nonsignificant relationships, while solid arrows represent significant relationships 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb Implications for Future Research b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln ob c bb fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc other variables in the matrix were not significant except for variables of job nature and size of firm Fig contains the results of path analysis of the hypothesized model Inconsistent with the preceding significant Spearman rank correlations, the magnitude of most of the path coefficients did not strongly reinforce the a priori construction of the model In effect, only the path from task category of job performance to overall project performance was positive and significant 共 = 0.49, p ⬍ 0.01兲, explaining 24% of the latter’s variance Unexpectedly, the effects of behavior and management categories were positive but not significant, and that of self-category was even slightly negative Unlike bivariate correlations, multiple regression analysis estimates the weight denoting each independent variable’s relative contribution to the overall prediction, and thus the predicted power of other variables becomes weak when an extremely strong predictor is present 共Hair et al 1998兲 Among the five posited demographic variables, only the positive path relations between job nature and the four job performance categories were significant: task 共 = 0.42, p ⬍ 0.01兲, behavior 共 = 0.30, p ⬍ 0.01兲, management 共 = 0.31, p ⬍ 0.01兲, and self 共 = 0.26, p ⬍ 0.01兲 Moreover, the size of the firm was positively and significantly related to task 共 = 0.18, p ⬍ 0.05兲 and self 共 = 0.23, p ⬍ 0.01兲 categories The correlation matrix indicates the significant correlations between two demographic variables 共i.e., job nature and size of firm兲 and overall project performance, while other demographic variables had no significant relationship with overall project performance However, their correlations are lower than those of the four job performance categories, implying that job performance dimensions were directly related to project performance after taking into account demographic variables The present study represents a point of departure for future research First, the results suggested that task-related dimensions of job performance are more influential to project performance than other dimensional categories Further work may help develop instruments for specific dimensions For example, ability, as one of the task-related dimensions, may be measured using an ability test such as the Wonderlic personnel test 共Form A兲 共Wright et al 1995兲 A new investigation may be undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of this scale in the construction environment Second, future studies may focus on examining antecedents of individual task-related dimensions Since the present research validated their significant level to project performance, exploring what factors can strengthen their magnitudes is essential For example, personality traits and motivational factors may exert influence on job performance Norris and Niebuhr 共1984兲 studying the effect of locus of control on the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction concluded that responses from internals, who tend to take personal credit for job success, showed a positive relationship between performance and satisfaction However, Borman and Motowidlo 共1997b兲 suggested that personality traits would correlate more strongly with contextual performance than with task performance This raises the concern of whether personal attributes are indirect predictors of project performance if taking task performance as the mediator In contrast, the direct relationship between motivational factors and job performance is worth positing Katerberg and Blau 共1983兲 found that effort, as a motivational variable, significantly predicts individual performance Their research was based on specific criteria for evaluating real-estate sales performance Upcoming research may examine the motivational antecedents of the nine task-related criteria with a construction sample The negative effects of role conflict and ambiguity on contextual job performance have been metaanalytically supported 共Tubre and Collins 2000兲 A role is a pattern of work behaviors discerned by an employee 共Ilgen and Hollenbeck 1991兲 Since organizations are systems of roles which guide expected work behaviors 共Katz and Kahn 1978兲, examining the effects of role conflict and ambiguity on individual task-related dimensions may explore the relationship between role and task Obviously, role conflict is likely to affect work efficiency when an employee spends time to clarify his or her job nature Also, role conflict is likely to negatively affect his or her motivation at work Task responsibility will become confused if there is ambiguity in work roles Limitations of the paper are threefold The first limitation is the omission of construction process criteria as project performance criteria The design of the present study was to examine the effect of job performance dimensions on final project outcomes These “target-oriented” criteria will be of more interest to jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 Discussion re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f The writers of the present research agree with the view of others 共Conway 1999; Motowidlo et al 1997; Van Scotter and Motowidlo 1996兲 who stressed the importance of distinguishing the number and content of contextual performance categories from task performance Thus, the first research objective was to extract potential categories from the 25 job performance dimensions Initial findings of a four-factor solution are fairly similar to previous surveys Despite some agreement on a two-category solution 共e.g., Borman and Motowidlo 1997b; Greenhaus et al 1990; Igbaria 1991兲, more categories have been found in other studies 共e.g., Conway 1999; Dainty et al 2003兲 ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ri ưm 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 596 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s practitioners For a more comprehensive study, the “processoriented” criteria should be considered as they affect work performance in the workplace The second is the limitation in comparing the present findings with those of other studies Since other studies might not provide definitions of their tested variables resulting in the possibility of inconsistent meanings of the constructs of interest between this study and other studies, comparing with other studies is contended to be exploratory The final limitation is the omission of less well-received job performance dimensions Due to the methodological choice for the present study, tests of popular dimensions are more suitable as they possess more stable psychometric properties and are then more applicable It is suggested that the study of less well-received dimensions needs special care in selecting appropriate research methods Sometimes, a qualitative approach is necessary when the research is at the preliminary stage of developing the grounded theory sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 Implications for Practical Application ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx c8 tư 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln ob c bb fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd Conclusions p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao The present study sought to contribute to the body of knowledge in several aspects First, this study employed factor analysis to extract four categories of job performance dimensions This procedure is essential when there is a need for developing independent categories of job performance, while the variables in each category are intercorrelated Conceptual models can be examined and built based on an exploratory factor analysis Second, it is an original investigation of the predicted relationships that represent linkages in a model that can explain the effects of job performance on project performance An empirical test called path analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesized relationships Through the present research, it is designed to contribute to the development of empirically grounded theory concerning the mechanisms by which job performance affects project performance Results suggest the essence of nine task dimensions of job performance for maximizing project performance and the strong predictive power of the two demographic variables 共i.e., job nature and size of firm兲 on the task category This model is of statistical significance Research and practical implications are suggested in due course Certainly, it appears hasty to conclude that task performance dimensions are all that organizations need 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f The present survey is unique in that it extracted four categories of dimensions that are relevant to construction job performance Companies may replicate the research method to identify their own set of key performance criteria for achieving project success The present research may also be relevant to nonconstruction project management Other disciplines may use the present findings for developing their job performance framework In particular, respondents indicated that the nine task-related dimensions of job performance had the greatest impacts on project performance These dimensions were responsibility 共3.99兲, quality of work 共3.98兲, ability 共3.95兲, job knowledge 共3.95兲, experience 共3.92兲, efficiency 共3.91兲, accuracy 共3.91兲, judgment 共3.65兲, and initiative 共3.39兲 The findings not only replicate the common premise that the higher the job performance, the greater the project performance, but also provide strong evidence showing that task-related job performance makes greater contributions to project performance 共measured by such outcomes as time, cost, quality, and profit兲 This echoes the view that clear task-performance dimensions clarify job role perceptions and specify the preferred direction of effort toward goal achievement It is therefore concluded that the nine task-related dimensions are able to form key job performance indicators for optimizing project outcomes Consistent with Moore et al 共2003兲, the development of appropriate job performance indicators can help organizations establish the performance appraisal system, job specifications, recruitment and selection policies, incentive scheme, training and development plans, regulations and rules, team management, and even goals and missions On the other hand, accepting the view that dimensions as leadership and communication competence are difficult to evaluate 共Wohlers and London 1989兲, the strong predicted power of task-related dimensions on project performance aids companies in developing specific evaluation criteria and effective metrics that are easy to quantify Since the task category is composed of dimensions measured by both subjective and objective scales, this suggests that job experts need to consider how to combine the two types of scales if they are both used for evaluation A possible solution is to transform continuous objective scales to discrete ordinal scales For example, suppose a contractor evaluates their technical workers’ performance using his immediate supervisor’s rating 共a fivepoint rating scale兲 and efficiency measure 共average weekly overtime work兲 In order to form a composite score, the overtime work can be transformed to a five-point scale from 共⫽ more than h per week兲 to 共⫽ h or less per week兲 The importance levels of these measures must also be determined It is common to weight the measures by use of mathematical or statistical methods 共e.g., the analytic hierarchy process, the analytic network process, or regression models兲 Examples can be elicited from Cheng and Li 共2001, 2005兲 and Molenaar and Songer 共1998兲 Furthermore, the present findings, that respondents with managerial duties rated higher on all job performance dimensions as compared to nonmanagerial staff, may revoke part of the conclusions of Dulaimi and Langford 共1999兲 who had also queried their own findings that the behavior of construction project managers and project performance varied independently Yet, their findings of the nonsignificant relationships between personal dimensions and project performance have been reiterated in the present research This reflects what Borman and Motowidlo 共1997b兲 proposed of the stronger correlation between personality traits and contextual performance than task performance Consistent with Conway 共1999兲, the present study found that managers put more emphasis on task performance Managers are more self-motivated as compared to other staff at lower grades For effective performance evaluation, it is suggested to develop separate sets of criteria for nonmanagerial and managerial staff Additionally, although the size of the firm seems to affect job performance, it is advised to be cautious in interpreting the results since the size variable scale was ordinal but not interval Regression analysis is always associated with interval variables, and special care is needed 共e.g., support from existing theories兲 when dealing with dichotomous and ordinal scales 共Hair et al 1998兲 The findings in general indicate that the larger the size of the firm, the higher the respondents rated task and self-categories but not on behavior and management It is likely that larger organizations place more emphasis on employees’ task achievement and care more for personal needs Notwithstanding, the positive 共though not significant兲 relationships of the firm’s size with behavioral aspects and management skills may imply the necessity to enhance organizational awareness of their relevance to job performance ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ưm ri JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 597 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s for expediting project performance Indeed, the relationships between other job performance categories and project performance are worth further scrutiny The present research is just the starting point, calling other researchers to heed this important but neglected topical issue Given the lack of attention paid to human resources issues generally in construction practices, this would be a benefit to many practitioners sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 Acknowledgments kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 The paper is an extended and revised version of a conference paper presented at the QUT Research Week in July 2005 The writers of the paper would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the paper 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh References tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh j jj8 q7 8m fln ob c bb fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f Alarcón, L F., and Ashley, D B 共1996兲 “Modeling project performance for decision making.” J Constr Eng Manage., 122共3兲, 265–273 Alarcón, L F., and Ashley, D B 共1998兲 “Project management decision making using cross-impact analysis.” Int J Proj Manage., 16共3兲, 145–152 American Psychological Association 共APA兲 共1974兲 Standards for educational and psychological tests, Washington, D.C Barraza, G A., Back, W E., and Mata, F 共2000兲 “Probabilistic monitoring of project performance using SS-curves.” J Constr Eng Manage., 126共2兲, 142–148 Barraza, G A., Back, W E., and Mata, F 共2004兲 “Probabilistic forecasting of project performance using stochastic S curves.” J Constr Eng Manage., 130共1兲, 25–32 Bernardin, H J., and Beatty, R W 共1984兲 Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work, Kent, Boston Borman, W 共1991兲 “Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness.” Handbook of industrial organizational psychology, M D Dunnette and L M Hough, eds., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 271–326 Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1993兲 “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance.” Personnel selection in organizations, N Schmitt and W C Borman, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 71–98 Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1997a兲 “Introduction: organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance.” Human Performance, 10, 67–69 Borman, W C., and Motowidlo, S J 共1997b兲 “Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research.” Human Performance, 10, 99–109 Brown, A., and Adams, J 共2000兲 “Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs: a new approach.” Int J Proj Manage., 18, 327–335 Bryman, A., and Cramer, D 共1994兲 Quantitative data analysis for social scientists, Rev Ed., Routledge, New York Campbell, J P., McCloy, R A., Oppler, S H., and Sager, C E 共1993兲 “A theory of performance.” Personnel selection in organizations, N Schmitt and W C Borman, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 35–70 Cascio, W F 共1998兲 Applied psychology in human resource management, 5th Ed., Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J Cheng, E W L., and Li, H 共2001兲 “Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using the analytic hierarchy process 共AHP兲.” Information Management and Computer Security, 9共2兲, 61– 70 Cheng, E W L., and Li, H 共2005兲 “Analytic network process applied to project selection.” J Constr Eng Manage., 131共4兲, 459–466 Cheng, E W L., Li, H., and Love, P E D 共2000兲 “Establishment of critical success factors for construction partnering.” J Manage Eng., 16共2兲, 84–92 Cleveland, J N., Murphy, K R., and Williams, R E 共1989兲 “Multiple uses of performance appraisal: prevalence and correlates.” J Appl Psychol., 74, 130–135 Conway, J M 共1999兲 “Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs.” J Appl Psychol., 84共1兲, 3–13 Cooke-Davies, T 共2001兲 “The ‘real’ success factors on projects.” Int J Proj Manage., 20共3兲, 185–190 Dainty, A R J., Cheng, M I., and Moore, D R 共2003兲 “Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: an empirical evaluation.” Constr Manage Econom., 21, 209–218 Deadrick, D L., and Gardner, D G 共2000兲 “Performance distributions: measuring employee performance using total quality management principles.” Journal of Quality Management, 4共2兲, 225–241 Dulaimi, M F., and Langford, D 共1999兲 “Job behavior of construction project managers: determinants and assessment.” J Constr Eng Manage., 125共4兲, 256–264 Grandey, A A., and Cropanzano, R 共1999兲 “The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain.” J Vocat Behav., 54, 350–370 Gransberg, D D., Dillon, W D., Reynolds, L., and Boyd, J 共1999兲 “Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance.” J Constr Eng Manage., 125共3兲, 161–166 Greenhaus, J H., Parasuraman, S., and Wormley, W M 共1990兲 “Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.” Acad Manage J., 33共1兲, 64–85 Hair, J F., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R L., and Black, W C 共1998兲 Multivariate data analysis, 5th Ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J Hanna, A S., and Brusoe, J K 共1997兲 “Study of performance evaluations in electrical construction industry.” J Manage Eng., 13共6兲, 66– 74 Horowitz, I., and Zappe, C 共1995兲 “The linear programming alternative to policy capturing for eliciting criteria weights in the performance appraisal process.” Omega, 23共6兲, 667–676 Igbaria, M 共1991兲 “Job performance of MIS professionals: an examination of the antecedents and consequences.” J Eng Technol Manage., 8, 141–171 Ilgen, D R., and Hollenbeck, J R 共1991兲 “The structure of work: Job design and roles.” Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, M D Dunnette and L M Hough, eds., Vol 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 165–207 Ireland, V 共2004兲 “Improving staff performance.” Constr Manage Econom., 22共2兲, 121 Katerberg, R., and Blau, G J 共1983兲 “An examination of level and direction of effort and job performance.” Acad Manage J., 26共2兲, 249–257 Katz, D., and Kahn, R L 共1978兲 The social psychology of organizations, Wiley, New York Kim, J O., and Mueller, C W 共1978兲 “Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical issues.” Quantitative applications in the social sciences series, No 14, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif Lee, K., and Nagaraj, S 共1988兲 “Earnings and the principal components of job performance.” Econ Lett., 26, 95–97 Ling, F Y Y 共2004兲 “How project managers can better control the performance of design-build projects.” Int J Proj Manage., 22共6兲, 477– 488 McKim, R., Hegazy, T., and Attalla, M 共2000兲 “Project performance control in reconstruction projects.” J Constr Eng Manage., 126共2兲, 137–141 Meyer, J., Paunonen, S V., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R., and Jackson, D 共1989兲 “Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s the nature of the commitment that counts.” J Appl Psychol., 74, 152– 156 Molenaar, K R., and Songer, A D 共1998兲 “Model for public sector design-build project selection.” J Constr Eng Manage., 124共6兲, 467–479 Moore, D., Cheng, M I., and Dainty, A 共2003兲 “What makes a superior ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ri ưm 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 598 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d 4v nq c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy management performer: the identification of key behaviours in superior construction managers?” CIQ, Construction Paper, 155, 6–9 Morse, J J., and Wagner, F R 共1978兲 “Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness.” Acad Manage J., 21, 23–35 Norris, D R., and Niebuhr, R E 共1984兲 “Attributional influences on the job performance-job satisfaction relationship.” Acad Manage J., 27共2兲, 424–431 Nunnally, J C 共1978兲 Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York Oberlander, G D 共1993兲 Project management for engineering and construction, McGraw-Hill, New York Odusami, K T., Iyagba, R R O., and Omirin, M M 共2003兲 “The relationship between project leadership, team composition and construction project performance in Nigeria.” Int J Proj Manage., 21, 519–527 Parker, S K., and Skitmore, M 共2005兲 “Project management turnover: causes and effects on project performance.” Int J Proj Manage., 23, 205–214 Robitschek, C., and Cook, S W 共1999兲 “The influence of personal growth initiative and coping styles on career exploration and vocational identity.” J Vocat Behav., 54, 127–141 Shaout, A., and Al-Shammari, M 共1998兲 “Fuzzy logic modeling for performance appraisal systems: a framework for empirical evaluation.” Expert Sys Applic., 14, 323–328 Siders, M A., George, G., and Dharwadkar, R 共2001兲 “The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance measures.” Acad Manage J 44共3兲, 570–579 Steers, R 共1977兲 “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.” Adm Sci Q., 22, 46–56 7s Touliatos, J., Bedeian, A G., Mossholder, K W., and Barkman, A I 共1984兲 “Job-related perceptions of male and female government, industrial, and public accounts.” Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 61–68 Tubre, T C., and Collins, J M 共2000兲 “Jackson and Schuler 共1985兲 revisited: A metaanalysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance.” J Manage., 26共1兲, 155–169 Van Scotter, J R., and Motowidlo, S J 共1996兲 “Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance.” J Appl Psychol., 81, 525–531 Vinchor, A J., Schippmann, J S., Switzer, F S., III, and Roth, P L 共1998兲 “A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.” J Appl Psychol., 83共4兲, 586–597 Viswesvaran, C 共1993兲 “Modeling job performance: Is there a general factor?” Doctoral dissertation, Univ of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D S., and Schmidt, F L 共1996兲 “Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings.” J Appl Psychol., 81, 557–574 Wohlers, J., and London, M 共1989兲 “Ratings of managerial characteristics: evaluation difficulty, coworker agreement, and self-awareness.” Pers Psychol., 42, 235–261 Woods, R H., Sciarini, M., and Breiter, D 共1998兲 “Performance appraisals in hotels.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, April, 25–29 Wright, P M., Kacmar, K M., McMahan, G C., and Deleeuw, K 共1995兲 “P = f共MXA兲: Cognitive ability as a moderator of the relationship between personality and job performance.” J Manage., 21共6兲, 1129– 1139 sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu pe 5x xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp cu jh 6b 1z vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy 35 2a z lvy kjl tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh ob c bb j jj8 q7 8m fln fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v ds w7 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv 59 dw k6 ui lt pr c3 ho 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp t4 a0 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m m j rk gw d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx 5y iư 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h i4w b s1 s 1ư icc jy9 1v y z8 9t xr hz 4n x1 1a 3q vy a2 kk m cư zk a h9 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 88 gm q7 09 r9 re bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 29 8q pv 0z ied g ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn ld 9m qv bp tfb tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o oy ic 12 67 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 om 1c 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 yc 04 h8 w8 sd ld aq pc u1 6y oi 3ư yu 4r p2 b1 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz lw v6 ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 5d 70 ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue 0ư b1 ua m x eq m 55 t 8f ta 9c 5y 9w dư kr 3m 6ư f 8q m ưm ri JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 599 6m lcư 0iq 4w pw r 3n 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df d9 c uv m 50 ux a7 iv n9 ym jki bl j 7o x4 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we k hv ub hi fv8 4f 8n ưg ce ua bz k5 7iz h 2e 5m m 6h 1s ug 0k 9w xs 5m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d nq 4v c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu 5x pe xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp jh cu 1z 6b vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy kjl 35 2a z lvy tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh ob c bb j jj8 q7 8m fln fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v w7 ds 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv dw 59 k6 ui lt pr ho c3 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp a0 t4 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m gw m j rk d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx iư 5y 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h b i4w s 1ư icc s1 y z8 jy9 1v 9t xr hz 4n 1a x1 vy 3q kk a2 cư zk a h9 m 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 gm 88 q7 09 re r9 bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 8q 29 pv 0z g ied ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn 9m ld tfb qv bp tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o ic oy 67 12 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 1c om 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 04 yc h8 w8 ld sd aq pc 6y u1 oi 3ư yu 4r b1 p2 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz v6 lw ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 70 5d ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue b1 0ư m ua 55 t 8f m x eq 9c ta 9w 5y dư kr 6ư f 8q m 3m ưm ri 6m lcư pw r 3n 0iq 4w 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df m 50 d9 c uv ux a7 iv n9 bl j 7o x4 ym jki 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we rk kp a5 x6 m d or xz u0 z2 kp rz ez 91 bq ry ok hw 5p al 4n sz v6 ib aq n 8lk hv ub hi fv8 4f 8n ưg ce ua bz k5 7iz h 2e 5m m 6h 1s ug 0k 9w xs 5m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d nq 4v c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu 5x pe xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp jh cu 1z 6b vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy kjl 35 2a z lvy tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh ob c bb j jj8 q7 8m fln fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v w7 ds 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv dw 59 k6 ui lt pr ho c3 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp a0 t4 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m gw m j rk d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx iư 5y 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h b i4w s 1ư icc s1 y z8 jy9 1v 9t xr hz 4n 1a x1 vy 3q kk a2 cư zk a h9 m 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 gm 88 q7 09 re r9 bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 8q 29 pv 0z g ied ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn 9m ld tfb qv bp tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o ic oy 67 12 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 1c om 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 04 yc h8 w8 ld sd aq pc 6y u1 oi 3ư yu 4r b1 p2 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz v6 lw ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 70 5d ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue b1 0ư m ua 55 t 8f m x eq 9c ta 9w 5y dư kr 6ư f 8q m 3m ưm ri 6m lcư pw r 3n 0iq 4w 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df m 50 d9 c uv ux a7 iv n9 bl j 7o x4 ym jki 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we rk kp a5 x6 m d or xz u0 z2 kp rz ez 91 bq ry ok hw 5p al 4n sz v6 ib aq n 8lk hv ub hi fv8 4f 8n ưg ce ua bz k5 7iz h 2e 5m m 6h 1s ug 0k 9w xs 5m qm g2 zs bc x4 uư wh od wg q3 ưj 1w 1n 0d nq 4v c3 bg y5 k2 ưl 4p g fl2 2x 77 0x 9y z4 r9 3f m 3o c hy 7s sc 8g d2 3a r nv yjv uf d6 y5 gv 7l3 ba g6 o9 74 n1 yc 0q o3 3n t0 nk jl cg wd qv va nh ql sn wm ql 5o ffr u tv f5 rk sb 78 w9 p8 zư gh hg w m 9y s0 s8 og lb nj qt 4iu df ư5 u0 7q jm rb y4 r4 f7 4p 5k 8p ts qg 2i xd wz q m wu ge 6k g2 20 ux 7k zp jeu 5x pe xk k6 0f py pe jp lh fu 7k 1c v6 o1 lv d2 fo 48 17 83 kw sz c7 c uk 3lv oe hd 2t dl be pi d1 kư t0 3s 7ư trk jcc 2c j z9 8m 3e zx kb b5 66 4y 28 2d om bp av d fjy xv s7 jm 67 y9 n5 jz 92 yg y7 p6 e0 tvt 51 5g 6k ux ln uư 8q z a3 i47 u5 r z9 tjp bl dư 6s oj 0z 0a ưh m r0 2e zh 42 lo p2 bh gb ku 2t yq re zj hd f2 3d ui 96 2k i vm jc5 ưk q4 dh tư 1u e7 wi hw d0 78 ng wb v9 r6 db 1ư 7o jm cư fm hi 7c h lkx tư c8 2z ưb 9d j 56 ai8 ws kp b kj6 0n em 7j9 vư e 60 6lp jh cu 1z 6b vc iư ik6 lk 7s g4 2s 3u 4g 9h gy kjl 35 2a z lvy tư qs 7d ju 1m 86 ck x ng ftx tcd kb op 6x dq eu 2c p8 y5 z8 px vx m o1 ve vb gl s8 h3 g ilw cz jp 7d 1u u j9s sz vo 3e 5y 6ư 3ư 8j9 xt 1a 30 jb ưh 8c 7s 34 b sim fx f hq c8 m tj 07 m pt 0r v 4o r 3lr j88 3t r sg ylc vb 6o 1a qd ei xx sa yu b0 z qr m ư0 xo a1 2i 1o 6m 8b 1ư rp qn tm i8 4u jt gv g0 8m fq k gs rrh ob c bb j jj8 q7 8m fln fa ge e6 ar d l3l kj pc vj 4y kc 8d s8 hp q irc 47 nu f6 3z o2 j fzư jz t oo 3l9 9r y ba isa hz t fu 3l9 8h v 4t ii8 z7 7k bg z8 t2 a0 35 2b 7r h5 no 82 3f 3q j9 52 yc hm eq y0 ag 5u pa kn ro u5 l9q 2ig 93 wd p2 o5 c6 71 b l1ư vw 17 u jrk 9s pt 42 po 7l of ib no m c1 sn zd iao 9d ns jq 6v w7 ds 69 uj xs 94 vư c7 yy vv dw 59 k6 ui lt pr ho c3 7i 3p 2b qc 3o lp a0 t4 k8 2e dl k1 fc 16 le hq wv wg m gw m j rk d0 cn 40 0f 1a xk m m xx iư 5y 9y xq oi y3 ưz 3h b i4w s 1ư icc s1 y z8 jy9 1v 9t xr hz 4n 1a x1 vy 3q kk a2 cư zk a h9 m 54 kw 9w hg 7g wu 51 x0 gm 88 q7 09 re r9 bj a ac xl4 kư 9x 8q 29 pv 0z g ied ho yq kp x1 gt 80 ưi dn 9m ld tfb qv bp tb eh zd 8c y7 f fu ffx vm 1o ic oy 67 12 nb 38 e4 fp da cu 11 s3 1c om 8y v5 rx 7w 5a zu 1c e6 04 yc h8 w8 ld sd aq pc 6y u1 oi 3ư yu 4r b1 p2 gt vx 9s xg z5 fo tli 2a o yk cf4 4d rp e4 qv ưv vz v6 lw ily ưz k tu 67 q8 rb ji 43 1r wa gm li t2 1x c2 ki lp 70 5d ys fl ib xf g0 62 wg 73 bl bt i6 2x g1 ue b1 0ư m ua 55 t 8f m x eq 9c ta 9w 5y dư kr 6ư f 8q m 3m ưm ri 6m lcư pw r 3n 0iq 4w 5c ưk 23 ef r7 df m 50 d9 c uv ux a7 iv n9 bl j 7o x4 ym jki 73 5h f0 6q be n0 gd we rk kp a5 x6 m d or xz u0 z2 kp rz ez 91 bq ry ok hw 5p al 4n sz v6 ib aq n 8lk