Sharing learning

What has also become clear from this research is that contractors working together on large programmes of work need to exchange learning that drives excellence. Oakland’s Property Director asserted that:

“…there’s increasing evidence that [the suppliers are] talking to each other. There’s some very tangible evidence that they’re exchanging best practice, because they are standardizing…”.

If one contractor on a large programme is performing excellently and others are falling behind then this adds less value to the customer than if all are performing excellently. Therefore, excellent performers are those who learn and share learning with their peer group to advantage their mutual customer. If there is performance improvement by all contractors on a programme, they can take this improvement and spread it to other customer work streams. This way all contractors who take part in learning and sharing gain something whilst the customer also gains.

4.2.3 Role of the customer

The above excellent contractor performance aspects should not go without a mention of the role of the customer in the construction programme. The comments that came from the customers were that they have to be giving the correct messages about the above issues. Oakland’s Property Director stated: “If you’re constantly talking to the supplier about the carpet tiles, then he’ll focus on the carpet tiles” Customers understand that excellent performance will only be delivered following excellent leadership from the customer themselves. If customers do not act in such a way that

demonstrates and encourages excellent performance, they are unlikely to receive it from their supply chain.

4.2.4 Overview of the results and analysis

The aim of the data analysis for this section of the research was to identify and understand the common ground under which customers of the UK construction industry viewed excellent first tier contractor performance. The focus of this analysis was, therefore, the factors themselves rather than the organizations or the participants in the interviews. Such focus was seen to be in direct contrast with the later case study work where the focus was initially upon the case itself to inform the common processes.

From the interviews with the customer organizations, several interesting elements emerged in terms of what excellent performance from their first tier contractors looked like. The interviews revealed that many of the traditional performance measures, such as time, quality, cost, and health and safety were treated as required performance in the current environment rather than indicators of excellent performance.

These factors were still generally seen on KPI scorecards. KPI scorecards were commonly used to measure all aspects of output performance on programmes of construction works. Such standard KPI suites can be found on the Constructing Excellence website at www.kpizone.com. The analysis of the interviews suggested that excellent scores against these factors were now seen to be the minimum requirement to continue to work for large customers.

These KPI suites of output factors appeared to be used in today’s market as factors for contractors to ensure against the dissatisfaction of their customer. In other words, those who were not seen to perform well against their KPIs were those who tended to find themselves not working for the customer for very long. This was a view expressed explicitly by the customers interviewed. The suites were not used in order to identify organizations for immediate dismissal from their programme, but to identify problems and to ensure that rectification quickly followed.

Some customers had established their KPI suites so that measures which ensured against dissatisfaction and factors which drove satisfaction were both recorded. Again, there was seen to be a set of factors which were to be complied with as a minimum, and which were generally output factors. The excellent performance

factors were more consistent with input factors, such as high performing teams, learning, cultural issues and team integration. The customers who had these two level KPIs in place appeared to understand that improving input elements would also drive the output measures. These input elements appeared to be what set excellent performing contractors apart from their peer group.

With such a two-tiered approach, customers tended to place the statistical output (prevent dissatisfaction) measures at a project level, and the qualitative/input (create satisfaction) measures at the programme level. The programme level indicators appeared to be the ones which were dealt with at a very senior management level by all parties concerned. The fact that the input issues were dealt with at programme level suggested a further understanding that those first tier contractors who nurtured the input drivers were the excellent performers at programme level and at the output level.

KPIs which measured the regular construction programme outputs were still maintained by all customer organizations that participated in the interviews for the research herein reported. Issues such as time, quality, cost and health and safety were still measured rigorously and were still seen to be of great importance to customers of the construction industry. What was uncovered was the extension beyond these KPIs to rating first tier contractors by the more ‘leading’ or ‘input’ factors. These factors may not be measured in the statistical sense, but were seen to be a demonstration of the difference between the ordinary service delivering contractors and the excellently performing ones.