International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

The construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3): theoretical underpinnings

Christopher J. Willis Jeffrey H. Rankin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Christopher J. Willis Jeffrey H. Rankin, (2012),"The construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3):
theoretical underpinnings", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 Iss
4 pp. 382 - 402
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401211212652
Downloaded on: 20 May 2016, At: 07:43 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 597 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in Mexico", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 415-424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541011080400
(2014),"The use of maturity models in improving project management performance: An empirical
investigation", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 231-246 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2013-0007
(2012),"Maturity models in business process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol.
18 Iss 2 pp. 328-346 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151211225225

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:235887 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

IJPPM
61,4
382
Received 28 July 2011
Revised 23 October 2011
Accepted 7 November 2011
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 61 No. 4, 2012
pp. 382-402
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/17410401211212652
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
The construction industry macro
maturity model (CIM3):
theoretical underpinnings
Christopher J. Willis
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and
Jeffrey H. Rankin
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce an alternative approach of measuring
construction industry performance using maturity modeling. The focus is on introducing a newly
developed maturity model referred to as the construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3) and
highlighting its use by assessing the maturity of the construction industry of the Province of New
Brunswick, Canada.
Design/methodology/approach – Current methods of construction industry performance
measurement such as labor productivity and competitiveness are briefly reviewed, highlighting
their weaknesses. The theoretical underpinnings of the CIM3 are discussed and the implementation of
the CIM3 to measure the cost and quality management maturity of the New Brunswick construction
industry is presented.
Findings – An assessment of the construction industry’s maturity using the CIM3 provides a leading
indication of performance. This is based on the industry being structured according to key practices
areas that contain key practices. The industry’s key practices are linked to objectives that lead to the
achievement of performance goals. The maturity of the construction industry with respect to its key
practices is a function of the relative importance of the key practices and the capabilities of the
industry in implementing the key practices. Based on this, the implementation of the CIM3 in New
Brunswick found that the NB construction industry is more mature in cost management than in
quality management.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge on industry
performance measurement, and more particularly, construction industry performance measurement.
The concept of maturity modeling applied here promotes and demonstrates the use of leading
indicators of performance, as recommended in most performance measurement literature.
Keywords CIM3, Construction industry, Leading indicators, Maturity, Performance, Measurement
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Researchers and industry practitioners have long endeavored at finding ways of
measuring and improving performance in construction. Most initiatives have led to the
development and use of performance measurement frameworks and models focusing
on the organizational and project levels. Current performance measurement models
used by construction firms include: the Balanced Scorecard, the European Foundation
for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model and the Malcolm Baldridge
 National Quality Award (MBNQA) (Bassioni et al., 2004). In addition, the management Construction
technique benchmarking has been implemented by construction firms as a means of industry macro
measuring and improving their performance (McCabe, 2001). This is pronounced in the
UK where construction firms utilize key performance indicators (KPIs), which maturity model
according to Kagioglou et al. (2001) provide a measure of project performance with
respect to various parameters such as cost, time and quality. At present, there appears
to be an absence of acceptable performance measurement frameworks/models which 383
measure the performance of the construction industry at the “national-industrial” level.
This is highlighted by the continued reliance on economic indicators and productivity
statistics such as percentage contribution of construction GDP to national GDP,
percentage of work force employed in construction work, growth of construction labor
productivity, and competitiveness of the construction industry. The economic
indicators have an inherent weakness in that they do not necessarily provide an
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

indication of performance but merely inform as to the level of economic activity within
the industry. Labor productivity measures are inaccurate indicators of construction
industry performance as a result of errors in their measurement and calculation
(Harrison, 2007; Rojas and Aramvareekul, 2003). Also, the structure and characteristics
of the construction industry makes the reliance on labor productivity an unreliable
means of assessing performance (see Bernstein, 2003; Crawford and Vogl, 2006). In
terms of competitiveness, Momaya and Selby (1998) modified and implemented the
multi-facet competitiveness model developed by Porter (1980) to measure the
competitiveness of the US, Canadian and Japanese construction industries. In their
study it was acknowledged that the measurement of competitiveness of the
construction industry provides a contradictory assessment of the industry’s
performance, a finding supported by Dorji (2007) in his assessment of the
performance of the Canadian and Bhutanese construction industries.
Considering the weaknesses of the aforementioned approaches, the new approach
suggested in this study is based on the use of project performance metrics in
conjunction with maturity modeling. The project performance metrics provide a
lagging or after-the-fact assessment of performance, while maturity modeling provides
a leading indicator of the industry’s performance, as well as a context in which to
interpret the lagging indicators of performance. This paper reports on the development
and attributes of the maturity model, the construction industry macro maturity model
(CIM3), and its use to measure the maturity of the New Brunswick construction
industry as an illustrative example.

2. Aim of the paper

The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of maturity modeling highlighting the
construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3) as an alternative approach to
industry performance measurement. It achieves this through the following objectives:
(1) Reviewing the use of maturity modeling in construction.
(2) Presenting an overview and discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
CIM3.
(3) Discussing the implementation and results of using the CIM3 to measure the
maturity of the New Brunswick construction industry.
 IJPPM 3. Genesis and concept of maturity modeling
61,4 Maturity modeling, more so process maturity modeling, has its genesis in the software
manufacturing industry (Finnemore et al., 2000) and is based on an adaptation of
Deming’s concept of process improvement (plan – do – check – act) as well as on Philip
Crosby’s quality management maturity grid which “describes five evolutionary stages in
adopting quality practices” (Crosby, 1979). The underlying premise of process maturity
384 modeling is that the quality of a product is directly related to the quality of the process
used to develop that product (Paulk et al., 1995). Process maturity modeling is based on
the assumption that in order to sustainably improve a process there is an evolutionary
path or set of thresholds which the process must transition through. This evolutionary
path is referred to as the process maturity framework and consists of various stages of
progression, which when adhered to, increases the effectiveness of a process in achieving
its objectives. Researchers at the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

University used this concept in the development of the capability maturity model (CMM)
(Paulk et al., 1995). The CMM, being based directly on the original framework and
concept of process maturity best highlights the thresholds of maturity which a process
must transition through in order to be sustainably improved. These five thresholds of
maturity are shown in Figure 1 and are collectively referred to as the five levels of
process maturity (Paulk et al., 1995). Initially, a process is chaotic or ad hoc and must be
made repeatable; after which it must be defined or standardized. The process must then
be managed, i.e. measured and controlled. Ultimately, the process must be optimized,
i.e. it must be continuously improved via feedback and through the use of innovative
ideas and technologies. Inherent in the process maturity framework is the use of lower
levels of maturity as foundations for achieving higher levels of maturity, i.e. each level of
maturity must build on the previous level, thereby making the attainment of full
maturity a linear stepwise progression.

Figure 1.
Five levels of process
maturity
 The assessment of the maturity of a process at the organizational level entails Construction
determining the extent to which the process is defined, managed, measured and industry macro
controlled (Dorfman and Thayer, 1997); and is usually achieved by observing the
practices (i.e. the policies, regulations, activities and infrastructure) that are maturity model
institutionalized within the organization and are used in the processes of the
organization. The utility gained from process maturity modeling has been investigated
by various researchers. In the field of software development, it was found that 385
improved process maturity had the net effect of reducing the overall software
development cycle as well as reducing development effort (Harter et al., 2000), whereas
in the field of project management, Ibbs and Kwak (2000) found that higher levels of
project management maturity resulted in improved project performance.

4. Maturity modeling in construction

Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

The above concept of process maturity has since been applied in the construction
industry in the form of micro or organizational level maturity models such as the
standardized process improvement for construction enterprises (SPICE) and the
construction supply chain maturity model (CSCMM). In the area of project
management, the process maturity concept has been applied in a myriad of project
management maturity models, of which the organizational project management
maturity model (OPM3) is one of the most notable. At the macro-level of the
construction industry the concept of process maturity is yet to be applied, with there
currently being a lone maturity model in existence referred to as the fuzzy industry
maturity grid (FIMG). These four maturity models are briefly reviewed here
highlighting their focus, operation and utility; as well as to develop an argument in
support of the need for a second maturity model at the macro level, which would be
based on an adaptation of the concept of process maturity.
The SPICE maturity model provides an evolutionary step-wise process
improvement framework that allows construction organizations to improve their
processes via five levels of maturity (Sarshar et al., 1998). SPICE is directly based on
the process maturity concept and framework used in the CMM (Amaratunga et al.,
2002) and according to Sarshar et al. (1998) its scope includes assessing the maturity of
construction processes related to design, construction and maintenance activities
within construction companies. Each level of maturity has associated with it a set of
key processes which are assessed against five “process enablers” as a means of
determining if each of the key processes has reached capability (Sarshar et al., 1998).
The process enablers are simply preconditions for implementing processes and
indicate the capability of a process before that process takes place (Amaratunga et al.,
2002). SPICE considers a process to be mature when each “process enabler” has been
satisfied (Finnemore et al., 2000). The main utility of SPICE is that it provides
construction organizations with an indication of the maturity of their processes and
aids in the establishment of process improvement priorities (Sarshar et al., 1998). The
main limitation concomitant with SPICE is that it does not account for the
multi-organizational nature of construction work (Vaidyanathan and Howell, 2007),
while its main weakness is that it treats all organizational processes as being equal,
when in reality this may not be the case.
The CSCMM enables construction organizations to assess their maturity in supply
chain management to improve the operational efficiency of their supply chains.
 IJPPM (Vaidyanathan and Howell, 2007) The maturity model has four stages or levels of
61,4 maturity, i.e. ad hoc, defined, managed and controlled. The CSCMM assesses a
construction organization’s maturity with respect to its supply chain management
along three dimensions (functional, project and firm) and according to four categories
of assessment (process, technology, strategy and value). It is envisaged that the
assessment provided by the CSCMM will form the basis of a construction supply chain
386 certification to be used by construction companies when partnering in a construction
supply chain (Vaidyanathan and Howell, 2007).
OPM3 is a project management maturity model or standard which was developed
by the Project Management Institute (PMI). The aim of OPM3 is to provide
organizations with an understanding of organizational project management and to
allow for the measurement of maturity in organizational project management against a
comprehensive and broad-based set of organizational project management best
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

practices (Project Management Institute, 2005). At the heart of the operation of OPM3
is a “directory of best practices” which lists over 500 organizational project
management best practices. Also, central to the operation of OPM3 is the identification
of specific outcomes and/or indicators which demonstrate an organization’s capability
with respect to each organizational project management best practice. In its
assessment, OPM3 determines organizational project management maturity with
respect to three domains, i.e. project, portfolio and program; as well as with respect to
four stages of process improvement, i.e. standardize, measure, control and continuous
improvement. Similar to SPICE, OPM3’s main weakness is that it treats all
organizational practices as being equal.
Unlike the three aforementioned maturity models which assess maturity at the
organizational level, the FIMG is a maturity model which assesses the maturity of the
construction industry at the macro or “national-industrial” level. The FIMG was
developed as a means of analyzing and diagnosing the construction industry with
respect to its maturity along three dimensions, i.e. markets, technologies and structures
(Tay and Low, 1994). The FIMG is based on the use of fuzzy set theory in conjunction
with the industry maturity grid (IMG) which is a qualitative model offering diagnostic
and prescriptive analysis of a subject industry and was first developed by Cambridge
University (Tay and Low, 1994). At the heart of the operation of the FIMG is the use of
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a means of weighting a set of industry
characteristics to reflect their relative importance with respect to the maturity of the
construction industry. Knowledge elicitation is then used to determine the maturity of
the construction industry with respect to each characteristic, and fuzzy set theory is
used to account for the uncertainty associated with the knowledge elicitation process.
The main weakness of the FIMG is that it classifies an industry characteristic as being
either mature or immature; whereby it is possible for the construction industry to be
neither mature nor immature, but in a transitional state of maturity. Secondly, by
relying solely on knowledge elicitation as the only mechanism for determining
maturity, the FIMG provides an unverifiable assessment of maturity as there is no
tangible evidence that can be used to support the measures of maturity.
Nevertheless, none of the existing construction maturity models are completely
appropriate in providing leading indicators of construction industry performance,
providing a context in which to interpret the performance of the construction industry
and to facilitate the comparison of performance over time and between regions. It
 seems that the FIMG is incapable of providing a fitting context given that the three Construction
dimensions and characteristics in which it assesses maturity do not relate specifically industry macro
to project performance, i.e. its dimensions and characteristics are out of sync with the
parameters of project performance. In addition, the FIMG’s reliance on solely expert maturity model
knowledge (i.e. unverifiable data) and its use of fuzzy set theory in its determination of
maturity diminishes its ability with respect to the tracking and comparison of maturity
over time and between different countries. On the other hand, the maturity models 387
SPICE, OPM3 and CSCMM each utilize detailed levels of maturity that may not be
appropriate for use at the macro level of the construction industry given the
characteristics of the construction industry when viewed from the macro level. In
addition, these maturity models lack an appropriate numeric scoring system to
facilitate the measurement and comparison of maturity.
A closer look at the four aforementioned maturity models however, reveals aspects
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

of their approaches that can be borrowed, modified and combined to construct a

maturity model suitable for measuring the performance of the construction industry.
These aspects include the FIMG’s use of AHP, OPM3’s reliance on verifiable outcomes
and indicators; and the general concept of progressive thresholds or levels of maturity.
In summary, a maturity model suitable for interpreting and comparing the
performance of the construction industry between different countries should seek to
satisfy the following five criteria in order to be reliable and realistic:
(1) Have a realistic number of levels of maturity.
(2) Have a scoring system that is simple and allows for the tracking and
comparison of maturity over time and between countries.
(3) Have its assessment based on some form of verifiable data such as observable
outcomes/indicators and not solely on expert knowledge.
(4) Assess maturity according to areas/dimensions/practices that are in sync or
coincide with the parameters of project performance.
(5) Account for differences in the level of importance of the
areas/dimensions/practices in terms of the performance of the construction
industry.

5. Overview of the construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3)

The construction industry macro maturity model (CIM3) is based on an adaptation of
the concept of process improvement exemplified in the process maturity framework
first developed and used by Watts Humphrey in the CMM. The goals of the CIM3 are
to: model the maturity of the construction industry at the macro level to provide
leading indicators of project performance; provide a context in which to interpret
project performance; enable comparisons between various regions; and provide
guidance with respect to construction industry performance improvement initiatives.
In order to achieve these goals the CIM3 does the following:
(1) Determines the capabilities of the construction industry with respect to a set of
key practices.
(2) Groups the construction industry’s key practices according to key practice
areas (KPAs) that are in tune with the general performance goals of the
construction industry.
 IJPPM (3) Determines the perceived relative importance of the key practices in relation to
61,4 the performance of their KPAs.
(4) Determines the perceived relative importance of the KPAs in relation to the
overall performance of the construction industry.

Based on the above, the CIM3 views the construction industry as being structured as
388 shown in Figure 2, being comprised of KPAs that contain key practices. Simply put, a
key practice is an approach or way in which the construction industry seeks to achieve
a specific objective. It is a description of an activity or set of activities, regulations and
infrastructure that are relied upon to achieve various objectives. Each key practice is
assessed to determine the industry’s capability with respect to that key practice which
is transformed into a level of maturity. There are three possible levels of maturity
associated with each key practice and the determination of each level of maturity is
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

based on the presence of specific outcomes and/or indicators. The outcomes/indicators

are the tangible or intangible results of the industry’s current capability as it concerns
a key practice.
Each KPA has a performance goal and the key practices within a KPA collectively
reflect the way in which the construction industry seeks to achieve the performance
goal of the KPA. Figure 3 shows the underlying logic of the CIM3 concerning a key
practice and the performance of the construction industry. The maturity of the
construction industry with respect to its key practices informs us of how effective the
construction industry is in achieving specific objectives, which in turn influence the
realization of the construction industry’s overall performance goals. In this way, the
maturity of the construction industry with respect to a key practice provides a leading
indicator of the construction industry’s performance.

Figure 2.
General structure of the
CIM3

Figure 3.
Underlying logic as it
concerns a key practice
and the performance of the
construction industry
 Associated with each key practice are three capabilities which reflect a progression in Construction
the level of usage of a key practice. Figure 4 highlights this and shows that the industry macro
presence of each capability is determined based on the existence of specific outcomes
and/or indicators. Capability 1 reflects that the industry’s use of a key practice is maturity model
inconsistent, whereas capability 2 reflects that the industry’s use of a key practice is
standard or consistent, i.e. it is used on a majority of projects and by a majority of
organizations. Capability 3 on the other hand reflects that the construction industry’s 389
use of a key practice is made more effective via performance measurement and timely
interventions.
Each industry capability can be viewed as a “usage threshold” which is transformed
into a specific level of maturity. Capability 1 represents “immature” whereas capability
2 represents “transitional mature” and capability 3 represents “mature”. These three
maturity levels are shown in Figure 5 and are in the form of a step emphasizing that
improving maturity is a “step-wise” progression, i.e. for the construction industry to
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

progress from being immature to mature with respect to its use of a key practice it
must pass through and spend some time at the transitional phase or transitional level
of maturity. Each level of maturity is assigned a numeric score referred to as the

Figure 4.
The construction
industry’s capabilities
with respect to a key
practice

Figure 5.
The three levels of
maturity used in the CIM3
 IJPPM capability score where the “immature” level is assigned a capability score of ?, the
61,4 “transitional mature” level is assigned a capability score of ? and the “mature” level is
assigned a capability score of 3/3. The capability score of a key practice informs us of
the location of the key practice within the maturity framework and is an indication of
the potential for the construction industry to grow or improve its capability with
respect to the use of the key practice.
390 The attributes concomitant with each level of maturity are similar to those of the
micro level maturity models. As such, at the immature level the construction industry’s
use of a key practice is ad-hoc or inconsistent, i.e. there is no formal requirement
governing the use of the key practice and the key practice is not used on all projects or
by all organizations. At the transitional mature level, the construction industry’s use of
a key practice is standard or consistent, i.e. there is a formal requirement governing the
use of a key practice and it is used repeatedly and consistently by a majority of
organizations and/or on a majority of projects. Ultimately, at the mature level the
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

construction industry’s use of a key practice is proactively managed in addition to

being consistently used by a majority of organizations and/or on a majority of projects,
i.e. the key practice is made more effective through performance measurement and
interventions such as the use of technological aids and innovative techniques.

6. KPAs and key practices of the CIM3

Key practice areas or KPAs are essentially “areas of concern” and indicate where the
focus of the construction industry should be directed to improve its performance. They
are clusters of related activities and regulations which when performed in various
sequences bring the construction industry closer to realizing its performance goals.
Based on this, the KPAs of the construction industry coincide with most of the
parameters of project performance and construction project management knowledge
areas. The KPAs considered by the CIM3 include but are not limited to: procurement
management, cost management, quality management, environment management,
human resource management and health and safety management. As examples, the
cost management and quality management KPAs are briefly summarized below:
(1) Cost management. The aim of the cost management KPA is to establish,
monitor and improve the cost of construction goods and services at both the
organizational and project levels. Its goal is to deliver construction projects
within budget and thus has key practices which emphasize the construction
industry’s rules and regulations with respect to construction costs, as well as
the activities and techniques used to manage costs within construction
organizations and on construction projects.
(2) Quality management. The aim of the quality management KPA is to establish,
monitor and improve the quality of the construction industry’s goods and
services. Its goal is to therefore deliver construction projects at desired levels of
quality, and thus has key practices which emphasize the construction industry’s
rules, regulations and policies with respect to quality, as well as the quality
management tools, techniques and customs that are part of construction
projects and organizations.

The reader is directed to the Appendix for a complete list of the cost management and
quality management key practices and their associated objectives.
 7. Relationship between key practices and performance Construction
The CIM3 assumes that there is a cause and effect relationship between the key practices industry macro
of the construction industry and the performance of construction projects. In this
relationship the maturity of the key practices within the KPAs both directly and indirectly maturity model
affect the performance of construction projects. This is in keeping with the original concept
of process maturity which states that the quality of a product is directly related to the
quality of the process used to develop that product (Paulk et al., 1995). In the case of the key 391
practices of the CIM3 and their effect on the performance of construction projects, it is
theorized that the performance of construction projects according to a specific parameter of
project performance is dependent on the maturity of the construction industry with respect
to its use of the key practices within its KPAs, which address issues that are both directly
and indirectly related to the specific parameter of project performance. This is because, as
mentioned earlier, the key practices seek to achieve objectives which lead to goals that are
in tune with the performance goals of the construction industry. As an example, consider
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

the key practice “cost indices are used in the development of construction cost estimates”.
This key practice seeks to achieve the objective of developing accurate and reliable
construction cost estimates. In turn, this objective contributes towards the realization of the
construction industry’s cost performance goal of delivering construction projects within
budget. The efficiency and effectiveness with which the construction industry implements
and uses this key practice influences the extent to which the construction industry’s cost
performance goal is achieved.
Figure 6 is a line diagram showing how the KPAs considered by the CIM3 affect the
various parameters of project performance. Of the seven parameters of project
performance, cost performance will be affected by all the KPAs, whereas performance

Figure 6.
Line diagram showing the
direct and indirect
relationships existing
between KPAs and the
various parameters of
project performance
 IJPPM with respect to safety, environment and scope will be affected by only the safety,
61,4 environment and planning KPAs respectively. Quality performance will be affected by
both quality and procurement KPAs, while time performance will be directly affected
by the time, quality, cost, procurement and planning KPAs. Performance in
sustainability will be directly affected by the procurement KPA and indirectly by the
planning KPA. In the line diagram, direct or primary relationships are depicted by full
392 lines and indirect or secondary relationships are depicted by broken lines.
It is through the above relationship that the KPAs and their key practices serve as
leading indicators of performance and provide a fitting context in which to interpret
and compare the performance of the construction industry.

8. Measuring the maturity of the New Brunswick construction industry –

method
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

The CIM3 was implemented in the Province of New Brunswick – Canada to measure the
cost and quality management maturity of the New Brunswick construction industry.
Implementation of the CIM3 relied on input from an expert group with the members
using their knowledge and experience of the structure and operation of the New
Brunswick construction industry to determine the maturity of its cost and quality
management key practices. The expert group consisted of seven engineers and one
technologist; five of which were from the field of civil engineering, two from mechanical
and one from electrical engineering. All eight were employed in the construction industry
with experiences ranging from nine to 34 years, a cumulative tenure of 178 years and an
average experience of 22.25 years. The employment positions of the members were
project managers and project engineers attached to private contracting firms and
different branches of a large public construction procurement organization.
Figure 7 is the general implementation framework of the CIM3. The implementation
of the CIM3 was done in two parts, the first part established weights of importance of

Figure 7.
General implementation
framework used to
implement the CIM3 in
New Brunswick
 the key practices and KPAs, and the second part established the construction Construction
industry’s capabilities with respect to each of its key practices. The implementation of industry macro
the first part commenced with each member of the expert group carrying out analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) pairwise comparisons (see Saaty, 1980; Saaty and Vargas, maturity model
2001; Saaty and Liem, 2007) of the key practices and KPAs, and concluded with the
aggregation of the resulting AHP pairwise judgments to produce a single set of
weights of importance for each of the key practices and KPAs. The pairwise 393
comparisons were done using a nine-point fundamental scale of values to express
preference of one key practice or KPA over another. The key practices and KPAs were
considered to be decision alternatives and were compared against the criteria: “which
key practice or KPA is more critical/important to the performance of the construction
industry?” The pairwise comparisons were done at two levels, i.e. firstly at the level of
the KPA and then at level of the key practice. This top down approach was favored
because by comparing the individual KPAs with each other before comparing the key
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

practices within each KPA the members of the expert group were likely to be less
biased in their comparisons. When comparing the KPAs, each expert asked themselves
“which KPA is more important to the overall performance of the construction
industry”. On the other hand, in comparing the key practices each expert asked
themselves “which key practice is more important to the performance goal of the KPA
they are a part of”. The pairwise comparison scores provided by each expert were then
aggregated and the geometric mean was calculated to produce a set of pairwise
comparison scores that represented the consensus of the expert group. These scores
were then transformed into weights of importance via calculations outlined by Saaty
(1980).
The implementation of the second part commenced by administering a
questionnaire survey to each member of the expert group, after which the responses
were aggregated to determine the consensus of the group. The second part ended with
a random verification of the questionnaire responses.
Using the weights of importance and the capability scores derived from the
implementation framework, numeric scores of maturity were derived. The maturity
scores were derived at three hierarchical levels shown in Figure 8. At level three, a
maturity score for each key practice was calculated; at level two, a maturity score for
each KPA was calculated; and at level one a single maturity score was calculated for
the entire construction industry.
The calculation of the maturity scores is summarized in the following expressions:

At level one : MSConstructionIndustry ¼ SMSKPA ð1Þ

At level two : MSKPA ¼ S MSKeyPractice X AHPKPA ð2Þ

At level three : MSKeyPractice ¼ CSKeyPractice X AHPKeyPractice ð3Þ

where:
.
MSKPA is the maturity score of a KPA; MSKeyPractice is the maturity score of a key
practice; MSConstructionIndustry is the total maturity score of the construction
industry.
 IJPPM
61,4

394
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

Figure 8.
Hierarchical structure of
the CIM3 showing the
three levels of maturity
scores

.
AHPKPA is the weight of importance of a KPA derived via the analytic hierarchy
process.
.
AHPKeyPractice is the weight of importance of a “key practice” derived via the analytic
hierarchy process; and CSKeyPractice is the capability score of a “key practice”.

The usefulness of the MSKeyPractice is that it firstly informs us of the contribution of a

key practice to the overall maturity of the KPA of which it is member. Secondly, it
provides a numeric indication of the extent to which its objective is being achieved.
This becomes observable when measured maturity is compared with maximum
potential maturity. By knowing the level of contribution of each key practice to the
overall maturity of a KPA we become aware of which key practices are making the
greatest contribution to the realization of the KPA’s performance goal. This helps us to
predict the lagging performance associated with that KPA and provides us with a
context or understanding that can be used discuss and interpret the performance of the
construction industry with respect to the performance goal of the specific KPA.
Secondly, by knowing the extent to which various objectives are being achieved we are
provided with a basis with which to formulate plans for performance improvement. In
addition, when we compare the summation of the maturity scores of the key practices
within specific KPAs, i.e. S (MSKeyPractice), we are provided with an understanding of
which KPAs are most and least mature in comparison with each other. This is
highlighted when we compare the actual S (MSKeyPractice) with their maximum
potential. This comparison helps us to better appreciate the extent to which the
performance goal of a KPA is being realized.
 The usefulness of the MSKPA is it informs us of the level of contribution of each key Construction
KPA to the overall maturity of the construction industry based on their importance to the industry macro
construction industry’s general or overall performance. They inform us of which KPAs,
hence performance goals are having a greater impact on the overall performance of the maturity model
construction industry. This information gives us insight with respect to which KPAs are
contributing the greatest to the overall performance of the construction industry.
Finally, the MSConstructionIndustry is a single score which represents the overall maturity 395
of the construction industry. The usefulness of this score is that it allows us to compare
the maturity of a country’s construction industry with that of another, and compare
changes in the maturity of a country’s construction industry over a period of time. In
addition, the MSConstructionIndustry can be plotted on the CIM3 maturity framework (i.e.
diagram showing the three levels of maturity) to give an indication of the current
proximity of the construction industry relative to the three thresholds of maturity. It is
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

also possible to translate the MSConstructionIndustry into a level of goal realization, i.e. it can
be translated to show the extent to which the combined performance goals of the
construction industry are being achieved. In this regard, the MSConstructionIndustry serves
as generalized macro level leading indicator of construction industry performance.

9. Results and discussion

The bar charts in the figures below compare the maturity scores of the key practices
for the cost management and quality management KPAs. The darker portion of each
bar represents the calculated maturity scores of the key practices, whereas the pale
portion of each bar represents the possible potential growth of a key practice. The
entire length of a bar is an indication of the maximum possible level of influence of a
key practice on the performance goal of its KPA. A complete description of each key
practice is provided in Appendix. Figure 9 compares the maturity scores of the cost

Figure 9.
Bar chart comparing the
maturity scores and
growth potential of cost
management key practices
 IJPPM management key practices showing that key practices CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5,
61,4 CM6 and CM9 have achieved full maturity and therefore have zero potential growth
remaining. On the other hand, key practices CM7 and CM8 have some potential for
further growth with CM8 being immature, therefore having the most potential growth.
From the perspective of the realization of the objectives of the key practices, the
objectives associated with CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4, CM5, CM6, and CM9 have been fully
396 realized whereas the objectives associated with CM7 and CM8 have only been partially
realized. With respect to the level of influence of the key practices on the construction
industry’s cost performance goal, the bar chart shows that key practice CM1 has the
lowest level of influence and key practice CM5 has the greatest level influence.
As leading indicators of cost performance it appears that key practices CM5, CM7, CM9
and CM6 are the four most significant given their level of influence on the cost
management performance goal, whereas CM1, CM3 and CM4 are the least significant.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

Based on this, interventions aimed at improving the New Brunswick construction

industry’s cost performance should firstly focus on improving (albeit the continuation of
proactively managing) the maturity of the four former key practices since these are likely
to better sustain and improve the industry’s cost performance. Although it has not been
emphasized in the above discussion, it should be noted that the maturity of the
construction industry with respect to its cost management key practices will also have an
impact on the time performance of the industry. This is because the consistency and
accuracy with which costs are managed on a project will affect the ability to acquire project
resources at the time they are needed, leading to difficulties in meeting planned schedules.
Figure 10 compares the maturity scores of the quality management key practices. For
these key practices QM1, QM4, QM5, QM6 and QM8 have attained full maturity, while
QM2, QM3 and QM7 are immature. From the perspective of the realization of the

Figure 10.
Bar chart showing the
maturity scores and
potential growth of the
quality management key
practices
 objectives of these key practices, the objectives associated with the five former key Construction
practices are being fully realized and the latter three are only being partially realized. industry macro
Because of this, the New Brunswick construction industry’s quality performance goal is
not being fully achieved. The quality management key practices with the greatest maturity model
influence on the achievement of the quality performance goal are QM6, QM8, QM7 and
QM4, with QM6 having the greatest level of influence. The key practices with the lowest
levels of influence on the achievement of the construction industry’s quality performance 397
goal are QM3, QM1, QM2 and QM5, with QM3 having the least level of influence.
As leading indicators of construction industry quality performance it appears that
key practices QM6, QM8, QM7 and QM4 are the most significant. Based on this,
interventions aimed at improving the construction industry’s quality performance
should firstly focus on sustaining and improving the maturity of these key practices as
an increase in their maturity is likely to have a more noticeable positive impact on the
industry’s lagging quality performance. As with cost management maturity, quality
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

management maturity will also have an impact on the time performance of the
construction industry. The extent and consistency with which quality management is
done on a project will influence the amount of rework required, affecting the likelihood
of on-schedule project completion.
Table I presents the maturity scores of New Brunswick’s construction industry at level
two, i.e. MSKPA, which indicates the level of contribution of a KPA to the overall maturity
of the construction industry. In addition, the table shows the maximum possible maturity
score for each of the two KPAs and their potential growth represented as percentages. For
New Brunswick’s construction industry the quality management KPA has the greater
contribution to the overall maturity of the construction industry with a score of 0.56 while
the cost management KPA has a score of 0.29. This implies that based on the perception
of those within New Brunswick’s construction industry, the current overall or general
performance of New Brunswick’s construction industry is affected to a greater extent by
the maturity of its quality management key practices and to a lesser extent by its cost
management key practices. In terms of the potential growth of the maturity of each of the
two KPAs, the quality management KPA has the greater potential growth, this being
approximately 11 percent while the cost management KPA has a potential growth of just
4 percent. These scores imply that of the two KPAs, the operation of New Brunswick’s
construction industry is likely to be slightly more advanced with respect to its cost
management than with respect to its quality management.
Based on the above, it is advised that any attempt to improve the performance of
New Brunswick’s construction industry should firstly focus on the quality
management KPA than on the cost management KPA. This is because the
maximum possible contribution of the quality management KPA to the overall
maturity of the construction industry is approximately twice that of the cost
management KPA, hence an increase in quality management maturity will result in an
increase in performance that is theoretically approximately twofold in comparison to

MSKPA: S Potential growth

KPAs (MSKeyPractice) X AHPKPA Maximum possible MSKPA (%) Table I.
MS KPA for New
Cost management 0.2892 0.3286 3.94 Brunswick’s construction
Quality management 0.5601 0.6714 11.13 industry
 IJPPM an increase in cost management maturity. An important point to note is that although
61,4 other KPAs were not assessed in the study, we can speculate that based on their
weights of importance, their influence on the maturity of New Brunswick’s
construction industry may be more significant than the cost and quality
management KPAs.
The level one maturity score, i.e. MSConstructionIndustry is a single maturity score
398 representing the overall maturity of the construction industry. The MSConstructionIndustry
of New Brunswick’s construction industry considering only its cost and quality
management key practices is 0.8493 or 85 percent. This means that New Brunswick’s
construction industry is currently 85 percent mature and therefore has an overall
growth potential of 15 percent. In general, New Brunswick’s construction industry is
currently in a transitional maturity phase and is in close proximity to the level of full
maturity. This is shown in Figure 11 which highlights the relationship between the
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

current maturity of New Brunswick’s construction industry and the realization of its
overall performance goal. At present, the realization of the combined performance
goals of New Brunswick’s construction industry is being achieved to a greater extent.
Interpreted as a leading indicator of performance, this means that the measured
lagging performance of New Brunswick’s construction industry is likely to be
relatively good with some potential for further improvement.
Based on the above, it is clear that New Brunswick’s construction industry is to a
greater extent, achieving its combined cost and quality performance goals and is
therefore likely to be performing at an acceptable level. With this in mind, we should
seek to sustain its current maturity and make minor adjustments to some specific key
practices in order to achieve full maturity. Upon achieving full maturity, the New
Brunswick construction industry will enter into a cycle of sustained continuous
improvement which will ultimately be reflected in the execution and after-the-fact
performance of its construction projects.

9. Conclusion
This paper has introduced the construction industry macro maturity model or CIM3
highlighting its theoretical underpinnings. The purpose of the CIM3 is to model the

Figure 11.
Maturity of New
Brunswick’s construction
industry (cost and quality
management KPAs
considered only)
 maturity of the construction industry to provide a context in which to interpret and Construction
compare performance over time and between different regions. This is achieved by industry macro
developing numeric scores of maturity that are based on the relative importance of the
construction industry’s key practices to the performance of the construction industry maturity model
and on the capabilities of the construction industry in implementing its key practices.
Also, by linking the construction industry’s key practices with objectives that lead to
the realization of the construction industry’s performance goals, the assessment 399
provided by the CIM3 serves as useful leading indicators of construction industry
performance that can be used to predict the outlook of the construction industry’s
lagging performance indicators.
This paper has reported on the implementation of the CIM3 using the Canadian
Province of New Brunswick as an illustrative example. The CIM3 was implemented in
New Brunswick providing an assessment of its cost management and quality
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

management maturity. Integral to the implementation of the CIM3 was the use of an
expert group that determined the relative importance of the cost and quality
management key practices to the performance of the construction industry, and the
capabilities of the industry with respect to the implementation of those key practices.
Combining the weights of importance and capability scores associated with the key
practices produced maturity scores. A comparison of the maturity scores revealed that
the New Brunswick construction industry is more mature with respect to cost
management than it is with respect to quality management. This implies that the cost
performance goal of the industry is being achieved to a greater extent than the quality
performance goal. As leading indicators of performance, this means that the New
Brunswick construction industry is likely to have more negative quality related issues
in the execution of construction projects than cost management related issues.
Although it was beyond the scope of this study, it should be noted that the cost and
quality management maturity of the New Brunswick construction industry will affect
the time performance of the industry given the interrelationships between the project
objectives of cost, time and quality. Since the New Brunswick construction industry is
in transitional maturity with a propensity to being fully mature with respect to cost
and quality management, we can speculate that the construction industry’s time
performance will be fair to good.
The major implication of this study is that researchers and policy makers are now
provided with an alternative to labor productivity and competitiveness as a means of
assessing the current state of the construction industry. Future work associated with
this research includes demonstrating a relationship between the maturity of the
construction industry and its after-the-fact performance. This will be done by
considering the after-the-fact performance of a statistical sample of construction
projects using a set of project performance metrics.

References
Amaratunga, D., Sarshar, M. and Baldry, D. (2002), “Process improvement in facilities
management: the SPICE approach”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 318-37.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2004), “Performance measurement in
construction”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20, pp. 42-50.
 IJPPM Bernstein, H.M. (2003), “Measuring productivity: an industry challenge”, Civil Engineering,
December, pp. 46-53.
61,4 Crawford, P. and Vogl, B. (2006), “Measuring productivity in the construction industry”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 208-19.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dorfman, M. and Thayer, R.H. (1997), “The capability maturity model for software”, Software
400 Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 427-38.
Dorji, U. (2007), “Comparison of national construction industry performance through
benchmarking”, MScE thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton.
Finnemore, M., Sarshar, M. and Haigh, R. (2000), “Case studies in construction process
improvement”, Proceedings of the Arcom Construction Process Workshop, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, 16 February.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

Harrison, P. (2007), “Can measurement error explain the weakness of productivity growth in the
Canadian construction industry?”, International Productivity Monitor, No. 14, pp. 53-70, Spring.
Harter, D., Krishnan, M. and Slaughter, S. (2000), “Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle
time, and effort in software product development”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 451-66.
Ibbs, C. and Kwak, Y. (2000), “Assessing project management maturity”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Kagioglou, M., Copper, R. and Aouad, G. (2001), “Performance management in construction:
a conceptual framework”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 85-95.
McCabe, S. (2001), Benchmarking in Construction, Blackwell Science, London.
Momaya, K. and Selby, K. (1998), “International competitiveness of the Canadian construction
industry: a comparison with Japan and the United States”, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 640-52.
Paulk, M., Weber, C., Curtis, B. and Chrissis, M.-B. (1995), The Capability Maturity Model:
Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
Project Management Institute (2005), Organizational Project Management Maturity Model:
OPM3 Knowledge Foundation, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rojas, E. and Aramvareekul, P. (2003), “Is construction labour productivity really declining?”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, January/February.
Saaty, T. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Saaty, T. and Vargas, L. (2001), Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
Saaty, T. and Liem, T. (2007), “On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the
analytic hierarchy process”, paper presented at ISAHP, Vina Del Mar, August 3-6.
Sarshar, M., Hutchinson, A., Aouad, G., Barret, P., Minnikin, J. and Shelly, C. (1998),
“Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises (SPICE): research
methodology and approach”, paper presented at Challenge of Change: Building and
Construction in the New Millennium, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
COBRA Annual Conference, Salford.
Tay, P. and Low, S. (1994), “The fuzzy industry maturity grid (FIMG) and its application to the
Singaporean construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 12,
pp. 125-238.
 Vaidyanathan, K. and Howell, G. (2007), “Construction supply chain maturity model-conceptual Construction
framework”, Proceedings of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-15)
Annual Conference, East Lansing, MI, 18-20 July. industry macro
maturity model
Further reading
Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York, NY. 401
Rankin, J., Robinson-Fayek, A., Hass, C. and Russel, A. (2008), “Benchmarking program
overview: CSC performance and productivity benchmarking program, phase 1”, technical
report submitted to the Construction Sector Council, Edmonton.

Appendix
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)

Cost management key practices Objective Performance goal

CM1: The earnings of
construction workers adhere to
an industry wide salary scale
CM2: Cost indices are used in the
development of construction cost
estimates
CM3: Consultancies charge
hourly rates for various design
and supervision services
CM4: Equipment and labor rates
are charged by contractors for
various types of construction
work
CM5: Construction costs are
monitored and reported during
the execution of projects
CM6: Contractors submit
progress payment claims during
project execution
CM7: The client issues
intermediate payments to
contractors within a specified
timeframe
CM8: Construction organizations
use organizational performance
measures as a means of
monitoring and controlling their
business operations
CM9: Contractors develop formal
cash flow schedules at the
commencement of construction
projects as a means of managing
project costs
Control and limit the salaries of Deliver construction projects
project employees
Develop accurate and reliable
construction cost estimates
To be adequately reimbursed
for services rendered and to
control and limit the cost of
various consultancy services
To be adequately reimbursed
for construction services and to
control and limit the cost of
various construction services
Inform project stakeholders of
actual project costs during
project execution
Recover project expenditures in
a timely manner so as to pay for
future project activities
Compensate the contractor for
work completed in a timely
manner so as to aid in the
contractor having a good cash
flow
Ensure business operations are
within budget and
organizational cash flow is
positive
Forecast project expenditure
and income so as to determine
the availability of adequate
financial resources
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget
Deliver construction projects
within budget Table AI.
Cost management key
practices and their
associated objectives
 IJPPM Quality management key
61,4 practices
QM1: There is a national
building code which is
referred to in project
design and construction as
402 a means of ensuring
acceptable levels of
performance
QM2: Construction organizations
utilize TQM as a means of
ensuring and improving
quality
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)
QM3: Construction organizations
utilize ISO certification as
a means of ensuring and
improving quality
QM4: Quality specifications are
used in construction
contracts as a means of
defining the required
quality of various aspects
of construction
QM5: Weekly and monthly
reports are used to report
quality issues during the
execution of construction
projects
QM6: Quality inspections are
used on construction
projects as a means of
verifying and ensuring
quality
QM7: Quality management plans
are used on construction
projects as a means of
ensuring quality
QM8: Punch list inspections are
Table AII. performed as part of
Quality management key project closeout so as to
practices and their highlight and rectify
associated objectives outstanding quality issues
Corresponding author
Christopher J. Willis can be contacted at: c.willis@unb.ca
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Objectives Performance goal
Ensure construction projects Deliver construction projects
confirm to certain required at desired quality
minimum standards
Ensure there is a desired level of Deliver construction projects
quality in the construction at desired quality
process and in the construction
product
Ensure there is a desired level of Deliver construction projects
quality in the construction at desired quality
process and in the construction
product
Provide a comprehensive Deliver construction projects
description of the desired at desired quality
attributes and quality of the
construction process and the
constructed product
Inform project stakeholders of Deliver construction projects
quality issues as they arise at desired quality
during the execution of
construction projects
Verify and ensure the required Deliver construction projects
levels of quality are being at desired quality
achieved
Outline to project stakeholders, Deliver construction projects
the approaches that will be taken at desired quality
to ensure that desired levels of
quality will be achieved
Highlight outstanding quality Deliver construction projects
issues that need to be rectified at desired quality
before final completion
 This article has been cited by:

1. Romuald Kokou Akogbe, Xin Feng, Jing Zhou. 2015. Construction Projects Productivity in West
African country of Benin: Case of Ground Earthworks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project
Management 5:2, 16-23. [CrossRef]
2. Luis Amador, Christopher Joseph Willis. 2014. Demonstrating a Correlation Between the Maturity of
Road Safety Practices and Road Safety Incidents. Traffic Injury Prevention 15:6, 591-597. [CrossRef]
3. Ahmet Anil Sezer, Jan Bröchner. 2014. The construction productivity debate and the measurement of
service qualities. Construction Management and Economics 32:6, 565-574. [CrossRef]
4. Craig Langston Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, Bond University, Gold Coast,
Australia . 2014. Construction efficiency: a tale of two developed countries. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 21:3, 320-335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 07:43 20 May 2016 (PT)