1. Subcontractor Performance Evaluation with Respect to HRM Considerations By: Hamidreza Abbasianjahromi

2. Introduction Projects are becoming bigger and bigger, while construction tasks have become more complicated and diversified. (Kang. 2011) GCs need some partners for doing project tasks specialty and assign this role to some groups named subcontractors. SCs can contribute to the construction process for as much as 90% of the total project value. (Kummaraswamy & Matheiw, 2000)

3. Introduction GCs encounter to some issues such as evaluation, selection and monitoring in subcontracting project tasks to SCs. GCs have diversified approached in the evaluation and selection of SCs because some considerations are important for hiring SCs such as lack of enough resources, lack of knowledge in doing some special tasks, big volume of project tasks and high overhead in various conditions.

4. Introduction Monitoring and performance evaluation is very similar based on its concept. The main focus on monitoring step is to investigate whether SCs performance is in the direction of satisfying project goals or not. In the other point of view, SCs can influence on various aspects of projects such as cost, time, quality, resources, etc. SCs bring some sources such as human resource, equipments and materials in projects. Because of their resources involvement in the projects, GCs should manage and monitor them effectively.

5. Introduction The lack of documented information in most contractor companies and inherent uncertainty existed in the performance evaluation causes the authors to offer a model based on fuzzy set theory. For minimizing unintentional mistakes in the decision- making process, conducting an opinion poll from various experts is another approaches presented by this paper. With regard to these reasons, authors intend to combine three concepts including the fuzzy set theory, complex numbers and group decision making in SCs performance evaluation.

6. Literature Survey There are only few investigation conducted for SCs performance evaluations. (Ng, 2007) The previous investigations regarding SC performance evaluation divided into two broad categories: 1.Papers: Previous papers considered to suggestion of model and offering criteria (Mathew et al., 1997; Hsieh, 1998; Buck, 2003; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007;Ng et al., 2009…) 2.Standards/guidelines: These sources propose a framework for evaluating SCs based on environmental conditions. (Carolina State of government, 2001; State of Wisconsin, 1998; PCICB, 2002; ETWB, 2002; FNAL,2002;LANL, 2005)

7. Literature Survey No.CriteriaReference 1Schedule/Progress Mathew et al., 1997; State of Wisconsin,1998; Hsieh, 1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002; ETWB,2002; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2009 2Quality Mathew et al., 1997; State of Wisconsin,1998; Hsieh, 1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002;Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2009 3Cost Mathew et al., 1997; State of Wisconsin,1998; Hsieh, 1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2009 4Safety State of Wisconsin,1998; Hsieh, 1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002; ETWB,2002; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009Ng et al., 2009 5Workmanship State of Wisconsin,1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002; ETWB,2002; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007;Ng et al., 2009 There are several criteria for performance evaluation but the most important of them are as below:

8. Literature Survey No.CriteriaReference 6Organization State of Wisconsin,1998; Hsieh, 1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002; ETWB,2002; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007;Ng et al., 2009 7Resources ETWB,2002; Buck, 2003; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007;Ng et al., 2009 8Environmental Pollution Control LANL, 2005; FNAL, 2002 9Client’s Satisfaction Construction Industry Institute CII, 1991; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009 10Communication Mathew et al., 1997; State of Wisconsin,1998; South Carolina State Government, 2001; LANL, 2005; Chung & Ng, 2006; Ng,2007; Yueng et al., 2008; Yueng et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2009

9. Proposed Methodology Criteria IdentificationAlternative IdentificationModel DevelopmentSCs Performance Index

10. Criteria Identification According to subject of paper and literature review section, below criteria are presented: 1.Innovation and Improvement 2.Effective Communication 3.Workforce Productivity 4.Employee’s Attitude 5.Safety 6.Payment to personnel 7.Disputes 8.Harmonious working relationships 9.Quality of leadership 10.Trust & Respect

11. Alternative Identification Candidate SCs should be recognized for participating in the performance evaluation program. SCs will be evaluated with respect to the each criterion.

12. Model Development Determination of satisfaction level if each criteria by GC Evaluation of SCs based on proposed criteria Determination of SI index as: SI=(SCs evaluation- satisfaction level) Comparison of SI index for each SC in various periods Linguistic Terms Fuzzy Set + Complex Number Weighting Criteria AHP

13. Model Development Satisfaction level – This parameter is qualitative, so we use linguistic terms and fuzzy set theory for calculation. – Fuzzy set theory would not only match the condition with inadequate information but can also facilitate the process of working with linguistic terms. (Abbasianjahromi & Rajaie, 2011)

14. Linguistic TermsFuzzy NumbersFigure Very low (VL) Low (L) Medium low (ML) Medium (M) Medium high (MH) High (H) Very high (VH) (0,0,0.1,0.2) (0.1,0.2,.02,0.3) (0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.5,0.6) (0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8) (0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9) (0.8,0.9,1,1)

15. Model Development SCs evaluation – Evaluation of SCs based on the proposed criteria and their performance in duration of projects. – The process applied for the evaluation of SCs is similar to determination of satisfaction level.

16. Model Development Weighting criteria – Each criterion has a different value for decision makers. Decision makers usually weight criteria regarding their priorities in performance evaluation. – There are various tools for weighting criteria. AHP is one of the most popular tools in this area. – The concept of AHP is based on pair-wise comparisons. – This paper applies AHP for weighting criteria.

17. Model Development Determination of SI index SI=(SCs evaluation-satisfaction level) In above equations, and are evaluation of ith SCs and satisfaction level respectively. is the rate of ith SC with respect to jth criteria, are satisfaction level and weight of each criterion.

18. Model Development Group Decision making

19. Model Development Complex Numbers

20. Criteria Identification SCs Performance evaluation Literature Review Questionnaire Weighting Criteria Expert Judgment AHP,SAW, … Determination of Satisfaction level Decision Makers Rating of SCs Linguistic Terms SI Determination Fuzzy Set + Complex Number Fuzzy Set + Complex Number

21. Conclusion Performance evaluation of SCs in the construction industry is a crucial task in the implementation of effective management. This papers presented some criteria for performance evaluation of SCs in the construction industry with respect to the HRM considerations. The innovation of this paper is to present an applicable framework for performance evaluation of SCs.