Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators Determining the Uptake of CPS for Facilities Management
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
3. Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Background Information of Respondents
4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Kruskal–Wallis H-Test
4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Atkin, B.; Brooks, A. Total Facility Management, 4th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- International Facilities Management Association. Definition of Facility Management. 2016. Available online: www.ifma.org (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- British Institute of Facilities Management. Facilities Management. 2011. Available online: www.cips.org (accessed on 22 September 2021).
- Jawdeh, H.B. Improving the Integration of Building Design and Facilities Management; University of Salford: Salford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Zawawi, E.M.A. Development of facilities management in Malaysia. J. Facil. Manag. 2010, 8, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Isa, N.M.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Mohamed, O.; Berawi, M.A. Review of Facilities Management Functions in Value Management Practices. Int. J. Technol. 2017, 8, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kok, H.B.; Mobach, M.P.; Omta, O.S. The added value of facility management in the educational environment. J. Facil. Manag. 2011, 9, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghimien, D.; Aigbavboa, C.; Oke, A. Digitalisation for Effective Construction Project Delivery in South Africa. In Proceedings of the Contemporary Construction Conference, Innovative and Dynamic Built Environment, Coventry, UK, 5–6 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ikuabe, M.O.; Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E. Inhibiting Factors to the Adoption of Digital Technologies in the South African Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 5th Research Conference of the NIQS (RECON5), Minna, Nigeria, 9–10 November 2020; Nigerian Institute of Quantity of Surveyors: Lagos, Nigeria, 2020; pp. 455–461. [Google Scholar]
- Windapo, A. The construction industry transformation and the digital divide: Bridging the gap. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2021, 117, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ensafi, M.; Thabet, W. Challenges and Gaps in Facilities Management Practices. In Proceedings of the Annual Associated Schools of Construction International Conference, Long Beach, CA, USA, 5–9 April 2021; pp. 237–245. [Google Scholar]
- Hudson, M. Facility Management for Universities. In Proceedings of the Conference in Hong Kong on New World Order in Facility Management, Hong Kong, China, 3–5 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Nidhi, M.; Ali, S. The Challenges and Benefits of Facility Management. J. All Res. Educ. Sci. Methods 2020, 8, 248–253. [Google Scholar]
- McKinsey Global Institute. A Route to Higher Productivity. Reinventing Construction; McKinsey Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ikuabe, M.O.; Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E. Exploring the Adoption of Digital Technology at the Different Phases of Construction Projects in South Africa. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 1553–1561. [Google Scholar]
- Oladejo, E.I. Evaluation of Challenges of Facilities Management in Tertiary Healthcare Institutions in South East Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, R.; Hassan, T.; Sarajul, N.; Mohamed, F. Factors Influencing Facilities Management Cost Performance in Building Projects. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2019, 33, 04019036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoosain, M.S.; Paul, B.S.; Ramakrishna, S. The Impact of 4IR Digital Technologies and Circular Thinking on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kayembe, C.; Nel, D. Challenges and Opportunities for Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Afr. J. Public Aff. 2019, 11, 79–94. [Google Scholar]
- Sima, V.; Gheorghe, I.G.; Subić, J.; Nancu, D. Influences of the Industry 4.0 Revolution on the Human Capital Development and Consumer Behavior: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajibade, P.; Mutula, S.M. Big Data, 4IR and Electronic Banking and Banking Systems Applications in South Africa and Nigeria. Banks Bank Syst. 2020, 15, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.-Y.; Lim, J.-Y. The Prospect of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Home Healthcare in Super-Aged Society. Ann. Geriatr. Med. Res. 2017, 21, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serumaga-Zake, J.M.; van der Poll, J.A. Addressing the Impact of Fourth Industrial Revolution on South African Manufacturing Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Sustainability 2021, 13, 11703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E. Critical Success Factors for Digital Partnering of Construction Organisations—A Delphi Study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 3171–3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikuabe, M.O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Oke, A. Cyber-Physical Systems: Matching up Its Application in the Construction Industry and Other Selected Industries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 1543–1552. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, K.; Park, K. An Overview and Some Challenges in CPS. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 2013, 93, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Alguliyev, R.; Imamverdiyev, Y.; Sukhostat, L. Cyber-Physical Systems and Their Security Issues. Comput. Ind. 2018, 100, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhrugubanda, M. A Review on Applications of Cyber Physical Systems. J. Innov. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 2, 728–730. [Google Scholar]
- Taymanov, R.; Sapozhnikova, K.; Ionov, A. Topical Metrology Problems in the Era of Cyber-Physical Systems and Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Metrology, Paris, France, 19–21 September 2017; Corletto, C., Ed.; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2017; p. 09006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hererich, M.; Uebernickel, F.; Brenner, W. The Impact of Cyber-Physical Systems on Industrial Services in Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2015, 30, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Yung, P.; Jun, G. Engagement of Facilities Management in Design Stage through BIM: Framework and a Case Study. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2013, 2013, 189105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCarroll, P. The House That Facilities Management Built: A Story of Identity and Metaphor in a Secondary Service. Cult. Organ. 2017, 12, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubnick, M. Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2005, 28, 376–417. [Google Scholar]
- Marques-Quinteiro, P.; Curral, L.; Passos, A.M.; Lewis, K. And Now What Do We Do? The Role of Transactive Memory Systems and Task Coordination in Action Teams. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2013, 17, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, Y.L.; Snell, R. Employee Workplace Effectiveness: Implications for Performance Management Practices and Research. J. Gen. Manag. 2003, 29, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, M.; Murlis, H. Reward Management: A Handbook of Remuneration Strategy and Practice, 1st ed.; Hay Group: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ismajli, N.; Zekeri, J.; Qosja, E.; Krasniqi, I. The Performance of Motivation Factors on Employee Performance in Kosovo Municipalities. J. Public Adm. Gov. 2015, 5, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
- Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R.; Sarshar, M.; Baldry, D. Assessment of Facilities Management Process Capability: A NHS Facilities Case Study. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 2002, 15, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaratunga, D.; Baldry, D. A Conceptual Framework to Measure Facilities Management Performance. Prop. Manag. 2003, 21, 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amos, D.; Musa, Z.N.; Au-Yong, C.P. A Review of Facilities Management Performance Measurement. Prop. Manag. 2019, 37, 490–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medne, A.; Lapina, I. Sustainability and Continuous Improvement of Organisation: Review of Process-Oriented Performance Indicators. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lampe, H.W.; Hilgers, D. Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 240, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koleoso, H.A.; Omirin, M.M.; Adewunmi, Y.A. Performance measurement scale for facilities management service in Lagos-Nigeria. J. Facil. Manag. 2017, 15, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Mexico State University. The Difference between a Goal and an Objective; New Mexico State University: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lehigh, J. Setting Goals: Key Accountability or Goal...What’s the Difference? 2013. Available online: www.hr.lehigh.edu (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Naidu, A.; Joubert, R.; Mestry, R.; Mosoge, J.; Ngcobo, T. Educational Management and Leadership: A South African Perspective; Oxford University Press: Cape Town, South Africa, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rundansky-Kloppers, S. Planning. In Principles of Business Management; Strydom, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Cape Town, South Africa, 2009; pp. 62–73. [Google Scholar]
- Cascio, W. Managing Human Resources; Irwin/McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Locke, E. Linking Goals to Monetary Incentives. Acad. Manag. Exec. 2004, 18, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locke, E.; Latham, G. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shah, J.Y.; Friedman, R.; Kruglanski, A.W. Forgetting All Else: On the Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Shielding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindarajan, V.; Trimble, C. The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sicotte, H.; Langley, A. Integration Mechanisms and R&D Project Performance. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2000, 17, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Heslin, P.; Carson, J.; VandeWalle, D. Practical Applications of Goal Setting Theory to Performance Management. In Performance Management: Putting Research into Practice; Smither, J., Ed.; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Latham, G. Goal Setting: A Five-Step Approach to Behavior Change. Organ. Dyn. 2003, 32, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacLeod, L. Making SMART Goals Smarter. Physician Exec. 2012, 38, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Lund, S.K. Innovation under Pressure: Reclaiming the Micro-Level Exploration Space. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stocholm, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Prather, C.W. The Dumb Thing about SMART Goals for Innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 2005, 48, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vancouver, J.; Milsap, R.E.; Peters, P. Multilevel Analysis of Organisational Goal Congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 1994, 79, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, G.; Smith, K.G. Units, Divisions, and Organisations: Macro-Level Goal Setting. In New Developments in Goals Setting and Task Performance; Locke, E., Latham, G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 311–327. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, J.; Cervone, D. Proximal Goal-Setting and Self-Regulatory Processes. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1990, 14, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.C.; Warren, A.M. Distal Goal and Proximal Goal Transfer of Training Interventions in an Executive Education Program. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2009, 20, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grünig, R.; Kühn, R. The Strategy Planning Process: Analyses, Options, Projects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Elbanna, S.; Andrews, R.; Pollanen, R. Strategic Planning and Implementation Success in Public Service Organisations: Evidence from Canada. Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 1017–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, W.C. Practical Research Methods; Pearson Custom: Singapore, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, R.; Flint, J. Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies. Soc. Res. Update 2001, 33, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (Version 12), 2nd ed.; Allen and Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Abbasi, M. Culture, Demography and Individuals’ Technology Acceptance Behaviour: A PLS Based Structural Evaluation of an Extended Model of Technology Acceptance in South-Asian Country Context. Ph.D. Thesis, Brunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B. Structural Equation Modelling with EQS-Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, D. Structural Equation Modelling: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd ed.; Sage: Riverside County, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P. EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual; Encino: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Hult, G.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publication: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cepeda-Carrion, G.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G.; Cillo, V. Tips to Use Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in Knowledge Management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Risher, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghimien, L.M.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Anumba, C.J.; Thwala, W.D. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Challenges of Effective Management of Construction Workforce in South Africa. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing; Emerald Publishing Limited: Manchester, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iacobucci, D. Structural Equations Modeling: Fit Indices, Sample Size, and Advanced Topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, X.; Yuan, K. Bias and Efficiency in Structural Equation Modeling: Maximum Likelihood versus Robust Methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2011, 46, 229–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dubrin, A. Essentials of Management; Mason: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Oettingen, G.; Gollwitzer, P. Strategies of Setting and Implementing Goals. In Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology; Maddux, J., Tangney, J., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 114–135. [Google Scholar]
- du Plessis, P.; Conley, L.; du Plessis, E. Teaching and Learning in South African Schools; Van Schaik: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perception in Information Technology Adoption. Decis. Support Syst. 1998, 22, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernandez-Ortega, B.; Serrano-Cinca, C.; Gomez-Meneses, F. The Firm’s Continuance Intentions to Use Inter-Organisational CTs: The Influence of Contingency Factors and Perception. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 747–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Man, W.; Toorn, W. Culture and the Adoption and Use of GIS within Organisations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2002, 4, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
- Phichitchaisopa, N.; Naenna, T. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Healthcare Information Technology. EXCLI J. 2013, 12, 413–436. [Google Scholar]
- Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indicators | Govt. | Contra. | Consult. | Total | K–W | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | R | M | R | M | R | M | R | X2 | Sig. | |
Built-in capability of facility adaptation | 4.40 | 1 | 4.28 | 1 | 4.51 | 1 | 4.39 | 1 | 4.160 | 0.125 |
Significance of quality assurance | 4.26 | 7 | 4.28 | 1 | 4.35 | 3 | 4.30 | 2 | 0.291 | 0.864 |
Attainment of customers’ specific needs | 4.36 | 3 | 4.20 | 9 | 4.36 | 2 | 4.29 | 3 | 1.985 | 0.371 |
Timely communication of policy changes | 4.32 | 5 | 4.22 | 6 | 4.29 | 6 | 4.27 | 4 | 0.381 | 0.826 |
Improvement of internal processes of the organisation | 4.36 | 3 | 4.19 | 11 | 4.29 | 6 | 4.26 | 5 | 2.121 | 0.046 ** |
Significance of time savings | 4.26 | 7 | 4.20 | 9 | 4.33 | 4 | 4.26 | 5 | 1.268 | 0.531 |
Improvement in facilities’ standards | 4.30 | 6 | 4.26 | 4 | 4.21 | 11 | 4.25 | 7 | 1.050 | 0.591 |
Improvement in evaluation process through customers’ involvement | 4.26 | 7 | 4.22 | 6 | 4.27 | 8 | 4.24 | 8 | 0.016 | 0.992 |
Informed decision making | 4.17 | 13 | 4.22 | 6 | 4.32 | 5 | 4.24 | 8 | 1.562 | 0.458 |
Significance of cost savings | 4.19 | 10 | 4.28 | 1 | 4.21 | 11 | 4.24 | 8 | 1.802 | 0.406 |
Evaluation of existing trends | 4.40 | 1 | 4.08 | 14 | 4.24 | 9 | 4.21 | 11 | 4.519 | 0.004 ** |
Economic utilisation of the facility | 4.11 | 16 | 4.24 | 5 | 4.17 | 15 | 4.19 | 12 | 1.188 | 0.552 |
Stakeholders’ perception of facilities performance | 4.17 | 13 | 4.17 | 13 | 4.21 | 11 | 4.18 | 13 | 0.219 | 0.896 |
Anticipation of the attainment of future needs of the organisation | 4.19 | 10 | 4.18 | 12 | 4.13 | 16 | 4.17 | 14 | 0.384 | 0.825 |
Identification of problems in facilities | 4.19 | 10 | 4.07 | 15 | 4.24 | 9 | 4.16 | 15 | 1.917 | 0.383 |
Improved customer satisfaction | 4.15 | 15 | 4.07 | 15 | 4.21 | 11 | 4.14 | 16 | 1.085 | 0.581 |
Group Mean | 4.26 | 4.20 | 4.27 | 4.24 | ||||||
Cronbach Alpha | 0.899 |
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.926 | |
---|---|---|
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 1087.303 |
df | 120 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Label | Performance Measurement Indicators | Initial | Extraction |
---|---|---|---|
PME1 | The built-in capability of facility adaptation | 1.000 | 0.617 |
PME2 | Identification of problems in facilities | 1.000 | 0.491 |
PME3 | Improved customer satisfaction | 1.000 | 0.640 |
PME4 | Improvement in evaluation process through customers’ involvement | 1.000 | 0.884 |
PME5 | Informed decision making | 1.000 | 0.756 |
PME6 | Significance of cost savings | 1.000 | 0.543 |
PME7 | Significance of time savings | 1.000 | 0.545 |
PME8 | Significance of quality assurance | 1.000 | 0.536 |
PME9 | Attainment of customers’ specific needs | 1.000 | 0.626 |
PME10 | Timely communication of policy changes | 1.000 | 0.879 |
PME11 | Stakeholders’ perception of facilities performance | 1.000 | 0.673 |
PME12 | Improvement in facilities’ standards | 1.000 | 0.636 |
PME13 | Economic utilisation of the facility | 1.000 | 0.788 |
PME14 | Evaluation of existing trends | 1.000 | 0.662 |
PME15 | Improvement of internal processes of the organisation | 1.000 | 0.743 |
PME16 | Anticipation of the attainment of future needs of the organisation | 1.000 | 0.619 |
Indicators | Component | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Significance of time savings | 0.842 | ||
Significance of quality assurance | 0.714 | ||
Significance of cost savings | 0.711 | ||
Improvement in facilities’ standards | 0.774 | ||
Identification of problems in facilities | 0.656 | ||
Improvement of internal processes of the organisation | 0.510 | ||
Built-in capability of facility adaptation | 0.764 | ||
Economic utilisation of the facility | 0.726 | ||
Timely communication of policy changes | 0.584 | ||
Improvement in evaluation process through customers’ involvement | 0.526 | ||
Significance of cost savings | 0.520 | ||
Identification of problems in facilities | 0.514 | ||
Improved customer satisfaction | 0.787 | ||
Significance of time savings | 0.638 | ||
Significance of quality assurance | 0.525 | ||
Stakeholders’ perception of facilities performance | 0.513 |
Groups | Label | Standardised Coefficient (λ) | Z-Statistics | R2 | Significant at 5% Level? | Group R2 | Cronbach’s Alpha | Rho Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Operations efficiency | PM7 | 0.799 | 7.469 | 0.736 | Yes | 0.673 | 0.899 | 0.786 |
PME8 | 0.766 | 7.724 | 0.841 | Yes | ||||
PME6 | 0.761 | 7.726 | 0.842 | Yes | ||||
PME12 | 0.822 | 8.153 | 0.832 | Yes | ||||
PME2 | 0.752 | 7.294 | 0.743 | Yes | ||||
PME15 | 0.774 | 8.382 | 0.664 | Yes | ||||
Facility Adaptation | PME1 | 0.734 | 9.931 | 0.743 | Yes | 0.715 | ||
PME13 | 0.811 | 11.827 | 0.672 | Yes | ||||
PME5 | 0.738 | 10.826 | 0.706 | Yes | ||||
PME14 | 0.883 | 9.926 | 0.794 | Yes | ||||
PME16 | 0.699 | 11.837 | 0.649 | Yes | ||||
PME10 | 0.717 | 10.294 | 0.783 | Yes | ||||
Client’s Satisfaction | PME9 | 0.792 | 13.893 | 0.811 | Yes | 0.698 | ||
PME11 | 0.686 | 13.274 | 0.793 | Yes | ||||
PME3 | 0.839 | 9.294 | 0.729 | Yes | ||||
PME4 | 0.827 | 9.783 | 0.884 | Yes |
Fit Index | Cut-Off Value | Estimate | Indication |
---|---|---|---|
S−Bχ2 | 8.593 | ||
df | X > 0.00 | 2 | Good fit |
CFI | x ≥ 0.90 (acceptable) | 0.996 | Good fit |
x ≥ 0.95 (good fit) | |||
GFI | x ≥ 0.90 (acceptable) | 0.985 | Good fit |
x ≥ 0.95 (good fit) | |||
RMSEA | x ≤ 0.08 (acceptable) | 0.024 | Good fit |
x ≤ 0.05 (good fit) | |||
SRMR | x ≤ 0.08 (acceptable) | 0.030 | Good fit |
x ≤ 0.05 (good fit) | |||
NFI | x ≥ 0.90 (acceptable) | 0.965 | Good fit |
x ≥ 0.95 (good fit) | |||
NNFI | x ≥ 0.90 (acceptable) | 0.993 | Good fit |
x ≥ 0.95 (good fit) | |||
RMSEA 90% CI | 0.001:0.024 | Acceptable range | |
p-value | x > 0.05 | 0.00 | Acceptable range |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ikuabe, M.; Aigbavboa, C.; Anumba, C.; Oke, A.; Aghimien, L. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators Determining the Uptake of CPS for Facilities Management. Buildings 2022, 12, 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040466
Ikuabe M, Aigbavboa C, Anumba C, Oke A, Aghimien L. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators Determining the Uptake of CPS for Facilities Management. Buildings. 2022; 12(4):466. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040466
Chicago/Turabian StyleIkuabe, Matthew, Clinton Aigbavboa, Chimay Anumba, Ayodeji Oke, and Lerato Aghimien. 2022. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators Determining the Uptake of CPS for Facilities Management" Buildings 12, no. 4: 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040466