5.3.6. Performance Management

The "performance management" node had the highest level of incidence (n = 82) of relevant statements coded from the 40 participants (using the NVivo software). In terms of key word usage, this thematic, shown in Table 7, tracked "targets", "measuring", "performance management", "quantitative", "metrics", "qualitative" and "contribution". In total, they were used 1003 times across the 40 interviews, which equates to once every 50 words and represents the most referenced thematic.

The highest frequency of coding on NVivo was using the node for "what to measure", reflecting the importance of this thematic. There were many references to what is measured, and the general theme was that the selection of targets becomes critical in a business environment that is already awash with data collection. Many asked whether they should collect quantitative data or qualitative and also asked what the balance between too little data collection and too much is. Almost all participants accepted that this was an extremely difficult area to resolve and that there were no easy answers. For example, participant 34 stated: "I think we are quite confused. It sounds like we are much more advanced than we are in the way we monitor, report and evaluate. Most of our work is about getting the basics right and ensuring we are complying with legal requirements—getting stuff done. We know we need to do more work on understanding sustainability outcomes and how we can develop detailed KPIs that feed into that for measuring our impact. We do not have outcome frameworks in place yet".

There was a consistent recognition amongst those that had more advanced levels of SDG measurement process maturity (participants 3, 19 and 20) that you had to start by selecting a manageable number of goals (from 17) and targets (from 169). This was explained by participant 31, who said: "It is an enormous challenge. I think, out of those 232, the fact that you found 20 that can be measured is actually pretty good if I think about the magnitude of the problem". Amongst the

nine participants that were at the "early processes in place" stage, most were trying to establish hard metrics that could be quantified, such as participant 15: "We want hard targets to test our performance. Generally, as a business, qualitative is not very compelling. When we set up our strategy, we did some serious baselining to get some better referenced data."

One of the key problems, mentioned earlier, is the level of complexity in measuring 169 SDG targets. It was frequently explained that this was too complicated for the construction sector, as stated by participant 2: "But the indicators are far too detailed and big and sometimes not applicable as well. Therefore, it is better to work at a higher level for the projects. I have more interest in the goals and not the indicators".

The emphasis on quantifiable targets was countered by participant 25: "telling the story of the success against the sustainable development goals, as an example; a lot of the time, it cannot be quantified very easily and therefore telling the story around an outcome perhaps provides more impact and value than just putting a meaningless quantitative score against something". This viewpoint was backed by participant 2: "In the beginning, I wanted quantification to have numbers that I can use to understand the measurement data. This created a big pushback because engineers tend to want perfect solutions. The assessment was causing some culture issues, so the qualitative aspects have been preserved but not the quantitative. So, we still look for the holy grail but, at this stage, we are going to produce stories. In future we would like more quantitative that can be assessed at corporate level."


**Table 7.** Text analysis (NVivo) on key words' frequency: performance management.

Finding #9: select a few targets relevant to the construction organisation or project. Keep it simple and build knowledge progressively.
