Chan, P; Puybaraud, M C and Kaka, A (2001) Construction training: A linkage to productivity improvements. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
The problems of low labour productivity levels and training participation within the British construction industry are not new. Over the last few decades, these issues fuelled much research interests within the United Kingdom. Empirical evidence seem to suggest that there is a relationship between training and productivity. Yet, much research tended to focus on each of these two areas in isolation and very few actually attempted to link training and labour productivity together. This proposed research aims to do just that. The paper builds up a case for the linkage between training and labour productivity by extensively reviewing past literature within these two areas. The review highlights limitations of past studies and establishes two fundamental gaps. First, a great emphasis of past research is placed on the conversion process in an input-output framework rather than the input, labour. Second, past research seldom addresses the issue of workmen's abilities when analysing labour productivity. Finally, the paper presents a proposed methodology, comprising a mixed methodology, to attempt to quantify and qualify this hypothesized relationship.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | labour productivity; training; performance measurement; resources |
| Index terms: | construction industry, methodology, evidence, labour productivity, linkage, productivity, United Kingdom, performance measurement, conversion |
| Subjects: | business, evaluation and assessment methods, Geography, research methods, performance measurement, management, manufacturing engineering, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here