Arditi, D (1985) Construction productivity improvement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(1), pp. 1-14. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction productivity has been on the decline in the last decade. The results are presented on a survey of the Engineering News-Record 400 largest contractors to obtain their views on where productivity improvements would most help and to compare the trends with a similar survey carried out in 1979. Data were collected on the general company characteristics of the responding contractors, and on the contractors' opinions on potential areas for productivity improvement in the office and in the field. Findings indicate that immediate research should concentrate on improving marketing practices, planning and scheduling, labor-management relations, site supervision, industrialized building systems, equipment policy and engineering design; and that governmental regulations have lost the immediate urgency attached to them in 1979. It is also recommended that similar surveys be conducted every 3 to 4 years to identify new trends and to steer research in the appropriate direction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | industrialized building system, productivity, construction productivity, supervision, engineering design, marketing, survey, scheduling, regulation |
| Subjects: | management, design process, building construction, political science, data collection methods, business, control systems, operations research, operations management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Governance, Digital Applications, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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