Koehn, E and Caplan, S B (1987) Work improvement data for small and medium size contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(2), pp. 327-339. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The results of a study of small to medium size construction firms designed to determine their views concerning construction productivity is presented. The areas that were viewed as having high potential for productivity improvement include supervision (62%), labor contracts (52%), labor training (51%), EEO rules and regulations (47%), planning (56%), scheduling (49%), and communications (49%). The findings also indicate that the average potential for productivity improvement of both main office and on-site functions is roughly the same for both large and small organizations. This would indicate that although differences exist between large and small contractors their overall potential for productivity improvement is approximately equal. In addition, there appears to be a consensus among both small and large firms that productivity improvement efforts should primarily be concentrated in planning, scheduling site supervision, and labor agreement functions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | regulation, scheduling, construction productivity, construction firm, supervision, productivity |
| Subjects: | political science, control systems, operations research, operations management, management, organization |
| Topics: | Project Management, Business Strategy, Time Control, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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