Thomas, H R; Maloney, W F; Horner, R M W; Smith, G R; Handa, V K and Sanders, S R (1990) Modeling construction labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(4), pp. 705-726. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a philosophical argument for new construction labor productivity models based on actual factors affecting productivity. The paper reviews various work-study models that have been borrowed from industrial engineering. These are the delay, activity, and task models. Using research data, these models are shown to be inadequate and unreliable productivity models. It is suggested that these models emphasize work methods, and that the best opportunity to improve productivity is to focus on the factors that management can control. Two reliable productivity models validated specifically for construction situations are presented. These are the factor model, which accounts for project, site, and management factors affecting productivity, and the expectancy model of motivation, which describes why a crew exerts an effort to perform and how this effort relates to productivity. The essential features of the models are described, and it is suggested that the models can be integrated into a single comprehensive model to quantify the factors affecting productivity and to forecast performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction labour, modelling, productivity, motivation |
| Subjects: | psychology, analytical methods, management |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Site Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles |
| 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