Sanders, S R and Thomas, H R (1991) Factors affecting masonry-lahok productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(4), pp. 626-644. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Past studies of masonry-labor productivity fail to accurately identify the factors that most affect masonry productivity and to quantify the factors' effects. This paper describes a methodology to identify and quantify the project-related factors that significantly affect masonry productivity. Standardized data-collection techniques are used to collect and consolidate data from 11 central Pennsylvania masonry projects. Exploratory analyses are performed to determine which factors most affect productivity. The factors identified are the work type, building element, construction methods, design requirements, and weather. More detailed analyses indicate that: (1) Data from multiple projects can be consolidated to obtain statistically valid results; (2) repetitive designs can effect a 30% improvement in productivity; (3) designs that require extensive layout and cutting can negatively affect productivity by as much as 40%; and (4) the effects of weather on masonry productivity are not well understood and deserve additional research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction method, weather, methodology, productivity, labour productivity |
| Subjects: | air quality, building construction, research methods, management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Site Management |
| 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