Thomas, H R; Sanders, S R and Bilai, S (1992) Comparison of labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(4), pp. 635-650. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of labor productivity for masonry activities from seven countries. Case-study projects were selected from Australia, Canada, England, Finland, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. Productivity data were collected by participating researchers using a procedures manual detailing how data were to be collected. Standardized data from 13 projects were assembled into a data base consisting of 465 days or records. Statistical analyses indicated little difference in the productivity from the seven countries despite significant differences in labor practices. The principal difference was the management influence. The more disruptions, the worse the productivity. This project marks the first reported effort to collect productivity in a standardized manner from multiple projects on the international level. Differences in productivity for this work were exaggerated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | labour productivity, Scotland, England, productivity, Finland, Sweden, Australia, statistical analysis, Canada, United States |
| Subjects: | Geography, management, data science |
| Topics: | Site Management, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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