Halligan, D W; Demsetz, L A; Brown, J D and Pace, C B (1994) Action-response model and loss of productivity in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 47-64. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Unanticipated conditions on a construction project sometimes result in a significant loss of productivity. The conditions that may affect productivity—adverse weather, scheduled overtime, and material shortages, to name a few examples—have received considerable attention in the literature. However, both experience and a detailed examination of this literature reveal that these conditions do not necessarily lead to a loss of productivity. Furthermore, when such losses are observed, their extent varies from project to project, from activity to activity, and from crew to crew. Other factors and processes must therefore be involved. The action-response model of productivity loss in construction identifies these factors and processes. The model graphically depicts how a variety of factors may interact to cause a loss of productivity; how a crew is influenced by these factors; and how the management of crews can mitigate, eliminate, initiate, or exacerbate any particular loss of productivity. By applying the model to three case studies, a new approach to evaluating loss of productivity is illustrated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | productivity, case study, weather, construction project, shortages |
| Subjects: | management, air quality, production management, economic analysis, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Sustainability, Research Practice |
| 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