Thomas, H R and Sakarcan, A S (1994) Forecasting labor productivity using factor model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 228-239. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper uses data from 22 masonry projects to compare two approaches for forecasting labor productivity. The first approach is to divide the current work-hour total by the percent complete (PC) of the activity. The second method uses the factor model to develop a predicted labor-productivity curve. Actual deviations from this curve are reflected in the labor-productivity forecast at completion. The paper details how the predicted curve and the forecast are made. Absolute and relative errors are the basis of comparison. On average, the factor-model forecasts are within ±5% when only 5% of the work is completed. The range based on the standard deviation is ±25%. The PC approach is equally as accurate when considering the average of the 22 projects. However, the range of error is consistently about 50% larger. It is concluded that the factor model is a more reliable method of forecasting labor productivity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | deviation, productivity, forecasting, labour productivity |
| Subjects: | management, financial and cost management, prediction and forecasting |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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