Randolph Thomas, H and Napolitan, C L (1995) Quantitative effects of construction changes on labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3), pp. 290-296. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper details, in quantitative terms, the effects of changes and change orders on labor productivity and efficiency. Data for the analyses were daily productivity values from three industrial projects constructed in the 1989-1992 time frame. A total of 522 workdays of data were collected. None of the data involved disputed work or contract claims. Various analysis techniques were applied to the data, including data sorts and averages, analysis of variance tests, and multiple regression. The results confirm that it is possible to perform changes without negatively impacting labor efficiency. There was no negative effect in fewer than half the days when changes were performed. However, the average effect of all changes was a 30% loss of efficiency. Investigations into the cause of efficiency losses showed that there were disruptions when changes work was performed. A regression analysis showed a 25-50% loss of efficiency depending on the type of disruption. A threefold increase in the number of material availability problems was the most obvious disruption associated with change work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | change order, regression analysis, variance, labour productivity, contract claim, investigation, productivity, efficiency, multiple-regression |
| Subjects: | performance management, measurement and scaling, statistical analysis, contractual condition, management, data collection methods, payment |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Business Strategy, Contract Administration |
| 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