Evaluating the performance of construction equipment operators in Egypt

Elazouni, A M and Basha, I M (1996) Evaluating the performance of construction equipment operators in Egypt. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 109-114. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Problems in operating construction equipment in Egypt were perceived as resulting in low productivity. Productivity was considered in this study as a measurement dimension that sufficiently describes operator's performance. The objectives of this study are to provide an analytical approach for identifying causes of productivity loss and evaluating their effects, and to evaluate the performance of equipment operators. The performance ability ratio (PAR) compares the actual productivity against the estimated productivity to demonstrate the amount of loss of productivity and, thus, judge the level of operator productivity. The study was conducted at 11 jobs concerning 11 pieces of earthmoving equipment: three bulldozers, three elevating scrapers, three off-highway trucks, and two hydraulic backhoe excavators. The analysis led to basic conclusions concerning the amount of downtime and its variation according to equipment type, and the average PAR values for operators of the four types of equipment.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: productivity, dimension, Egypt, variation, hydraulic, construction equipment, earthmoving
Subjects: health monitoring assessment and metrics, construction equipment, Geography, construction operations, contractual condition, fluid mechanics, management
Topics: Site Management, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Health and Safety, Plant and Equipment, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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