Thomas, H R and Raynar, K A (1997) Scheduled overtime and labor productivity: Quantitative analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(2), pp. 181-188. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes a study of 121 weeks of labor productivity data from four industrial projects. The objective is to quantify the effects of scheduled overtime. First, it describes how the data were collected, processed, and analyzed. The results show losses of efficiency of 10-15% for 50- and 60-h work weeks. The results compare favorably to other published data including the Business Roundtable (BRT) curves. Therefore, it was concluded that the BRT curve is a reasonable estimate of losses that may occur on average industrial projects. Second, this paper addresses the reasons for efficiency losses. For this analysis disruptions in three categories - resource deficiencies, rework, and management deficiencies - were analyzed. The analyses showed that the disruption frequency, which is the number of disruptions per 100 work hours, worsened as more days per week were worked. This led to the conclusion that losses of efficiency are caused by the inability to provide materials, tools, equipment, and information at an accelerated rate.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | estimate, labour productivity, efficiency, quantitative analysis, rework |
| Subjects: | operations management, data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, management, performance management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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