Thomas, H R; Riley, D R and Sanvido, V E (1999) Loss of labor productivity due to delivery methods and weather. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(1), pp. 39-46. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes three structural steel erection projects that used different methods of delivering the structural steel members. Two projects scheduled daily deliveries. On one project, steel was erected directly from the truck. On the second project, steel was off-loaded, sorted, and then erected. On the third project, three bulk deliveries of steel were made. The steel was stored wherever space was available, and sorting was done as the steel was erected. The differences in labor productivity are quantified using the multiple regression technique. The analysis shows that the most efficient delivery method is to erect the steel directly from the truck. Double-handling, as was done on the second project, resulted in a loss of productivity of about 9%. Indiscriminate deliveries resulted in a loss of productivity of about 16%. The effects of weather are also quantified. Significant losses of productivity occurred because of snow (41%) and cold temperatures (32%).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | labour productivity, delivery method, productivity, multiple-regression, weather |
| Subjects: | delivery method, air quality, management, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Site Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Business Strategy |
| 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