Thomas, H R (2000) Schedule acceleration, work flow, and labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), pp. 261-267. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper details how construction labor efficiency is affected by deviations from the normal flow of work. A methodology is presented to estimate the loss of labor efficiency, based on variations in the percentage of labor hours used each week. The procedure can be used without the need for contractor production records. The theoretical basis for the method rests on the assumption that the rate of manpower utilization is consistent with the amount of work available for the contractor to perform. Using productivity data from three electrical projects that were accelerated, the labor efficiency is shown to be correlated to changes in the percentages of weekly work hours. Loss of efficiency curves are developed for various project phases. A case study is presented of an actual electrical construction project. Losses of efficiency are calculated for each phase, and it is shown that the contractor incurred an estimated loss of productivity of 25%. The analysis is validated by comparing a weekly inefficient work-hour profile to the chronology of events that occurred on the project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | chronology, construction project, variation, methodology, deviation, productivity, case study, efficiency, estimate, labour productivity, construction labour, schedule acceleration |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, financial and cost management, contractual condition, production management, performance management, research methods, management, time analysis, project controls |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Contract Administration, Time Control, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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