Thomas, H R and Sanvido, V E (2000) Role of the fabricator in labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(5), pp. 358-365. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes the results of three case studies in which the subcontractor-fabricator relations had a significant negative effect on labor productivity of the subcontractor. Late vendor deliveries, fabrication or construction errors, and out-of-sequence deliveries plagued each of the three projects. On two projects, there were work stoppages because there were no materials. Unsequenced deliveries caused unnecessary crane movements and rework. On the third project, the output of the fabrication shop was not compatible with the output of the erection crew. The baseline productivity was calculated, and the loss of labor efficiency in each case was estimated to be 16.6, 28.4, and 56.8%. These percentages were compared with similar percentages calculated from other published articles that described inefficient site storage conditions and delivery methods. The labor inefficiencies caused by material management range from a low of 5.4% to a high of 56.8%. The schedule slippage on the three case study projects was estimated to be between 50 and 129%.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | case study, efficiency, delivery method, productivity, labour productivity, fabrication, movement, rework, subcontractor |
| Subjects: | performance management, manufacturing engineering, management, delivery method, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods, operations management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Site Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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