Jonasson, S; Dunston, P S; Ahmed, K and Hamilton, J (2002) Factors in productivity and unit cost for advanced machine guidance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(5), pp. 367-374. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents an initial step in seeking to understand just how the adoption of advanced machine guidance technology, especially global positioning systems, leads to improvements in performance by the earthwork contractor. Two grading scenarios and one dozing scenario are examined based upon site observations and interviews with field personnel. Analysis demonstrated that productivity and unit cost improvements result from a reduction in surveying support, grade checking, an increase in operational efficiency, and a decrease in the number of passes. These results are in agreement with published results of benefits of 3D guidance over 2D guidance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction equipment; costs; earthmoving; leveling; machinery; productivity |
| Index terms: | interview, personnel, earthwork, surveying, unit cost, efficiency, construction equipment, productivity, earthmoving |
| Subjects: | construction equipment, management, performance management, construction operations, health monitoring assessment and metrics, financial and cost management, construction methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Plant and Equipment, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Site Management, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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