Thomas, H R; Horman, M J; Minchin Jr, R E and Chen, D (2003) Improving labor flow reliability for better productivity as lean construction principle. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(3), pp. 251-261. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
New management thinking, like that of lean production, has suggested that better labor and cost performance can be achieved by improving the reliability of flows. In this context, lean thinking portrays reliable flows as the timely availability of resources, i.e., materials, information, and equipment. Little attention has been given to labor as a flow. Further, little discussion can be found related to flexible capacity management strategies. Efforts to utilize lean thinking in construction, so far, have generated limited evidence to support the need for more reliable labor flows. This paper investigates the lean principle that more reliable flows lead to better labor performance. Actual data from three bridge construction projects are examined to document the instances of poor flow (resource) reliability and its effect on labor performance. Inefficient labor hours are calculated. The results show that there is strong support that more reliable material, information, and equipment availability contributes to better performance. However, the projects showed considerable deficiencies in the utilization of the labor resource. It is concluded that lean improvement initiatives should focus more on workforce management strategies to improve labor utilization that will lead to better labor performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridge construction; labor; productivity |
| Index terms: | lean production, labour utilization, lean construction, cost performance, bridge construction, evidence, productivity, management strategy, labour resource |
| Subjects: | business economics, building construction, infrastructure engineering, manufacturing engineering, management, economics, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Human Resources, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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