Horman, M J and Kenley, R (2005) Quantifying levels of wasted time in construction with meta-analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(1), pp. 52-61. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Quantifying the waste present in an operation is an important part of a number of performance improvement initiatives in the architecture engineering construction industry. Contemporary management approaches focus on waste minimization to reduce operating costs and to increase operating responsiveness and flexibility. In construction, studies have been conducted over the past 30 years as part of productivity-improvement efforts that have documented levels of wasted time in construction activities. This paper draws on the methodology of meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the findings across all of these studies. The analysis reveals that an average of 49.6% of time in construction is devoted to wasteful activity, although this amount is widely varied. Among other things, these results demonstrate considerable potential for improvement in construction through initiatives that reduce levels of wasteful activity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; optimization; performance evaluation; production engineering; productivity; statistical analysis; time factors |
| Index terms: | statistical analysis, construction activity, productivity, construction industry, operating cost, performance improvement, meta-analysis, minimization, performance evaluation, methodology |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data science, construction operations, research methods, algorithms, management, performance measurement, research evaluation and metrics, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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