Ibbs, W and Liu, M (2005) Improved measured mile analysis technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(12), pp. 1249-1256. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Quantifying lost labor productivity on construction projects is difficult and sometimes subjective. A widely accepted way to quantify losses is the "measured mile" approach. It compares periods of a project that have been impacted by change to those that have not been impacted. As currently practiced the measured mile relies on subjectively identifying that reference period. In this paper the measured mile and a variant, the baseline method, are analyzed and compared to a new, proposed statistical clustering method. This new approach is advocated because it determines its reference period using objective criteria. A case study is included to show how the three methods work, and advantages and disadvantages of each method are presented in this paper.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; productivity; project management; statistics |
| Index terms: | construction project, project management, clustering, statistics, labour productivity, productivity, case study |
| Subjects: | data science, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, production management, project management theory and practice, management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Digital Applications |
| 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