Kim, T W; Yu, J H and Lee, H S (2003) On-site productivity evaluation through productivity achievement ratio. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Productivity only shows actual achievement without any regards to obtainable productivity. Therefore, productivity and change in its values do not provide adequate information for the management of construction productivity. This study aims to develop a productivity evaluation indicator that can consider obtainable productivity. For this purpose, this paper presents three renewed concepts of productivity transition. Based on these concepts, the study suggests Productivity Achievement Ratio (PAR) as a productivity evaluation indicator. PAR calculation is a longitudinal process conducted by multiple linear regression analysis. Because PAR includes obtainable productivity and is non-dimensional, it can be used to compare productivity management performances with different items and in different sites.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | productivity; productivity management; statistical analysis |
| Index terms: | statistical analysis, productivity, regression analysis, construction productivity |
| Subjects: | operations management, data science, management, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice |
| 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