Lin, C L and Huang, H M (2010) Improved baseline productivity analysis technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(3), pp. 367-376. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Previous studies have aimed to develop effective methods to derive baseline productivity (BP) for labor-intensive activities in construction sites. However, there are two different definitions of BPs: one is defined as a performance benchmark of best practice and the other as a standard reflecting a contractor's normal operating performance. It is necessary to clarify the difference between the two definitions and their corresponding BPs. This research introduces data envelopment analysis (DEA) as a new method for deriving BP and compares DEA with the other four BP deriving methods. DEA is concluded as the best method in terms of objectivity, effectiveness, and consistency to find BP that represents the best performance a contractor can possibly achieve. With the capability of deriving productivities of multi-input and multi-output activities, the proposed DEA has raised the scale of labor productivity from the level of single factor productivity to total factor productivity which will help construction researchers and managers to evaluate performances of interests in a much more effective way.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical techniques; baseline; data analysis; data envelopment analysis; labor productivity; performance benchmark; productivity |
| Index terms: | manager, data analysis, construction site, total factor productivity, productivity, best practice, effectiveness, labour productivity, data envelopment analysis |
| Subjects: | business, practitioner, production economics, work location, data analysis and analytics, management, performance management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Site Management, Quality 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