Brchner, J and Olofsson, T (2012) Construction productivity measures for innovation projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), pp. 670-677. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A 30-year retrospective analysis of resource use in a range of new construction and repair projects reveals insignificant productivity increase when applying traditional narrow measures, as shown in a case study of beam bridges. It appears as necessary to estimate hidden quality changes in both outputs and inputs. Changes in government regulations, in specifications, and the development of nonprice criteria for contract award emerge as important. Schemes for benchmarking the performance of construction projects as well as life-cycle analyses suggest that customer risk aversion and effects on customer productivity should be taken into account. The outcome is a set of measurements that can be applied to the selection of any type of proposed new construction or repair technology innovation according to their potential impact on industry productivity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridges; case studies; innovation; productivity |
| Index terms: | specification, construction project, benchmarking, repair, case study, government regulation, productivity, beam, technology innovation, construction productivity, estimate |
| Subjects: | production management, automation and robotics, health safety and environment, contractual condition, maintenance engineering, management, structural engineering, performance measurement, data collection methods, financial and cost management, operations management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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