Zhao, T and Dungan, J M (2014) Improved baseline method to calculate lost construction productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(2): 06013006, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The measured mile/baseline method has been widely accepted to quantify labor productivity loss, which is demonstrated by comparing the impacted and unimpacted/lightly impacted portions of the work. Although the distinctions between these portions of a project can at times be identified through a cause and effect analysis, on many projects this distinction is not readily observable. For those projects, researchers and professionals have developed various procedures to implement the measured mile/baseline calculations, but shortcomings in those procedures can result in the failure to objectively identify the baseline. In this paper, a method based on basic statistical techniques is proposed to determine a baseline that represents the contractor's normal operating performance, thus overcoming many of weaknesses in the existing methods. This paper will provide construction professionals and engineers with an objective approach to determine the productivity baseline, thus aiding in the resolution of labor productivity loss claims. Further, this new method avoids the arbitrary baseline sample size and the possibility of multiple competing solutions in existing methods. A numerical example is included to compare the results using different methods and demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; productivity; project management; quantitative analysis; quantitative methods |
| Index terms: | project management, resolution, construction productivity, labour productivity, construction professional, sample size, engineer, productivity, quantitative analysis, quantitative method |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, operations management, profession, research design and methodology, conflict resolution, project management theory and practice, professional development, management |
| Topics: | Site Management, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder 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