Braimah, N; Ndekugri, I and Gameson, R (2006) A review of industry standards and publications/charts for adjusting productivity losses in construction contracts. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
The analysis of lost labour productivity claims on construction projects is a difficult undertaking at its best. One of the accepted methods of quantifying productivity losses is the use of industry standards and publications/charts. The sources of these publications are studies based on data from a large number of projects of varying conditions thus raising questions on their general applicability. The aim of this paper is to review the various published studies in a view to offer guidance to practitioners as to their proper applications. The review examines how they were carried out, their strengths and limitations, which will provide guidance to practitioners as to their proper applications. A major limitation identified was that each of the studies applies to a very specific project environment for specific trades only and that there are many other projects types for which productivity studies are not available. Furthermore, most of the studies were carried out in the US whose construction environment is different from that of the UK making their applicability here tenuous. The paper therefore outlines directions for necessary future research.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; delay; disruption; labour productivity; loss of efficiency |
| Index terms: | productivity, efficiency, publication, construction project, construction contract, practitioner, labour productivity |
| Subjects: | contract type, research dissemination and communication, practitioner, performance management, management, production management |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| 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