Nassri, S; Talebi, S; Elghaish, F; Koohestani, K; McIlwaine, S; Hosseini, M R; Poshdar, M and Kagioglou, M (2023) Labor waste in housing construction projects: An empirical study. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(2), pp. 325-340. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: High-level labor waste is a major challenge in construction projects. This paper aims to identify, quantify and categorize labor waste in the context of Iranian housing construction projects. Design/methodology/approach: This research uses a case study approach, with empirical data collected through direct observations and semi-structured interviews. Findings: Having triangulated the findings from the literature review and empirical studies, a list of eight types of waste was derived for the thirteen observed laborers in ten case study projects. The empirical studies allowed the labor waste identified from the literature to be verified and refined by considering it in the context of the observed activities, and led to two new types of waste being identified which were not considered in the literature. Findings indicate that nearly 62% of laborers' time is spent on non-value-adding activities. It appeared that “unnecessary movement,” “waiting” and “indirect work” make up the highest labor waste. Research limitations/implications: This research focuses only on onsite resource flows in a housing construction site. It does not include offsite flows such as material delivery to site. Originality/value: The findings have provided substantial evidence on type and amount of labor waste and provide a solid basis to stimulate construction actors to participate in reducing labor waste and improving productivity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | labor productivity; labor waste; lean construction; waste identification; waste measurement; work sampling |
| Index terms: | sampling, non-value-adding activity, interview, evidence, literature review, construction project, case study, empirical study, onsite, labour productivity, lean construction, productivity, direct observation, methodology, resource flow, residential construction, movement |
| Subjects: | production management, resource management, research methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, building construction, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, management, evaluation and assessment methods, construction integration |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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