Zughaibi, A M (1987) Construction productivity in Saudi Arabia: The influence of multinational labor force. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
Abstract
The construction managers in Saudi Arabia, due to the country's demographics, level of technology and development, face a problem that is rare in most developed countries: the source of the skilled labor. Aside from the logistical problems associated with labor importation, the construction contractor faces a question of choice of not only the sources of materials and equipments but also the source of skilled labor; specifically the nationality of the skilled labor. The characteristics of the Saudi construction industry provided the opportunity for analyzing the productivity of multi-national labor force at the micro level in a uniform environment. This dissertation is an attempt to shed some light and explore in an area that has been ignored by an industry so huge and complex that it defies analysis. Based on a survey questionnaire of forty construction contractor operating in Saudi Arabia, directed at the contractors' estimators, the productivity of four nationalities of labor (Korean, Pakistani, Filipino, and Thai) on 106 project were compared. Multivariate analysis of covariance proved the four nationalities were statistically different on four crafts productivities jointly and formed two clusters, Korean-Thai and Pakistani-Filipino on two discriminant functions. The four nationalities did not maintain the same relative rank order across trades suggesting that the difference could be due to cultural variables. Motivation theories were not advanced as an explanatory tool for the difference because of the transient nature of employment, strength of the migration-for-work motive, and the unbroken circle of motivation, satisfaction, performance. Canonical correlational analysis of craft productivities and a set of demographic variables extracted a single discriminant function loaded on country latitude and per capita gross national product that helped rank order the four nationalities on a discriminant function of craft productivities in the following order: Korean, Thai, Filipino, and Pakistani. The external validity of these findings should be viewed with caution due to the selection inherent in the migratory process and the non-random selection of contractors to participate in this effort.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | crafts; employment; equipment; migration; performance; productivity; estimator; motivation; Korea; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia |
| Index terms: | satisfaction, Saudi Arabia, validity, latitude, motive, migration, productivity, employment, dissertation, demographics, construction industry, construction productivity, labour force, multivariate analysis, skilled labour, motivation, demographic variable, survey, face, estimator, questionnaire, construction manager, developed country, Pakistan, construction contractor |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, statistical analysis, geographical data, demography, Geography, development economics, management, economics, project delivery, psychology, operations management, practitioner, profession, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, International Construction, Supply Chain Management, Human Resources, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Business Strategy |
| 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