Mojahed, S (2005) A project improvement system for effective management of construction projects. PhD thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, USA.
Abstract
The concept of construction productivity began in the early 20th century with a series of time and motion studies to improve bricklaying operations. A substantial number of subsequent studies focused on repetitive tasks and automation of the manufacturing operations and subsequently benefited manufacturing more than the construction industry. There has been a lack of studies for productivity improvement in the construction industry. Building upon the available body of knowledge as it related to productivity of manufacturing and construction industries, this study focused on developing a project improvement system for effective management of construction projects. Development of the system included a review of literature, where an inventory of productivity related factors was found and interpolated into a primary productivity evaluation checklist. A survey of construction practitioners was conducted to rank and determine the degree of influence of various factors on construction productivity. A field study gathered information for the refinement of the primary productivity evaluation checklist. The review of literature, together with the findings of survey and field study, led to the development of the Project Improvement System (PIS). Finally, the PIS was tested and evaluated in a case study of a construction project to ensure its workability, suitability, and influence. Out of 36 productivity factors gathered from the literature, the survey identified 30 factors as high, 4 factors as moderate, and 2 factors as low with respect to their degree of influence on productivity. This information provided guidance for the field study to refine the primary productivity evaluation checklist. The survey revealed that executives, project managers, and superintendents of general contracting firms have similar perceptions of the degree of influence of productivity factors in construction and view productivity as a concept within their reach and control. Application of the system to a case study resulted in improvement of the rates of productivity of various construction tasks after application of PIS and a projected savings of 4.27% in the labor cost. The findings of this study imply that PIS is an effective tool for project managers to improve productivity and increase the bottom-line of construction projects.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Aghazadeh, F |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | inventory; automation; bricklaying; general contracting; manufacturing; productivity; case study; construction project; project manager |
| Index terms: | automation, construction productivity, construction industry, executive, labour cost, savings, productivity, project manager, case study, inventory, suitability, body of knowledge, construction project, construction practitioner, survey, workability, field study |
| Subjects: | knowledge management, economic analysis, operations management, design methods, practitioner, data collection methods, profession, design criteria, industry analysis, cost management, automation and robotics, production management, inventory management, professional development, management, research methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Procurement, Project Management, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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