Sutt, J and Lill, I (1999) Multi-skilling as a possibility of compensating the unrhythmic working load. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 4(1), pp. 47-58. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
This paper describes a simulation system for evaluating different management strategies inside construction firms. Within this context, the paper addresses the problems of identifying the most efficient forms of labour specialisation and work organisation, including reasonable forms of payment to workers in order to adopt their skill bases. The organisational and technological conditions of the constructing process are taken into account in form of network models. The main problem is providing the flexibility of the model towards the workers' professional structure in the firm. By changing the parameters in the models of the buildings and the models of the resources of a constructing firm, the different building situations are created. The economical evaluation of executed experiments are represented in the goal function of the building enterprise activities in the Model of economic assessments of calendar plan. The result of research shows the dependence of cost price on the number of combined trades. The paper concludes by assessing the economic benefits of using multi-skilled workers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management, multi-skilling, simulation modelling |
| Index terms: | simulation modelling, skilled worker, management strategy, multi-skilling, construction firm, experiment, specialization |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, organization, business, flexibility, data collection methods, management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Human Resources, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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