Edwards, D J and Holt, G D (2000) Quantifying the cost of plant operators' productivity. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 5(1-2), pp. 85-92. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
The construction industry relies increasingly upon high utilisation of mechanisation, the main driver here being cost. This is particularly so in times of recession and increasing competition, when companies look inward to improve productivity and cost efficiencies. Nevertheless, even with the most sophisticated machines, output largely depends upon the skill and competence of the operator. It is curious therefore that research into plant operative productivity output has to date, eluded greater academic attention. This paper addresses this deficiency; specifically, a methodology is presented with which plant operator productivity output could be classified. Such a model would assist construction practitioners in their efforts to improve competitiveness, whilst construction clients would also benefit from less interruption to project progress, timely project completion, and reduced costs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction costs, plant operator productivity, tracked hydraulic excavators |
| Index terms: | hydraulic, competitiveness, operative, construction industry, recession, construction client, productivity, construction cost, competition, methodology, competence, cost efficiency, construction practitioner |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, fluid mechanics, professional development, personnel development, economics, management, industry analysis, practitioner, economic analysis, research methods, market analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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