Koch, C (2018) Productivity measurement: The social construction of reduction through expansion. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
A recent large-scale measurement of productivity in Swedish construction involved some 880 respondents and around 800 projects. It covers office buildings, public institutions, such as schools, civil engineering.The respondents were engaged in measuring, through questionnaires and telephone interviews, aspects of productivity such as project start and end, project costs, use of manpower, major disturbances in the process.The results showed a remarkable variety in cost levels per square-meter building and meters infrastructure (roads, bridges, pipes etc.).The aim here is to critically scrutinize the construct of such an investigation. What kind of value does it represent for stakeholders? What kind of inclusions and exclusions are made to stabilize the result? What kind of negotiations has been carried out.Drawing on Science Technology and Society concepts, such as qualculative devices and sociology of quantification, it is argued that the social construction of this investigation actually merely represent an everyday event in a society completely penetrated by auditing regimes. Building up the social network backing the investigation, involves negotiation of relevance and rigor.Methodologically the scrutiny builds on self-reflection of the main author of the productivity investigation and interviews with key stakeholders.There is no more need to be modest about productivity measures, than many other big data bombardments of everyday life. Actually, most productivity measured are built on respondent’s interpretation. Of course, this goes for national statistical bureaus, but it also goes for most productivity research.Reduction is a central social construction and recurrent in the process of the investigation. To reduce the value of a building to square-meters or the value of a road into kilometers. But also, to reduce the initiation of a building into one date, or to measure the number of man-hours spent in the contractors headquarter on a given project.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | productivity; construction; social construction; Sweden |
| Index terms: | productivity, social construction, drawing, questionnaire, social network, reflection, big data, everyday life, sociology, quantification, investigation, project cost, interview, Sweden, negotiation, society, office building, science |
| Subjects: | communities and social development, social theory, professional development, data collection methods, management, information systems, measurement and scaling, conflict resolution, construction type, specialized education, economics, technical documentation, Geography, sociology |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Digital Applications, Cost Management, Information Management, Geographical Context, Education |
| 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