Cabahug, R R; Edwards, D J and Nicholas, J (2004) Classifying plant operator maintenance proficiency: Examining personal variables. Building Research & Information, 32(2), pp. 119-127. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
For plant managers in charge of personnel recruitment, selecting the ideal plant operative rests upon the operator's proficiency and the manager's intuition and judgement. Research modelling of plant operators' maintenance proficiency was used to provide a classification tool to assist managers select the best operative. Three models were produced and evaluated in order to ascertain model robustness, efficiency and validity. The most efficient model used three personal attributes: Years of relevant working experience on the machine, personal disposition and operator reliability. Validation statistics revealed that there was no significant difference between actual and predicted classifications and therefore the predictions were shown to be both reliable and robust. Future work is proposed that aims to model other factors that influence operator maintenance proficiency: Work environment, motivational management, and training and educational factors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competency factors; construction plant; human resources; maintenance; personal assessment; plant operators; tacit knowledge |
| Index terms: | validity, personnel, efficiency, manager, construction plant, statistics, tacit knowledge, modelling, recruitment, operative, intuition, human resource, work environment, validation |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, practitioner, mathematical modelling, evaluation and assessment methods, cognitive psychology, professional development, construction equipment, performance management, management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Plant and Equipment, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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