Peer, S (1986) An improved systematic activity sampling technique for work study. Construction Management and Economics, 4(2), pp. 151-159. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Organizational inefficiencies are present at every construction site, and with greater frequency than in the stationary industries. In spite of this, productivity studies in construction are still in their infancy. The paper deals with applicability of available work-measurement techniques in construction, and describes an effective method of manual recording of activity sampling observations, applicable to individual work studies with up to 15 workers and/or machines per observer. Records are in chart form, with the following main advantages: identifiability of interrelationships between observed facts, economy in writing work during recording and analysis, and possibility of differentiation between skilled and unskilled labour. When desired, production efficiency rating is readily incorporated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | activity sampling; construction; productivity; recording methods; work study |
| Index terms: | efficiency, differentiation, sampling, productivity, construction site, work study |
| Subjects: | organization, management, data collection methods, work location, performance management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| 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