Lowe, J G (1987) The measurement of productivity in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 5(2), pp. 101-113. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Productivity in the use of resource inputs is of critical importance to the construction industry. This paper is intended to discuss the relative merits of the most commonly used measures of productivity for the purpose of assessing the productive and allocative efficiency of construction in the 1980s. The paper concludes that the total factor productivity method is the ideal against which the other approaches should be judged. Both average labour productivity and average capital productivity suffer from serious problems in assessing the efficiency of contracting operations. However, under certain circumstances, either can provide an adequate alternative measure. Of the two main single-factor measures of productivity, capital productivity appears to be superior in most aspects to average labour productivity as a means of assessing the overall financial management of a construction firm. Notwithstanding the problems associated in contracting activities and also the difficulties inherent in obtaining suitable data, capital productivity is recommended for most circumstances when total- factor productivity measures cannot be applied.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economic efficiency; production function; productivity; resource allocation |
| Index terms: | total factor productivity, construction firm, productivity, financial management, efficiency, resource allocation, construction industry, labour productivity |
| Subjects: | performance management, management, industry analysis, organization, production economics, resource management, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Site Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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