Wang, S Q and Anson, M (2000) Comparison of the concreting productivities in Hong Kong and Beijing and a proposed comparison methodology. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), pp. 363-372. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The ready mixed concrete (RMC) industry is an important sector of the construction industry in many places. Its level of development in terms of size and performance may be taken as an index representative of the development level of a particular construction industry taken as a whole. Therefore comparisons between different places are of interest, and of potential economic benefit. As part of a larger research study in Hong Kong on the productivity of concreting, data have been obtained on the RMC industries in Hong Kong (HK) and Beijing (BJ). Both are large cities at different stages of economic development. The study involved close observation in the early 1990s of 154 pours on building construction sites in HK and 38 days spent at 38 RMC plants, one day at each, together with 34 site pours and 20 days at RMC plants in BJ. Much detailed performance information has been derived, and a comparison methodology is proposed which could have general application in this industry. It is demonstrated that the RMC industry in HK is more productive than the industry in BJ.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmark; concrete placing; construction; performance; ready mixed concrete |
| Index terms: | productivity, Hong Kong, construction industry, ready mixed concrete, Beijing, placing, building construction, economic development, level of development, methodology, concreting |
| Subjects: | materials science, building construction, industry analysis, economic development, management, concrete and cementitious materials, design practice, research methods, Geography |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| 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