Radosavljević M, M W (2002) The evidence of complex variability in construction labour productivity. Construction Management and Economics, 20(1), pp. 3-12. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The complex variability of the 12 construction labour productivity data sets has been examined by analysing the central moments of tendency, and applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Anderson-Darling tests of normality. The results consistently show that the productivity is not normally distributed. In addition, undefined variance causes a failure of the central limit theorem, thus indicating that some basic statistical diagnostics like correlation coefficients and t statistics may give misleading results and are not applicable. A brief comparison with volatility studies in econometrics has revealed surprising similarity with Pareto distributions, which can model undefined or infinite variance. Such distributions are typical of chaotic systems like the logistic equation, whose properties also are described briefly. Therefore, it is suggested that future research should be focused on studying the applicability of chaos theory to construction labour.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | chaos; construction; labour productivity; normal distribution; tests |
| Index terms: | labour productivity, construction labour, variability, chaos theory, statistics, econometric, variance, productivity, evidence |
| Subjects: | measurement and scaling, statistical analysis, management, economic analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Site Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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