Hanna, A S; Iskandar, K A and Lotfallah, W (2019) Benchmarking project performance: A guideline for assessing vulnerability of mechanical and electrical projects to productivity loss. Construction Management and Economics, 37(2), pp. 101-111. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Loss of productivity is a contentious issue that has a profound impact on modern construction, yet existing literature provides no quantitative, data-driven method to compare the productivity of different construction projects or to assess their vulnerability to productivity loss. A new mathematically derived metric, called the “Risk of Productivity Loss (RPL)” score, provides such a method. RPL is a function of multiple distinct productivity factors. The RPL score is developed from a dataset of 166 electrical and mechanical projects, which collectively amount to 7.2 million labour hours. This large sample size makes the RPL score a reliable productivity benchmark for the electrical and mechanical construction industries due to their labour-intensive nature. The higher the RPL score, the higher the risk that a given project will suffer from productivity losses. To supplement the mathematical formula presented, objective data-based weights for multiple key productivity factors have been identified, reducing the subjectivity that affects many of the existing weighting assessment methods. RPL provides the industry with a single metric that allows tracking and assessment of productivity for multiple projects at a time so that a contractor may assess the successful reduction of productivity risk factors within the projects in their company.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | productivity; quantitative analysis; risk management |
| Index terms: | sample size, productivity, construction industry, risk management, project performance, risk factor, subjectivity, quantitative analysis, dataset, benchmarking, construction project, vulnerability |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, risk assessment, research design and methodology, human factors and perception, data management, industry analysis, environmental hazards, performance measurement, management, production management, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Quality Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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