Proverbs, D G; Olomolaiye, P O and Harris, F C (1996) Planned construction times and labour utilization: a comparison of UK and French contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 3(3), pp. 219-232. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The results of a model based survey of contractors' planning engineers in France and the UK suggest that planned completion times for constructing an identical high-rise in situ concrete framed structure are significantly and dramatically lower in France than in the UK. Average planned construction periods in France were 13 weeks, some 9 weeks faster than the UK average of 22 weeks. Since planned construction periods reflect past experience, French contractors apparently achieve superior levels of production performance whilst at the same time working fewer hours per week, utilizing directly employed workers and employing fewer supervisors. If such planned completion times are truly representative, the findings indicate comparatively poor UK contractor performance, and signify future problems for the British builder in the emerging European marketplace. The causes of such poor performance are complicated, but based on indicative French best practices: production is enhanced when scheduled overtime is avoided, a directly employed and mainly skilled workforce is engaged, and a maximum working time of 40 hours per week is the norm rather than the exception.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best practice; time; labour; performance; planning; productivity |
| Index terms: | labour utilization, engineer, survey, contractor performance, builder, best practice, productivity, supervisor, in-situ, France, construction time, completion time |
| Subjects: | management, building construction, business, project controls, Geography, profession, practitioner, contract management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Human Resources, Time Control, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Contract Administration |
| 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