Singh, A (2003) Accelerated work-schedule design considering efficiency losses for overtime and overmanning. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), pp. 312-321. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Construction projects frequently need to use overtime and overmanning to get work done on time. Overtime and overmanning often appear concurrently, especially when acceleration has been ordered. However, the calculation of the number of workers required for overtime and overmanning is often left to the experience and judgment of the foreman or superintendent. Whereas the overtime and overmanning estimate of superintendents and foremen is sometimes correct, it is sometimes incorrect also. The reason is that factors such as efficiency loss are not taken into account in an objective manner. More pertinently, calculations for efficiency loss are often not normally performed on job sites when overtime and overmanning must be designed. When we really delve deeply into the problem, we see that calculation of overtime with overmanning is a lengthy process involving iterations. Using a sample problem, this paper demonstrates how overtime and overmanning should be objectively and correctly designed using standard charts prevalent in the industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction works; labour utilization; overtime; work design |
| Index terms: | construction work, judgment, efficiency, construction project, labour utilization, acceleration, estimate |
| Subjects: | project controls, management, production management, performance management, operations management, dispute resolution, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Project Management, Cost Management, Human Resources, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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