Labor Productivity and Work Sampling: The Bottom Line
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 117, Issue 3
Abstract
This paper describes the relationship between labor productivity and direct work as reported in work‐sampling studies. Seven data bases, collected primarily from nuclear‐power‐plant construction projects, are used. Investigations of a 30‐project data base show that direct work is better in the winter than during the rest of the year, is best during the start‐up and testing phase, and has improved since the Three Mile Island accident. It is concluded that these results are illogical. Using linear regression models, the paper shows that direct work is not related to productivity. This conclusion is based on three assumptions: Reducing wait time leads to increased direct‐work time, increased direct‐work time leads to better productivity, and better productivity is accompanied by less time spent waiting. Each assumption is tested, and the model statistics show very poor correlations and predictive capabilities. The most reliable data base, consisting of 46 data points, yielded an value of 0.00 and a standard error of the estimate that is equal to the standard deviation of the performance measure. The conclusion is that work‐sampling studies show how busy the crafts are, and the results cannot be used to predict labor productivity or to quantify inefficient work hours.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Handa, V. K., and Abdalla, O. (1989). “Forecasting productivity by work sampling.” Constr. Mgmt. Econ., 7, 19–28.
2.
Liou, F. (1984). “A statistical study on work sampling and unit rate productivity for power plants,” thesis presented to the University of Texas, at Austin, Texas, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
3.
Liou, F., and Borcherding, J. D. (1986). “Work samling can predict unit rate productivity.” J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 112(1), 90–103.
4.
Logcher, R. D., and Collins, W. C. (1978). “Management impacts on labor productivity.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 104(4), 447–461.
5.
Oglesby, C., Parker, H., and Howell, G. (1989). Productivity improvement in construction. McGraw‐Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
6.
Richardson, W. (1976). Cost improvement, work sampling, and short interval scheduling. Reston Publishing Company, Inc., Reston, Va.
7.
Rogge, D. F., and Tucker, R. L. (1982). “Foreman‐delay surveys: Work sampling and output.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 108(4), 592–604.
8.
Thomas, H. R. (1981). “Construction work sampling.” Business Roundtable, Oct.
9.
Thomas, H. R. (1982). “Games people play with work sampling.” J. Constr. Div., ASCE, 108(1), 13–22.
10.
Thomas, H. R., Guevara, J. M., and Gustenhoven, C. T. (1984). “Improving productivity estimates by work sampling.” J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 110(2), 178–188.
11.
Thomas, H. R., and Jansma, G. L. (1985). “Quantifying construction productivity losses associated with an accelerated schedule.” Burns & Roe, Inc., Oradell, N.J., Jul.
12.
Thomas, H. R., and Kramer, D. F. (1987). The manual of construction productivity measurement and performance evaluation. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Tex.
13.
Thomas, H. R., Maloney, W. F., Horner, R. M. W., Smith, G. R., Handa, V. K., and Sanders, S. R. (1990). “Modeling construction labor productivity.” J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 116(4), 705–726.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Sep 1, 1991
Published in print: Sep 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.