Use of Predictive Models for Labor-Productivity Loss in Settling Disputes
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 15, Issue 1
Abstract
Given inherent difficulties in construction, optimizing labor efficiencies is paramount to project success. Research described in this article conducted demonstrates that an analysis of planned activities in a critical path methodology (CPM) schedule may be used to forecast future productivity inefficiencies. Specifically, this study relies on the concept of CPM schedule’s density, which is defined as the number of overlapping like-trade activities on any given workday. This metric is directly related to the required labor resources required to complete that work within the activities’ planned durations. Schedule density increases where more planned activities overlap with each other; for instance, occurrence of such increases is common when the schedule is accelerated. Regression models were derived using metrics drawn from CPM schedule updates’ activities and durations and compared to actual labor productivity experienced. Strong correlation findings support development of predictive models that quantify potential labor inefficiencies before they occur. However, the question remains as to the strength and applicability of predictive models in formal litigation. This paper presents findings of this research and discusses how such findings may be used to facilitate settlement in dispute resolution procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data utilized for this study is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6301744. Because data contains historical actual labor information, permission must first be requested and granted by the authors to access the data. Data may only be used for validation purposes.
References
List of Cases
Abbett Electric Corp. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 772, 142 Ct.Cl. 609 (1958).
Elec. & Missile Facilities, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1969).
Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. GSA, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31,249 at p.154,321 (GSBCA 2001).
Luria Brothers v. United States, 369 F.2d 701 (Fed. Cir. 1966), No. 475-59.
Mars Assocs. v. City of New York (Seaview Hospital), 70 A.D.2d 839, 418 N.Y.S.2d 27 (1st Dep’t 1979), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 627, 438 N.Y.S.2d 779, 420, N.E.2d 971 (1981).
Needles v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 535, 618 (1944); cf. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946).
Petrovich v. United States, 421 F.2d 1364, 1367 (CT. Cl. 1970), quoting Dale Constr. Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 692, 729 (1964).
Snyder Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. State, 21 Misc. 2d 591, 595-96 198 N.Y. S.2d 600, 605 (Ct. Cl. 1960).
Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 561, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544 (1931), cited in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., supra, 282 U.S. at 562-63, 51 S.Ct. at 250-251.
United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350, 1358-59 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).
United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 396 (1st Cir. 2006).
Wallace Process Piping Co. V. Martin-Marietta Corp., 251 F. Supp. 411, 417-18 (E.D. Va. 1965).
Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956, 968 (Ct. Cl. 1965).
List of Statutes
Federal Rule of Evidence 1006.
Works Cited
AACE International (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International). 2007. AACE international recommended practice No. 23R-02: Identification of activities. Morgantown, WV: Associations for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International.
Adrian, J. J. 1987. Construction productivity improvement. New York: Elsevier.
Borcherding, J. D. 1972. An exploratory study of attitudes that affect human resources in building and industrial construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Castro-Lacouture, D., J. Irizarry, and B. Ashuri. 2014. Data-driven approaches to discovering knowledge gaps related to factors affecting construction labor productivity. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Dai, J., P. Goodrum, and W. Maloney. 2009. “Construction craft workers’ perceptions of the factors affecting their productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (3): 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3(217).
Delbecq, A. L. 1975. Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Foresman and Company.
Duah, D., and M. G. Syal. 2017. “Direct and indirect costs of change orders.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 22 (4): 04017025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000342.
Eastman, C., P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston. 2011. BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. New York: Wiley.
Goodrum, P. M., and C. T. Haas. 2002. “Partial factor productivity and equipment technology change at activity level in US construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 128 (6): 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:6(463).
Hanna, A., J. Russell, and E. Emerson. 2002. Stacking of trades for electrical contractors. Washington, DC: The Electrical Contracting Foundation, Inc.
Hansen, P. C. 2013. Least squares data fitting with applications. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jacoby, W. 1997. Statistical graphics for univariate and bivariate data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985963.
Kelley, J. E., and M. R. Walker. 1959. Critical-path planning and scheduling, 160–173. New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.003.
Knight, W. 2015. “Construction drones: Drones are being used to capture video footage that shows construction progress at the Sacramento Kings’ new stadium in California.” MIT Technol. Rev. 118 (6): 17.
MCAA (Mechanical Contractors Association of America). 2012. Guideline for contractors. Rockville, MD: MCAA.
Moseley, A. W. 2013. “American bar association forum on the construction industry.” In Construction damages and remedies. 2nd ed., 368–369. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Nasirzadeh, F., and P. Nojedehi. 2013. “Dynamic modeling of labor productivity in construction projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (6): 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.003.
O’Brien, J. J. 2006. CPM in construction management. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Brien, J. J. 1993. CPM in construction management. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ottesen, J. L., and K. P. Hoshino. 2014. Schedule activity density analysis, 233–253. Morgantown, WV: The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering.
Ottesen, J. L., and G. A. Martin. 2019. “Bare facts and benefits of resource loaded CPM schedules.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 11 (3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000294.
Palmer, G. R. 2008. The measured mile—A better way of using an old tool, 1–9. Morgantown, WV: Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International.
Peterman, G. 1978. Studies in planning and scheduling. Morgantown, WV: Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International.
Rayner, J. C. W. 2009. Smooth tests of goodness of fit using R. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Asia.
Rojas, E. M. 2008. Construction productivity: A practical guide for building and electrical contractors. Lauderdale, FL: JRoss Pub.
Rufe Philip, D. 2013. “Statics. Society of manufacturing engineers SME.” Accessed July 2017. https://app.knovel.com/.
Stumpo, S. 1986. “Fundamentals of critical path planning and scheduling.” Cost Eng. 28 (10): 20.
Toronto Construction Association. 2010. Change order protocol. North York, ON: Greater Toronto Electrical Contractors Association.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Modification impact evaluation guide. Washington, DC: Dept. of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Zhou, J., P. E. D. Love, X. Wang, K. L. Teo, and Z. Irani. 2013. “A review of methods and algorithms for optimizing construction scheduling.” J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64 (8): 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2012.174.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • February 2023
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 28, 2022
Accepted: Jun 15, 2022
Published online: Sep 30, 2022
Published in print: Feb 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Feb 28, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction management
- Critical path method
- Dispute resolution
- Employment
- Engineering fundamentals
- Labor
- Legal affairs
- Measurement (by type)
- Methodology (by type)
- Metric systems
- Models (by type)
- Optimization models
- Personnel management
- Practice and Profession
- Productivity
- Project management
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.