Learning Curve Predictors for Construction Field Operations
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 120, Issue 3
Abstract
Many repetitive construction field operations exhibit a learning curve, over which the time or cost per cycle decreases as the cycle number increases. This paper evaluates several mathematical models to determine which best describes the relationship between the activity time or cost and the cycle number. For completed activities, cubic learning curve models are found to provide the most reliable statistical fit, and linear models provide the least reliable fit. The real potential value of learning curves is their ability to predict the time or cost needed to perform future activities. This paper presents a methodology for predicting future activity time or cost based on completed activity data. The best predictors of future performance are found to be linear models. The cubic models that best describe completed activities are poor predictors of future performance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Carlson, J. G. H. (1973). “Cubic learning curves: precision tool for labor estimating.” Manufacturing Engrg. and Mgmt., 67(11), 22–25.
2.
Effect of repetition on building operations and processes on site. (1965). Rep. ST/ECE/HOU/14, United Nations Committee on Housing, Building, and Planning, United Nations, New York, N.Y.
3.
Everett, J. G., and Slocum, A. H. (1992). “CRANIUM: device for improving crane safety and productivity.” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 119(1), 1–17.
4.
Farghal, S. H., and Everett, J. G. (1993). “Learning curves as time and cost predictors for construction field operations.” Tech. Rep. 94‐21, Center for Construction Engineering and Management, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
5.
Hines, W. W., and Montgomery, D. C. (1990). Probability and statistics in engineering and management science. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
6.
An improved rationale and mathematical explanation of the progress curve in airframe production. (1949). Stanford Research Institute, Stanford, Calif.
7.
McClure, R. M., Thomas, H. R., and Hehler, J. E. (1980b). “Construction of experimental segmental bridge.” Rep. to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Philadelphia, Pa.
8.
McClure, R. M., Willenbrock, J. H., and Henderson, J. D. (1980a). “Fabrication of segments for an experimental segmental bridge.” Rep. to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Philadelphia, Pa.
9.
Oglesby, C. H., Parker, H. W., and Howell, G. A. (1989). Productivity improvement in construction. McGraw‐Hill, New York, N.Y.
10.
Thomas, H. R., Mathews, C. T., and Ward, J. G. (1986). “Learning curve models of construction productivity.” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 112(2), 245–258.
11.
Wright, T. P. (1936). “Factors affecting the cost of airplanes.” J. Aeronautical Sci., (Feb.), 124–125.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 120 • Issue 3 • September 1994
Pages: 603 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 25, 1993
Published online: Sep 1, 1994
Published in print: Sep 1994
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.