Activity Analysis for Direct-Work Rate Improvement in Construction
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 137, Issue 12
Abstract
In the construction industry, on-site labor is one of the most variable and costly factors that affect project profits. Because of the variable nature of construction labor and its correlation with profits, construction managers require a comprehensive understanding of the activities of workers on-site. For project success, it is obviously important that workers are spending the majority of their time installing materials that advance the project. This material installation time is known in the construction industry as “direct-work” or “tool time.” Continuously improving the direct-work rate through the life of the project is critical to project success, and yet no workface assessment method exists in the literature to provide (1) a detailed description of worker activities; or (2) a continuous productivity improvement process to help management identify productivity inhibitors affecting site labor, develop a plan to reduce or eliminate these issues, and measure improvements as a result of these changes. In response to this need, this research focused on the development of a workface assessment method called activity analysis. Activity analysis is a continuous productivity performance improvement process, which efficiently measures the time expenditure of workers on-site and identifies productivity inhibitors that management must reduce or eliminate to provide workers with more time for direct-work activities. Six case studies were conducted to verify the feasibility of the activity analysis process. Further, cyclical data from two major construction firms, including 26 project data points, were collected and analyzed to statistically validate the hypothesis, which in the past was supported by limited numbers of case studies, that activity analysis can improve direct-work rates. The research concluded that activity analysis, as a continuous performance improvement process, is feasible and when continually applied to a construction site, can significantly improve direct-work rates through the life of a project.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to acknowledge the contributions of construction industry experts serving as members of the Construction Industry Institute Craft Productivity Program Research Team. We also acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Alex McCoy and Mr. Jie Gong for their data collection efforts.
References
Aft, L. S. (2000). Work measurement and methods improvement, Wiley, New York.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2010). Guide to activity analysis, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P., and Maloney, W. (2009). “Construction craft workers’ perceptions of the factors affecting their productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(3), 217–226.
Groover, M. P. (2007). Work systems: The methods, measurement, and management of work, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heiland, R. E., and Richardson, W. J. (1957). Work sampling, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jenkins, J. L., and Orth, D. L. (2003). “Productivity improvement through work sampling.” AACE Int. Trans., 46(3), 27–33.
Liou, F., and Borcherding, J. D. (1986). “Work sampling can predict unit rate productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 112(1), 90.
O’Brien, K. E. and Associates, Inc. (2008). Improvement of onsite productivity, K.E. O’Brien and Associates, Inc., Toronto, Ontario.
Oglesby, C. H., Parker, H. W., and Howell, G. A. (1989). Productivity improvement in construction, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Picard, H. E. (2002). “Construction process measurement and improvement.” Proc., 10th Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction, Federal University of Rio Grande de Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Picard, H. E. (2004). Direct labor productivity measurement—As applied in construction and major maintenance projects.” Recommended Proactive No. 22R-01, American Association of Cost Engineers Int. (AACE), Morgantown, WV.
Picard, H. E., and Seay, C. R., Jr. (1996). “TVA’s continuous outage productivity measurement/productivity.” AACE transactions, AACE Int., Morgantown, WV.
Rogge, D. F., and Tucker, R. L. (1982). “Foreman-delay surveys: Work sampling and output.” J. Constr. Div., 108(4), 592–604.
Stevens, A. J. (1969). Activity sampling on building sites, Building Research Station—Ministry of Public Building and Works, Garston, Watford, Britain.
The Business Roundtable. (1982). “Work sampling and foreman delay surveys (tools for improving productivity at construction sites).” Report A-1: Measuring productivity in construction, The Business Roundtable, New York.
Thomas, H. R. (1991). “Labor productivity and work sampling. the bottom line.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(3), 423–444.
Thomas, H. R., and Daily, J. (1983). “Crew performance measurement via activity sampling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 109(3), 309–320.
Thomas, H. R., Guevara, J. M., and Gustenhoven, C. T. (1984). “Improving productivity estimates by work sampling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 110(2), 178–188.
Thomas, H. R., and Holland, M. P. (1980). “Work sampling programs: Comparative analysis.” J. Constr. Div., 106(4), 519–534.
Thomas, H. R., and Mathews, C. T. (1986). “An analysis of the methods for measuring construction productivity.” Source Document No. 13, Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin, TX.
Thomas, H. R., Jr. (1981). “Can work sampling lower construction costs?” J. Constr. Div., 107(2), 263–278.
Thomas, H. R., Jr., Holland, M. P., and Gustenhoven, C. T. (1982). “Games people play with work sampling.” J. Constr. Div., 108(1), 13–22.
Thompson, S. K. (1987). “Sample size for estimating multinomial proportions.” Am. Stat., 41(1), 42.
Thompson, S. K. (1992). Sampling, Wiley, New York.
Tippett, L. H. C. (1934). “A snap-reading method of making time studies of machines and operatives in factory surveys.” Shirley Inst., Mem., 13, 73.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 137 • Issue 12 • December 2011
Pages: 1117 - 1124
Copyright
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 3, 2010
Accepted: Mar 2, 2011
Published online: Mar 4, 2011
Published in print: Dec 1, 2011
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.