Errata for “Improved Baseline Productivity Analysis Technique” by Chien-Liang Lin and Hong-Ming Huang

Lin, Chien-Liang; Huang, Hong-Ming

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000233

Free access

ERRATA

Aug 13, 2010

Errata for “Improved Baseline Productivity Analysis Technique” by Chien-Liang Lin and Hong-Ming Huang

You are viewing the correction.

VIEW THE CORRECTED ARTICLE

Authors: Chien-Liang Lin, Ph.D., and Hong-Ming Huang, Ph.D.Author Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

Volume 136, Issue 9

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000233

PDF

The following corrections should be made to the original paper:

1.

In Table 3, productivities for workdays 34 and 35 should not be considered DEA-classified baseline productivity, owing to the existence of slacks.

a.

Accordingly, in the old Table 4, the two figures (2.89 and 2.89) for workdays 34 and 35 (column 5) should be removed, and the eventually derived BP of DEA should be 1.95, not 2.10, as shown in the bottom of column 5.

b.

Based on the aforementioned corrections, the data in column 2 of Table 5 should be corrected accordingly.

2.

Four lines before and one line after Eq. (9) and in the notation list, “output excesses” should be changed to “output shortfalls” and “input shortfalls” should be corrected as “input excesses.”

Table 3. Daily Productivity and DEA Performance—Case Project^a

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)	(14)
Conversion factor		11.76	3.65	0.53	1	0.66	Converted daily			DEA			Allslacks $= 0$
Work-day	Work-hours	Penetrations(each)	Firedamper(each)	Branchduct(ft)	Feeder duct		Converted daily			DEA
					Small	Large	Output		Prod.	Output oriented
					(ft)		(ft)	(m)	(wh/m)	CCR	BCC	SE^b
1	40	4	0.0	0	0.0	0.0	47.0	14.3	2.79	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
2	40	0	1.2	30.6	0.0	0.0	20.6	6.3	6.36	0.28	0.38	0.73
3	40	0	0.0	55.1	0.0	0.0	29.2	8.9	4.49	0.35	0.59	0.60
4	40	0	0.0	86.3	0.0	0.0	45.7	13.9	2.89	0.55	0.92	0.60
5	40	0	3.0	40	0.0	0.0	32.2	9.8	4.07	0.46	0.57	0.81
6	24	0	0.0	67.5	0.0	0.0	35.8	10.9	2.20	0.72	0.72	1.00
7	24	0	0.0	93.6	0.0	0.0	49.6	15.1	1.57	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
8	24	0	0.0	45.9	0.0	0.0	24.3	7.4	3.25	0.49	0.49	1.00
9	24	0	1.6	23.3	0.0	0.0	18.2	5.5	4.33	0.43	0.80	0.54
10	24	0	0.0	0	17.3	2.3	18.7	5.7	4.20	0.66	1.00	0.66
11	24	0	0.0	27.2	4.5	1.5	19.9	6.1	3.97	0.37	0.95	0.39
12	24	0	2.0	28.7	0.0	0.0	22.5	6.9	3.51	0.54	1.00	0.54
13	40	0	0.0	41.7	0.0	3.0	24.1	7.3	5.45	0.33	0.48	0.68
14	40	0	0.0	80.2	0.0	0.0	42.5	13.0	3.08	0.51	0.86	0.60
15	40	0	0.0	54.7	5.1	0.0	34.1	10.4	3.84	0.38	0.63	0.61
16	24	0	2.0	25.1	0.0	0.0	20.6	6.3	3.81	0.50	1.00	0.50
17	24	0	0.0	90.9	6.8	0.0	54.9	16.7	1.44	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
18	24	0	1.4	16.3	1.5	1.5	16.2	5.0	4.85	0.39	1.00	0.39
19	24	0	0.0	26.3	0.0	0.0	13.9	4.3	5.64	0.28	0.28	1.00
20	24	0	2.0	58	0.0	0.0	38.0	11.6	2.07	0.85	1.00	0.85
21	24	0	0.0	0	30.0	0.0	30.0	9.2	2.62	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
22	24	0	0.0	60	0.0	0.0	31.8	9.7	2.46	0.64	0.64	1.00
23	40	0	0.0	24.3	22.3	12.0	43.1	13.2	3.05	0.70	0.79	0.89
24	40	0	0.0	65.3	19.0	29.9	73.3	22.4	1.80	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
25	40	0	0.0	18.8	0.0	20.3	23.3	7.1	5.64	0.68	0.68	1.00
26	40	0	0.0	47	11.3	20.7	49.9	15.2	2.62	0.70	0.71	0.99
27	40	0	0.0	34.5	7.3	2.3	27.1	8.2	4.89	0.34	0.47	0.72
28	40	0	0.0	39.6	5.4	23.6	42.0	12.8	3.12	0.79	0.79	1.00
29	32	0	0.0	0	38.1	0.8	38.6	11.8	2.72	0.96	1.00	0.96
30	40	0	0.0	11.9	35.2	0.0	41.5	12.7	3.15	0.76	1.00	0.76
31	40	0	0.0	56.7	16.2	0.0	46.2	14.1	2.85	0.61	0.86	0.71
32	40	0	0.0	33.9	0.0	0.0	18.0	5.5	7.31	0.22	0.36	0.60
33	40	0	10.0	49.4	0.0	0.0	62.7	19.1	2.10	$1.00$	$1.00$	$1.00$	Yes
34^c	40	0	10.0	16.9	0.0	0.0	45.5	13.9	2.89	1.00	1.00	1.00	No
35^c	40	0	10.0	16.9	0.0	0.0	45.5	13.9	2.89	1.00	1.00	1.00	No
36	24	0	0.0	76.8	0.0	0.0	40.7	12.4	1.94	0.82	0.82	1.00
37	24	0	0.0	49.5	0.0	0.0	26.2	8.0	2.99	0.53	0.53	1.00
Total	1,216	4	43.2	1,493	220	118	1,294	394	3.08

^a

Boldface indicates baseline subset identified by DEA.

^b

SE = Scale

efficiency = CCR ∕ BCC

^c

Slack > 0

, so not fully CCR efficient

Table 4. Baseline Productivity Sets Derived from Different BP Methods

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Work-day	Work-hours	Dailyoutput(m)	Baseline productivity set
			Thomas	DEA	K-means	Zink	Control chart
							2 STD	3 STD
							Iteration 4	Iteration 1
1	40	14.3		2.79	2.79		2.79	2.79
2	40	6.3						6.36
3	40	8.9					4.49	4.49
4	40	13.9			2.89		2.89	2.89
5	40	9.8					4.07	4.07
6	24	10.9			2.2		2.2	2.2
7	24	15.1	1.57	1.57	1.57		1.57	1.57
8	24	7.4			3.25		3.25	3.25
9	24	5.5					4.33	4.33
10	24	5.7					4.2	4.2
11	24	6.1			3.97		3.97	3.97
12	24	6.9			3.51		3.51	3.51
13	40	7.3						5.45
14	40	13.0			3.08		3.08	3.08
15	40	10.4			3.84		3.84	3.84
16	24	6.3			3.81		3.81	3.81
17	24	16.7	1.44	1.44	1.44		1.44	1.44
18	24	5.0					4.85	4.85
19	24	4.3						5.64
20	24	11.6			2.07		2.07	2.07
21	24	9.2		2.62	2.62		2.62	2.62
22	24	9.7			2.46		2.46	2.46
23	40	13.2			3.05		3.05	3.05
24	40	22.4	1.80	1.80	1.80		1.80	1.80
25	40	7.1						5.64
26	40	15.2	2.62		2.62	2.62	2.62	2.62
27	40	8.2				4.89	4.89	4.89
28	40	12.8			3.12	3.12	3.12	3.12
29	32	11.8			2.72	2.72	2.72	2.72
30	40	12.7			3.15	3.15	3.15	3.15
31	40	14.1			2.85	2.85	2.85	2.85
32	40	5.5						7.31
33	40	19.1	2.10	2.10	2.10		2.10	2.10
34	40	13.9			2.89		2.89	2.89
35	40	13.9			2.89		2.89	2.89
36	24	12.4			1.94		1.94	1.94
37	24	8.0			2.99		2.99	2.99
		BP	1.80	1.95	2.75	3.10	3.08	3.48

Table 5. Summary of Different BP Methods

	Thomas	DEA	K-means	Zink	Control chart
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
	Thomas	DEA	K-means	Zink	2 STD	3 STD
(1) Number of BP days	5	6	26	6	32	37
$(2) = (1) ∕ 37$ (%)	14	16	70	16	86	100
(3) # of BP days between days 7 and 26	4	4	14	1	17	20
$(4) = (3) ∕ (1)$ (%)	80	67	54	17	53	54
(5) BP (wh/m)	1.8	1.95	2.75	3.10	3.08	3.48
$(6) = (5) ∕ AP$ ^a (%)	58	63	89	101	100	113
(7) Rank	1	2	3	5	4	6

^a

AP = Average

Productivity = 1,216 ∕ 394.4 = 3.08

(wh/m)

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

Volume 136 • Issue 9 • September 2010

Pages: 1062 - 1063

Copyright

History

Received: Feb 20, 2010

Accepted: Apr 19, 2010

Published online: Aug 13, 2010

Published in print: Sep 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Authors

Affiliations

Chien-Liang Lin, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering, National Kaohsiung First Univ. of Science and Technology, 2 Jhuo-yue Rd. Nanzih, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]

View all articles by this author

Hong-Ming Huang, Ph.D.

Senior Project Manager, United Steel Engineering and Construction Corp., 1 Zhong-gang Rd., Shiao-gang, Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan.

View all articles by this author

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.

Errata for “Improved Baseline Productivity Analysis Technique” by Chien-Liang Lin and Hong-Ming Huang

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Copyright

History

Permissions

Authors

Affiliations

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Verify Phone

Congrats!

Information

Published In

Copyright

History

Permissions

Authors

Affiliations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

Figures

Other

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Share

Request Username

Create a new account

Change Password

Password Changed Successfully

Verify Phone

Congrats!