W. E. Dzasu: Continental J. Environmental Sciences 4: 66- 72, 2010encouraged by most firms are unplanned for as such it is haphazardly practiced and uncoordinated. Training in theindustry is effective only to the extent that it is planned and systematic (Ehab, 2000).OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYi.
To expose the nature of systematic training in the constructions industryii.
To determine the impact of systematic training approach on the productivity of workers in the constructionindustry.iii.
To identify the group of construction firms practicing systematic training approach in the development of their workers.METHODOLOGYThe research adopted the survey and documentary analysis. The survey research design involves the gathering of data from existing record and seeking the opinion of workers through structured questionnaire. Documentaryanalysis involved the examination of existing record related to training activities in the firms.The area covered by the study consist of Building construction firms (BF), Building/Civil Engineering firms (BCF),Civil Engineering firms (CEF) and firms engaged only in Construction Consultancy Services (CF) in AdamawaState, Bauchi State, Plateau State and Abuja. The population for the study comprised of the training officers,supervisors, training managers, personnel managers and workers in the construction firms. A total of 70questionnaires were distributed equally amongst the selected construction firms in the study area. 58 firmsresponded by completing and returning the forms administered to them. Nine (9) of the questionnaires returned werefrom firms engaged in consultancy services while forty nine (49) are from building and civil engineering firms.The purposive or judgment sampling technique was used for the study. This ensured that only targeted subjectsinvolved in construction were sampled. Information was sought regarding the group of firms practicing thesystematic training approach and those not practicing the systematic training approach in the development of theirworkers, and scope of training policy and level of training activities in the construction industry. In analyzing thedata generated from the study, simple percentages and frequency count were used. The mean statistics and standarddeviation were also used in the analysis of questions relating to the impact of systematic training.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTSLevel of Training Activities in the Construction FirmsTable 1 shows training trend for the different firms sampled. The result shows that for all the firms sampled, trainingat the operatives/semi skilled level with an average of 0.16, 0.71 and 0.00 trained workers for Building constructionFirm (BF), Civil Engineering Firm (CEF), Building/Civil Engineering Firm (BCF) and Consultancy Services Firm(CF) respectively was the highest. Management training recorded an average of 0.08, 0.29, and 0.33 for BF, CEF,BCF, BCF and CF respectively, while supervisory training revealed an average of 0.13, 0.20, 0.14 and 1.00 for BF,CEF, BCF and CF respectively. The results further show that for training at technical level an average of 0.26, 0.60,0.29 and 0.00 workers were being trained yearly in BF, CEF, BCF and CF respectively. The results for training atother levels other than those suggested (others) also indicate a yearly average of 0.29 for training by BCF whiletraining was not conducted at this category by BF, CEF, and CF similarly, the table further reveals that none of thefirms carried out training at the clerical level. The foregoing result shows that training by the construction firms wasgenerally very low.THE PRACTICE OF SYSTEMATIC TRAININGData in Table 2 shows that a large number of respondents (51.72%) agreed that their firms did not have any declaredtraining policies and officers designated as training officers. Similarly, the result shows that 84.48%, 68.97%,81.03%, 44.833, 100% and 98. 28% of respondents indicated that their organization did not have in-house trainingfacilities for management training, supervisory, technical, skilled operatives, clerical and other forms of training notspecified respectively. The result also shows that 32 respondents representing 55.17% agreed that their organizationneither developed in-house programs to meet identified training needs nor is the training programs of their firmsimplemented in-house. The result further reveals that 36 respondents representing 62.07% agreed that training needsof workers was not identified before training, while 22 respondents representing 37.93% agreed that training needs