CEE498 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROF AWAD HANNA

PRODUCTION CONSULTANTS: TJK DESIGNBUILD STUDY REPORT

DOUGLAS FRASER

13 DECEMBER 2007

Abstract Our client, TJK DesignBuild construction, hired us to study their jobsite at 22 East Dayton, located in downtown Madison. Their project is a five-story, 48,000 square foot condominium complex of with two underground parking levels of 1600 square feet. Construction began on 17 September, 2007 with a tentative finish date of 1 July 2008. The job supervisor in charge of job site is Douglas McIntosh. Productivity Consultants conducted their work sample study in mid October 2007. The results from our analysis show that the concrete crew was involved in direct work 25% of the time, indirect work 30% of the time, and inefficient work 45%. The Labor Utilization factor was approximately 33%. These results were slightly below the averages expected, but correlated with the production delays seen later in our study. The Five Minute sampling study was postponed until mid November to test our hypothesis that the work rates would improve, since this was very early in the construction phase. The results of our Five Minute study show the work crew had an efficiency rating of approximately 70%. Therefore, we concluded the data from these two studies supported the general performance factor model in the first quarter of construction phase. For our macroscopic analysis, we chose to focus on the location of the latrine, work crew number, and scaffolding process and composition. Based on our process analysis, the jobsite should split their latrine location, with one located central to the work area while keeping one latrine adjacent to the operations center. The work crew typically had 7 men on site during the work sampling study. We recommend cutting this number to 5 based on the amount of observed idle time. The scaffolding process could be improved both in material and safety. Our advice is to rent (or buy) two man-lifts to accommodate workers, or invest in a more modular plank system with rails. Our micro-analysis focused on one three man work crew establishing a rebar frame. The current process had two rebar emplacers and one material transporter. We suggest cutting the transport worker and replacing him with a forklift, or pre-staging the rebar closer to the work area In sum, we concluded this is an average job site with some good habits and room for improvement. The Productivity Consultants recommend that this job site also invest more time supervising the work crew, keep the same work crew to maintain team cohesion, and invest in a digital productivity system such as MS Project in order to track progress. If the company follows our advice, their efficiency and productivity levels will rise; and consequently, their profit margins.

Introduction In the twentieth century, mass production and quality control concepts spawned scientific management: the study of management practices to improve labor productivity. Today, Six Sigma and Lean construction are descendants of scientific management. The core of all of these models is efficiency. Like all industries, productivity is the critical variable for the efficiency of a construction company and therefore, its profitability. Considering approximately 90% of construction companies have less than 20 workers, profit margins may decide whether a small business flourishes or fails. Proving and pricing lost productivity claims can be a difficult task. However, if certain basic fundamentals are present, accepted methods of analysis do exist. Synergen Consulting, Labor Productivity Analysis

There are many difficulties of measuring productivity. The basic fundamentals of efficient versus inefficient work are constant throughout industry, but uniqueness of the jobsites, environmental variables, as well as multiple human factors all play a varying role in over productivity in construction. However, in order to improve processes, we first must analyze quantifiable data. Despite the myriad of variables, we can still perform relatively simple tests to quantify the general productivity of labor. Objectives and Scope of Study The overall objective of this work study is to isolate one process of the construction system and apply productivity analysis and improvement techniques to identify problems in the process and system. Our recommendations will then be based on the results of our study. The study will be limited to three testing methods: a work sampling study, 5 minute rating, macro and micro process analysis. We will discuss them in depth later in the report, but they can be summarized as follows: 1. A Work Sampling Study is a technique to determine the nature of observable activity as an indicator of overall performance. Specifically, we used work sampling to identify productivity shortfalls in a concrete foundation crew. In order to limit the bias of our data, we observed the crew on a random interval and from an inconspicuous location. 2. The 5-minute rating technique was conducted as an additional analysis of the concrete work crews performance. 3. Micro and macro method improvement study. In the micro analysis, a crew balance chart and process flow diagram will be used to identify inefficiency in construction methods. Initial Site Visit Before we began our research, we visited a few TJK construction sites in downtown Madison. During our initial site survey, we took photographs of the site, 3

talked with the workers and foreman to determine their work schedule and activities, and gathered necessary information to prepare our productivity analysis. A site diagram and various photographs of the job site are included in Appendix 1. The project is a five story, 48,000 square foot condominium complex with 2 underground parking levels. Construction began on 17 September 2007 with a completion deadline of 1 July 2008. The general impression of the work area was congested. However, this is in downtown Madison and workspace is premium. We had to consider the cramped workspace for all our tests and recommendations. Work Sampling Study The first productivity study we conducted was the work sampling study, or productivity rating. Work sampling is a measurement technique for the quantitative analysis of the activities of men, equipment, or any other observable condition of the operation (Thomas, 1980). A work sampling consists of a sufficient number of observations taken on random intervals over a period of time. During each sampling, the state of the job site, the weather, and the activities of each crew member are noted. See Appendix 1 for our conditions during each sample. The three classifications of work we used were direct work, indirect work, and ineffective work. Direct work, or effective work, is defined as the actual process of constructing the observed unit, such as mixing concrete, emplacing rebar, or erecting a prefabricated wall. The ideal construction model would have productivity factors of 100%, as all tasks would contribute directly to the product being made. In reality, this can never be the case: some necessary tasks have little or no direct benefit to the product. Due to this fact, we need two more work categories: indirect work and ineffective work. Indirect work, as the name implies, is any task not directly related to the creation of the finished product, but is essential to the process. In our study, this category includes: receiving or giving instructions, building scaffolding, inspections, or the movement of tools and materials within the work area. Ineffective work can best be described as performing activities not conducive to the completion of the product. Standing around idly, walking around empty handed, and smoking breaks can all be categorized as ineffective work. Since this is a productivity improvement study, our analysis revolves around identifying and improving ineffective work. Activities observed in the Work Sample study At the time of this study, the site was previously excavated and part of the outer foundation wall was erected. The work study analysis focused on the construction crew emplacing concrete walls and foundational pads. This activity was selected because it was labor intensive and critical to the completion of the building. Because of the restricted site size, only one crew was typically working at any given time during our study. The study period was conducted over three weeks. We conducted our work sampling observations separately from our 5 minute rating and macro and micro 4

analyses. The general weather during the work study was cloudy with temperatures ranging from 40 to 60 degrees. On two days the ground was saturated from rain the previous night. The work sampling study was conducted by both of the members of our group. We used a digital camera to ensure we captured the work at the specific moment for this study. Categories of work It is important to define all criteria and categories for our work crew. In concrete work, building or stripping forms, placing concrete, or finishing the surface all will be considered direct (effective) work. Activities critical to creating a product, yet do not directly lead to the finished product are considered essential contributory work. Carrying materials, erecting scaffolds, and clean-up will be categorized as essential contributory work. Ineffective work is any activity which does not positively contribute to the process. However, it is sometimes difficult to classify differences between essential contributory work and ineffective work. For example the idleness can be sometimes due to waiting of materials or tools rather than because they stop working intentionally. This aspect was difficult to distinguish from our vantage point beyond the work site. Activity Classification and Categories of Work After much deliberation, we decided to break down work activities into the following categories. Direct work: 1. 2. 3. 4. Pouring concrete Emplacing rebar Emplacing concrete forms Mixing concrete

Essential contributory work: 5. Obtain or transport tools and materials 6. Give/receive instructions 7. Directing machine operator (concrete mixer, fork lift, backhoe) 8. Raise scaffolding 9. Move scaffolding 10. Clean up 11. Bracing concrete forms

Ineffective work

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Traveling empty handed Idleness Waiting for materials Rest breaks Obtaining tools outside of immediate work area Weather delay No contact

Confidence Limits and Observations According to the statistical definition, survey sampling is random selection of a sample from a finite population. Provided the sample size is adequate, the risks associated with random allocation (such as failing to obtain a representative sample in a survey, or having a serious imbalance in a key characteristic between a treatment group and a control group) are calculable and hence can be managed down to an acceptable level.

To reach a credible confidence level in our data, we had to compute the minimum number of observations needed. We were given a tolerance level of +/- 5%, giving us a 95% confidence level. We used the following equation to determine the number of observations: Where: N = the number of observations required N =K 2 * P(1-P) P = the decimal equivalent of the percentage expected in the category S2 S = decimal equivalent of the degree of accuracy K = the number of standard deviations needed for a given confidence level Based on the 95% confidence level, S was computed as .05. We determined the number of standard deviations at 95% confidence from statistical charts, and inferred K as 1.96. The P variable is the expected variability in our observations. If we have no prior knowledge of the outcomes, we assume P as 50%, allowing the maximum variability. Since we have previous studies, we assumed our P value as .3 Inserting our chosen confidence and tolerance levels, we calculate the number of observations by solving for N. N =1.96 2 * .3(1-.3) .052 N = 310 observations

Therefore, the minimum number required is 310 observations. Random Number Generation In order to reduce bias in our study, we had to randomize the timing of our work sampling. First we determined the number of people in the crew we would observe. Although the number fluctuated daily, the average number of workers was 6. We chose 6

to observe the crew over 3 days to capture a work week. Therefore, we divided the total observations by the product of the number of days observed and the number of crew members. 310/(3 days*7 man crew) = 15 observations per day 15 samples/day(3days) = 45 sample observations The formula we used to randomize our 310 observations is as follows:

Random number/100*180+start time = observation time Example: (13/100)(180)+8:00am = 8:23:40am This gave us a schedule to collect over 310 randomized data samples on the work crew. A list of all the random computed observation times is included in Appendix 2: Random Number Generation Work sampling data collection Our observer crew arrived at the worksite approximately ten to fifteen minutes before beginning work observation. In order to eliminate as many potential sources of bias as possible, we established the following rules of observation. 1. Each crew member must be observed when a sample is taken, including if the worker or foreman is present. 2. In order to obtain as much data as possible per work sample, a digital photo was taken for each observation. This ensured no activities were omitted in the final sample analysis, as well as reducing bias related to work that an individual was doing in the past as well as work he/she would do in the future. Only the work activity captured in the photo at that specific time was recorded. 3. All observations were recorded from the least conspicuous location near the work area. A parking ramp located across the street provided an elevated point of view for our observations as well as a covered and concealed vantage point. The specific locations of our pictures and data sampling is located in Appendix 3: Work Sampling Work Study Results The observation data collection forms are located in Appendix 3: Work sampling observation sheets. A complete table categorizing and tallying the data is also located in Appendix 3. Table 1: work breakdown, summarizes the percentage of each work activity and total number of observations observed within each work activity. Three activities, mixing concrete, waiting for tools, and weather delays were not observed during our study. We did not conclude that the above activities did not occur; they were not observed over our work sample study. Figure 1 shows a graphical summary of the activity breakdown. The labor utilization factor can be calculated by the using the 7

percentage of direct work plus one quarter of the total percentage of indirect work. This factor will give the managers an indication of overall labor efficiency. Labor utilization Factor = % direct work + .25(% indirect work)

Work Study Results The results show that only 25% of the time was devoted to direct work in for the concrete work crew. The crew was involved in essential contributory work just under 30% of the time. The remaining 44% of the time was ineffective work. The Labor Utilization Factor of 32.92% indicates to management that labor is positively contributing to production only one third of the total time. These percentages seem lower than normal, but not surprising based on the amount of standing around observed. A byproduct of this inefficiency was numerous concrete pouring delays further along. When we were set to observe their concrete pouring according to their schedule, we were informed that the pouring was delayed. Nearly a week later, the crew poured the first floor of the building. Reflecting upon our data, this delay could have been predicted early on in our study. It can quickly be inferred that the work crew productivity can be improved. Much of the ineffective work can be eliminated with proper supervision and site improvements. One notable change would be the number of workers in the crew. The total crew number observed was typically six or seven workers. At least one worker at any given observation could be counted on to be idle. If the crew number was cut to five and the other workers given a different task, it can be inferred that overall productivity would quickly climb. We focused more on the crew number in our macro analysis study. Other possible reasons for the low efficiency are poor management techniques. It should be noted that the foreman was rarely seen walking around the jobsite. Since this study was conducted within the first weeks of the construction, this work crew may not be experienced working together as a team. Additionally, since this work focused on the foundation, environmental factors such as muddy conditions become more significant. We must note that two of the observation days were conducted the day after substantial rainfall. However, this may have slowed progress, but it does not excuse idle time.

Table 1: Work Activity Breakdown Total # Percent observed total 98 98 19 6 5 12 64 2 0 7 8 113 0 0 51 25.45% 4.94% 1.56% 1.30% 3.12% 16.62% 0.52% 0.00% 1.82% 2.08% 29.35% 0.00% 0.00% 13.25% 172 29.87% 25.45%

Direct Work

Activity Direct Work (concrete, formwork, excavation, etc)

obtain/transport tools Receive/give instructions Read drawings / Plan work Rework clean, stage or move equipment) brace concrete forms mix concrete Indirect build or move Work scaffolding Travel empty handed Unexplained idleness Waiting for tools/materials Weather/emergency Ineffective delay work No contact

115

44.68%

Figure 1: Work Category Breakdown

Work Sample activity breakdown

Direct Work (concrete, f ormw ork, excavation, etc) obtain/transport tools

Receive/give instructions

Read draw ings / Plan w ork

Rew ork

clean, stage or move equipment) brace concrete f orms

mix concrete

build or move scaf f olding

Travel empty handed

Unexplained idleness

Waiting f or tools/materials

Weather/emergency delay

No contact

Figure 2: Work Sample Activity Breakdown 10

Five minute rating technique This is a deterministic measurement employed as a general assessment of the work crew effectiveness. The observer takes a series of observations over a five minute period and sums up the observations to determine effectiveness in a given time span. Procedure: To prevent bias, our group chose observation points far enough from the job site not to interfere with the workers. We used a small video camera to capture the entire process. Our group took a total of six Five Minute ratings, observing 6 laborers, and gathering a total of 405 data samples. The data was taken between 10 November and 21 November 2007. Results and Conclusion: From our data in Table 2: Five Minute Rating Results, our group determined the crew was involved in effective work for 295 of the 405 observations, which is an effectiveness of 73%. See Appendix 5 for the observational worksheets. Based on these results, we concluded the crew is relatively efficient. However, this data goes in direct contention with the work sampling study. One likely explanation for this is the timing of each study. We conducted the work sampling study in mid October, while the crew was just beginning their concrete wall and foundation production. The five minute rating technique was conducted in mid November, after the crew had been working as a team for well over a month. As discussed in our CEE498 class, repetitive activities generally become more efficient over time (until boredom sets in) this indicates the crew is improving. Table 2: Five Minute Rating Results Work Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 Total Samples Total Units 85 55 105 55 105 405 Effective 72 40 80 39 64 295

Work Crew % Effectiveness

72.8%

11

Method Improvement Studies Macro analysis Several opportunities for improvement became apparent during our studies. Some issues could not be resolved due to the small work area and downtown congestion, but a few general areas could easily be fixed. The opportunities for improvement we chose to explore were: 1. Location of latrine 2. Number of workers in crew 3. Scaffolding Modularization Location of latrine The workers were observed on numerous occasions walking from their work areas to the latrine, which was located adjacent to the operations center. This was not captured in the work sample technique as our random observations did not capture this. The total average time spent walking to the latrine and back was roughly seven minutes. Since we cannot ban bathroom breaks, the next best option is to move the portable latrines closer to the workers. The current latrine site has two latrines approximately 200 feet from the center of the work area. Since they are portable latrines, one can be easily moved closer to the workers. During the initial phases of construction, we concurred the location was best by the operation center since it was out of the work flow path. Once the first floor was complete, however, the location was not changed. When considering the work flow of large trucks and materials around the work site, we proposed to move the latrine down into the first floor of the work area. This would be more in line with the golden triangle site layout technique. See Figure 3. Since the building was designed for trucks to enter, servicing the latrine would not become an issue, and any acrid smell should be prevented through adequate servicing. Moving the location should cut the average latrine time by approximately 33%, based on average walking times.

12

Figure 3: Golden Triangle for Jobsite Layout

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp
Rebar cac he

Apa rtm ent

ramp
parking

wor ker Scaffold site

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework
wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

CURRENT LATRINE LOCATION

Dayton Street

Figure 4: Macro analysis current latrine location

13

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp
Rebar cac he wor ker

Apa rtm ent

ramp

wor ker
L a trine

Scaffold site

parking

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework
wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

PROPOSED LATRINE LOCATIONS

Dayton Street

Figure 5: Macro analysis proposed latrine locations

14

Material Storage Site The location of material storage, considering the tight layout of the workspace, seemed logical for bulk storage. However, the crew seemed to waste valuable time hauling material by hand from storage to their work areas. We recommend the job site prestages each worksites materials or make better use of the forklift and other equipment sitting idle by using mechanical transport. Number of Workers in Crew Based upon the data collected in the work sampling study, five minute rating, and crew balance (see Microanalysis study) the number of workers was not optimal. Each activity was observed to have at least one worker standing idle either from lack of work, lack of directives, or lack of materials. It was our conclusion that the work crew should be limited to 5. The other workers can easily be sent to other areas. Considering the schedule delays, this may become necessary to meet the construction completion deadline. In order to illustrate the positive effect a smaller crew size would have, we conducted a simple analysis on our work sample data. See Appendix 6 for the analysis procedure and results. Instead of a crew size of seven, we cut the crew size to five and simply cut out the idle or absent workers from the crew numbers. Clearly, this is an idealized study since a crew size of five would still have some cases of idleness. But for academic purposes this proves that the smaller crew has lower inefficiency percentages and a larger labor utilization factor Table 3: Focus study on reducing idleness.

15

Table 4: Projected work percentages (reduced crew size from 7 to 5)

Figure 5: Adjusted Work percentage chart

16

Scaffolding Modularization The crew has a number of good work practices in place, such as pre-marked rebar and standardized concrete formworks. However, their scaffolding procedure could be improved. During two observation periods in November, two workers devoted approximately 50% of their time to fabricating scaffolding. It should be noted they are not building a complete scaffolding system, but only the walking plank and supports. The supports are standardized and reusable; the planks can be reused, but need to be recut to the new plank length. Considering the amount of time invested in creating these scaffolds, finding a quicker, reusable solution should increase efficiency and cut down on materials needed. One note on safety: there were no railings or workers roped into a safety system on these scaffolds. Our solutions include safety railings. There are multiple possibilities of varying costs that would improve this process. One quick fix would be to invest in mechanized system as suggested in CEE498 called a manlift. The total cost of an average manlift researched on the internet in this area varies from ten to thirty thousand dollars. On this worksite, the maximum use of scaffolding observed was two crews. Generally, buying the equipment will pay for itself in gained efficiency and labor costs as well as tax deductions, but we are limiting our scope to this project alone, so renting in this short term case is more feasible. A quick economic analysis shows the scaffold cost and alternative options. Refer to table 5 for the results. The full table and assumptions can be found in Appendix 6. According to our model, the approximate total scaffold cost over five levels will top $24 thousand. Buying a manlift would pay for itself within two construction projects. Additionally, this equipment can incur a large tax deduction for procurement and depreciation. Investing in steel scaffolds also proves to be economical. However, the Productivity Consultants recommend the company invests in manlifts. Table 5: Scaffold simplified economic analysis total projected scaffold cost cost of average manlift steel scaffold (20') total price (33) adjustable length plank/stage system 10-17' total needed (33) $24,433 $30,000 $597 $19,701 $229 $7,557

17

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp
Prestaged Wood

TRANSPOR T VIA FOOT

Apa rtm ent

ramp

Cutting site

wor ker

parking

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework
wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

CURRENT SCAFFOLD PROCESS

Dayton Street

Figure 6: Macro analysis: current scaffold emplacement process

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp

Apa rtm ent

ramp
parking

wor ker Cutting site

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework
wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

SCAFFOLD: replace with Manlift

Dayton Street

Figure 7: Macro analysis: proposed scaffold emplacement process option #1

18

House Scaffolding Process Analysis

excavator

Church

House
Latrine

Operation Center

parking Main Storage

House

ramp

Apartment

ramp
parking

worker

Key:
Operation Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Scaffold fab Site

Rebar Framework
workers

Apartment

Scale: ~75feet

SCAFFOLD: Modular option

Dayton Street

Figure 8: Macro analysis: proposed scaffold emplacement process option #2

19

Micro analysis For the concrete wall process, we chose to focus on the location of the rebar. In general, by the time we studied the overall process mid November the crew was relatively efficient. The work area had a central wood/rebar cutting station and each area had materials pre-staged in various areas. The modular concrete formwork was staged in each section along with the form However, the location where certain materials were staged could be improved. For our micro analysis and crew balance chart, we focused on the location of rebar when the crew was fabricating the rebar skeleton for a concrete wall. Existing Operations The Crew balance chart for the three man rebar fabrication is given in Table 6. The frame of reference for this chart is our video recorder. The unit of measurement is in seconds. The process repeated itself after about six minutes. See Figure 9 for the work flow sketch. Our observations began at approximately 10:00am. The workers were already on site. Two workers were busy emplacing and connecting the rebar frame while another worker stood by waiting to resupply the two workers. Before quantifying our analysis, it was quickly noted that there was gross inefficiency in this setup. During our studied time period, the two workers spent approximately 90% of their time devoted to direct work and indirect work related tasks, such as giving instructions. However, when considering the third laborer, the overall productivity dropped significantly. The processes overall productivity was 72%. This is still a significant change from the earlier work sampling studies conducted. Therefore, the work force has improved its productivity in the past month. We developed two alternatives for the rebar emplacement. The first alternative replaces the rebar transport worker with a forklift staging the rebar at their workstation. See Table 7 for the proposed time breakdown and Figure 10 for the proposed work flow and locations. Due to the congestion, the rebar staging area would still be approximately 10 feet away, but over time it would save a great deal of time and effort. Additionally, the forklift was idle for the duration of all our five minute ratings and crew balance observations. Therefore it would also raise the effective use of equipment as well as labor. The worker cut from the process could then be better utilized elsewhere either on this jobsite or another locale. The second alternative is a contingency plan if mechanized transport is not available. We still propose two workers for this process, but both the workers transport the material before starting the emplacement. The crew was able to emplace approximately six rebar sections in five minutes. If the workers ceased emplacement after every six sections and each worker carried three sections from the staging area, they could still operate 20

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp
Rebar cac he

Apa rtm ent

ramp
parking

wor ker Scaffold site

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework TRANSPOR T VIA FOOT

wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

CURRENT WORK FLOW

Dayton Street

Figure 9: Micro analysis: current work flow for rebar emplacement

Table 6: Crew Balance Chart: Rebar Emplacement

21

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp

Apa rtm ent

ramp
parking

wor ker Scaffold site

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

Rebar Framework PRESTA GED TRANSPOR T VIA REBAR FOOT

wor kers Rebar cac he

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

Option 1

Dayton Street

Figure 10: Micro analysis: Proposed Work Flow For Option 1

Table 7: Micro analysis Crew Balance Chart Option 1

22

H ous e
exc avator

C hurch

H ous e
L a trine

Operation C enter

parking Main S torage

H ous e

ramp

Rebar cac he

Apa rtm ent

ramp
parking

wor ker Scaffold site

Key:
Operati on Transportation Inspection Delay storage

TRANSPOR T W/ FORKLIFT

Rebar Framework
wor kers

Apa rtm ent

Scale: ~50feet

WORK FLOW OPTION #2

Dayton Street

Figure 11: Micro analysis: proposed rebar emplacement option #2

Conclusions Based on our work studies over the past two months, we conclude that this jobsite has followed the Typical Performance Factor Curve. See Figure 12 for the visual image. The figure depicts the relationship between estimated unit rates over actual performance rate versus percentage of job complete. Generally the rate is low in the beginning quarter as the crew gains experience. We projected the time our studies were conducted onto the graph to help explain the shift in efficiency. Additionally, we concluded that the work in October was foundational work, which is more susceptible to environmental problems (i.e. dirt will become mud making formwork difficult to handle).

23

Figure 12: Performance Factor Curve projected points observed during productivity studies

Recommendations Our overall recommendations for this work crew are to sustain the efficiency rates observed in November and cut the number of personnel in the crew to five. We also propose more supervision of the work crew to encourage production. The scaffolding process could be improved both in material and safety. Our advice is to rent (or buy, in the long term) two man-lifts to accommodate workers, or invest in a more modular plank system with rails. We suggest cutting the transport worker and replacing him with a forklift, or pre-staging the rebar adjacent to the workers. The Productivity Consultants recommend keeping the same work crew to maintain team cohesion, and invest in a digital productivity system such as MS Project in order to track progress.

24