See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260700808

Construction Productivity: From Measurement to Improvement

Conference Paper · May 2010

CITATION READS

1 2,817

1 author:

Andreas Malisiovas
ETH Zurich
4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andreas Malisiovas on 12 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction Productivity: From measurement to improvement

Andreas Malisiovas*
(Civil Engineer, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA)

Abstract

The subject of productivity is one of the broadest, most complicated, and therefore
vague subjects related with constructions. Much research has been done for
creating techniques which can efficiently measure productivity, and even more
suggestions for its improvement can now be found in related literature. This paper
aims to introduce current techniques and methods for measuring construction
productivity along with their critique, and potential ways to improve their use. In
order for the present work to be completed, people with great experience from
construction industry and academia were interviewed and an extended literature
review has been conducted. The data analysis reveals some unique issues that can
lead to productivity loss, and also provide engineers with the current industry and
academia trends on improving productivity in constructions. The results of that
research can help the engineering community understand the seriousness of the
construction productivity problem, and provide engineers with techniques and
recommendations to face that problem.

Keywords

Construction Productivity, Productivity Loss, Productivity Measurement,

Improvement Techniques

1. Introduction

Construction people have to improve their productivity in order to survive in the

highly competitive environment of the industry. Hence, productivity has been
generating significant interest in both the construction industry and academia (Park
et al. (2005)). Although through the years there have been made many
suggestions and efforts for measuring and improving productivity (Borcherding
(2008), Liberta et al. (2003), Oglesby et al. (1989)) the advancement of that task
is relatively slow because of the various factors that affect it and the uncertainty of
how to effectively measure it with the most efficient way (CII (2000)). Moreover,
the amount of existing techniques globally used for measuring productivity is
extremely extended and there are many uncertainties around the accuracy and
applicability of many methods. Developed measurement techniques extend from
time-lapse photography and video in combination with statistics (Oglesby et al.
(1989)), to models using historic data (Song and AbouRizk (2008)), Neural
Networks (Chao and Skibniewski (1994), Ezeldin and Sharara (2006)), and
techniques from other industries like manufacturing (Lean Construction Institute,
Alarcon et al. (2003)). Finally, not all of the proposed measurement and
improvement techniques are broadly applied to real construction projects while
many are theoretically developed and evaluated. The previously mentioned reason
makes it difficult to form an actual list of the widely used techniques, their
advantages and disadvantages and to present more suggestions on their
applicability, and use for productivity improvement. The purpose of this report is to
*email for correspondence: malisiovas@gmail.com
-1-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

present a summary of the most widely used productivity measurement techniques

and productivity improvement methods. In addition an effort is made to identify
limitations and uncertainties on those methods, and also make some suggestions
about productivity improvement.

2. Method

The first step of the method followed was that of an extensive bibliographic
research, and after establishing a solid background of the academic efforts on
construction productivity measurement and improvement, interviews with
participants of the construction industry and academia followed. More than 50
experienced engineers working from small to multinational level construction firms,
experienced project managers, construction directors, and faculty of academic and
research institutes were interviewed. Most of them are employed in the US, and
European construction industries, while others are appointed at Universities like the
University of Texas at Austin, University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Virginia Tech,
University of New Hampshire, and others. The participants were asked questions
about how do they perceive productivity terms, the importance of productivity
knowledge, the ways and frequency of measuring construction productivity, critique
of the measurement techniques they use, the causes of low productivity and the
ways to improve it. The method preferred was of interviews with open ended
questions because of the complexity and vagueness of the subject of productivity.
For the above reason, it was considered to be more practical, and ethical to leave
the participants free to express their views and not to direct their options (and
consequently the results) by giving them multiple choice questionnaires. After the
interviews and the literature review concluded, the most acceptable and broadly
used measurement techniques were selected and analyzed. A critique of those
techniques is presented along with their presentation and analysis. Furthermore,
recommendations for improving construction productivity starting from its
measuring were introduced along with the analysis of issues that can cause
productivity loss and a discussion on recommendations for facing that problem.

3. Construction productivity measurement techniques

Some of the techniques used are designed to measure the productivity of specific
crafts at different kinds of construction work (Song et al. (2003)), while others
measure productivity at firm or site level and include every participant involved in
construction (Alarcon and Rodrigo (2003)). Furthermore, related literature reveals
that no universally accepted productivity measurement standard exists (CII (2000),
Park et al. (2005)), something which is considered to be the main reason for the
existence of so many measurement methods. The methods and techniques
presented are, according to the interviews, the most widely used in an effort to
measure, and evaluate productivity in a construction site or in a firm level. Some of
those methods are experience based while others are applied with the use of
mathematical and statistical models, technological tools, and computer-based
applications. By recording industry trends in measuring construction productivity it
was observed that the majority of independent engineering companies, and smaller
construction firms tend to use experience based models for conducting
measurements, or they do not even track productivity at all, while large firms,
companies and construction organizations (mostly in the US) tend to use measure
productivity by using more complex, computer based models and work sampling
with the help of technology tools. Moreover, for the same activity, productivity may

-2-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

be measured by different people in different ways, and so the resulting productivity

values may not be directly comparable.

3.1 Input/ Output (man hours per unit)

Input/output ratio (for example work hours per square feet of wall painted), is
mostly used for measuring productivity at an activity level (labor productivity), and
its lower values indicate better productivity-performance. Furthermore, when
measured by that method labor productivity often depicts how efficiently labor is
combined with other factors of production, a clue which can be very useful for
activity planning and scheduling. Therefore, if productivity is reported as work
hours per unit, the cost engineer can easily determine project costs by multiplying
productivity times the estimated quantity and the wage rate. The present form of
measurement has the disadvantage of being very simplistic, and it cannot depict
the real on-site situation by not taking into account any of the factors affecting site
activities. That model could be helpful for having an estimation of labor
productivity, but the same could not be claimed for the productivity of
organizational and off-site staff, management staff (whose works’ input and output
cannot easily be defined) , nor for productivity at a firm level.

3.2 Experience-based models

Probably the first attempts to measure and understand productivity in the

construction industry were totally based on the experience of engineers and
constructors in general. In the times where advanced technology and measurement
techniques were not available, the actual productivity in a construction site was
perceived and evaluated by experience-based estimations based on daily
observations on the job site. Despite the industry’s technological advancement and
the numerous measuring techniques now existing, surveys revealed that more than
20% of contractors still rely on estimators’ experience and notions for the majority
of their estimates. Obviously, the accuracy and reliability of this approach are
influenced by personal prejudice and can be highly subjective. When using models
and techniques highly related on experience, the most reliable estimate can be
made by combining that experience with past project data. However, such empirical
practices do not guarantee a consistent estimate due to the lack of an efficient
binding mechanism that could relate the present case to past patterns.

3.3 Measuring productivity using project milestones

Another broadly used method is measuring productivity by using project

milestones. At the beginning of a project, construction managers and other
administrative personnel of a project’s general contractor, define some project
milestones, which need to be completed by specific deadlines. By the end of a pre-
defined time spam (one or two weeks), staff meetings are held in order to review
the work progress and discuss about the completion percentage of the milestones.
During those meetings, an evaluation of the general work progress plan takes place
and the productivity of the whole project is defined by examining the completion
percentages of project tasks usually with the help of a project planning software.
Despite being easy to follow, the milestone method does not provide any outcomes
that could help defining the root of a possible productivity loss. Furthermore, it is
not useful for defining on-site productivity and it does not give any numerical
results which could enable construction managers to compare each week’s
productivity with previously recorded data. It can be claimed that this method is
-3-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

more a broadly used, experienced based technique than a broadly accepted

scientific method which can generate safe and accurate outcomes.

3.4 Activity model (Work sampling)

Activity model is based on work sampling, a method that employs statistical

sampling theory to measure the utilization of labor, measured in time. Work
sampling is based on probability theory. The ratio of the number of observations of
a given activity to the total number of observations of all activities approximates
the percentage of time that the work process spends on that activity. If the number
of random observations from a large group of craft activities on a project is large
enough, the percentage of time found by work sampling spent on an activity will
differ little from the actual time spent on that activity in the work process
developed on the project site. The needed data can be collected with ways varying
from observation tours, to the use of video-recording, time lapse photography, and
others. It is important that sampling is conducted randomly, and without bias by
trained construction or maintenance analysts. Covering the entire labor workforce
on-site, each worker is counted as one sampling observation. Usually, most data is
recorded in three categories: Direct work, support work, and delays. Work sampling
provides the researcher with ratio estimates (waiting/total) which are a very
convenient way to measure productivity. Furthermore, the method is easy to
administer and fairly cheap and in the same time collects useful facts during project
execution that are not normally collected by other methods, while it has no, or
minimal, interference with the worker’s normal activities. On the other hand, some
major disadvantages are the human errors that may occur, and the possible limited
accuracy of results. Furthermore, work sampling does not differentiate rework from
original work and is frequently reviewed with great suspicion by craftsmen and
foremen.

3.5 Factor models

Factor models are multi-variant approaches to modeling the productivity of a crew

rather than of an individual, based on the factors that affect it. The quantification of
factors involves the statistical analysis of crew productivity and related factors
(Thomas and Yiakoumis (1987)). Their applicability and accuracy makes them
valuable tools for measuring and predicting productivity at site level. The many
factor models now existing have implemented many mathematical and statistical
methods and software in order to generate more accurate results and
simultaneously take under consideration many factors. The key limitation of those
models is that they do not address interactions within, and across projects and
hence they are not applicable at firm level.

3.6 Cost reporting method

Many construction companies, which do not use any statistical or mathematical

techniques and software, try to make estimations about their productivity rates by
monitoring and comparing project costs. The method they follow for productivity
estimation is usually based on the simplistic approach that when the cost is
increased, work is unproductive. In order to have the ability to compare costs of
similar projects, a database containing historical data of costs for materials, wages,
and others is needed. Such data can be collected from previous projects and are
used not only for measuring productivity of a specific project but also for predicting
future productivity trends. This kind of method has the advantage of being very
-4-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

simple and easy to use. On the other hand, it does not pinpoint the root of possible
low productivity, and data collection may become a costly and time consuming
procedure, with high possibilities for human errors in estimating input and output,
when compared to other available techniques for measuring productivity.

4. Factors causing productivity loss

Except from their opinions on productivity improvement, construction industry

experts were asked questions about issues leading to productivity loss. Their
valuable experience combined with the research outcomes of productivity
researchers (Borcherding (2008), Fosberg and Saukkoriipi (2007), Ofori (2005))
validated some of the major factors causing low construction productivity, and in
the same time revealed reasons that have an important role to a possible
performance decline. As it is widely accepted construction productivity loss is
mostly related with on-site activities and situations like worker low motivation and
dissatisfaction, poor worker skills, insufficient equipment and tools, excessive
overtime and material handling, rework and worker fatigue (Borcherding et al.
(1972), Borcherding and Garner (1981)). In addition, more than seventy five per
cent of the people interviewed seemed to be highly aware of the importance of
administrative, and support staff skills. Their views combined with the current
literature (Borcherding (1972), Liberta et al. (2003)) indicated as very important
factors for productivity loss low planning level, poor pre-planning, lack of leadership
and skills in management team, and poor on-site management.

Industry trends on productivity improvement

After carefully examining the factors that can have a negative impact on
productivity, it becomes more efficient to move forward to productivity
improvement. Interviews have shown that the majority of the industry
professionals (more than eight out of ten) continue to show some preference on
traditional techniques like craft motivation enhancement programs, extensive
project pre-planning, and the selection of better equipment. Another very popular
notion among engineering professionals is productivity improvement through
advanced technology use. Many construction firms try to promote the use of
hardware technologies, such as optical scanning, optical mark recognition, bar
coding, video and camcorders which with the help of software can analyze the data
collected and give recommendations for productivity improvement. Furthermore,
and according to the related literature (Borcherding (2008), Chao and Skibniewski
(1994), LeMenager (1992), Hewage and Ruwanpura (2009)) construction
productivity can be boosted with the use of information technology advancements
which enable project participants to collect and share important field data in a
timely and accurate manner. Examples of such technology applications are mobile
computing, 3D Laser Scanning, digital close-range photogrametry, GPS, sensors,
and wireless communication (Eldin and Egger (1990), LeMenager (1992), Song et
al. (2004)). Moreover, many researchers (Alarcon and Calderon (2003), Forsberg
and Saukkoriipi (2007), Salem et al. (2006)) are trying to utilize methods from
other industries (like manufacturing) to improve productivity. Lean construction
seems to be the most popular of that kind of methods. It is the application of
manufacturing’s lean production process, where costs are reduced through
elimination of wasteful activities and inefficient procedures, in construction by
setting up self-sufficient or lean work areas. Despite the fact that many lean
construction tools and elements are still in an embryonic state, lean construction

-5-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

techniques (Last Planner, Six Sigma) are gaining popularity because they can affect
the bottom line of projects.

Discussion

It is quite obvious that not every measurement method can efficiently be applied to
any project’s situation, and that the use of each method/technique has advantages
and disadvantages. The use of an unsuitable measurement method may not only
cause productivity loss, but also falsely indicate such a situation. For the above
reasons, and in order to improve the use of measurement techniques, construction
managers first need to carefully evaluate the available methods and find the most
applicable to their project and needs. Furthermore, people handling the selected
measurement tool should be well trained, have knowledge of measurement
analysis, vision to relate measurements with the on-site reality, and decisiveness to
take actions towards productivity improvements. For improving the broadly used
methods the industry should probably rely more on those that give numerical data
for productivity, not only because those methods are outcomes of scientific
research, but also because they help firms keep a history record of productivity
data.

Moreover, as the literature review revealed, numerous productivity measurement

methods exist. Some are still on experimental level while others have been used for
several years. In addition, method selection is frequently based on the size and
economic power of the construction firm. Consequently, small firms which depend
on individuals with low budgets, tend to use methods based on personal experience
and not on proved scientific research. Those experience based techniques may
prove to be very efficient, but they have the disadvantage that their efficiency could
not be easily measured, nor the firm’s productivity trends can be recorded because
of the absence of productivity numerical values.

As for the industry trends in improving construction productivity literature review

has shown that the industry tends to move forward by following the advancement
of technology. Most of the new methods proposed are based on the use of IT,
computer based systems and software. The question is if small construction firms
struggling to survive through today’s world economic crisis can afford the use of
such applications. The trend of such firms is not to generally measure productivity
by using any particular technique, but to have an overview of it through the use of
a cost reporting method. That trend in combination with the unwillingness of small
firms to make investments in new tools make productivity measurement and
improvement a very challenging task for the majority of the industry members. In
order to face that challenge, construction community needs to motivate individuals
to measure and improve productivity of their firms and companies, and also
motivate researchers to create inexpensive and easy to operate scientific tools, as
for everyone to have the ability to measure construction productivity effectively.

6. Conclusions

Construction is a constantly evolving industry, heavily affected by the rapid

evolution of technology which makes situations change dramatically from one day
to the other. People involved in constructions have diverse opinions on the subject
of productivity measurement, mostly because the term “productivity” is not easily
defined and understood. Furthermore, causes of productivity loss are not always
predictable and easy to track. It usually requires much effort to define those causes
-6-
PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

and much more effort to adequately face them. Research also showed that there is
a difference in the way of productivity measurement between large and small-
independent firms which do not frequently measure or record productivity of their
projects, and thus have difficulties in improving performance. Moreover, the
majority of techniques/ tools used for measuring productivity have key limitations,
something that should alert industry participants before deciding the selection of a
specific tool. In addition, technology use as a measure for boosting productivity is
usually a privilege of firms with great economical power, a situation that needs to
be faced with much attention.

In order to expand the conducted research, further interviews on a very large scale
with diverse background participants should be conducted. Some of those
participants should be key people working for developers and manufacturers of
software and hardware used for productivity measurement and analysis, mostly
because they can reveal the conceptual background behind the development of a
measurement tool and the industry’s needs and wills for such tools. Further
research and mostly more interviews and surveys must be conducted in order to
create a complete catalogue of measurement techniques used, and the ways to
improve them. Finally, the correlation between recorder productivity loss and the
technique/tool used to define that loss should be re-examined, and with the help of
industry experts and researchers the path leading from productivity measurement
to productivity improvement will be shaped.

7. References

Alarcon Luis F., and Rodrigo Calderon (2003), “Implementing Lean Production
Strategies in Construction Companies” Research, ASCE, Construction
Research 2003 120, 38
Borcherding John D. (1972), “An Exploratory Study of Attitudes that Affect Human
Resources in Building and Industrial Construction”, Technical Report,
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California
Borcherding John D. (2008), “Construction Productivity”, Course Package, School of
Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, the University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX
Borcherding, John D. and Garner, D.F. (1981) Work force motivation and
productivity on large jobs, ASCE Journal of the Construction Division,
107(3), 443–53.
Chao Li-Chung, and Skibniewski Miroslaw J. (1994), “Estimating Construction
Productivity: Neural-Network-Based Approach”, Paper, Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering, 8, 234
CII Cumulative Change Order Impact Research Team (2000), “Quantifying the
Cumulative Impact of Change Orders for Electrical and Mechanical
Contractors”, Research Summary, Construction Industry Institute, the
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
Eldin Neil N., and Egger Stephan (1990), “Productivity Improvement Tool:
Camcorders”, Paper, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
116, 100

-7-
 PM-05 - Advancing Project Management for the 21st Century
“Concepts, Tools & Techniques for Managing Successful Projects”
29-31 May 2010, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

Ezeldin Samer A., and Sharara Lakman (2006), “Neural Networks for Estimating the
Productivity of Concreting Activities”, Paper, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 132, 650
Forsberg Azam, and Saukkoriipi Lasse (2007), “Measurement of Waste and
Productivity in Relation to Lean Thinking”, Paper, Proceedings of 15th Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
Jiukun Dai, Paul M. Goodrum and William F. Maloney (2007), “Analysis of craft
workers’ and foremen’s perceptions of the factors affecting construction
labour productivity”, Construction Management and Economics 25, 1137–
1150
Kasun N. Hewage and Janaka Y. Ruwanpura (2009), “A novel solution for
construction on-site communication – the information booth”, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 36, 659–671
Lean Construction Institute, Seminars, www.leanconstruction.org
LeMenager Paul A. (1992), “Technology is Here-Are You Ready?”, Paper, Journal of
Management in Engineering, 8, 261
LePatner Barry B. (2005), “Strategies Increase Construction Productivity”, Article,
Real Estate Weekly, July 27, 2005
Liberda Markus, Ruwanpura Janaka, and Jergeas George (2003), “Construction
Productivity Improvement: A Study of Human, Management and External
Issues”, Research, ASCE Construction Research, 120, 5
Ofori George (2005), “Productivity of the Construction Industry”, Research,
Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National
University of Singapore
Oglesby Clarkson H., Parker Henry W., and Howell Gregory A. (1989), “Productivity
Improvement in Construction”, Book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY
Park Hee-Sung, Thomas Stephen R., and Tucker Richard L. (2005), “Benchmarking
of Construction Productivity”, Paper, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 131, 772
Salem O., Solomon J., Genaidy A., and Minkarah I. (2006), “Lean Construction:
From Theory to Implementation”, Paper, Journal of Management in
Engineering, 22, 168
Song Lingguang, Allouche Michael, and AbouRizk Simaan (2003), “Measuring and
Estimating Steel Drafting Productivity”, Research, ASCE Construction
Research, 120, 9
Song Lingguang, and AbouRizk Simaan M. (2008), “Measuring and Modeling Labor
Productivity Using Historical Data”, Paper, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 134, 786
Thomas H. R., and Yiakoumis I. (1987), “Factor Model of Construction Productivity”,
Paper, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113 No. 4,
pp 623-639

-8-

View publication stats