UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

International School of Business

------------------------------

Bui Trung Kien

FACTORS AFFECTING THE

FLUCTUATION OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)

Ho Chi Minh City - 2012

 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

International School of Business

------------------------------

Bui Trung Kien

FACTORS AFFECTING THE

FLUCTUATION OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

ID: 60340102

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)

SUPERVISOR: Dr. CAO HAO THI

Ho Chi Minh City - 2012

 i

ACKNOWLEDGMETS

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Cao Hao
Thi for his professional guidance, valuable advice, continuous encouragement, and
motivated support that made this thesis possible.

I would like to extend deep senses of gratitude to Prof. Nguyen Dinh Tho and lecturers
who have taught and transferred me valuable knowledge and experience during the
period of Master of Business course at International School of Business.

Special thanks, to all of my dear friends in MBUS 2010 class, who gave me useful
material, response and experience to conducting this study.

I would like to express my grateful thanks to my friends and all the construction
company in Vietnam who participated in filling the questionnaires and provided the
valuable information for this study.

Personally, I wish to express my deep gratitude to my parents, my wife, sister and

brother for their spiritual support and encouragement during the time of study.

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,

12 Dec. 12

Bui Trung Kien

 ii

ABSTRACT

Productivity has an important role to help construction companies to be competitive,

achieve set goals, meet stakeholder and value propositions. The objectives of this
research are to identify the factors affect to the Labor Productivity Fluctuation in
construction project in Vietnam, to access the impact strength of influenced factors on
the fluctuation of labor productivity and to suggest recommendations to reduce the
fluctuation of labor productivity.

The objective of this study have been achieved through study 233 questionnaires and
the results of analysis of 46 variables considered in questionnaire show that, there are
five main factors positively affect to Labor Productivity Fluctuation in construction
project. They are Supervision factor, Motivation factor, Workforce factor,
Material/Equipment factor and Schedule factor. After conducting Multiple Linear
Regression and ANOVA analysis, the model of study have been indentified which
could explains 68.7 % of the total variance in Labor Productivity Fluctuation and
ANOVA testing result also shows that there are significant different among project
characteristic group on LPF.

The results of this study recommend that construction companies have to conduct
labour productivity study in their project to reduce Labour Productivity Fluctuation. It
is important to have training program to increase labour skill, improve labor
commitment and the relationship among worker by increasing labor benefit and team
building program. It also suggested that the planning software should be used in the
project to have a good planning work to reduce the frequency of working overtime and
make the labor more productivity.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGMETS....................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. .1

1.1 Statement of the problem .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objective of the study.................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Scope of the study.......................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Research contribution.................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Research Structure......................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 5

2.1 Definition related to project and project management ................................................ 5

2.1.1 Project ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Project Management .................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Definitions related to productivity................................................................................ 6

2.2.1 Productivity................................................................................................................. 6

2.2.2 Labor Productivity ..................................................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Total Productivity....................................................................................................... 8

 iv

2.2.4 The formulation for the fluctuation of labor productivity........................................ 9

2.2.5 Construction productivity ........................................................................................ 10

2.3 Factors affecting construction productivity ............................................................... 10

2.4 Factor and indicators affect to labour productivity fluctuation ................................ 17

2.4.1 Factor related to workforce ..................................................................................... 17

2.4.2 Factor related to management team ....................................................................... 18

2.4.3 Factor related to motivation .................................................................................... 18

2.4.4 Factor related to schedule compression ................................................................. 19

2.4.5 Factor related to material/equipment ..................................................................... 20

2.4.6 Factor related to supervision................................................................................... 22

2.4.7 Factor related to safety ............................................................................................ 23

2.5 Project characteristics.................................................................................................. 24

2.6 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 27

3.1 Research process.......................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Sampling design........................................................................................................... 28

3.2.1Population.................................................................................................................. 28

3.2.2 Sample size................................................................................................................ 28

3.3 Measurement scales..................................................................................................... 29

3.4 Questionnaire design ................................................................................................... 29

3.5 Pilot survey .................................................................................................................. 30

 v

3.6 Data collection ............................................................................................................. 31

3.7 Descriptive statistics.................................................................................................... 31

3.8 Reliability analysis ...................................................................................................... 31

3.9 Exploratory analysis .................................................................................................... 32

3.10 Multiple regression analysis ..................................................................................... 32

3.11 ANOVA analysis....................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................. 33

4.1 Sample descriptive statistics ....................................................................................... 33

4.2 Reliability analysis ...................................................................................................... 36

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis ......................................................................................... 39

4.4 Revised the research model......................................................................................... 43

4.5 Multiple regression analysis ....................................................................................... 44

4.5.1 Correlation testing ................................................................................................... 44

4.5.2 Multiple linear regression analysis......................................................................... 45

4.5.2.1 Theory model ......................................................................................................... 45

4.5.2.2 Result on the linear regression analysis .............................................................. 45

4.5.3 Hypothesis testing..................................................................................................... 47

4.5.4 One-Way ANOVA Analysis in project characteristic............................................. 49

4.5.4.1 One-Way ANOVA testing in type of project ........................................................ 49

4.5.4.2 One-Way ANOVA testing in project ownership .................................................. 51

4.5.4.3 One-Way ANOVA testing in project budget ........................................................ 53

 vi

4.5.5 Results of ANOVA testing on project characteristics............................................. 53

4.6 Summary of data analysis result................................................................................. 53

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION ................................. 55

5.1 Research finding .......................................................................................................... 55

5.2 Managerial implications.............................................................................................. 56

5.3 Limitations and future research .................................................................................. 57

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix A: Questionnaire (English Version)................................................................ 63

Appendix B: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version) ......................................................... 69

Appendix C: First time running- Eigenvalues ................................................................. 76

Appendix D: First Time Running – Factor Loadings...................................................... 77

Appendix E: Charts of Multiple Regression Analysis..................................................... 79

 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Factor model of construction labor productivity......................................... 11

Figure 2.2: Factors that are statistical significant ........................................................... 12

Figure 2.3: External affects to construction on-site productivity .................................. 13

Figure 2.4: Internal affects to construction on-site productivity ................................... 13

Figure 2.5: Workforce factor and LPF ............................................................................ 19

Figure 2.6: Management team factor and LPF ............................................................... 19

Figure 2.7: Motivation factor and LPF............................................................................ 20

Figure 2.8: Schedule compression factor and LPF......................................................... 21

Figure 2.9: Material/Equipment factor and LPF............................................................. 22

Figure 2.10: Supervision factor and LPF ........................................................................ 23

Figure 2.11: Safety factor and LPF ................................................................................. 24

Figure 2.12: Conceptual framework................................................................................ 25

Figure 3.1: Research process ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 4.1: Revised conceptual model ............................................................................ 43

Figure 4.2: Final research model ..................................................................................... 53

 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Factor affecting on construction workforce productivity............................. 14

Table 2.2: Factor affecting on labor productivity ........................................................... 16

Table 4.1: Mode of data collection ................................................................................. 33

Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents’ position ............................................................ 34

Table 4.3: Type of project ................................................................................................ 34

Table 4.4: Ownership of project ...................................................................................... 35

Table 4.5: Total budget of project.................................................................................... 35

Table 4.6: Rejected variables .......................................................................................... 36

Table 4.7: Reliability analysis result ............................................................................... 37

Table 4.8: KMO and Bartlett's Test................................................................................. 40

Table 4.9: Total variance explain of factor analysis....................................................... 40

Table 4.10: Factor analysis results................................................................................... 41

Table 4.11: Correlation analysis result ........................................................................... 44

Table 4.12: Model summary of multiple linear regression analysis.............................. 46

Table 4.13: ANOVA of multiple linear regression analysis ......................................... 46

Table 4.14: Coefficient of multiple linear regression analysis ...................................... 47

Table 4.15: Hypothesis summary ................................................................................... 49

Table 4.16: Descriptive for type of project group........................................................... 50

Table 4.17: ANOVA for type of project group............................................................... 50

Table 4.18: Descriptive for project ownership group..................................................... 51

 ix

Table 4.19: ANOVA for project ownership group ......................................................... 51

Table 4.20: Descriptive for project budget group .......................................................... 52

Table 4.21: ANOVA for project budget group .............................................................. 52

 x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GNP: Gross National Product

GVA: Gross Value Added

HCMC: Ho Chi Minh City

KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

LPF: Labour productivity Fluctuation

MRS: Market Research Society

PMBOK: Project Management Body of Knowledge

 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem

The construction industry has an important role in the developed and developing
countries. In the Vietnam, construction industry is growing very strongly and has
gained many significant achievements. The General Statistic Office of Vietnam (2011)
reported that it accounts for about 6.41 % of gross national product and 6.4 % of total
employment. The expansion of construction activities has generated a lot of jobs for
skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labour, but beside with this, Vietnam’s labor
productivity remains low against other Southeast Asian countries despite witnessing an
on-year rise in the total productivity of 5.1% as showed in the Vietnam’s labour and
social trends report (Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs, 2010).

A successful construction project is one that achieves the intended objectives in terms
of cost, time, quality and safety. This is possible only when the planned levels of
productivity can be attained. However, productivity, or lack of it, is perhaps one of the
main problems confronting the construction industry, the construction firm and the
construction project. As a consequence of the importance of the construction industry,
the nature of construction projects and the available economic resources, more
emphasis should be given to improving productivity.

Productivity enables an organization to be competitive, achieve set goals, meet

stakeholder value propositions and maintain strategic and financial health. At the
industry level, productivity enables the sector to maintain satisfied clientele, attract
investment, remain viable and contribute to the economic growth and well-being of the
nation (Durdyev and Mbachu, 2011). Understanding critical factors affecting the
fluctuation of labor productivity is very necessary to improve the efficient of
construction project likes reduce total cost and time, and it could increase the
 2

competitive advantages of the construction company in Vietnam toward foreign

construction company. All the above things leads this study to raise the questions
“What are the factors affecting labor productivity fluctuation in the construction” and
“How to evaluate the effects of this factor on the fluctuation of labor productivity”. To
answers these questions, it necessary to conduct the topic Factors Affecting the
Fluctuation of Labor Productivity in the Construction Projects.

1.2 Objective of the study

This study is conducted to achieve the following objectives

- To identify factors affecting to the fluctuation between real and planed labor
productivity of construction projects.
- To assess the impact strength of these factors on the fluctuation of labor
productivity.
- To analysis the difference in Labor Productivity Fluctuation due to Project
Characteristics.

1.3 Scope of the study

The study will be conducted base on the accomplished construction projects in

Vietnam from 2002 until now, and more focus in HCMC. The respondents will be the
person who has a important role in the project such as clients, contractors, project
managers, construction managers, foreman, chief engineers … and has had experience
in managing specific construction project

1.4 Research contribution

The research results can be used to:

 3

- Help Construction Companies in Vietnam to have an overview on Labor Productivity

in construction project.
- Help Construction Companies in Vietnam to have deeply awareness about the main
factors affect to the fluctuation of labor productivity in construction project and they
can manage Labor Productivity more effectively.
- Help them in building a suitable Labor Productivity Plan with its characteristic and
condition.
- Be a reference for new investors who want to invest in construction industry in
Vietnam.
- Help to develop Vietnam’s construction industry in particular and economic
development in general.

1.5 Research Structure

This research consists of six chapters from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5

Chapter 1 – Introduction

This chapter includes research statement, problem outlines, research objectives and
scope of research and especially it will outline the study process which quite important
for the study as it shed a light for the successful of mater thesis.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

This chapter will present recent definitions related to project management,

productivity, labor productivity and construction productivity. Base on the previous
studies, this section also identify the factors affecting to labor productivity in
construction project, states the Hypothesis and proposed the research model for this
study

Chapter 3 – Methodology
 4

This chapter presents the research process and the methodology that will be used for
empirical testing of the research model which has been developed in chapter 2.

Chapter 4 – Data Analysis

This chapter presents the data analysis result, this is the most significant part of the
study as it will contain the data analysis including of Sample Descriptive Statistics,
Reliability Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis and
ANOVA Analysis to provide a very comprehensive picture about the relationship of
factors affecting to the fluctuation of labor productivity in construction project in
Vietnam.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendation

With results from analyzing data collected in chapter 4, a conclusion as well as the
objective required is established. The finding reconfirms the factors affecting to the
fluctuation of labor productivity in construction project. Finally, recommendations are
brought to improve labor productivity in construction project and give direction for
future research.
 5

CHAPTER 2: LITTERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents a review of relevant literature related to factors affecting labor
productivity and consists of definitions related to project and project management,
definitions of productivity, total productivity and construction productivity. This
chapter also states the hypotheses and propose conceptual model for this study.

2.1 Definition related to project and project management

2.1.1 Project

A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2008, p. 5) has defined a

project as “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or
result. The temporary nature of projects indicates a definite beginning and end. The end
is reached when the project’s objectives have been achieved or when the project is
terminated because its objectives will not or cannot be met, or when the need for the
project no longer exists. Temporary does not necessarily mean short in duration.
Temporary does not generally apply to the product, service, or result created by the
project; most projects are undertaken to create a lasting outcome”.

Lake (1997) defined a project as “a temporary endeavor involving a connected

sequence of activities and a range of resources, which is designed to achieve a specific
and unique outcome and which operates within time, cost and quality constraints and
which is often used to introduce change”.

2.1.2 Project management

Project management has been defined by PMBOK (2008, p.8) as “The application of
knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet project
requirement”
 6

Yuong (2007) defined project management as “a dynamic process that utilizes the
appropriate resources in a controlled and structured manner to achieve some clearly
defined objectives indentified as strategic needs”.

2.2 Definitions related to productivity

2.2.1 Productivity

Prokopenko (1987) defined that “productivity is the relationship between the output
generated by a production or service system and the input provided to create this
output. Thus, productivity is defined as the efficient use of resource – labors, capital,
land, materials, energy and information – in the production of various goods or
services. Productivity can also be defined as the relationship between results and the
time it takes to accomplish them. Time is often a good denominator since it is a
universal measurement and it beyond human control. The less time taken to achieve the
desired result is the more productive the system”. Prokopenko also stated that
“regardless the type of production, economic or political system, the definition of
productivity remains the same. Thus, though productivity may mean different things to
different people, the basic concept is always the relationship between the quantity and
quality of goods or services produced and the quantity of resources used to produce
them”.

Eatwell and Newman (1991) defined productivity as a ratio of some measure of output
to some index of input use. Put differently, productivity is nothing more than arithmetic
ratio between the amount produced and the amount of any resources used in the course
of production. This conception of productivity goes to imply that it can indeed be
perceived as the output per unit input.

International Labor Office (as cited in Mostafa, 2003) described productivity as

“Productivity is a comparison between how much you have to put in to the projects in
 7

terms of manpower, material, machinery or tools and the result you get out of the
project. Productivity has to do with the efficiency of production. Making a site more
productive means getting more output for less cost in time, Productivity covers every
activity that goes into completing the construction site works, from the planning state
to the final site clearing, if the contractor can carry out these activities at lower cost in
less time with fewer workers or with less equipment the productivity will be
improved”.

Overall, productivity could be defined as the ratio of outputs to inputs

Productivity = Outputs / Inputs

Where, outputs could be in units or dollar value of product or service, revenue

generated or value added. Input could be in units or dollar value relating to labor,
equipment, materials, capital, so it will be very important to specify the inputs and
outputs to be measured when calculating productivity.

2.2.2 Labor Productivity

At the national level, labor productivity is computed by taking the entire economically
active population as the input and the total value of goods and services produced as the
output (Prokopenko, 1987).

National productivity = GNP/Population

It is general knowing that almost all the definitions of productivity centre on ‘outputs’
and ‘inputs’. Unfortunately, definition of either output or input or both may sometimes
pose more difficulty to the understanding of what productivity is. For output, it is in the
form of goods if visible and services if invisible. Input on the other hand is less easily
defined. Since production (creation of goods and services) is a team effort thereby
 8

making the demand for inputs to be interdependent, various elements (inputs) are
involved in the production of output. This makes the definition of input more complex
than that of output. To ease this problem of defining inputs, it is common a practice to
classify inputs into labor (human resources), capital (physical and financial assets), and
material. Again, in an attempt to circumvent the difficulty of defining inputs,
productivity is sometimes defined as goods and services produced by an individual in a
given time. In this sense, time becomes the denominator of output with the assumption
that capital, energy and other factors are regarded as aids, which make individuals
more productive.

Freeman (2008) stated that Labor productivity is equal to the ratio between a volume
measure of output (gross domestic product or gross value added) and a measure of
input use (the total number of hours worked or total employment).

Labor productivity = volume measure of output / measure of input use

“The volume measure of output reflects the goods and services produced by the
workforce. Numerator of the ratio of labor productivity, the volume measure of output
is measured either by gross domestic product (GDP) or gross value added (GVA). The
measure of input use reflects the time, effort and skills of the workforce. Labor input is
measured either by the total number of hours worked of all persons employed or total
employment”.

2.2.3 Total Productivity

Total productivity can be described as the overall measure of economic effectiveness

on the basis of output per unit of all resource(s) utilized. In the last decade, there has
been a definite move towards its utilization and that is the ratio of total output to the
sum of all input factors (Stainer, 1997) as Equation [2.1].
 9

O
TP = [2.1]
L M C E Q

Where, TP = Total Productivity

O = Total Output
L = Labor Input
M = Material Input
C = Capital Input
E = Energy Input
Q = Other Input

2.2.4 The formulation for the fluctuation of labor productivity

The fluctuation of labor productivity is the difference between actual labor hours and planed
labor hours of project/work package per actual labor hours of project/work package, so the
formulation the fluctuation of labor productivity will be calculated as as Equation [2.2].

W A WP
L = * 100 [2.2]
WP

Where, L = Fluctuation of labor productivity

WA = Total actual labor hours of project/work package
WP = Total planed labor hours of project/work package
If L <0 : Actual labor productivity is higher than planed
labor productivity.
L=0 : Actual labor productivity equal planed labor
productivity.
L>0 : Lost of labor productivity
 10

2.2.5 Construction productivity

Productivity in construction is often broadly defined as output per labor hour. Since
labor constitutes a large part of the construction cost and the quantity of labor hours in
performing a task in construction is more susceptible to the influence of management
than are materials or capital, this productivity measure is often referred to as labor
productivity. However, it is important to note that labor productivity is a measure of the
overall effectiveness of an operating system in utilizing labor, equipment and capital to
convert labor efforts into useful output, and is not a measure of the capabilities of labor
alone. For example, by investing in a piece of new equipment to perform certain tasks
in construction, output may be increased for the same number of labor hours, thus
resulting in higher labor productivity (Hendrickson, 1998).

Hendrickson also presented that construction output may be expressed in terms of

functional units or constant dollars. In the former case, labor productivity is associated
with units of product per labor hour, such as cubic yards of concrete placed per hour or
miles of highway paved per hour. In the latter case, labor productivity is identified with
value of construction (in constant dollars) per labor hour. The value of construction in
this regard is not measured by the benefit of constructed facilities, but by construction
cost. Labor productivity measured in this way requires considerable care in
interpretation. For example, wage rates in construction have been declining in the US
during the period 1970 to 1990, and since wages are an important component in
construction costs, the value of construction put in place per hour of work will decline
as a result, suggesting lower productivity.

2.3 Factors affecting construction productivity

There are numerous events that can cause a loss of labor productivity. Thomas and
Zavrski (as cited in Rojas, 2008) had developed a factors model, which graphically
 11

show in Figure 2.1. There are two broad categories related to the work that affect labor
productivity. These are work to be done and the environment in with the work is done
and it can be viewed as either contributing to or inhibiting this conversion process. The
figure shows that the inputs in terms of labor hours are converted to outputs or
quantities of work through the application of some work method.

Article I.
cceleration

Indirect
Article III. Article V. Article VII. Article IX. S Causes
hanges vertime ncrease Manning hift Work

Article XI. Article XIII. Article XV. Article XVII. Article XXIX.
Work
ongestion equencing eather upervision lant Status
Environ.

Article XIX. Article XXI. Article XXIII. Article XXV. Article XXVII.
nformation quipment ools aterials ework

Conversion Technology
Inputs Outputs

(Work Hours) (Work Method) (Quantities)

Work to

Article XXXI. Article XXXIII. Article XXXV. Article XXXVII. Article XXXIX. be Done
omponent Size pecs & Qual. Req. ork Content esign Features ork Scope

Figure 2.1: Factor model of construction labor productivity

Source: Rojas (2008).

Homyun Jang et al (2009) suggested variables affecting to labor productivity and have
been identified 25 critical variables and grouped to 4 groups of factors, namely work
management, work technique, work characteristic and worker component as shown in
Figure 2.2.
 12

Work management Work technique

Manager capability Rework
Management system Work continuity
Construction plan Information technology
Critical factors
Safety/accident
influencing
productivity

Work space Worker capability

Prefabrication Worker sense of responsibility
Work characteristic Worker component
Working field accessibility Worker health
Advance work Worker experience
Work method Worker education
Work environment Worker training
Crew composition Worker expertise
Work difficulty Worker motivation
Work quantity

Figure 2.2: Factors that are statistical significant

Source: Homyun Jang et al. (2009)

Labor productivity and the factors that affect it have been studied extensively in the
field of construction research. Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) indentified 56 variables
that affect construction productivity, and categorized them in to 8 factors of internal
and external Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. Figure 2.3 represents external constraint with
three groups of factor: Unforeseen events, statutory compliance and other external
forces. Figure 2.4 shows the internal constraints with five groups of factors: Project
characteristics, project finance, workforce, project management and
technology/process.

Inclement weather
Ground condition necessitating
revisions.
On-site accident/ Act of God
Natural Disaster
Health & Safety in employment Act.
Resource management Act
Local Authority bylawa
Construction contracts
Building/ Act, consent, regulation.
Employment relation Act.
Consumer guarantees Act.
Fair trading Act
Figure 2.3: External affects to construction on-site productivity
Project characteristics
Site condition
Project complexity
Build ability issue
Site location and environment
Type of procurement adopted
Late of payment
Rework
Under valued work/poor estimation
Dispute and litigation costs
Lenders’ high interest charges
High insurance premiums
Inadequate supply or high cost on
needed resources.
Level of commitment
Level of empowerment
Level of skill and experience
Level of familiarity with current job
and conditions
Level of involvement of direct labor or
subcontract
Workforce absenteeism
Level of staff turnover/churn rate
Health of the workforce.
Figure 2.4: Internal affects to construction on-site productivity
13
Unforeseen events Other external forces
Fluctuations in material prices.
Fluctuation in exchange rate.
Energy crises/costs.
Interest rate/cost of capital
External group of
Market conditions and level of
factors competitions in the industry for jobs
Frequency change in government
policies/legislations on construction.
Rapid technological advances
Statutory compliance Increase in industry or society-wide
litigations/adversarial relations.
Source: Durdyev and Mbachu (2011)
Project management
Adequacy of planning and risk
management process
Coordination, supervision,
performance monitoring &
control
Project Organizational culture
Relationship management
Internal group Competencies of the project
team
of factors Project management style
Project Frequency of design changes
Client’s over influence on the
finance
Suitability or adequacy of
plant & equipment
Workforce Technology/Process Method of construction
Technology employed
Lack of awareness of or
training on new technologies
Resistance to accept new
technologies
Inadequate IT infrastructure
and application in
construction industry
Source: Durdyev and Mbachu (2011)
 14

Kazaz et al (2008) determined four factors and it’s variables as presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Factor affecting on construction workforce productivity

Socio-psychological factors Organizational Factors

Work discipline Quality of site management

Health and safety conditions Material management
Work satisfaction Systematic flow of work
Creating competition Supervision
Relation with workmates Site layout
Giving Responsibility Occupation education and training
Sharing problems and their results Crew size and efficiency
Social activity opportunities Firm reputation
Cultural differences Camping conditions
Worker participation indecision Relaxation allowances
making
Distance from home
Distance from population centres
Economic factor Physical factors

On-time payment Working at similar activities

Amount of pay Design complexity
Working in social insurance Error tolerance
Incentive payments and financial Weather conditions
rewards Discruptions
Discontinuity of work Schedule compression
Union membership Overtime
Shift
Site congestion

Source: Kazaz et al., (2008)

 15

Enshassi (2007) classifies factors effecting productivity in the construction in to 10

groups, namely: factors associated with the internal workforce, factors associated with
leadership, factors associated with work motivation factor associated with time, factors
associated with materials and equipment, factors related to supervision, factors related
to project characteristic, factors related to security, factors related to quality, and
external factors.

Soekiman et al (2011) identified 113 variables affecting construction labor productivity

and these variables were grouped into 15 groups of factors according to their
characteristics, namely: Design, execution plan, material, equipment, labor, health and
safety, supervision, working time, project factor, quality, financial, leadership and
coordination, organization, owner/consultant, external factor.

Nabil Ailabouni et al (2007) indentified 32 significant variables affecting the

productivity in the construction industry then grouped into 4 group base on their
characteristic, namely: Environment factors, organizational factors, group dynamics,
personal factors.

Makulsawatudom and Margaret (2001) indentified 23 variables. Henry et al (2007)

suggested 36 variables: Incompetent supervisor Lack of skill of the workers, Rework,
lack of tool/equipment, poor construction method, poor communication, stoppages
because of work being rejected by consultant, political insecurity, tool/equipment
breakdown…

In summary, based on the previous research and after refinement, 46 variables are
selected and grouped to 7 groups according to their characteristics, namely: Workforce,
management team, motivation, schedule compression, material/equipment, supervision,
safety and. All of them are shown in Table 2.2.
 16

Table 2.2: Factor affecting on labor productivity

No Factor Variables/Measurement scale Code Author/Year

1 Lack of skill and experience of the workers V.1.1 Ailabouni et al (2006), Durdyev and
Lack of empowerment (training and resourcing) V.1.2 Mbachu (2011), Enshasi et al (2007), Henry
High workforce absenteeism V.1.3 et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al (2009),
Workforce

High workforce turnover V.1.4

Kazaz et al (2008), Makulsawadom et al
Low labor morale/commitment V.1.5
(2001), Soekiman et al (2010)
Increase of laborer age V.1.6
Poor health of the workers V.1.7
Poor relations among workers V.1.8
2 Bad leadership skill V.2.1 Enshasi et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al
Managem
ent Team

Poor relations between labor and superintendents V.2.2 (2009). Nabil Ailabouni et al (2006).
Lack of labor surveillance V.2.3
Lack of periodic meeting with labor V.2.4
3 Late payment V.3.1 Ailabouni et al (2006), Durdyev and
Low amount of pay V.3.2 Mbachu (2011), Enshasi et al (2007
Motivation

Little or no welfare V.3.3 Homyun Jang et al (2009), Kazaz et al

Little or no financial rewards V.3.4
(2008), Soekiman et al (2010)
Lack of labor recognition program V.3.5
Poor condition of camping V.3.6
Lack of place for eating and relaxation V.3.7
4 Working 7 days per week without taking a holiday V.4.1 Ailabouni et al (2006), Henry et al (2007),
Compression

Frequency of working overtime V.4.2

Schedule

Homyun Jang et al (2009), Kazaz et al

Shift work V.4.3 (2008), Soekiman et al (2010),
Poor work planning V.4.4
Makulsawadom et al (2001).
Overcrowding V.4.5
5 Material shortages V.5.1 Ailabouni et al (2006), Durdyev and
Low quality of raw material V.5.2 Mbachu (2011), Enshasi et al (2007), Henry
Equipment
Material/

Unsuitable material storage location V.5.3 et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al (2009),

Lost time to find material because of poor arrangement V.5.4
Kazaz et al (2008), Makulsawadom et al
Equipment and tools shortages V.5.5
(2001), Soekiman et al (2010)
Poor condition of equipment and tools V.5.6
6 Poor or no supervision method V.6.1 Ailabouni et al (2006), Durdyev and
Incompetent supervisors V.6.2 Mbachu (2011), Enshasi et al (2007), Henry
Changing of foreman V.6.3
Supervision

et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al (2009),

Changing order V.6.4
Kazaz et al (2008), Makulsawadom et al
Incomplete/revise drawing V.6.5
(2001), Soekiman et al (2010).
Inspection delay V.6.6
Rework V.6.7
Supervisors’ absenteeism V.6.8
7 Ignore safety precaution V.7.1 Durdyev and Mbachu (2011), Enshasi et al
Accident V.7.2 (2007). Henry et al (2007). Homyun Jang et
Inadequate lighting V.7.3 al (2009), Kazaz et al (2008),
Safety

No have safety engineer on site V.7.4

Makulsawadom et al (2001).
Noise V.7.5
Unsafe working conditions V.7.6
Inadequate safety plan V.7.7
Lack of labor safety V.7.8
 17

2.4 Factors and indicators affect to labour productivity fluctuation

2.4.1 Factor related to workforce

Enshassi et al (2007) identify 8 variables related to workforce factor and the result
show that the most important variable negatively affecting the productivity is lack of
labor experience, followed by labor disloyalty, labor dissatisfaction, misunderstanding
among labor, lack of competition, increase in laborer age, labor absenteeism, and labor
personal problem. Duryev et al (2011) also identify 8 sub-factors affect to labor
productivity with level of impact is descending as level of skill and experience of the
workforce, motivation/commitment, level of familiarity with current job and
conditions, workforce absenteeism, level of staff turnover and health of the workforce.
These variables above also is supported by Kazaz et al (2008), Homyun Jang et al
(2009), Makulsawatudom et al (2001), and Soekiman et al (2010). Base on the
previous research above this study has been refined and collected 8 sub-factors related
to the main factor of workforce and stated a hypothesis as following:

Hypothesis H1: There is a positive impact of workforce factor on the fluctuation of

labor productivity

Hypothesis H1 is presented in Figure 2.5.

Workforce
- Lack of skill and experience of the workers
- Lack of empowerment
- High workforce absenteeism H1+
Labor productivity
- High workforce turnover
fluctuation
- Low labour morale/commitment
- Increase of labourer age
- Poor health of the workers
- Poor relations among workers

Figure 2.5: Workforce factor and LPF

 18

2.4.2 Factor related to management team

Enshasi et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al (2009), Ailabouni et al (2006) identified the

core elements effect to Labor Productivity, including: bad leadership skill, poor
relations between labor and superintendents, and lack of labor surveillance. Base on
that previous research, this study stated a hypothesis related to management team factor
as following:

Hypothesis H2: There is a positive impact of management team factor on the

fluctuation of labor productivity.

Hypothesis H2 is presented in Figure 2.6.

Management team
- Bad leadership skill
H2+
- Poor relations between labor and superintendents Labor productivity
- Lack of labor surveillance fluctuation
- Lack of periodic meeting with labor

Figure 2.6: Management team factor and LPF

2.4.3 Factor related to motivation

Motivation is extremely important. Non motivated employees can have several

negative effects on your business. These include friction on the job, substandard output
in quality, a high turnover of employees, absenteeism, tardiness, and many of the
disciplinary problems that you wish to avoid. Enshasi et al (2007) identified 6 sub-
factors related to motivation factor. These sub-factors were placed in descending order
according to their importance: payment delay, lack of financial motivation system, lack
of labor recognition programs, non-provision of transport means, lack of places for
eating and relaxation and lack of training sessions. Durdyev et al (2011) also identified
3 sub-factor related to motivation factors, that are reworks, under-valued work/poor,
 19

late payment. It also supported by the research Kazaz et al(2008) such as: on-time
payment, amount of pay, working in social insurance, incentive payments and financial
rewards, discontinuity of work and union membership. Base on the previous research
above this study have been refined and collected 7 sub-factors related to the main
factor of motivation and stated a hypothesis as following.

Hypothesis H3: There is a positive impact of motivation factor on the fluctuation of

labor productivity

Hypothesis H3 is presented in Figure 2.7.

Motivation
- Lack of labor recognition program
- Little or no financial rewards
H3+
- Late payment Labor productivity

- Low amount of pay fluctuation

- Little or no welfare
- Poor condition of camping
- Lack of place for eating and relaxation

Figure 2.7: Motivation factor and LPF

2.4.4 Factor related to Schedule Compression

In a typical construction project, a contractor may often find that the time normally
expected to perform the work has been severely reduced. The reduction of time
available to complete a project is commonly known throughout the construction
industry as schedule compression. Schedule compression is a problem because it
negatively impacts labor productivity in various ways, and it becomes a source of
dispute between the owners and contractors. Base of the previous research of Kazaz et
al (2008), Durdyev et al (2011), Enshasi et al (2007), Ailabouni et al (2006), Soekiman
 20

et al (2010), and Homyun Jang et al (2009) this study have been refined and collected 5
sub-factors related to the main factor of Schedule Compression and stated a hypothesis
as following:

Hypothesis H4: There is a positive impact of schedule compression factor on the

fluctuation of labor productivity

Hypothesis H4 is presented in Figure 2.8.

Schedule compression
- Working 7 days per week without taking a holiday
- Frequency of working overtime
H4+
Labor productivity
- Shift work fluctuation
- Poor work planning
- Overcrowding

Figure 2.8: Schedule compression factor and LPF

2.4.5 Factor related to Material/Equipment

Material and Equipment are very important, as without them work cannot be done
progressively or to the required quality. Makulsawatudom et al (2001) indentified that
lack of material and lack of equipment were highlight as the most critical factor
affecting to productivity because of material are essential for the construction process.
Kazaz et al (2008) stated that lack of material is a universal problem and has a
significant degrading effect on site productivity for both developed and developing
countries. Improper material planning and on site transportation difficulties are
amongst the resource of lack of material. The case appeared as a result of material
shortage and it likely the most considerable part of material management practices
related with labor performance. When adequate supply of material is not possible,
workers try not to exhaust their current stockpile of supplies, so they may slow down
 21

their pace or output in anticipation of a delivery, resulting in idle times and cost
overruns.

Enshassi et al identified 3 sub-factors related to material/equipment factor, including

material shortage, tool and equipment shortages and unsuitability of material storage
location. Homyun Jang et al (2009) also suggested 11 sub-factors related to
material/equipment, they are equipment condition, number of equipment, equipment
service time, equipment transport environment, equipment procurement, equipment
performance, material condition, material quantity, materials transport environment,
material procurement and material applicability. These sub-factors about also
supported by Henry et al (2007), Ailabouni et al (2006) and Soekiman et al (2010).
Base on the previous research above and adapt with Vietnamese construction project
condition, this study have been refined and collected 6 sub-factors related to the main
factor of material/equipment and stated a hypothesis as following

Hypothesis H5: There is a positive impact of material/equipment factor on the

fluctuation of labor productivity.

Hypothesis H5 is presented in Figure 2.9.

Material/Equipment
- Material shortages
H5+
- Low quality of raw materials Labor productivity
- Unsuitable material storage location fluctuation
- Lost time to find material because of poor arrangement
- Equipment and tools shortages
- Poor condition of equipment and tools

Figure 2.9: Material/Equipment factor and LPF

 22

2.4.6 Factor related to Supervision

To follow-up and supervise labour while working is a vital aspect of any organization
because both it can result in extensions of project time and cost, and the quality on site
is controlled through inspection of the work completed by the gang. To improve the
supervision work, it is necessary to identify the factor affect on it. Enshasi et al (2007)
stated that all supervision factors have a high impact on productivity, and were ranked
according to their importance as follows: drawings and specifications alteration during
execution; inspection delay; rework; and supervisors’ absenteeism. In the study of
Henry et al (2007) also indicated the factor related to supervision group like:
incompetent supervisor, poor construction method, frequency rework, incomplete
drawing and design change, design complexity. Makulsawadom et al (2001)
indentified 7 sub-factors, including incomplete drawing, inspection delay, incompetent
supervisor, long instruction time, changing order, rework. The sub-factors related to
supervision factor also supported by Kazaz et al (2008) ), Durdyev et al (2011),
Homyun Jang et al (2009), Ailabouni et al (2006). Based on these previous research,
and after considering with Vietnamese construction project condition, this study have
been refined and collected 8 sub-factors related to the main factor of supervision and
stated a hypothesis as following

Hypothesis H6: There is a positive impact of supervision factor on the fluctuation of

labor productivity

Hypothesis H6 is presented in Figure 2.10.

 23

Supervision
- Poor or no supervision method
- Incompetent supervisors
- Changing of foremen H6+
Labor productivity
- Changing orders fluctuation
- Incomplete/revise drawing
- Inspection delay
- Rework
- Supervisors’ absenteeism

Figure 2.10: Supervision factor and LPF

2.4.7 Factor related to Safety

Safety is very important aspects of construction projects which are the most hazardous
endeavors have many work-related injuries and accidents. Accordingly, safety factors
must be considered in project lifecycle from beginning of a project to its end. To
improve project safety, the definition of safety factors and determination of their
importance are necessary. In some of the previous researches several safety factors are
introduced. Enshasi et al (2007) identified 7 factors under the safety group have been
placed in descending order as follows: accidents, violation of safety precautions,
insufficient lighting, bad ventilation, working at high places, unemployment of safety
officer on the construction site, and noise. This study also base on the past research of
Durdyev, Henry et al (2007), Homyun Jang et al (2009), and Makulsalsawadom et al
(2001) and after considering with Vietnamese construction project condition, this study
have been refined and collected 8 sub-factors related to the main factor of saftey and
stated a hypothesis as following
Hypothesis H7: There is a positive impact of safety factor on the fluctuation of labor
productivity
 24

Safety factor is presented in Figure 2.11.

Safety
- Ignore safety precaution
- Accident
- Inadequate lighting H7+
Labor productivity
- No have safety engineer on site
fluctuation
- Noise
- Unsafe working conditions
- Inadequate safety plan
- Lack of labor safety (clothes safety, …)

Figure 2.11: Safety factor and LPF

2.5 Project characteristic

According to Nitithamyong et al (2011), the project characteristic group includes

project location, type of owner, type of contract, type of project, project size, project
cost, project duration, complexity related to design and engineering, complexity related
to construction task. However, in the condition of Vietnam, some factors above could
be not easy to collect information form attendant, therefore this study will only
consider such factors: Type of owner, type of project and project value. The project
characteristics and labor productivity fluctuation of the project are stated in hypothesis
H8.

Hypothesis 8: There is a difference in Labor Productivity Fluctuation due to Project

Characteristics
 25

2.6 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework is presented in Figure 2.12 and consisting of 8 hypothesises

from H1 to H8, in there, the group factors correspond with H1 to H7 are independent and
quantitative variables, it affects directly on labour productivity fluctuation, a dependent
variable. Besides, Labour productivity fluctuation will also be different on project
characteristics (Project Type, Project Owner and Project Budget) and it is stated in H8.

Project characteristic
- Project Type
- Ownership of Project
- Project Budget

Workforce
H1+

H2+ H8
Management team

H3+
Motivation
H4+ Labor productivity
fluctuation
Schedule compression
H5+

Material/Equipment H6+

Supervision H7+

Safety

Figure 2.12: Conceptual framework

 26

In summary, based on the past studies and the theoretical concepts. The conceptual
frameworks was constructed with seven independent factors including workforce,
management team, motivation, schedule compression, material/equipment, supervision,
and safety positive impact on the dependent factor of labour productivity fluctuation.
 27

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to present the research process, methods using in
research, sampling design and data collection method.

3.1 Research process.

The research process consists of 8 steps illustrate in Figure 3.1.

Define Research Problem

Literature Review

Conceptual Framework

Research Design

Data needs & Source Sampling

Measurement Scales Design

Plan for Data Analysis

Pilot Survey

Data Collection of Official Survey

Data Analysis
Reliability Analysis Cronbach’s Alpha

Validity Analysis Exploratory Factor Analysis

Hypothesis Testing Regression and ANOVA

Analysis

Conclusions & Recommendations

Figure 3.1: Research process

 28

3.2 Sampling design

3.2.1 Population

The targeted interviewees in this research will be the person work for construction
companies and took part at least one construction project in HCMC or surrounding of
HCMC. The respondents also are the people who work as clients, contractors,
operational director, project manager, project coordinator, construction manager, site
manager, site engineer, foreman, superintendent and supervisor.

3.2.2 Sample size

There are two sampling approaches that are probability and non-probability sampling
but “There is no guarantee that the results obtained with a probability sample will be
more accurate than those obtained with non-probability sample, what the former allows
the researcher to do is measure the amount of sampling error likely to occur in his/her
sample. This provides a measure of the accuracy of the sample result. With non-
probability sampling no such error measures exists.” (Kinnear and Taylor, 1987).

Hair et al (1995) stated that “it is generally agreed that the minimum sample for
appropriate use for statistical analysis is equal to or greater than 5 time of independent
variables, but not less than 100”

n 100 and n 5k (where k is equal to number of variables).

This study has 46 variables, so the minimum size for this research is.

n = 5x46 = 230

Otherwise, Tabachnick & Fidell (2001) illustrated the minimum sample size for the
Multiple Regression should be
 29

n = 50 + 8m (where m is equal to the number of independent factors)

This study has 7 independent factor, so the minimum for multiple regression as below

n = 50 + 8x7 = 116

3.3 Measurement scales

The measurement scales of this study are represented in table 2.2

3.4 Questionnaire design

Givern (2006) stated that “Questionnaire is at the front line of the research – it is what
the general public understanding research, particularly social research, to be about”.

The MRS Code of Conduct (as cites in Van, 2010) stated the following to structuring
the questionnaire

- That the data collection process is fit for purpose and Clients have been advised
accordingly
- That the design and content of the data collection process or instrument is
appropriate for the audience being researched
- That Respondents are able to provide information in a way that reflects the view
they want to express, including don’t know prefer not to say where appropriate.
- That Respondents are not led towards a particular point of view
- That responses are capable of being interpreted in an unambiguous way
- That personal data collected are relevant and not excessive

The form of questionnaire consist of four sections as follow

Section 1: A cover letter expresses the research plan and intention to carry out the
research and research title.
 30

Section 2: General information about the project which respondent has involved,
including name of project, position in project of respondent, type of project, ownership
of project, budget of project and the difference between total actual labor hours and
planed labor hours of project.

Section 3: Including 46 measurement scales on affecting to the Labour Productivity

Fluctuation of construction project with Seven-point Likert scale from strongly
disagree to strongly agree.

Section 4: General in formation of respondent if any.

Finally the completed questionnaire in English version and Vietnamese version are
shown in Appendices 1 & 2.

3.5 Pilot survey

Based o literature of factor affecting to labour productivity, the pilot test research of the
conceptual model have been developed with seven main factor which are supposed to
be effected to labour productivity fluctuation of construction project in Vietnam. The
draft questionnaire was built from the consolidation and citing from previous research
of the same topic. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are conducted in order to
consolidate for the quality of this research. There are two phases in research design
step of this study: Pilot test survey and main survey. Afterward, the measurement
scales and pilot questionnaire on factor affecting to the fluctuation of labour
productivity were prepare in qualitative research and the pilot survey is included two
steps

The first step: a qualitative research with preliminary questionnaire was conducted with
pilot interview with four project managers and five construction manager of
 31

construction project in Vietnam by in-dept interview. This survey is constructed from

literature review and to find out the mistakes or ambiguities of the draft questionnaires.

The second step: a quantitative research is carried out randomly with randomly 40
interviewees who are project manager, construction manager, foreman and supervisor
form difference project by face-to-face interview and sending email for the final
measurement scale testing before launching the main survey

3.6 Data collection

The primary data will be collected via direct interview or indirect through email or
online survey. The secondary data sources are from extant literature, international
business journals, articles, books, professional newspaper and business or expertise
web site.

3.7 Descriptive statistics

The Descriptive Statistic is conducted to provide the general information like Mode of
data collection, the Position of respondents in project, Type of project, Project
Ownership and Project Budget.

3.8 Reliability analysis

The assessment of Scale Reliability is a measurement of the internal consistency of the

constructed items in this research in order to evaluate the reliability of each variable in
measurement scales. Otherwise, the observed variables describe the common construct.
The constructs with high reliability are those in which the iems are highly inter-
correlated. It states that they are all measured with the same construct (Hair et al, 1998)

Reliability Analysis is used for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and item tital correlation.
The reliability coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha also illustrates how relation of the items
in a set which are significantly correlated from one to another.
 32

In generally, the value of Cronbach’s alpha for acceptable reliability is 0.7 and it could
decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research and any variables which have the value of
Corrected Item-Total Correlation below 0.4 would be consider to be rejected (Hair et
al, 1998).

3.9 Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) could be described as orderly simplification of

interrelated measures. EFA, traditionally, has been used to explore the possible
underlying factor structure of a set of observed variables without imposing a
preconceived structure on the outcome. By performing EFA, the underlying factor
structure is identified.
For this study, Exploratory Factor Analysis will be conducted with Varimax rotation in
condition of KMO value more than 0.5 and factor loading are over 0.5.

3.10 Multiple regression analysis

The main task of statistic analysis is applied in the Multiple Linear Regression in order
to study the correlation and measure the prediction level of 7 independent factors on
dependent factor.

3.11 ANOVA analysis

ANOVA will be conducted to check the difference among Project Characteristics

Group on Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

In summary this chapter draws out the research process which direct the study from
research gaps to literature review, conceptual framework, research design, pilot survey,
data collection and method using to analysis the data.
 33

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

The previous chapter provided a theoretical discussion of the research and statistical
methodology. This chapter focuses on the interpretation and discussion of the research
result, including sample descriptive statistics, reliability & validity analysis and
hypotheses testing.

4.1 Sample descriptive statistics

The official survey was conducted with final questionnaire by face to face interview,
online survey and sending email to experienced people in construction industry in
Vietnam. In order to get the high rate of response, the face to face interview is the best
way get the answer but due to the time constraint there are only 125 questionnaires
were sent directly to experience manager and engineer in construction industry and 390
indirectly by email with attached file or the link for doing online. There were 270
answers returned totally but only 233 answers are valid. In summary, the frequency of
each answering way is presented as Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Mode of data collection

Mode of data collection Frequency Percent

Interview 89 38.2
Receipt from email 38 16.3
Receipt from online survey 106 45.5
Total 233 100.0

The descriptive statistics will describe the characteristics of project and interviewees,
including the position of respondents in project, type of project, ownership of project
and total investment of project. These main characteristics are showed from Table 4.2
to Table 4.4.
 34

As shown in Table 4.2 there were 50.21% of respondents in the Supervisor position,
9.4% of foreman position, 15.88% of respondents are supervisors of client and the
remaining position are 10.30% of project, 9.87% of site manager and 4.34% of other
position.

Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents’ position

Respondent’s position Frequency Percent

Supervisor of client 15.88 37
Project manager 10.30 24
Site manager 9.87 23
Supervisor 50.21 117
Foreman 9.40 22
Other 4.34 10
Total 100.00 233

Table 4.3: Type of project

Type of project Frequency Percent

Civil construction 34.33 80
Bridge and highway construction 27.04 63
Port and Coastal costruction 14.59 34
Industrial construction 24.04 56
Total 100.00 233

In term of type of project this research divides it to four areas base on its’ similar
characteristics, including civil construction, bridge and highway construction, port and
coastal construction and industrial construction. According to Table 4.3, the
 35

respondents in Civil construction project has a high rate with 34.33% and 27.04% is
from Bridge and Highway construction, 24.04% of industrial construction project and
lowest rate from port and coastal construction project with 14.59%.

The Table 4.4 is about ownership of project, the most respondents are from State-
owned company with rate of 52.79%, the remaining are 20.17% of Joint-venture
company, 15.45% of Foreign company and 11,59% of Private company.

Table 4.4: Ownership of project

Ownership of project Frequency Percent

State-owner company 32.62 76
Joint-venture company 27.47 64
Foreign company 14.59 34
Private company 25.32 59
Toatl 100.00 233

Table 4.5: Total budget of project

Total budget of project Frequency Percent

From USD 500,000 to 5 milion 7.30 17
From USD 5 milion to 10 milion 24.46 57
From USD 10 milion to 20 milion 39.48 92
More than USD 20 milion 28.76 67
Total 100.00 233

The respondents are mainly come from the big project so the budget need for the
project is quite high. As Table 4.5 the budget more than USD 20 milion has a high rate
at 42.49% and budget from USD 10 milion to USD 20 milion has 10.73%, the
 36

remaining are budgets from USD 5 milion to USD 10 milion and from USD 500.000 to
USD 5 milion at rate inturn 15.02% and 31.76%.

4.2 Reliability analysis

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to test the reliability of the measurement scales,
the value of Cronbach’s alpha need to be accepted is over 0.6 and any variables which
the Item-total correlation are smaller than 0.3 will be deleted. After considering the
result of the first reliability testing on all proposed factors, there were 6 variables
should be deleted because it have the Item-total correlation quite smaller than 0.3 or
minus as show in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Rejected variables

Factor Variable name/scale to be deleted Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if

Correlation Item Deleted
V1.3 High workforce absenteeism .002 .738
Workforce
V1.6 Increase of labor age .058 .727

Management V2.2 Poor relations between labor and

-.041 .715
Team superintendents
Motivation V3.7 Lack of place for eating and relaxation -.054 .876

V6.3 Changing of foreman frequently -.077 .787

Supervision
V6.8 High supervisors’ absenteeism -.010 .773

The final reliability testing were conducted after deleted 6 variables in Table 4.2 above
and gave a good result which all correlated item-total correlation value in all scales are
over 0.3. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of all factor were higher than 0.7 according to
Table 4.7.
 37

Table 4.7: Reliability analysis result

Item-Total Statistics Reliability Statistics

Scale Scale
Corrected Cronbach's
Mean if Variance Cronbach's
Variable Item-Total Alpha if Item N of Items
Item if Item Alpha
Correlation Deleted
Deleted Deleted
Workforce
V.1.1 21.7983 39.498 0.648 0.751
V.1.2 21.8326 42.011 0.51 0.783
V.1.4 21.7124 40.645 0.638 0.755
0.803 6
V.1.5 22.0515 39.325 0.628 0.756
V.1.7 23.6652 45.87 0.343 0.818
V.1.8 22.4592 39.198 0.603 0.762
Management Team
V.2.1 7.4678 11.500 .499 .668
V.2.3 8.0043 11.246 .528 .633 0.715 3
V.2.4 7.3004 10.659 .576 .573
Motivation
V.3.1 22.15021 48.533 0.646 0.861
V.3.2 21.90558 47.638 0.73 0.846
V.3.3 21.81545 48.237 0.725 0.847
0.876 6
V.3.4 21.74249 51.451 0.611 0.866
V.3.5 21.56652 50.566 0.657 0.859
V.3.6 21.82833 49.082 0.716 0.849
Schedule Compression
V.4.1 17.0815 39.023 0.688 0.842
V.4.2 16.9657 43.714 0.602 0.861
V.4.3 17.1159 39.336 0.741 0.828 0.868 5
V.4.4 17.0215 41.168 0.691 0.84
V.4.5 17.0172 40.551 0.740 0.829
 38

Table 4.7: Continue

Material/equipment
V.5.1 22.1202 48.692 .556 .850
V.5.2 22.5536 46.429 .618 .840
V.5.3 22.6824 45.502 .768 .814
0.858 6
V.5.4 22.3391 46.156 .630 .837
V.5.5 22.4077 45.018 .653 .833
V.5.6 22.4678 45.741 .672 .829
Supervision
V.6.1 20.7983 50.912 .502 .857
V.6.2 20.7597 48.114 .577 .845
V.6.4 20.4206 46.133 .765 .810
0.856 6
V.6.5 20.4807 47.475 .618 .837
V.6.6 20.3991 47.198 .746 .815
V.6.7 20.1674 46.080 .681 .825
Safety
V.7.1 26.7082 106.682 0.52 0.851
V.7.2 26.4721 102.121 0.586 0.844
V.7.3 26.6438 103.282 0.580 0.845
V.7.4 26.3519 96.746 0.583 0.847
0.859 8
V.7.5 25.9614 100.563 0.632 0.839
V.7.6 26.0858 101.725 0.646 0.838
V.7.7 26.1588 102.824 0.594 0.844
V.7.8 26.0086 98.155 0.714 0.830
 39

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis

The main aim of factor analysis is to describe a larger number of variables by means of
a smaller set of composite variables. This statistical technique is very useful for
investigation of the underlying structure of a questionnaire. All the items that have the
same dimension should correlate with one another and factor analysis uses this to
uncover composite variables. These cluster variables are also known as “factor” and
aid the substantive interpretation of data.

The conceptual framework of this study has been defined 46 independent variables
affecting to the fluctuation of labor productivity of construction project. After
conducting reliability analysis, totally 6 variables have been deleted because of the low
Item-total correlation. Therefore, there were 38 variables before do the EFA analysis.

At the first EFA analysis, the result in Rotated Component Matrix showed that the
variable V.7.1 get blank space because of loading score less than 0.5 and the variable
V.1.7 did not cluster with any variables, for this reason variables V.7.1 and V.1.7 were
rejected.

After deleted 2 variables, the final factor analysis was done which results of Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) & Bartlett’s Test, eigenvalues, scree plots and rotated factor
matrices are illustrated in the tables and figure below.

As indicated in Table 4.8, the KMO test for measuring sampling adequacy and
Bartlett’s tes of sphericity display satisfactory results. The KMO value (0.850) is
greater than 05 which mean the data set is likely to factor well. In addition, Bartlett’s
test shows the significant value smaller than 0.05 which indicating that the correlation
matrix is significant different from an identity matrix and the correlation between
variables are all zero. As result, both acceptances for diagnostic tests confirm that the
data are suitable for factor analysis.
 40

Table 4.8: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .844

Approx. Chi-Square 5657.404

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 703

Sig. .000

The determination of the number of factors is usually done by considering only factors
with Eigen values greater than 1, since each variable is expected to have a variance of
1. Table 4.9 shows 38 factors, one for each variable and it is the maximum number of
factors we can have. However, only the first 6 Factor which have the eigenvalue more
than 1 are extracted for analysis. Looking at the “% of Variance" column under “Initial
Eigenvalues” it can be seen that the first component explains 28.274% of the
information from the original variables and looking at the “Cumulative %” column
shows that with 6 factors were extracted, it could explain 62.777% of the information
contained in the original variables.

Table 4.9: Total variance explain of factor analysis

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %

1 10.744 28.274 28.274 10.744 28.274 28.274 4.828 12.704 12.704

2 3.960 10.420 38.694 3.960 10.420 38.694 4.601 12.107 24.811

3 2.756 7.253 45.947 2.756 7.253 45.947 3.771 9.923 34.734

4 2.462 6.479 52.426 2.462 6.479 52.426 3.633 9.561 44.295

5 2.226 5.859 58.285 2.226 5.859 58.285 3.518 9.257 53.551

6 1.707 4.493 62.777 1.707 4.493 62.777 3.506 9.226 62.777

7 .985 2.592 65.369

… … … …

38 .076 .200 100.000

 41

As mentioned in Chapter 2, there were 48 variables are grouped to 7 proposed factors

affecting to the fluctuation of labour productivity in the construction project. After
conducting the Reliability & Exploratory Factor Analysis, there were 8 variables have
been rejected and 38 remained variables are loaded to 6 factors, which have the factor
loadings are over 0.5 and Cronbach’s Alphas for reliability analysis exceed 0.7. All the
information relate to Factor Loading, Eigenvalue, Total Variance Explained (%),
Keiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure, Cronbach’s Alpha are summary in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Factor analysis results

Variable’s name Factor

Factor F1: Supervision F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
V.2.3 Lack of labor surveillance .789

V.6.4 Frequency of changing order .769

V.6.6 Frequency of inspection delay .754

V.6.7 Frequency of rework .686

V.6.5 Incomplete/revise drawing .682

V.6.2 Incompetent supervisors .679

V.2.4 Lack of periodic meeting with labor .598

V.6.1 Poor or no supervision method .512

Factor 2: Safety F2
V.7.8 Lack of labor safety .784

V.7.5 Too noisy on site .720

V.7.7 Inadequate safety plan .709

V.7.6 Unsafe working conditions .702

V.7.3 Inadequate lighting .645

V.7.4 No have safety engineer on site .607

V.7.2 High accident rate .601

Factor 3 Motivation F3
V.3.6 Poor condition of camping .757

V.3.3 Little or no welfare .756

V.3.5 Lack of labor recognition program .743

V.3.4 Little or no financial rewards .742

V.3.2 Low amount of pay .701

V.3.1 Late payment .617

 42

Table 4.10: Continue

Factor 4: Workforce F4
V.1.5 Low labour morales/commitment .747

V.1.4 High workforce turnover .737

Lack of skill and experience of the

V.1.1 .736
workers
V.1.8 Poor relations among workers .713

Lack of empowerment (training and

V.1.2 .628
resourcing)
V.2.1 Bad leadership skill of management .524

team
Factor 5: Material/equipment F5
V.5.3 Unsuitable material storage location .845

V.5.4 Lost time to find material because of .755

V.5.5 poor arrangement

Equipment and tools shortages .620

Poor condition of equipment and

V.5.6 .613
tools
V.5.2 Low quality of raw material .612

V.5.1 Material shortages .592

Factor 6: Schedule Compression F6

Frequency of working 7 days per
V.4.1 .826
week without taking a holiday
V.4.5 Overcrowding .822

V.4.3 Frequency of Shift work .789

V.4.2 Frequency of working overtime .777

V.4.4 Poor work planning .740

Eigenvalue 10.744 3.960 2.756 2.462 2.226 1.707

Variance Explained (%) 12.704 12.107 9.923 9.561 9.257 9.226

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.894 0.851 0.876 0.834 0.858 0.868

Total Variance Explained (%) 62.777

Keiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure 0.844

 43

4.4 Revised the research model

After conducted Reliability analysis, there were 6 variables have been deleted because
of the Corrected Item-Total coefficient of these variables are too low or minus, that
variables are: High workforce absenteeism, increase of labour age, poor relations
between labour and superintendents, lack of place for eating and relaxation, changing
foreman frequently and high supervisor’ absenteeism. Beside that Management Team
factor has been deleted because of its variables were adapted to another factor after
conducted the Eploratory Factor Analysis. For the reason above, the conceptual model
has been revised as Figure 4.1 and the Hypothesis from H1 and H3 to H6 have the same
statement that is: its’ independent factors including workforce, motivation, schedule
compression, material/equipment, supervision, safety have a positive impact on the
fluctuation of labour productivity. The hypothesis H2 is deleted.

Project characteristic

H1+
- Project Type
Workforce
- Ownership of Project
- Project Budget
Motivation H3+

H8
Schedule Compression H4+

Labor productivity
Material/Equipment H5+
fluctuation
H6+
Supervision
H7+

Safety

Figure 4.1: Revised conceptual model

 44

4.5 Multiple regression analysis

4.5.1 Correlation analysis

Pearson correlations were calculated to identify the correlations between independent

factors and dependent factor. Looking at Table 4.11, it could see that the strongest
correlation of a predictor factor with Supervision is 0.655 for LPF. Furthermore, Field (2005)
stated that the correlation coefficient should not be over 0.8 to avoid multicollinearity, hence
the independent variables can be further utilized for multiple regression analysis.

Table 4.11: Correlation analysis result

Workforce Motivation Schedule Material/ Supervision Safety LPF

Compression Equipment
Pearson
1 .282** .179** .474** .471** .348** .584**
Workforce Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
.282** 1 .043 .501** .494** .380** .607**
Motivation Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .510 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
Schedule .179** .043 1 .069 .188** -.062 .348**
Correlation
Compression
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .510 .293 .004 .346 .000
Pearson
Material/ .474** .501** .069 1 .530** .468** .621**
Correlation
Equipment
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .293 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
.471** .494** .188** .530** 1 .431** .655**
Supervision Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .004 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
.348** .380** -.062 .468** .431** 1 .371**
Safety Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .346 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
.584** .607** .348** .621** .655** .371** 1
LPF Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 45

4.5.2 Multiple linear regression analysis

4.5.2.1 Theory model

The identification of relationship between independent factors and the Fluctuation of

Labour Productivity (LPF) is conducted by Multiple Linear Regression Analysis.

The theoretical model for this relationship is formatted as equation [4.1]

LPF = 1 F1 + 2F2 + 3F 3 + 4F 4 + 5F5 + 6F 6 + [4.1]

Where
F1 : Supervision Factor
F2 : Safety Factor
F3 : Motivation Factor
F4 : Workforce factor
F5 : Material/Equipment Factor
F6 : Schedule Compression Factor
i : Standardized coefficient of factor i (i=1to 6)
: Errors

4.5.2.2 Result on the linear regression analysis

Considering the outcome from the Factor Analysis, the items for independent variables
were aggregated in which factor loading exceeded 0.5 were selected. After the data
were aggregated, the Multiple Regression was conducted to reveal how different
factors affecting the Labour Productivity Fluctuation (LPF). The result of Multiple
Linear Regression is indicated in Table 4.12 to Table 4.14.
 46

Table 4.12 shows the adjusted R2 is 0.687, meaning that 68.7% of the variance in LPF
could be explained by the six independent factors

Table 4.12: Model summary of multiple linear regression analysis

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics

Square the Estimate R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F
Change Change

1 .834a .695 .687 .39728 .695 85.890 6 226 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Material/Equipment, Schedule Compression, Safety, Workforce, Motivation, Supervision

Table 4.13: ANOVA of multiple linear regression analysis

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 6 .000b
81.335 13.556 85.890
1 Residual 226
35.669 .158
Total 232
117.004
a. Dependent Variable: LPF

b. Predictors: (Constant), Material/Equipment, Schedule Compression, Safety, Workforce, Motivation, Supervision

The next part of the output is the coefficient section, after checking for the model, the
identification of relationship between predictors and dependent factor are fit the most
important. The standardized coefficients ( ) are the coefficients of the estimated
regression model. In addition, we tested histogram and normal proability plot, they
satisfy the regression analysis. From the value in Beta Colum of Table 4.14 the
regression equation can be written as follows:

LPF = 0.236F1 + 0.310F3 + 250F4 + 0.217F5 + 0.229F6 +

 47

Table 4.14: Coefficient of multiple linear regression analysis

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) .679 .129 5.251 .000

Workforce .133 .024 .250 5.637 .000 .687 1.457

Motivation .159 .023 .310 6.882 .000 .664 1.505

1 Schedule Compression .104 .017 .229 5.983 .000 .921 1.086

Material/Equipment .115 .026 .217 4.412 .000 .557 1.795

Supervision .121 .025 .236 4.825 .000 .562 1.780

Safety -.011 .021 -.023 -.526 .599 .696 1.438

a. Dependent Variable: LPF
b. Predictors: (Constant), Workforce, Motivation, Schedule Compression, Material/Equipment, Supervision, Safety

4.5.3 Hypothesis testing

Based on the value of Beta and Sig in Table 4.14, the testing for Hypothesis is
conducted one by one as following.

Hypothesis H1

Hypothesis H1 posited that there is a positive impact of Workforce factor on the

fluctuation of labor productivity, Table show the value ( = 0.250, t = 5.637, p = 0.000)
at 1 percent significance level. Hence, Hypothesis H1 is verified.

Hypothesis H3

According to Table, Motivation was found to have a significant effect on LPF ( =

0.310, t = 6.882, p = 0.000). There force there is a positive impact of Motivation factor
on the fluctuation of labor productivity. Thus, Hypothesis H3 is supported.
 48

Hypothesis H4

The Standardized Regression coefficient beta of Schedule Compression on LPF is

0.229 and value of t is 5.983 (>2) and p = 0.000. This means at the percentage of 95 of
confident, there is a statistics evidence to conclude that there is a positive impact of
Schedule Compression factor on the fluctuation of labor productivity. Therefore,
Hypothesis H4 is supported.

Hypothesis H5

The Standardized Regression coefficient beta of Material/Equipment on LPF is 0.217

and value of t is 4.412 (>2) and p = 0.000. This means at the percentage of 95 of
confident, there is a statistics evidence to conclude that there is a positive impact of
Material/Equipment factor on the fluctuation of labor productivity. Therefore,
Hypothesis H5 is supported.

Hypothesis H6

Hypothesis H6 stated that, there is a positive impact of Supervision factor on the

fluctuation of labor productivity. As shown in Table 4.14, results revealed significant
result ( = 0.236, t = 4.825, p = 0.000). Thus, Hypothesis H6 is supported.

Hypothesis H7

Hypothesis H7 exhibited a positive impact of Safety factor on the fluctuation of labor

productivity. As ( = - 0.023, t = -0.526, p = 0.599>0.05), posited that H7 is not
supported by the data. This result is not consistent with previous study of Aynur Kazaz
et al (2008).Durdyev S, and Mbachu, J (2011). Enshasi et al (2007) …, it might have
the difference in perception of respondent in Vietnam with respondents from other
countries.
.
 49

Table 4.15: Hypothesis summary

No. Hypothesis statement Testing result

H1 There is a positive impact of Workforce factor on the Supported

fluctuation of labor productivity

H3 There is a positive impact of Motivation factor on the Supported

fluctuation of labor productivity.

H4 There is a positive impact of Schedule Compression Supported

factor on the fluctuation of labor productivity

H5 There is a positive impact of Material/Equipment factor Supported

on the fluctuation of labor productivity

H6 There is a positive impact of Supervision factor on the Supported

fluctuation of labor productivity

H7 There is a positive impact of Safety factor on the None Supported

fluctuation of labor productivity

4.5.4 One-Way ANOVA analysis in project characteristic

After identifying the factors which positive impact on Labor Productivity Fluctuation
(LPF) in construction project in Vietnam, the One-way ANOVA method was
performed to analyze the difference in LPF due to the Project Characteristics, including
Type of Project, Project Ownership and the Budget of Project.

4.5.4.1 One-Way ANOVA testing in type of project

The Hypothesis for ANOVA testing in Type of Project is stated as below.

 50

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Type of Project Group on affecting to

Labor Productivity Fluctuation.
Alternative Hypothesis: There are differences between Type of Project Group on
affecting to Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

Table 4.16: Descriptive for type of project group

LPF
95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound

Industrial construction 56 3.3214 .76532 .10227 3.1165 3.5264 2.00 4.00

Port and Coastal construction 34 3.0588 .69375 .11898 2.8168 3.3009 2.00 4.00

Civil construction 80 3.3875 .73766 .08247 3.2233 3.5517 2.00 4.00

Bridge and highway construction 63 3.6032 .55474 .06989 3.4635 3.7429 2.00 4.00

Total 233 3.3820 .71016 .04652 3.2903 3.4736 2.00 4.00

Table 4.17: ANOVA for type of project group

LPF
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.841 3 2.280 4.740 .003

Within Groups 110.164 229 .481

Total 117.004 232

According to Seltman (2009) the value of the F-statistic tend to fall around 1.0 when
the null hypothesis is true and are bigger when the alternative is true. And we reject
Null Hypothesis if p =0.05.

As indicated in Table 4.17, the F-value is 4.920 and p = 0.002 < 0.05, meaning that
Null Hypothesis is rejected and Alternative Hypothesis is accepted. Therefore it could
 51

be concluded that there are significant difference effect of Project Type on Labor
Productivity Fluctuation.

4.5.4.2 One-Way ANOVA testing in project ownership

The Hypothesis for ANOVA testing in Project Ownership is stated as below.

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Project Ownership Group on affecting

to Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

Alternative Hypothesis: There are significant differences between Project Ownership

Group on affecting to Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

Table 4.18: Descriptive for project ownership group

LPF
95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Upper Minimum Maximum
Bound Bound
Joint-venture company 64 3.3594 .76360 .09545 3.1686 3.5501 2.00 4.00

Private company 59 3.1695 .74631 .09716 2.9750 3.3640 2.00 4.00

State-owner company 76 3.4079 .65681 .07534 3.2578 3.5580 2.00 4.00

Foreign company 34 3.7353 .51102 .08764 3.5570 3.9136 2.00 4.00

Total 233 3.3820 .71016 .04652 3.2903 3.4736 2.00 4.00

Table 4.19: ANOVA for project ownership group

LPF
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.992 3 2.331 4.851 .003

Within Groups 110.012 229 .480

Total 117.004 232

 52

Table 4.19 shows that the F-value is 4.851 and p = 0.003 < 0.05, meaning that Null
Hypothesis is rejected and Alternative Hypothesis is accepted. Therefore it could be
concluded that there are significant difference effect of Project Ownership on Labor
Productivity Fluctuation.

4.5.4.3 One-Way ANOVA testing in project budget

The Hypothesis for ANOVA testing in Project Budget is stated as below.

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Project Budget Group on affecting to

Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

Alternative Hypothesis: There are significant differences between Project Budget

Group on affecting to Labor Productivity Fluctuation.

Table 4.20 shows that the F-value is 5.414 and p = 0.001 < 0.05, meaning that Null
Hypothesis is rejected and Alternative Hypothesis is accepted. Therefore it could be
concluded that there are significant difference effect of Project Budget on Labor
Productivity Fluctuation.

Table 4.20: Descriptive for project budget group

LPF
95% Confidence
N Mean Std. Std. Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound

From USD 500,000 to 5 milion 17 3.1176 .69663 .16896 2.7595 3.4758 2.00 4.00

From USD 5 milion to 10 milion 57 3.0877 .76253 .10100 2.8854 3.2900 2.00 4.00

From USD 10 milion to 20 milion 92 3.3696 .70660 .07367 3.2232 3.5159 2.00 4.00

More than USD 20 milion 67 3.7164 .51657 .06311 3.5904 3.8424 2.00 4.00

Total 233 3.3820 .71016 .04652 3.2903 3.4736 2.00 4.00

 53

Table 4.21: ANOVA for project budget group

LPF
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 13.631 3 4.544 10.066 .000

Within Groups 103.373 229 .451

Total 117.004 232

4.5.5 Results of ANOVA testing on project characteristics

Base on the result of One-Way ANOVA testing on Type of Project, Project Ownership,
Project Budget, it could be concluded that there is a significant difference in Labor
Productivity Fluctuation due to Project Characteristics. Hence, Hypothesis H8 is
accepted.

4.6 Summary of data analysis result

After conduct Reliability Analysis, Factor Analysis, Multi Linear Regression Analysis,
ANOVA Analysis on 46 variables affecting to labour productivity fluctuation, there
were 6 variables have been deleted because of its’ Corrected – Item Total Correlation
value are smaller than 0.3 within Reliability Analysis, including: high workforce
absenteeism , increase of labor age, poor relations between labor and superintendents,
lack of place for eating and relaxation, changing of foreman frequently, high
supervisors’ absenteeism, and after conduct Factor Analysis, the variables Poor
relations among workers and Ignore safety precaution are deleted, the management
team factor also removed because of its’ variables: Bad leadership skill, Lack of labor
surveillance, Lack of periodic meeting with labor have been moved to supervision and
workforce factor. After conducted Multi Linear Regression Analysis, workforce,
motivation, schedule compression, material/equipment, supervision factor are
supported, but safety factor was not supported by the research. Based on that result,
 54

this research has indentified the research model of the factors affecting to labor
productivity in construction project in Vietnam, which is presented in Figure 4.2.

Project characteristic
1. Type of project
2. Project Ownership
3. Project Budget
Supervision 0.236

Motivation 0.310

0.250 Labor productivity

Workforce fluctuation

0.217
Material/Equipment
0.229

Schedule Compression

Figure 4.2: Final research model

In summary, after conduct Reliability Analysis and Exploratory analysis for 7 main
factors, there were 8 variables have been deleted and the management team factor was
remove. The remaining 6 hypothesis were tested in regression analysis and there are 5
hypothesise are supported. Beside that the objectives of this study have been achieved
through out this chapter which identify the relationship between independent factors
and dependent factor. The Hypothesis H8 also is supported by ANOVA analysis.
 55

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The most significant objective of this study is to develop a model in order to determine
the factors affecting on the fluctuation of labour productivity in construction project
and the strength of that affection. First, this chapter summarises the main finding and
also outline for the future research. Next, it addresses the implications of research
results. Finally, this chapter presents the limitation and future research.

5.1 Research finding

The proposed concept model of this study proposed seven independent factors affect
Labour Productivity Fluctuation in construction project which are Workforce factor,
Management Team, Motivation, Schedule Compression, Material/Equipment,
Supervision and Safety Factor. After conducting Reliability analysis, Exploratory
Analysis, there were 8 independent variables are rejected because of Corrected Item-
Total coefficient less than 0.3 and loading score less than 0.5. Furthermore, variable
V.2.1 (Bad leadership skill), V.2.3 (Lack of labor surveillance) and V.2.4 (Lack of
periodic meeting with labor) in Leadership Skill Factor have been loaded to another
factor. Bad Leadership Skill variable move to Workforce Factor, Lack of labor
surveillance variable and Lack of periodic meeting with labor variable move to
Supervision Factor as presented in Table 5.7, after considering that this permutation
could be explained by the same properties of variable with the new factor it is adapted
to. There was no changing in that variables and factors and the number of factor
decrease from 7 to 6 factors with Leadership Skill factor has been deleted.

The Multiple Linear Regression was performed and defined 5 independent factors
positively affecting Labor Productivity Fluctuation as final research model in
Figure 5.7. Regression analysis indicates that the model explains 68.7% of the variance
in Labor Productivity Fluctuation. Among five extracted factors, Motivation Factor is
 56

the most positively affecting to the Labor Productivity Fluctuation (LPF) with highest
standardized beta of 0.310. It means that the any changing of Motivation factor would
be most affect to LPF than others. Then the descending order of relation with LPF is
Workforce factor, Supervision factor, Schedule Compression factor and
Material/Equipment Factor. Therefore, the project manager who is handling the
construction project in Vietnam needs to pay attention on those factors, especially
Motivation factor and Workforce factor.

5.2 Managerial implications

As finding from chapter 5, there are five factors positively affecting to the Labour
Productivity Fluctuation, including Supervision factor, Motivation factor, Workforce
factor, Material/Equipment factor and Schedule Compression Factor.

Firstly, the Motivation factor has the most affecting to the Labour Productivity
Fluctuation with the highest standardized beta of 0.310. The labor’s satisfaction is low
could make the Labor Productivity decrease, therefore, the Vietnamese construction
company should increase labor’s satisfaction by conducting a reasonable salary and
welfare structure, developing financial reward or recognition program and improving
the living condition on site.

Secondly, Workforce factor play an important role during the process of project, bad
workforce is a major problem and seriously affects the time to accomplish the project
task. Base on the standardized beta value of workforce factor, it suggested that the
project manager in Vietnamese should increase their leadership skill and the labor skill
in the project by appropriate training program, it is also necessary to improve labor
commitment and the relationship among worker by increasing labor benefit and team
building program.
 57

The rest of found three factors are Supervision factor, Material/Equipment factor and
Schedule Compression factor are positively impact the Labor Productivity Fluctuation
in construction project, to mitigate that fluctuation, the construction company should
improve Supervision factor by implementing periodic meeting and ensure supervisors
were correctly selected, the designer team also should be quite experienced to avoid
revised drawing too much. Material delay and material arrangement, tool and
equipment should be improved to have the better Material/Equipment factor to increase
labor productivity. Working overtime too much also affects the labor productivity, to
improve, the planning software should be used in the project to have a good planning
work to reduce the frequency of working overtime and make the labor more
productivity.

The result of ANOVA analysis on project characteristic also indicated that, there are a
different in labour productivity fluctuation due on project characteristic.

5.3 Limitations and future research

Besides the contributions, this research also has some limitations. The projects which
are conducted the survey are mainly located in the South of Vietnam especially in
HCM, hence the result might not reflect enough for whole construction project in
Vietnam. Hopefully, this limitation would be improved in the further study by
conducting the survey more in the Middle and the North of Vietnam to have the full
perspectives about the Labour Productivity Fluctuation for the whole Vietnam range.

Another limitation arises from the use of such comprehensive questionnaire. The
questionnaire consist of 52 questions which take long time to answer, especially the
question involve to the percent of different between total actual labor hours of
project/work package in project and total planned labor hours of project/work package
 58

in project. For that reason, it could have influenced respondents’ willingness to

complete the questionnaire.
 59

REFERENCE

A guide to the project management body of knowledge (4th ed.). (2008). Newtown
Square: Project Management Institute.

Ailabouni, N., Gidado, K., & Painting N. (2007). Fators affecting employee
productivity in the UEA construction industry. ICONDA CIBibrary. Retrieved
2007, form http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-
list.jsp?A&idSuche =CIB+DC10773

Durdyev, S., & Mbachu, J. (2011). On-site Labour Productivity of New Zealand
Construction Industry: Key Constraints and Improvement Measures.
Australasian Journal of Construction Economic and Building, 1(3), 18-33.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, A., Mustafa, Z. A., & Mayer, P. E. (2007). Factors affecting
labour productivity in building project in the Gaza strip. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 8(4), 245-254. doi:
10.1080/13923730.2007.96364 44.

Field, A. (2nd ed.). (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage

Freeman, R. (2008). Labour productivity indicators (p.5). OECD Statistics Directorate.

Retrieved May, 2008 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/15/41354425.pdf

General Statistic Office of Vietnam. (2011). Structure of gross domestic product at

current prices by types of ownership and kinds of economic activity. Retrieved,
2011, from
http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=468&idmid=3&ItemID=12977

General Statistic Office of Vietnam. (2011). Structure of employed population at 15

years of age and above as of annual 1 July by kinds of economic activity.
Retrieved, 2011, from
http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=467&idmid=3&ItemID=12889
 60

Givern, Y. M. (2 nd ed.). (2006). The practices of market and social research: an

introduction. London: Prentic Hall Press.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (6 th ed.).
(1998) Multivariate Data analysis. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hendrickson, C. (1998) Project management for construction: fundamental concept for

owners, engineers, architects and builders. Pittsburgh: Prentice Hall.

Henry, M. J., Jackson, A. M., Bengt, H. (2007). Factors affecting the productivity of
building craftmen – studies of Uganda. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 8(3), 169-176. doi: 10.1080/13923730.2007.9636434.

Homyun Jang, Kyonghoom Kim, Juhyung Kim, and Jaejun Kim. (2011). Labour
productivity model for reinforced concrete construction projects. Construction
Innovationm Process, Management,11(1), 92-113. doi:
10.1108/14714171111104 655.

Institute of Labour Science and Social Affairs. (2010). Labour and social trends in
Vietnam 2009/2010. Retrieved June, 2010, from
httpt://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/.../wcms_142174

Kazaz, A., Manisali, E., & Ulubeyli, S. (2008). Effect of basic motivational factor on
construction workforce productivity in Turkey. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 14(2), 95-106. doi: 10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.4.

Kinnear, & Taylor (1987). Marketing research: an apply approach (p. 207), New
York: McGraw Hill.

Lake, C. (2001). Mastering project management: key skill in ensuring profitable and
successful projects (p. 16). London: Thorogood.
 61

Makulsawatudom, A., Emsley, M. (2001). Factors affecting the productivity of the

construction industry in Thailand: the project managers’ perception. Association
of Researchers in Construction management, 1, 281-290.

Mostafa, A. A. Z. (2003). Study of measurement of labour productivity in the

Palestinian construction industry: the gaza strip. Master thesis, Islamic
University of Gaza-Palestine. Retrieved from http://
library.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/55334.pdf

Nitithamyong, P., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2011), Success factors for the impkementation
of web-based construction project management system: a cross-case analysis.
Construction Innovation: information, Process, Management, 11(1), 14-22. doi:
10.1108/14714171111104619.

Prokopenko, J. (2nd ed.). (1987). Productivity management (pp. 3-8). Geneva:

International Labour Office.

Rojas, E. M. (2008). Construction productivity (p. 203). Pine Island: J.Ross Publishing

Seltman, H. J. (2009). Experimantal design and analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/Book.pdf

Soekiman, A., Pribadi, A. S., Soemardi, B. W., & Wirahaddikusumah, R. D. (2011).

Fatcors relating to labor productivity affecting the project schedule performance
in indonesia. Procedia Engineering, 14(10), 865-873. doi: 10.1016/2011.07.110.

Stainer, A. (1997). Capital input and total productivity management. Management

Decision, 35(3), 224-232. doi: 10.1108/00251749710169431.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (3 rd edi). (1991). Using multivariable statistics. New
York: HarperCollin.
 62

Van, Le. (2010). Critical success factors in knowledge management: an analysis of the
construction in Vietnam. Unpublished Mater thesis. Ludwigshfen University of
Applied Science.

Young, T. L. (2nd ed.). (2007). The handbook of project management: a practical guide
to effective policies, techniques and processes (p. 18). London and Philadenphia:
Kogan Page.
 63

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Questionnaire (English Version)

Letter of Interest

Dear Sir / Madam,

To start, I would like to present my appreciation and thanks for your time and effort to
complete this questionnaire.

This questionnaire is prepared to study factors affecting the fluctuation of labour

productivity in the construction project. The survey result will be used in my MBA
thesis which will be submitted to UEH – International School of Business, 2012. All
the information involves to you will be kept confidential and will not be reported in the
research results.

The results of this research will be sent back to any of you, who pay attention to this
subject, via email of by the most convenient way as requested.

Thanks you for your kind cooperation

Sincerely yours

Bui Trung Kien

MBA Candidate – Intake 2010

UEH – International School of Business

Email: tkvl02@yahoo.com

Mobile: 0906 60997

 64

Instruction

To answer the following questions, please think about the projects of construction in
the last ten years that you have actually been involved.

Please answer the following question by ticking “x’ in the check box ( ) or filling out
the given blanks where appropriate.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROJECT

1. Name of the project (if possible): ……………………………………………...

2. Which position in the project have you involved to?

Supervisor of client
Project manager/ Deputy project manager
Construction manager
Supervisor
Foreman
Other (please specify): …………………………………………………………

3. In which area would your project be classified?

Civil construction
Bridge and highway construction
Port and Coastal construction
Industrial construction

4. Ownership of project.

State-owned company
Joint-venture company
Foreign company
Private company
 65

Other (please specify): ………………………………………………………...

5. Total budget for project

From USD 500,000 to 5 milion

From USD 5 milion to 10 milion
From USD 10 milion to 20 milion
More than USD 20 milion

6. Total actual labor hours of project/work package in project and total planned labor
hours of project/work package in project

Total actual labor hours of project/work package in project: …………………. h

Total planned labor hours of project/work package in project: ………………..h

In the case of you do not remember exactly Total actual/planned labor hours, please
estimate percent of different between total actual labor hours of project/work package
in project and total planned labor hours of project/work package in project:
……………………………………………………………...%

B. FACTOR AFFECTING LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

In the table below, there are 7 factors with 46 variables affecting the fluctuation of
labor productivity in construction project. Base on a project or a work package in a
project has been completed. Please give your agree or not agree on the statement below
by tick on the square.

The 7-point measurement scale with definition as below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither disagree or Slightly Agree Strongly
disagree Disagree agree agree agree
 66

I. Workforce factor Strongly Strongly

(Low productivity because of variable below) disagree agree

1 Lack of skill and experience of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
workers
2 Lack of empowerment (training and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resourcing)
3 High workforce absenteeism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 High workforce turnover 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Low labour morales/commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Increase of labourer age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Poor health of the workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Poor relations among workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
II. Management Team Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
9 Bad leadership skill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Poor relations between labor and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
superintendents
11 Lack of labor surveillance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 Lack of periodic meeting with labor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
III. Motivation Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
13 Late payment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 Low amount of pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Little or no welfare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 Little or no financial rewards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 67

17 Lack of labor recognition program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Poor condition of camping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 Lack of place for eating and relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IV. Schedule Compression Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
20 Working 7 days per week without taking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a holiday
21 Frequency of working overtime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 Shift work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23 Poor work planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 Overcrowding
V. Material/equipment Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
25 Material shortages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26 Low quality of raw material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27 Unsuitable material storage location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28 Lost time to find material because of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
poor arrangement
29 Equipment and tools shortages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 Poor condition of equipment and tools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VI. Supervision Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
31 Poor or no supervision method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32 Incompetent supervisors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33 Changing of foreman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34 Changing order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35 Incomplete/revise drawing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 68

36 Inspection delay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37 Rework 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38 Supervisors’ absenteeism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VII. Safety Strongly Strongly

disagree agree
(Low productivity because of variable below)
39 Ignore safety precaution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40 Accident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41 Inadequate lighting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42 No have safety engineer on site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43 Noise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44 Unsafe working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45 Inadequate safety plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46 Lack of labor safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C. RESPONDENTS INFORMATION

Please write down some personal information (if possible).

Name: ………………………………….. Date of birth: …………………...............

Phone: ………………………………….. Email: ………………………………......

Company: ……………………………………………………………………...........

Jobtitle: ……………………………………………………………………………...

Do you want to have the research result? ..................................................................

Thanks you for your kind cooperation!

Bui Trung Kien

 69

Appendix B: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version)

Th Ng

Th a Ông /Bà,

Tôi tên Bùi Trung Kiên, hi n là h c viên cao h c ngành Qu n Tr Kinh Doanh khóa
2010 c a Vi n ào T o Qu c T - Tr ng i H c Kinh T Tp. HCM. Tôi ang th c
hi n tài nghiên c u v Các y u t nh h ng n s bi n ng n ng su t lao ng
trong d án xây d ng. Ph m vi nghiên c u c gi i h n cho nh ng d án xây d ng
Vi t Nam.

Chúng tôi r t mong c s h tr c a quý Ông/Bà b ng vi c tr l i nh ng câu h i

c ính kèm. T t c d li u thu th p c s ch dùng cho vi c ki m tra nh ng gi
thuy t nghiên c u c t ra. Chúng tôi m b o v i Ông/Bà r ng thông tin trình bày
t qu nghiên c u s ch d ng th ng kê và t t c các thông tin cá nhân ho c c quan
a quý Ông/Bà s c l u gi bí m t.

t qu nghiên c u c a tài này s c g i cho b t c quý Ông/Bà nào quan tâm

thông qua email ho c cách khác thu n ti n nh t cho quý v .

Trân tr ng kính chào và Chân thành c m n quý Ông/Bà ã dành th i gian tr l i

n câu h i, và cho phép tôi c g i l i chúc s c kho , thành công và h nh phúc.

Bùi Trung Kiên

Tel: 0906 609977

Email: tkvl02@yahoo.com
 70

ng d n :

tr l i nh ng câu h i d i ây, Ông/Bà hãy liên t ng n m t d án c th ã

hoàn thành mà Ông/Bà ã tham gia trong kho ng th i gian 10 n m g n ây. Vui lòng
tr l i câu h i b ng cách ánh d u (X) vào ô ( ) mà Ông/Bà ch n ho c n vào câu
tr l i vào n i thích h p.

A. THÔNG TIN T NG QUÁT V D ÁN

1.Ông bà vui lòng cho bi t tên d án: ………………………………........................

………………………………………………………………………………………
2. V trí c a ông bà trong d án ã tham gia ?

Giám sát c a Ch ut
Giám c/ Phó Giám c d án
Ch huy tr ng
Giám sát
i tr ng thi công
Khác (Vui lòng ghi rõ):…………………………………………………………..

3. Lo i hình d án?
Xây d ng dân d ng và công nghi p
Xây d ng c u ng
Xây d ng c ng và công trình th y
Xây l p
Khác (Vui lòng ghi rõ):…………………………………………………………..

4. Hình th c ch u t d án.

Doanh nghi p nhà n c

Công ty liên doanh
 71

Doanh nghi p n c ngoài

Công ty t nhân
Khác (Vui lòng ghi rõ):…………………………………………………………..

5. a m c a d án (Vui lòng ghi rõ) :…………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………

6. T ng ngân sách cho d án là

T 500.000 USD t i 5 tri u USD
T 5 tri u USD n 10 tri u dollas
T 10 tri u USD n 20 tri u USD
L n h n 20 tri u USD

u Ông/Bà qu n lý toàn b d án ho c có vai cao c p trong d án thì Ông/Bà

vui lòng tr l i câu h i s 7.

7. T ng s gi công lao ng th c t c a d án và t ng s gi công lao ng ho ch

a d án.
ng s gi công lao ng th c t c a d án: ………………………………… gi
ng s gi công lao ng ho ch c a d án: ..……………...…………….. gi
Trong tr ng h p Ông/Bà không nh c t ng s gi công lao ng c a d án thì
Ông/Bà có th cho bi t ph n tr m l ch gi a T ng s gi công lao ng th c t c a d
án và T ng s gi công lao ng k ho ch c a d án ……………………%

u Ông/Bà ph trách ho c giám sát m t gói th u ho c gói công vi c trong d án

thì ông bà vui lòng tr l i câu h i s 8.

8. T ng s gi công lao ng th c t c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c và T ng s gi

công lao ng ho ch c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c trong d án.
ng s gi công lao ng th c t c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c ….……… gi
 72

ng s gi công lao ng ho ch c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c .....…… gi

Trong tr ng h p Ông/Bà không nh c T ng s gi công lao ng c a gói th u
ho c gói công vi c thì Ông/Bà có th cho bi t ph n tr m l ch gi a T ng s

gi công lao ng th c t c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c và T ng s gi công lao

ng ho ch c a gói th u ho c gói công vi c mà ông bà tham gia
…………………… %

B. THÔNG TIN V NH NG NHÂN NH H NG N S BI N NG

NG SU T LAO NG.

Có 7 y u t tác ng n s bi n ng n ng su t lao ng g m 46 bi n s c li t
kê b ng d i. a vào m t d án ho c gói công vi c c th ã hoàn thành,
Ông/Bà vui lòng cho bi t m c ng ý c a Ông/Bà i v i các phát bi u sau ây
ng cách ánh d u (X) vào ô ( ) thích h p nh t.

ng ý c a Ông/Bà c o b ng thang o 7 m t Hoàn toàn ph n i n t

ng ý.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hoàn toàn Không i không Trung dung i ng ng ý t ng ý

không ng ý ng ý ng ý ý

I. L c l ng lao ng trong d án/gói công vi c Hoàn toàn R t ng

mà ông bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý

1 thi u k n ng và kinh nghi m c a ng i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

lao ng
2 Thi u công tác ào t o ng i lao ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Ng i lao ng v ng m t nhi u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 73

4 l lao ng ngh vi c cao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Ng i lao ng thi u tinh th n trách nhi m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Tu i c a ng i lao ng t ng cao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 c kho c a ng i lao ng kém 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 i quan h gi a các ng i lao ng kém 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
II. i ng qu n lý trong d án/gói công vi c Hoàn toàn R t ng
mà Ông/Bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý
9 Thi u k n ng lãnh o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 i quan h gi a ng i lao ng và giám sát 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
không t t
11 Thi u s giám sát ng i lao ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 Thi u cu c h p nh k v i ng i lao ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
III. Y u t v ng l c làm vi c c a ng i lao Hoàn toàn R t ng
ng trong d án/gói công vi c mà ông bà ã
Không ng ý ý
tham gia.

13 Thanh toán l ng tr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 ng th p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 Phúc l i xã h i th p ho c không có 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 Th ng th p ho c không có th ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 Thi u ch ng trình ghi nh n thành tích c a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ng i lao ng
18 u ki n n i trên công tr ng kém 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 Thi u ch n u ng và ngh tr a trên công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tr ng
IV. Y u t v Áp l c ti n c a d án/ gói công Hoàn toàn R t ng
vi c mà ông bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý

20 Làm vi c 7 ngày m t tu n mà không có ngày 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ngh
21 Hay làm thêm gi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 74

22 Làm vi c theo ca nhi u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 ho ch làm vi c kém 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 Tình tr ng quá ông ng i lao ng trên công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tr ng
V. Y u t v V t t /thi t b trong d án/gói Hoàn toàn R t ng
công vi c mà ông bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý

25 Thi u v t t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26 Ch t l ng v t t kém 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27 Kho ch a v t t v trí không phù h p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28 n th i gian tìm v t t vì s p x p v t t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
không phù h p
29 Thi u máy móc ho c thi t b thi công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 u ki n kém c a máy móc thi t b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`VI. Công tác Giám Sát trong d án/gói công Hoàn toàn R t ng
vi c mà ông bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý

31 Không có ph ng pháp giám sát ho c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ph ng pháp giám sát không t t
32 thi u n ng l c c a ng i giám sát 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33 Th ng thay i i tr ng thi công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34 Th ng thay i th t công vi c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35 n v không hoàn ch nh ho c s a ib nv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
nhi u
36 Vi c ki m tra b trì hoãn nhi u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37 a ch a, làm l i nhi u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38 Giám sát th ng xuyên v ng m t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
VII. Y u t An Toàn trong d án/gói công vi c Hoàn toàn R t ng
mà ông bà ã tham gia.
Không ng ý ý
39 Không ý n c nh báo an toàn lao ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40 Tai n n th ng xuyên 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 75

41 Thi u ánh sáng n i thi công 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42 Không có k s an toàn trên công tr ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43 Công tr ng có nhi u ti ng n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44 u ki n làm vi c không an toàn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45 ho ch an toàn không phù h p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46 Thi u trang b b o h lao ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C. THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN

Ông/Bà xin vui lòng tr l i cá thông tin sau (N u có th ) ti n cho vi c g i k t qu

nghiên c u n quý Ông/Bà n u c yêu c u.

tên : ………………………………………… N m sinh : ……………………

n Tho i : ……………………………………. Email : ………………………..

n v công tác :………………………………...…………………………………..

Ch c v hi n t i :………………………………………………………………….

Ông bà có mu n g i l i k t qu nghiên c u hay không (Có/không)………………...

Trân tr ng cám n s giúp c a quý Ông/Bà !

Bùi Trung Kiên

 76

Appendix C: First time running- Eigenvalues

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative

Variance % Variance % Variance %

1 11.206 28.014 28.014 11.206 28.014 28.014 4.930 12.324 12.324

2 3.963 9.907 37.922 3.963 9.907 37.922 4.624 11.561 23.885

3 2.823 7.059 44.980 2.823 7.059 44.980 3.766 9.414 33.299

4 2.520 6.301 51.281 2.520 6.301 51.281 3.676 9.191 42.490

5 2.237 5.592 56.874 2.237 5.592 56.874 3.550 8.875 51.365

6 1.743 4.358 61.232 1.743 4.358 61.232 3.547 8.869 60.233

7 1.063 2.659 63.891 1.063 2.659 63.891 1.463 3.657 63.891

8 .990 2.475 66.365

9 .980 2.450 68.815

10 .940 2.349 71.164

11 .892 2.230 73.394

12 .790 1.975 75.369

13 .717 1.792 77.161

14 .691 1.729 78.889

15 .671 1.678 80.567

16 .653 1.632 82.199

17 .590 1.476 83.675

… … … …
29 .267 .669 95.455

30 .237 .593 96.048

31 .227 .567 96.615

32 .205 .513 97.127

33 .195 .488 97.616

34 .184 .460 98.076

35 .182 .455 98.531

36 .152 .380 98.911

37 .138 .346 99.257

38 .113 .283 99.540

39 .108 .270 99.811

40 .076 .189 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 77

Appendix D: First Time Running – Factor Loadings

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

V.2.3 .788
V.6.4 .766
V.6.6 .747
V.6.2 .688
V.6.5 .687
V.6.7 .679
V.2.4 .587
V.6.1 .504
V.7.8 .770
V.7.6 .722
V.7.5 .716
V.7.7 .710
V.7.4 .644
V.7.2 .628
V.7.1
V.3.3 .762
V.3.6 .752
V.3.5 .741
V.3.4 .733
V.3.2 .716
V.3.1 .619
V.1.5 .744
V.1.1 .734
V.1.4 .730
V.1.8 .706
V.1.2 .642
V.2.1 .522
V.4.5 .820
V.4.1 .819
V.4.3 .792
V.4.2 .780
V.4.4 .748
V.5.3 .842
V.5.4 .751
V.5.5 .635
V.5.6 .619
V.5.2 .612
 78

V.5.1 .584
V.1.7 .784
V.7.3 .536 .562
 79

Appendix E: Charts of Multiple Regression Analysis

Figure E1: Histogram of Labor Productivity Fluctuation

Figure E2: Normal P-P Plot of Labor Productivity Fluctuation

 80

Figure E3: Scatterplot of Labor Productivity Fluctuation