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

net/publication/272744373

MASONRY LABOR CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY VARIATION: AN INDIAN

CASE STUDY

Conference Paper · February 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 11,257

2 authors:

Santhosh Loganathan Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi

Indian Institute of Technology Madras Indian Institute of Technology Madras
10 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   860 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lean Construction Management View project

My PhD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Santhosh Loganathan on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MASONRY LABOR CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTIVITY VARIATION: AN INDIAN CASE
STUDY
Santhosh Loganathan1, and Satyanarayana Kalidindi2

ABSTRACT

Labor productivity is regarded as one of the most influencing factors that affects the
performance of any construction project. In most countries, experience and literature
have revealed that labor cost comprises 30 to 50% of the total cost of a project. Lean
Construction practices have developed over the last few decades in many countries,
bringing in continuous improvement, inclusive culture and improved levels of
certainty in project delivery. Recent studies on Lean Construction show that labor
productivity has significant correlation with work flow reliability and project
performance. In Indian construction industry context, the seasonal and migrant
workers constitute a significant portion of the total construction workforce. Lack of
training and improper organizations of the migrant workforce has resulted in
unproductive and unpredictable work environment. A pilot study has been conducted
in a construction project in Tamil Nadu to study the issue. The study focused on
masonry construction activity of the project. Masonry production data were collected
and analysed. Results of the analysis indicate that 20% to 40% production variation
between different construction crews involved in masonry construction of the project.
The paper presents the factors which cause production variation between different
construction crews and presents how Lean Construction principles can better address
the issue.

KEYWORDS
Labor productivity, Lean Construction, Work flow, Variation, Indian construction

INTRODUCTION

Construction activity is an integral part of a country’s infrastructure and industrial

development. In recent years, construction projects in India have been facing number
of problems including time overrun, cost overrun, low productivity, poor safety, poor
quality. Productivity is a major factor that affects overall performance of any small or
medium or large construction organization.
Productivity has been generally defined as the ratio of outputs to inputs.
Productivity in engineering terms may be conceived as a measure of the technical or
engineering efficiency of production. There are many elements that influence the

1
Ph. D Research Scholar, BTCM Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India. E-mail: santomaills@gmail.com
2
Professor, BTCM Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai 600036, India. E-mail: satyakn@iitm.ac.in

1
productivity in the construction industry. Since construction is a labor-intensive
industry, it can be argued that the workforce is the dominant productive resource;
thus, construction productivity is primarily dependent on human effort and
performance (Jarkas 2010). There are many factors that influence construction labor
productivity. The impact of those factors can be quantified in productivity models.
These models play an important role in planning, scheduling, and estimating cost.
Labor costs generally make up 30 to 50% of overall project costs (Harmon and Cole
2006). Hence, for the contract work to be financially successful, productivity must be
improved so that labor costs and total project costs can be reduced (Thomas 1989).
Construction processes consist of many tasks. Variations in timely completion
of tasks can be high and can have significant impact on successor task’s productivity.
Koskela (2000) proposed seven preconditions to execute an elementary construction
task more efficiently. Those preconditions include connecting work, detailed
construction design, components and materials, workers, equipment and tools, space,
and external conditions. Due to construction project issues, these preconditions may
not be satisfied, and studies have found that failure to satisfy these preconditions can
have significant impact on productivity (Ballard and Howell 1998). However, in
recent years Lean Construction principles suggest that better labor productivity can be
achieved by reducing output variability (Liu et al. 2011).

MEASURE OF LABOR PRODUCTIVITY

As noted earlier, the term “productivity” is generally used to denote a relationship

between output and the associated inputs used in the production process. Many
definitions of construction labor productivity exist that reflect the different
perspectives of the construction industry. This research defines labor productivity as
the ratio of output (in terms of quantities) to inputs (in terms of man-hours), as given
in Eq.(1). For example, brickwork uses the labor hour as the input and square meters/
cubic meters of brickwork produced as the output. When defined in this manner,
higher productivity values indicate better productivity performance.

(1)

LITERATURE REVIEW

Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) processes are plagued with

problems associated with variations that undermine project performance (Hamzeh et
al. 2007). Construction organizations use a number of different methods to maintain
consistency in performance and trying to shield production from variations in their
processes both from internal and external environments (Hamezh et al. 2012). The
focus of productivity management in construction organizations therefore should be
on identifying and understanding the impact of variation and the relationships
between various resource inputs to outputs (Pekuri et al. 2011). Thompson (1967)
highlighted some of these methods which include forecasting, buffering and
smoothing. All these methods are used to mitigate process variations on both the

2
input and output sides. However, variation in construction process still remain
unresolved and undermines project performance (Hamezh et al. 2012).
Proponents of Lean Construction have suggested that the remedy for these
highly variable conditions is a more reliable workflow (Koskela 1992; Ballard and
Howell 1998; Ballard 1999). Lean Construction results from the application of a new
form of production management to construction. Before the introduction of lean
concepts to construction, Koskela (1992) introduced the flow view into construction
management. According to Koskela, variability in the flow of work often extends
cycle times and reduces system throughput by increasing the amount of waste in a
process. Howell and Ballard (1994a) then proposed to reduce work flow variation by
stabilizing all functions through which work flows from concept to completion. They
argue that ill-planned work assignments are a major source of workflow variability in
construction. Also, they claim that planning is the primary mechanism for organizing
construction activities and those traditional approaches to planning do not ensure the
reliable movement of assignments between tasks and between crews. Howell and
Ballard (1994b) introduced the Last Planner System (LPS) to construction
management, which helps to stabilize work flow.
In lean systems, workflow refers to the movement of materials, information,
and equipment through a system (Womack and Jones 1996). One other factor which
significantly contributes to workflow is labor (Thomas et al. 2003). Thomas et al.
(2003), in their work highlight “labor flow” as a significant factor contributing to
project performance. Labor flow involves the tracking and allocation of the labor
resources to various tasks and work assignments. It also covers the interaction of
crews with other crews and other work. They found that variability in labor
productivity is more highly correlated to project performance. Previous research in
this context also suggests that the key to good crew performance is to limit the
variability in labor productivity (Thomas et al. 2002).
Despite the significance of productivity variation with project performance,
only a modest scholarly interest in this area has been seen so for in India. This paper
addresses the issue of productivity variation in the Indian construction context in
relation to Lean Construction concepts. The research is focused on study of
productivity variation in daily labor productivity and identifies the factors which
cause the productivity variation and highlight labor as a flow element in Lean
Construction.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

The objective of the study is to quantify the variation in daily labor productivity and
to identify the key factors responsible for the productivity variation.
The objectives of the study will be achieved by collecting and analysing the
actual productivity data across construction projects in India. This paper presents one
such case study in detail. In the following sections, description of the case study
selected, data collection and analysis are discussed.

3
CASE STUDY AND DATA COLLECTION

The selected case study is a market complex project located in Erode District, Tamil
Nadu State, India. The project comprises of two buildings and a convention centre.
Building-1 and 2 are six-storeyed and four-storeyed with floor area of 18,000 square
meters and 9,600 square meters respectively. The convention centre is three-storeyed
with floor area of 3,100 square meters. The study was performed during the start of
the finishes activities of the project. The study focused on the masonry construction
activity of the project.
Masonry construction activity of the project comprises of 230 mm and 115
mm brickwork wall construction. The study focused only on 115 mm brickwork wall
construction. The estimated brickwork quantity was around 45,000 square meters.
Brickwork production data were collected on a daily basis for a period of two months.
During the period of study, there were 23 crews involved in the construction of
115mm brickwork wall. However, only 7 crews had consistently worked all through
the study peroid. A crew3consisted of a minimum of 3 masons (skilled worker) and 2
helpers (semi-skilled or unskilled worker) to a maximum of 17 masons and 11
helpers. Depending on the work front, three to five crews are deployed on each work
station and each work station is supervised by a foremen. Mostly the crews have
maintained their skilled to unskilled worker ratio as 1:0.65. The average mason
strength maintained per day during the period of study was 39 masons.

VARIABILITY IN LABOR PRODUCTIVITY

The variability in labor productivity is calculated using the following equation

(Thomas et al. 2002):

Productivity variation (PV) = ∑ √(uri – Baseline Productivity)2 (2)

n
where uri = daily productivity for work day i; and n = number of workdays
The coefficient of productivity variation (CPV) is calculated as:
( )
(3)

The baseline productivity assumed for the activity (115mm brickwork wall
construction) studied is 6 square meters per mason per day.

DATA ANALYSIS
The collected data were analysed using the above mentioned equations. Fig. 1 and
Fig. 2 represent the daily quantity and labor productivity variation respectively for a
period of two months.

3
A group of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled construction workers specialized in one or more
construction trades, and are usually managed by a foremen.

4
 Daily brickwork quantities

350
300
Daily quantities

250
200
150
100
(Sqm)

50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Workday

Fig. 1. Daily brickwork quantities

Daily brickwork productivity

8.00
Daily productivity
(Sqm/mason/day)

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Workday

Fig. 2. Daily brickwork productivity

The number of labor crews involved, average number of masons, average

labor productivity achieved, and productivity variation for the period of two months
for the activity studied is given in Table 1,
Table 1. Results of productivity analysis

Number of labor crews involved 23 crews

Average number of masons per day 39 masons
Average labor productivity achieved 4.30 sqm/ mason/ day
Productivity variation (PV) 1.75 sqm/ day
Coefficient of productivity variation (CPV) 27.71 %
Range of coefficient of productivity variation
20% to 40%
across different crews

5
 The range of coefficient of productivity variation across different crews is
calculated by analysing the variation of all individual crews involved in the activity.
As an illustration, daily productivity variation for one labor crew is shown in the Fig.
3. The crew consistently worked for a period of 45 days. The average mason strength
maintained by the crew is 7 masons per day, and the average daily productivity
achieved is 4 sqm/ mason/ day. The coefficient of productivity variation is 35.18%.

Daily brickwork productivity for one crew

7.00
Daily productivity
(Sqm/mason/day)

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Workday

Fig. 3. Daily brickwork productivity for one crew

DISCUSSION
The aforementioned analysis indicates that there is 20% to 40% productivity variation
with different construction crews involved in the masonry construction activity of the
project selected. The significant variation in productivity achieved is due to various
reasons. The study explored those factors responsible for productivity variation
through interviewing the engineers and foremen involved in the supervision of the
activity studied. The key factors identified are:
 Ill-planned work assignments to crews
 Crew composition
 Relocation of crew members to different work stations
 Variation in skill level between crews
 Improper sequencing of tasks
 Inappropriate tools and material availability
 Language issues between supervisors and crews
Ill-planned work assignments to crews include improper planning and
communication of weekly/ daily work schedule to crews, inadequate arrangement of
supporting works like scaffoldings, shifting of bricks and cement mortar well before
the works starts, as for this case. Relocation of crew members is shuffling of different
crew members in different work stations in the project. With this, supervisory issues
arise. Since the members of a single crew are placed at different work station, it
becomes difficult to manage them effectively. Variation in skill level between crews
is because the crews are mostly migrant and seasonal construction workers. The
training and skill acquired by them, their work experience in the industry varies

6
significantly. Since the migrant and seasonal construction workers are from different
regions of the country, language issues are also seen as a major problem.
Communication between the supervisors and the crews should be clear enough to
convey the work plans, to allocate resources etc. The crew composition, due to the
nature of Indian construction industry where most labor is a migrant, is also seen to
be a major factor causing variation along with the other factors explored. Hence,
these issues should be better addressed to reduce labor productivity variation.

CONCLUSION
This paper studies the variation in daily labor productivity in an Indian construction
project. Actual production data for masonry construction activity were collected and
analyzed. Results of the analysis indicate that 20% to 40% production variation
between different construction crews involved. The key factors causing productivity
variation are identified.
Contractors can do many more things to improve productivity such as better
planning, implementing innovative technology, and change in work method etc. But
findings from this study suggest that reducing productivity variation can help for
maintaining a predictable work flow. For maintaining a predictable work flow, better
match between the available work load with available workmen is essential. Since the
reliability in the productivity of workmen is low as the study indicates significant
variation in daily productivity, the focus to reduce productivity variation is much
needed. Therefore, when the reduction in productivity variation is achieved, reliable
workflow is always attainable. The key factors identified in this study can guide
practitioners to reduce productivity variation.
A recent study by Liu et al. (2011) shows that work flow reliability and labor
productivity are significantly correlated. They claim that adopting Lean Construction
principles, LPS as co-planning tool can reduce work flow variation, and that reducing
work flow variation can help to improve labor productivity. The results of their study
indicate that productivity is not improved by completing as many tasks as possible
regardless of the plan, nor from increasing workload or work output. The key to
improve productivity is to maintain a predictable work flow. Therefore, the explicit
management of labor flow needs to be more prominent in lean thinking.

FUTURE WORK
Future works include conducting significant number of case studies to generalize the
preliminary findings of this study. The key factors causing variation will be studied in
depth to understand their impact. The crew composition, due to the nature of Indian
construction industry where most labor is a migrant, is seen to be a major factor
causing variation. This issue is to be studied in particular.

REFERENCES
Ballard, G. (1999). “Improving work flow reliability.” Proc. 5th Ann. Conf. of the
Int’l. Group for Lean Construction., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 275–
286.

7
 Ballard, G., and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: Essential step in
production control.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(1), 11–17.
Hamzeh, F.R., Tommelein, I.D., Ballard, G., and Kaminsky, P. (2007). “Logistics
Centers to Support Project-Based Production in the Construction Industry.” Proc.
15th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Constr., 181-191.
Hamzeh, F. R., Ballard, G., Tommelein, I. D. (2012). “Rethinking Lookahead
Planning to Optimize Construction Workflow.” Lean Construction Journal., 15-
34.
Harmon, K. M., and Cole, B. (2006). “Loss of productivity studies - Current uses and
misuses.” Constr. Briefings., 8(1), 1–19.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G. (1994a). “Lean production theory: Moving beyond‘Can-
Do’.” Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction., Pontificia
Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 1–10.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G. (1994b). “Implementing lean construction: Reducing
inflow variation.” Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction.,
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 113–121.
Jarkas, A. M. (2010). “The influence of buildability factors on rebar fixing labour
productivity of beams.” J. of Constr. Mgmt and Eco., 28 (5) 527-543.
Koskela, L. J. (1992). “Application of the new production theory to construction.”
Technical Rep. No. 72, Center for Integrated Facilities Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Koskela, L. J. (2000). “An exploration towards a production theory and its
application to construction.” Ph.D. thesis, Teknillinen Korkeakoulu, Helsinki,
Finland.
Liu, M., Ballard, G., and Ibbs, W. (2011). “Work Flow Variation and Labor
Productivity: Case Study.” J. Manage. Eng., 27(4), 236–242.
Pekuri, A., Haapasalo, H., Herrala, M. (2011). “Productivity and Performance
Management – Managerial Practices in the Construction Industry.” International
Journal of Performance Measurement., Vol. 1, 39 -58.
Thomas, S. E. (1989). “Proving productivity losses in government contracts.” Public
Contract Law J., 18(2), 414–431.
Thomas, H. R., Horman, M. J., de Souza, U. E. L., and Azvrski, I. (2002). “Reducing
variability to improve performance as a lean construction principle.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 128(2), 144–154.
Thomas, H., Horman, M., Minchin, R., Jr., and Chen, D. (2003). ”Improving Labor
Flow Reliability for Better Productivity as Lean Construction Principle.” J.
Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(3), 251–261.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Womack, J. P., and Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: banish waste and create
wealth in your corporation, Simon and Shuster, New York.

View publication stats