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

net/publication/343678641

Productivity determinants of cement industries and their impacts assessment: a

survey-based approach

Article · July 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 238

3 authors:

Pronob Kumar Biswas Md. Mehedi Hasan Kibria

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. Muhshin Aziz Khan

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
36 PUBLICATIONS   876 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Lean Waste Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pronob Kumar Biswas on 15 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Production Systems &
Manufacturing Science
http://www.imperialopen.com/index.php/JPSMS

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Productivity determinants of cement industries and their

impacts assessment: a survey-based approach
RECEIVED Pronob Kumar Biswas, Mehedi Hasan Kibria, Jahid Hasan, Mohammad Muhshin Aziz Khan*
15 June 2020
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering (IPE), Shahjalal University of Science and
REVISED Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh.
24 July 2020
Abstract
ACCEPTED
26 July 2020 This article focuses on exploring productivity determinants and their relationships
with productivity of cement industries. A structured questionnaire was used to collect
PUBLISHED data from thirty-two cement factories operating in Bangladesh. Fifty-six factors critical
28 July 2020 to productivity were initially identified from literature. Factors were ranked in
descending order taking a relative importance index value of 0.4 as cut-off point.
DOI: To be assigned. Remaining thirty-seven factors were then grouped into five highly predictive factors
by principal component analysis. Finally, structural equation model was developed to
*Corresponding author. demonstrate causal relationships between identified principal components and
productivity. Effective raw material use, managerial skill, motivation, shortage of
Emails: skilled labor, and skill-enhancing training were found as top five significant factors.
pronob-ipe@sust.edu (P.B.); Process performance, marketing and supply chain, management and technological,
kibria-ipe@sust.edu (M.K.); human and safety, and government and political factors were found as principal
j.hasan.ipe@gmail.com (J.H.); determinants of productivity. Finally, identified principal determinants were found to
have positive impacts on productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh.
muhshin-ipe@sust.edu (F.A.)
Keywords: Productivity determinants; Principal Component Analysis, Structural
equation model, Cement industry; Bangladesh.

1. Introduction
The cement manufacturing sector of Bangladesh is the 40th largest market in the world. Currently, more than 32
cement manufacturing companies, including five multinationals are in operation and produce around 31 Million Metric
Tons (MMT) of cement per year, which is higher than the annual demand of Bangladesh (EBL, 2019). Out of the total
cement consumed in Bangladesh, the individual home sector uses 25%, real estate developers use 30%, and the government
organization uses the rest 45% (ECRL, 2015). Surplus production of cement is exported to the global market; thus, the
cement industry has become an export earning sector of Bangladesh. This sector earned USD 11.50 million export revenues
for the fiscal year 2017-18 compared to USD 10.79 million for the previous fiscal year. Though cement exports witness an
increasing trend throughout the past several years, Bangladesh holds an insignificant share of the global cement market
(BEPB, 2016). Major cement producing and consuming countries, on the other hand, continue to drop their cement
production due to high energy cost, strict trade policy, environmental issues and high labor cost as stated in Supino et al.
(2016), Ray and Pal (2010), and Sharma (2007). Hence, having a high global market demand for cement with cheap labor
and energy availability and flexible trade policy, Bangladesh has the opportunity to earn even more export revenues through
increased production of cement. Also, the prospect of this sector in Bangladesh is exceedingly promising because of
increasing growth in the urbanization as well as the economic sector, and the government's emphasis on massive
infrastructure projects. Although cement industry is a booming sector in Bangladesh with great potentiality, productivity
Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 1
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
barriers in cement industry hinder its growth which can be observed by a large gap between production capacity (54
MMT) and actual production (31 MMT).
Productivity is a crucial component in the production performance of firms and often depends upon various factors.
It also reflects the scenario of an industry or organization how efficiently and effectively it transforms its inputs to outputs
(Syverson, 2011). Previous studies in different industries reveal a broad range of factors that significantly affect productivity.
Dasanayaka and Sardana (2017) tried to identify the factors affecting the productivity of small and medium scale rubber
manufacturing companies in Sri Lanka. They found that technology adoption, innovation, human factors, cost, and quality
of raw materials have a significant effect on rubber manufacturing productivity. Islam and Khadem (2013) investigated the
productivity factors of Oman construction industry and found that professionalism, the fairness of financial transactions,
supervisors’ skill, materials availability, and availability of complete drawing are most significant factors of productivity.
Coito et al. (2005) revealed that production schedule, plant operations, and maintenance, product quality, energy
consumption as well as efficient utilization of resources significantly affect the productivity of California cement industry.
Muthukrishnan (2011) intended to analyze the productivity factors of cement industry in India and revealed the fact that
efficient management, proper capacity, and resource utilization, infrastructure facilities and optimized extraction of labor
resource led to higher productivity and better performance. Capacity utilization, effective use of raw materials,
maintenance, rework, competition, motivation, and skilled labor are also reported as productivity factors of cement
industry in India (Burange and Yamini, 2009; Kumar, 2009; Krishna et al., 2013). Avami and Sattari (2007) showed that the
productivity of Iranian cement industry is greatly affected by energy consumption, production management, and new
technologies. Graisa and Al-Habaibeh (2011) investigated the factors behind low productivity of Libyan cement industry
and found that lack of training and personal development, and low motivation of worker due to lack of a management
strategy and reward structure were the main reason behind this problem. Saifuddoha et al. (2013) studied the supply chain
of cement industries in Bangladesh using value stream mapping and pointed out that elimination of wastes and non-value
adding activities from cement processing can significantly enhance the productivity. Hossain and Moudud-Ul-Huq (2014)
assessed the financial performance of cement industries in Bangladesh using Altman Z Score Model and revealed the fact
that cement manufacturing companies with higher productivity have higher profitability. Hoque et al. (2015) examined the
relationship between working capital management and profitability of cement industry in Bangladesh and concluded that
working capital management was a critical factor for productivity and profitability in this industry.
As seen from the above literature, the cement manufacturing sector in Bangladesh has the potential for meeting the
growing annual demand of Bangladesh. Also, this sector has an opportunity for enhancing the global cement market share
and earning more export revenues. However, productivity barriers in cement industries are hampering its growth. Like
other industries, productivity determinants of the cement industry include social, technological, managerial, financial, and
cultural issues; and widely differ from region to region. Hence, to improve the productivity, proper identification of the
factors affecting the productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh is of great importance. Besides, a systematic study
identifying proper and significant factors affecting the productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh is lacking. This
article, therefore, aims to identify the significant factors and their relationship with the productivity of cement industries
in Bangladesh. This study focuses on:
• Identifying process performance factors, human factors, financial factors, marketing factors, technological factors,
environmental and safety factors, managerial factors, Supply chain related factors, governmental and political
factors critical to the productivity of the cement industries;
• Ranking the identified factors by their contributions to the productivity of the cement industries;
• Reducing ranked factors into highly predictive productivity determinants of the cement industries; and
• Developing a structural equation model (SEM) in quantifying the relationships between the identified highly
predictive determinants and the productivity of the cement industries in Bangladesh.

2. Methodology
2.1 Formulation and administration of questionnaire
Based on the critical factors reported in the relevant published literature, a structured questionnaire was prepared
and later modified using experts’ opinion from managerial adroit personnel and academic expert. There were two parts in
the questionnaire. First part included demographic variables like age, job responsibility, and length of service of the
respondents. The second part included the factors affecting productivity of the cement industry in Bangladesh. As can be
Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 2
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan
seen in Table 1, a set of fifty-six factors was identified from the published literature under ten broad categories namely
process performance factors, human factors, financial factors, marketing factors, technological factors, environmental and
safety factors, managerial factors, supply chain related factors, government and political factors.
Category
Process Performance
Factors
Financial Factors
Marketing Factors
Human Factors
Corporate Social
relation Factors
Technological
Factors
Environmental and
Safety Factors
Management Factors
Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom
J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
Table 1: Critical productivity determinants identified from literature review
Productivity Determinants Sources
Change in cycle time Istvan (1992), Zhao and Chua (2003), Bloom and Van
Effective use of raw materials Reenen (2007), Lee et al. (2007), Feng at al. (2007),
Machine stoppage Shafeek (2012), Vilasini et al. (2014), Hoque et al.
Product quality (2015).
Proper utilization of capital
Rework
Unnecessary activities (movement, recheck etc.)
Inflation Huselid (1995), Kilic and Okumus (2005), Greenaway
Profits reinvestment et al. (2007), Butler and Cornaggia (2011), Doong et al.
Rate of interest (2011), Valderrama et al. (2012), Ray (2012).
Value addition through R&D
Competition in the market Tsekouras and Daskalopoulou (2006), Noche and
Expenses on marketing Elhasia (2013), Chicu (2013), Backus (2019).
Market condition (product)
Marketing policy of the country
Product branding and promotion
Change in employee cost Levine (1991), Datta et al. (2005), Egger and Egger
Employment generation (2006), Gong et al. (2009), Jiang et al. (2012).
Motivation
Shortage of skilled labor
Skill enhancing training
Community attitude Kim (2000), Doong et al. (2011), Sun and Stuebs
Regional development (2013).
Social responsibilities
Automation Xu (2000), Guellec et al. (2002), Fried et al. (2008),
New product delivery mode Avila and Evenson (2010), Cassiman et al. (2010),
New technology Kromann et al. (2011), Syverson (2011).
On-site recycling and reuse
Product innovation
R&D implementation
Sustainable development
Availability of personal protection equipment Blank and Valdmanis (2010), Iqbal et al. (2010),
Managerial policy for safety (insurance, medical Hamidi et al. (2012), Valderrama et al. (2012).
allowance)
Training on safety
Safety in the workplace
Worker attitude to safety
Workstation environment
Culture of promoting knowledge sharing to the Bloom and Van Reenen (2007), Birdi et al. (2008),
subordinates Mojahed and Aghazadeh (2008), Syverson (2011),
Flexible and adaptable rules Noche and Elhasia (2013), Bender et al. (2018).
Instantaneous and independent decision making
Managerial skill
Strategic alliance (share resources to undertake a
specific, mutually beneficial project)
3
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008

Supply Chain related
Factors
Government and
Political Factors
Application of lean tool Boyd and Pang (2000), Rasul et al. (2005), Li et al.
Efficient plant operation (2006), Utlu et al. (2006), Alsyouf (2007), Hasanbeigi
Energy availability et al. (2010), Graisa and Al-Habaibeh (2011), Doloi et
al. (2012), Ray and Reddy (2012), Madlool et al.
Energy price
(2013).
Maintenance delay
Material availability
Pricing of raw materials
Supply chain management
Transportation cost
Variation of product
Change in government rules Medina et al. (2003), Pandey and Dong (2009),
Overall GDP of the country Bandara and Karunaratne (2010), McMillan and
Political stability Rodrik (2011).
Taxation

To rank the impact of identified productivity factors, a 5-point Likert scale was used and labeled as: 1= very low, 2=
low, 3= average, 4= high, and 5= very high. Moreover, in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal
consistency of the questionnaire utilized. Voluntary nature of participation in this study and confidentiality of responses
was assured with an introductory letter. The questionnaires were sent to the respondents randomly. The questionnaires
completed were returned to the authors in a sealed condition. The questionnaires were filled while the respondents were
at their workplaces. They were asked not to take too much time to answer a question. Also, they were requested to always
adhere to the first spontaneous answer that came to their mind.

2.2 Data collection

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire from thirty-two cement factories, including five
multinationals. The respondents were from a wide occupational range engaged in productivity measurements and
improvement of the cement industries in Bangladesh. They were general manager, engineers (production, maintenance,
electrical, mechanical) and other middle managers. A total of 255 survey questionnaires were distributed. Of the 210
questionnaires returned, 204 were usable. The rate of response was approximately 75.3%. These 204 useable questionnaires
were used to analyze the data.

2.3 Data analysis

After data collection, the attributes in terms of their criticality as perceived by the respondents were first ranked.
In this study, before ranking, the relative importance of productivity determinants was quantified using the relative
importance index (RII) method and a total of 37 factors was ranked in descending order. While ranking the factors, a RII
value of 0.4 was taken as cut off point. RII was calculated using equation 1.
RII= ΣW/(A*N) (1)
Where, W= Weight given to each factor by the respondents, A= Highest weight, N= Total number of respondents.
Principal components analysis was then performed to reduce factors into highly predictive productivity
determinants. In this study, components with eigenvalues of 1.00 or higher are considered worth analyzing. The
components with small or negative eigenvalue were omitted due to having the lowest variance as suggested by Tabachnick
and Fidell (1996). For ease of interpretability, a suitable label was also reassigned to each of the identified principal
determinants. Finally, a structural equation model was developed to demonstrate the causal relationship between the
identified principal determinants and productivity.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Reliability test
Data analysis was started with testing the validity and reliability of the questionnaire in terms of internal
consistency. In this study, to test internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) was used. The scale’s reliability was
determined through a sample of 204 respondents. Each of them answered fifty-six questions.

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 4
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan
Table 2: Reliability statistics for different categories of productivity components.
Component Category
Corporate social relation factors
Environmental and safety factors
Financial factors
Government and political factors
Human factors
Management factors
Marketing factors
Process performance factors
Supply chain related factors
Technological factors
J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha (Cα)
3 0.604
6 0.614
4 0.667
4 0.778
5 0.672
5 0.705
5 0.725
7 0.770
10 0.791
7 0.651

As shown in Table 2, values of Cronbach’s alpha for process performance factors, human factors, financial factors,
marketing factors, technological factors, environmental and safety factors, managerial factors, supply chain related factors,
government and political factors are found satisfactory and hence, data can be analyzed further to conclude the results.
3.2 Demographics characteristics
From Table 3 showing the summary statistics of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, it is found
that job categories of the respondents were distributed as engineering (31.9%), administrative (17%), human resource
(12.8%), marketing (12.8%), production (14.9%) and finance (10.6%). Of 204 respondents, 63.9% were identified as early
middle age (31-40 years), 17% as a young adult (24-30 years), and 14.9% as late middle age (41-50 years). Moreover, 72.3%
of the respondents had at least five years of work experience in cement industries, while 27.7% of them were working for
less than five years at the time of the study.
Table 3: Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Demographic variable Category Percentage
Job category Administrative 17.0
Engineering 31.9
Finance 10.6
Human resource 12.8
Marketing 12.8
Production 14.9
Age group 24 – 30 yrs. 17.0
31 – 35 yrs. 51.1
36 – 40 yrs. 12.8
41 – 50 yrs. 14.9
Over 50 yrs. 4.50
Length of service 1 – 4 yrs. 27.7
5 – 10 yrs. 40.4
10 – 14 yrs. 14.9
Over 15 yrs. 17.0

3.3 Ranking of factors

In this study, all the identified productivity determinants were ranked using the RII method, and a total of thirty-
seven factors of productivity was sorted in descending order of RII as can be seen in Table 4. From the table, it is evident
that top seven productivity determinants were an effective use of raw material (0.8476), managerial skill (0.8452),
motivation (0.8429), and shortage of skilled labor (0.8429) followed by skill-enhancing training (0.8143), automation
Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 5
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
(0.8071) and new technology (0.7929). Besides, government rules (0.5929), new product delivery mode (0.5786), expenses
on marketing (0.5548), marketing policy of the country (0.5452), regional development (0.5286), community attitude
(0.4810) and inflation (0.4071) were found to be the bottom seven factor affecting the productivity of the cement industries
as perceived by the respondents.
Table 4 Ranking of identified productivity determinants of cement industries
Factor RII Mean Std. Dev. Rank
Effective use of raw materials 0.8476 4.238 0.900 1
Managerial skill 0.8452 4.226 0.782 2
Motivation 0.8429 4.214 0.837 3
Shortage of skilled labor 0.8429 4.214 1.193 4
Skill enhancing training 0.8143 4.071 1.095 5
Automation 0.8071 4.036 0.857 6
New technology 0.7929 3.964 1.256 7
R&D implementation 0.7905 3.952 1.063 8
Product quality 0.7881 3.941 0.827 9
Value addition (R&D) 0.7810 3.905 1.025 10
Quick decision making 0.7810 3.905 0.859 11
Political stability 0.7500 3.750 0.980 12
Flexible and adaptable rule 0.7476 3.738 0.893 13
Material availability 0.7429 3.714 1.502 14
Product innovation 0.7381 3.691 1.086 15
Job planning 0.7381 3.691 1.064 16
Sustainable development 0.7238 3.619 1.343 17
Managerial policy of safety 0.7238 3.619 1.231 18
Employment generation 0.7214 3.607 1.232 19
Energy price 0.7119 3.560 1.532 20
Efficient plant operation 0.7048 3.524 1.493 21
Availability of PPE 0.6976 3.488 1.501 22
Transportation cost 0.6595 3.298 1.438 23
Workstation environment 0.6571 3.286 1.494 24
Proper utilization of capital 0.6452 3.226 0.812 25
Pricing of raw materials 0.6381 3.191 1.564 26
Worker attitude to safety 0.6333 3.167 1.496 27
Market condition (Product) 0.6262 3.131 1.454 28
Competition 0.6071 3.036 1.682 29
Profit reinvestment 0.6024 3.012 1.452 30
Change in government rules 0.5929 2.964 1.563 31
New product delivery mode 0.5786 2.893 1.505 32
Expenses on marketing 0.5548 2.774 1.508 33
Country marketing policy 0.5452 2.793 1.705 34
Regional development 0.5286 2.643 1.655 35
Community attitude 0.4810 2.405 1.636 36
Inflation 0.4071 2.036 1.846 37

This ranking suggests that productivity of the cement industries in Bangladesh is mostly affected by the issues
related to process performance, managerial skill and human factors, unavailability of skilled labor, skill enhancement
training facilities, automation, and new advanced technology. However, productivity is perceived to be least affected by
Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 6
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
changes in government policies, marketing strategy adopted by the companies, corporate social relationship, and financial
factors.

3.4 Principal component analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) – a descriptive, statistical approach to data transformation – reduces a large
set of variables to a small set called principal components (PCs) while retaining most of the information in the large set
(Jolliffe, 2011). The ranking of the PCs in order of their importance is designated by the eigenvalues associated with the
vector for each PC. In this study, PCA was, therefore, performed to reduce factors into highly predictive productivity
determinants of the cement industries, and only components with eigenvalues of 1.00 or higher were considered worth
analyzing.
Table 5: Retained principal components for productivity of cement industries
Principal Component Eigenvalue % of variance Factor Factor Loading
PC1 6.314 17.52 Effective use of raw materials 0.598
Proper utilization of capital 0.460
Product quality 0.429
PC2 6.017 16.71 Price of raw materials 0.670
Material availability 0.596
Competition 0.570
Country marketing policy 0.564
PC3 3.327 9.24 Managerial skill 0.615
R&D implementation 0.584
Job planning 0.558
New technology 0.504
PC4 3.007 8.35 Motivation 0.568
Availability of PPE 0.501
Managerial policy of safety 0.477
Worker attitude to safety 0.465
PC5 1.616 4.48 Flexible and adaptable rules 0.615
Change in govt. rules 0.487
Political stability 0.374

As shown in Table 5, five principal components – also termed as highly predictive components – were retained in
PCA for this productivity determinants analysis. Together these five principal components accounted for 56.3% of the
variation in the original fifty-six variables included in this study. The first principal component (PC1) was heavily loaded
on the effective use of raw material, proper utilization of capital, and product quality. The second component (PC2) was
loaded heavily on the price of raw material, availability of material, competition, and country marketing policy. The third
component (PC3) was loaded on the managerial skill, R&D implementation, job planning, and new technology — the
fourth component (PC4) on motivation, PPE availability, profit reinvestment, and managerial policy to safety. Finally, the
fifth component (PC5) was loaded on flexible and adaptable rules, changes in governmental rules, and stability of the
government. For ease of interpretability, these principal components were termed as “Process performance factors” (PC1),
“Marketing and supply chain factors” (PC2), “Management and technological factors” (PC3), “Human and safety factors”
(PC4) and “Government and political factors” (PC5). However, it should be noted that these do not represent any
categories; instead, they show the dominant indicators that define each of the five retained principal components and
hence, the five distinct determinants of productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh.

3.5 Structural equation model

Structural equation model (SEM) studies causal relationships among variables when using observational data
(Texeira et al., 2012). Hence, in this study, SEM was used to generate a path diagram representing the causal relationships

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 7
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
between the identified principal components (PCs) and the productivity of the cement industries. Before developing SEM,
the linearity of the model was tested using a scatter plot and found it fit for SEM development.

Fig. 1 Structural equation model of the principal components influencing the productivity of cement industries
Fig. 1 demonstrates the causal relationship between the identified principal components and productivity of the
cement industries in Bangladesh. The indices of the model developed were Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.949, Non-
Standard Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.894, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.929, Approximate Root Mean Square Residual
(RMSEA) = 0.033, P-value = 0.05, and Chi-square = 70.016 with the degrees of freedom = 14 indicating the model fitness.
From Fig. 1, it is evident that the ‘marketing and supply chain’ factor was the most significant factor – β value of
0.99 – affecting the productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh. Dominant marketing and supply chain issues were
the availability and pricing of raw material, competition, and marketing policies. Since clinker – 80.0% of the total raw
materials of cement – is currently imported (EBL, 2017), pricing decisions in the cement industries operating in Bangladesh
largely depend on the price and availability of the raw materials. Hence, following the considerable contribution of raw
materials in the cost structure, any movement in the price and availability of clinker and other raw materials eventually
affects the profitability as well as productivity of the cement manufacturing industries. Moreover, cement industries need
to reduce manufacturing cost and hence, the price of the cement through improving their productivity to remain
competitive in the regional and global market.
The second significant factor affecting productivity was ‘process performance’, with a β value of 0.65. Dominant
process performance issues were the effective use of raw materials, proper utilization of capital, and product quality. To
enhance the productivity through maximizing the raw material utilization, the need for innovative total productive
maintenance (TPM) strategy and usage of lean manufacturing tools are critical for cement industries; this finding matches
with Graisa and Al-Habaibeh (2011), Panwar et al. (2015), and Amrina and Lubis (2017). Again, Quayyum (2011), and
Hoque et al. (2015) also observed that proper working capital management has a significant positive relationship with the
productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh. Besides, according to Terziovski (2006), the productivity of
manufacturing industry increases with product quality. Hence, cement manufacturing industries should emphasize more
on quality management practices to gain high productivity.
‘Management and technological’ factor was the third significant factor having a positive effect on the productivity
of the cement industries with a β value of 0.48. Dominating issues were managerial skill, research and development (R&D)
implementation, job planning, and new technology. Managerial factors are found to have the most significant influence on
productivity compared to other potential factors, as also identified by Bloom and Van (2007). Avila and Evenson (2010)
showed that productivity varies with the use of technological equipment. Hence, adaptation of new technology along with
R&D implementation has a tremendous positive impact on the productivity of cement industries.
‘Human and safety’ factor was found as the fourth significant factor – β value of 0.30 – affecting the productivity of
cement industries in Bangladesh. Dominant issues were motivation, availability of personal protecting equipment,
managerial policy of safety, and worker attitude of safety. Safety enhancement program was found to have a positive effect
on productivity by Hamidi et al. (2012). Besides, motivation has a direct influence on improving productivity in a
manufacturing company as stated in Prasada Rao (2006), and Awan and Tahir (2015).
The least significant factor affecting productivity positively was ‘government and political’ factor with a β value of
0.20. Dominant issues were flexible and adaptable rules, changes in government’s rules, and political stability. Government

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 8
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
and political factor play a significant role in the productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh. This result rhymes with
Bandara and Karunaratne (2010). Political instability discourages foreign investment, while the adaptable capability of
existing public policies significantly affect productivity. Hence, creating public policies to promote cement industries can
considerably increase the productivity of cement in Bangladesh.

4. Conclusion
This study was conducted with a view to identify the significant determinants and their relationships with the
productivity of cement industries in Bangladesh. Based on the results and discussion, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
• Out of fifty-six significant productivity determinants identified from the published literature, top seven factors
critical to productivity are effective use of raw material, managerial skill, motivation, and shortage of skilled labor,
skill-enhancing training, automation, and new technology. On the other hand, government rules, new product
delivery mode, expenses on marketing, marketing policy of the country, regional development, community attitude,
and inflation are perceived to be the bottom seven factors affecting the productivity of the cement industries.
• Process performance, marketing and supply chain, management and technological, human and safety, and
government and political factors are identified as highly predictive determinants of productivity of cement
industries.
• The productivity of the cement industries varies positively with the identified principal determinants. Of five
principal determinants, ‘marketing and supply chain’ is the most significant factor affecting the productivity of
cement industries followed by ‘process performance’ factor.
Moreover, similar research can be carried out in such industrial sectors as small and medium enterprises (SMEs),
garments and apparel industries, textile and leather industries, and food industries in Bangladesh, where productivity
management is still considered to be a critical issue, and a specific productivity growth needs to be maintained to remain
competitive in the global market.

Authors Contribution Research planning, questionnaire formulation, data analysis, editing and overall supervision: Dr.
Mohammad Muhshin Aziz Khan; Data collection, data analysis, writing: Pronob Kumar Biswas; Data
collection and literature review: Mehedi Hasan Kibria, and Jahid Hasan.

Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Shahjalal University
of Science and Technology for providing their administrative support to conduct this research work. The
help extended by chief executives and experts of different organizations at questionnaire formulation and
data collection stages are sincerely acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer The content and claims presented in this journal are of the authors only and do not necessarily represent the
views of the editors and publisher.

References
Afeef, M. (2011). Analyzing the Impact of Working Capital Management on the Profitability of SME's in Pakistan. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 2(22).
Alsyouf, I. (2007). The role of maintenance in improving companies’ productivity and profitability. International Journal of production economics,
105(1), 70-78.
Amrina, E., & Lubis, A. A. A. (2017, April). Minimizing waste using lean manufacturing: A case in cement production. In 2017 4th International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) (pp. 71-75). IEEE.
Avami, A., & Sattari, S. (2007). Energy conservation opportunities: cement industry in Iran. International journal of Energy, 1(3), 65-71.
Avila, A. F. D., & Evenson, R. E. (2010). Total factor productivity growth in agriculture: the role of technological capital. Handbook of agricultural
economics, 4, 3769-3822.
Awan, A. G., & Tahir, M. T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies in
Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 329-345.
Backus, M. (2019). Why is productivity correlated with competition? (No. w25748). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bandara, Y.M.W.Y. & Karunaratne, N.D. (2010), ‘An empirical analysis of Sri Lanka’s Manufacturing Productivity slow-down’. Journal of Asian
Economics, 21(4), pp.391–403.

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 9
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
Bender, S., Bloom, N., Card, D., Van Reenen, J., & Wolter, S. (2018). Management practices, workforce selection, and productivity. Journal of Labor
Economics, 36(S1), S371-S409.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational
management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 467-501.
Blank, J. L., & Valdmanis, V. G. (2010). Environmental factors and productivity on Dutch hospitals: a semi-parametric approach. Health care
management science, 13(1), 27-34.
Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. The quarterly journal of Economics,
122(4), 1351-1408.
Boyd, G. A., & Pang, J. X. (2000). Estimating the linkage between energy efficiency and productivity. Energy policy, 28(5), 289-296.
Burange, L. G., & Yamini, S. (2009). Performance of the Indian cement industry: The competitive landscape. Artha Vijnana, 51(3), 209.
Butler, A. W., & Cornaggia, J. (2011). Does access to external finance improve productivity? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Financial
Economics, 99(1), 184-203.
Cassiman, B., Golovko, E., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2010). Innovation, exports and productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(4),
372-376.
Chicu, M. (2013). Dynamic investment and deterrence in the US cement industry. Available at SSRN 2589580.
Coito, F., Powell, F., Worrell, E., Price, L., & Friedmann, R. (2005). Case study of the California cement industry (No. LBNL-59938).
COLLABORATION-KEMA.
Dasanayaka, S.W.S.B. and Sardana, G.D. (2017) ‘Identification of factors affecting productivity of small and medium scale enterprises in Sri Lanka: a
case study on rubber manufacturing sector’, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, No. 4,
pp.389–417.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: does industry matter? Academy of
management Journal, 48(1), 135-145.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K. C., & Rentala, S. (2012). Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian construction projects. International journal of
project management, 30(4), 479-489.
Doong, S. C., Fung, H. G., & Wu, J. Y. (2011). Are social, financial, and human capital value enhancing? Evidence from Taiwanese firms. International
Review of Economics & Finance, 20(3), 395-405.
EBL Securities Ltd., Bangladesh, 2019. Comprehensive Review of Bangladesh Cement Industry, August 2019, Available in
http://www.eblsecurities.com/SectoralReport, (accessed July 15, 2020).
Egger, H., & Egger, P. (2006). International outsourcing and the productivity of low‐skilled labor in the EU. Economic Inquiry, 44(1), 98-108.
Emerging Credit Rating Ltd. (ECRL), Bangladesh, 2015. Cement Industry of Bangladesh – December 2015, Available in:
https://emergingrating.com/index.php/industry-report/, (accessed April 22, 2019).
Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh (BEPB), 2016. Export Statistics Book 2015-2106. Available in: http://epb.portal.gov.bd/site/files/, (accessed
April 22, 2019).
Feng, M., Terziovski, M., & Samson, D. (2007). Relationship of ISO 9001: 2000 quality system certification with operational and business performance:
A survey in Australia and New Zealand-based manufacturing and service companies. Journal of manufacturing technology management,
19(1), 22-37.
Fried, H. O., Lovell, C. K., Schmidt, S. S., & Schmidt, S. S. (Eds.). (2008). The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford
University Press.
Gill, A., Biger, N., & Mathur, N. (2010). The relationship between working capital management and profitability: Evidence from the United States.
Business and economics journal, 10(1), 1-9.
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective
and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263.
Graisa, M., & Al-Habaibeh, A. (2011). An investigation into current production challenges facing the Libyan cement industry and the need for
innovative total productive maintenance (TPM) strategy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(4), 541-558.
Greenaway, D., Guariglia, A., & Kneller, R. (2007). Financial factors and exporting decisions. Journal of international economics, 73(2), 377-395.
Guellec, D., & De La Potterie, B. V. P. (2002). R&D and productivity growth. OECD Economic studies, 2001(2), 103-126.
Hamidi, N., Omidvari, M., & Meftahi, M. (2012). The effect of integrated management system on safety and productivity indices: Case study; Iranian
cement industries. Safety science, 50(5), 1180-1189.
Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., Lu, H., & Lan, W. (2010). Analysis of energy-efficiency opportunities for the cement industry in Shandong Province, China:
A case study of 16 cement plants. Energy, 35(8), 3461-3473.
Hoque, A., Mia, A., & Anwar, R. (2015). Working capital management and profitability: A study on cement industry in Bangladesh. Research Journal
of Finance and Accounting, 6(7), 18-28.
Hossain, M.K., & Moudud-Ul-Huq, S. (2014).Analysis of Credit-Strength of Cement Industry in Bangladesh. Management Studies and Economic
System, 1(2), 97-114.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy
of management journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Iqbal, S. A., Iqbal, M., Taufiq, M. Z., & Ahmed, M. S. (2010). Identification of occupational injury among the workers of selected cement industries in
Bangladesh-a case study. Journal of chemical engineering, 22-28.
Islam, M.A. and Khadem, M.M.R.K. (2013) ‘Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.426–448.
Istvan, R. L. (1992). A new productivity paradigm for competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 525-537.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic
investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294.
Jolliffe, I. (2011). Principal component analysis (pp. 1094-1096). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 10
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
Kilic, H., & Okumus, F. (2005). Factors influencing productivity in small island hotels: evidence from Northern Cyprus. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(4), 315-331.
Kim, E. (2000). Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Korean manufacturing industries: price protection, market power, and scale efficiency.
Journal of Development Economics, 62(1), 55-83.
Krishna, P. K., Franklin, J. S., & Senith, S. (2013). A study on the progress of Indian cement industry. European centre for research, training and
development, 11.
Kromann, L., Skaksen, J. R., & Sørensen, A. (2011). Automation, labor productivity and employment–a cross country comparison. CEBR, Copenhagen
Business School.
Kumar, K. K. (2009). Human resource management practices in cement industries in India: A case of India cements limited. Asia-Pacific journal of
social sciences, 1(2), 154-173.
Lee, W. R., Beruvides, M. G., & Chiu, Y. D. (2007). A study on the quality–productivity relationship and its verification in manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Economist, 52(2), 117-139.
Levine, D. I. (1991). Cohesiveness, productivity, and wage dispersion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 15(2), 237-255.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Rao, S. S. (2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and
organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107-124.
Madlool, N. A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Kamalisarvestani, M. (2013). An overview of energy savings measures for cement industries. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 18-29.
McMillan, M. S., & Rodrik, D. (2011). Globalization, structural change and productivity growth (No. w17143). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Medina, P., Meléndez, M., & Seim, K. (2003). Productivity dynamics of the Colombian manufacturing sector. Documento CEDE, 23, 1-45.
Mojahed, S., & Aghazadeh, F. (2008). Major factors influencing productivity of water and wastewater treatment plant construction: Evidence from
the deep south USA. International journal of project management, 26(2), 195-202.
Muthukrishnan, A. (2011). Productivity in cement industry A study with special reference to Tamilnadu.
Napompech, K. (2012). Effects of working capital management on the profitability of Thai listed firms. International Journal of Trade, Economics and
Finance, 3(3), 227-232.
Noche, B., & Elhasia, T. (2013). Approach to innovative supply chain strategies in cement industry; Analysis and Model simulation. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 75, 359-369.
Nzioki, P. M., Kimeli, S. K., Riwo Abudho, M., & Nthiwa, J. M. (2013). Management of working capital and its effect on profitability of manufacturing
companies listed on Nairobi securities exchange (NSE), Kenya.
Pandey, M., & Dong, X. Y. (2009). Manufacturing productivity in China and India: The role of institutional changes. China Economic Review, 20(4),
754-766.
Panwar, A., Nepal, B. P., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. P. S. (2015). On the adoption of lean manufacturing principles in process industries. Production
Planning & Control, 26(7), 564-587.
Prasada Rao, Y. V. S. S. S. V. (2006). Motivation model for improving productivity in a manufacturing unit–a success story. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 55(5), 430-436.
Quayyum, S. T. (2011). Effects of working capital management and liquidity: evidence from the cement Industry of Bangladesh. Journal of Business
and Technology (Dhaka), 6(1), 37-47.
Rahman, M. M. (2011). Working capital management and profitability: a study on textiles industry. ASA university review, 5(1), 115-132.
Rasul, M. G., Widianto, W., & Mohanty, B. (2005). Assessment of the thermal performance and energy conservation opportunities of a cement
industry in Indonesia. Applied thermal engineering, 25(17-18), 2950-2965.
Ray, B., & Reddy, B. S. (2012). Technical productivity analysis for cement industry at firm level (No. 2012-002). Indira Gandhi Institute of Development
Research, Mumbai, India.
Ray, S. (2012). Determinants of total factor productivity growth in selected manufacturing industries in India. Research and Social Practices in Social
Sciences, 7(2), 25-43.
Ray, S. and Pal, M.K. (2010). Trade liberalisation and industrial performance: an insight into the performance of cement industry in India. Int. J.
Productivity and Quality Management, 6(3), 332–353.
Saifuddin, A.M., Habib, M.A., Sumi, S.Y., Jennurine, M. & Islam, M.S. (2013). Minimization of waste by applying value stream mapping in supply chain
of cement industry. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 79-84.
Shafeek, H. (2012). Maintenance practices in cement industry. Asian Transactions on Engineering (ATE ISSN: 2221-4267) Volume, 1.
Sharma, S. (2007). Liberalization and productivity growth: a case of Indian cement industry. International journal of productivity and quality
management, 2(3), 307-321.
Sun, L., & Stuebs, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm productivity: Evidence from the chemical industry in the United States. Journal
of Business Ethics, 118(2), 251-263.
Supino, S., Malandrino, O., Testa, M., & Sica, D. (2016). Sustainability in the EU cement industry: the Italian and German experiences. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 112, 430-442.
Sur, D., & Chakraborty, K. (2011). Evaluating Relationship of Working Capital and Profitability: A Study of Select Multinational Companies in the
Indian Pharmaceutical Sector. IUP Journal of Management Research, 10(2).
Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic literature, 49(2), 326-65.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). SPSS for Windows workbook to accompany large sample examples of using multivariate statistics.
HarperCollins College Publishers.
Terziovski, M. (2006). Quality management practices and their relationship with customer satisfaction and productivity improvement. Management
Research News, 29(7), 414-424.
Texeira, M., Baldi, G., & Paruelo, J. (2012). An exploration of direct and indirect drivers of herbivore reproductive performance in arid and semi arid
rangelands by means of structural equation models. Journal of arid environments, 81, 26-34.
Tsekouras, K. D., & Daskalopoulou, I. F. (2006). Market concentration and multifaceted productive efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1-
2), 79-91.

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 11
Biswas, Kibria, Hasan, & Khan J. Prod. Sys. Manuf. Sci. (2020), 1(2), 0008
Utlu, Z., Sogut, Z., Hepbasli, A., & Oktay, Z. (2006). Energy and exergy analyses of a raw mill in a cement production. Applied Thermal Engineering,
26(17-18), 2479-2489.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J. L., Gasol, C. M., Guillem, M., & Josa, A. (2012). Implementation of best available techniques in cement
manufacturing: a life-cycle assessment study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 60-67.
Vilasini, P. P. G. N., Gamage, J. R., Kahangamage, U. P., & Thibbotuwawa, N. (2014, May). Low Productivity and Related Causative Factors: A Study
Based on Sri Lankan Manufacturing Organizations.
Xu, B. (2000). Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth. Journal of development economics, 62(2), 477-
493.
Zhao, Y., & Chua, D. K. (2003). Relationship between productivity and non value-adding activities. In Proceeding of the 11th annual conference of the
international group for lean construction, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.

This article is published as an open access article, licensed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
©2020 The Authors.

Journal of Production Systems and Manufacturing Science, ISSN 2634-4572 @ImperialOpen Publishing, London, United Kingdom 12
View publication stats