The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Investigating the factors affecting Construction

site
construction site productivity – productivity

a case of India
R.V.K. Vigneshwar and S. Shanmugapriya 963
Department of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore, India Received 7 June 2022
Revised 11 August 2022
Accepted 5 September 2022
Abstract
Purpose – Proper prediction of productivity can enable the enhanced estimation, realistic scheduling, and
accurate cost forecasting of construction processes. Due to the existence of different labor sources (unionized
and non-unionized), the prediction of productivity is still a significant problem in India. Moreover, the
construction procurement processes and on-site performance are the predominant elements that can result in
improved project outcomes. Thereby, the consideration of labor constraints and site conditions will play an
important role in productivity improvement.
Design/methodology/approach – This study investigates the factors affecting construction site
productivity. A total of 28 factors are grouped under 7 categories as follows: labor constraints, safety and
quality procurements, material and equipment (ME), site management, project working condition, delay
controls, construction methods and techniques, and external factors. Furthermore, by involving these factors,
the questionnaire survey was conducted among Indian construction practitioners. As a result, 204 responses
were received and the data were analyzed using a reliability test, relative importance index (RII), and analysis of
variance (ANOVA).
Findings – The result of this study highlighted the importance of strategic construction management activities
in terms of effective planning of ME, planning and realistic scheduling of construction activities, proper
communication, information sharing, etc. Thus, this study provides a clear insight to the Indian construction
practitioners in determining the effect of these site factors on the successful execution of their projects.
Originality/value – In this paper, the problem of construction productivity in India and its causes are
explained effectively. This study examines the preference of labor contract, labor source, and most importantly,
the factors affecting site productivity. Moreover, the other lagging issues regarding the management of
construction activities are also described in detail.
Keywords Construction productivity, Site productivity, Estimation and scheduling, Project execution,
Site conditions
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Previous decades had reminded us that low productivity is a persistent and serious issue in
the construction industry (Gupta et al., 2018). The knowledge of productivity is a critical
component of construction management, and it is applied in the construction process such as
planning and scheduling, estimation, accounting, and cost control (Proverbs et al., 1998).
Some researchers stated that manufacturing industries had higher productivity rates than
the construction industry (Hasan et al., 2018). It is due to the fact that the productivity in the
manufacturing sector is seemed to be monotonous, but in the construction industry, there are
numerous factors that create fluctuations in achieving the desired results.

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the numerous respondents of this study, for their
generous collaboration and contributions. Engineering, Construction and
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the Architectural Management
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2023
study. pp. 963-985
Ethical statement: Authors state that the research was conducted according to ethical standards. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-06-2022-0529
ECAM In India, the construction industry is the second-largest economic activity after
30,2 agriculture, employing approximately 33–40 million people (National Skill Development
Corporation, 2015; Dhal, 2020; Hasan and Jha, 2013; Dixit et al., 2018). Due to its larger size, the
construction industry greatly affects the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and causes
some fluctuations in local economics (Choi et al., 2013). In this competitive industry, reducing
the project cost and delivering the project on time are considered to be the most important and
critical factors (Palikhe et al., 2019; Hasan and Jha, 2016). Moreover, construction is a labor-
964 intensive industry (El-Gohary and Aziz, 2014) and it involves various people with different
levels of responsibilities (Wambeke et al., 2011). Thereby, the prediction or estimation of
construction tasks/activity highly relies on the laborers/workforce. Furthermore, Dhal (2020)
explained the precarious faces of laborers and the labor stand that exists in India. For the
better execution of the project with the available labor sources (unionized and non-unionized),
the proper prediction of the outturn (the productivity) is considered to be the preamble factor
for both pre-construction and execution phases. Therefore, the initial research questions are:
what are the factors that affect Indian construction productivity? How do these factors
influence the construction process? How do the preference and perceptions vary based on the
construction practitioners? Thereby, the first objective of this research is to identify and
analyze the factors affecting the site productivity based on the Indian scenario. Second, to
measure the impact and severity of the factors that affects site productivity (SP). Third, to
investigate and understand the various perceptional differences among the construction
practitioners.

2. Background and literature review

In construction, the previously published papers had explained the various terms such as
construction productivity, labor productivity, and total factor productivity. Thereby, this
section emphasizes the background for considering the site productivity and followed by the
literature review. In most cases, productivity is measured as the ratio of outputs to inputs.
The variables that influence productivity are numerous, complex, interconnected, and
dynamic (Vogl and Abdel-Wahab, 2015). If the only input considered is labor, then it is
referred to as labor productivity, and if all possible inputs are considered, it is referred to as
total factor productivity. The parameters that influence productivity are composed of both
quantitative and qualitative variables. In that, the qualitative factors can influence the
number of hours, tasks, and activities performed on site (Florez and Cortissoz, 2017). Adding
to this, there is neither standard definition nor a standard measurement for productivity
(Shehata and El-Gohary, 2011; Vereen et al., 2016; Park et al., 2005). Moreover, construction
project execution is influenced by a variety of parameters (factors and practices) that exist at
various levels of the project hierarchy (activity, project, organizational, provincial, national,
and global levels) (Tsehayae and Fayek, 2014). Thereby, developing the constant measure of
productivity at the site, management, and the overall industry can provide the possible result
in terms of quantity of work done at the site, management capabilities, and industry
developments (i.e. GDP) respectively. Furthermore, in construction, the input-to-output
conversion process occurs during the project execution phase. Thus, the site productivity will
explain the process and quantity of work executed at the individual project sites. Thereby,
this measure of site productivity will discuss the operational efficiency of labor, material,
machine, and equipment at the site and the management strategies for producing the output
in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects.
For this study, a literature review on the topics of construction productivity, labor
productivity, site productivity, and total factor productivity was performed. Dai et al. (2009a)
studied the factors affecting workers’ productivity by examining the perceptions of
construction craft workers. According to the data, the factors affecting their productivity are
found to be the tools and consumables, materials, engineering drawing management, and Construction
construction equipment. In addition, they discovered that the lack of communication among site
site management and out-of-sequence work assignments are other severe problems in
productivity. Siriwardana and Ruwanpura (2012) determined that there is a strong need to
productivity
develop innovative strategies for enhancing construction productivity in terms of both labor
and management concerns. To accomplish this, they evaluated the worker performance
index (WPI) in terms of motivation, technical skills, and management factors. As a result, the
proposed evaluation format of WPI was found capable of acquiring data based on a multitude 965
of selected performance indicators. Furthermore, they suggested exploring this concept to
represent worker group performance levels. Thomas et al. (1992) compared the labor
productivity in seven countries and as a result, the major difference was found to be the
management influences. Later, Thomas (2015) detailed a six-step procedure for attaining the
benchmarking labor productivity. Based on the case study, the crew and management
influences, external influences, and site management were found to be the key performance
indicators for improving labor productivity. Ghodrati et al. (2018) analyzed the role of
management strategies in improving construction productivity. They explored the
management, human and external factors based on the management strategy (i.e.
planning, incentives program, labor management, communication, training, supervision,
leadership, etc). As a result, they stated that communication, incentive programs, and labor
management were found to have the strongest association with labor productivity. Moreover,
Gurmu and Ongkowijoyo (2020) predicted the construction labor productivity (CLP) with the
implementation of human resource management (HRM) practices. As a result, they suggested
that the company size and human resource practices are highly correlated. They also
suggested extending this research by collecting data from unionized and nonunionized
projects to analyze the HRM practices and their respective implementation levels. The
findings from this literature stated the importance of management, management strategies,
and human resource practices in improving construction productivity. Adding to this, the
research work published in the Indian context is reviewed and discussed as follows:
Loganathan and Kalidindi (2015) conducted a case study on determining the variation of
masonry labor productivity in India. As a result, they indicated the importance of planning,
maintenance of the workflow, and labor flow as significant factors. Further, Dixit et al. (2017b)
stated that it is necessary to make a sincere effort to resolve the issue of low construction
productivity in India, and Dixit et al. (2017a) mentioned the amount of productivity loss
exceeds 30%. Later, Dixit et al. (2018) and Dixit (2018) analyzed the same set of 18 attributes
with the RII and regression analysis respectively. The results of the findings highlighted the
importance of site management, competency management, commitment and coordination,
resource management, planning, change in scope, revision in drawings, and response to
change orders as the primary determinants of construction productivity. In addition, Gupta
et al. (2018) investigated workforce productivity based on the site amenities and workers’
welfare. The findings had shown that improper letters of intent and delays in land acquisition
for establishing proper labor camps are the leading causes of substandard site amenities and
labor welfare in Indian construction projects. Moreover, they stated that in the context of
developing nations such as India, policymakers and project stakeholders have not yet paid the
necessary attention to the working and living conditions of construction workers. Moreover,
Karthik and Kameswara Rao (2019) analyzed the 38 factors in building construction projects
using RII. In this study, it was determined that workforce-related factors had the greatest
impact on labor productivity. Furthermore, Agrawal and Halder (2020) focused on identifying
the factors affecting CLP by directly surveying the construction laborers. This research
revealed that the labor personal problems, scheduling and management of work, temperature,
wind, and precipitation as the most influential factors on their work productivity. Similarly,
Somanathan et al. (2021) examined the effect of temperature on productivity and labor supply
ECAM using the Indian manufacturing sector data. As a result, they concluded that the effects of
30,2 temperature on worker productivity may be even more prominent and widespread in sectors
such as agriculture and construction. Finally, this literature emphasizes the significance of
workers’ services, site management, and working conditions as crucial factors in enhancing
the Indian construction productivity. Consequently, these factors are taken into account when
developing the questionnaire for this study.
From the literature review, the factors and the findings of the previous studies revealed
966 some similarities, but the majority of differences can be seen based on country. Moreover,
comparing on-site and off-site productivity, it was determined that off-site productivity
increased by 2.32% annually while on-site productivity increased by 1.43% annually
(Eastman and Sacks, 2008). However, in construction, off-site productivity can be viewed as a
component of execution, but on-site productivity requires consideration of numerous factors.
Identically, the environmental conditions and management strategies will also influence the
project execution (Kermanshachi et al., 2022). Furthermore, in the determinants of total factor
productivity, Romer’s model assumes a labor market in which workers are free to move
between the industrial and research sectors (Misra, 2020). Thereby, this study focuses on the
labor source, working conditions, and site management factors for improving productivity.
Although productivity is the most researched topic all around the world, the following section
explains the need for this study in India.

3. Context of this study

First, according to the National Skill Development Corporation, India’s biggest management
skill gaps are in the planning stage (ILO, 2015). Similarly, Yates (2014) stated that if there is
good management, productivity for earthwork tasks in India and Indonesia can be up to four
times the usual rates for those countries. In addition, the quarterly reports of the Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI) affirm that cost overruns and
unstoppable delays have become the hallmark of India’s infrastructure projects (Patil et al.,
2013). Moreover, in the Indian construction industry, the scheduling of construction
activities/tasks is not given proper attention and is also not followed effectively. Nevertheless,
Ahmad et al. (2017) stated that the construction sector lags in finding the resolution of
disputes between the owner and contractor. Furthermore, on-site productivities are a major
concern for owners (Dissanayake et al., 2005). Thereby the procurement processes and on-site
performance can result in achieving better project outcomes (Durdyev and Mbachu, 2011).
Second, In India, the analysis of rates is typically used to predict the quantity of resources
(labors, materials, and equipment) required for a particular activity or task (CPWD, 2019).
Despite the fact that these quantitative measures are adequate for estimating and scheduling
the project’s activities/tasks, qualitative factors play a crucial role during project execution.
However, it is mentioned that the analysis of rates is indicative and it may vary based on the
qualitative factors (i.e. the skill of labor, levels of safety, and other conditions). Nonetheless,
the combination of labor and other resource outturns will provide a reasonable estimate of the
project outcome. Thereby, the factors affecting the site productivity are needed to be
analyzed. Based on the consideration, the selected groups, factors, and their source references
are shown in Table 1.
Third, Gupta et al. (2018) stated that construction workers are considered an inexpensive
resource in developing countries (i.e. India). Moreover, examining the effect of site amenities
and labor welfare measures on project parameters such as safety, basic amenities, and
buildability factors could identify significant areas for improvement. Similarly, Dhal (2020)
described the precarious conditions of Indian laborers, stating that nearly 92% of workers are
employed in the informal sector and the vast majority of them earn low wages and lack social
protection. In addition to the fact discussed in this particular article, it is difficult to employ
Main factors ID Sub factors Source reference
Construction
site
Labor constraints LC1 Experience and knowledge of labor Enshassi et al. (2007), Dai et al. productivity
[LC] can enhance site execution (2009b), Durdyev and Mbachu
(2011), El-Gohary and Aziz (2014),
El-Gohary et al. (2017), Hwang et al.
(2017), Golchin Rad and Kim (2018),
Durdyev et al. (2018), Gurcanli et al. 967
(2021)
LC2 The skill of labor can affect the site Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Dai et al.
execution process (2007), Durdyev and Mbachu (2011),
El-Gohary and Aziz (2014), Hwang
et al. (2017), Durdyev et al. (2018),
Ghodrati et al. (2018), Palikhe et al.
(2019), Gurcanli et al. (2021)
LC3 Site execution processes are affected Doloi (2008), Jang et al. (2011),
by the workers’ behavior Nasirian et al. (2019), Ahmadian
Fard Fini et al. (2017)
LC4 The physical limitations (i.e. stress, Jang et al. (2011), Shan et al. (2017),
fatigue, workload, etc.) of laborers Ghodrati et al. (2018), Ahmadian
play a significant role at the site Fard Fini et al. (2017)
Safety and quality SQP1 Providing personnel protection Dai et al. (2007, 2009b), Gunduz et al.
procurements [SQP] equipment can improve the site’s (2017), Li et al. (2017), Gupta et al.
productivity (2018)
SQP2 Conducting regular safety Dai et al. (2007), Ghoddousi and
programs at the site can improve Hosseini (2012), Shan et al. (2016),
productivity Demirkesen and Ozorhon (2017),
Ghodrati et al. (2018), Gurcanli et al.
(2021)
SQP3 Site efficiency can be improved by Dai et al. (2007, 2009b), El-Gohary
regular communication and proper and Aziz (2014), Shan et al. (2016),
information sharing Demirkesen and Ozorhon (2017),
Hwang et al. (2017), Ghodrati et al.
(2018)
SQP4 Following quality procedures at the El-Gohary and Aziz (2014), Shan
site can influence project efficiency et al. (2016), Demirkesen and
Ozorhon (2017), Ghodrati et al.
(2018)
Material and ME1 Effective planning of materials and Goodrum et al. (2011), Shan et al.
equipment [ME] equipment can enhance the site (2016), Hwang et al. (2017), Ghodrati
process et al. (2018), Gurmu and Aibinu
(2017)
ME2 Proper maintenance of material and Enshassi et al. (2007), Dai et al.
equipment conditions improves site (2007), Thomas and Sudhakumar
efficiency (2013), El-Gohary and Aziz (2014),
Hwang et al. (2017), Gurmu and
Aibinu (2017)
ME3 Availability and condition of tools Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Enshassi
influence the site productivity et al. (2007), Dai et al. (2009b), Hanafi
et al. (2010), Thomas and
Sudhakumar (2013), Palikhe et al.
(2019), Gurmu and Aibinu (2017), Table 1.
Ghodrati et al. (2018) Factors affecting site
productivity and the
(continued ) references
ECAM Main factors ID Sub factors Source reference
30,2
Site management SM1 The site productivity depends Demirkesen and Ozorhon (2017),
[SM] greatly on the type of labor contract Ghodrati et al. (2018), Gurmu and
Aibinu (2017), Yates (2014), Zhan
and Pan (2020)
SM2 Proper supervision can enhance site Rivas et al. (2011), Thomas and
968 productivity Sudhakumar (2013), Hwang et al.
(2017), Durdyev et al. (2018),
Gurcanli et al. (2021)
SM3 Proper planning and realistic Dai et al. (2009a), Hanafi et al. (2010),
scheduling of site activities can Goodrum et al. (2011), Ghoddousi
enhance the project flow and Hosseini (2012), Thomas and
Sudhakumar (2013), Demirkesen
and Ozorhon (2017), Hwang et al.
(2017), Durdyev et al. (2018),
Gurcanli et al. (2021)
SM4 Providing basic amenities at the site Enshassi et al. (2007), Thomas and
can increase productivity Sudhakumar (2013), El-Gohary
et al. (2017), Gupta et al. (2018)
SM5 Frequent change of order has an Hanafi et al. (2010), Durdyev and
impact on the site execution Mbachu (2011), Ghoddousi and
Hosseini (2012), Hasan and Jha
(2016), Demirkesen and Ozorhon
(2017), Palikhe et al. (2019)
Project working PWC1 The site productivity varies Enshassi et al. (2007), Dai et al.
condition [PWC] depending on the location and (2009b), Durdyev and Mbachu
layout (2011), Ghoddousi and Hosseini
(2012), Hwang et al. (2017), Golchin
Rad and Kim (2018), Durdyev et al.
(2018), Palikhe et al. (2019)
PWC2 The complexity of the project affects Jarkas (2010), Durdyev and Mbachu
the efficiency of the laborers (2011), El-Gohary and Aziz (2014),
Durdyev et al. (2018)
PWC3 Weather and climate condition have Dai et al. (2009b), Hanafi et al. (2010),
an impact on site execution Hwang et al. (2017), Golchin Rad
and Kim (2018), Durdyev et al.
(2018)
Delay controls [DC] DC1 Inspection delays at the execution Enshassi et al. (2007), Hanafi et al.
stage have an impact on the project (2010), Ghoddousi and Hosseini
schedule (2012), Palikhe et al. (2019), Gurcanli
et al. (2021)
DC2 Supervision delay influences the Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Enshassi
regular site activities et al. (2007), Thomas and
Sudhakumar (2013), Hwang et al.
(2017), Palikhe et al. (2019), Gurcanli
et al. (2021)
DC3 Payment delays to workers have an Enshassi et al. (2007), Durdyev and
impact on site productivity Mbachu (2011), Nyoni and Bonga
(2016), Hwang et al. (2017), Golchin
Rad and Kim (2018), Durdyev et al.
(2018), Palikhe et al. (2019), Gurcanli
et al. (2021)

Table 1. (continued )
Main factors ID Sub factors Source reference
Construction
site
Construction methods CMT1 The selection of construction Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Enshassi productivity
andtechniques [CMT] methods and practices has an et al. (2007), Durdyev and Mbachu
impact on site productivity (2011), El-Gohary and Aziz (2014),
Hwang et al. (2017), Gurcanli et al.
(2021)
CMT2 Utilizing advanced techniques and Durdyev and Mbachu (2011), 969
technology can enhance site Demirkesen and Ozorhon (2017), El-
productivity Gohary et al. (2017), Hwang et al.
(2017), Durdyev et al. (2018)
CMT3 The efficiency of the labor varies Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Jarkas (2010,
depending upon the buildability 2016), Durdyev and Mbachu (2011),
factor El-Gohary et al. (2017), Durdyev
et al. (2018)
External factors [EF] EF1 Government regulation affects site Maloney (1983), Enshassi et al.
efficiency (2007), Yates (2014)
EF2 Client interruption affects the site Durdyev and Mbachu (2011), Hasan
activities and Jha (2016), Durdyev et al. (2018)
EF3 The cultural and political influence Alinaitwe et al. (2007), Enshassi
affects the site execution process et al. (2007), Wang et al. (2010),
Hasan and Jha (2016) Table 1.

these workers and predict their performance for a specific task. This informal method of
employment (labor stand) results in employment variability, and it appears difficult to
estimate the project outcomes as well. For instance, the prediction of their outturn, level of
skill, training for the specific activity, safety, and quality are still remaining uncertain. By
employing these laborers, the industry is unable to predict and estimate construction activity
with precision. Consequently, this causes a lag in the project’s scheduling activities and it
often results in project delay and cost overrun.
Fourth, based on the reports of the planning commission of India’s 12th five-year plan, the
construction industry in India is found to contribute approximately 8% to the total GDP
(Dixit et al., 2017b). Similarly, the construction sector is the key driver of socio-economic
development in India. Moreover, it is expected to grow at an annual average rate of 6.6%
between 2019 and 2028 (Kar and Jha, 2020). Thereby, for the future development of the
industry and the employment of millions of laborers, construction productivity is still a major
area for improvement. Furthermore, productivity addresses the issue of resource efficiency in
the production of goods and services. Therefore, productivity growth is strongly correlated
with economic growth (Tran and Tookey, 2011).
Fifth, so far, the papers published in India regarding productivity had missed taking into
consideration of the factors such as safety and quality, usage of construction methods and
techniques, preference of labor contract, and labor source. Moreover, there were only a few
papers on the ‘‘framework to improve on-site construction productivity” and there is a
significant research and development gap in construction productivity in India (Dixit et al., 2019).
Thereby, in combination (third, fourth, and fifth), this study focuses on the factors affecting site
productivity, the consideration of labor source, and the analysis of practitioners’ perceptions.
Mostly, the developed countries are focusing on the advancement of technologies to
overcome the problem of productivity. The context of this study indicates the current
situation of the Indian construction industry, laborers’ employment, and their contribution to
India’s GDP. Thereby, focusing on the enhancement of industrial development from the
current level will make a more meaningful insight than following the same as of developed
countries.
ECAM 4. Methodology
30,2 From the literature review and the context of this study, the factors are selected and they are
grouped as shown in Table 1. To analyze the factors affecting site productivity, this study
adopted a questionnaire survey as the research method. Therefore, the questionnaire was
designed in consultation with the experts and it comprises two sections. The first part of the
questionnaire consists of general information about the respondent and the second part
consists of the factors affecting site productivity. A simple random sampling procedure was
970 followed to collect the data from different construction practitioners. Nearly 502 Indian
construction practitioners were contacted through mail, phone, social media (i.e. Linkedin),
and in person to evaluate the selected factors of site productivity. Thereby, with the ninety-
five percent confidence level and five percent margin of error, the targeted sample size was
found to be 218. During the pilot study, the weightage for many factors seems to be nearly
equal while using the five-point Likert scale. So, the scale was expanded and the respondents
were asked to fill the questionnaire with the seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree–1;
disagree–2; moderately disagree–3; neither disagree nor agree–4; moderately agree–5; agree–
6; strongly agree–7). As a result, a total of 204 responses were received from the practitioners
and their detailed demographics were shown in Table 2. The acquired data were analyzed
using the reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha method), relative importance index (RII), and
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Thereby, the following section discusses the test results and
findings derived from the analysis.

5. Results and findings

5.1 Respondent’s demographics
The respondents were asked to provide information about their designation, work
experience, educational qualification, organization turnover in terms of rupees (₹), labor
contract preferred, preferred workweek, and preference of labor source. The frequency and
percentage of the parameters are shown in Table 2. Among 204, the maximum percentage of
response was obtained from the engineers (41.2%) and the owner (21.1%). The primary
reason for collecting the data from engineers and owners is that they contribute to the
construction of the majority of the residential and commercial structures in India. Since the
site activities are common to all the practitioners, their responses were also acquired and their
percentages are shown in Table 2.
In India, the organization size can be differentiated based on the organization turnover as
micro (less than 5 crores), small (5–75 crore), macro (75–250 crore), and large (above 250
crores). The maximum of responses was acquired from the different organizations, as in total,
the less than 5 crore turnover accounted for 57.8% as shown in Table 2. Since, micro, small
and macro enterprises constitute the majority of the business world, they play a significant
role in the economic development of both developed and developing countries (Ghobakhloo
et al., 2010). Thereby, obtaining a feasible solution for this study can assist the different levels
of practitioners in achieving enhanced productivity.
Similarly, the preference of labor contract, workweek, and labor source is collected to
figure out the Indian construction practitioners’ perception and their preference towards the
execution of the site process. In the preference of labor contracts, most of the respondents had
preferred “based on the work” as shown in Table 2. It emphasizes the variability in hiring
laborers and it can also conclude that the preference is not constant. Moreover, the
preferences of labor sources seem to be nearly equal between the unionized and non-
unionized labor sources (i.e. 54 and 46% respectively). Furthermore, the work patterns such
as 9 h 3 6 days, 8 h 3 7 days, etc. indicate the total work hours per week. Thereby, from the
preferences of a workweek, the efficient utilization of labor and the percentage of work
completed per week can be calculated.
Parameters Frequency Percent
Construction
site
Designation of the respondent productivity
Owner 43 21.1
Contractor 8 3.9
Consultant 19 9.3
Architect 9 4.4
Project manager 15 7.4 971
Engineer 84 41.2
Supervisor 8 3.9
Academician 18 8.8
Educational qualification
Diploma 19 9.3
Bachelor degree (B.E./B.Arch) 95 46.6
Master degree (M.E./M.Arch) 84 41.2
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 6 2.9
Experience in the Industry
1–3 years 69 33.8
4–10 years 64 31.4
11–20 years 39 19.1
Above 20 years 32 15.7
Organization turnover (in rupees (₹))
Less than 5 crore 118 57.8
5–75 crore 26 12.7
75–250 crore 9 4.4
Above 250 crore 27 13.2
Government/NGO 24 11.8
Labor contract preferred
Daily contract 15 7.4
Weekly contract 20 9.8
Monthly contract 40 19.6
Based on the work 129 63.2
Preferred workweek
8 h 3 6 days 79 38.7
8 h 3 7 days 41 20.1
9 h 3 5 days 50 24.5
9 h 3 6 days 34 16.7
Preference for a labor source
Unionized 111 54.4
Non-Unionized (labor stand) 93 45.6
Does the education level of labor impact the Indian construction industry?
yes 166 81.4 Table 2.
no 38 18.6 Respondents
Total 204 100 demographics

5.2 Reliability test

The Cronbach’s alpha method was used to assess the data reliability as shown in Table 3.
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient that indicates internal consistency and reliability. Below 0.3,
Cronbach’s alpha is considered low, while 0.7 to 0.9 is considered reliable and effective (Cho and
Kim, 2015; Golchin Rad and Kim, 2018). From Table 3, all the survey data values seem to be
highly acceptable. Moreover, the overall α is 0.889 and it shows that the test is 88.9% reliable.
ECAM 5.3 Relative important index (RII)
30,2 X .
RII ¼ W ðA x N Þ

The RII method was used to analyze the data using the equation suggested by
Shanmugapriya and Subramanian (2013) and Vigneshwar et al. (2022). Where W denotes
972 the weight assigned by respondents to each factor (ranging from 1 to 7 in this case), A denotes
the highest weight (i.e. 7 in this case), and N denotes the total number of respondents (i.e. 204
in this study). The results of the analysis were ranked and it is shown in Table 4.
Based on the designation of the respondent, the variation towards the factors of site
productivity was analyzed as shown in Table 4. The overall top factors that affect site
productivity are found to be effective planning of material and equipment, adequate planning
and realistic scheduling of activities, proper communication and information sharing,
maintenance of materials and equipment condition, and enhanced supervision. Furthermore,
to demonstrate the importance of the selected factors in the Indian construction industry, the
severity graph was developed.
Abdul Kadir et al. (2005) explained the severity index as the product of the importance
index and frequency index. By following this method, the overall RII values of this study are
considered as the importance index and the total number of highest weightage (7 ) given to
each factor was considered as the frequency index. Using these values, the severity graph
was drawn as shown in Figure 1. Moreover, the severity graph clearly shows the respondents’
acceptance rate and the criticality of the selected site productivity factors. Of the overall
respondents (204), the maximum respondents (125) had given the highest weightage to the
factor SM3 and that attributes to the need for proper planning and scheduling of site
activities. As shown in Figure 1, a minimum of 27% and a maximum of 61% of practitioners
have assigned the highest weight to the factors of site productivity. For instance, the lowest
frequency is 55 (as shown in the severity graph) and it accounted for 27% in total. Furthermore,
to determine the perception variation of respondents, the one-way ANOVA test was
performed. Specifically, Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was performed.

5.4 ANOVA test

For determining the difference in perception with the factors of site productivity, ANOVA
was used. This analysis considers the null hypothesis (H0) and the alternate hypothesis (H1).
Where, H0 -There is no statistically significant difference between the groups. H1-There is a
statistically significant difference between the groups. Moreover, the test was performed
among the factors of site productivity with the respondents’ general information obtained
(i.e. designation, work experience, educational qualification, organization turnover, labor

Factors Cronbach’s alpha

LC 0.884
SQP 0.875
ME 0.879
SM 0.862
PWC 0.876
DC 0.871
CMT 0.874
Table 3. EF 0.891
Reliability test Overall 0.889
 Owner Contractor Consultant Architect Project manager Engineer Supervisor Academician Overall response
ID RII R RII R RII R RII R RII R RII R RII R RII R RII R Fr

LC1 0.954 2 0.822 20 0.895 12 0.667 27 0.896 10 0.854 14 0.643 28 0.937 9 0.872 14 103
LC2 0.904 13 0.84 16 0.918 6 0.81 15 0.953 1* 0.851 16 0.768 16 0.881 15 0.873 13 100
LC3 0.871 19 0.84 16 0.88 13 0.81 15 0.886 11 0.836 23 0.822 5 0.85 20 0.851 16 79
LC4 0.884 15 0.804 25 0.85 21 0.572 28 0.858 16 0.859 13 0.733 23 0.929 12 0.85 17 85
SQP1 0.874 16 0.786 26 0.82 24 0.874 8 0.867 14 0.839 20 0.75 20 0.874 17 0.846 20 82
SQP2 0.804 27 0.768 28 0.813 25 0.794 18 0.743 26 0.837 21 0.75 20 0.858 19 0.815 26 73
SQP3 0.944 7 0.822 20 0.918 6 0.937 1* 0.924 4 0.907 3 0.911 1* 0.953 5 0.919 3 117
SQP4 0.934 10 0.786 26 0.873 17 0.905 4 0.905 9 0.881 11 0.786 14 0.937 9 0.892 10 99
ME1 0.957 1* 0.858 14 0.94 2 0.905 4 0.934 2 0.905 4 0.84 3 0.999 1* 0.926 1* 124
ME2 0.934 10 0.875 11 0.948 1* 0.921 3 0.924 4 0.904 6 0.804 7 0.953 5 0.916 4 121
ME3 0.947 5 0.947 1* 0.903 9 0.858 9 0.924 4 0.883 9 0.786 14 0.953 5 0.905 7 116
SM1 0.854 25 0.822 20 0.858 19 0.762 22 0.82 20 0.827 25 0.768 16 0.842 23 0.831 23 78
SM2 0.947 5 0.929 3 0.925 4 0.858 9 0.867 14 0.904 6 0.804 7 0.977 2 0.914 5 118
SM3 0.951 3 0.929 3 0.918 6 0.937 1* 0.924 4 0.915 1* 0.804 7 0.945 8 0.923 2 125
SM4 0.941 8 0.947 1* 0.88 13 0.826 13 0.877 13 0.878 12 0.768 16 0.866 18 0.886 12 102
SM5 0.871 19 0.911 5 0.88 13 0.842 12 0.848 17 0.829 24 0.804 7 0.85 20 0.849 18 86
PWC1 0.851 26 0.84 16 0.85 21 0.794 18 0.772 24 0.849 17 0.804 7 0.889 14 0.843 21 84
PWC2 0.858 24 0.822 20 0.843 23 0.683 26 0.724 27 0.82 26 0.822 5 0.881 15 0.823 24 75
PWC3 0.901 14 0.893 9 0.903 9 0.889 6 0.915 8 0.915 1* 0.804 7 0.977 2 0.91 6 117
DC1 0.874 16 0.84 16 0.925 4 0.794 18 0.848 17 0.841 19 0.715 24 0.826 25 0.848 19 90
DC2 0.868 21 0.875 11 0.933 3 0.826 13 0.82 20 0.853 15 0.768 16 0.85 20 0.857 15 87
DC3 0.951 3 0.911 5 0.88 13 0.778 21 0.934 2 0.883 9 0.84 3 0.977 2 0.904 8 116
CMT1 0.917 12 0.893 9 0.873 17 0.889 6 0.886 11 0.905 4 0.875 2 0.937 9 0.904 8 102
CMT2 0.941 8 0.875 11 0.903 9 0.858 9 0.829 19 0.887 8 0.804 7 0.897 13 0.891 11 105
CMT3 0.874 16 0.911 5 0.858 19 0.81 15 0.781 22 0.837 21 0.679 27 0.834 24 0.838 22 77
EF1 0.791 28 0.822 20 0.76 27 0.715 25 0.686 28 0.752 28 0.715 24 0.699 28 0.751 28 55
EF2 0.861 22 0.911 5 0.797 26 0.747 23 0.781 22 0.795 27 0.715 24 0.818 26 0.809 27 72
EF3 0.861 22 0.858 14 0.737 28 0.747 23 0.762 25 0.847 18 0.75 20 0.818 26 0.823 24 80
Note(s): ID5 Indicators, R 5 Rank, Fr 5 Frequency of highest weightage (7) given to each factor, * indicates the top ranking factors
site

973
productivity
Construction

the factors of site

Frequency values for
Ranking, RII, and
Table 4.

productivity
ECAM EF3 130
LC1
LC2
30,2 EF2 LC3
120
EF1 LC4
110
103 100
CMT3 100 SQP1
80.9 82.3 87.2
90
974 CMT2 72 80 87.3 85.1 85 SQP2
105 83.8 75.1 80
79 85 84.6
70
CMT1 55 82 81.5 117 SQP3
102 89.1 77 60
50 73
90.4 91.9
DC3 116 90.4 40 89.2 99 SQP4
85.7 92.6
87
DC2 84.8 91.6 124 ME1
90 75 78
91 84 90.5
121
DC1 82.3 84.9 ME2
83.1
84.3
117 116
86
PWC3 ME3
91.4
88.6 92.3
PWC2 118 SM1
102
PWC1 125 SM2
Figure. 1. SM5 SM3
Severity graph Frequency of Highest Weightage
SM4
Overall RII (%)

contract preferred, preferred workweek, and preference of labor source). From the test results,
the respondents’ designation, work experience, organization turnover, and preference of
workweek had shown a significant difference and are shown in Tables 5–8 respectively.
The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than 0.01, which indicates that there is a
highly significant difference between the groups. From Table 5, it is clear that there is a
difference in opinion with the factors of LC as the subset variations denote (i.e. a, b, c, and d). In
that, the academician, engineers, project managers, and consultants do have the constant
opinion (subset variation b), and the architects, supervisors, and contractors, are having
completely different opinions (subset variation a, c and d respectively). Similarly, the null
hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than 0.05 and it indicates there is a significant
difference in opinion with the factors of ME. From Table 5, it can be specified that the owners
and project managers are concerning the factors of LC and ME for better site execution with the
high mean values. From Table 6, based on the p-value it is found that there is a highly significant
difference among the respondents’ experience with the factors of LC, ME, SM, and DC.
Comparatively, this table (VI) suggests that the acceptance of the site productivity factors by the
experienced practitioners (above 20 years) is high when compared to the other respondents.
From Table 7, it is found that the large size organization (above 250 crores) had accepted
the importance of site management with a high mean value (33.1481). This result is in line
with the findings of Gurmu and Ongkowijoyo (2020) as the organization size increases, the
priority for management activities also increases. The results of Table 8 highlighted that the
respondents preferring the standard workweek had accepted the importance of safety and
quality procurements with a high mean value (24.56). From this, it can be concluded that:
following the standard workweek can assist in the safety and quality procurements of the
project execution.
 Architect Supervisor Contractor Academician Engineer Consultant Project manager Owner F P

LC M 20 20.75 23.13 23.73 23.78 24.79 25.14 25.28 4.473 0.00**

S.D (4.949)a (3.412)c (3.522)d (3.357)b (3.425)b (3.154)b (2.133)b (2.938)b
SQP M 24.55 22.37 22.12 24.16 24.24 23.95 24.07 24.89 1.095 0.37
S.D 2.65 4.17 3.18 2.95 3.49 3.37 3.95 2.71
ME M 18.77 17 18.75 19.23 18.84 19.53 19.47 19.86 2.086 0.05*
S.D (2.488)a (3.071)b (1.488)a (1.957)a (2.438)a (2.010)a (2.614)a (1.767)a
SM M 29.55 27.62 31.75 30.05 30.45 31.21 30.34 31.93 1.766 0.10
S.D (3.609)c (6.345)a (2.121)b (3.262)c (4.190)c (3.838)b (3.498)c (2.995)b
PWC M 16.55 17 17.88 18.17 18.08 18.16 16.87 18.25 0.833 0.56
S.D 3.539 3.741 4.086 2.640 2.742 2.713 2.850 2.920
DC M 16.78 16.25 18.38 17.67 18.02 19.16 18.2 18.84 1.478 0.18
S.D (4.684)c (3.991)a (3.067)c (2.497)c (2.973)c (1.951)b (2.042)c (3.124)b
CMT M 17.89 16.5 18.75 17.78 18.40 18.42 17.47 19.12 1.796 0.09
S.D (3.059)c (2.390)a (2.052)b (2.365)c (2.498)c (2.036)c (3.020)c (2.118)b
EF M 15.44 15.25 18.12 15.5 16.75 16.05 15.6 17.58 1.49 0.17
S.D 4.772 2.964 3.090 2.812 3.535 4.034 4.067 3.289
Note(s): 1. M-Mean, S.D- Standard deviation. 2. a, b, c, and d show the differences in opinion (subset variation). 3. ** denotes significance at a 1% level
4. * denotes significance at a 5% level
site

975
productivity
Construction

factors of site
respondent and the
designations of the
Table 5.

between the
Result of ANOVA test

productivity
ECAM 1–3 years 4–10 years 11–20 years Above 20 years F P
30,2
LC M 23.18 24.67 24.083 25.55 4.175 0.007**
S.D (3.569)a (3.3241)ab (3.215)ab (3.112)b
SQP M 23.84 24.49 24.08 25.04 1.032 0.38
S.D 3.106 3.780 3.063 3.124
ME M 18.59 19.20 19.91 20.36 5.195 0.002**
976 S.D (2.498)a (2.265)ab (1.530)bc (1.048)c
SM M 30 31.322 29.875 33 4.78 0.003**
S.D (3.992)a (4.087)ab (3.026)a (2.225)b
PWC M 17.76 18.14 17.92 18.13 0.249 0.862
S.D 2.796 3.008 2.320 3.719
DC M 17.41 18.81 18.79 19.18 4.402 0.005**
S.D (3.207)a (2.706)ab (1.8410)ab (3.064)b
CMT M 17.96 18.78 18.54 18.68 1.636 0.182
Table 6. S.D 2.626 2.393 2.126 1.961
Result of ANOVA test
EF M 16.34 17.13 15.29 17.77 2.529 0.058
between the
experiences of the S.D 3.414 3.282 4.418 3.663
respondent and the Note(s): 1. M-Mean, S.D- Standard deviation. 2. a, ab, b, bc, and c shows the differences in opinion (subset
factors of site variation)
productivity 3. ** denotes significance at a 1% level

Government/ Less than 5 5–75 75–250 Above 250

NGO crore crore crore crore F P

LC M 23.34 23.56 24.30 24.78 25.78 2.682 0.033

S.D (4.400)a (3.436)ab (3.403)ab (3.492)ab (2.292)b
SQP M 24.5 23.57 24.85 24.89 25.74 3.044 0.018*
S.D 2.340 3.493 3.196 3.444 2.739
ME M 18.62 18.80 19.5 19.89 20.30 3.187 0.014
S.D (2.318)a (2.502)a (2.004)ab (1.269)ab (1.067)b
SM M 29.70 30.22 31.35 30.22 33.148 3.972 0.004**
S.D (3.973)a (4.047)a (3.345)ab (4.944)a (1.634)b
PWC M 18.67 17.47 18.54 18.56 18.48 1.8 0.13
S.D 2.200 3.276 2.267 2.186 2.137
DC M 16.70 17.95 19.23 18.45 19.34 3.62 0.007
S.D (3.629)a (3.118)ab (2.354)b (2.833)ab (1.441)b
Table 7. CMT M 17.46 18.24 19 18.44 18.93 1.709 0.149
Result of ANOVA test
S.D 2.918 2.570 1.497 2.351 2.074
between the
respondent EF M 15.08 16.64 17.42 15.56 17.34 1.942 0.105
organization turnovers S.D 3.798 3.565 3.087 3.283 3.679
and the factors of site Note(s): 1. M-Mean, S.D- Standard deviation. 2. a, ab, and b shows the differences in opinion (subset variation)
productivity 3. ** denotes significance at a 1% level. 4. * denotes significant at 5% level

6. Discussion
As previously outlined, construction productivity is the ratio of output to input. In that, the
most common input is the labor force. The labor cost of the project was estimated at around
20–50% of the total project cost by Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2004), 30–50% of the total project cost
by Hanna et al. (2005), Liu et al. (2011), Karim et al. (2013), El-Gohary and Aziz (2014), Gupta
et al. (2018) and 30–60% of the total project cost by El-Gohary et al. (2017) and Palikhe et al.
(2019). The details provided in the context of this study explain the labor issues that are
happening in India. With this, the prediction of productivity is still a significant problem that
 8 h 3 6 days 8 h 3 7 days 9 h 3 5 days 9 h 3 6 days F P
Construction
site
LC M 24.06 23.90 24.06 23.74 0.085 0.968 productivity
S.D 3.352 4.306 2.979 3.570
SQP M 24.56 24.49 24.42 22.62 3.163 0.026*
S.D (3.362)a (3.187)a (3.065)a (3.393)b
ME M 19.13 19.22 19.16 18.91 0.123 0.946
S.D 2.328 2.318 2.225 2.340 977
SM M 30.48 31.59 30.78 29.97 1.209 0.308
S.D 4.221 3.398 3.840 3.571
PWC M 17.57 18.44 18.32 17.56 1.317 0.27
S.D 3.209 2.766 2.559 2.743
DC M 18.06 18.46 18.34 17.82 0.366 0.777
S.D 3.131 3.507 2.387 2.886
CMT M 18.25 18.37 18.68 18.02 0.532 0.661 Table 8.
Result of ANOVA test
S.D 2.493 2.681 2.198 2.480
between the
EF M 16.69 17.07 16.56 15.88 0.715 0.544 respondent preferences
S.D 3.337 3.517 3.812 3.851 of the workweek and
Note(s): 1. M-Mean, S.D- Standard deviation. 2. a, and b shows the differences in opinion (subset variation) the factors of site
3. ** denotes significance at a 1% level productivity

restricts the growth of the Indian construction industry. Moreover, construction productivity
influences the direct cost of the project (Tsehayae and Fayek, 2014) and it can directly affect a
certain percentage of the nation’s GDP. Thus, the contribution of labor cost and productivity
to a project provides an understanding that: labor influences productivity, and productivity
influences the project cost. Thereby, the parameters of labor (preference of labor contract and
labor source) and the factors affecting the site productivity (the working conditions of the labor
at the site) are considered in this study.
Construction projects are complex undertakings that necessitate the collaboration of
several parties in the fields of finance, engineering, procurement, construction, and law
(Georgy et al., 2005). Thereby, the responses from all the construction practitioners were
obtained and their demographics were shown in Table 2. Moreover, from Table 2, the
preference for unionized and non-unionized labor sources seemed to be almost equal. In this
regard, the majority of studies had not addressed the difference between the contractor’s
profit percentages when using unionized and non-unionized workers. According to
Diekmann and Peppler (1984), contractors can save approximately 6–7 percent by
employing non-unionized laborers. Thereby, the existence of nonunionized labor sources is
advantageous for contractors, but it raises numerous questions about the quality and safety
of the work.
From the results of Table 4, the top factors that affect site productivity are effective
planning of materials and equipment, adequate planning and realistic scheduling of
activities, proper communication and information sharing, maintenance of materials and
equipment condition, and enhanced supervision. These results are in line with the findings of
Dixit et al. (2018), emphasizing the planning, scheduling, and availability of material as the
top factors influencing the SP in India. In addition to the results, the finding of Durdyev and
Ismail (2016) in Malaysia and Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) in New Zealand highlighted the
level of skill, the experience of the workforce, and rework as the most crucial factors affecting
the SP. Apart from the overall ranking (Table 4), the individual ranking based on the
designation of the respondent had shown some different results. The project managers
ranked labor skills as the first and the payment delays to the workers as the second
influencing factor in the site execution. The supervisor’s opinion showed that the site
ECAM efficiency is based on regular communication and proper information sharing and it is also
30,2 based on the selection of construction methods and practices. Moreover, the owners accepted
that the experience and knowledge of labor influence the site efficiency. These results
suggested that there are opinion differences based on the hierarchy of the designations that
exist in the construction industry. Especially, the supervisor had considered the factors with
the practical difficulties that they are facing at the site.
Furthermore, Figure 1 explains the acceptance of respondents towards the selected factors
978 of site productivity. The severity graph highlighted the importance of pre-construction
activities, especially planning and realistic scheduling of site activities (SM3) and proper
planning of ME at sites (ME1). Thereby, the planning of activities should completely rely on
feasible execution and there should be a better understanding among the teams of planning
and execution. From Tables 1 and 5–8, the variation in perception is observed among the
factors of labor constraint, material and equipment, site management, and delay controls. As
all these factors represent the capability of management in planning, scheduling, resource
controls, etc, there occurs a constant opinion difference based on the respondents’
designation, experience, and organization turnover. Moreover, the construction schedule
can reduce 15% or more of the total project cost (Thomas, 2015). As a result, the majority of
experienced practitioners, large organizations, and project managers realize the significance
of selected factors. Thereby, the consideration of the site factors can facilitate the proper
scheduling of construction activities and the achievement of better results.
In the era of digitalization, construction productivity can be increased through the
adoption of advanced digital tools and methodologies (Rodrigues et al., 2022). Further,
increasing investments in technology and organizational innovation will result in a paradigm
shift from “working harder and longer” to “working smarter” (Choi et al., 2013) However, more
research is required to establish the connection between productivity and modern concepts of
performance optimization (Naoum, 2016). Thereby, the selected factors will facilitate a
detailed understanding of the site productivity and future research can focus on developing
these factors as a tool for optimizing the project performance.

7. Implications of this study

Most of the respondents had accepted that the education level of labor will impact the
construction industry. Thereby for the long-term industrial growth and better development
of labor and organization, the number of research in this area has to be focused on. The
unionization of the labor force and providing specific training for the laborers have to be
improved. Mostly, the preference for labor contracts is varied based on the location. For
example, the laborers in north India are hired based on a monthly contract and they have only
one day of leave in a month (on Amavasya). The Indian labor law suggests 48 h per week as
the normal workload and the extra work is considered overtime. For the overtime work, the
extra percentage of wages has to be provided for the laborers. Since there are no adequate
measures for the workweek and overtime in the construction industry, it mostly benefits
contractors, consultants, and owners (i.e. using labor stand). Moreover, India’s annual
budgets propose rapid revisions to the labor wages and overtime pay but are rarely
implemented in the construction industry. However, the non-unionized labor force is acting as
the source for the absence of evidence regarding the hiring of laborers, wages, skills, training,
etc. Thereby, solving this issue is completely under the control of government actions.
In addition, this lack of evidence can act as necessary information for the proper planning
and realistic scheduling of site activities. Thus, it has been observed that India lacks a
systematic approach to managing construction projects (Thomas and Sudhakumar, 2013).
Thereby, collecting and standardizing the data regarding the preference of labor source for a
project and the number of laborers employed during the workweek can aid in the accurate
visualization of the labor percentage being utilized in India (per day/per week). This will
resolve the problem of unexpected labor shortages and it will assist in the total sector Construction
planning of laborers. Moreover, the expertise and efficiency of workers can be taken as good site
predictors for productivity assessment and valuation from the management level (Karthik
and Kameswara Rao, 2019). Furthermore, for the proper planning and scheduling of
productivity
activities, the predictions of specific labor output need to be quantified (based on skill,
training, quality, and local practices). Thereby, developing the tool or technique in this
prediction can facilitate a better project outcome.
Globally, the shortage of labor and skilled workers is the major issue. However, India has a 979
large population and it can act as a source of a larger supply of laborers (Dixit et al., 2017a).
Furthermore, the non-value-adding activities continue to consume between 50 and 70% of work
time at a typical worksite (Kazaz et al., 2016). Therefore, the estimation of the activities and
adoption of technologies along with the site consideration can increase productivity. Moreover,
optimal productivity is the highest sustainable productivity level achievable under good
management and typical working conditions (Kisi et al., 2017). Based on the research outcome, it
can be suggested that by standardizing the management actions for micro, small and medium-
sized construction companies, better performances can be obtained. Similarly, appointing a
capable project manager has been identified as the most essential step to preventing low
productivity (Agrawal and Halder, 2020).
As a result, the current situation necessitates the implementation of strategic construction
management activities and the development of a fundamental management framework for all
construction companies. Furthermore, to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on Indian
construction projects, Rani et al. (2022) stated that there must be improved project planning,
monitoring, and management. Therefore, future research will focus on improving the
management factors in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the resources
(labor, material, machine, and money) as well as the organization.

8. Conclusion
The proper planning of activities, labor, material, and equipment will path for the better
execution of the projects. Apart from the project’s size, the consideration of site activities and
labor parameters are playing a significant role in India. Therefore, this study focuses on
identifying and analyzing the factors affecting site productivity. The questionnaire survey
was conducted, and a total of 204 responses were obtained. The top qualitative factors
affecting site productivity are found to be effective material and equipment planning,
planning and realistic scheduling, communication and information sharing, material and
equipment maintenance, and proper supervision. The analysis of different perspectives of
construction practitioners revealed that there are significant differences in opinion among the
factors of labor constraint, material and equipment, site management, and delay controls.
Overall, the result of the data analysis suggested the importance of project management
activities that are essential during the project execution phase. As discussed in the context of
this study, the focus of this study is limited to the variables that influence site productivity
and labor parameters. In addition, the implication of this study highlights the possible
solution in line with the context of this study. However, there is more scope for research
identifying the most influencing factors of management in the Indian construction sector.
Thus, future studies will address these issues and will provide more accurate predictions
regarding the suggested different levels of productivity. Rather than the context of this study,
the Indian construction industry had accomplished more successful projects and standing
unique in the field of construction development (i.e. structural, geotechnical, infrastructural,
etc). As a sector, there are still many opportunities to improve in labor utilization,
management of projects, etc. Thereby, this study is the initial attempt to cover this area in
India. Further research will explain the operations and procedures for the total sector
development even more precisely.
ECAM 8.1 Limitations and future work
30,2 As previously discussed, productivity can be measured in terms of project site execution,
management capabilities, and industrial efficiencies. By measuring site productivity, it enables the
management in determining the output of project sites, and by measuring the management
productivity it enables the efficiency of different organizations (small, micro, and macro) in
completing a project. Consequently, the sum of the multiple organization efficiency contributes to
the nation’s GDP. Thereby, the initial measure should be appropriate and the factors to be
980 considered are outlined in this study. Future research can concentrate on developing a theoretical
framework model for the context of site productivity and the factors that affect management and
industrial efficiencies. Some references considered in this study may look old but to give the proper
credentials to the original statements they have been used.

References
Abdul Kadir, M.R., Lee, W.P., Jaafar, M.S., Sapuan, S.M. and Ali, A.A.A. (2005), “Factors affecting
construction labour productivity for Malaysian residential projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 42-54, doi: 10.1108/02630800510586907.
Agrawal, A. and Halder, S. (2020), “Identifying factors affecting construction labour productivity in
India and measures to improve productivity”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 569-579, doi: 10.1007/s42107-019-00212-3.
Ahmad, F., Banerjee, R., Raza, Z. and Dixit, R.B. (2017), “Swot analysis of arbitration awards in Indian
construction contracts”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 64-73.
Ahmadian Fard Fini, A., Akbarnezhad, A., Rashidi, T.H. and Waller, S.T. (2017), “Job assignment
based on brain demands and human resource strategies”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 143 No. 5, 04016123, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001273.
Alinaitwe, H.M., Mwakali, J.A. and Hansson, B. (2007), “Factors affecting the productivity of building
craftsmen - studies of Uganda”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 169-176, doi: 10.1080/13923730.2007.9636434.
Cho, E. and Kim, S. (2015), “Cronbach’s coefficient alpha”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 207-230, doi: 10.1177/1094428114555994.
Choi, K., Haque, M., Lee, H.W., Cho, Y.K. and Kwak, Y.H. (2013), “Macroeconomic labour productivity
and its impact on firm’s profitability”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 64 No. 8,
pp. 1258-1268, doi: 10.1057/jors.2012.157.
CPWD (2019), Government of India, central public works department analysis of rates for Delhi,
Vol. 1, available at: https://cpwd.gov.in/Publication/CivilDAR_2019_Vol_1.pdf
Dai, J., Goodrum, P.M. and Maloney, W.F. (2007), “Analysis of craft workers’ and foremen’s
perceptions of the factors affecting construction labour productivity”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1139-1152, doi: 10.1080/01446190701598681.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P.M. and Maloney, W.F. (2009a), “Construction craft workers’ perceptions of the
factors affecting their productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 135 No. 3, pp. 217-226, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:5(397).
Dai, J., Goodrum, P.M., Maloney, W.F. and Srinivasan, C. (2009b), “Latent structures of the factors
affecting construction labor productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 135 No. 5, pp. 397-406, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:5(397).
Demirkesen, S. and Ozorhon, B. (2017), “Measuring project management performance: case
of construction industry”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 258-277, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2017.1380579.
Dhal, M. (2020), “Labor stand: face of precarious migrant construction workers in India”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 6, 04020048, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.
1943-7862.0001761.
Diekmann, J.E. and Peppler, S.E. (1984), “Union and open shop labor cost differences”, Journal of Construction
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 87-99, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1984)110:1(87). site
Dissanayake, M., Fayek, A.R., Russell, A.D. and Pedrycz, W. (2005), “A hybrid neural network for
productivity
predicting construction labour productivity”, Proceedings of the 2005 ASCE International
Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 819-830, doi: 10.1061/40794(179)78.
Dixit, S. (2018), “Analysing enabling factors affecting the on-site productivity in Indian construction
industry”, Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 185-193, doi: 10.3311/ppar.12710. 981
Dixit, S., Mandal, S.N., Sawhney, A. and Singh, S. (2017a), “Relationship between skill development
and productivity in construction sector: a literature review”, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 649-665.
Dixit, S., Pandey, A.K., Mandal, S.N. and Bansal, S. (2017b), “A study of enabling factors affecting
construction productivity: Indian scnerio”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 741-758.
Dixit, S., Mandal, S.N., Thanikal, J.V. and Saurabh, K. (2018), “Critical analysis of factors affecting the
on-site productivity in Indian construction industry”, Creative Construction Conference 2018 -
Proceedings, July, pp. 38-45, doi: 10.3311/CCC2018-006.
Dixit, S., Mandal, S.N., Thanikal, J.V. and Saurabh, K. (2019), “Evolution of studies in construction
productivity: a systematic literature review (2006–2017)”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 555-564, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2018.10.010.
Doloi, H. (2008), “Application of AHP in improving construction productivity from a management
perspective”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 841-854, doi: 10.1080/
01446190802244789.
Durdyev, S. and Ismail, S. (2016), “On-site construction productivity in Malaysian infrastructure
projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 34 Nos 4-5, pp. 446-462, doi: 10.1108/SS-12-2015-0058.
Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011), “On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction industry:
key constraints and improvement measures”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-33, doi: 10.5130/ajceb.v11i3.2120.
Durdyev, S., Ismail, S. and Kandymov, N. (2018), “Structural equation model of the factors affecting
construction labor productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 144 No. 4, 04018007, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001452.
Eastman, C.M. and Sacks, R. (2008), “Relative productivity in the AEC industries in the United States
for on-site and off-site activities”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 134 No. 7, pp. 517-526, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2008)134:7(517).
El-Gohary, K.M. and Aziz, R.F. (2014), “Factors influencing construction labor productivity in Egypt”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.
0000168.
El-Gohary, K.M., Aziz, R.F. and Abdel-Khalek, H.A. (2017), “Engineering approach using ANN to
improve and predict construction labor productivity under different influences”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 8, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.
1943-7862.0001340.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Mustafa, Z.A. and Mayer, P.E. (2007), “Factors affecting labour
productivity in building projects in the Gaza strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-254, doi: 10.1080/13923730.2007.9636444.
Florez, L. and Cortissoz, J.C. (2017), “Using workers compatibility to predict labor productivity
through cluster Analysis”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 196 June, pp. 359-365, doi: 10.1016/j.
proeng.2017.07.211.
Georgy, M.E., Chang, L.-M. and Zhang, L. (2005), “Prediction of engineering performance: a
neurofuzzy approach”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 5,
pp. 548-557, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:5(548).
ECAM Ghobakhloo, M., Zulkifli, N.B. and Aziz, F.A. (2010), “The interactive model of user information
technology acceptance and satisfaction in small and medium-sized enterprises”, European
30,2 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 7-27.
Ghoddousi, P. and Hosseini, M.R. (2012), “A survey of the factors affecting the productivity of
construction projects in Iran”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 99-116, doi: 10.3846/20294913.2012.661203.
Ghodrati, N., Wing Yiu, T., Wilkinson, S. and Shahbazpour, M. (2018), “Role of management strategies
982 in improving labor productivity in general construction projects in New Zealand: managerial
perspective”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 6, 04018035, doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000641.
Golchin Rad, K. and Kim, S.Y. (2018), “Factors affecting construction labor productivity: Iran case
study”, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 42
No. 2, pp. 165-180, doi: 10.1007/s40996-018-0095-2.
Goodrum, P.M., Haas, C.T., Caldas, C., Zhai, D., Yeiser, J. and Homm, D. (2011), “Model to predict the
impact of a technology on construction productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 137 No. 9, pp. 678-688, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000328.
Gunduz, M., Birgonul, M.T. and Ozdemir, M. (2017), “Fuzzy structural equation model to assess
construction site safety performance”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 143 No. 4, 04016112, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001259.
Gupta, M., Hasan, A., Jain, A.K. and Jha, K.N. (2018), “Site amenities and workers’ welfare factors affecting
workforce productivity in Indian construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 144 No. 11, 04018101, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001566.
Gurcanli, G.E., Bilir Mahcicek, S., Serpel, E. and Attia, S. (2021), “Factors affecting productivity of
technical personnel in Turkish construction industry: a field study”, Arabian Journal for Science
and Engineering, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 11339-11353, doi: 10.1007/s13369-021-05789-z.
Gurmu, A.T. and Aibinu, A.A. (2017), “Construction equipment management practices for improving labor
productivity in multistory building construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 143 No. 10, 04017081, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001384.
Gurmu, A.T. and Ongkowijoyo, C.S. (2020), “Predicting construction labor productivity based on
implementation levels of human resource management practices”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 3, 04019115, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0001775.
Hanafi, M.H., Ghani Khalid, A., Razak, A.A. and Abdullah, S. (2010), “Main factors influencing labour
productivity of the installation of on-site prefabricated components”, International Journal of
Academic Research, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 139-146.
Hanna, A.S., Taylor, C.S. and Sullivan, K.T. (2005), “Impact of extended overtime on construction labor
productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 6,
pp. 734-739, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:6(734).
Hasan, A. and Jha, K.N. (2013), “Safety incentive and penalty provisions in Indian construction
projects and their impact on safety performance”, International Journal of Injury Control and
Safety Promotion, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-12, doi: 10.1080/17457300.2011.648676.
Hasan, A. and Jha, K.N. (2016), “Acceptance of the incentive/disincentive contracting strategy in
developing construction markets: empirical study from India”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 142 No. 2, 04015064, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001048.
Hasan, A., Elmualim, A., Rameezdeen, R., Baroudi, B. and Marshall, A. (2018), “An exploratory study
on the impact of mobile ICT on productivity in construction projects”, Built Environment
Project and Asset Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 320-332, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-10-2017-0080.
Hwang, B.-G., Zhu, L. and Ming, J.T.T. (2017), “Factors affecting productivity in green building
construction projects: the case of Singapore”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 33
No. 3, 04016052, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000499.
ILO (2015), “Good practices and challenges in promoting decent work in construction and Construction
infrastructure projects”, available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_
dialogue/—sector/documents/publication/wcms_416378.pdf site
Jang, H., Kim, K., Kim, J. and Kim, J. (2011), “Labour productivity model for reinforced concrete
productivity
construction projects”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 92-113, doi: 10.1108/
14714171111104655.
Jarkas, A.M. (2010), “Buildability factors influencing formwork labour productivity of isolated
foundations”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 274-295, doi: 10. 983
1108/17260531011086162.
Jarkas, A.M. (2016), “Effect of buildability on labor productivity: a practical quantification approach”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 2, 06015002, doi: 10.1061/
(asce)co.1943-7862.0001062.
Kar, S. and Jha, K.N. (2020), “Examining the effect of material management issues on the schedule and
cost performance of construction projects based on a structural equation model: survey of
Indian experiences”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 9,
05020011, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001906.
Karim, N.A., Hassan, S., Yunus, J. and Hashim, M. (2013), “Factors influence labour productivity and
the impacts on construction industry”, Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol. 2
August, pp. 349-354.
Karthik, D. and Kameswara Rao, C.B. (2019), “Identifying the significant factors affecting the masonry
labour productivity in building construction projects in India”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1631978.
Kazaz, A.Y. and Ulubeyli, S. (2004), “A different approach to construction labour in Turkey:
comparative productivity analysis”, Building and Environment, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93-100, doi: 10.
1016/j.buildenv.2003.08.004.
Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S., Acikara, T. and Er, B. (2016), “Factors affecting labor productivity:
perspectives of craft workers”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 164 June, pp. 28-34, doi: 10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.11.588.
Kermanshachi, S., Rouhanizadeh, B. and Govan, P. (2022), “Developing management policies and analyzing
impact of change orders on labor productivity in construction projects”, Journal of Engineering,
Design and Technology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 1257-1279, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-10-2020-0428.
Kisi, K.P., Mani, N., Rojas, E.M. and Foster, E.T. (2017), “Optimal productivity in labor-intensive
construction operations: pilot study”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 143 No. 3, 04016107, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001257.
Li, H., Li, X., Luo, X. and Siebert, J. (2017), “Investigation of the causality patterns of non-helmet use
behavior of construction workers”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 80, pp. 95-103, doi: 10.1016/
j.autcon.2017.02.006.
Liu, M., Ballard, G. and Ibbs, W. (2011), “Work flow variation and labor productivity: case study”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 236-242, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-
5479.0000056.
Loganathan, S. and Kalidindi, S. (2015), “Masonry labor construction productivity variation : an
Indian case”, Proceedings of the First Indian Lean Construction Conference, Vol. 1 February,
pp. 175-185, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272744373_MASONRY_
LABOR_CONSTRUCTION_PRODUCTIVITY_VARIATION_AN_INDIAN_CASE_STUDY?
enrichId5rgreq-ff97826fc8477c93b5a92fa20a16ee3d-XXX&enrichSource5Y292ZXJQYW
dlOzI3Mjc0NDM3MztBUzoyMDA0NTkxMTQ1NTMzNDVAMTQyNDgwNDU4NTUy
Maloney, W.F. (1983), “Productivity improvement: the influence of labor”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 321-334, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1983)109:3(321).
Misra, B.S. (2020), “Determinants of total factor productivity in Indian states”, Indian Growth and
Development Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 259-282, doi: 10.1108/IGDR-01-2019-0008.
ECAM Naoum, S.G. (2016), “Factors influencing labor productivity on construction sites: a state-of-the-art
literature review and a survey”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
30,2 Management, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 401-421, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2015-0045.
Nasirian, A., Arashpour, M. and Abbasi, B. (2019), “Critical literature review of labor multiskilling in
construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 145 No. 1, 04018113,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001577.
National Skill Development Corporation (2015), Human Resource and Skill requirements in the
984 Building Estate and Real Estate sector (2013-17), (2017-22), New Delhi.
Nyoni, T. and Bonga, W.G. (2016), “An empirical investigation of factors affecting construction sector
labour productivity in Zimbabwe”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention
ISSN, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 68-79, available at: www.ijbmi.org68%7C
Palikhe, S., Kim, S. and Kim, J.J. (2019), “Critical success factors and dynamic modeling of construction
labour productivity”, International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 427-442, doi:
10.1007/s40999-018-0282-3.
Park, H.S., Thomas, S.R. and Tucker, R.L. (2005), “Benchmarking of construction productivity”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 7, pp. 772-778, doi: 10.1061/
(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:7(772).
Patil, S.K., Gupta, A.K., Desai, D.B. and Sajane, A.S. (2013), “Causes of delay in INDIAN transportation
infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 02 No. 11, pp. 71-80, doi: 10.15623/ijret.2013.0211013.
Proverbs, D.G., Holt, G.D. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (1998), “A method for estimating labour requirements
and costs for international construction projects at inception”, Building and Environment,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 43-48, doi: 10.1016/S0360-1323(97)00064-4.
Rani, H.A., Farouk, A.M., Anandh, K.S., Almutairi, S. and Rahman, R.A. (2022), “Impact of COVID-19
on construction projects: the case of India”, Buildings, Vol. 12 No. 6, p. 762, doi: 10.3390/
buildings12060762.
Rivas, R.A., Borcherding, J.D., Gonzalez, V. and Alarcon, L.F. (2011), “Analysis of factors influencing
productivity using craftsmen questionnaires: case study in a Chilean construction company”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 4, pp. 312-320, doi: 10.1061/
(asce)co.1943-7862.0000274.
Rodrigues, F., Alves, A.D. and Matos, R. (2022), “Construction management supported by BIM and a
business intelligence tool”, Energies, Vol. 15 No. 9, p. 3412, doi: 10.3390/en15093412.
Shan, Y., Zhai, D., Goodrum, P.M., Haas, C.T. and Caldas, C.H. (2016), “Statistical analysis of the
effectiveness of management programs in improving construction labor productivity on large
industrial projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, 04015018, doi: 10.
1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000375.
Shan, Y., Imran, H., Lewis, P. and Zhai, D. (2017), “Investigating the latent factors of quality of
work-life affecting construction craft worker job satisfaction”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 5, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0001281.
Shanmugapriya, S. and Subramanian, K. (2013), “Investigation of significant factors influencing time
and cost overruns in Indian construction projects”, International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 734-740.
Shehata, M.E. and El-Gohary, K.M. (2011), “Towards improving construction labor productivity and
projects’ performance”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 321-330, doi: 10.1016/
j.aej.2012.02.001.
Siriwardana, C.S.A. and Ruwanpura, J.Y. (2012), “A conceptual model to develop a worker
performance measurement tool to improve construction productivity”, Construction Research
Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, Proceedings of the 2012 Construction
Research Congress, 2009, pp. 179-188, doi: 10.1061/9780784412329.019.
Somanathan, E., Somanathan, R., Sudarshan, A. and Tewari, M. (2021), “The impact of temperature on Construction
productivity and labor supply: evidence from Indian manufacturing”, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 129 No. 6, pp. 1797-1827, doi: 10.1086/713733. site
Thomas, H.R. (2015), “Benchmarking construction labor productivity”, Practice Periodical on Structural
productivity
Design and Construction, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000141.
Thomas, A.V. and Sudhakumar, J. (2013), “Critical analysis of the key factors affecting construction
labour productivity -an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Construction Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 103-125, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2013.10878231. 985
Thomas, H.R., Sanders, S.R. and Bilal, S. (1992), “Comparison of labor productivity”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 635-650, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)
118:4(635).
Tran, V. and Tookey, J. (2011), “Labour productivity in the New Zealand construction industry: a
thorough investigation”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 41-60, doi: 10.5130/ajceb.v11i1.1841.
Tsehayae, A.A. and Fayek, A.R. (2014), “Data-driven approaches to discovering knowledge gaps
related to factors affecting construction labor productivity”, Construction Research Congress
2014, Vol. 2008, pp. 837-846, doi: 10.1061/9780784413517.086.
Vereen, S.C., Rasdorf, W. and Hummer, J.E. (2016), “Development and comparative analysis of
construction industry labor productivity metrics”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 142 No. 7, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001112.
Vigneshwar, R.V.K., Shanmugapriya, S. and Sindhu Vaardini, U. (2022), “Analyzing the driving factors of
BIM adoption based on the perception of the practitioners in Indian construction projects”, Iranian
Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, pp. 2637-2648. doi: 10.1007/
s40996-022-00834-9.
Vogl, B. and Abdel-Wahab, M. (2015), “Measuring the construction industry’s productivity performance:
critique of international productivity comparisons at industry level”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 141 No. 4, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000944.
Wambeke, B.W., Hsiang, S.M. and Liu, M. (2011), “Causes of variation in construction project task
starting times and duration”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137
No. 9, pp. 663-677, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000342.
Wang, Q., El-Gafy, M. and Zha, J. (2010), “Bi-level framework for measuring performance to improve
productivity of construction enterprises”, Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for
Reshaping Construction Practice - Proceedings of the 2010 Construction Research Congress,
Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 970-979, doi: 10.1061/41109(373)97.
Yates, J.K. (2014), “Productivity Improvement for Construction and Engineering”, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382. doi: 10.1061/9780784413463.
Zhan, W. and Pan, W. (2020), “Formulating systemic construction productivity enhancement
strategies”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 8, 05020008,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001886.

Corresponding author
R.V.K. Vigneshwar can be contacted at: vigneshwar.2902@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com