Thesis

Report on
“Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information

Technology”
In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for Bachelor Degree
in Civil Engineering
Submitted by
Pagare Avantika D. (B190470060)

Papadkar Ankita P. (B190470062)
Sangle Kadambari K. (B190470075)
Sonavane Arya N. (B190470080)
Guided by
Dr. P. N. Ghumare
Department of Civil Engineering

MET's Institute of Engineering, Adgaon, Nashik
Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
2022 – 2023
SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY, PUNE
MET's Institute of Engineering, Adgaon, Nashik-422003
Civil Engineering Department
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the report entitled “Analysis Of Construction Productivity In
Relation With Information Technology” submitted by students as per the
requirement to award a degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering. It is submitted in the
partial fulfilment of the prescribed syllabus of Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
for the academic year 2022– 2023.
Name of the Student Examination Seat No.

Pagare Avantika D. (B190470060.)
Papadkar Ankita P. (B190470062)
Sangle Kadambari K. (B190470075)
Sonavane Arya N. (B190470080)
Dr. P. N. Ghumare Prof. A. M. Thakare Dr. P. N.

Ghumare
(Guide) (Project Coordinator) (H.O.D. CIVIL)
Prof.. Dr. V. P. Wani

(External Examiner) (PRINCIPAL)
SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY, PUNE

-
Civil EngineeringDepartment
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my work and that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or
written by another person, which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher
learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Date:
Place: Nashik
Name Seat No. Signature

Pagare Avantika Devidas ( B190470060 )
Papadkar Ankita Pramod( B190470062 )
Sangle Kadambari Kiran ( B190470075 )
Sonavane Arya Nitin ( B190470080 )
Acknowledgements
We have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many individual and organizations. We would
like to extend our sincere thanks to all of them. It gives us proud privilege to complete
the project on “Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With
Information Technology”
We are highly indebted to our internal guide Dr. P. N. Ghumare Sir for his guidance
and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the
project and for his support in completing the project.
We are also extremely grateful to our respected H.O.D. (Civil Department) Dr. P. N.
Ghumare Sir for providing all facilities and every help for smooth progress of project
work. We also extend our sincere thanks to Principal of MET’s Institute of
Engineering Dr. V. P. Vani Sir for extending all kind of cooperation during the
1course.
We express our sincere thanks to staff of department of Civil Engineering for kind
cooperation and support. Lastly, we are thankful to all those who have helped us
directly or indirectly to complete this project work.
ABSTRACT
In past few years, information technology has been impacting industries,
economics, the way of life and even the culture throughout the world. Productivity has
been attracting much attention as an important indicator of economics, and numerous
researchers have investigated the relationship between information technology and
productivity. Construction is one of the largest industries, but the relationship between
information technology and construction productivity is rarely known. The major
objective of this work is to determine the extent to which information technology is
used, specifically the use of information technology to automate and integrate
construct-on project work functions, is related to construction productivity. Initially
the relationship between information technology and construction productivity on a
national-level basis will be done. Second, the comparison of the relationship between
information technology’ contribution to value added growth and productivity in the
construction industry with other industries. And then performance of a series of
statistical analyses to investigate the relationship between construction productivity
and automation and integration applications at the construction project level will be
done. In order to leverage the relative importance of technology on each work
function, regression analyses will also be performed to obtain a further understanding
of the relationship. This analysis could provide construction companies an indication
about information technology usage priority and deployment in their work.
KEYWORDS: Construction, Productivity, Information Technology, Relationship,

Automation and Integration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF GRAPHS................................................................................................................................ 3
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROLOGUE:...................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 The development of Information and Communication Technology in Construction...............1
1.1.2 Computer Aided Design and Visualization...............................................................................3
1.1.3 Current Information Technologies for the Construction Sector...............................................3
1.1.4 Building Engineering Applications............................................................................................4
1.1.5 Computer Aided Cost Estimation..............................................................................................5
1.1.6 Planning, Scheduling and Site Management...........................................................................5
1.1.7 Computer Aided Facilities Management..................................................................................6
1.1.8 Business and Information Management..................................................................................6
1.1.9 Integration................................................................................................................................6
1.1.10 Current Communication Technologies for the Construction Sector.......................................7
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT:....................................................................................................................8
1.3 OBJECTIVES:...................................................................................................................................9
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK:...........................................................................................................................9
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY:.................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................ 11
2.1 REVIEW OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY FROM PREVIOUS STUDY.................................................................11

2.2 RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY USAGE (MAINLY IT USAGE ON CONSTRUCTION)...........................................11
2.3 RESEARCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY USE AND CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY.............12
2.4 PAPERS REVIEWED........................................................................................................................13
2.4.1 (Ghalia and Sweis 2010).........................................................................................................13
2.4.2 (Sawhney, et al. 2014)............................................................................................................13
2.4.3 (Shehata and El-Gohary 2011)...............................................................................................14
2.4.4 (Bartake, Patil and Swamy 2019)...........................................................................................14
2.4.5 (Ahuja, Yang and Shankar 2009)............................................................................................15
2.4.6 (Cherian and Kumaran 2016).................................................................................................15
2.4.7 (Gaith, Ismail and R. 2012).....................................................................................................16
2.4.8 (N. Kasim 2011)......................................................................................................................16
2.4.9 (Taher 2021)...........................................................................................................................16
2.4.10 (Kasim and Soon 2011).........................................................................................................17
2.4.11 (Begić, Galić and Dolaček-Alduk 2022)................................................................................17
Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 1

2.4.12 (Sreelakshmi, et al. 2017).....................................................................................................18
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 19
3.1 PROCEDURE:................................................................................................................................20
3.1.1 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................20
3.1.2 Pilot Study...............................................................................................................................21
3.1.3 Measuring Factors and Related Labour Productivity.............................................................21
3.1.4 Construction Labour Productivity Prediction Methods..........................................................22
3.1.5 Validation Procedure..............................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 25
4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND THEIR RESPONSES.................................................................................25

4.2 CALCULATING TOTAL ACTIVITY OBSERVATIONS.....................................................................................27
4.3 CALCULATING STUDY ACTIVITY PERCENTAGES:....................................................................................29
4.4 CALCULATING HOURLY ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE OF WORK SAMPLING PROPORTION:...................................31
4.5 CALCULATING CONSTRUCTION LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY.........................................................................32
4.6 DATA SET....................................................................................................................................33
4.7 DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIVARIABLE LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL:..........................................................35
4.7.1 Normailty:..............................................................................................................................35
4.7.2 Homoscedasticity:.................................................................................................................36
4.7.3 Linearity:................................................................................................................................36
4.7.4 Correlation Analysis (R):......................................................................................................36
4.7.6 Evaluating the Model.............................................................................................................39
4.7.7 Test for Correlation Coefficient (R)......................................................................................39
4.7.8 R-square.................................................................................................................................40
4.7.9 F-Test......................................................................................................................................40
4.7.10 Evaluating each of Independent Variables:..........................................................................41
4.7.11 Descriptive Data Analysis.....................................................................................................45
4.7.12 Validation of Regression Model...........................................................................................46
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 50
5.1 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................50
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................50
5.2.1 Material Acquisition...............................................................................................................51
5.2.2 Apply Tool and equipment management program................................................................51
5.2.3 Site layout that is well-designed............................................................................................51
5.2.4 Employees should receive training.........................................................................................51
5.2.5 Partnership Stakeholder.........................................................................................................52
5.2.6 Excellent Interaction...............................................................................................................52

5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH....................................................................................52
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................... 55
List of Tables
TABLE 3.1 FACTORS AFFECTING LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY FOR CONCRETE WORKS .......23
TABLE 4.1 GOOGLE FORM OF QUESSTIONAIRE SURVEY...............................................25
TABLE 4.2 DAILY OBSERVATION OF SLAB FORMWORK................................................27
TABLE 4.3 TOTAL ACTIVITY ORGANISATION...............................................................29
TABLE 4.4 ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE FOR SLAB FORMWORK..........................................30
TABLE 4.5 HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF SLAB FORMWORK ACTIVITY............................31
TABLE 4.6 RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY FOR SLAB FORMWORK
...............................................................................................................................33
TABLE 4.7 DATA SET FOR SLAB FORMWORK ACTIVITIES..............................................34
TABLE 4.8 CORRELATION: WORK SAMPLING PROPORTION WITH CLP FOR
COLUMN FORMWORK ACTIVITY.........................................................................37
TABLE 4.9 TOLERANCE AND VARIANCE INFLATION FACTOR FOR INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES............................................................................................................38
TABLE 4.10 REGRESSION MODEL SUMMARY................................................................39
TABLE 4.11 COEFFICIENT OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES..............................................43
TABLE 4.12 DESCRIPTIVE: STATISTICS FOR SLAB FORMWORK....................................45
TABLE 4.13 NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FOR EACH VARIABLE...................................47
TABLE 4.14 ACTUAL PRODUCTIVITY AND PREDICTED CLP FOR COLUMN FORMWORK
ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................................47
TABLE 4.15 PERFORMANCE OF MULTIVARIABLE REGRESSION MODEL.......................48
List of Graphs
GRAPH 4.1 PIE CHART ILLUSTRATING SLAB FORMWORK ACTIVITY RESULTS............30
GRAPH 4.2 GRAPH OF PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY FOR SLAB
CONCRETING..........................................................................................................44

GRAPH 4.3 PREDICTED AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION LABOR PRODUCTIVITY FOR

COLUMN FORMWORK ACTIVITIES.........................................................................48
GRAPH 4.4 PREDICTED AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION LABOR PRODUCTIVITY FOR
COLUMN FORMWORK ACTIVITIES.........................................................................49
GRAPH RESPONSES OF FACTOR NO. 02..........................................................................55
GRAPH 6 RESPONSES OF FACTOR NO. 02.......................................................................55
GRAPH 10 RESPONSES OF FACTOR NO. 06.....................................................................57
GRAPH 28 COLUMN FORMWORK ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE............................................63
GRAPH 29 SLAB CONCRETING ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE................................................63
List of Figures
FIGURE 1.1 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND IT APPLICATIONS.........................................4
FIGURE 1.2 EVOLUTION OF INTERNET RELATED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES.......8

FIGURE 3.1 FLOWCHART OF METHODOLOGY................................................................19

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Prologue:
Information technology (IT) can be defined as the use of electronic machines
and programs for the processing, storage, transfer and presentation of information. As
the indicator of the third industrial revolution, information technology has been
impacting the economy, the culture and the way of human’s life throughout the world.
Productivity is of central importance to the health of
Indian economy. With the increasing application of IT in almost all industries,
understanding the relationship. between IT and productivity is necessary to improve
the effectiveness of IT in improving productivity. Many researchers have investigated
the relationship at the following three levels of analysis: 1) national-level, 2) industry-
level and 3) firm- or project-level. The focus of these research efforts is to investigate
if IT expenditures or related applications in the construction industry contributes to or
is associated with productivity improvement. The national-level analysis, comparing
the IT usage and productivity across different countries, has the potential to identify if
the countries with advanced IT development and application in construction
experienced more rapid construction productivity improvement than construction
industries in countries with relatively less IT application. The industry-level analysis
has the potential to compare the effectiveness of IT application in construction with
that of other industries and the resulting impact on the industries’ productivity.
1.1.1 The development of Information and Communication Technology in

Construction
The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the
construction industry is generating new opportunities for collaboration, coordination
and information exchange among organizations that work on a construction project.
Complex technical systems do not evolve fully formed, but rather as localized
developments. In the development of automated systems for the transfer and
transformation of materials, this unbalanced evolution leads to the problem of ‘islands
of automation’, where highly automated materials flows are mixed in with completely
manual ones. The same problem exists in the development of computerized
information systems. The development of computing technology has meant that tools
for analysis involving data manipulation have tended to develop earliest and in

isolation. These tools play to the enormous strengths of computers in the rapid analysis
of complex data sets –analysis which is frequently impossible if manually attempted.
Thus standalone applications dependent on numerical analysis, ranging from finite
element analysis to critical path analysis, had been developed by the 1960s.
Information flows between these types of application continued to use traditional
information technologies such as the paper-based engineering drawing.
During the 1970s, a new form of graphical manipulation developed to aid the
creation of engineering drawings –computer aided design (CAD). Again, the output
from these systems largely relied on traditional technologies for communication
between different applications. The construction industry was at the forefront of these
developments. By the fourteenth century, scaled technical drawings –probably the
most important information technology of the last millennium after the printed book
itself- were well established for use on religious and royal building projects. During
the 1970s, large public sector projects –usually relying on extensive standardization
and prefabrication- offered the opportunity to develop CAD systems. However, the
demise of the large public sector construction programmes which have been essential
to the development of ICT applications in every industrial sector meant that this initial
momentum was lost (Howard 1998). The 1980s saw the development of the personal
computer (PC) which dramatically reduced the cost of computing power, and enabled
a much wider diffusion of computers within the industry, while the processing power
of computers continued to grow exponentially. Most importantly, site offices could
now be equipped with computers.
The development of communication technologies has taken an independent
path. In comparison to computer technologies, developments were earlier and more
profound. The telegraph and, more importantly, the telephone, greatly improved
communication capabilities. The fax and photocopier are more recent innovations
which have had a significant impact. Nonetheless, these communication technologies
did not allow any further manipulation of the received data. It was not until the 1970s
that they began to be connected to computers to provide integrated systems for the
direct communication of information between computer systems. The development of
Local and Wide Area Networks (LANs and WANs) proceeded steadily, but
interconnectivity between computers was transformed by the breathless diffusion of
the internet during the 1990s. It is this rapid development of the interconnection

between communication and information technologies over the last 20 years that has
both opened up tremendous new opportunities and posed new technical challenges.
1.1.2 Computer Aided Design and Visualization

Computer Aided Design (CAD) software is widely used by design professionals,
and AutoCAD has the largest share of the CAD market (Howard 1998). Other popular
CAD software include Microstation, ArchiCAD, MiniCAD, FastCAD, etc. These
CAD programs have largely replaced the traditional drawing board at the production
information stage.
Furthermore, since the drawing can be saved at any stage, the designe rs are able to
keep various versions of the building layout for later study. Once the geometrical
information of the building design is stored in a CAD package, different views of the
building can easily be produced. Visualization and animation systems, like 3D studio,
can produce photo-realistic, static, and moving images, so that the clients can view the
final appearance of the building at the design stage. The emerging Virtual Reality
technology even allows the user to interact with the design model and experience the
building in simulated reality settings.
1.1.3 Current Information Technologies for the Construction Sector

Information technologies or Software applications are available to support
most aspects of a construction project. They have been designed largely as solutions to
specific problems. These applications can be grouped into the following categories.
 Computer Aided Design and Visualization
 Building Engineering Applications
 Computer Aided Cost Estimation
 Planning, Scheduling,
 Site Management
 Computer Aided Facilities Management
 Integration
 Business and Information Management
Figure 1.1 below is a roadmap showing where and when these applications are
being used along the construction process. The main purpose of the diagram is to

indicate the main application areas for the existing discrete software packages in the
construction supply chain.
Figure 1.1 Construction Process and IT applications
1.1.4 Building Engineering Applications

Nowadays, construction industry clients have ever-higher expectations. They
want their buildings to look good, to be safe, to provide comfortable living
environments for their occupants, to consume less energy in operation, etc. The ever
more complex demands on the building design process have given rise to the need for
a new approach to building engineering design based on computer software. Once a
building is constructed, it is very costly to correct any design defects. It is, therefore,
important to simulate accurately the building’s performance at the design stage so that
problems can be identified and solved. Over the years, a variety of methods and
algorithms have been developed to predict building performance in thermal, lighting,
acoustics, and structural aspects. Because of the complex and tedious calculations that
involve these simulations, it was nearly impossible to carry them out before
computers. During the last two decades, a range of building engineering applications

have been developed for energy analysis, HVAC design, structural analysis, lighting
simulation, etc. The benefit of these applications is that they allow designers to
evaluate alternative design solutions in order to reach optimum design.
Examples of this software are: ATEAN from Carrier, and CARGASW from
Climasoft, that offer comprehensive range of software options for climatic energy
design; CALCULUX for lighting and building services design, CYPE INGENIEROS
S.A. for structural design, COSMOS for finite elements analysis, DUCTSIZE from
Elite Software for electricity and water nets design.
1.1.5 Computer Aided Cost Estimation

Controlling costs is one of the most important requirements during a
construction project. To achieve this, contractors and subcontractors must first make
accurate cost estimation. Rigorous project accounting must then be used to control the
spending. Today, there are sophisticated computer software packages, such as Esti-
Mate, Manifest, FBS-Estimator, and PRESTO from Soft, GO from Star, ITEC and
ARQ from AM2, which allow project managers to make estimations and to keep track
of project spending. Other software can help to measure, count, compute and tabulate
quantities, lengths, areas, volumes, etc., of objects found in plans and specifications.
Furthermore, most cost estimating programs can be integrated with databases of costs
for labour, materials and equipment. The advantage is that cost data do not need to be
re-entered, thus improving the celerity in estimating and avoiding errors. Computer
based estimation of costs archives and retrieves large volumes of resource, cost and
productivity information, makes fast and accurate calculations and presents results in
an organized, neat and consistent manner.
1.1.6 Planning, Scheduling and Site Management

Construction works require careful planning and skilful management of human
and physical resources. Computer systems can assist on-site managers to plan ahead,
evaluate different options and adopt and execute the most efficient construction
operation. Besides the widespread use of planning packages such as Microsoft Project,
Primavera, Power Project, etc., to plan and schedule detailed construction activities,

some applications like JobMaster, ICON, GEST, and Presto Control, are designed to
log and track internal processes during the construction phase.
1.1.7 Computer Aided Facilities Management

Facilities Management is a relatively new discipline that emerged in the early
80s. It is based on the operation, maintenance, and impact of the building operations
on the life cycle costs. The available software for Facilities Management is a
combination of CAD and database management systems. Special routines enable
blocking and stacking studies to be carried out to explore different layouts or to reflect
organizational changes. Databases are the most important part of Facilities
Management Software. It holds data from people and their services so that when they
move, their services can follow them. ITE (Inspección Técnica de Edificios), for
example, is a tool that makes possible to create a report of the state of the building.
1.1.8 Business and Information Management

The construction process is an information intensive one during which a huge
amount of information in generated and consumed by all the professionals involved.
The common type of information includes site survey, cost analysis, design drawings,
documents, correspondence, fax, computer files or e-mails.
Electronic Document Management Systems can create an environment in
which disparate forms of information can be linked together, within the context of a
project or organization, to achieve easy access and control. All the previous tools and
software for cost estimating, planning, scheduling, etc., are generated in a specific
stage of the project. Sometimes this information is updated, modified, consulted, etc.,
at any moment of the project. Consequently, Document Management Systems are
tools that comprise whatever information throughout the life cycle of the project, from
the conception of the need to the maintenance.
Electronic Document Management Systems are applications that can be linked
to Web Based Project Management Systems for to improve communication among
partners and between them and the management of the project. In addition, Web Based
Project Management Systems have other functionalities like project coordination,
scheduling, etc.

1.1.9 Integration
From the first software applications, many different tools were developed.
They use their own data formats, which are not compatible with each other. As a
result, data cannot be electronically exchanged between them. In recent years, there is
an increasing awareness of the need for integrated construction processes and many
research projects are investigating related issues. During the last two decades,
advances in object oriented programming, database systems and product data
modelling technologies have provided a solid platform for integration. Data standards
are being developed first by the International Standards Organizations (STEP), and
then by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IFC). At present, these
standards are still evolving. An integrated project database covering the whole life
cycle of construction projects remains a future prospect.
1.1.10 Current Communication Technologies for the Construction Sector

Communication technologies are the technologies dealing with the
transmission of information. They support the process by which information is
exchanged. Figure 8 shows the evolution of some information technologies (mainly,
communication technologies) in construction. They are positioned according to their
complexity (vertical axis) and construction specifics (horizontal axis).
Notice that the most specific services tend to use or rely upon the generic ones,
and that the most complex services tend to integrate simpler ones. The first services
were generic and included networked file archives, e-mail communications and text-
based group conferencing. The web provided a much friendlier navigation and
presentation of the files on remote machines. It was as that time when first
construction related content appeared.
Out of the first 1000 websites only two were related to construction. The first
construction specific services used the web to publish information such as scientific
papers, building codes, product specifications, etc. The next generation services were
staring to use the Internet as a collaboration platform for the companies involved in a
construction project.

Figure 1.2 Evolution of Internet related communication technologies
1.2 Problem Statement:

The construction industry has been traditionally regarded as a labor-
intensive industry. The production in this area has the features of large scale, open job
sites, and extensive fragmentation in the process. The industry’s relatively low
productivity growth compared with other sectors such as the manufacturing industry
has caused its performance to be a great concern to clients and decision-makers. At the
same time, the attempts to identify the reasons for low productivity never ceased,
especially to distinguish the critical causes. If the effort to enhance productivity
performance can be devoted in the right direction, then measures for improvement will
be taken efficiently. Whereas others components (equipment and material) are
determined by the market price and price and are, consequently, beyond the influence
of project management. Labor cost in construction industry is estimated to be about
33%- 50% of the entire project cost. An increase in productivity can reduce the labor

cost in a direct proportion. It can either benefit or reduce a project’s profit, making it
of vital interest to the construction industry for its success.
1.3 Objectives:
Objectives of this study include:
1. Deciphering Construction Labor Productivity through the Power of Regression
Analysis
2. Clash of Productivity: Comparing Conventional and Advanced Techniques in
Construction
3. Validating Construction Productivity: Ensuring Accuracy and Reliability
1.4 Scope of Work:

Productivity is simply defined as the rate of output to input, which is more
accurately expressed as Equation below.
Total output
Total factor producivity=
Labour + Materials+ Equipments + Energy+Capital
Total factor productivity (TFP) is a widely used economic model
measured in capital unit, such as dollars. TFP is synonymous with multi-factor
productivity (MFP). TFP is useful for policy-making, evaluating the state of the
economy and making comparisons between countries, but it is hard to measure. At the
project level, a contractor is more likely to use labour productivity, which relates
output to the quantity of man-hours, such as tons of structural steel installed per hour.
However, compared to TFP, labour productivity may not really reflect
the long-run productivity because it does not capture the impact of other inputs. For
example, using advanced material tracking technologies may drastically improve a
project’s labour productivity, but productivity measured by TFP may not be improved
due to extra capital expenditures in construction tools or equipment. However, IT
investments have been found to require about five years before a break-even point is
reached. so it is difficult to observe the change of factor productivity as a possible
result of implementing an information technology in the short term. Third, the
construction industry is labour intensive; labour is the prime economic resource, and
on-site labour costs typically contribute 30% to the overall project’s costs.
Bureau of Indian Standards etc. in order to set the productivity norms
for various construction related activities. But in order to optimise both cost & time

and to minimise the wastage of other resources as well (which is also the key
philosophy of Lean Construction), it is extremely crucial that the productivity of the
resources involved in any project is closely monitored and suitable actions are taken
for their improvement.
1.5 Limitations of Study:

This study will limit its project level investigation to the industrial
construction sector, since all projects contributing to this research are selected from
Construction Industry Institute (CII) member companies, and most of their projects are
involved in this area. Labour productivity data will include only the concrete,
structural steel, electrical and piping trades, which are the most common trades on
industrial projects. The technologies will also be limited to the automation and
integration of information technology systems in construction.
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter summarizes the previous research on the construction productivity

trends, and then discusses technology (especially IT) application on construction and
other industries. It concludes by outlining the relationship between technology usage
and productivity.
2.1 Review of Labour Productivity from Previous Study

Studies completed in the 1980s reported that construction real output
(value added) per work hour declined by an annual rate of 2.4% to 2.8% between 1968
and 1980. Some studies contradicts these figures. Previous research examined labor
and partial factor productivity trends using microeconomic data for 200 activities. The
results indicated widespread improvement in construction productivity across multiple
construction divisions, ranging from 0.2% to 2.8% per year between 1976 and 1998,
especially in machinery dominated divisions such as site work. Similarly, another
research effort investigated the change of labor productivity between 1977 and 2004
for 100 sampled activities. In, there is also much anecdotal evidence shared by
industry leaders that p-roductivity has actually improved.
The potential reasons to explain the discrepancy between macro and
micro measures of construction productivity are numerous with most of the focus on
issues regarding the accuracy of industry measures, particularly on the inflation
indices used to measure industry real output. The concerns range from over reliance on
the use of proxy inflation indices to deflate construction expenditures, the use of input
cost inflation indices instead of the preferred output price indices and the challenge of
measuring the change in the quality of industry output.
However, examining construction at a micro level (i.e. at the trade and activity
level) helps avoid many of the inaccuracies.
2.2 Research on Technology usage (Mainly IT Usage on

Construction)
Although the construction industry has been considered technically stagnant,

there have been an increasing number of new technologies, especially information
technologies, applied within it. Many previous research efforts have investigated and
documented the application of new technologies in construction.

Some research were conducted to determine the extent, if any, to which integration
and automation (IA) technologies contributed to project success. The researchers
divided the project life cycle into six phases: front end, design, procurement,
construction management, construction execution and
startup/operations/maintenances. Each phase was composed of work functions, some
of which represented project tasks (for possible automation), and some of which
represented task-to-task integration links.
Through statistical analyses, research has indicated that:
 The schedule success-technology relationship was stronger than that for cost;
 Higher levels of project schedule success were particularly associated with
high levels of technology utilization for building, medium-sized, and
expansion projects;
 Higher levels of project schedule success were associated with high levels of
technology usage in the front-end phase, particularly for building and medium-
sized projects.
 The researchers developed an IA (integration and automation) index ranging
from 0 to 10 according to its use level on each of work functions.
2.3 Research on the Relationship between Technology Use and

Construction Productivity
Construction productivity has attracted much attention and discussion in the

past decades. Many researchers have investigated the factors that can impact
construction productivity. Innovation and the adoption of new technologies in the
construction industry was perceived as the only effective solution that would enhance
the quality of the building product, increase construction efficiency, and decrease
costs. Researchers indicated that technology application can greatly impact
construction productivity. But the introduction of new technologies in the construction
industry has traditionally lagged behind other industries. For example, the construction
industry has not adopted robotics to the extent that other industries have. It was widely
accepted that automation and robots were the magical solution to industry wide
problem of increasing costs, declining productivity, skilled labor shortages, safety and
quality control. However, despite the millions of dollars spent on the research and
development of new technologies, few of those innovations were being used by the

construction industry. Regardless, there are still significant technical advances in

construction techniques, machinery, and methods. For example, advancements in on-
board microprocessors and hydraulic controls allow excavator operators to more
precisely control their boom and shovel position, to function with larger operating
envelopes, to more accurately monitor engine and other system parameters, and to
quickly diagnose critical system failures.
2.4 Papers Reviewed

The papers reviewed are given below
2.4.1 (Ghalia and Sweis 2010)

This research attempts to fill these knowledge gaps by exploring the
relationship between IT adoption and job satisfaction from the perspective of
Jordanian contracting firms. Measures were developed using MSQ and IT Barometer
surveys. 50 questionnaires were distributed to investigate this relationship among
different contracting companies in Jordan. Descriptive statistics were obtained and
hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. Results point out that more
investment in technology would rather increase employee job satisfaction regarding
intrinsic and general perspectives. Results point out that more investment in
technology would rather increase employee job satisfaction regarding intrinsic,
extrinsic and general perspectives. The intellectual contribution of this research lies in
developing a conceptual methodology that can be carried through further research
elsewhere. This study's generalizability might not be high to a certain extent, but it is
true for other developing countries that share similar characteristics with Jordan.
2.4.2 (Sawhney, et al. 2014)

This paper presents a chronology of interrelated factors peculiar to the sector
which has directly/indirectly engendered this slow (low) technology adopter
positioning of these organisations. This paper argues that there is a need to break the
status quo use of ICT by SMEs in the Indian construction industry, and a need to
realise the benefits garnered in other sectors as a means of not only enhancing the
existing business, but also creating new innovation opportunities (especially in the
early adopter S curve). Using a scenario thinking approach, this research presents a
framework which highlights the causal "deficits" associated with low ICT penetration

in the sector. This framework also identifies the key forces that influence and impact
upon ICT usage in the construction sector, especially the interplay of key pivotal
forces (through the competing push-pull continuum). A series of different scenarios
for ICT uptake, adoption and diffusion are envisioned. These were developed with the
help of industry experts in order to embed relevance and establish priorities against
tangible indicators. This framework presents a future state ICT vision for SME's, one
which places direct emphasis on SMEs' perspectives (operational and strategic) and
their future business aspirations.
2.4.3 (Shehata and El-Gohary 2011)

This study considers the current state-of-the-art issues relevant to this subject.
It covers the construction labor productivity definitions, aspects, measurements,
factors affecting it, different techniques used for measuring it and modelling
techniques. The main outcome from the literature is that there is no standard definition
of productivity. This study provides a guide for necessary steps required to improve
construction labor productivity and consequently, the project performance. It can help
improve the overall performance of construction projects through the implementation
of the concept of benchmarks. Also, it gives an up to date concept of loss of
productivity measurement for construction productivity claims. Two major case
studies, from the literature, are presented to show construction labour productivity
rates, factors affecting construction labour productivity and how to improve it.
2.4.4 (Bartake, Patil and Swamy 2019)

This paper aims to study the factors that affect ICT implementation through
three different perspectives, viz., Participant, Organisation and Industry. This paper
discusses the elements of the barriers in ICT by studying literature review in respect to
Indian construction industry. A questionnaire survey was conducted online and
through this quantitative data analysis of different barriers affecting the
implementation of ICT were studied. The result of this analysis includes identification
of the main issues that require to be addressed at the three levels of perspectives.
Findings of the study reveals that major ICT related works from participant‟s point-of-
view is still not as advanced as required and there is lot more scope to motivate people

for complete usage of technology within the construction firms to ease their own work.
The study shows that firms are still reluctant in investing fully into ICT tools. Those
handful of firms implementing tools are also seen upgrading and maintaining the
technology on regular basis. This study analysed that from stakeholder‟s point of
view, ICT usage in construction is increased and is quite better than last ten years And
also feel that current political policies are quite favourable but still need to improvise
for effective implementation of ICT in this industry. It is observed that industry
perspective is changing and many are willing to adapt this new technology and are
eager to use the tools.
2.4.5 (Ahuja, Yang and Shankar 2009)

This paper discusses a component of the research undertaken to study these
factors and issues in the context of Indian construction industry. A questionnaire
survey was conducted and through quantitative data analysis the extent of adoption of
formal Project Management processes, ICT adoption for these processes and factors
including perception based factors affecting ICT adoption were studied. Results of
data analysis includes identification of issues that require action at the three study
levels. The results can be generalized for other countries with due considerations,
specifically for countries where the construction industry is similar to Indian
construction industry in terms of working methodologies or for large countries.
2.4.6 (Cherian and Kumaran 2016)

This paper focuses on the theoretical framework from previous literatures,
magazines, reports and books. The literatures are studied in detail to gain imminent
knowledge on E-Business practices in construction industries. New technology using
ICT and E-Business brings changes in construction industries. ICT applications
improve work flow and communication in diverse levels of organization. ICT and E-
Business are important to both large and small enterprises facilitating integration and
collaboration with business partners, suppliers and customers and also to make
electronic transactions. It provides service to customers, helps in delivering and
receiving purchases and orders at a great speed, decreases the inventory time, cost and
reduce obsolescence. In current scenario, Indian construction companies are started

adopting speedy communication tools to get efficient work done. System maintenance,
security and lack of software knowledge are the few challenges in E-Business usage in
construction industry.
2.4.7 (Gaith, Ismail and R. 2012)

The study reviewed literature related to IT implementation and its services in the
construction industry with the objective of highlighting the appropriate conceptual IT
effective model in the context of the Malaysian construction industry. Thereview was
also performed to identify important factors attributed to performance and hindrances
of performance of Malaysian construction companies. The paper concludes with
tentative implications for IT implementation with the necessity to comprehend
operational and process-level changes as well as impact isolation of specific IT
application types concerning firm’s dynamic capabilities, which mediate IT impacts
on firm performance.
2.4.8 (N. Kasim 2011)

This study seeks to identify the implementation of ICT for materials management
processes in construction projects. The findings from the case studies reveal that the
implementation of ICT in the materials management processes for construction
projects in Malaysia is at early stage. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and handheld
devices are found to be the common ICT tools adopted in the materials management
processes. Evidently, bar-coding and RFID are tools that are hardly adopted in the
materials management of each respondent’s company. The main barrier is found to be
the cost involvement at the initial stage or overall implementation of ICT in the
materials management processes. Finally, this paper concludes the finding from
interviews towards the ICT implementation of materials management in the
construction projects. In addition, the exceptional high cost of specialist software is
also a barrier to the upgrading of ICT implementation.
2.4.9 (Taher 2021)

The paper aims to determine the key issues that are preventing the introduction of IR
4.0-related technology in the construction industry, as well as the long-term

opportunities. The paper concludes, despite the challenges, the implementation of IR

4.0 within the Construction Industry would drive the industry’s performance to match
with their industry counterparts such as the manufacturing, and automotive industry.
Industry 4.0 is indeed the way of the future and must be embraced. There is no
alternative to digitization, even on the building site Construction needs to catch up.
2.4.10 (Kasim and Soon 2011)

This research seeks to identify the implementation of ICT in construction materials
management processes and to investigate on the acceptance of contractors for ICT
transformation to the materials management in construction projects. In relation to
that, current constraints that are found hindering the acceptance of ICT in materials
management processes are also identified. A triangulation research approach which
consists of standard derived questionnaires, semi structured interviews with class A
contractors and review of previous research were conducted. The findings from this
research reveal that the implementation of ICT in the materials management for
construction projects in Malaysia is at early stage. Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and
handheld devices are found to be the common ICT tools adopted in the materials
management processes. Meanwhile, there is only an average level of acceptance
towards the transformation of ICT implementation in the construction materials
management. The main barrier is found to be the cost involvement at the initial stage
or overall implementation of ICT in the materials management processes. Finally, it
can be concluded that there is a lack of awareness towards the ICT implementation of
materials management in the construction projects.
2.4.11 (Begić, Galić and Dolaček-Alduk 2022)

In this study, a state-of-the art literature review is presented with the aim of
determining the genesis and current levels of digitalization and automation, as well as
their interoperability, among the main construction projects’ life-cycle phases. The
results revealed that the construction project life-cycle phases are indeed at
significantly different digitalization and automation levels. The initiation phase was
found to be at a low level of digitalization and automation, the design and planning
phase at a high level of digitalization with a low level of automation, and the execution
phase at low-level digitalization with a higher level of automation. Throughout the

analysis of automation and digitization levels of each phase, it was found that they are
mostly interconnected among project life-cycle phases through the use of BIM. This is
because the initiation phase includes surveys and studies resulting in the draft
investment program and solution. The following phase, i.e., the design phase, mainly
leans and streams towards the BIM concept, which enhances and enables the
generation of schedules to cover the aspects of planning. Since the topic is
continuously developing, this research could be conducted in the near future to
determine the advancements in comparison to the current conclusions.
2.4.12 (Sreelakshmi, et al. 2017)

This paper aims at finding out the challenges faced by the construction industries in
implementing BIM in the projects. The research method involves studying the current
state of BIM knowledge in the Indian construction industry along with the survey used
for data collection regarding the problems faced by the Indian AEC firms. A
qualitative study is done across the organisational levels to assess the barriers to
implementing BIM in construction. The major barriers are assessed using Relative
Importance Index (RII) values. Mann-Whitney test is also used to find the closeness of
the responses from the Architects and the Engineers and Contractors. The major factors
were considered and from questionnaire survey responses were collected from the
Architects and the Engineers and Contractors. Analyses were carried out to find RII and
the closeness of responses from the project team. The majority suggested that cost of
implementation is quite high, which is the main barrier to use of BIM in AEC. The higher
cost of software, hardware and setting up of the systems, training all professionals etc.
include a good amount of investment. That prevents BIM implementation in smaller AEC
firms. The research findings are expected to assist the AEC industry to identify the
major challenges and find ways to tackle these challenges and implement BIM in
construction projects.

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
Proper research method is important to start methodology presents the
route map to continue the scientific investigation. At the end of the pervious chapter a
framework on literature review and related theories to the purpose and research
questions of the thesis has been presented. This chapter describes research process,
research design and also explains type, approach and strategy of this research. Sample
selection, method of collecting data, reliability and validity of this study are other
issues which are discussed in this chapter.
The flowchart below shows the analysis methodology adopted for the
following project work.

Figure 3.3 Flowchart of Methodology
3.1 Procedure:
The data collected can be classified as primary data versus secondary data.
Primary data are gathered and generated for the project at hand, but secondary data
were gathered for other purposes and now are used in the recent project .usually the
secondary data are found inside the company, libraries, research centers, internet and
etc… This study used both primary and secondary data.
3.1.1 Data Collection

There are six sources that can be focused in the study. Each of them will be
briefly explained below
3.1.1.1 Interview
There are different form of interview, such as open ended, focus interview and
survey. Open ended interviews are performed in a conversational manner. The
investigator can ask key respondent for the facts of matter as well as for respondent’s
opinion about events. With the focused interview the main purpose is to confirm facts
that already have been established and not ask questions of boarder nature and the
respondents are interviewed in the short period of time such as an hour. In survey the
questions are more structured.
3.1.1.2 Physical artifact
In this part of data collection the physical evidences, which are needed, such as
technological device, work of art instruments and etc., are observed or collected by
visiting the site of case study.
3.1.1.3 Direct observation
This can involve observation of meeting, side walk activities, factory works
classrooms and etc. Observational evidence is often useful in providing additional
information about the topic being studied
3.1.1.4 Archival records
This data collection method include organizational records, charts and maps and
survey data previous collected. Also the secondary data can be used in this kind of
collection.

3.1.1.5 Documentation
Different types of documents such as examples, statistics, registration and
official publication, letter journals and branch literature are employed to collect data
3.1.1.6 Questionnaire
The recognizable proof and assessment of factors that impact labour
productivity rates of concrete construction activities are required to create the models.
Numerous studies will be conducted to define and describe factors affecting labour
productivity. This will be used to develop the questionnaire form, which involves
factors affecting the labour productivity rates of concrete construction activities.
The data in this method will be gathered by sending questions to the respondents.
Questionnaires can be distributed in paper form or by email, fax and etc…there is no
explanation or influence of researcher in this method. Also, questionnaire is not to be
more long and exhaustive, because these happens cause the questions not to be
answered.
3.1.2 Pilot Study

A pilot study will be conducted to ensure the clarity and relevance of the initial
questionnaire to participants and to validate and improve the questionnaire in terms of
the wording of statements, overall content, and organize and format. Researchers in
the same area will have the questionnaire provided. Amendments will be created,
based on the input. After that, in personal interviews with project managers, each of
whom had years of experience with residential, commercial and industrial projects, the
updated questionnaire will be addressed. This stage will be performed in arrange to
adapt the variables contained in the literature to the local market
3.1.3 Measuring Factors and Related Labour Productivity

Construction productivity can be measured in a variety of ways depending on the
particular field of construction being studied. The ratio of output to work hours
(production rate) and the ratio of work hours to output (inverse of the production rate)
are widely used for measuring labour productivity. The inverse of the production rate
will be used as the indicator of productivity in this study; thus, calculations such as
worker days per unit would be produced These calculations will be utilized because

the worker hour is included as data. The production rates will be estimated according
to:
( Workerm days )=
FCS ( Workers ) X t F (days )
FP 3
CQ (m¿ ¿3)¿
( )
Worker days SCS ( Workers ) X t s (days )
SFP =
ts SQ (m¿¿ 3)¿
CPP
( m
3
=
)
Worker days PCS ( Workers ) X t C (days)
CQ(m¿¿ 3) ¿
Where:
FP: Formwork productivity,
SFP: Steel fixing productivity,
CPP: Concrete pouring and finishing productivity,
FCS: Formwork crew size,
SCS: Steel crew size,
PCS: Pouring crew size,
t F : Formwork assembly duration,
t s: Steel fixing duration,
t C: Concrete pouring duration,
CQ: Concrete quantity, and
SQ: Steel quantity.
3.1.4 Construction Labour Productivity Prediction Methods

(A) Support Vector Machine (SVM)
The concept in regressive SVM is to map a low dimensionality input space x to a
higher dimensionality feature space F through a non-linear mapping “𝝓” space, and to
make linear regressions in this function space using the following:
f ( x )=w . ∅ ( x ) +b
Where:,

∅ ( x ) : the high-dimensionality feature space nonlinearly mapped from the input space,
b: the term of bias, an w: the weight vector.
Table 3.1 Factors affecting labour productivity for concrete works

Sr. No. Factors FP SFP CPP
1. Structural Element (SE) √ √ √
2. Concrete quantity (CQ) √ - √
3. Steel quantity (SQ) - √ √
4. Crew size (CS) √ √ √
5. Falsework type (FAT) √ - -
6. Formwork type (FOT) √ - -
7. Pouring method (PM) - - √
8. Supervision (S) √ √ √
9. Labour skills (LS) √ √ √
10. Overtime (O) √ √ √
11. Task complexity (TO) √ √ √
12. Material accessibility (MA) √ √ √
13. Degree of repetition (DR) √ √ √
14. Temperature conditions (TC) √ √ √
(B) General Regression Neural Network (GRNN)

GRNN, proposed by Donald F. Specht in 1990, is often used for nonlinear function
approximation. It has a special linear and radial basis layer which makes it different
from radial basis networks. GRNN is a neural network model that mimics nonlinear
relations between a target variable and a set of predictor variables. GRNN falls into
the class of probabilistic neural networks and requires less training samples A
GRNN’s main advantage is that since available datasets for developing neural
networks are not usually sufficient, probabilistic neural networks are more attractive
for modelling.
In other words, GRNN can solve any function approximation problem in case
sufficient data is available in abbreviated time. In GRNN, the target value of the
predictor is achieved by considering the weighted average of the values of its
neighbouring points. Target neighbour variable distance plays a key role in predicting
target value. Neighbouring points close to target points have a greater impact on target
value; distant points, on the other hand, are not influential as much as close
neighbouring points. A radius base function is used for calculating the neighbouring
point influence level.
As mentioned, GRNN is able to build a model with a relatively small dataset and has
the capability to handle outliers. There are two main disadvantages associated with
GRNN; it needs considerable calculations to evaluate new points and is not able to
ignore unrelated inputs without assistance and needs major algorithm modifications.
Consequently, this method is not a choice for problems with a substantial number of
predictor variables. A GRNN algorithm can be enhanced by advancing GRNN in two
ways: using clustering versions of GRNN and applying parallel calculations to take
advantage of GRNN structure characteristics.
3.1.5 Validation Procedure

For each method (SVM and GRNN), the observed and predicted values of the
construction labour productivity of formwork assembly, steel fixing, and concrete
pouring and finishing will be compared using several complementary indices: the root
mean square error (RMSE), the normalised mean square error (NMSE), the mean
absolute error (MAE), the correlation coefficient (R), and the mean squared error
(MSE).
These five criteria are defined as follows:
N
1
NMSE= ∑ ¿ ¿¿
N i=1
N
∑ ( pi−oi ) (oi−o)
i=1
R=
√∑
N N
( p i−o i) 2
∑ (o i−o)2
i=1 i=1
√
N
RMSE= ∑ ( pi−oi)2
i =1
N
MSE=∑ ( p i−o i)
2
i=1
N
1
MAE= ∑ | pi−oi|
N i=1

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Questionnaire Survey and their responses
Table 4.2 Google form of Quesstionaire survey
Name
Age
Gender
Highest level of education completed
No. of years of construction experience in India
Current working position
Current Company
Sr. Factors Affecting Labour Productivity Scale
No. Yes No Neutral
1 Does Lack of work experience affect productivity?
2 Does Inadequate transportation facility for workers affect the work
procedure?
3 If Training sessions are taken initially, can that be effective?
4 Does Job Category affect labour productivity?

5 Is Education/Training effective for labour productivity?
6 Is Nationality an affecting factor?
7 Are Technical Skills important?
8 Is the age of an individual affecting factor?
9 Do Marital Status make a difference?
10 If there are Supervision delays, will that change anything?
11 If Training sessions are taken initially, can that be effective?
12 Does Lack of required construction material affect the productivity at
specific time?
13 Working overtime gives more productivity.
14 Does Quality of required work matter the labour productivity?
15 If Change orders from the designers are received, then productivity is
affected.
16 If Disputes with the designers takes place anyhow, will that affect the
whole working procedure or productivity?
17 Does Payment delays have any direct or indirect effect on labour
productivity?
18 If there is Poor access within construction job site, it will decrease the
labour productivity.
19 Does Material storage location make any change in labour
productivity and their work efficiency?
20 If the Rework situation comes, does it affect the input and output from
labourers?

21 If there is Misunderstanding between the owner, the contractor and

the designer, will that affect the labourer's' work?
22 If the Increase in the price of materials takes place, the efficiency in
the work of labourers gets affected.
23 If the Inspection work is delayed, labourers work efficiency is
affected.
The questionnaire survey was constructed where various experienced and some
inexperienced people from civil engineering background were asked questions using
Google form of which responses are collected and the effect of every parameter is
described through graphical format.
The results of all the 53 responses for each factor is as shown below in graphical
format in Appendix.

4.2 Calculating total activity observations

Table 4.3 Daily Observation of Slab formwork
Slab Formwork Activity Results-

Daily Observation of Slab Formwork
Work day1 day2 day3 day4 day5 day6 day7 day8 day9 day10 day11 day12 D
Sampling
Direct 32 22 31 34 28 21 24 21 27 20 26 29
Work
Preparatory 9 9 6 4 8 8 9 8 3 5 11 6
Work
Tools and 12 3 2 8 6 5 6 5 6 5 4 8
Equipment
Material 7 10 9 9 9 6 9 6 3 10 7 5
Handling
Waiting 9 9 13 1 12 6 14 6 9 2 10 13
Travel 4 8 7 5 12 3 12 3 4 10 7 4
Personal 5 12 3 6 7 2 7 2 8 3 1 3
Work day14 day15 day16 day17 day18 day19 day20 day21 day22 day23 day24 day25 D
Sampling
Direct 32 35 19 24 33 27 22 17 23 26 24 25
Work
Preparatory 5 7 6 5 8 2 8 7 7 5 8 8
Work
Tools and 8 9 5 6 7 9 5 2 6 5 9 6
Equipment
Material 9 6 8 10 10 3 12 11 12 10 7 4
Handling
Waiting 16 13 9 14 9 4 10 12 16 15 10 9
Travel 4 7 7 11 5 5 8 12 5 4 6 5

Personal 9 4 3 3 6 1 2 7 7 9 8 4
Work day27 day28 day29 day30 day31 day32 day33 day34 day35 day36 day37 day38
Sampling
Direct 22 31 25 23 24 26 27 17 31 23 20 16
Work
Preparatory 8 6 5 8 4 7 4 4 9 4 5 4
Work
Tools and 4 9 10 11 5 7 9 9 9 6 4 6
Equipment
Material 10 8 8 4 8 5 5 8 6 5 8 7
Handling
Waiting 12 14 12 6 10 8 8 7 11 14 7 10
Travel 6 10 9 3 3 3 7 6 10 8 6 2
Personal 3 5 3 2 1 3 6 3 2 3 3 5
Total
Observation
Summary of Activity Result
Table 4.2 shows that there is a day to day variation of observation for the following possible reason. First, the characteristic being observed is not
the workers, but instead the workers’ behavior in the work at any one time. Hence, the worker's behavior that is being observed may change from
time to time. Second, the number of workers that are being observed may vary due to the scope of work, absenteeism of workers, and completion
time of activity. Finally, observer bias during observation may cause these variations. The number of observations in each box on the example
observation worksheet (Table 4.2) is summed and the result is placed in the right column of Table 4.2. These values are added to
Direct Work(DW) = 𝐷W(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38) = 32 + 22 + 31 + ⋯ 16 = 965
Preparatory Work(PW) = 𝑃W(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38) = 9 + 9 + 6 + ⋯ 4 = 244
Tool and Equipment(TE) = 𝑇𝐸(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38) = 12 + 3 + 2 + ⋯ 6 = 252
Material Handling(MH) = 𝑀W(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38), = 7 + 10 + 9 + ⋯ 7 = 288

Waiting(W) = W(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38) = 9 + 9 + 13 + ⋯ 10 = 380

Travel(T) = 𝑇(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38), = 4 + 8 + 7 + ⋯ 2 = 248
Personal(P) = 𝑃(𝐷1 + 𝐷2 + 𝐷3 + ⋯ 𝐷38), = 5 + 12 + 3 + ⋯ 5 = 170
Total observation = DW + PW + TE + 𝑀W + W + 𝑇 + 𝑃= 96 5 + 244 + 252 + 288 +
380 + 248 + 170 = 2547
A total of 2547 observations were collected in the 38 days of observation for slab
formwork
This calculation is repeated for all activities and the result is reported in Table 4.3
Table 4.4 Total Activity Organisation
Trade Category Activity Description Number of Observation

Formwork Fixing formwork for slab 2547
Fixing formwork for column 1345
Fixing formwork for shear wall 379
Reinforcement Placing reinforcement for slab 1824
Placing reinforcement for column 1534
Placing reinforcement for beam 452
Concreting Placing concrete for slab 2265
Placing concrete for column 1928
.
From Table 4.3, it can be noted that limited observations are available for shear wall
formwork and beam reinforcement activities because these values are less 510
observations for a 95% confidence level. Therefore, it will not be considered for
model development.
4.3 Calculating Study Activity percentages:
Each activity percentage is calculated by the total of each activity category, taken from
Table 4.3, and dividing by the total number of observations. This calculation can be
represented in the following equation below.
Each Activty Total
Activity Percentage=
Total Observation
An example calculation for the direct-work percentage is given as follows:
965
Direct Work= x 100 %=37.9 %
2547

Craft workers spend approximately 3 hours (0.38 x 8 hrs.) of their day directly
installing materials to advance the project, as the site visited uses eight-hour shifts.
Supportive and delayed activities take up the remaining 5 hours per day. The
calculation is repeated similarly for the other work sampling categories (preparatory
work, tool and equipment, material handling, waiting, travel, and personal) and
reported in the right-hand column of table no. 4.4.
Table 4.5 Activity Percentage for Slab Formwork
Summary of Activity Result

Work Sampling Each Activity Observation Percentage of Each Observation
Direct work 965 37.9%
Preparatory work 244 9.6%
Tools and equipment 252 9.9%
Material handling 288 11.3%
Waiting 380 14.9%
Travel 248 9.7%
Personal 170 6.7%
Total 2547
Summary of Activity Analysis for Slab Formwork

Personal
Travel 6.67%
9.74%
Direct work
Waiting 37.89%
14.92%
Material handling
11.31%
Tools and equipment Preparatory work
9.89% 9.58%
Figure 4.1 Pie Chart Illustrating Slab Formwork Activity Results
Graph
Graph 4 .1 Pie Chart Illustrating Slab Formwork Activity Results, displays a pie chart
that illustrates the proportion of time spent on different categories of labour, and
reducing one category would result in more available time for direct-work activities.

Graph 4 .1 Pie Chart Illustrating Slab Formwork Activity Resultsdisplays the pie
chart for the example utilizing the results from Table 4.4
4.4 Calculating Hourly Activity Percentage of Work Sampling

Proportion:
Hourly activity percentages can be calculated in the following ways.
1. The number of observations along each hour during the 38 days of study is
required. For example, in the study hour of 8 am to 9 am, 267 observations for
direct work were collected over the 38 days of study. This is illustrated by the
following calculation.
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 8𝑎𝑚 𝑡𝑜 9𝑎𝑚) = 67 + 53 + 29 + 47 + 33 + 19 + 18 = 267
2. Each activity percentage is calculated by summing the 38 hourly activity
categories and dividing by the total number of hourly observations. This
calculation can be represented by the following equation.
Day 1+ Day 2+ Day 3 … … …..+ Day 38
3. Hourly Activity Percentage= x 100 %
Total number of hourly observations
67
Direct Work Activity Percentage ( ¿ 8 am¿9 am )= x 100 %=25 %
267
Table 4.6 Hourly Distribution of Slab formwork activity
Time
8am-9am 9am- 10am- 11am-12pm lunc 1pm-2pm 2pm-3pm 3pm-4pm 4pm-5pm
10am 11am h
WS HA P HA P HA P HA P HA P HA P HA P HA P
X1 67 25% 96 36% 115 39% 109 34% 81 28% 103 35% 141 42% 80 30%
X2 53 20% 45 17% 30 10% 30 9% 53 18% 34 11% 23 7% 28 10%
X3 29 11% 28 10% 30 10% 30 9% 26 9% 31 10% 33 10% 33 12%
X4 47 18% 33 12% 27 9% 29 9% 39 14% 34 11% 33 10% 27 10%
X5 33 12% 28 11% 46 16% 78 24% 49 17% 46 15% 53 16% 48 18%
X6 19 7% 23 8% 29 10% 32 10% 16 6% 31 10% 31 9% 42 15%
X7 18 7% 17 6% 20 7% 18 6% 26 9% 19 7% 20 6% 14 5%
Sum 267 270 297 325 291 297 334 271
-
HA= stands for Hourly Activity, P= Percentage of slab formwork activities
Where x1 = Direct work, x2 = Preparatory work, x3 = Tools and Equipment,

x4 =Material handling, x5 = Waiting, x6 = Travel and x7 = Personal
The remaining hourly activity percentages from 8 am to 9 am study hours are

calculated as below.
53
Preparatory work ( ¿ 8 am¿ 9 am ) = x 100 %=20 %
267
29
Tool∧Equipment ( ¿ 8 am¿9 am ) = x 100 %=11 %
267
47
Material handling ( ¿ 8 am¿9 am )= x 100 %=18 %
267
33
W aiing ( ¿ 8 am ¿9 am )= x 100 %=12%
267
19
Travel ( 8 am¿9 am )= x 100 %=7 %
267
18
Personal ( 8 am¿ 9 am )= x 100 %=6.9 %
267
These calculations are repeated for all study hours as shown in the previous Table 4.5
4.5 Calculating Construction Labour Productivity

The productivity of construction labour for slab formwork activities was measured
based on completed units. Equation below was used to calculate productivity, which
involves dividing production by crew size and 8 working hours. For instance, the
productivity for day one was calculated using the following formula.
Production
Consruction labour producitivity=
Total manhours
Production 42.56 2
CLP= = =1.33 m /hr
crew ¿ 8 h 4 x 8 h
These calculations are repeated for all days and activities, the result shown in Table
4.6 for slab formwork. For column formwork and slab concreting activity, the results
were included in appendix A.1 and A.2 for respectively.

Table 4.7 Result of Construction Labour Productivity for Slab Formwork
Production Production CLP

Day Crew (M2) CLP(M2/hr) Day Crew (M2) (M2/hr)
size size
1 4 42.5 1.33 20 3 41.2 1.72
6 8
2 5 54 1.35 21 4 42.8 1.34
8
3 4 25.6 0.8 22 5 56 1.4
4 5 51.2 1.28 23 7 84 1.5
5 4 50.2 1.57 24 4 52.4 1.64
4 8
6 4 42.5 1.33 25 4 42.8 1.34
6 8
7 5 65.6 1.64 26 5 53.6 1.34
8 6 63.8 1.33 27 8 86.4 1.35
4
9 3 42.2 1.76 28 7 43.6 0.78
4 8
10 4 50.2 1.57 29 4 52.1 1.63
4 6
11 5 72 1.8 30 6 64.3 1.34
2
12 5 62 1.55 31 7 54.8 0.98
8
13 7 74.4 1.33 32 4 39.3 1.23
8 6
14 4 55.0 1.72 33 5 65.2 1.63
4
15 5 62 1.55 34 3 45.1 1.88
2
16 6 36.4 0.76 35 4 54.0 1.69
8 8
17 5 67.6 1.69 36 5 60 1.5

18 4 55.0 1.72 37 5 72 1.8

4
19 5 75.2 1.88 38 4 55.0 1.72
4
CLP= construction labor productivity,hr= hour, and M2=square
meter
4.6 Data Set

For this study, the data set contains a percentage of observation and result of
construction productivity appropriate for statistical data analysis. The table below
shows the data set for slab formwork activities.
Table 4.8 Data set for slab formwork activities
Observtion X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 CLP
Date
1 0.45 0.17 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.02 1.33
2 0.32 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.16 0.04 0.08 1.35
3 0.30 0.12 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.8
4 0.36 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.02 0.08 0.09 1.28
5 0.36 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.09 0.07 1.57
6 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.04 0.18 0.05 1.33
7 0.42 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.05 1.64
8 0.36 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19 0.06 0.04 1.33
9 0.41 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.06 1.76
10 0.38 0.16 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.01 1.57
11 0.42 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.06 0.04 1.8
12 0.34 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.02 1.55
13 0.37 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.08 1.33
14 0.36 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.08 1.72
15 0.40 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.16 1.55
16 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 1.76
17 0.41 0.13 0.19 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.04 1.69
18 0.39 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.05 0.11 1.72
19 0.40 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.16 0.07 0.14 1.88
20 0.37 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.05 0.04 1.72
21 0.40 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.04 1.34
22 0.37 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.06 1.4
23 0.32 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.04 0.10 1.5

24 0.43 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.08 1.64
25 0.41 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.06 1.34
26 0.44 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.04 1.34
27 0.35 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.08 1.35
28 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.78
29 0.27 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.05 1.63
30 0.36 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.04 0.18 0.04 1.34
31 0.34 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.03 0.98
32 0.36 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.08 1.23
33 0.29 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.05 1.63
34 0.35 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.16 0.13 0.08 1.88
35 0.41 0.17 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.04 1.69
36 0.47 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.02 1.5
37 0.32 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.10 0.06 1.8
38 0.35 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.14 0.08 1.72
Where x1 = Direct work, x2 = Preparatory work, x3 = Tools and Equipment, x4

=Material handling, x5 = Waiting, x6 = Travel, and x7 = Personal
Each daily productivity was taken from Table 3.9 and each work sampling
proportion is calculated from Table 3.6 by taking the ratio of each work sampling
observation to total observation for that day. For example, for day one, the direct
work proportion calculated as
Day One Work Observation 32
Day One ( Direct Work )= = =0.45
Day OneTotal number of work observations 78
4.7 Development of Multivariable Linear Regression Model:

A family of methods known as multiple regression can be used to determine
the relationship between a continuous outcome variable and a number of independent
variables. Although it builds on correlation, multiple regression enables a more
complex analysis of how several variables interact. This makes it perfect for
examining more complex real-world research topics as opposed to laboratory-based
ones. For this study, a stepwise regression technique is selected because this method
helps to obtain the ‘best’ equation to predict the dependent variable.
The entire range of statistical techniques includes multiple regression. It has various
expectations for the data, and if any of those expectations are not met, it will not be
understanding. Small samples with a heavily skewed score distribution should not
utilize this strategy. Before using the linear regression technique, it is important to

verify the following key premises. These are homoscedasticity, correlation,

multicollinearity, homonormality, linearity, and the former four. The next sections go
into great depth about how to test this assumption using SPSS.
4.7.1 Normailty:
Dependent variables must be uniformly distributed across the board and for
each unit of measure. This suggests that the variable has a normal distribution and is
linearly related to the explanatory variables. The distribution of the residuals (the
difference between the actual and the expected productivity within the model) should
be rather normal if the relationships are linear and the variable is usually distributed
for each value of the variable. This is frequently evaluated by using a graph of the
standardized residuals' histogram. Since the marginal distribution of the residuals
follows a normal distribution, the histogram's form in the Figure serves as an example.
Therefore, activities involving column formwork do not break the notion of normality.
The graph of a histogram for slab concreting shown in appendix explains a similar
result.
4.7.2 Homoscedasticity:
The distribution of the explanatory variables should have nearly similar variability for
each predictor value. The residuals can be plotted against the outcome (productivity)
values and the explanatory variables to verify this assumption. If the model accurately
matches the information, when standard observed productivity is plotted against
expected productivity, the information would type a line from the lower-left to the
upper-right corner. That point should be a straight diagonal line from bottom left to
prime right in the Norman likelihood (probability) map. This would suggest that
activities involving column formwork do not significantly deviate from
homoscedasticity. The slab concreting normal likelihood graph shown in the appendix
demonstrates a comparable outcome.
4.7.3 Linearity:
The distribution of the explanatory variables should have nearly similar variability for
each predictor value. The residuals can be plotted against the outcome (productivity)
values and the explanatory variables to verify this assumption. If the model accurately
matches the information, when standard observed productivity is plotted against
expected productivity, the information would type a line from the lower-left to the
upper-right corner. That point should be a straight diagonal line from bottom left to

prime right in the Norman likelihood (probability) map. This would suggest that
activities involving column formwork do not significantly deviate from
homoscedasticity. The slab concreting normal likelihood graph shown in the appendix
demonstrates a comparable outcome
4.7.4 Correlation Analysis (R):
A correlation analysis had a correlation coefficient whose values vary from -1 to
+1. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two variables are faultlessly
related during a positive linear manner, and a correlation of negative one indicates
that two variables are perfectly related during a negative linear manner, whereas a
correlation of zero indicates that there's no linear relationship between the two
variables being studied. The take a look at multiple regressions is to ascertain
correlations between dependent and independent variables different from zero. Table
4.7 illustrates that each one activity has a correlation different from zero indicating
that assumption of correlation is achieved. For column formwork activity, the
strongest correlation may be seen from the inverse relationship between productivity,
and travel, and waiting. Therefore, productivity tends to increase when waiting and
travel on-site diminishes, which could be attributed to time available for work wasted
rather than the direct installing of material.
Table 4.9 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion with CLP for column
formwork Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson Correlation 1
X2 Pearson Correlation .262 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .038
X3 Pearson Correlation -.12 -.01 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .367 .978
X4 Pearson Correlation .34 -.05 -.067 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .672 .599
X5 Pearson Correlation -.23 -.27 -.021 .227 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .077 .035 .873 .073
X6 Pearson Correlation -.36 -.25 .073 .279 .912 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .03 .045 .571 .027 .000
X7 Pearson Correlation -.54 -.14 -.084 .274 .425 .544 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .277 .511 .030 .001 .000

K Pearson Correlation .335 .264 -.057 .201 -.94 -.969 -.48 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .07 .066 .656 .115 .00 .000 .00
Some of the independent variables are significantly associated to the other, in

accordance with the findings of the correlation analysis in Table 4.7 and the
correlation analysis for additional activities in the appendix. The following variables
are related to travel: waiting to correlate with travel; direct work correlates with
personal and travels for column formwork; and slab formwork activates. While
waiting to correlate with direct work for slab concreting activities, material handling
activity percentage coincides with direct work for column reinforcing activities. As a
result, multi linearity should determine whether to continue the analysis or not.
4.7.5 Multicollinearity
Predictor variables that are highly connected are said to be multicollinear.
There is a distribution of predictive power when independent variables are
multicollinear. This may have the paradoxical result that while the regression model
accurately predicts the dependent variable in this case, productivity, none of the
predictor factors significantly affects this prediction. As a result, while they may not
each significantly contribute to the model individually, they may explain a large
portion of the dependent variables together. Therefore, multicollinearity has the effect
of decreasing the predictive ability of each independent variable by the degree to
which it is related with the other independent variables. That is, once the others have
been taken into account, none of the predictor variables may still make a distinctive
and meaningful contribution to the prediction model. It is possible to request the
display of "Tolerance" and "variance inflation factor (VIF)" values for each predictor
in multivariable linear regression in order to check for multicollinearity (See Table
4.8).
Table 4.10 Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor for Independent Variables
Model Type Toleranc Variance inflation factor (VIF)

e
Column Direct Work .545 1.83
Formwork 5
Preparatory Work .806 1.24

1
Tool and Equipment .901 1.11
0
Material Handling .772 1.29
5
Waiting .675 1.48
3
Travel .715 1.40
0
Personal .743 1.34
6
Slab Direct Work .470 2.12
Formwork 6
4
6
2
Waiting .539 1.85
5
Travel .561 1.78
2
Personal .461 2.17
0
Slab Direct Work .470 2.12
Concreting 6
4
6
2
Waiting .539 1.85
5
Travel .561 1.78
2
Personal .461 2.17
0
The proportion of the predictor's variance that cannot be explained by the other
predictors is given a tolerance value. In the following, extremely low numbers suggest
"overlap" or the sharing of predictive power. Less than 0.10 values might warrant
additional research. The variance inflation factor (VIF), which is calculated as
"1/tolerance," suggests that predictor variables with VIF values higher than 10 may be
worth further investigation.
The findings for this study are shown in Table 4.7 with labelled coefficients. As
indicated in Table 4.8, the tolerance value for each independent variable is larger than
0.1 and the VIF is less than 10, showing that multicollinearity is not an issue.

4.7.6 Evaluating the Model

Model summary displays statistics about the results of training, testing, and applying
the final network to the holdout sample. The Table includes R, R2, and details of the F
test of the hypothesis that multiple regression is zero as shown in Table 4.9.
Table 4.11 Regression Model Summary
Activity Model Summary

Correlation (R) R- Square Adjusted R-square
Column formwork .981 .963 .961
Slab formwork .450 .202 .180
Slab Concreting .659 .434 .356
4.7.7 Test for Correlation Coefficient (R)

The strength of the relationship between the dependent variable and the collection of
independent variables that have been weighted in accordance with the regression
equation is modelled by the coefficient of correlation. The theoretical range of R-
values is 0 to 1. The linear association between the group of independent and
dependent variables is stronger when the correlation coefficients are larger. Zero
coefficients of correlation show that the collection of predictors and the dependent
variable do not have a linear connection. Checking whether correlations between
dependent and independent variables deviate from zero is the main test in multiple
regressions. According to Table 4.9, all study activities had R-values that were not
zero. As a result, the correlational assumption is upheld.
4.7.8 R-square
R-square, often known as the coefficient of determination, is a gauge of how
strong the prediction equation is. R-square, which measures the relationship between
the observed value of the dependent variable and the expected value predicted by the
fitted regression line, is the square of the correlation coefficient. In order to acquire R-
square, the researcher first computes the predicted value and then squares the
correlation coefficient between the predicted value and observed values. R-square
equals one (perfect linear relationship) if all of the observations fall on the regression

line. The absence of a linear relationship between the predictor and dependent
variables is indicated by an R-square of zero. Larger R 2 values, on the other hand,
show that the model is better at explaining variation in the dependent variable.
According to Table 4.9, the R-square value for this study's column formwork
activities was 96.3 percent, which is fairly high and demonstrates the model's strong
predictability. Changes in material handling, waiting, and transit for column formwork
operations can account for 96.3% of the variation in construction labour productivity.
The remaining 3.7% of the variation in labour productivity in the construction industry
is thought to be the result of random variability.
Additionally, the respective R-square values for the slab formwork and slab
concreting operations were 20.2% and 37.7%. This finding demonstrates that the
independent variable only accounts for 20.2% and 37.7% of construction labour
productivity. The prediction error is likely to be substantial given the low R-square
value, making the activity models insufficient for predicting actual construction labour
productivity.
4.7.9 F-Test
The F-test measures the relationship between the regression's mean square and the
residual's mean square (the residual being the discrepancy between the observed and
expected). By indicating that at least one of the independent factors is a significant
predictor of the outcome variable, the F-test functions as a preliminary screening.
Since the F statistic's significance value is less than 0.05, the variation explained by
the model is not just random variation. In this study, Table 4.9 must be examined in
order to determine the result's statistical significance. This test establishes that there
are several R in the population that differ from zero. The analysis is statistically
significant for column formwork, slab formwork, and slab concreting (Sig =.0, which
indicates p.05).
4.7.10 Evaluating each of Independent Variables:

Identifying variables that contributed to the prediction of construction labor
productivity is one of the methods, which helps to evaluate the model. This

information is illustrated in Table 4.7 containing unstandardized coefficients, standard

error, standardized coefficients, t- value, and sig.
4.7.10.1 Standardized Coefficients

Standardized means that values for every predictor variables are converted to the same
scale to compare those independent variables. To comparing the influence of every
independent variable, see Table 4.7 the beta column, and find the largest beta value
ignoring any negative signs out the front. In this case, the largest beta coefficient is –
0.681, which is for travel activity percentage. This means that travel activity
percentage makes a strong contribution to explaining the construction labor
productivity, for column formwork activity. The Beta value for material handling
activity percentage was lower (.066), indicating that it made less of a contribution to
the column formwork activity model.
4.7.10.2 Unstandardized Coefficients (B)

To develop a regression equation, unstandardized coefficient values listed as “B” in
Table 4.9 used as coefficients of the variable. The "B" values are the coefficients for
every predictor variable multiplied by in the final equation and might use to predict
construction labor productivity. However, the corresponding “sig” value of the
coefficient be 0.05 or below to have a confidence degree 95 %, this means that the
finding has a 95% chance of being true. The variables with negative regression
coefficients influence reducing construction labor productivity. These variables are
waiting and travel for column formwork, material handling for slab formwork, and
preparatory work for slab concreting activity. On the other hand, variables with
positive regression coefficients (material handling) influence increasing construction
labor productivity for column formwork activities. The "Constant" is the intercept
equivalent in the equation and the value of the outcome variable when the predictor
variable is zero.
4.7.10.3 Standard Error
If the regression were implemented repetitively on different data (that had the same
variables), this would denote the standard deviation of the coefficients. It shows in
what range the value of the coefficients differs across dissimilar samples. The
predictable coefficient is statistically significant if the coefficient is more than two
times as large as the standard error, it is statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

Taking slab formwork activities as an example, the standard error for the coefficient
on material handling is 0.45, which is much less than half the value of the coefficient
(3.92), so the estimated effect of material handling is still statistically significant in its
difference from zero.
4.7.10.4 Sig. (P - value)

For every independent variable, the value in the column marked “Sig” tells whether
this variable is making a statistically significant irreplaceable contribution to the
equation. This is dependent on the variables that are included in the equation, and how
many overlays among the independent variables. The smaller the value of “Sig” the
better contribution of the predictor. If the Sig. value is less than 0.05, then the variable
is providing a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the outcome
variable. Whereas sig. greater than 0.05, implied that the variable is not making a
significant unique contribution to the prediction of a dependent variable so that drops
the variable from the equation. This may be due to overlap with other independent
variables in the model. For this study, material handling, waiting and travel for column
formwork, material handling for slab formwork, and preparatory work for slab
concreting made a unique, and statistically significant, contribution to the prediction of
construction labor productivity.
4.7.10.5 T-Ratio
T- Ratio is the ratio between coefficient and standard error that tells how large the
coefficient concerning how much it varies in repetitive sampling. If the coefficient
differs a lot in repeated sampling, then its T-statistic will be smaller, and if it varies
little in repeated sampling, then its T-statistic will be larger. T-Test used to identify
whether the predictor significantly correlates to construction labor productivity or not
at a pre-established confidence level of 95%.
Table 4.12 Coefficient of Independent Variables
Dependent Variable: Construction labor productivity

Model(Activity Unstandardized Standardized T-ratio Sig.
and independent Coefficients Coefficients
variable) B St. Error (Beta)

Column Constant 1.154 .015 76.70 .000

Formwork Material .296 .119 .066 2.494 .015
handling
Waiting -1.403 .257 -.336 -5.468 .000
Travel -3.367 .308 -.681 -10.92 .000
Slab Constant 1.968 .162 12.16 .000
formwork Material -3.928 1.300 -.450 -3.022 .005
handling
Slab Constant 1.026 .135 7.612 .000
Concreting Preparatory work -5.6 1.330 -.614 -4.260 .000
For this study, column formwork, slab formwork, and slab concreting activities had a
non-zero coefficient. Alt/hough slab formwork and slab concreting activities
statistically significant accord to the coefficients test, these models are limited to
predict construction labor productivity due to low R- square value. The model
comprised the entire significant explanatory variables shown as below:
Column formwork activities “CLP” (M2/hr) = 1.154 + 0.296X4 -1.403X5 - 3.36X6
Domain, CLP = {X4, X5 and X6}:[5 %< X4<=18%], [1 %< X5<=23%] and [3 %<
X6<= 18%]
Slab formwork “CLP” (M2/hr ) = -3.92X4 + 1.97
Domain, CL = {X4}: [3 %< X4 < 18%]
Slab concreting “CLP” (M3/hr ) = – 5.6X2+ 1.026

Domain, CLP = {X2}: [5 %< X2< 16%]
CLP= construction labor productivity, X2 = Preparatory work, X4 =Material handling,

X5 = Waiting, X6 = Travel,
For this study, the domain of the equation was taken from the descriptive statistics
table included in the appendix. For example, for slab concreting activities, the
predictor variable is preparatory work as shown in equation 4.4. The range of the data
for preparatory work was between 5% and 16% as shown in Table C.1 included in

the appendix. So the value of predicted construction labour productivity for slab
concreting activities calculated within this range as shown below.
Predicted (K ) at (x2 = 16%) = – 5.6X2 + 1.026, −5.6 𝑥 0.16 + 1.026 = 0.13
(minimum value)
Predicted (K )at (x2 = 5%) = – 5.6X2 + 1.026 = −5.6𝑥 0.05 + 1.026 = 0.76
𝑚aximum value)
Graph 4.2 Graph of Predicted Construction Labour Productivity for Slab

Concreting
Graph 4 .2 Graph of Predicted Construction Labour Productivity for Slab Concreting
demonstrates the basic idea of regression with a single explanatory variable. It
shows, for each of the observations, the relationship between preparatory work,
measured on the horizontal axis, and construction labour productivity, measured on
the vertical axis. Each dot represents an observation. The cloud of dots suggests
that there is a negative correlation between preparatory work and construction
labour productivity. That means that higher values of preparatory work tend to go
together with lower values of construction labour productivity. In addition, there is a
difference between the actual value of construction labour productivity and the value
of construction labour productivity that is predicted by the regression line. The actual
value of the dependent variable (in this case, construction labour productivity)
minus the predicted value is called the “residual” or “error.

Therefore, the value of predicted construction labour productivity for slab concreting
activities was between 0.13 and 0.76 M 3 per hour as shown in Figure 4.10. However,
the value of actual construction labour productivity were 0.14 and 0.96 M3 per hour.
The residual is its actual construction labour productivity minus its predicted
construction labour productivity, 0.96 -.76= 0.2and 0.14 –0.13= 0.01. It’s the portion
of the dependent variable (in this case, construction labour productivity) that is not
predicted by the explanatory variable (in this case, preparatory work). Random chance
of observation affects predicted construction labour productivity, and the residual
reflects the influence of these other factor.
4.7.11 Descriptive Data Analysis

Description of the data is essential, as the nature of techniques applied for inferential
analysis is based on the characteristics of data. The minimum and maximum values
tell the domain of the equation. On the other hand, the mean denotes the center of
gravity of the observation. It is the average of all values in a distribution. According to
(CII 2010), the mean of direct work fall between 40%- 60% percentage of an hour.
However, formwork and reinforcement activities had meant that lower than 40% as
shown below.
Table 4.13 Descriptive: Statistics for Slab Formwork
Work sampling N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Direct Work 38 .25 .47 .3676 .04658
Preparatory Work 38 .05 .17 .1058 .03001
Tool and Equipment 38 .03 .19 .0995 .03432
Material Handling 38 .03 .18 .1208 .03053
Waiting 38 .01 .20 .1408 .04829
Travel 38 .04 .18 .0945 .03867
Personal 38 .01 .16 .0663 .03672
CLP 38 .78 1.8 1.493 .26658
8
4.7.12 Validation of Regression Model

Cross-validation using a second sample is highly suggested for statistical regression
and is accomplished through several steps. First, the info is split into two arbitrary
samples; a recommended split is 90% for regression analysis and therefore the

remaining 10% because of the cross-validation sample as shown in Table 4.12. Next,
statistical regression on the larger sample is run; predicted scores are generated for
smaller cross-validation samples using the regression coefficients produced by the
analysis. Finally, predicted construction labor productivity (CLP) and actual
construction labor productivity (CLP) are correlated to find R-square for the smaller
sample. A large discrepancy between R- square for smaller and larger samples
indicates over fitting and lack of generalizability of the results of the analysis.
For this study, the correlation coefficient between predicted construction labor
productivity (CLP) and actual construction labor productivity equal to 99.5%, 45.8%,
and 19.2 % for column formwork, slab formwork, and slab concreting activities. This
result indicates that the predicted construction labor productivity of column formwork
activities are highly correlated (correlation greater than 50%) and closer to the actual
construction labor productivity.
However, for slab formwork and slab concreting activities, the correlation between
predicted construction labor productivity (CLP) and actual construction labor
productivity is low.
The coefficients of determination (R2) between predicted and actual CLP were 99.1%,
24.1%, and 7.8% for column formwork, slab formwork, and slab concreting
respectively as shown in Table 4.12. For column formwork, the cross-validation
sample is better predicted by the regression equation than the sample that generated
the equation. Consequently, output for column formwork activity fitted to actual
measurements. In addition, for slab formwork and slab concreting activities, the
coefficients of determination are low, errors are expected to be high, and the
usefulness of activity models for predicting actual construction labor productivity is
inadequate.
Furthermore, the mean absolute percentage error between predicted and actual
construction labor productivity (CLP) was 4.19%, 52.7%, and 76.7% for column
formwork, slab formwork, and slab concreting activities respectively. In this case,
column formwork activities had low mean absolute percentage error and high
accuracy percentage. Therefore, this model is better to predict construction labor
productivity. Contrary to this, slab formwork and slab concreting had high mean
absolute percentage error and low accuracy percentage so the model is limited to
predict construction labor productivity.

Table 4.14 Number of Observations for each Variable
Activity No Observation X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 CLP

1 0.34 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.81
2 0.38 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.63
3 0.31 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.88
4 0.33 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.12 0.1 0.54
5 0.36 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.88
6 0.39 0.1 0.03 0.15 0.17 0.1 0.06 0.66
7 0.37 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.07 0.6
Column Formwork 8 0.33 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.2 0.16 0.14 0.47
1 0.36 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19 0.06 0.04 1.33
2 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 1.76
3 0.43 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.08 1.64
4 0.36 0.1 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.08 1.23
Slab Form work 5 0.45 0.17 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.02 1.33
1 0.44 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.14
2 0.45 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.52
3 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.2 0.06 0.04 0.72
4 0.42 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.14 0.1 0.02 0.18
slab Concreting 5 0.44 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.28
Table 4.15 Actual Productivity and Predicted CLP for Column Formwork
Activities
Activity No Observation Actual CLP Predicted ((A-P)/A)

CL
1 0.81 0.79 0.02
2 0.63 0.60 0.05
3 0.88 0.87 0.01
4 0.54 0.51 0.06
5 0.88 0.85 0.03
6 0.66 0.63 0.05
7 0.6 0.54 0.10
8 0.47 0.46 0.02
column
form work
MAPE(%) 4.19%
1 1.33 1.47 (0.14)
2 1.76 1.59 0.12
3 1.64 1.47 0.09
4 1.23 1.51 (0.35)
5 1.33 1.51 (0.25)
MAPE(%) -52.8%
Slab form
work
1 0.14 1.02 0.04
2 0.52 1.2147 (0.64)
3 0.72 1.2804 (0.59)
4 0.18 0.9519 (0.59)
5 0.28 0.9519 (1.19)
Slab MAPE(%) -76.6%
Concreting
A= Actual and P=predicted CLP=Construction
Labor Productivity
The following statistical procedures used to measure the performance of
multivariable linear regression models.
AppendixA.The Coefficient of Correlation (R)

AppendixB. The Coefficient of Determination (R-Square)

AppendixC.Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
AppendixD.Average Accuracy Percentage (AA %) for column formwork
Table 4.16 Performance of Multivariable Regression Model
Column Measur R R- square R-square MAPE AA (%)

e
formwor Large Small (%)
k sample sample
Result 99.5% 95.8% 99.1% 4.19% 95.81
%
Slab formwork
45.8% 20.2% 24.1% 52.3% 47.7%
Slab concreting
19.2% 37.8% 7.8 % 76.6% 23.4%
Graph 4.3 Predicted and Actual Construction Labor Productivity for column
Formwork Activities

Graph
Graph 4.4
4.4 Predicted
Predicted and
and Actual
Actual Construction
Construction Labor
Labor Productivity
Productivity for
for column
column
Formwork Activities
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion
1) This study used multiple regression approaches to create a construction labour
productivity model for formwork, reinforcing, and concreting tasks. The model for
concrete activity and reinforcement, however, has limited ability to forecast
construction labour productivity. The ability to estimate construction labour
productivity using slab and shear wall formwork activity was restricted, even for
formwork trade categories.
2) The column formwork activity model had a high degree of accuracy (95.81%) and
was well predicted.
3) In this study, a construction productivity estimate model for column formwork
activity was developed using three significant variables (material handling,
waiting, and personal).
4) Direct work and labour productivity in construction did not significantly
correspond. Therefore, in order to increase labour productivity in the construction
industry, management should concentrate on both direct work and other work
sampling activities.
5) The main reasons for delays in the study area include waiting and locating
materials, poor site planning, crew disobedience, insufficient or incomplete
drawings, inappropriate crew size and skill level, and waiting for other crews and
tools.
5.2 Recommendations
In order to meet the needs of today, let alone those of tomorrow, construction is a
collaborative activity that incorporates the skills and experience of many individuals.
Field research, survey findings, and observable issues all point to a number of issues
that have an impact on labour productivity in the construction industry. Poor site
layout, crew disobedience to instructions, finding materials, inadequate or missing
drawings, an insufficient team size, low crew skill levels, excessive preparation work,
waiting for supplies from other crews, and tools are some of these. The following
suggestion is made to address the issues affecting labourers' productivity in
construction enterprises.

5.2.1 Material Acquisition

Construction companies must establish project-specific material supply timetables.
The timetable must include the time needed to get the materials and their availability
on the market in order to supply them at the appropriate time. Additionally,
contracting companies have a choice of a suitable storage facility for acquired
materials. This storage location would be accessible and close to building sites to save
down on travel time.
5.2.2 Apply Tool and equipment management program

Apply tool management program to allow laborers to leave the workforce, obtain a
tool or piece of equipment, and return to the workforce in a short period.
5.2.3 Site layout that is well-designed

Reduce the amount of time needed for moving tools and equipment, managing
materials, and travelling by placing stores or material yards at a minimum distance
from the actual building site. Poor site planning necessitates labourers' having to travel
long distances to access materials, which contributes to wasteful material handling. A
material-handling activity is the walk back with the material in hand; a travel activity
is the walk to the material laydown yard. A material storage location close to the work
area is something that management should think about. The rate of material handling
will decrease significantly if materials are nearby. To allow for material tracking, these
tiny storage spaces need to be tightly managed. It must continue to be secure and
clutter-free.
5.2.4 Employees should receive training

The topics that boost the efficiency of building projects must be covered in training
sessions and conferences. owing to a lack of training, workers spending too much time
preparing how to carry out the work assignment, and workers taking too long to
determine whether tools, equipment, and supplies are required for the job. As a result,
management should create a thorough work breakdown that includes a list of the tasks
to be performed as well as the necessary tools, equipment, and supplies. Furthermore,
inexperienced employees frequently seek advice from more seasoned employees when
they have questions about their task

5.2.5 Partnership Stakeholder

The project manager said that there were problems with the design's incompleteness
and the contractor's and consultant's lack of communication. The majority of the
buildings have been amended, however the consultant failed to provide the updated
drawings on time. Regular meetings, either monthly or weekly, between the contractor
and the consultant are necessary to address these issues.
5.2.6 Excellent Interaction

The tasks that are expected of a worker must be explained to him in a way that will
help the project succeed. As a result, tasks and expectations must be explained in
detail. Employees must be able to trace the source of their instructions, which calls for
a clear communication path on the job. Orders received from an unidentified source
will be ignored. Additionally, two-way communication is necessary for success.
5.3 Recommendation for Future Research

1) In order to create process models for predicting construction labour
productivity, future researchers will examine labor-intensive activities like
electrical, mechanical, boilermaking, and pipe operations.
2) Replicating the study using neural network techniques and comparing the
results to demonstrate which approach is more suited for use in construction
management.

REFERENCES
[1] “ Information Technologies applications for Construction.” In LIFE CYCLE
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR CONSTRUCTION, 37-46.
[2] Ahuja, Vanita, Jay Yang, and Ravi Shankar. “Study of ICT adoption for building
project management in the Indian construction industry.” Automation in
Construction (Elseveir) 18 (2009): 415-423.
[3] Bartake, Monali, Y S Patil, and R. M. Swamy. “Study of Barriers in Implementing
ICT in Indian Construction Industry.” International Journal of Research and
Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) 6, no. 11 (November 2019): 149-152.
[4] Begić, Hana, Mario Galić, and Zlata Dolaček-Alduk. “DIGITALIZATION AND
AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT’S LIFE-CYCLE: A
REVIEW.” Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCon) 27
(2022): 441-460.
[5] Cherian, Tisha Meriam, and L. Aravindh Kumaran. “E-Business in Construction
Industry: Opportunities and Challenges.” Indian Journal of Science and
Technology 9, no. 32 (August 2016): 1-6.
[6] Gaith, Farag H., Amiruddin Ismail, and Khalim A. R. “Application and efficacy of
information technology in construction industry.” Scientific Research and Essays
(Academic Journals) 7, no. 38 (August 2012): 3223-3242.
[7] Ghalia, A., and Rateb J. Sweis. “The relationship between information technology
adoption and job satisfaction in contracting companies in Jordan.” Journal of
Information Technology in Construction 15 (2010): 44-63.
[8] Kasim, N. B., and Peniel Ang Ern Soon. “The Awareness Of ICT Implementation
For Materials Management In Construction Projects.” International Journal of
Computer and Communication Technology (https://www.interscience.in/) 2, no. 3
(2011): 158-168.
[9] Kasim, Narimah. “ICT Implementation for Materials Management in Construction
Projects: Case Studies.” KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project
Management 1, no. 1 (2011): 31-36.
[10] Sawhney, Anil, K Kamal Mukherjee, Pour Farzad Rahimian, and Steven Jack
Goulding. “Scenarioe thinking approach for leveraging ICT to support SMEs in

the Indian construction industry.” Procedia Engineering (Elseveir) 85 (2014): 446-

453.
[11] Shehata, Mostafa E., and Khaled M. El-Gohary. “Towards improving
construction labor productivity and projects’ performance.” Alexandria
Engineering Journal (Elseveir) 50 (2011): 321-330.
[12] Sreelakshmi, S., Boda Sagar Kantilal, Mohamed Roshan, and S Gopinath.
“STUDY ON THE BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDING
INFORMATION MODELING.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology (IJCIET) (IAEME Publication(Scopus Indexed)) 8, no. 5 (May 2017):
42-50.
[13] Taher, Ghada. “Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the Construction Industry:
Challenges and Opportunities.” Management Studies and Economic Systems
(MSES) (Summer & Autumn 2021 @ ZARSMI) 6, no. 3/4 (2021): 109-127.
[14] Allmon, Hass, Borcherding, and Goodrum (2000). “U.S. Construction labor
productivity trends, 1970-1998.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 126(2), 97-104.
[15] Bernstein, H. (2003). “Measuring Productivity: An Industry Challenge.”
Journal of Civil Engineering, ASCE, 73(12), 46-53.
[16] Brewer, A., Sloan, N., and Landers, T. (1999) “Intelligent Tracking in
manufacturing.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1999, 10, pages 245-250.
[17] Caldas, C., Grau, D., and Haas, C. (2006) “Using Global Positioning Systems
to Improve Materials Locating Processes on Industrial Projects." Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 132 (7), 741-749.
[18] Goodrum, P. and Haas, C. (2002). “Partial Factor Productivity and Equipment
Technology Change at the Activity Level in the U.S. Construction Industry.”
ASCE, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 128(6),
463-472.
[19] Harrison, P. (2007). “Can Measurement Error Explain the Weakness of
Productivity Growth in the Canadian Construction Industry?” Centre for the Study
of Living Standards. CSLS Research Report No. 2007-01. Ottawa, Ontario.
[20] Kang, Y., Thomas, S., and O’Brien, W. (2006) “Impacts of Automation and
Integration Technologies on Project and Company Performance”. National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report GCR 06-900, 2006

[21] McGraw_Hill Construction (2009). “The Business Value of BIM: Getting

Building Information Modeling to the Bottom Line”, SmartMarket Report.
APPENDIX
Appendix. A. Responses of Questionnaire Survey for every factor
Graph
5 Responses of factor no. 01
Graph 6 Responses of factor no. 02








Appendix. B. Data Summary
B.1 Activity Percentage of an Activities

13.71%
Graph 28 Column Formwork Activity Percentage
Graph 29 Slab Concreting Activity Percentage

Table A-1 Result of Construction Labor Productivity for Column Formwork
Da Cre Producti CLP(M2/ Da Cre Producti CLP(M2/

y w on Hr) y w on Hr)
Size Size
1 8 34.56 0.54 38 4 20.8 0.65
2 4 27.2 0.85 39 4 26.56 0.83
3 12 50.88 0.53 40 5 35.2 0.88
4 12 84.48 0.88 41 6 42.24 0.88
5 5 19.2 0.48 42 6 42.24 0.88
6 6 38.88 0.81 43 6 42.24 0.88
7 5 39.6 0.99 44 4 23.04 0.72
8 4 16.32 0.51 45 4 23.68 0.74
9 5 21.6 0.54 46 5 22.4 0.56
10 5 25.2 0.63 47 4 30.72 0.96
11 5 23.6 0.59 48 8 56.96 0.89
12 3 16.8 0.7 49 7 36.96 0.66
13 10 59.2 0.74 50 6 34.08 0.71
14 10 59.2 0.74 51 4 28.16 0.88
15 10 50.4 0.63 52 6 27.84 0.58
16 8 47.36 0.74 53 5 29.6 0.74
17 5 29.6 0.74 54 5 42.8 1.07
18 5 35.2 0.88 55 4 19.2 0.6
19 6 24.48 0.51 56 3 13.2 0.55
20 6 28.32 0.59 57 5 22 0.55
21 5 28 0.7 58 4 23.68 0.74
22 4 28.16 0.88 59 6 30.24 0.63
23 5 26.4 0.66 60 5 28 0.7
24 5 35.6 0.89 61 4 28.16 0.88
25 14 73.92 0.66 62 5 18.8 0.47
26 15 86.4 0.72 63 4 18.88 0.59
27 9 42.48 0.59 64 4 14.72 0.46
28 10 70.4 0.88 65 6 33.6 0.7
29 10 56 0.7 66 5 35.6 0.89
30 14 60.48 0.54 67 5 26.4 0.66
31 10 58.4 0.73 68 5 28.4 0.71
32 10 70.4 0.88 69 4 28.16 0.88
33 5 38.8 0.97 70 6 27.84 0.58
34 1 5.6 0.7 71 6 31.2 0.65
35 5 28.8 0.72 72 4 26.56 0.83

Table A-2 Result of Construction Labor Productivity for Slab Concreting
Day Crew Productio CLP(M2/ Day Crew Production CLP(M2/Hr)

Size n Hr) Size
1 13 16.38 0.14 19 11 37.95 0.69
2 13 15.6 0.15 20 9 26.1 0.58
3 14 17.64 0.18 21 11 13.2 0.24
4 10 36.5 0.73 22 8 7.2 0.18
5 17 50.15 0.59 23 13 62.4 0.96
6 13 39.65 0.61 24 14 50.4 0.72
7 18 32.4 0.36 25 10 24.5 0.49
8 14 10.5 0.15 26 14 12.6 0.18
9 13 14.3 0.22 27 13 16.9 0.26
10 13 33.8 0.52 28 11 33 0.6
11 10 29.5 0.59 29 10 25.5 0.51
12 9 26.1 0.58 30 14 32.2 0.46
13 11 25.3 0.46 31 12 57.6 0.96
14 14 42.7 0.61 32 9 7.65 0.17
15 14 35.7 0.51 33 21 51.45 0.49
16 14 51.8 0.74 34 8 16.4 0.41
17 12 18 0.3 35 14 17.64 0.14
18 15 54 0.72 36 8 15.68 0.28

Table A-3 Data matrix for column formwork activities
Average hourly Ws
Direct Preparatory work Tools and Material handling Waiting Travel Personal CLP
work equipm
0.34 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.54
0.41 0.13 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.07 - 0.85
0.33 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.53
0.41 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.88
0.33 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.48
0.34 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.81
0.43 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.05 - 0.99
0.33 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.51
0.33 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.54
0.38 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.63
0.35 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.59
0.39 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.70
0.33 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.16 0.42
0.42 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.74
0.39 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.06 1.02
0.56 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.74
0.38 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.63
0.44 0.17 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.02 0.74
0.43 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.74
0.39 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.88
0.33 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.51
0.37 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.59
0.40 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.70
0.31 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.88
0.39 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.66
0.41 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.89
0.39 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.66
0.41 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.72
0.37 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.59
0.35 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.81
0.37 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.88
0.39 0.07 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.70
0.33 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.54
0.42 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.73
0.44 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.88
0.34 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.97
0.40 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.70
0.41 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.72
0.38 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.65
0.43 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.73
0.32 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.07 - 0.83
0.36 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.88
0.38 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.88
0.36 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.88
0.38 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.88
0.41 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.72
0.34 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.74
0.34 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.56
0.43 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.96
0.44 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.04 1.05
0.42 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.89
0.39 0.10 0.03 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.66
0.41 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.71
0.47 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.88
0.40 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.85
0.34 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.58
0.50 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.02 0.74
0.34 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 1.07
0.37 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.07 0.60
0.34 0.08 0.17 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.55
0.38 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.88
0.26 0.12 0.17 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.09 1.07
0.34 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.55
0.50 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.76
0.41 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.15 0.08 - 0.74
0.38 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.63
0.40 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.70
0.31 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.88
0.33 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.47
0.36 0.07 0.16 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.59
0.33 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.15 0.46
0.40 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.70

Table A- 4 Data matrix for slab concreting activities
Average Hourly Result

Direct Preparatory Tool Material Wating Personal Travel CLP(M2/hr)
Work Work &Equipment Handling
0.47 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.14
0.44 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.15
0.42 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.18
0.45 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.73
0.39 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.59
0.39 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.61
0.43 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.17 0.1 0.04 0.36
0.57 0.1 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.15
0.42 0.12 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.22
0.45 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.52
0.49 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.59
0.45 0.1 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.58
0.43 0.1 0.13 0.1 0.16 0.1 0.05 0.46
0.47 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.61
0.4 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.51
0.45 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.74
0.57 0.19 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.3
0.39 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.2 0.06 0.04 0.72
0.57 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.69
0.47 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.58
0.41 0.12 0.1 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.24
0.48 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.18
0.45 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.07 0.96
0.54 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.72
0.41 0.1 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.49
0.42 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.14 0.1 0.02 0.18
0.45 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.26
0.34 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.6
0.44 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.51
0.49 0.1 0.06 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.46
0.42 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.04 0.96
0.51 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.17
0.42 0.09 0.01 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.49
0.46 0.12 0.07 0.1 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.41
0.39 0.14 0.09 0.1 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.14
0.44 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.28
Appendix C. Sample Calculation for Validation of Data

C.1 Calculating Actual Errors for Activity Percentage for Column Formwork,
slab concreting
With the activity percentages calculated, the actual error of each percentage may be
calculated using the binomial distribution.
z 2 p( 1− p)
d= 1/ 2
n
where d is the error, Zα/2 = 1.96 corresponding to a confidence level of 95%, p is the
activity percentage being considered, and n is the total number of observations. For
this particular case, the total number of observations is 1271.
3.3.3.1 Descriptive Statistics Table

Table D-1 Descriptive Statistic: Column Formwork
Work sampling N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Direct work 72 .26 .52 .3790 .04925
Preparatory 72 .02 .17 .0996 .02933
Material 72 .05 .18 .1160 .03397
Waiting 72 .01 .23 .1429 .04716
Travel 72 .03 .18 .0921 .03596
Personal 72 .01 .16 .0624 .03363
Productivity 72 .46 1.10 .7435 .15495
Table D-2 Descriptive Statistics: Formwork Shear wall
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Direct Work 21 .23 .43 .3433 .04913
Waiting 21 .03 .27 .1543 .05688
Travel 21 .04 .17 .0924 .03477
Personal 20 .01 .14 .0635 .03514
Productivity 21 .60 1.18 .7819 .17174

Table D-3 Descriptive Statistics: Slab Concreting

Direct Work 30 .30 .57 .4488 .06089
Waiting 30 .04 .21 .1366 .03552
Travel 30 .05 .15 .0863 .02600
Personal 30 .01 .17 .0569 .04468
Productivity 30 .14 .96 .4694 .23338
Table D-4 Descriptive Statistics: Column Concreting
N Minimu Maximu Mean Std.

m m Deviation
Direct Work 32 .30 .58 .4359 .06445
Waiting 32 .07 .20 .1325 .03121
Travel 32 .05 .15 .0916 .02273
Personal 31 .01 .08 .0481 .01815
Productivity 32 .12 .94 .3966 .23102
Table D-5 Descriptive Statistics: Column Reinforcement

Direct Work 75 .17 .49 .3369 .06424
Waiting 75 .02 .22 .1292 .03506
Travel 75 .05 .21 .1156 .03728
Personal 75 .04 .18 .0728 .03034
Productivity 75 .29 30.83 25.9 4.10841
Table D-6 Descriptive Statistics: Slab Reinforcement

Direct Work 52 .17 .49 .3335 .06299


Waiting 49 .06 .21 .1273 .02914
Travel 49 .07 .19 .1131 .03144
Personal 48 .04 .18 .0763 .03119
Productivity 49 11.03 30.83 26.04 4.97359
Table D-7 Descriptive Statistics: Beam Reinforcement

Direct Work 18 .29 .54 .3939 .07421
Waiting 18 .02 .17 .1161 .04258
Travel 18 .08 .23 .1394 .04556
Personal 17 .01 .18 .0771 .03965
Productivity 18 10.68 30.29 22.5356 6.28621
3.3.3.2 Pearson Correlation Analysis: Work Sampling

Proportions with CLP
Table E-1 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion with CLP for Slab Formwork
Activity

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
X2 Pearson -.065 1
Correlation
X3 Pearson -.026 -.034 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .876 .841
X4 Pearson -.113 -.005 -.268 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .501 .976 .104
X5 Pearson -.226 .111 -.096 -.288 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .172 .509 .567 .079
X6 Pearson -.303 -.095 -.247 .095 -.244 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .570 .136 .569 .140
X7 Pearson -.288 -.446** -.158 -.123 -.084 .001 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .079 .005 .343 .463 .617 .998
K Pearson .352* -.166 .192 -.450** .149 -.139 -.178 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .319 .248 .005 .372 .404 .285
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table E-2 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion with CLP for shear wall
Formwork Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K

X1 Pearson 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
X2 Pearson -.259* 1
Correlation
X3 Pearson -.125 .041 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .297 .731
X4 Pearson -.286* -.010 -.044 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .930 .714
X5 Pearson -.236* -.010 .001 -.093 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .932 .995 .439
X6 Pearson -.34** .119 -.041 .076 -.282* 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .320 .732 .524 .016
X7 Pearson -.062 -.251* -.173 -.172 -.174 .034 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .606 .033 .146 .150 .144 .778
K Pearson .109 -.034 -.93 .015 .066 -.027 .128 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .361 .775 .06 .903 .584 .822 .284
Table E-3 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion Slab Concreting Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson 1

Correlation
X2 Pearson -.278 1
Correlation
X3 Pearson -.396* .099 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .567
X4 Pearson -.325 -.279 -.326 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .053 .100 .053
X5 Pearson -.267 -.086 .201 -.100 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .116 .618 .239 .563
X6 Pearson -.326 -.140 -.022 .118 .37* 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .052 .416 .899 .494 .025
X7 Pearson -.533** -.208 -.063 .513** .115 .134 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .224 .715 .001 .504 .437
K Pearson .045 -.326 .057 .492** -.127 .010 .112 1

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .793 .052 .742 .002 .462 .955 .516
Table E-4 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion Column Concreting Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson Correlation 1

X2 Pearson Correlation -.232 1

X3 Pearson Correlation -.283 .014 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .094 .937
X4 Pearson Correlation -.636** -.252 -.180 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .138 .294
X5 Pearson Correlation -.414* -.193 -.021 .209 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .259 .901 .221
X6 Pearson Correlation -.112 -.497 **
.115 .209 -.099 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .514 .002 .503 .222 .568

X7 Pearson Correlation -.245 .066 -.194 .161 -.064 -.217 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .156 .705 .263 .357 .717 .210
K Pearson Correlation -.070 -.005 .188 .203 -.160 .096 -.348* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .686 .979 .273 .235 .351 .579 .041
Table E-5 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion Slab Reinforcement Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson 1
Correlation

X2 Pearson -.277* 1
Correlation
X3 Pearson .007 -.134 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .959 .343
X4 Pearson -.409 **
-.082 -.176 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .563 .211
X5 Pearson .031 -.065 -.186 -.292* 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .826 .649 .186 .035
X6 Pearson -.178 -.011 -.369** -.108 .204 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .206 .939 .007 .448 .148
X7 Pearson -.141 -.181 -.050 -.117 -.197 .185 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .323 .203 .726 .414 .165 .195
K Pearson .459** -.121 -.028 -.321* .177 -.027 -.070 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .395 .841 .020 .211 .848 .627
Table E-6 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion Column Reinforcement

Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K

X1 Pearson 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
X2 Pearson .152 1
Correlation
X3 Pearson -.010 -.168 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .947 .254
X4 Pearson -.051 -.036 -.037 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .728 .806 .804
X5 Pearson -.264 .084 -.201 -.371** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .573 .170 .009
X6 Pearson .215 -.004 -.41** -.104 .182 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .143 .979 .004 .481 .215
X7 Pearson .325* -.107 -.069 -.126 -.190 .195 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .468 .640 .392 .197 .184
K Pearson .131 -.161 -.276 -.207 .012 .081 -.012 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .375 .275 .057 .158 .936 .584 .933
Table E-7 Correlation: Work Sampling Proportion Beam Reinforcement Activity
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 K
X1 Pearson 1
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)
X2 Pearson .063
Correlation
X3 Pearson .147 -.042 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .562 .870
X4 Pearson .592** .083 .312 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .743 .207
X5 Pearson .014 -.260 -.158 -.223 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .955 .297 .530 .373
X6 Pearson .260 .002 .120 .265 .538 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .298 .992 .635 .289 .021
X7 Pearson -.294 .251 -.528 -.50 .298 -.207 1 -.
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .252 .331 .029 .041 .245 .426
.
K Pearson .111 .199 .222 .176 .007 .364 -.299 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .660 .429 .375 .484 .979 .138 .244

Appendix E. Histogram, Scatter plots
Figure E-1 Histogram of Residuals with Normal Curve for

Slab Formwork Activities
Figure E-2 Scatter plot of Predicted Values vs. Residuals

for Slab Formwork activities
Figure E-3 Normal Probability Plots Regression standard Residual for

Slab Formwork Activities

Figure E-4 Histogram of Residuals with Normal curve for Slab Concreting
Activities
Figure E-5 Normal Probability Plots Regression standard Residual for Slab
Concreting Activities
Figure E-6 Scatter Plot of Predicted Values vs. Residuals Slab for Concreting
Activities

Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on

“Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information

Pagare Avantika D. (B190470060)

Department of Civil Engineering

Name of the Student Examination Seat No.

Dr. P. N. Ghumare Prof. A. M. Thakare Dr. P. N.

Prof.. Dr. V. P. Wani

SAVITRIBAI PHULE PUNE UNIVERSITY, PUNE

MET's Institute of Engineering, Adgaon, Nashik

Name Seat No. Signature

KEYWORDS: Construction, Productivity, Information Technology, Relationship,

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................ 11

2.1 REVIEW OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY FROM PREVIOUS STUDY.................................................................11

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 1

2.4.12 (Sreelakshmi, et al. 2017).....................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 25

4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND THEIR RESPONSES.................................................................................25

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 2

5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH....................................................................................52

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 3

GRAPH 4.3 PREDICTED AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION LABOR PRODUCTIVITY FOR

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 4

FIGURE 3.1 FLOWCHART OF METHODOLOGY................................................................19

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 5

1.1.1 The development of Information and Communication Technology in

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 1

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 2

1.1.2 Computer Aided Design and Visualization

1.1.3 Current Information Technologies for the Construction Sector

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 3

Figure 1.1 Construction Process and IT applications

1.1.4 Building Engineering Applications

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 4

1.1.5 Computer Aided Cost Estimation

1.1.6 Planning, Scheduling and Site Management

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 5

1.1.7 Computer Aided Facilities Management

1.1.8 Business and Information Management

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 6

1.1.10 Current Communication Technologies for the Construction Sector

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 7

Figure 1.2 Evolution of Internet related communication technologies

1.2 Problem Statement:

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 8

1.4 Scope of Work:

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 9

1.5 Limitations of Study:

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 10

This chapter summarizes the previous research on the construction productivity

2.1 Review of Labour Productivity from Previous Study

2.2 Research on Technology usage (Mainly IT Usage on

Although the construction industry has been considered technically stagnant,

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 11

2.3 Research on the Relationship between Technology Use and

Construction productivity has attracted much attention and discussion in the

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 12

construction industry. Regardless, there are still significant technical advances in

2.4 Papers Reviewed

2.4.1 (Ghalia and Sweis 2010)

2.4.2 (Sawhney, et al. 2014)

Analysis Of Construction Productivity In Relation With Information Technology Page 13

2.4.3 (Shehata and El-Gohary 2011)

2.4.4 (Bartake, Patil and Swamy 2019)