Pengukuran Produktivitas

Dari Pellicer et al
• Work study
• Method study
• Time study
• Activity sampling
• Work sampling

Dari Carrasco et al
• Work sampling
• Five-minute rating
• Flow diagrams & process charts
• Crew balance study

Dari Bu Rizky
• Work sampling
• Method study
• Baseline productivity

Dari Permen PUPR

• Time and motion study

Dari Yates
• Work sampling, field ratings, field-rating, 5-minute ratings, 5-min, work-process flow diagrams, crew balance charts, productivity rating
• Analisis: productivity analysis, video analysis, crew balance analysis, process flow analysis
• Work-process analysis, work-count analysis, work-measurement analysis
• Process charts (videotapes, time-lapse photography)
• Methods Time Measurement (MTM)

Dari Dozzi & Abourizk

• Field rating
• Work sampling
• Five-minute rating
• Field surveys
• Method Productivity Delay Model (MPDM)
• Charting technique: Crew-Balance Charts
• Simulation Modelling and Analysis
Productivity Measurement
• However, productivity is extremely difficult to measure due to the heterogeneity of construction products as well as of their inputs where many products come from outside the industry
(Loch and Moavenzadeh, 1979). A review of the literature on productivity measurement in construction can be found in Motwani et al. (1995) (Page 131-132, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Techniques of study and measurement of work have demonstrated their efficiency in the industry for improving their productivity. In this context, high productivity means doing the work
in a shortest possible time with the least expenditure on inputs without compromising quality and with minimum wastage of resources (Kumar and Suresh, 2008). The construction
industry is characterised by its transhumance, limited works units, with a low degree of specialisation, a high number of temporary staff hired, existence of subcontractors and so on.
However, this is not an obstacle for the improvement in productivity and the reduction of costs (Page 132, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Work study. Work study refers to the group the techniques used to examine human tasks in any context, and which systematically lead to the research of the factors that have an impact
on the efficiency and economy of the situation analysed, with the aim of implementing improvements (BSI, 1992). Work study is focused specifically to suit construction applications
(Harris et al., 2006), and it aims at improving the existing and proposed ways of doing work and establishing standard times for work performance (Kumar and Suresh, 2008). It also
attempts to lead to higher productivity with no, or little, extra capital investment, and involves two distinct yet interrelated techniques. The first, method study, is concerned with
establishing the most effective manner of performing a specific job; it seeks to improve production. The second, work measurement, involves finding how much time is required to
execute the work, in order to reduce of any inefficient time associated with the job; it aims to estimate the efficiency. There is a close relationship between work study, method study and
work measurement as Figure 7.2 shows (Page 134, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Some of the benefits of using work study methods are (Kumar and Suresh, 2008): (1) increased productivity and operational efficiency; (2) reduced cost of the product by eliminating
waste and unnecessary operations; (3) improved workplace layout; (4) reduced material handling costs and time; (5) enhanced manpower planning and capacity planning; (6)
establishing fair wages for employees and the basis for a sound incentive (7) scheme getting better working conditions and job satisfaction for employees improving production flow with
minimum interruptions (Page 134, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Objectives of work study (Page 134, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• However, there are problems in applying work study methods in construction (Harris et al., 2006): the temporary nature of most construction projects and some difficulties such as
weather, bad ground, dispersed locations, unique tasks in each project, subcontracts works on site and so on. Nonetheless, these methods provide a disciplined procedure to improve
productivity and competitiveness; thus they are increasingly finding support in the construction industry (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Method study. Method study involves the systematic recording and critical examination of the factors and resources involved in existing systems and those proposed for execution, as a
means to developing and applying the most effective procedures and reducing costs (BSI, 1992). In short, method study is essentially concerned with finding better ways of doing things.
It is also called methods engineering or work design. Table 7.1 shows some of the possible symptoms required for the study of works methods (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• The aims of a study of methods are the following (Kumar and Suresh, 2008): (1) improvement of processes and procedures; (2) improvement in the layout at the work site, as well as the
design of equipment and facilities; (3) economising human effort and reducing unnecessary strain; (4) improving the use of materials, equipment and labour force; (5) creating improved
working conditions (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Symptoms that show the need for applying the method study (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014).
Productivity Measurement
• Work measurement. There is almost unquestioning dependence on the historical value of time in construction. In fact, time is related to the measurement of productivity. Work
measurement is defined as the application of the techniques designed to establish the time that a qualified worker takes to complete a specific task, in accordance with a pre-established
method (BSI, 1992). A qualified worker is one who has acquired the skills, has the know-how and is physically able to carry out the work safely and in compliance with the applicable
quantitative and qualitative requirements. Work measurement does not pretend to engineer the job to be optimal; it only evaluates the time associated with a particular construction
method. Also, work measurement enables productivity comparisons between similar activities, distinct construction crews, alternative plant or equipment, before and after relevant
events, and so on (Page 136-137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• The first objectives of work measurement are to determine unproductive periods and their causes, and to find ways of eliminating them. Accordingly, methods required to eliminate idle
time or to optimize working time are used as auxiliary tools for work measurement. The following phases are established to measure the work performed (adapted from Groover, 2007):
●● break down the working time of all elements ●● measure the working time of the elements while estimating the speed and precision ●● calculate the normal time for each element
or level ●● estimate the increasing coefficient for each element ●● obtain the cycle for each resource ●● calculate the saturation of each resource on the equipment (Page 137, Pellicer
et al, 2014);
• Activity sampling is one of the best ways of obtaining a detailed knowledge of any production process performance. This is based on statistical techniques that allow overall activity rates
to be inferred from a limited number of observations (Winch and Carr, 2001). Two of the techniques used for work measurement are: ●● time study: appropriate for highly systematised
and repetitive works, carried out by one or a few resource units ●● work sampling: covers the rest of the possible scenarios, such as works that are not systematised, that have long
cycles or that are carried out with a wide range of resources (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Time study is a sampling technique that consists of separating a job into measurable parts, with each element timed individually. Time study precision depends on the size of the sample:
in general, a minimum of 30 measurements are taken, with more observations also carried out to include working at different hours of the day and on different days. Some studies entail
continuous timing with an electronic stopwatch or video camera. Work sampling is based on checking whether a resource is stopped or is working at random times. Statements about
how time is spent during the activity are made from these observations. The working and stoppage time can be estimated, as well as its statistical error, based on a binomial probability
distribution. A run can be carried out when a set of resources is observed and the working or stoppage times for each unit is noted down. To plan the observations correctly, all activities
must be observed a number of times, proportional to their duration. In addition, the observations should be taken over reasonably (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Work sampling is based on checking whether a resource is stopped or is working at random times. Statements about how time is spent during the activity are made from these
observations. The working and stoppage time can be estimated, as well as its statistical error, based on a binomial probability distribution. A run can be carried out when a set of
resources is observed and the working or stoppage times for each unit is noted down. To plan the observations correctly, all activities must be observed a number of times, proportional
to their duration. In addition, the observations should be taken over reasonably long periods (e.g. two weeks or more), but rigid rules will need to bend with the situation and the design
of the study (Ostwald, 2001). Box 7.2 shows the calculation of the number of observations required for a given absolute error (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014).
Productivity Measurement
• The rating factor is a judgment made by the observer about the worker’s speed and skill. It is a means of comparing the performance of the worker by using experience or other
benchmarks. Additionally, a numerical factor is noted for the elements or cycle: 100% is normal; rating factors less than or greater than normal indicate slower or faster performance,
respectively (Ostwald, 2001). The optimum performance is defined as that obtained naturally without forcing qualified workers to work above the normal working hours, with the
average established in a shift or normal working day, provided that the method specified is respected and that they are motivated to work. Normal activity is defined as that
corresponding to three-quarters of the optimum activity. Table 7.3 shows a simple scale representing standard rating (Page 139, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Approximately 50% of individuals reach the optimum activity when they have incentives, and 98% reach the normal activity levels. Only 2% of operators are capable of reaching an
activity that is 1.25 times the optimum. Any increase in activity corresponds to the decrease in time, with a resulting constant product between both. Therefore, a skilled employee
responsible for timing tasks must determined the rhythm or activity of operations before the time measurements are taken. Levelling the times measured in an operation involves
reducing the times used in normal activity (Page 139, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Normal time is the time that a normal operator would be expected to take to complete a job without the consideration of allowances. It is found by multiplying a selected time for the
element by the rating factor (Niebel, 1993) (Page 139, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Determination of the standard time of a task (Page 141, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• A construction site manager must know the factors that have an impact on the performance of the machinery. This can lead to action to solve faults or raise the productivity values.
These factors are (Rojo, 2010): (Page 142, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• availability factor Fd: relation between the time available and real working time. If the value is low, the causes must be studied: poor maintenance, slow repairs, lack of spare parts,
machine in bad condition or not enough reliability: (Page 142, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• usage factor Fu: relation between the available and used times. It indicates the quality of organisation and planning of the works. A low value can be due to bad scheduling of tasks, lack
of communication between managers and supervisors, unforeseen storage space needs and so on.: (Page 143, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Another two complementary indices can be used. The stoppage index p defines the relation between interruptions due to the organisation of the works, bad machine coordination,
stoppage due to faults of other machines and so on, and real working time: (Page 143, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• The usage factor Fa defines the quotient between the usage time of a machine and the real working time: (Page 143, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Procedure for pile installation control considering productivity factors (Page 143, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• However, a large number of factors affect the productivity and cost estimation processes: ●● insufficient statistical samples around the foundation area ●● soil types (sand, clay, etc.)
differing from site to site due to cohesion or Stiffness ●● natural obstacles and subsurface infrastructure construction obstacles ●● drill type (e.g. auger bucket) ●● method of spoil
removal, size of hauling units and site restrictions ●● pile axis adjustment ●● equipment operator efficiency ●● concrete pouring method and efficiency ●● lack of experience of rebar
crew and method of pouring ●● waiting time for other operations (e.g. pile axis adjustment) ●● weather conditions ●● cycle time ●● job and management conditions (Page 144, Pellicer
et al, 2014).
Productivity Measurement
• Taylor was interested in measuring the output of operatives to establish the best way to carry out tasks which he called time study, subsequently referred to as time and motion study
which became the basis of work-study as known today. He also developed wage incentive schemes to increase productivity (Page 23, March, 2017);
• One of his famous studies was the use of shovels in the Bethlehem steel works. He noted operatives used the same shovel irrespective of the type and weight of the material they were
loading. Using scientific measurement he established what mattered was the total weight of both the shovel and the materials, which he determined to be 21 pounds. He was able to
increase shovelling productivity almost fourfold as a result (Page 23, March, 2017);
Work Study, Method Study, Activity Sampling, Time Study, Work Sampling (CM, Pellicer
et al, 2014)
• realise the importance of the work study as a tool for improving the productivity through the analysis of work measurement methods and techniques (Page 131, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Method study. Method study involves the systematic recording and critical examination of the factors and resources involved in existing systems and those proposed for execution, as a
means to developing and applying the most effective procedures and reducing costs (BSI, 1992). In short, method study is essentially concerned with finding better ways of doing things.
It is also called methods engineering or work design. Table 7.1 shows some of the possible symptoms required for the study of works methods (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• The aims of a study of methods are the following (Kumar and Suresh, 2008): ●● improvement of processes and procedures ●● improvement in the layout at the work site, as well as the
design of equipment and facilities ●● economising human effort and reducing unnecessary strain ●● improving the use of materials, equipment and labour force ●● creating improved
working conditions (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Method study requires a critical attitude and systematic action to analyse and improve the execution of specific activities. Addressing problems with an open spirit, eliminating
preconceived ideas and prejudice, accepting facts only and not opinions, acting on causes and not on effects and considering that a better method is always possible are the general
principles that must govern the study of methods. In order to address and put into practice any type of study aimed at improving methods, five phases are followed: 1. convenient choice
of the problem and its definition; 2. observing and intake of records of the current method; 3. analysis of the current method; 4. developing the improved method; 5. application and
maintenance of the new method (Page 135-136, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Symptoms that show the need for applying the method study (Page 135, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Activity sampling is one of the best ways of obtaining a detailed knowledge of any production process performance. This is based on statistical techniques that allow overall activity rates
to be inferred from a limited number of observations (Winch and Carr, 2001). Two of the techniques used for work measurement are: ●● time study: appropriate for highly systematised
and repetitive works, carried out by one or a few resource units ●● work sampling: covers the rest of the possible scenarios, such as works that are not systematised, that have long
cycles or that are carried out with a wide range of resources (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• time study appropriate for highly systematised and repetitive works, carried out by one or a few resource units (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Time study is a sampling technique that consists of separating a job into measurable parts, with each element timed individually. Time study precision depends on the size of the sample:
in general, a minimum of 30 measurements are taken, with more observations also carried out to include working at different hours of the day and on different days. Some studies entail
continuous timing with an electronic stopwatch or video camera (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Figure 7.3 summarises the whole process. Box 7.3 gives a guide to the number of cycles to be observed in a time study (adapted from Niebel, 1993). Given the variability of construction
activities, the difference between the standard (Page 140, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Determination of the standard time of a task (Page 141, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Guide to the number of cycles to be observed in a time study (Page 141, Pellicer et al, 2014).
Work Study, Method Study, Activity Sampling, Time Study, Work Sampling (CM, Pellicer
et al, 2014)
• Work sampling: covers the rest of the possible scenarios, such as works that are not systematised, that have long cycles or that are carried out with a wide range of resources (Page 137,
Pellicer et al, 2014);
• Work sampling is based on checking whether a resource is stopped or is working at random times. Statements about how time is spent during the activity are made from these
observations. The working and stoppage time can be estimated, as well as its statistical error, based on a binomial probability distribution. A run can be carried out when a set of
resources is observed and the working or stoppage times for each unit is noted down. To plan the observations correctly, all activities must be observed a number of times, proportional
to their duration. In addition, the observations should be taken over reasonably long periods (e.g. two weeks or more), but rigid rules will need to bend with the situation and the design
of the study (Ostwald, 2001). Box 7.2 shows the calculation of the number of observations required for a given absolute error (Page 137, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• The number of observations N required in a work-sampling study is dependent on the activity and desired degree of accuracy (Page 138, Pellicer et al, 2014);
• For example, if a carpenter is idle for 10% of the time and the designer of the study is satisfied with a 3% range (meaning that the true percentage lies between 7.0% and 13%), the
number of observations required for the work sampling is 400. Then, the number of observations to be taken is usually divided over the study period. Thus, if 400 observations are to be
made over a 20-day period, observations are usually scheduled at 20 per day (Page 138, Pellicer et al, 2014).
• AACE (2004). AACE International Recommended Practice No. 25R-03. Estimating lost labour productivity in construction claims. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering,
available 21/12/2012 at: http://www.sde-us.com/docs/
• emailblasts/JetBlue/LostLabour.pdf.
• Alfeld, L.E. (1988). Construction Productivity: On-Site Measurement and Management. McGraw Hill, New York.
• Andersen, B. (1995). The Results of Benchmarking and a Benchmarking Process Model. Norwegian Institute of Technology, University of Trondheim, Trondheim
• (Norway).
• BSI (1992). BS 3138: Glossary of Terms Used in Management Services. British Standards Institution, London.
• Calvert, R., Bailey, G. and Coles, D. (1995). Introduction to Building Management (6th Edition). Routledge, London.
• Drewin, F.J. (1982). Construction Productivity. Elsevier, New York.
• Gable, M., Fairhurst, A. and Dickinson, R. (1993). The use of benchmarking to enhance marketing decision making. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(1),
• 52–60.
• Groover, M.P. (2007). Work Systems: The Methods, Measurement & Management of Work. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey).
• Harris, F., McCaffer, R. and Edum-Fotwe, F. (2006). Modern Construction Management (6th Edition). Blackwell, Oxford.
• Hedrickson, C. and Au, T. (1989). Project Management for Construction. Fundamental Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
• River (New Jersey).
• International Labour Office (2008). Skills for Improved Productivity, Employment Growth and Development. Report V. International Labour Conference, Geneva.
• Kumar, S.A. and Suresh, N. (2008). Production and Operations Management (2 nd Edition). New Age International, New Delhi (India).
• Loch, J.A. and Moavenzadeh, F. (1979). Productivity and technology in construction. Journal of the Construction Division ASCE, 105(4), 351–366.
• Mohamed, S. (1996). Benchmarking and improving construction productivity. Management & Technology, 3(3), 50–58.
• Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Novakoski, M. (1995). Measuring construction productivity: a practical approach. Work Study, 44(8), 18–20.
• Niebel, B.W. (1993). Motion and Time Study (9th Edition). Irwin, Homewood (Illinois).
• Ostwald, P.F. (2001). Construction Cost Analysis and Estimating. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (New Jersey).
• Park, H.S., Thomas, S.R. and Tucker, R.L. (2005). Benchmarking of construction productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(7), 772–778.
• Peurifoy, R.L., Schexnayder, C.J., Shapira, A. and Schmitt, R. (2010). Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods (8th Edition). McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Ramirez, R.R., Alarcón, L.F. and Knights, P. (2004). Benchmarking system for evaluating management practices in the construction industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(3), 110–
117.
• Rojo, J. (2010). Manual de Movimiento de Tierras a Cielo Abierto. Fueyo ed., Madrid (in Spanish)
• Winch, G. and Carr, B. (2001). Benchmarking on-site productivity in France and the
• UK: a CALIBRE approach. Construction Management and Economics, 19(6), 577–590.
• Zayed, T. and Halpin, D. (2005). Pile construction productivity assessment. Journal of
• Construction Engineering and Management, 131(6), 705–714.
• Further reading
• Halpin, D.W. and Woodhead, R.W. (1998). Construction Management (2nd Edition). Wiley, New York.
• McCabe, S. (2001). Benchmarking in Construction. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Oglesby, C.H., Parker, H.W. and Howell, G.A. (1989). Productivity Improvement in Construction. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Work Study, Method Study, Activity Sampling, Time Study, Work Sampling, Productivity Rating
(Pheng&Zheng, 2019)
• I think you should rephrase your topic. This is because one of the things is that you failed to realise that subcontractors are lower tier contractors, so their management system is not as
sophisticated as the main contractor. When you talk about the effects of subcontracting, this is in fact the guiding principle. It is not all these. Let me try and rephrase this question of
yours. The main contractors are professional and more literate, you know more management principles, tend to attend more seminars, courses to understand and learn. Coming from the
main contractor, some of the main contractor’s companies are actually managed by subcontractor firms that have become main contractors. This is because when they grow big, their
capital increases, then they total subcontract from the main contractor to do a job of value e.g. $20 million. Then they recognised $10 million. Hence, they upgrade that way and later
become main contractors. Some main contractors actually adopted this route. So when comparing between main contractors against the subcontractors, I would say that those
subcontractors with lesser educational qualifications are unable to grasp the impact of not going for courses, seminars etc. In fact, it is harder to convince them to go for such courses as
they see themselves as doing financially very well-off thus far, hence lacked the motivation and drive to upgrade themselves. However, these subcontractors cannot understand that
there is a better method as they cannot grasp. The constant search for a better value-added solution but sadly they cannot understand. Such methods are Just In-Time solutions (JIT)
which can help to improve productivity. Sadly, these contractors do not understand the value and purpose of JIT and that by not planning, they can bring total chaos. If we can do a time-
study cycle, you will ask yourself why do we need so much workers to do this part of the work? The deployment of workers is very important and the question is you send the workers
every day for tiling. Then have firms wondered how many m2 that they are supposed to produce? If you don’t know how many m2 supposed to produce, how do you know what is the
number of workers to be deployed? If you don’t know, then how do you know what type of works has been sub-contract from and what ought to be paid does not tally already. If you
sub-contract for 1 m2 for $10, then your workers, your levy can cost up to $200 per day for example. Then in this case, you have to produce 20 m2 right? Do note that you have yet to
make money as you have not paid for office overhead, supervisor staff, your boss salary. So in other words, when you deploy your worker, do you know how much your worker should
produce? If you don’t know, then it’s going to be a problem right? To these subcontractors, their nonchalant attitude with regards to how many workers to be deployed for a particular
trade, where they blindly guess the number of workers required for a particular job. Hence, this results in inefficiency, also known as wastage. Go read the book written by Professor Lim
Lan Yuan on wastages. Wastages is anything that does not contribute to productivity. It can be waste in motion, where the worker forgets to bring his tools to his job site and needs to
retrieve it again elsewhere. It must be advocated that every skill worker must carry their toolbox, like that of the Aussies. Our workforce here has a lot of problems and when you want to
study the effect of subcontracting, it is not subcontracting per se, it is the mind-set of doing things. Wastages is very important. The moment you can control wastage, surely productivity
will increase. These are the different types of waste in motion; abortive work, not doing right the first time as doing right the first time has many implications. Hence, there are 3 things
you need to know—1. Levels 2. Dimensions 3. verticality. These are the 3 cardinal principles of construction (Page 167-168, Pheng&Zheng, 2019);
• Take an example, for pile caps, whatever it is, you need to do excavation correctly. Hence, when you cast concrete, you get your desired pile cap. As such, you need to get your levels right
from the start. Next example, the dimensions for your bathroom must be right. If it’s wrong, then you will not be able to fit your bathtub in. Lastly, verticality is paramount in structural
works such as walls, columns and lift shafts. Example would be if it is not vertical, the guide rails of the lift cannot be installed. Hence, rework needs to be carried out by hacking the lift
walls, resulting in wastages. Other implications such as hacking and trimming that needs to be done on the surrounding structural members like slabs. Hence, it is paramount to get it
right the first time in terms of the dimensions and verticality. Of course, the finishing product must be good as well. So if you look at effects of subcontracting, it has nothing to do with
the labour shortage issues that we commonly heard about that plagues our construction productivity (Page 168, Pheng&Zheng, 2019);
• I wouldn’t say that it is narrow. I would start off by saying that the contractor must be knowledgeable, must understand work cycle, time study of items and must have the tools and
knowledge (Page 171, Pheng&Zheng, 2019).
Produktivitas (Permen PUPR & SNI)
• Penanganan pekerjaan meliputi preservasi atau pemeliharaan dan pembangunan atau peningkatan kapasitas kinerja bidang pekerjaan umum, yaitu pada sektor Sumber Daya Air, Bina
Marga dan Cipta Karya. Pekerjaan dapat dilakukan secara mekanis dan/atau manual. Pekerjaan yang dilaksanakan secara manual, tersedia tabel koefisien bahan dan koefisien upah,
sementara untuk pekerjaan yang dilaksanakan secara mekanis, penetapan koefisien dilakukan melalui proses analisis produktivitas (Hal. 1, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Analisis produktivitas. uraian masalah dan keadaan dalam membandingkan antara output (hasil produksi) dan input (komponen produksi: tenaga kerja, bahan, peralatan, dan waktu)
(Hal. 2, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
Produktivitas (Permen PUPR & SNI)
• HSD tenaga kerja. Komponen tenaga kerja berupa upah yang digunakan dalam mata pembayaran tergantung pada jenis pekerjaannya. Faktor yang mempengaruhi harga satuan dasar
tenaga kerja antara lain jumlah tenaga kerja dan tingkat keahlian tenaga kerja. Penetapan jumlah dan keahlian tenaga kerja mengikuti produktivitas peralatan Utama (Hal. 13-14,
Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Kualifikasi tenaga kerja. Pengukuran produktivitas kerja para pekerja dalam Gugus Kerja tertentu yang terdiri atas tukang, pembantu tukang/laden, kepala tukang dan mandor.
Produktivitas pekerja dinyatakan sebagai orang jam (OJ) atau orang hari (OH) yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan suatu satuan pekerjaan tertentu. Pengukuran produktivitas kerja
tersebut menggunakan metode “Time and motion study” dengan mengamati gerak para pekerja dan produknya pada setiap menitnya (Hal. 15, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Koefisien dan jumlah tenaga kerja. Jumlah jam kerja merupakan koefisien tenaga kerja atau kuantitas jam kerja per satuan pengukuran. Koefisien ini adalah faktor yang menunjukkan
lamanya pelaksanaan dari tenaga kerja yang diperlukan untuk menyelesaikan satu satuan volume pekerjaan. Faktor yang mempengaruhi koefisien tenaga kerja antara lain jumlah tenaga
kerja dan tingkat keahlian tenaga kerja. Penetapan jumlah dan keahlian tenaga kerja mengikuti produktivitas peralatan Utama (Hal. 16, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Harga satuan dasar alat. Jika beberapa jenis peralatan yang digunakan untuk pekerjaan secara mekanis dan digunakan dalam mata pembayaran tertentu, maka besarnya suatu
produktivitas ditentukan oleh peralatan utama yang digunakan dalam mata pembayaran tersebut (Hal. 17, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Pekerjaan mekanis. Faktor yang mempengaruhi analisis produktivitas. Faktor yang mempengaruhi analisis produktivitas antara lain waktu siklus, faktor kembang susut atau faktor
pengembangan bahan, faktor alat, dan faktor kehilangan (Hal. 35, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Analisis produktivitas. Produktivitas dapat diartikan sebagai perbandingan antara output (hasil produksi) terhadap input (komponen produksi: tenaga kerja, bahan, peralatan, dan
waktu). Jadi dalam analisis produktivitas dapat dinyatakan sebagai rasio antara output terhadap input dan waktu (jam atau hari). Bila input dan waktu kecil maka output semakin besar
sehingga produktivitas semakin tinggi (Hal. 35, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Lingkup AHSP Sumber Daya Air.
• Koefisien AHSP. Sedangkan untuk pekerjaan mekanis koefisiennya perlu dihitung terlebih dahulu sesuai dengan kondisi lapangan pelaksanaan pekerjaan seperti halnya untuk pekerjaan
yang menggunakan alat-alat berat (milik sendiri) ataupun rental basis. Perhitungan ini dilakukan untuk menghitung kebutuhan biaya operasi dan besaran produktivitas peralatan yang
digunakan. Sebagai contoh untuk pekerjaan tanah mekanis yaitu: Bagian 2 TM.01 s.d TM.07 yaitu Contoh Perhitungan Cara Mekanis (Hal. 74, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Telah disepakati bahwa peralatan untuk pekerjaan secara mekanis di bidang SDA diantaranya seperti Bulldozer dan Excavator atau juga pada proses pembuatan bahan olahan (seperti
stone crusher, dan lain-lain). Penentuan HSD peralatan ini diperlukan dua hasil perhitungan yaitu biaya operasi alat atau penggunaan alat dan besaran produktivitas alatnya (Hal. 77,
Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Selain biaya operasi alat atau penggunaan alat harus dihitung juga produktivitas alat yang dipengaruhi oleh kapasitas alat dan efisiensinya. Berbagai faktor efisiensi yang mempengaruhi
kinerja suatu alat di antaranya: 1. Kesesuaian alat dengan topografi lokasi tempat alat digunakan. 2. Kondisi dan pengaruh lingkungan seperti areal medan, cuaca dan tingkat
penerangannya. 3. Kemampuan operator. 4. Kondisi alat dan tingkat pemeliharaannya. Dalam kenyataannya sulit untuk menentukan besarnya efisiensi kerja, tetapi dengan berdasarkan
pengalaman, dapat ditentukan efisiensi kerja yang mendekati kenyataan. Sebagai perkiraan faktor efisiensi alat seperti pada Tabel 4 di Bagian 1 (Hal. 80, Lampiran Permen 28/2016).
Produktivitas (Permen PUPR & SNI)
• Harga satuan pekerjaan mekanis, setelah menghitung HSD peralatan yang dihitung berdasarkan analisis biaya operasi/penggunaan alat baik dengan cara P.5 (SDA) ataupun cara pada
Bagian 1 subpasal 5.2.2, selanjutnya menghitung produktivitas alat per-jam (Hal. 83, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Ada beberapa peralatan yang sering digunakan untuk pelaksanaan pekerjaan SDA diantaranya: Excavator/Backhoe, Dump truck, Loader, Buldozer dan alat pemadat. Berdasarkan Bagian
1, dimulai dengan asumsi pada subpasal 5.3.2.1 dan urutan pekerjaan pada subpasal 5.3.2.2. Selanjutnya analisis produktivitas subpasal 5.3.2.3.1 menggunakan Rumus 15 s.d. 19,
kemudian perhitungan kapasitas produksi pada subpasal 5.3.2.4.2.2 untuk pekerjaan SDA diantaranya Buldozer (Rumus 23), Dump truck (Rumus 27), Excavator/Backhoe (Rumus 28) dan
Vibrator Roller (Rumus 35). Secara keseluruhan untuk pekerjaan bidang Ke-PU-an seperti pada Rumus 20 s.d. 58. Proses ini akan mendapatkan koefisien produktivitas alat (untuk bidang
SDA ada yang menggunakan cara perhitungan lain yaitu dengan subpasal 6.2.2.3 butir 2), selanjutnya perhitungan HSP ini dilakukan sebagai berikut: a) Masukan HSD tenaga kerja, bahan
dan peralatan yang sesuai dengan jenis pekerjaan. b) Jumlah harga masing-masing komponen adalah hasil kali masing-masing koefisien AHSP dengan HSD tenaga kerja, bahan dan
peralatan pada a). c) Biaya tidak langsung yang merupakan biaya umum dan keuntungan misalkan contoh 15% dari jumlah harga b) d) HSP merupakan jumlah harga b) ditambah c). (Hal.
83, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Pekerjaan tanah secara mekanis yang menggunakan alat-alat berat diantaranya: Bulldozer, Excavator, Shovel, Loader, Scaper, Dump truck dan lainnya; untuk perhitungan HSP dianalis
dengan cara menghitung produktivitas dan biaya operasi peralatannya dengan berbagai variable kondisinya (Hal. 137, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Untuk menghitung produktivitas berbagai peralatan yang dapat digunakan untuk melakukan pekerjaan harus diketahui spesifikasi teknisnya. Berbagai parameter yang perlu ditampilkan
sebagai indicator dari spesifikasi teknis diantaranya: Merek, Daya mesin, Draw Bar Pull, Harga Pokok Pembelian, Umur operasi, Daya (berat) angkut/dorong Dimensi dan Kapasitas blade,
Kecepatan maju/mundur, Kecepatan putar, Kemampuan tanjak dan umur ekonomis, seperti Tabel II.C.3 pada Bagian 2 Lampiran C. (Hal. 138, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Evaluasi dan analisis data. Kondisi pekerjaan harus dievaluasi dan dianalisis untuk memperhitungkan pengaruhnya terhadap tingkat produktivitas peralatan yang akan digunakan.
Beberapa parameter yang perlu ditinjau adalah diantaranya: Altitude lokasi, Volume Pekerjaan, Topografi medan lapangan dan lingkungan, Jumlah hari kerja yang tersedia, Kondisi atau
sifat fisik material, Kondisi untuk masingmasing jenis peralatan (Hal. 139, Lampiran Permen 28/2016);
• Menentukan metode pelaksanaan. Untuk menentukan metode pelaksanaan umumnya yang dijadikan sebagai dasar pertimbangan ialah tepat waktu, tepat mutu dan tepat biaya yang
menyangkut hal-hal sebagai berikut:
• Tepat Waktu: Pola operasi peralatan sedemikian rupa sehingga produktivitas alat maximum per satuan waktu tanpa overload dengan waktu non produktif sekecil mungkin;
• Tepat Mutu: Pemilihan peralatan yang tepat untuk tiap jenis pekerjaan maupun medan lapangan;
• Tepat Biaya: Mengupayakan managemen peralatan yang mudah melalui: 1) Jumlah tiap jenis peralatan dan kombinasinya yang sesuai; 2) Mengurangi merk yang beragam; 3)
Mengutamatakan penggunaan peralatan berfungsi ganda (multi purpose).
• Analisis kebutuhan jumlah alat. Untuk mengefisienkan waktu atau memaksimumkan produktivitas peralatan, maka perlu di analisis berapa peralatan yang dibutuhkan untuk
menyelesaikan pekerjaan. Analisis ini bersesuaian dengan prinsip tepat waktu, tepat mutu dan tepat biaya, untuk itu maka dianalisis berbagai jenis pekerjaan yang terkait berapa jumlah
alat, lokasi, kondisi medan serta lingkungannya (Hal. 140, Lampiran Permen 28/2016).
Produktivitas (Permen PUPR & SNI)
Work Sampling (Yates, 2014)
• Chapter 5 discusses the responsibilities of productivity improvement team members as they are preparing productivity improvement studies. This chapter also includes techniques for
preparing interview guides and discusses how learning curves are used in productivity improvement studies. The scope of productivity improvement studies is discussed along with
analysis techniques and ways to prepare for conducting studies. Data-collection techniques are presented along with a discussion of work sampling and learning curves (Page Preface,
Yates, 2014);
• Chapter 6 discusses different work-sampling data analysis techniques that could be used to quantify work-process operations at construction jobsites. The work-sampling techniques
presented in this chapter are activity sampling, field rating, 5-min rating, crew balance charts, process charts, and process diagrams. In addition, productivity measurement methods are
introduced, and an explanation of the types of construction activities that could be analyzed using each of the productivity measurement methods is provided in this chapter. Systems
engineering concepts are discussed in order to demonstrate the similarities and differences between systems engineering and productivity improvement methods (Page Preface, Yates,
2014);
• Once the inefficient work tasks have been identified, productivity improvement work-sampling and process-analysis techniques are implemented to gather data that are used to calculate
production rates and to analyze the efficiency of work crews and flow processes. Each individual work task is evaluated to determine the percentage of time that the workers performing
the task are actively engaged in productive work. After every work task has been evaluated, the overall productivity rate is computed for the operation. If production rates for the
operation are less than 60%, then an additional analysis is performed to gather information that is used to develop alternative work processes that might help to increase productivity
(Page 16, Yates, 2014);
• Evaluating Construction Operations. During the quantitative analysis stage of a productivity improvement program, the productivity improvement team members review the job layout,
equipment operations, work processes, transportation schemes, and resource management systems in order to highlight any inefficiencies in existing procedures. Safety procedures are
also reviewed to determine whether there is any way to improve or enhance them with the addition of other safety measures. Work processes are evaluated to determine whether
alternative work processes are viable, and if they are, suggestions for improvements are developed and implemented to enhance operations. The quantitative analysis also includes
performing work-sampling studies and developing recommendations for improvements in work processes (Page 19, Yates, 2014);
• Preparing to conduct productivity improvement studies. This chapter provides information on how to prepare for conducting productivity improvement studies. It discusses the
responsibilities of productivity improvement team members, ways to plan for productivity improvement studies, techniques for preparing productivity study interview guides, how to
define the scope of productivity improvement studies, potential work improvement areas, the scientific analysis method, methods for investigating productivity improvements, learning
curves, the effects of overtime on productivity rates, and work-sampling techniques (Page 95, Yates, 2014);
• Methods for investigating productivity improvement. Productivity improvement programs use various data collection techniques. In some situations, using only one or two data
collection techniques provides adequate data, but for detailed productivity improvement studies, multiple techniques provide more accurate data. Some of the techniques for gathering
data for productivity improvement studies are • Computer modeling • Computer simulation • Digital photographs • Direct observation • Interviews • Methods Time Measurement
(MTM) • Questionnaires • Time-lapse photography • Work-process videotapes, and• Work sampling (Page 108, Yates, 2014);
• Work sampling is used to estimate the amount of time that workers are actively engaged in productive work activities. Rather than observing workers for the entire time they are
working on their tasks, random observation samples are recorded and analyzed to estimate the percentage of time that workers are productive or unproductive during a particular work
period. The data collected through work sampling are extrapolated to cover the entire work period in order to estimate the overall percentage of time that workers are actively engaged
in work (Page 109, Yates, 2014).
Work Sampling (Yates, 2014)
• The accuracy of the observations recorded using work sampling is dependent upon the number of times that the workers are observed while they are performing their normal work assignments. If
workers were observed only a few times during an 8-h day, the data could not be used to reliably predict the percentage of time that the workers were productive during the work period. Additional
samples would have to be recorded to increase the accuracy of the predictions (Page 109, Yates, 2014);
• The number of observations required for a work-sampling study is dependent upon the accuracy desired for the study. If a study were used only to determine a pattern of behavior or deviations from a
desired behavior, then a minimal amount of samples would be sufficient to provide adequate data to satisfy the study objectives. If a study requires a high level of data accuracy to develop performance
standards, rather than general objectives, then numerous samples would have to be recorded and analyzed during the study (Oglesby et al. 1989) (Page 109, Yates, 2014);
• Work sampling is used to estimate how time and resources are used on activities when other data are not available from records or existing documents. Worksampling techniques are useful for analyzing
jobs that are nonrepetitive and highly variable. Work samples provide information about existing situations that is useful when setting specific goals or objectives. Work sampling is also useful for
determining work assignments and the appropriate distribution of work, especially when there is a shortage of workers. The data are also helpful to have when allocating worker bonuses, developing
equipment use rates, and determining which work areas would benefit from productivity improvement studies that assess how time is being expended or wasted during activities. Work sampling
provides data on cyclic variations and their effect on worker performance (Oglesby et al. 1989) (Page 109, Yates, 2014);
• Work-sampling techniques are useful when funds are limited for productivity improvement studies because conducting work-sampling studies requires minimal time and effort compared with the other
activity-sampling techniques discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 6. Only one person is required to perform a worksampling study during short periods over several days. The randomness of the
observations does not affect the study because it is intentionally designed for collecting random data. If the data collection process is interrupted, it can be continued later without negatively affecting the
results of the study. Work sampling is not an efficient method for studying work activities that occur over a large work area or for evaluating the performance of one operator or worker. Work sampling is
more useful for recording observations on whether members of stationary work crews are working effectively. (Page 109-110, Yates, 2014);
• When recording work-sampling observations, observers need to ensure that the workers are not aware of them and do not know that a productivity improvement study is being conducted. Otherwise,
the workers could intentionally skew the results by performing their work faster or slower than normal. Work-sampling techniques are used to collect data on the performance of workers under typical
working conditions. Then the data are analyzed by productivity team members to determine whether the workers are performing at optimum levels, whether materials are being used efficiently, whether
the jobsite layout could be improved, whether the workers have adequate tools and equipment, and whether the equipment is being used to its fullest capacity. The data collected during work-sampling
studies should be collected in a consistent manner, and the activities being observed should not be dependent on other activities that precede or succeed them because waiting for other activities to be
started or completed could alter the results of the data-collection process (Page 110, Yates, 2014);
• Work-Sampling Statistics. The goal of work sampling is to record a sufficient number of samples in order to accurately evaluate work processes. To collect reliable data, the observers should be familiar
with statistical methods for ensuring the validity of the data. Work sampling for productivity improvement involves observations and the classifying of work tasks to evaluate work processes. Work
sampling is performed by direct observation, through interviews, or through questionnaires. As the number of direct observations increases, the accuracy of the analysis improves, but the desire for
accuracy has to be balanced against time and the cost associated with collecting additional data (Page 110, Yates, 2014);
• The degree of certainty about the results obtained from only samples of data, rather than analyzing entire data sets, are expressed using three statistical methods: (1) confidence limit , (2) the limit of
error , and (3) the proportion of the sample having (or failing to have) the characteristic observed during a study. According to Oglesby et al. ( 1989 , p. 149), “The first two terms are statistical terms and
the last term is a physical condition that is mentioned because it affects the relationship between sample size and the values of the other two factors.” (Page 110, Yates, 2014).
Work Sampling (Yates, 2014)
• This chapter provided information on how to prepare to conduct productivity improvement studies and outlined the responsibilities of productivity improvement team members. Techniques for
preparing interview guides and suggestions for questions to be used during interviews were included, along with information on defining the scope of productivity improvement studies. Potential work
improvement areas were highlighted, and the scientific analysis method was explained in terms of how it applies to productivity improvement programs. Methods were introduced on how to plan
productivity improvement studies and to investigate productivity. The effects of learning curves were explained to illustrate how productivity is affected while workers are learning new work tasks. The
effects of scheduled overtime on productivity rates were discussed in terms of whether overtime improves overall productivity. Work-sampling techniques were introduced, along with a discussion of
confidence limits, limit of error, digital recording techniques for collecting data, and the applicability of project records to productivity studies. The next chapter will provide detailed information on
specific data-collection methods and formats (Page 114, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Improvement Data Analysis Techniques. This chapter discusses techniques for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the data used to identify potential productivity improvement techniques
and develop implementation plans. It also includes examples of the types of forms that are useful for recording data, such as work sampling , field ratings , 5-minute ratings , workprocess flow diagrams ,
and crew balance charts . The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is briefly mentioned in this chapter and discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. This chapter provides guidelines for
productivity improvement meetings, data presentations, work-process analysis , the recording of work-process operations and activities, work-count analysis , and work-measurement analysis . Systems
engineering is also introduced to demonstrate the similarity between it and productivity improvement studies (Page 117, Yates, 2014);
• Work-Process Analysis Procedures.
• Data are collected for productivity improvement studies using field ratings, 5-min ratings, and work sampling. Three techniques used to develop a work-process analysis are the following: 1. Work-
process flow diagrams : Sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers traverse jobsites. 2. Work-process charts : Charts used to monitor and record how materials are being transported and used
by workers. 3. Crew balance charts : Histograms that are used to record how each member of a work crew is expending time on each activity. These techniques are more effective when they are used to
evaluate repetitive tasks (Page 119, Yates, 2014);
• Work Sampling. Work-sampling forms are used to collect and summarize data on the effectiveness of the work being performed by crew members. These data are then used to calculate labor utilization
factors . Before data are gathered using work-sampling techniques, the observer should record information about the project, including the types of crews being analyzed, the job title, the date, and the
weather conditions. The data collected are recorded by observation number and time, usually in 1-min or 5-min intervals (Page 124, Yates, 2014);
• Figure 6-4 is a work-sampling form completed for a safety-cable-laying and concrete decking operation (Page 125, Yates, 2014);
• Figures 6-5 and 6-6 show how graphics such as pie charts or area charts might be used to summarize installation durations for activities. Figure 6-7 is a pie-chart showing the percentage of time expended
on effective work, ineffective work, indirect work, and handling materials for a work-sampling activity (Page 127, Yates, 2014);
• Summary of Work-Sampling Observations (Page 129, Yates, 2014);
• This chapter discussed a variety of data-analysis techniques that are useful when quantifying work-process operations at construction jobsites. The techniques presented in this chapter were work
sampling, activity sampling, field rating, 5-min rating, work-process charts, and work-process diagrams. In addition, productivity measurement methods were introduced, and an explanation was provided
for the types of construction activities where each of the productivity measurement techniques could be used on construction projects. Performance factors and the CSI Master Format were discussed in
relation to how to measure whether activities are ahead of or behind their expected duration or performance. Systems engineering concepts were discussed to demonstrate the differences and
similarities between systems engineering and productivity improvement methods (Page 151, Yates, 2014).
Work Sampling (Yates, 2014)
• Case Study 2: Steel Erection
• Site observations of the steel-erection processes were recorded and are shown in (1) the work-sampling chart in Figure 7-30 , (2) the 5-min crew rating summarized in Figure 7-31 ; (3)
the crew balance chart for erecting a beam in Figure 7-32 ; (4) the crew balance chart for erecting a column in Figure 7-33 ; and 5) the process chart for erecting a column, a girder, and a
beam in Figure 7-34 (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• Work Sampling and 5-minute Crew Rating
• Twenty observations at 5-min intervals were recorded for 420 workers. Only 180, or 43% of the workers, were actively engaged in a work activity, and only 41% of the steel-erection crew
was working, as shown in Figure 7-30 (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• An overall index of less than 60% indicates that the productivity of a job activity is unsatisfactory; A field rating of this size is merely an indication of probable conditions, and additional
ratings are necessary. Also, even though the work sample showed that people were working, they were not necessarily doing productive work. The data from this rating are shown in
Figure 7-31 . Ineffective work included (1) locating the proper beams, (2) reversing beam number 1, (3) reading the plans, and (4) cutting beams (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• Work-Sampling Chart for Steel-Erection Crew (Page 185, Yates, 2014);
• The results obtained from work sampling were converted to labor utilization factors that ranged from as low as 34% to 52%. The lowest figure of 34% was for the forming operation. The
figure for the crew unloading reinforcing steel was 41%, and for the ironworker crew working on wall rebar it was 50%. During the study, the operations that involved ironworkers had a
higher rating than the work performed by the other trades. Also, formwork operations were ranked low by all three of the analysis methods (Page 191, Yates, 2014);
• Several analysis methods are available for measuring global labor productivity and for deconstructing processes into distinct activities. Global labor productivity data are obtained
through the various work-measurement techniques discussed in Chapter 6, such as work sampling, time-series techniques, crew balance analysis, and process analysis, all of which were
developed to analyze construction processes in industrialized nations. However, these methods might have limited use in developing countries because of external influences beyond the
control of project managers. In addition to using the work-measurement techniques introduced in Chapter 6, productivity improvement studies in developing countries should be
adapted to local conditions and include an analysis of nutrition, education level, motivation, and incentives (Page 327, Yates, 2014);
• The methods used for this case study included collecting data by observing the stonepanel installation process, recording observations, interviewing jobsite personnel, photographing
work processes, videotaping work processes, and conducting fieldrating, 5-min-rating, and work-sampling studies (Page 405, Yates, 2014);
Activity Sampling (Yates, 2014)
• Work-sampling techniques are useful when funds are limited for productivity improvement studies because conducting work-sampling studies requires minimal time and effort compared
with the other activity-sampling techniques discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 6. Only one person is required to perform a worksampling study during short periods over
several days. The randomness of the observations does not affect the study because it is intentionally designed for collecting random data. If the data collection process is interrupted, it
can be continued later without negatively affecting the results of the study. Work sampling is not an efficient method for studying work activities that occur over a large work area or for
evaluating the performance of one operator or worker. Work sampling is more useful for recording observations on whether members of stationary work crews are working effectively
(Page 109, Yates, 2014);
• This chapter discussed a variety of data-analysis techniques that are useful when quantifying work-process operations at construction jobsites. The techniques presented in this chapter
were work sampling, activity sampling, field rating, 5-min rating, work-process charts, and work-process diagrams. In addition, productivity measurement methods were introduced, and
an explanation was provided for the types of construction activities where each of the productivity measurement techniques could be used on construction projects. Performance factors
and the CSI Master Format were discussed in relation to how to measure whether activities are ahead of or behind their expected duration or performance. Systems engineering
concepts were discussed to demonstrate the differences and similarities between systems engineering and productivity improvement methods (Page 151, Yates, 2014);
• Chapter 6 discusses different work-sampling data analysis techniques that could be used to quantify work-process operations at construction jobsites. The work-sampling techniques
presented in this chapter are activity sampling, field rating, 5-min rating, crew balance charts, process charts, and process diagrams. In addition, productivity measurement methods are
introduced, and an explanation of the types of construction activities that could be analyzed using each of the productivity measurement methods is provided in this chapter. Systems
engineering concepts are discussed in order to demonstrate the similarities and differences between systems engineering and productivity improvement methods (Page Preface, Yates,
2014).
Work Sampling (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993)
• Work sampling is based on statistical sampling theory and is a slightly more sophisticated method than field rating (Page 5, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• Work sampling estimates the percentage of time a labourer is productive relative to the total time the person is involved in the operation. To accomplish this, the following approach can be adopted
(Page 6, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993):
• 1. Classify the worker's activity as one of three modes of activity: productive, semi-productive (involved in supporting the main activity), and non-productive. Note: There are a number of possible
variations for this classification and readers can develop their own, once familiar with the concept. Flexibility can be enhanced by manipulating the semi-productive classification. One can easily define
various modes of semi-productive activity, as shown in Table 2.1. For example, support work can be of the form "material handling," "instruction and decision making," "equipment maintenance," and
others. However, more than a handful of classifications can make it difficult to collect data on site.
• 2. Develop a data collection form that will facilitate tallying the observations on site, as shown in Figure 2.1, for example.
• 3. Take random observations of workers involved in a given operation in the field. The observation should indicate the workers' activity mode, i.e., productive, non-productive, or semi-productive.
Random, for all practical purposes, means without any bias as to who is being observed and that each worker will have the same chance of being observed as any other worker.
• 4. Record all observations on the form. Enter a checkmark under the appropriate mode of activity observed.
• 5. Add up all the checkmarks under each mode and calculate the percentage of activity. In the example (Figure 2.1 ), the 'percent productive’ is calculated as 4/9 (= 45%), the 'percent non-productive' is
3/9 (= 33%), and the balance of 22%, semi-productive.
• Research indicates that the productive work category should normally be over 30%. Results of different work sampling studies vary from the low of 9.4% at Isle of Grain to a high of 64.4% measured by
the National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation in 1973. Other representative samples reported are: • 32% by the Civil Engineering magazine in 1977, measured at various nuclear power
sites • 34.7% by S.B. Palmater, measured at 13 nuclear power sites • 46.5% measured by the University of Texas at random sites (Page 6, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• For work sampling to be effective, the observer must make a large number of observations, a number that must be determined from statistical sampling theory. The minimum number generally accepted
is 3842 observations. This number is derived from a sampling error of 5% and a level of confidence of 95%. Tables, nomographs, and computer programs can be used to calculate the required number of
observations for different sets of error limit or confidence levels (Page 7, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• Work sampling only attempts to indirectly measure productivity. It is difficult to determine the productivity of a carpenter, for example, by observing how many hammer blows it takes to drive a nail (Page
7, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• The five-minute rating technique, unlike work sampling, is not based on statistical sampling theory. The method relies on simply observing an operation for a short time. The observation does not result
in a large enough sample to support work sampling. The method does, however, provide some insight as to the effectiveness of the crew and can identify areas where more observation is required (Page
7, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• The work sampling methods covered in Section 2.2 measure efficiencies in the site operation, but do not go far enough in identifying the leading cause for the inefficiency. For example, work sampling
might indicate that a craftsman spent 25% of the time being delayed because the required material was not available. The method cannot, however, pinpoint the real cause of the delay or what can be
done to reduce it (Page 7, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• MPDM provides more information than other work sampling techniques. In addition to providing the user with a measure of productivity, it can also identify sources of delay and their relative
contribution to the lack of productivity (Page 9, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993).
Work Sampling (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993)
• The technique used to measure 'productivity’ at the Isle of Grain site was 'work sampling' (see Chapter 2). One measures through random observations the ratio of productive time to total available time.
For the purposes of such studies, productive time is defined as the time spent on cutting material, hoisting equipment, installing components, or erecting formwork, in general, working with tools in hand
(Page 18, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• Based on the experience gained from work sampling studies, management practices that affect motivation can be good planning, efficient communication, and a good work environment. Cleanliness,
safety, adequate sanitary facilities, protection from inclement weather, fair but firm discipline, and provisions to apportion and distribute just rewards are the attributes of a good work environment (Page
18, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• The least common methods for evaluating productivity are input utilization techniques, i.e., activity surveys or time measurements, such as work sampling, foreman delay surveys, and craftsman
questionnaires. The disadvantage of these techniques is that more data on worker performance, in addition to that provided by the costing system, must be generated and that adds costs to the project
(Page 32, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993).
WORK SAMPLING
Field Ratings (Yates, 2014)
• Field ratings group work activities into two classifications at the time the observations are recorded by observers: working or not working. If a worker is classified as working , this
indicates that he or she is actively engaged in performing a useful activity. A classification of not working indicates that a worker is idle and not contributing to the achievement of the
work objective. For a worker to be designated as actively engaged in work, he or she should be carrying, holding, or supporting materials or participating in physical activities such as
those listed in Table 6-1 . Examples of activities categorized as not working are listed in Table 6-2 (Page 120, Yates, 2014);
• Blank Field-Rating Form and Completed Field-Rating Form (Page 121, Yates, 2014);
• Field ratings below 60% indicate an inadequate level of productivity. Productivity rates for specialty crews should be higher than 60%, whereas productivity rates for casual labor or
workers cleaning up after other activities might be considerably lower (Oglesby et al. 1989 , p. 176). Table 6-3 provides a sample of a completed field-rating report (Page 122, Yates,
2014);
• Field ratings should be verified by performing repeat studies on different days. A sufficient amount of individual observations should be recorded for the results to be statistically
significant. One hundred observations is considered sufficient to identify work-process problems, but 400 observations provide more reliable data (Oglesby et al. 1989) (Page 122, Yates,
2014);
• Case study 1: Concrete Parking Structures and Police Stations. Data-Collection Techniques Similar activities that occurred at both sites were studied to compare the productivity rates
between the two sites. In particular, two tasks were analyzed: (1) the on-site concrete-casting process for the foundations of the two parking structures and (2) the process of erecting
precast concrete members for the police station office building. Field ratings were used at Site 1 to study the process of erecting the precast members for the police office building. Data
were collected during several visits over a four-month period. The specific productivity improvement techniques used for this study were interviews, productivity ratings, 5-min ratings,
process charts, and process flow diagrams (Page 158, Yates, 2014);
• Figures 7-5 and 7-6 represent the relationship between the sample number and the average percentage of productivity for the field ratings for Sites 1 and 2, and Figure 7-7 shows the
sample size and average percentage of productivity for the erection of the precast concrete members for the police station office building (Page 162, Yates, 2014);
• Analysis of Field Ratings. The field productivity percentages of the samples recorded are shown in Figures 7-5 , 7-6 , and 7-7. For the concrete-casting work processes at Sites 1 and 2,
productivity rates decreased between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The workers had a break from 10:00 to 10:15 a.m. and from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. As the work continued for the same
phase of an activity, the productivity increased, especially at Site 1, where it increased by 20% (Page 173, Yates, 2014);
• Field Ratings. Twenty field-rating observations of four separate operations were made, and the field rating index varied from a low of 67 to a high of 100, with the average being 88.40.
The field ratings were performed on a sunny day with a temperature of 80°F (26.7°C). A factor of 10% was added to the percent working subtotal to account for the foreman and
personal time. The crew working on the floor plans for the first-floor slabs and beams was the most productive, with a field-rating index of over 90, whereas the indices for the other
operations, such as digging footings and setting up formwork, were 76 to 89. Although the results are not statistically significant for any one crew, the total number of observations
embodied in the analysis for all the crews was 20 (219 man observations), which provides a useful indication of the aggregate level of productivity on site (Page 190, Yates, 2014);
• Masonry crew: The masonry crew had 11 workers, and they were engaged in both concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall construction and clay-brick installation on the northeast portion of
the building. This crew had one of the higher field ratings, 80%. Most of the support workers were involved in transporting blocks, bricks, and mortar (Page 191, Yates, 2014);
Field Ratings (Yates, 2014)
• Field Ratings. Mechanical counters were used for the counts. On most days, the work started at 7:00 a.m. and ended at 3:30 p.m. During the observations, the weather was sunny, and
four crew members worked on the drainage pipe installation. Table 7-5 provides a sample of a field rating recorded on the first day of the observations. Eq. (7-1) was used to calculate the
percent working: percent working = number of individuals working/number of individuals observed (7-1) The results shown in Table 7-5 were calculated for an 8-min time interval. Field
ratings were performed on all of the observations for four days. The results obtained were 73.5%, 75.9%, 69.5%, and 64.6%. The average field rating was 70.65% for the crew, which is
higher than the normal productivity rate for construction (60%). The adjusted field-rating index was 80.65% (Page 204, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Ratings. Productivity ratings are similar to field ratings, except productivity ratings use three categories of work: (1) effective work, (2) essential contributory work, and (3)
ineffective (idle) work. The productivity ratings for the pipe-laying operation are shown in Table 7-6;
• At the beginning of the field-rating data-collection process, the observer records the date; the title of the job; the name of the specific activity being observed, such as welding, building
formwork, placing concrete, installing electrical conduit, or excavating soil; the weather conditions; and any remarks pertinent to the study location, jobsite conditions, or the workers
(Page 120-121, Yates, 2014);
• Observers should position themselves in a location where they are able to observe as many workers as possible but that is also not intrusive so that the workers are not consciously
aware of their presence. Once the observers are situated, they should record the time of day of their first observation. The data recorded at each interval include the time, the number of
individuals observed, and the number of people working. This recording process is duplicated at either random or predetermined intervals during the designated time interval. Figure 6-1
is a sample blank field-rating form and a completed field-rating form (Page 121, Yates, 2014);
• 5-minute ratings. The purpose of 5-min ratings is to “1) provide management with information about delays and to indicate their order of magnitude, 2) measure the effectiveness of a
crew, and 3) indicate where thorough, detailed observations or planning might result in cost savings” (Oglesby et al. 1989 , p. 181). The 5-min-rating technique is not as accurate as the
field-rating method, but it is an effective method for making a general work evaluation (Page 122, Yates, 2014);
• The results shown in Table 7-5 were calculated for an 8-min time interval. Field ratings were performed on all of the observations for four days. The results obtained were 73.5%, 75.9%,
69.5%, and 64.6%. The average field rating was 70.65% for the crew, which is higher than the normal productivity rate for construction (60%). The adjusted field-rating index was 80.65%
(Page 204, Yates, 2014).
Field Ratings (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993)
• Field rating can be used to estimate crudely the level of activity of a construction operation. The method simply categorizes the observed worker as either "working" or "nonworking“ and
uses the "working" fraction as a measure of effectiveness. To collect a random sample, an observer on site observes the workers. Once a sample has been collected, the field rating is
calculated as total observations in the "working" category divided by the total number of observations, plus 10% to account for foreman and supervisory activity as follows:
• Field rating = total observations of working/ total number of observations+ 10%
• The number should be roughly over 60% for a job to be satisfactory. For example, if a foreman made 100 observations of workers and only 40 were classified as working at the time, then
the field rating would be 50%, i.e., 40/100 + l 0. The job would, therefore, be considered unsatisfactory. The method does not tell the analyzer anything about the sources of problems or
inefficiencies. It merely suggests that there is something wrong (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• Work sampling is based on statistical sampling theory and is a slightly more sophisticated method than field rating (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993).
FIELD RATING
Labour Utilization Factors (Yates, 2014)
• Work-sampling forms are used to collect and summarize data on the effectiveness of the work being performed by crew members. These data are then used to calculate labor utilization factors. Before
data are gathered using work-sampling techniques, the observer should record information about the project, including the types of crews being analyzed, the job title, the date, and the weather
conditions. The data collected are recorded by observation number and time, usually in 1-min or 5-min intervals (Page 123-124, Yates, 2014);
• One of the objectives of productivity improvement studies is to increase the amount of effective work, but some types of essential contributory work are required to complete activities. Therefore,
allowing for essential contributory work in reports of overall performance is a common practice. Labor utilization factors include essential contributory work. They are calculated by adding the number of
observations of effective work to one-fourth the number of observations of contributory work and dividing this sum by the total number of observations. The formula for labor utilization factors is as
follows (Oglesby et al 1989 , p.180): (Page 128-129, Yates, 2014);
• The results obtained from work sampling were converted to labor utilization factors that ranged from as low as 34% to 52%. The lowest figure of 34% was for the forming operation. The figure for the
crew unloading reinforcing steel was 41%, and for the ironworker crew working on wall rebar it was 50%. During the study, the operations that involved ironworkers had a higher rating than the work
performed by the other trades. Also, formwork operations were ranked low by all three of the analysis methods (Page 191, Yates, 2014).
5-minute ratings, 5 minute ratings, 5-min ratings (Yates, 2014)
• 5-Minute Ratings. The purpose of 5-min ratings is to “1) provide management with information about delays and to indicate their order of magnitude, 2) measure the effectiveness of a
crew, and 3) indicate where thorough, detailed observations or planning might result in cost savings” (Oglesby et al. 1989 , p. 181). The 5-min-rating technique is not as accurate as the
field-rating method, but it is an effective method for making a general work evaluation (Page 122, Yates, 2014);
• Work Sampling and 5-Minute Crew Rating. Twenty observations at 5-min intervals were recorded for 420 workers. Only 180, or 43% of the workers, were actively engaged in a work
activity, and only 41% of the steel-erection crew was working, as shown in Figure 7-30. An overall index of less than 60% indicates that the productivity of a job activity is unsatisfactory. A
field rating of this size is merely an indication of probable conditions, and additional ratings are necessary. Also, even though the work sample showed that people were working, they
were not necessarily doing productive work. The data from this rating are shown in Figure 7-31 . Ineffective work included (1) locating the proper beams, (2) reversing beam number 1,
(3) reading the plans, and (4) cutting beams (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• 5-Minute Ratings. A 5-min rating was performed on two days at approximately the same time but with different crews and different temperatures. The effectiveness factor ranged from
44% to 58%. The lowest rate of 44% occurred during the unloading of reinforcing steel from a truck to a lay-down area. This figure included the truck driver, who was not doing any
physical work. However, another worker also did not do any physical work other than talking to the truck driver during the 5-min rating. The 5-min-rating technique indicated that a more
effective plan for the location of the trucks and for setting up wall forms could result in savings because both of these operations had a rating of less than 50% (Page 191, Yates, 2014);
• 5-Minute Ratings. The 5-min ratings used the same observation techniques as the field productivity ratings, but the observations were for shorter periods. There were a total of 12 5-min
ratings. The crew members were observed for 12 min for each rating. Figure 7-48 contains the results from the 5-min-rating analysis (Page 205, Yates, 2014);
• An effectiveness ratio should be calculated for each individual worker and also for all of the workers during the total observation period. Notes should be added that indicate the type of
task performed for each observation period. Figure 6-2 shows a blank 5-min-rating form (Page 123, Yates, 2014);
• Work Sampling. Work-sampling forms are used to collect and summarize data on the effectiveness of the work being performed by crew members. These data are then used to calculate
labor utilization factors . Before data are gathered using work-sampling techniques, the observer should record information about the project, including the types of crews being
analyzed, the job title, the date, and the weather conditions. The data collected are recorded by observation number and time, usually in 1-min or 5-min intervals (Page 124, Yates,
2014);
• This chapter discussed a variety of data-analysis techniques that are useful when quantifying work-process operations at construction jobsites. The techniques presented in this chapter
were work sampling, activity sampling, field rating, 5-min rating, work-process charts, and work-process diagrams. In addition, productivity measurement methods were introduced, and
an explanation was provided for the types of construction activities where each of the productivity measurement techniques could be used on construction projects. Performance factors
and the CSI Master Format were discussed in relation to how to measure whether activities are ahead of or behind their expected duration or performance. Systems engineering
concepts were discussed to demonstrate the differences and similarities between systems engineering and productivity improvement methods (Page 151, Yates, 2014);
• Data-Collection Techniques. Similar activities that occurred at both sites were studied to compare the productivity rates between the two sites. In particular, two tasks were analyzed: (1)
the on-site concrete-casting process for the foundations of the two parking structures and (2) the process of erecting precast concrete members for the police station office building. Field
ratings were used at Site 1 to study the process of erecting the precast members for the police office building. Data were collected during several visits over a four-month period. The
specific productivity improvement techniques used for this study were interviews, productivity ratings, 5-min ratings, process charts, and process flow diagrams (Page 158, Yates, 2014);
• Figures 7-3 and 7-4 contain a summary of the results of the 5-min ratings conducted on five randomly selected workers who were part of the construction teams at Sites 1 and 2. Table 7-
5-minute ratings, 5 minute ratings, 5-min ratings (Yates, 2014)
• Productivity Ratings and 5-Min Ratings. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 include the average values of the 5-min ratings. The productivity rates at Site 1 were higher than the productivity rates at Site
2 (59% and 43%). For Site 2, ineffective work averaged 56.5% of the total work. If the average number of laborers at Site 2 was 45, then 25 of them were not working at any one time.
Although the samples collected at Site 1 indicated an average total for ineffective work of 41%, the productivity rate for Site 1 was higher than this value (59%). There were significant
differences in the production rates at Sites 1 and 2. The production rate at Site 2 was low, the site was poorly organized, and its layout was inefficient (Page 179, Yates, 2014);
• Site observations of the steel-erection processes were recorded and are shown in (1) the work-sampling chart in Figure 7-30 , (2) the 5-min crew rating summarized in Figure 7-31 ; (3)
the crew balance chart for erecting a beam in Figure 7-32 ; (4) the crew balance chart for erecting a column in Figure 7-33 ; and 5) the process chart for erecting a column, a girder, and a
beam in Figure 7-34 (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• Crew Balance Charts. After an examination of the items highlighted in the 5-min ratings, alternative methods were developed that could result in savings in both time and cost. The
proposed alternatives were (1) conduct field measurements before installation; (2) rearrange columns and beams in the storage area so that they are lifted according to the planned
sequence, thus avoiding delays in checking the plans; (3) relocate bolts closer to the work-assembling area; (4) not tightening the column bolts permanently before the beams and girders
are set; and (5) marking the proper location of the girders and beams to indicate how they will be assembled, thus avoiding having to reverse operations (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• The 5-min rating for the crew was either high or low depending on whether the crew was waiting for the contractor to approve lowering the pipe run 6/10 of a foot (1.52 cm). The low
rating of 40% was at the beginning of the workday. The 44% and the 33% ratings were caused by groundwater delays and waiting for the owner to make a decision about the
groundwater (Page 212, Yates, 2014);
• The high ratings were 78%, 79%, 90%, 77%, 81%, 85%, 78%, and 77%. Of the 12 5-min ratings, eight of them, or two-thirds of the total, were high. The average of the high ratings was
81%, with a variance of 4% (Page 212, Yates, 2014);
• The methods used for this case study included collecting data by observing the stonepanel installation process, recording observations, interviewing jobsite personnel, photographing
work processes, videotaping work processes, and conducting fieldrating, 5-min-rating, and work-sampling studies (Page 405, Yates, 2014);
• Five-minute ratings are a method for rapidly evaluating the productivity of individual workers, but they only provide information on whether a worker is idle or productive during the
period under observation. These ratings are conducted over short periods, usually 5 min, as the name of the sampling method implies. When five or fewer workers are being observed, 5
min is an adequate amount of time for the data-collection sequence, but if there are more than five workers, the total amount of observation time should be equal to or exceed the total
number of workers (Page 123, Yates, 2014).
Five-Minute Rating (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993)
• The five-minute rating technique, unlike work sampling, is not based on statistical sampling theory. The method relies on simply observing an operation for a short time. The observation does not result
in a large enough sample to support work sampling. The method does, however, provide some insight as to the effectiveness of the crew and can identify areas where more observation is required (Page
7, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
5-MINUTE RATING
Work-Process Flow (Yates, 2014)
• In addition, productivity improvement team members should be cognizant of outside forces that influence productivity rates, such as environmental influences including weather conditions. A productivity improvement
program should also generate data that are available for review during the planning stage of other projects. Productivity improvement programs are used to validate existing productivity rates and to explore potential
improvements to work processes and work-process flow. Productivity improvement programs provide a method for quantifying productivity, assessing work processes, developing alternative work processes, and developing
recommendations for increasing productivity rates (Page 22, Yates, 2014);

• Productivity improvement studies analyze work processes, work-crew size deficiencies or inefficiencies, the availability of the correct type and adequate quantities of materials, the use of equipment, work-process flow, the
transportation schemes for material movement, site layout configurations, and the monitoring of work processes by management personnel and supervisors (Page 117, Yates, 2014);

• When productivity improvement team members are presenting the results of their study, they should distribute an outline of their presentation, including its important elements, its sequence, and relevant data, charts,
graphs, and supporting materials. In addition, a written summary of the conclusions of the study and a list of action items should be distributed to the individuals attending the presentation. Photographs, digital video
recordings, and time-lapse photography of work processes should be used during the presentation to illustrate the work tasks and work-process flow concepts discussed during the meeting (Page 118, Yates, 2014);

• Data are collected for productivity improvement studies using field ratings, 5-min ratings, and work sampling. Three techniques used to develop a work-process analysis are the following: 1. Work-process flow diagrams :
Sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers traverse jobsites. 2. Work-process charts : Charts used to monitor and record how materials are being transported and used by workers. 3. Crew balance charts : Histograms
that are used to record how each member of a work crew is expending time on each activity. These techniques are more effective when they are used to evaluate repetitive tasks (Page 119, Yates, 2014);

• Work-Process Flow Diagrams. Work-process flow diagrams are pictorial representations that demonstrate the layout of the jobsite, the location of equipment relative to work-operation areas, transportation sequences,
worker locations, existing structures, and other site-specific information. Figure 6-8 illustrates the flow of activities for a crane operation erecting precast concrete panels, and Figure 6-9 shows a work-process flow diagram
that indicates the layout of the work; the spacing or relative location of the work in progress, including staging; and the location of the observations (Page 129, Yates, 2014);

• Work process chart. Figure 6-11 is a work-process chart for the installation of a concrete platform on a beam frame, and Figure 6-12 is a work-process flow diagram for steel erection at an airport terminal for the installation
of a frame concrete platform beam. Workprocess charts are used to show both existing and proposed work processes, to compare existing processes to proposed processes, and to demonstrate potential time savings if new
alternative processes are implemented for a task (Page 130, Yates, 2014);

• Building information modeling software also allows users to create fourdimensional (4D) schedules that generate the 3D models in predefined scheduling sequences and quantity take-offs that are automatically generated
from 3D models. When contractors have the capability to generate simulations of the building process in 3D modeling software, they are able to experiment with different construction sequences for building operations.
Being able to test different constructionsequencing scenarios in 3D models allows contractors to initiate and test different work-process flows for construction operations (Page 253, Yates, 2014);

• The researchers evaluated every detail of each operation, including the suitability of tools, equipment, and materials and the appropriateness of the size of the crews and work locations. First, existing installation methods
were analyzed to identify whether all of the operations performed during the installations were necessary. Next, alternative work processes were developed and reviewed to determine which were applicable to the
operation. The analysis methods used for this phase of the study included (1) work-process flow diagrams, (2) crew balance charts, and (3) work-process charts (Page 405, Yates, 2014);

• Work-process flow diagrams are sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers move around jobsites. Crew balance charts are diagrams or histograms used to record how each member of a work crew is expending his
or her time on each activity. Crew balance charts are used to evaluate the effectiveness of workers, machines, and worker-machine combinations and to demonstrate the interrelationships between activities being performed
by crew members. Work-process charts are used to monitor how materials are being moved and used by workers. After analyzing all of the work processes, the researchers provided recommendations for increasing
productivity rates. The steps used to develop recommendations were as follows: Observation/data collection → Analysis → Review analysis → Develop recommendations (Page 405, Yates, 2014);

• Stone-Panel Installation Process. The stone-panel installation process required transporting and installing the stone panels on the curtain wall. The stone panels were transported to the work area from a storage area located
on the roof of a parking garage adjacent to the construction jobsite. Figures A-5 and A-6 contain the stone-panel work-process flowcharts for this activity, and Figure A-7 shows where the stone panels were installed on the
structure (Page 408, Yates, 2014).
PROCESS CHART
Crew Balance Chart (Yates, 2014)
• Data are collected for productivity improvement studies using field ratings, 5-min ratings, and work sampling. Three techniques used to develop a work-process analysis are the following:
1. Work-process flow diagrams : Sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers traverse jobsites. 2. Work-process charts : Charts used to monitor and record how materials are
being transported and used by workers. 3. Crew balance charts : Histograms that are used to record how each member of a work crew is expending time on each activity. These
techniques are more effective when they are used to evaluate repetitive tasks (Page 119, Yates, 2014);
• Crew Balance Charts. Crew balance charts are used to record the activities of each crew member during a designated period. The main purpose of crew balance charts is to provide a
record of when workers are working effectively, what task they are performing, and when they are idle. The data in crew balance charts are used by productivity improvement team
members to determine whether all of the crew members are necessary and whether using a different combination or a smaller number of crew members would reduce the amount of
idle time, thus increasing productivity (Page 132, Yates, 2014);
• Crew balance charts are also used to record effective work, contributory work, and ineffective work. These categories are marked on the histograms, each represented by a different
color. After all of the work activities have been recorded for the designated period, the total number of minutes for each specific work task is calculated for each worker and for the total
work cycle. Crew balance charts do not demonstrate the levels of effectiveness or efficiency for operations, nor do they provide information on whether a worker is working rapidly or
using proper work techniques. Examples of some of the types of activities that are recorded in crew balance charts are listed in Table 6-4 (Page 132, Yates, 2014);
• Crew balance chart histograms are also used to determine whether one or more workers might be eliminated from the crew and whether their work assignment might be performed by
another crew member. Potential alternative crew configurations should be evaluated by redrawing the crew balance chart with the tasks from the eliminated worker distributed to other
crew members. Figure 6-13 contains a crew balance chart for a concrete placing and finishing operation. The original crew configuration included nine crew members (Page 132-133,
Yates, 2014);
• Work-process analysis reports summarize the results of work-process studies and include the layout of jobsites, summaries of the data collected during productivity improvement
studies, visual representations of work-task sequences, records showing which workers performed each task, crew balance charts, and a listing of the amount of material moved during
each task. These reports also contain tables that indicate the amount of time lost during the performance of each activity. All of the workprocess analysis methods described in the
previous sections are included in workprocess analysis reports along with information on • The procedure used for conducting the study; • The data collected; • Summaries of the
analysis results, including charts and graphs; • A written analysis of the results; and • Recommendations for work-process improvements (Page 139, Yates, 2014);
• Work-process analysis reports are used to communicate to management personnel the benefits that might be achieved by implementing productivity improvement recommendations,
such as increased productivity, time savings, cost savings, and increased profits (Page 139, Yates, 2014);
• Site observations of the steel-erection processes were recorded and are shown in (1) the work-sampling chart in Figure 7-30 , (2) the 5-min crew rating summarized in Figure 7-31 ; (3)
the crew balance chart for erecting a beam in Figure 7-32 ; (4) the crew balance chart for erecting a column in Figure 7-33 ; and 5) the process chart for erecting a column, a girder, and a
beam in Figure 7-34 (Page 184, Yates, 2014);
• Crew Balance Charts. The crew balance chart shown in Figure 7-32 for erecting a beam indicates that several of the crew members were idle or waiting during the operation. A revision
of the chart eliminated two crew members without any significant effect on the other crew members. A second revision indicated that the time required to perform the operation could
be reduced by 39%. The crew balance chart for the column erection in Figure 7-33 was also revised to eliminate two workers. Postponing the permanent tightening of columns reduced
the overall time required for this work process by 10% (Page 184-190, Yates, 2014).
Crew Balance Chart (Yates, 2014)
• Crew Balance Charts. The crew balance charts are shown in Figures 7-49 to 7-51 . The dark lines on the crew balance charts are working times, the shaded areas are waiting for instruction times, and the
white areas are idle times. Table 7-7 shows the crew member and equipment idle times extracted from the crew balance charts (Page 206, Yates, 2014);
• The proposed process chart eliminates the delay caused by having to clean the sheepsfoot roller. The proposed crew balance chart is shown in Figure 7-55 , and for the proposed crew configuration, the
white hat worker could be eliminated, resulting in the following cost savings: (Page 215, Yates, 2014);
• The researchers evaluated every detail of each operation, including the suitability of tools, equipment, and materials and the appropriateness of the size of the crews and work locations. First, existing
installation methods were analyzed to identify whether all of the operations performed during the installations were necessary. Next, alternative work processes were developed and reviewed to
determine which were applicable to the operation. The analysis methods used for this phase of the study included (1) work-process flow diagrams, (2) crew balance charts, and (3) work-process charts
(Page 405, Yates, 2014);
• Work-process flow diagrams are sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers move around jobsites. Crew balance charts are diagrams or histograms used to record how each member of a work
crew is expending his or her time on each activity. Crew balance charts are used to evaluate the effectiveness of workers, machines, and worker-machine combinations and to demonstrate the
interrelationships between activities being performed by crew members. Work-process charts are used to monitor how materials are being moved and used by workers. After analyzing all of the work
processes, the researchers provided recommendations for increasing productivity rates. The steps used to develop recommendations were as follows: Observation/data collection → Analysis → Review
analysis → Develop recommendations (Page 405, Yates, 2014);
• Table A-3 shows the process chart for the installation of stone panels Type 1, and the process chart provides the sequencing, workers, and time required to complete the installation process. Crew
balance charts were used to analyze the crew sizes and associated tasks. Figure A-24 is the crew balance chart for installation of stone panels Type 1, Figure A-25 provides a revision to the crew balance
chart, and Figure A-26 is a crew balance chart with additional revisions (Page 420-422, Yates, 2014);
• The crew balance chart for the installation of stone panels Type 2 is shown in Figure A-27. The chart demonstrates that the subcontractor could eliminate Worker 4, Worker 3 could perform the sealant
operation, and Worker 2 could hold the panels. Figure A-28 shows possible revisions to the crew balance chart, and Figure A-29 is the revised crew balance chart, including the following alterations: (Page
422-423, Yates, 2014);
• The work characteristics of the edge panels differed from those of the general panels. At the edge of the building, two workers did not have enough space to perform their tasks at the end of the
platform. The installation times were longer because the stick system blocked the movement of the pulley and the stone panels. Thus, the workers had to be more cautious to prevent damaging the stone
panels. After reviewing the crew balance chart shown in Figure A-30 , it was discovered that Worker 4, who was a helper, could be eliminated because most of the work he performed was tool
preparation for Worker 3, who was the main installer. The revised crew balance chart for this operation is shown in Figure A-31 , and it includes the following changes: (Page 428, Yates, 2014);
• The process for moving the platform was videotaped, and it required approximately 4 h, or half a day, to complete each move of the platform. To reduce the time needed to move the platform, it needed
to be verified whether having only three workers move the platform with the two-operator platform switch was feasible. A crew balance chart was developed for moving the platform, and it is shown in
Figure A-38 . Figures A-39 and A-40 demonstrate that the platform could be moved with only three workers (Page 433, Yates, 2014);
• This case study demonstrated how to develop and implement a productivity improvement investigation using the stone-panel installation process for a high-rise building. It illustrated how productivity
team members could conduct a productivity improvement study by collecting data, analyzing the data, and preparing recommendations for increasing the productivity of the stone-panel installation
process. Numerous photos were included in the case study to provide visual representations of the workflow processes and crew configurations originally used during the stone-panel installation process.
The productivity improvement team members used the information obtained during the case study to develop revised crew balance charts and workflow processes that demonstrate how productivity
could be improved on this portion of the project (Page 443, Yates, 2014).
Charting Technique – Crew Balance Chart (Dozzi &
Abourizk, 1993)
• Crew balance charts are a method of comparing interrelationships among various crew members and equipment required to can)’ out a task. This method is applicable to such cyclical tasks as placing
concrete (Page 12, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• To construct a crew balance chart, the time for each activity in the cycle is recorded for every worker or machine involved in the task. This may be done using a stopwatch or time-lapse film. The use of
time-lapse film has many advantages over a stopwatch in that activity times for each element may be determined during one cycle. Conversely, the use of a stopwatch requires sampling from many cycles
in order to record the activity times of each crew member. It is best to show only those elements that are pertinent to the problem at hand, because a crew balance chart may become cluttered with
useless information, which reduces its effectiveness (Page 12, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• From a crew balance chart, the user may detetmine interrelationships by comparing activities along a horizontal line since the time scale is the same for each crew member. In this manner, inefficient
crew size or organization is identified and remedial action can be taken. By analyzing a crew balance chart, the user is stimulated to devise more efficient methods of performing the task. Reorganization
of the crew may be all that is required or a different method may be in order (Page 12, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993).
CREW BALANCE CHART
Productivity Rating (Yates, 2014)
• Productivity ratings are used to determine whether the work being performed is effective, essential contributory, or ineffective work. These ratings might be affected by site conditions,
the type or nature of the work trades involved in activities, a lack of appropriate support, or environmental influences. Therefore, poor performance may not necessarily be caused by
any one particular craft or individual (Page 125, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity rating reports provide management personnel, foremen, and superintendents with information that helps them determine which tasks might be performed more efficiently
or at a lower cost. Productivity rating reports highlight ineffective work layouts, inappropriate or inconvenient material placement or handling, and poorly sized or unbalanced crews.
Productivity rating reports should also include written details about observations to help clarify the ratings (Page 139, Yates, 2014);
• Similar activities that occurred at both sites were studied to compare the productivity rates between the two sites. In particular, two tasks were analyzed: (1) the on-site concrete-casting
process for the foundations of the two parking structures and (2) the process of erecting precast concrete members for the police station office building. Field ratings were used at Site 1
to study the process of erecting the precast members for the police office building. Data were collected during several visits over a four-month period. The specific productivity
improvement techniques used for this study were interviews, productivity ratings, 5-min ratings, process charts, and process flow diagrams (Page 158, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Ratings and 5-Min Ratings. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 include the average values of the 5-min ratings. The productivity rates at Site 1 were higher than the productivity rates at Site
2 (59% and 43%). For Site 2, ineffective work averaged 56.5% of the total work. If the average number of laborers at Site 2 was 45, then 25 of them were not working at any one time.
Although the samples collected at Site 1 indicated an average total for ineffective work of 41%, the productivity rate for Site 1 was higher than this value (59%). There were significant
differences in the production rates at Sites 1 and 2. The production rate at Site 2 was low, the site was poorly organized, and its layout was inefficient (Page 179, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Ratings. Productivity ratings are similar to field ratings, except productivity ratings use three categories of work: (1) effective work, (2) essential contributory work, and (3)
ineffective (idle) work. The productivity ratings for the pipe-laying operation are shown in Table 7-6 (Page 204, Yates, 2014);
• 5-Minute Ratings. The 5-min ratings used the same observation techniques as the field productivity ratings, but the observations were for shorter periods. There were a total of 12 5-min
ratings. The crew members were observed for 12 min for each rating. Figure 7-48 contains the results from the 5-min-rating analysis (Page 205, Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Rating Results. The results of the productivity rating study indicate that the laborers working for the contractor were effective 68% of the time and the contributory effective
time was 25%. The laborers were effective 13% more than average productivity ratings. The effective time plus contributory categories was 82%, compared with a 70% average (Page 211,
Yates, 2014).
PRODUCTIVITY RATING
Method Productivity Delay Model (Dozzi & Abourizk,
1993)
• The method productivity delay model (MPDM) was proposed as a way to combine both time study and productivity measurement (Adrian and Boyer, 1976). MPDM relies on having an observer collect
data, on a special form, pertaining to the cycle time of a leading resource on the operation. The observer also notes the nature of the delays during the period of observation. Once the data collection is
complete, a set of computations is carried out that measures the productivity of the operation, indicates the major sources of delay, and gives other useful statistics (Page 9, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• MPDM can be an effective way of measuring productivity on site and the delays that undermine it. Experience with the technique has shown that it can be less confusing when implemented on an
electronic spreadsheet. For the example presented in this section, Microsoft Excel was used. Any spreadsheet can be easily automated and generalized with macros, so that the computations are
automatic, once the observations have been entered (Page 9, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• MPDM provides more information than other work sampling techniques. In addition to providing the user with a measure of productivity, it can also identify sources of delay and their relative
contribution to the lack of productivity (Page 9, Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993);
• MPDM consists of the following phases: 1 Identification of the production unit, and the production cycle; 2. Identification of the leading resource; 3. Identification of the types of delay that can be
encountered in the process; 4. Data collection; 5. Data processing, model analysis and recommendations; 6.
• MPDM requires that the observer time the production cycle for each production unit placed. The observer must also determine whether a delay took place during a given cycle. If a delay occurs, the
observer must indicate its nature based on the categories of delays given in Phase 3. Examples of the types of delay under each category are given in Table 2.6.
• The processing of the MPDM data is carried out by filling out the MPDM data collection sheet (Figure 2.4), and Tables 2.7 and 2.8, which are meant to be self-explanatory. First, column (7) in Figure 2.4
has to be completed. This is simply column (1) minus the average cycle time of cycles where no delay has occurred. This is also given in Table 2.7, column (3) for a non-delayed production cycle;
• The observer can use the form given in Figure 2.4 to facilitate the data collection. Sometimes MPDM fails to work because the cycle time is too short to observe, or too long to keep track of. In such
cases, the method is not recommended. If time-lapse film is available, short processing cycles can be captured;
• Upon completion of the calculations performed according to Table 2.8, the MPDM equations can be used to compute the productivity of the operation.
• The last step in the MPDM computations requires the development of the variability of the ideal and overall production rates. These rates must first be analyzed to assess the variability of method
productivity. Adrian and Boyer (1976) state that the higher the overall cycle variability and the ideal cycle variability, the less dependable the productivity prediction. Ideally, these ratios should be small.
The variability of the productivity indicators are calculated from Table 2.7 as follows:
• To illustrate the computations for MPDM, an example is given in Figure 2.4. The cycles that were identified as 'non-delayed’ totalled 12 cycles with an accumulated cycle time of 4 402 seconds. The result
is a mean cycle time of 366.83 seconds (6.1 minutes). The processing is then performed and the results are shown in Tables 2.9 and 2.10.
Field Survey (Dozzi & Abourizk, 1993)
Productivity Analysis (Yates, 2014)
• Analysis of the results (1) Productivity analysis (2) Video analysis (3) Crew balance analysis (4) Process flow analysis (Page 12, Yates, 2014);
• The productivity analysis methods used during this case study included • Field ratings, • Productivity analysis, • Crew balance, • Video analysis, and • Process flow analysis (Page 184,
Yates, 2014);
• Productivity Analysis. The work was divided into direct work, support work, and delays (or ineffective work). Most of the direct work, accounting for 32% of the effort, was performed by
the concrete finishers. An additional 32% of the crew effort was directed toward transporting material, which for the most part was polyethylene (PE) sheeting for curing the slab. Over a
third of the time, the work being performed was ineffective or delayed (36%). This was because the slab pour had isolated the stairway, which meant that to access the lower floors, the
workers had to use a ladder. The cleanup work was slowed down by laborers hauling equipment down the ladder. Also, workers tying rebar were hindered because they were surrounded
by fresh concrete with only the ladder to move tools and materials. If there had been a crane available, materials could have been moved more rapidly between the storage yard and the
roof (Page 192, Yates, 2014).
Crew Balance Analysis (Yates, 2014)
• Crew Balance Analysis. During construction of the CMU wall, the masons were working and well supplied with materials, but Worker 3 was not always working. Even when Worker 3 was
working to unload the forklift, the operator and usually one of the masons loaded the forklift. The responsibilities of Worker 3 could have been performed by the forklift operator, except
it would require that the forklift operator leave the forklift and climb up and down the ladder. A more suitable solution would have been to have more mortar troughs and detachable
pallets for the block. Then, the operator could unload, pick up any empty pallets, and immediately return either to the mixer or to the storage yard. Although there was not much room
for rearranging or eliminating personnel, the multiple trough and pallet concept could alleviate the problem experienced by masons waiting for the concrete to be delivered to their work
area (Page 196, Yates, 2014);
• Several analysis methods are available for measuring global labor productivity and for deconstructing processes into distinct activities. Global labor productivity data are obtained
through the various work-measurement techniques discussed in Chapter 6, such as work sampling, time-series techniques, crew balance analysis, and process analysis, all of which were
developed to analyze construction processes in industrialized nations. However, these methods might have limited use in developing countries because of external influences beyond the
control of project managers. In addition to using the work-measurement techniques introduced in Chapter 6, productivity improvement studies in developing countries should be
adapted to local conditions and include an analysis of nutrition, education level, motivation, and incentives (Page 327, Yates, 2014).
Process Flow Analysis (Yates, 2014)
• Process Flow Analysis. The process chart in Figure 7-34 shows the overall flow of work during construction of the CMU wall. The materials were stockpiled on the scaffolding adjacent to
the work area where the masons prepared to lay a course of block by placing horizontal wire reinforcement. Following this operation, each mason laid down a bed of mortar over the
previous course with a trowel, placed the block, and finished the joints. Meanwhile, the forklift operator delivered the blocks and mortar, and a laborer unloaded them. After three
courses had been placed, the block cores scheduled to receive vertical rebar were filled with mortar, and the rebar was inserted into the center of each block (Page 196-197, Yates, 2014).
Work-Process Analysis (Yates, 2014)
• During a work-process analysis, every detail of an operation is evaluated including the methods being used; the suitability of tools, equipment, and materials; and the appropriateness of
work locations. First, existing methods are analyzed to identify whether all of the operations are necessary, and then alternative work-process methods are reviewed to determine
whether any of the alternative work processes would be applicable to the operation (Page 119, Yates, 2014);
• To perform a work-process analysis, a plan is developed that provides specific steps for evaluating work processes. The plan should include a list of who is responsible for performing each
stage of the analysis and specific steps for how each stage will be conducted and evaluated by productivity improvement team members. The plan should explain the purpose of and
reason for the study, set a time frame for completion, and indicate how it will be performed, where it will be performed, and how each process will be recorded, evaluated, and
incorporated into the study (Page 119, Yates, 2014);
• Data are collected for productivity improvement studies using field ratings, 5-min ratings, and work sampling. Three techniques used to develop a work-process analysis are the following:
1. Work-process flow diagrams : Sketches of how equipment, materials, and workers traverse jobsites. 2. Work-process charts : Charts used to monitor and record how materials are
being transported and used by workers. 3. Crew balance charts : Histograms that are used to record how each member of a work crew is expending time on each activity. These
techniques are more effective when they are used to evaluate repetitive tasks (Page 119, Yates, 2014);
• Work-process analysis reports summarize the results of work-process studies and include the layout of jobsites, summaries of the data collected during productivity improvement studies,
visual representations of work-task sequences, records showing which workers performed each task, crew balance charts, and a listing of the amount of material moved during each task.
These reports also contain tables that indicate the amount of time lost during the performance of each activity. All of the workprocess analysis methods described in the previous
sections are included in workprocess analysis reports along with information on • The procedure used for conducting the study; • The data collected; • Summaries of the analysis results,
including charts and graphs; • A written analysis of the results; and • Recommendations for work-process improvements (Page 139, Yates, 2014);
• Work-process analysis reports are used to communicate to management personnel the benefits that might be achieved by implementing productivity improvement recommendations,
such as increased productivity, time savings, cost savings, and increased profits (Page 139, Yates, 2014);
• Work-count analysis. The flow of work at construction jobsites has certain key points that might be used as milestones to measure work progress: for example, when work is first
assigned to workers, when a decision is made or an action is taken, when a process is completed, or when materials are stored in a warehouse or a lay-down yard. Workcounting
methods help to highlight situations where work progress declines and negatively affects subsequent activities. Data collected through work counting helps to identify procedures that
require further study using work-process analysis techniques (Page 142-143, Yates, 2014);
Work-Count Analysis (Yates, 2014)
• As mentioned previously, work-distribution analysis is a technique used for determining the type of work accomplished and the best method for dividing the work among workers. Work-
count analysis is used to supplement work-distribution analysis because it provides techniques for determining the volume of work in terms of measurable units. The data obtained by
counting or measuring work provide a basis for developing improved methods and procedures, adjusting work assignments, evaluating performance, eliminating areas that slow down
work processes, demonstrating personnel requirements, and stimulating interest in work activities (Page 142, Yates, 2014);
• To obtain an accurate measure of the volume of work being performed, identical tasks should be counted for the same types of activities. These tasks should be tangible and
representative of the work being performed during an activity. Examples of the activities or items that could be included in a work-count analysis for an office are listed in Table 6-7 (Page
142, Yates, 2014);
• Tasks that could be counted at construction jobsites include • Cubic feet of concrete placed per day, • Lineal feet of formwork built per day, • Cubic yards of soil excavated per day, •
Number of bricks installed per day, • Number of workers employed per day, • Number of truck deliveries per day, and • Amount of material distributed per day (Page 142, Yates, 2014);
• Work-count analysis techniques provide data that are used to help schedule work after it has been determined how long it takes to complete each task in relation to other tasks. Work
assignments are then adjusted to accommodate actual conditions. Work counting is also used to determine the relationships between tasks if, in some circumstances, several individuals
are performing unrelated tasks. Work counting assists in determining whether or not these tasks should be redistributed so that workers are performing related tasks. However, to do
this, the volume of work being performed should be large enough to warrant specialization (Page 143, Yates, 2014).
PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS
Simulation Modelling & Analysis (Dozzi & Abourizk,
1993)
METHOD TIME MEASURMENT UNITS
LAIN2