Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Labor productivity: Benchmarking and variability in Egyptian projects


Refaat H. Abdel-Razek
a

a,*

, Hany Abd Elshakour M a, Mohamed Abdel-Hamid

Department of Construction Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Egypt


b
Banha Higher Institute of Technology, Banha, Egypt

Received 28 February 2006; received in revised form 25 April 2006; accepted 15 June 2006

Abstract
New management thinking, like that of lean construction, has suggested many principles and techniques that can result in better labor
and cost performance. This paper focuses on improving construction labor productivity in Egypt by applying two lean construction principles, namely benchmarking and reducing variability in labor productivity. Using labor productivity data from masonry activities on
eleven building projects in Egypt, several measures of benchmarks of construction labor productivity are demonstrated, calculated,
and then used to evaluate the productivity of bricklayers and identify the best and worst performing projects. The benchmarks include
disruption index (DI), performance ratio (PR), and project management index (PMI). On the other hand reducing variability of labor
productivity is another important lean construction principle. The labor productivity variability of the studied projects is calculated using
the coecient of productivity variation. The correlation between variability in labor productivity and project performance was also
examined statistically. From the application of the two lean construction principles, it was concluded that the benchmarks of labor productivity (DI, PR, and PMI) were found to be reliable indicators of project labor performance. In addition, the variability in daily labor
productivity was found to be an important delineator between good and poorly performing projects.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Labor productivity; Lean construction; Benchmarking; Variability; Project performance; Egypt

1. Introduction
Many studies have attempted to improve construction
labor productivity via dierent ways for examples: studying
the factors aecting construction labor productivity
[22,5,23,27,2]; measuring and evaluating labor productivity
[3,1,14,21,13,28]; modeling construction labor productivity
[7,6,4]; and comparing labor productivity based on economic considerations or costs [30].
In recent years, lean construction principles have
received much attention as a modern way to improve construction performance and labor productivity. Benchmarking has become an important research function in the
national and global construction market. In 1999 Thomas

and Zavrski [29,30] developed the framework for international labor productivity benchmarks of selected construction activities. The application of these benchmarks can
lead to evaluating the labor productivity and identifying
the best and worst performing projects.
Poor management and other factors can induce unnecessary changeability in construction conditions that leads
to variable performance. Reducing variability in labor productivity will result in improved labor performance [26].
Benchmarking and reducing variability of labor productivity are two of the most important lean construction principles that will be examined in this paper to show their
impact on labor performance.
2. Study objectives

Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 2 0123130732.


E-mail addresses: drrefaatrazek@hotmail.com (R.H. Abdel-Razek),
drhanysh@yahoo.com (H. Abd Elshakour M).
0263-7863/$30.00  2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.06.001

The objectives of this paper are to explain briey two of


the lean construction principles, namely benchmarking and

190

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

reducing variability in labor productivity, to demonstrate


the conceptual benchmarking model for construction labor
productivity and implement the model in some construction projects in Egypt, and to examine the impact of variability in labor productivity on labor performance.

can be raised by using better materials and more skilled


specialists, the costs of which are higher. This model
neglects ows between conversions. These ows consist of
moving, waiting, and inspecting activities. Unfortunately,
a major part of the total production costs is caused by ow
activities rather than conversions.

3. Lean construction
4.2. Conceptual basis of lean production philosophy
The word lean was dened by Howell [16] as Give customers what they want, deliver it instantly, with no waste.
One of the main objectives of lean production is to eliminate non value-adding activities, waste, in production
process [18]. According to Koskela [18], wastes include
overproduction, waiting, transporting, inspection, inventories, moving, and making defective parts and products. In
contrast to the craft and mass production, lean production
combines the advantages of both. It provides volumes of a
variety of products at a relatively low cost by using
resources of multiskilled workers at all levels of organization and highly exible, increasingly automated machines
[17]. Lean construction is a new way to manage construction. Lean construction results from the application of a
new form of production management to construction [15].

5. Lean construction principles

4. Dierences between traditional production and lean


production
4.1. Conceptual basis of traditional production philosophy
Traditional production philosophy may be outlined as
follows [18]:
(a) A production process is a conversion of inputs to an
output.
(b) The conversion process can be divided into sub-processes, which also are conversion processes.
(c) The cost of the total process can be minimized by
minimizing the cost of each sub-process.
(d) The value of the output of a process is associated with
costs (or value) of inputs to that process.
Statements c and d suggested that in order to minimize
costs, attention must be focused on cost management in
each operations, subprocess or department. Value on the
other hand is not very important. Value of the output

Moving

Waiting

Processing A

The lean construction system sees production as a ow


of material, information, equipment, and labor from raw
material to the product (Fig. 1). In this ow, the material
is converted, inspected, waiting or moving. Processing represents the conversion aspect of production; inspecting,
moving and waiting represent the ow aspect of production
[18]. In essence, the new model consists of conversions and
ows. The overall eciency of production is attributable to
both the eciency of the conversion activities performed,
as well as the amount and eciency of the ow activities.
While all activities expend cost and time, only conversion
activities are vale-adding activities. The core idea of lean
construction is to reduce or eliminate non vale-adding
activities and increase eciency of value-adding activities.

Inspection

According to Koskela [18], Ballard [811], Tommelein


[31] and Thomas et al. [26], the principles of lean construction include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

Practice just-in-time (JIT).


Use pull-driven scheduling.
Reduce variability in labor productivity.
Improving ow reliability.
Eliminate waste, and simplify the operation.
Benchmark.

The following sections describe two of these principles,


namely benchmarking and reducing variability in labor
productivity.
6. Benchmarking
Benchmarking can be dened as a systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously

Moving

Waiting

Processing B

Fig. 1. Production as a ow process: simplistic illustration [18].

Inspection

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

measuring and comparing an organizations business process against business leaders anywhere in the world to gain
information which will help the organization to take action
to improve its performance [18,21,19,20].
Benchmarking can be internal, external, classic, traditional, process, performance, functional, strategic or a
combination. The idea behind each is the same: to identify,
measure, compare, perform gap analysis, adapt and implement new ideas [12,21].
7. Benchmarking construction labor productivity
In this paper labor productivity is dened as the hours
of work divided by the units of work accomplished. This
value is often called physical labor productivity or unit rate
[24]. In 1999 Thomas and Zavrski developed a site-based
model for measuring the labor productivity of construction
activities called the theoretical (conceptual) model for
international benchmarking of labor productivity [29,30].
This model was an analytical approach to compare labor
productivity in one project to that of another.
8. Components of conceptual benchmarking model
The components of the conceptual benchmarking model
are shown graphically in Fig. 2 and are explained in the following sections.
8.1. Project attributes

(b) Round this number to the next highest odd number;


this number should not be less than 5. This number,
n, denes the size of (number of workdays in) the
baseline subset.
(c) The contents of the baseline subset are the n workdays that have the highest daily production or
output.
(d) Calculate the sum of the workhours and quantities
for these n workdays.
(e) The baseline productivity is the workhours divided by
the quantities contained in the baseline subset.
Because disruptions and lack of resources reduces construction output, the baseline subset from which the baseline productivity is calculated contains days when there
are little or no disruptions and the resources are readily
available. From Fig. 3 if there are adequate resources, no
disruptions, and an appropriate conversion technology is
applied, then the inputoutput ratio or baseline productivity is aected only by design complexity [26]. Thus, the
baseline productivity is the best performance a contractor
can achieve for a particular design.
Number of abnormal workdays: According to Thomas
and Zavrski [29], the random variability in daily productivity values in the absence of disruptions is about twice the
baseline productivity. Values exceeding this limit/threshold
are usually the result of assignable causes, i.e., disruptions.
An important measure of performance is the number of
abnormal or disrupted days.

Total workhours: Total workhours are the summation of


daily workhours in each project.
Total quantities: Total quantities are the summation of
daily quantities in each project.
Cumulative productivity: The cumulative productivity is
a measure of the overall eort required to install the work.

8.2. Project performance parameters (benchmarks)

Cumulative productivity h=m2

Disruption index DI

Total workhours h=Total quantities m2


Baseline productivity: The baseline productivity is the
best performance a contractor can achieve for a particular
design. The baseline productivity for each project is calculated by applying the following steps to the daily productivity values for each project [25,26]:
(a) Determine the number of workdays that comprise
10% of the total workdays observed.

Single project
evaluations

Determine project attributes


Total workhours
Total quantities
Cumulative productivity
Baseline productivity
Number of abnormal days

191

Disruption index (DI): The rst measure of labor performance (benchmarks) is the disruption index (DI). It is
the ratio of the number of disrupted workdays divided by
the total number of observed workdays [29].

Number of abnormal disrupted work days


Total number of work days

Performance ratio (PR): The performance ratio (PR) is


the actual cumulative productivity divided by the expected
baseline productivity (average values of baselines of all
projects). Thus, the following denition was adopted
[29,30]:
PR

Cumulative productivity
Expected baseline productivity

Calculate project performance


parameters (benchmarks)
Disruption index (DI)
Performance ratio (PR)
Project management index
(PMI)

Fig. 2. Single project evaluation [30].

192

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

Resources

Disruptions (inhibitors)

Labor
Materials

Congestion

Sequencing

Weather

Rework

Equipment
Tools
Information

Inputs

Conversion
Technology
(Work Method)

Outputs

Support services
Work content
(Design Complexity)
Fig. 3. Factor-resource model [25,26].

Project management index (PMI): The PMI is a dimensionless parameter that reects the inuence that project
management has on the cumulative labor performance.
The PMI is calculated with the following equation [29,30]:
Project management index PMI

Cumulative productivity  Baseline productivity


Expected baseline productivity

The PMI compares the actual cumulative productivity


to the baseline productivity. The baseline productivity
occurs when the materials, equipment, and information
ows are good and the plan is adequate. As PMI is a measure of the dierence between the actual and baseline productivity, it provides a measure of the impact of poor
material, equipment, and information ows and inadequate planning. This makes it a measure of waste. The
PMI is also called the project waste index (PWI). Reduced
waste can lead to better ow and productivity. The lower
the PMI, the better is the project managements inuence
on overall performance [29]. Mathematically, the PMI
eliminates the productivity inuence of complex design.
9. Reduce variability in labor productivity
The study made by Thomas [26] concluded that the variability in daily labor productivity is highly correlated to
project performance. Variability in productivity appears
to be a good determinant of good and poorly performing
projects. Thus, the goal of lean construction as stated by
Thomas [26] should be to improve performance by reducing variability in labor productivity. The variability in daily
labor productivity for each project can be calculated by
using the following equation [26]:
P q2
urij  baseline productivityj
Variation V j
n
where urij = the daily productivity (unit rate) for workday i
on project j, and n = the number of workdays on project j.

The variation Vj for dierent projects cannot be compared directly unless the baseline productivity values are
the same. Therefore, the coecient of variation is calculated as [26].
Coefficient of variation CVj

V j  100
Baseline productivityj

where CVj = coecient of variation for project j.


10. Data collection and analysis
Data collection consists of masonry activities from 11
construction projects in Egypt during the time frame 1/3/
2004-23/7/2004. The projects include commercial, and residential buildings. Table 1 shows the classication of the
studied projects. Table 2 shows daily data collection sheet
in which the project name, project location, number of
labors, daily workhours, and daily quantities are collected.
Table 3 shows the data collected for the studied Project
no. 1.
The total workhours, total quantities, cumulative productivity, baseline productivity of each project are shown
in Table 4. The cumulative productivity of the studied projects ranged from 0.69 wh/m2 to 3.76 wh/m2. The average
baseline productivity (best productivity) of the studied projects is 0.608 wh/m2. The criterion for an abnormal work
day was dened as any work day when the productivity
exceeded 1.216 wh/m2. The abnormal workdays for each
case study are also shown in Table 4.
10.1. Project performance parameters (benchmarks)
Disruption index (DI): The values of DI range from 0.0
to 1.0. The higher the DI, the more the project experienced
abnormal work days (poor project). For example DI for
Project no. 1 = 1/19 = 0.053. The disruption indices of
the studied projects are presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows
that Project no. 1 has DI value of 0.053, Project no. 2

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

193

Table 1
Characteristics and classications of the studied projects
Serial No.

Project name

Type of project

Type of contractor

Work days

Start date

End date

Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Elmona project
Elaboor village
Shalik Mall
Elzhour project
M.Hassan project
Elaboor project a
Elaboor project b
Elaboor project c
Elaboor project d
Oraby project
Elkodda project

Residential & commercial


Residential
Residential & commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential & commercial

Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private

19
21
19
40
22
39
31
42
34
16
16

11/4/04
1/5/04
1/3/04
13/3/04
5/4/04
1/3/04
11/3/04
13/5/04
16/5/04
11/5/04
3/3/204

13/5/04
26/5/04
24/3/04
4/5/04
3/5/04
29/5/04
29/5/04
23/7/04
12/7/04
31/5/04
23/3/04

Zagazig
Elaboor
Zagazig
Zagazig
Zagazig
Elaboor
Elaboor
Elaboor
Elaboor
Zagazig
Zagazig

class
class
class
class
class
class
class
class
class
class
class

3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3

Table 2
Daily data collection sheet
Wall No.

Project name: Elmona

Day: Sunday

Date: 11/4/2004

Work start: 8.30 am

Work end: 5.30 pm

No. of Stories: 12

Floors No.: 3

No. of labors: 2

Skilled labor: 1

Helper: 1

Forman: 0

Wall dimensions (m)

Window 1

Window 2

Door 1

Length

Height

Thick

Length

Height

Length

Height

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

6.85
6.10
2.50
0.43
4.05
2.55
2.70

1.13
1.08
1.00
1.07
1.90
1.90
1.90

0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12

2.00
0.76

0.49
0.48

2.00
0.76

0.49
0.48

Sum

34.96 m2

1.34 m2

1.34 m2

Length

Height

0.90

1.00

0.84

1.90

2.49 m2

Daily quantities (m2) = 34.96  1.34  1.34  2.49 = 29.79 m2.


Workhours (h) = 2 (labors) 8 (h) = 16 h.
Labor daily productivity (h/m2) = 16/29.79 = 0.538 h/m2.

Table 3
Data of one case study (Elmona project)
Day

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sum

Crew
size
2
7
6
5
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
3
5
4

Work
hours
(h)
16
56
48
40
48
15
16
17.5
15.5
19
17
15
11.5
57
22
18
23.5
29.33
37.5
518.83

Daily
quantities
(m2)
29.797
87.477
81.265
80.643
68.478
12.29
16.229
17.499
17.835
28.682
17.049
25.195
12.78
75.717
23.09
18.337
36.433
45.803
51.845
746.36

Labor daily
productivity
(h/m2)

Baseline
days

0.538
0.640
0.590
0.496
0.698
1.220
0.985
1.000
0.869
0.662
0.997
0.595
0.899
0.713
0.952
0.981
0.645
0.640
0.723






0.695

Abnormal
days

has DI value of 0.048, and Project no. 11 has DI value of


0.000. These projects were not very disrupted projects,
and there are known to be the best projects because DI values are very small (DI < 0.1). Thus, about 27% of the studied projects are performing well. Fig. 4 also shows that
Project no.4 with DI value of 0.429, Project no.8 with DI
value of 0.928, Project no.9 with DI value of 0.558 and Project no. 10 with DI value of 0.437 were highly disrupted.
These projects are known to be the worst projects because
DI values are very high (DI > 0.4). Thus, about 36% of the
eleven studied projects are poorly performing projects.
Performance ratio (PR): The performance ratios of the
studied project are calculated and presented in Fig. 5. It
should be noted that the lower the PR, the better the project performance. A PR value greater than 1.0 does not
necessarily mean a poorly performing project, but rather
is a comparison against the best overall performance
observed in all projects. However, some projects performed
poorly, most notably projects are Project no. 8 with PR
value of 6.16, Project no. 9 with PR value of 2.91, and Project no. 10 with PR value of 2.21. These projects have high
PR (PR > 2) and DI values (DI > 0.4).

194

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

Table 4
Project attributes of the studied projects
No.

Project name

Total workhours
(h)

Total quantities
(m2)

Total work
days

Cumulative productivity
(wh/m2)

Baseline productivity
(wh/m2)

Abnormal days

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Elmona project
Elaboor village
Shalik Mall
Elzhour project
M. Hassan project
Elaboor project a
Elaboor project b
Elaboor project c
Elaboor project d
Oraby project
Elkodda project

518
614
577
782
555
1397
1737
2789
1686
641
890

746
850
589
789
784
1373
1932
724
952.5
4766
589

19
21
19
21
22
39
31
42
34
16
16

0.695
0.721
0.979
0.990
0.708
1.016
0.899
3.757
1.770
1.345
0.689

0.572
0.472
0.540
0.628
0.497
0.624
0.434
1.186
0.628
0.648
0.456

1
1
6
9
5
11
4
39
19
7
0

Project management index (PMI): The PMI is a dimensionless parameter that reects the contribution of project
management to the cumulative labor performance on the
project. The lower the PMI, the better was the project managements inuence on overall performance. Higher numbers are indicative of poorer labor performance. The

PMI values for each project are summarized in Fig. 6. As


shown in Fig. 6 seven projects have PMI values > 0.5 (i.e.
about 64% of the studied projects performed poorly).
Direct observations of management processes of these
worst projects revealed that there were diculties in managing workforce. The disruptions aecting work were

0.928

DISRUPTION INDEX (DI)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.558

0.6
0.5

0.437

0.429

0.4

0.316

0.282

0.3

0.227

0.2
0.1

0.129
0.053

0.048

0
3

10

11

PROJECT

Fig. 4. Disruption indices of the studied projects.

7
6.16

performance ratio (PR)

4
2.91

2.212

1.6
1.14

1.1875

1.67

1.628

1.479

1.164

1.14

0
3

Project

Fig. 5. Performance ratio of the studied projects.

10

11

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197


4.5

195

4.23

project management index (PMI)

4
3.5
3
2.5
1.878

2
1.5

1.154

1
0.5

0.722

0.645

0.638

0.411

0.765
0.386

0.347

0.202

0
1

10

11

project

Fig. 6. Project management indices of the studied projects.

noted and the inecient workhours were observed. The


reasons for idle time were due to lack of materials, poor
communication and inadequate supervision. Some clients
of these projects complained that the construction work fell
behind schedule and they were unhappy with the quality of
the work.
Project no. 1 with PMI value of 0.202, Project no. 2 with
PMI value of 0.411, and Project no. 11 with PMI value of
0.386 were best performing projects because PMI values
are very small (PMI < 0.4). Thus, about 27% of all studied
projects are performing well. By direct observations of the
management functions of these best projects, it was found
that, there were a good planning and control systems for
time, cost and quality, adequate supply of resources and
good information and feedback system. The clients of these
projects were satised with construction speed and quality
of the work.
10.2. Variability in daily productivity

Coefficient of productivity variation (CV)

Managing variability of labor productivity is an important dimension of lean thinking. The second interest in this
paper is in calculating the variability of labor productivity
of the studied project and studying the relationship

between the variability and performance. The coecient


of variation (CV) of the studied projects are calculated
and presented in Fig. 7. The calculated values of CV of
studied projects ranged from 38.23 to 217.73. Three projects (27% of all studied projects) have CV values < 65.
These projects were best projects. Seven projects (64% of
all studied projects) were most poorly managed. These projects have CV values > 100. The higher the CV, the more
the project experienced abnormal work days (variability
of daily labor productivity). It is clear from this study that
variability in unit rate must be managed in construction
projects in Egypt. Ways that may lead to reducing variability include better workow, better planning, and better
information and feedback system.
11. The relationship between variability and performance
The values of the coecient of variation (CV) of the
studied projects and the values of project management
index (PMI) for each project are given in Table 5. The statistical correlation coecient between the CV and PMI is
also shown in Table 5. The correlation coecient was calculated as 0.879. The implication of this analysis is that the
variability in daily productivity is strongly correlated to

250

217.73
195.73

200

150

102.48

108.6

99.34

106.63

111.883

108.53

100

62.26
50

53.02

38.23

0
1

project

Fig. 7. Coecient of productivity variation (CV).

10

11

196

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197

Table 5
Values of CV & PMI of the studied projects
Project No.

Project name

Project management index (PMI)

Coecient of productivity variation (CV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Elmona project
Elaboor village
Shalik Mall
Elzhour project
M. Hassan project
Elaboor project a
Elaboor project b
Elaboor project c
Elaboor project d
Oraby project
Elkodda project

0.202
0.411
0.722
0.638
0.347
0.645
0.765
4.23
1.878
1.154
0.386

38.23
62.26
102.48
108.6
99.34
106.63
108.53
217.73
195.7
111.883
53.02

Correlation coecient (PMI)

All projects

0.879

project performance. This result leads to the conclusion


that in order to improve project performance variability
in labor productivity should be reduced.

applied in order to improve labor productivity and overall


project performance.

12. Conclusions

References

This paper examined two lean construction principles,


namely benchmarking and reducing variability in labor
productivity. Using labor productivity data from masonry
activities on 11 construction projects, the benchmarks of
labor productivity were calculated. The benchmarks are
disruption index (DI), performance ratio (PR), and project management index (PMI). They were found to have
correctly identied the best and worst performing
projects.
The values of DI range from 0.0 to 1.0. The higher the
DI, the more the project experienced abnormal work days
(poor project). DI values of three projects are very small
(DI < 0.1). Thus, about 27% of the studied projects are
the best projects. These projects have also small value of
PMI (PMI < 0.4). Four projects are known to be the worst
projects because DI values are very high (DI > 0.4). Thus,
about 36% of the studied projects are the poorly performing projects. These projects have also high values of PR
(PR > 2) and high values of PMI (PMI values > 1.00).
The variability in labor productivity were calculated
and compared with project performance. Variability in
the daily productivity data was found to be an important
delineator between good and poorly performing projects.
Three projects (27% of the studied projects) have CV values < 65. These projects were best projects. Seven projects
(64% of all studied projects) were most poorly managed.
These projects have CV values > 100. The correlation
between variability and performance was also examined
statistically. The correlation coecient was calculated as
0.879.
The results of this study seem to support the work of
recent lean construction authors. The results showed that
lean management concept does work and is an important
tool for project and construction management. Further
research into other lean construction principles should be

[1] Abdel-Razek RH. Measuring and improving construction productivity using work measurement techniques. In: Proceedings of the
international colloquium on structural eng., Ain Shams Univ.,
Egyptian Society of Engineers and Canadian Society of Civil Eng.,
Cairo, 1421 April 1992. p. 44556.
[2] Abdel-Razek RH. Productivity of Egyptian temporary labor in
excavation work. J Egypt Soc Eng 2004;43(3):38.
[3] Abdel-Razek RH, Hosny A. Improving Bricklayers productivity. In:
Proceedings of the rst Alexandria conference on structural and
geotechnical eng., Alexandria University, Egypt, 13 Dec. 1990. p.
85767.
[4] Abdel-Razek RH, McCaer R. Evaluating variability in labor
productivity. In: Proceedings of the third international symposium,
management engineering society, Cairo, Egypt, February 1990. p.
52750.
[5] Abd Elshakour H. Improving productivity of construction projects
via improving on-site construction management. Master Thesis,
Zagazig University, Construction Engineering Department, 1994.
[6] Adrian JJ. Construction productivity improvement. New York, NY:
Elsevier Science Publishing Co.; 1987.
[7] Adrian JJ, Boyer LT. Modeling method productivity. J Constr Div
ASCE 1976;102(1):15768.
[8] Ballard G, Howell G. Implementing lean construction: improving
downstream performance. In: Proceedings of the second annual conf.
of the int. group for lean construction, Santiago, Chile, 1994.
[9] Ballard G, Howell G. Implementing lean construction: stabilizing
work ow. In: Proceedings of the second annual conf. of the int.
group for lean construction, Santiago, Chile, 1994.
[10] Ballard G., Howell G. Towards Construction JIT. In: Proceedings of
the 11th annual ARCOM conf., Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Reading, UK, 1995. p. 33846.
[11] Ballard G, Howell G. Shielding production: an essential step in
production control. J Constr Eng Magmt ASCE 1998;124(1):
117.
[12] Fisher D. Benchmarking in construction industry. J Magmt Eng
1995;11(1):507.
[13] Halligan DW. Actionresponse model and loss of productivity in
construction. J Constr Eng Magmt ASCE 1994;120(1):4764.
[14] Hosny A, Abdel-Razek RH. Improving productivity of tiling
operations: a case study. In: Proceedings of the int. colloquium on
structural eng., Ain Shams University, Egyptian Society of Eng. and
Canadian Society of Civil Eng., Cairo, 1421 April 1992, p. 397408.

R.H. Abdel-Razek et al. / International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197


[15] Howell G. What is lean construction? In: Proceedings of the seventh
annual conference of the international group for lean construction,
IGLC-7, Berkeley, CA, 1999. p. 110.
[16] Howell G. Introducing lean construction: reforming project management. Report Presented to the Construction User Round Table
(CURT), Lean Construction Institute, 2001.
[17] Jeong H. Distributed Planning and Coordination to Support
Lean Construction. PhD thesis 2003, University of California,
Berkeley.
[18] Koskela L. Application of the New Production Philosophy to
Construction. Tech. Rep. No. 72, Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1992.
[19] Madigan D. Benchmark Method Version 3, No. ACL /DLV/96/015,
1997, Agile Construction Initiative, University of Bath.
[20] Olomolaiye PO. Construction productivity management. Addison
Wesley Longman Limited, Edinburgh Gate, England, 1998.
[21] Osman I, Abdel-Razek RH. Measuring for competitiveness: the role
of benchmarking. In: Proceedings of the Cairo rst international
conference on concrete structures, Cairo Univ., Cairo 24 January
1996, vol. 1. p. 512.
[22] Thomas HR. Labor productivity and work sampling, the bottom line.
J Constr Eng Magmt ASCE 1991;117(3):42344.
[23] Thomas HR. Eects of scheduled overtime on labor productivity. J
Constr Eng Magmt ASCE 1992;118(1):6076.

197

[24] Thomas HR. Forecasting labor productivity using factor model. J


Constr Eng Magmt ASCE 1994;117(3):42344.
[25] Thomas HR, Horman MJ, Lemes de Souza UE, Zavrski I.
Benchmarking Of Labor-Intensive Construction Activities: Lean
Construction and Fundamental Principles of Workforce Management. Tech. Rep., Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, University
Park, PA, 2002.
[26] Thomas HR, Michael JH, Zavrski I. Reducing variability to improve
performance as a lean construction principle. J Constr Eng Magmt
ASCE 2002;128(2):14454.
[27] Thomas HR, Napolitan CL. Quantitative eects of construction
changes on labor productivity. J Constr Eng Magmt ASCE
1995;121(3):2906.
[28] Thomas HR, Raynar KA. Scheduled over time and labor productivity: quantitative analysis. J Constr Eng Magmt ASCE
1997;123(2):1818.
[29] Thomas HR, Zavrski I. Construction baseline productivity. J Constr
Eng Magmt ASCE 1999;125(5):293303.
[30] Thomas HR, Zavrski I. Theoretical Model for International Benchmarking of Labor Productivity. Tech. Rep. No. 9913, Pennsylvania
Transportation Institute, University Park, PA, 1999.
[31] Tommelein ID. Pull-driven scheduling for pipe spool installation:
simulation of lean construction technique. J Constr Eng Magmt
ASCE 1998;124(4):27988.

S-ar putea să vă placă și