Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 25 (2007) 189197
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
a,*
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
190
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].
Moving
Waiting
Processing A
Inspection
Moving
Waiting
Processing B
Inspection
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
Disruption index DI
Single project
evaluations
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].
Cumulative productivity
Expected baseline productivity
192
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
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
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
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.
Day: Sunday
Date: 11/4/2004
No. of Stories: 12
Floors No.: 3
No. of labors: 2
Skilled labor: 1
Helper: 1
Forman: 0
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
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
194
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
0.928
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
7
6.16
4
2.91
2.212
1.6
1.14
1.1875
1.67
1.628
1.479
1.164
1.14
0
3
Project
10
11
195
4.23
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
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
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
10
11
196
Table 5
Values of CV & PMI of the studied projects
Project No.
Project name
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
All projects
0.879
12. Conclusions
References
[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.
197