Results of a pilot study to examine the effective integration of apprentices into the industrial construction sector

Results of a pilot study to examine the effectiveintegration of apprentices into the industrialconstruction sector

Aminah Robinson Fayek, Ahmed Shaheen, and Ayo Oduba

Abstract: The industrial construction sector in Alberta has recently undergone a period of rapid growth, resulting in ashortage of skilled workers in almost all of the major industrial sector trades. To meet these shortages, a need hasarisen to increase the utilization of apprentices on industrial construction projects. In an effort to address this issue, theConstruction Owners Association of Alberta has established a goal of developing an industry Best Practice on how toimprove the on-the-job portion of apprenticeship training and identify means by which the industry can more effec-tively use apprentices. The challenge is to increase their usage in a cost-effective manner that also provides apprenticeswith adequate training opportunities. Before this can be done, the impacts and benefits to the various parties involvedin industrial construction must be quantified and assessed. This paper describes the findings of a pilot study that wasconducted on a major industrial project to help in quantifying the impact of the use of apprentices in the industrialconstruction sector and to identify methods of effectively increasing their use while simultaneously enhancing their on-the-job learning experience. The main conclusion of this paper is that apprentices can be effectively incorporated in in-dustrial construction, and they can be both productive and cost-effective, provided they are given adequate instructionand supervision. The lessons learned from the study are discussed to provide insight into conducting future studies.Recommendations for an industry Best Practice on the effective utilization of apprentices are presented.

Key words: apprentice, electrician, industrial construction, journeyman, labour force, pipefitter, productivity, training,work sampling.

Résumé : Le secteur de la construction industrielle en Alberta a vu récemment une période de croissance rapide. Unmanque de travailleurs qualifiés dans presque tous les secteurs industriels majeurs s’en est suivi. Afin de combler cemanque, le besoin d’utiliser des apprentis sur les projets de construction industrielle s’est fait sentir. Dans un effort vi-sant à adresser ce problème, l’Association des maîtres d’ouvrage de l’Alberta (« Construction Owners Association ofAlberta ») a établi comme but de développer un code des meilleures pratiques de l’industrie afin d’améliorer la portionde l’apprentissage s’effectuant sur le terrain et d’identifier des moyens par lesquels l’industrie peut utiliser les apprentisplus efficacement. Le défit est d’augmenter l’usage des apprentis de façon rentable et de procurer en même temps auxapprentis des opportunités de formation adéquates. Avant que cela puisse être fait, les impacts et les bénéfices sur lesdifférents partis impliqués dans la construction industrielle doivent être quantifiés et évalués. Cet article décrit les con-clusions d’une étude pilote qui a été menée sur un projet industriel majeur afin de quantifier l’impact de l’usage desapprentis dans le secteur de la construction industrielle et d’identifier des méthodes permettant d’augmenter l’usage desapprentis tout en améliorant la qualité de leur apprentissage sur le terrain. La conclusion principale de cet article estque les apprentis peuvent être incorporés efficacement dans le secteur de la construction industrielle et qu’ils peuventêtre à la fois productifs et rentables pourvu qu’ils bénéficient d’une instruction et d’une supervision adéquates. Les le-çons tirées de cette étude son discutées afin de donner quelques repères pour la conduite d’études futures. Des recom-mandations pour le code des meilleures pratiques de l’industrie sont présentées sur l’utilisation efficace des apprentis.

Mots clés : apprenti, électricien, construction industrielle, artisan, main d’œuvre, tuyauteur, productivité, formation, ob-servations instantanées.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Robinson Fayek et al. 405

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30: 391–405 (2003) doi: 10.1139/L02-106 © 2003 NRC Canada

391

Received 12 February 2002. Revision accepted 25 November 2002. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site athttp://cjce.nrc.ca on 15 March 2003.

Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 August 2003.

A. Robinson Fayek,1 A. Shaheen, and A. Oduba. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta,220 Civil–Electrical Engineering Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G7, Canada.

1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).

I:\cjce\cjce3002\L02-106.vpFriday, April 25, 2003 3:44:11 PM

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Introduction and background

The Canadian construction industry is facing a period ofrapid growth, particularly in the industrial sector in Alberta.A large number of major projects are scheduled for con-struction in the province over the next few years. Althoughthis economic situation is favourable to Albertans, it createsa very tight labour market for almost all of the constructiontrades, particularly those in the industrial sector. Severeshortages of skilled workers in many trades are anticipatedover the next few years. This shortage of workers combinedwith a rapidly aging trade workforce make labour renewal inthe construction industry a very significant and pressing is-sue.

Traditionally, the industrial construction sector has had alower rate of apprentice utilization than other constructionsectors. The commercial and institutional building sectorshave more effectively incorporated apprentices, resulting inseveral benefits to these sectors: more experienced journey-men, reduced labour costs, and lower overall constructioncosts. Several barriers, perceived or real, limit the use of ap-prentices in the industrial sector. These barriers includesafety, time, cost, skill, and quality issues and the lack offormal on-site apprentice mentoring programs. Owners, con-tractors, and government organizations are recognizing theneed to address these issues to increase the effective utiliza-tion of apprentices in industrial construction.

In an effort to address this issue, the Construction OwnersAssociation of Alberta (COAA) has established a goal of de-veloping an industry Best Practice on how to improve theon-the-job portion of apprenticeship training and identifymeans by which the industry can more effectively use ap-prentices. Before this can be done, however, the impacts andbenefits to the various parties involved in industrial con-struction must be quantified and assessed. A pilot study wassubsequently conducted to develop and test a methodologyby which to determine if there is a cost-effective way to in-crease the number of apprentices in the industrial construc-tion sector while simultaneously providing apprentices withappropriate training opportunities (Fayek et al. 2002). Thepurpose of this paper is to describe the data collection meth-odology developed and results achieved from the pilot study.Important lessons learned from this study are also discussedwhich may be helpful in designing future similar studies.Lastly, a number of recommendations for developing an in-dustry Best Practice on the effective utilization of appren-tices are presented.

Data collection methodology

A methodology was developed to collect the data requiredto assess the impact of apprentice utilization on the tasks in-volved in industrial construction. The methodology was pi-loted on a major industrial construction project in Alberta,which consisted of a 150 000 barrel per day bitumenupgrader (Fayek et al. 2002). Pipefitters and electricianswere chosen for the pilot study because they are two of themost significant trades in industrial construction. Standardmethods of data collection for productivity assessment wereused (Dozzi and AbouRizk 1993; Aft 2000) and are de-scribed in the next section.

Types of data collectedThe data collected consisted of the following components:

(i) man-hours and quantity completed of individual tasks,from which productivity and unit labour costs were derivedfor tasks performed by different ratios of apprentices to jour-neymen; task-specific problems and their impact in lost timewere recorded to help explain variations in productivity thatare unrelated to crew ratios; (ii) weather-related data (precip-itation, temperature, and wind speed) to help further explainvariations in productivity that are unrelated to crew ratios;(iii) work sampling data to examine the efficiency of crews,operations, and workers and to classify the work into catego-ries of productive (performing direct work), semiproductive(performing support activities), and nonproductive (delays)(Fluor Daniel 1998); and (iv) survey questionnaires for eachcategory of worker (foreman, journeyman, apprentice) to ob-tain feedback on the quality of each worker’s experience inthe trade, the quality of each worker’s experience on the pro-ject being studied, and methods of improving the appren-tices’ on-the-job training.

Sampling methodologyThe relevant tasks for each trade under study were identi-

fied in consultation with site personnel from each trade. Thedata collection forms and survey methodology were fieldtested on site in April 2001, and the data collection was car-ried out between May and August 2001. The project wasbroken down into five physical areas. Each trade was exam-ined for a period of 6 weeks at a time. For each trade, tworesearchers simultaneously studied a different crew in thesame area for 3 weeks, followed by a second crew in anotherarea for 3 weeks, so that a total of four crews from eachtrade were studied. The crews chosen had different ratios ofapprentices to journeymen and were conducting similar tasksat the same time under similar conditions (e.g., same timeand same area in the project). This method minimized thevariation in productivity between crews due to weather andsite conditions and also ensured a greater variety of taskswere observed. By examining crews with different ratios, theimpact on productivity of the ratio of apprentices to journey-men performing a task could be assessed. Casio Cassiopeia(IT-700M30E Industrial Cassiopeia) pocket personal com-puters, which use a Microsoft Windows CE platform, wereused for some of the data collection. These devices, specifi-cally designed for an industrial setting, are durable and wa-ter resistant and operate within a wide range oftemperatures. Their use reduced the amount of paper han-dling and made it easy to collect data in harsh weather con-ditions (e.g., wind and rain).

To ensure integrity and randomness of the data, the worksampling observations were carried out through observationby the researchers at random times throughout the day andon alternate days throughout the week, to capture variationsas a result of the time of day and the day of the week. Theproductivity data and problems encountered were collecteddaily, through observation by the researchers and in consul-tation with the foremen. The questionnaires were self-completed, in privacy, by each crew member at the end ofthe crew’s observation period.

A number of measures were taken to reduce the amountof subjectivity by the researchers when collecting data. First,

© 2003 NRC Canada

392 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003



the trial runs of data collection conducted in April helpedthe researchers to become familiar with the foremen and thecrew members for whom they would be collecting data, andtheir work practices. This helped the researchers to observethe crews and collect data with minimum disruption to theactual work. Second, much of the productivity data were ob-tained in consultation with the foremen, thus minimizing theneed for interpretation on the part of the researchers. Third,by following the same work sampling protocol used on site(Fluor Daniel 1998), the researchers did not need to interpretthe categories of work being performed. Lastly, much of thedata collected were objective in nature, and standard definedguidelines for each type of data collection were observed.

Classification of tasks

Industry standards for the classification of tasksOne of the first steps in the data collection methodology

was to define, for each trade, the relevant tasks againstwhich to track man-hours and quantities. In defining thesetasks, industry standard classifications were sought. A num-ber of these standard classifications of work tasks for thetrades exist: the Occupational Analyses Series, which is rec-ognized as an interprovincial standard (Occupational andCareer Information Branch 1994; Human Resources Partner-ships Directorate 1996, 1997); Career Paths in the Trades,developed for the Alberta Apprenticeship and IndustryTraining Division (Centre for Career Development Innova-tion 1993); the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry TrainingAct (available at <http://www.gov.ab.ca/qp>); and the Al-berta Apprenticeship Training and Standards Record Book,which now provides, for some trades, a detailed breakdownof tasks (referred to as the Task List) that should be mas-tered prior to completing the apprenticeship training (Ap-prenticeship and Industry Training Division 1996, 1998).There is, however, no legislated requirement as to the pro-portion of an apprentice’s work experience that must be dis-tributed over the different sectors of construction or over thedifferent tasks. Furthermore, of all of these classifications,only the Occupational Analyses Series groups tasks into in-dustrial versus nonindustrial construction categories (e.g., in-dustrial electrician versus construction electrician).

Despite these numerous and detailed industry standardclassifications of tasks, few are used extensively by fieldpersonnel in monitoring the progress of the work, or intracking the exposure of apprentices to the various tasks inthe trade, because they are either too detailed or not flexibleenough. Construction tasks, by nature, are very variable andare difficult to track in a manner that matches a very detailedtask breakdown. Consequently, for the purposes of thisstudy, a more generic and practical classification of worktasks was developed by identifying the standard tasks thatare performed repeatedly (in an industrial context) by eachtrade and the nonstandard tasks that are performed less fre-quently. Since the task classifications for this study were de-veloped through consultation with field personnel andobservation of actual activities on site, they are more reflec-tive of the level of detail at which it would be reasonable toexpect work progress and apprentice exposure to be tracked.This classification of tasks would therefore be useful in sev-eral ways: (i) identifying the most significant trade compe-

tencies required (in an industrial setting) for each trade,(ii) defining an appropriate level of detail at which to mea-sure productivity and track progress, and (iii) assessing theextent of the exposure of apprentices to a variety of tasksand therefore competencies in their trade. The classificationof tasks developed for this study is described in the next sec-tion.

Classification of tasks in the studyThe tasks for each trade were classified into standard and

nonstandard tasks. Tables 1 and 2 provide the classificationof standard tasks and their associated primary and secondaryfactors for the pipefitter and electrician trades, respectively.The standard tasks (e.g., weld spool for pipefitters, installcable tray for electricians) are those directly related to thescope of work typically performed by the trade. Standardtasks generally have an industry-accepted method of quanti-fication (e.g., diameter of weld for welding; length of cabletray for cable tray installation). Nonstandard tasks, on theother hand, are tasks that are not directly related to the scopeof work for the trade and are not easy to quantify (e.g., re-move shipping brackets for pipefitters, rig and bolt-up I-beams for electricians). In addition, tasks that may be relatedto the scope of work for the trade but were not repeated asufficient number of times in the project to be analyzed thor-oughly (e.g., grind spool) were included in the nonstandardset of tasks.

Within each set of standard tasks (e.g., weld spool), simi-lar tasks were identified. A similar task is defined as one inwhich all of the significant characteristics affecting the pro-ductivity of the task are identical. For example, in weldingspool, a similar task is one in which the pipe diameter, wallthickness (schedule), material, and weld type are identical.These characteristics are referred to as primary factors andare used to differentiate between similar tasks. A number ofsecondary factors were also identified which can affect theproductivity of the task but to a lesser extent than the pri-mary factors. The secondary factors were further dividedinto major and minor factors. Major secondary factors arethose which may have an impact on productivity but are noteasy to measure and therefore require further investigation.For example, in welding spool, accessibility is considered animportant factor that may affect productivity; however, fur-ther studies are required to determine the best ways of mea-suring this factor and quantifying its impact on productivity.Minor secondary factors are the secondary factors that mayaffect the productivity of a task, but to a lesser extent. Forexample, in welding spool, elevation is a minor secondaryfactor.

Data related to the secondary factors were collected; how-ever, due to the small sample size (which is the case for a pi-lot study), distinguishing between tasks using thesesecondary factors would reduce the frequency with whichsimilar tasks were observed to an extent that would prohibitanalysis. The secondary factors could be used to furtherclassify tasks in future studies, provided that methods ofquantifying them were well defined and a sufficiently largenumber of observations of repeated tasks could be made.Further studies are required to investigate the significanceand application of these secondary factors because their use

© 2003 NRC Canada

Robinson Fayek et al. 393



© 2003 NRC Canada

394 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Sec

onda

ryfa

ctor

s

Tas

kF

requ

ency

obse

rved

Uni

tU

nit

desc

ript

ion

Pri

mar

yfa

ctor

sM

ajor

Min

or

Inst

all

cabl

etr

ay51

Fee

tT

otal

leng

thof

tray

sW

idth

,tr

aym

ater

ial,

incl

udin

gor

not

incl

udin

gbr

acke

ts(b

olte

dor

wel

ded)

Dir

ecti

on(h

oriz

onta

lor

vert

ical

),el

evat

ion,

acce

ssib

ilit

y,nu

mbe

rof

brac

kets

(mat

eria

l)

Tie

din

tom

odul

esor

not,

num

ber

ofjo

ints

,m

anli

ftor

scaf

fold

ing

requ

ired

Inst

all

bask

ettr

ay7

Fee

tT

otal

leng

thof

tray

sT

ray

mat

eria

l,in

clud

ing

orno

tin

clud

ing

brac

kets

(bol

ted

orw

elde

d)

Dir

ecti

on(h

oriz

onta

lor

vert

ical

),el

evat

ion,

acce

ssib

ilit

y,nu

mbe

rof

brac

kets

(mat

eria

l)

Tie

din

tom

odul

esor

not,

num

ber

ofjo

ints

,m

anli

ftor

scaf

fold

ing

requ

ired

Wel

dbr

acke

t41

Inch

esT

otal

leng

thof

wel

dB

rack

etm

ater

ial,

type

ofw

eld

Bra

cket

dim

ensi

ons

Sha

peP

ull

cabl

e7

Fee

tT

otal

leng

thof

cabl

esN

umbe

rof

cond

ucto

rs,

cond

ucto

rga

uge,

cabl

em

ater

ial

Dir

ecti

on(h

oriz

onta

lor

vert

ical

),ac

cess

ibil

ity,

elev

atio

nN

umbe

rof

join

ts,

amou

ntof

rigg

ing

requ

ired

Cut

cabl

e7

Num

ber

No.

ofca

bles

cut

Num

ber

ofca

bles

,nu

mbe

rof

con-

duct

ors,

cond

ucto

rga

uge,

cabl

em

ater

ial

Acc

essi

bili

ty,

elev

atio

n

Ter

min

ate

cabl

e(c

rim

ped)

5N

umbe

rN

o.of

cabl

este

rmin

ated

Num

ber

ofca

bles

,nu

mbe

rof

con-

duct

ors,

cond

ucto

rga

uge,

cabl

em

ater

ial

Acc

essi

bili

ty,

elev

atio

nP

aral

lel

feed

orno

t,ov

erhe

ador

grou

nden

try,

outs

ide

orin

side

Ter

min

ate

cabl

e3

Num

ber

No.

ofw

ires

term

inat

edN

umbe

rof

wir

es,

num

ber

ofco

nduc

tors

,co

nduc

tor

gaug

e,ca

ble

mat

eria

l

Acc

essi

bili

ty,

elev

atio

nP

aral

lel

feed

orno

t,ov

erhe

ador

grou

nden

try,

outs

ide

orin

side

Tab

le2.

Sta

ndar

dta

sks

for

elec

tric

ians

.

Sec

onda

ryfa

ctor

s

Tas

kF

requ

ency

obse

rved

Uni

tU

nit

desc

ript

ion

Pri

mar

yfa

ctor

sM

ajor

Min

or

Wel

dsp

ool

105

Inch

esN

omin

alpi

pesi

zeM

ater

ial,

diam

eter

,sc

hedu

le,

type

ofw

eld

(but

t,so

cket

,fi

llet

)P

urge

requ

ired

,pr

ehea

tre

quir

ed,

fill

erm

ater

ial

(TIG

,st

ick,

flux

core

d),

beve

ldi

men

sion

–jo

int

conf

igur

atio

n(f

orhi

ghpr

essu

re,

heav

yw

all,

butt

wel

d),

acce

ssib

ilit

y

Ele

vati

on,

scaf

fold

orte

nt

Rig

spoo

l43

Fee

tT

otal

leng

thof

rigg

edsp

ool

Tot

alle

ngth

,di

amet

er,

smal

l( ≤

2in

.)or

larg

e(>

2in

.)bo

resp

ool,

cran

eor

hand

rigg

ing

Sha

pe,

elev

atio

n,ac

cess

ibil

ity

Bol

t-up

13In

ches

Dia

met

erD

iam

eter

,fl

ange

rati

ng,

proc

edur

e(t

orqu

ed,

tens

ione

d,or

hand

)A

cces

sibi

lity

Ele

vati

on

Rig

equi

pmen

t6

Kil

ogra

ms

Wei

ght

ofit

emT

ype

ofeq

uipm

ent,

wei

ght,

cran

eor

hand

rigg

ing

Sha

pe,

elev

atio

n,ac

cess

ibil

ity

Not

e:C

onve

rsio

ns:

1ft

=0.

3048

m;

1in.

=25

.4m

m.

Tab

le1.

Sta

ndar

dta

sks

for

pipe

fitt

ers.



can eventually provide a more elaborate and comprehensiveunderstanding of the different factors affecting productivity.

Data analysis and findings

Productivity analysisThe productivity and unit labour cost were calculated for

each task. Similar tasks were then grouped by the ratio ofapprentices to journeymen performing the task, and the rele-vant statistics (maximum, minimum, average, standard devi-ation) for the productivity and unit labour cost werecalculated for that ratio. This analysis facilitates the compar-ison of the productivity and unit labour cost for similar tasksperformed by different crew ratios.

The industrial project studied was close to a major citycentre, and therefore the contractor was not required to paytravel time, travel expenses, or living-out expenses (e.g.,camp costs) (although travel by bus to and from the site wasprovided free of charge). For contractors performing out-of-town projects, the unit labour cost calculations shown in thispaper would have to be redone before reaching conclusionson the most cost-effective ratios to use in these projects. Theproductivity results, however, would remain the same.

In the analysis of the individual tasks, there were some in-stances where productivity was negatively affected by prob-lems such as waiting for equipment or other trades,congestion of the work area, rainfall, and hot weather. Theseproblems were noted and the data points were retained in theanalysis, since the delays encountered were not frequent orsignificant and since they affected a variety of crew ratios ona variety of different tasks. Their net effect, therefore, is notsignificant in terms of the conclusions. Furthermore, theweather during the 3 months of data collection was veryconsistent, with little precipitation and the majority of aver-age temperatures in the range of 15–20°C (May to August innorthern Alberta). Consequently, the productivity valueswere collected under relatively similar weather conditions,and the weather did not adversely affect many instances oftasks.

The quality of the work was not monitored in this study.The assumption is that the work being monitored met andcomplied with the specifications and approval the first timeit was performed, and no rework due to quality issues wasrequired. The majority of tasks studied would have been cor-rected on the spot if there was an issue in the quality of thework (e.g., rigging spool, pulling cable, installing cabletray); therefore, the time and cost in rectifying a problem areincorporated in the analysis, since it would have been re-flected in the daily output reported for the task. The only ex-ception is welding tasks, in which welds may be inspectedand tested at a later date and possibly rejected and redone.Since in this project (and on all industrial projects) all directwelding is performed by a journeyman welder, the issue ofquality would not apply to the apprentice to journeyman ra-tios.

The productivity data analysis is based on a limited sam-ple size because the study was done as a pilot to test and re-fine the data collection methodology. To have moreconclusive results, one would have to extend the period ofstudy to increase the frequency of observations of tasks andto increase the sample size to encompass a greater number

and variety of crews in each trade. The results of theproductivity data analysis, however, provide useful insightinto potential areas in which apprentices are productive andcost-effective and would benefit from further training oppor-tunities. The results also serve to illustrate the types of find-ings that are possible with a sufficiently large data set.

Productivity analysis of pipefitter tasksThe first area of the project studied had up to 12 pipefitter

crews including the two crews observed, and the second areahad up to 14 pipefitter crews. The average pipefitter crewsize was from 8 to 10 people, with no more than three ap-prentices in any single crew (with the exception of one crewthat had five apprentices and four journeymen). In the fourpipefitter crews studied, the number of apprentices rangedfrom one to three, and the number of journeymen rangedfrom 3 to 10.

Four tasks were selected as standard pipefitter tasks andused in the analysis: weld spool, bolt-up, rig spool, and rigequipment (exchangers and vessels). Figures 1–6 give agraphical representation of the average productivity and unitlabour cost results for different ratios of apprentices to jour-neymen for the standard tasks of weld spool, bolt-up, and rigspool, respectively. The wage rates used to calculate labourcost are the straight time total hourly pay (including fringebenefits) for industrial construction according to the Collec-tive Agreement of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local488 (effective 1 November 2000).

Each category of apprentices, from first to fourth year,was involved in carrying out each of the standard tasks. Thedegree of the apprentice involvement in specific tasks dif-fered depending on the nature of the task and the year of theapprentice, as follows:(1) Weld spool — This task was observed 105 times during

the study. It involves fitting the spool, which is carriedout by a journeyman or apprentice pipefitter or by awelder, and welding, which is carried out by a journey-man welder. When the spool being welded is complexand requires more crew members for handling, the useof apprentices is observed. In addition, in the case of ajourneyman pipefitter’s absence or the existence of anexperienced apprentice (i.e., fourth year), the apprenticeto journeyman ratio of 1:1 was observed. The 1:1 ratiowas, in some cases, more productive and more cost-effective than the 0:2 ratio, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

(2) Bolt-up — Bolt-up, observed 13 times, involves handbolting of valves and gaskets. This task is carried out byall categories of crew members, and the apprentice in-volvement is very high in some cases. The ratios that in-clude apprentices yielded very comparable results tothose that include journeymen only, as illustrated inFigs. 3 and 4.

(3) Rig spool — This task, observed 43 times, is mainlyperformed by pipefitters, although in some cases thewelders in the crew are involved. All categories of ap-prentices are involved in the rigging operation. The na-ture of the rigging operation requires team work, whichcan be efficiently achieved by making use of the morecost-effective apprentices, as demonstrated in Figs. 5and 6.

© 2003 NRC Canada




© 2003 NRC Canada

396 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig

.1.

Pro

duct

ivit

yof

wel

dsp

ool

task

sby

rati

oof

appr

enti

ces

tojo

urne

ymen

.B

W,

butt

wel

d;C

S,

carb

onst

eel;

Sch

ed.,

sche

dule

;S

W,

sock

etw

eld;

XS

,ex

tra

stro

ng,

XX

S,

ex-

tra

extr

ast

rong

.



© 2003 NRC Canada


Fig

.2.

Uni

tla

bour

cost

ofw

eld

spoo

lta

sks

byra

tio

ofap

pren

tice

sto

jour

neym

en.



© 2003 NRC Canada

398 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 3. Productivity of bolt-up tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.

Fig. 4. Unit labour cost of bolt-up tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.



(4) Rig equipment — This task, observed six times, is verysimilar to the “rig spool” task except for the items beingrigged, which were exchangers and vessels in this case.Apprentice involvement is similar to that in the “rigspool” task.

Productivity analysis of electrician tasksThe first area of the project in which electricians were

studied had three electrician crews, including the two crewsobserved, and the second area had 10 crews. Electriciancrew sizes varied, but were generally from 10 to 12 people.No more than two apprentices were in any single electriciancrew. In the four electrician crews studied, the number of ap-prentices ranged from zero to two, and the number of jour-neymen ranged from 6 to 10.

Six tasks were selected as standard electrician tasks andused in the analysis: install cable tray, install basket tray,weld brackets, pull cable, cut cable, and terminate cable.Only one of these tasks, install cable tray, was observed withenough frequency and variation in apprentice to journeymanratios to be able to draw comparisons among ratios. The av-erage productivity and unit labour cost results for the “installcable tray” task are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Thewage rates used to calculate labour cost are the straight timegross hourly pay (including fringe benefits) for industrialconstruction according to the Collective Agreement of theElectricians Union Local 424 (effective 1 November 2000).

The different categories of apprentices, from first to fourthyear, were involved in carrying out each of the standardtasks. The degree of apprentice involvement in specific tasks

© 2003 NRC Canada


Fig. 5. Productivity of rig spool tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.

Fig. 6. Unit labour cost of rig spool tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.



differed depending on the nature of the task and the year ofthe apprentice as follows:(1) Install cable tray — This task, observed 51 times, in-

volves bolting up the cable trays to welded sets ofbrackets and is classified into two types: includingwelding of the brackets, and not including welding ofthe brackets. This task may be carried out by journey-men electricians, combination journeymen electricians–welders, and apprentice electricians, although weldingof the brackets can only be performed by a journeymanwelder or a journeyman combination electrician–welder.As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the apprentices’ performanceon this task was often comparable to that of the journey-men. In particular, the 1:1 ratio of apprentices to jour-neymen was often as cost-effective as the 0:2 ratio; the1:2 ratio also showed favourable performance. In twocases, weather-related problems led to noticeably lowerproductivity: for the 4 in. wide aluminum tray, the 1:2ratio experienced heavy rainfall; and for the 6 in. widealuminum tray, both the 0:2 and 1:1 ratios experiencedhot weather.

(2) Install basket tray — This task, observed seven times, issimilar to the “install cable tray” task. The basket trays,however, are usually welded directly to the brackets,which requires an electrician and a combination electri-cian–welder. The apprentice involvement in this task issimilar to that in the “install cable tray” task.

(3) Weld brackets — This task, observed 41 times, is per-formed by a combination electrician–welder, assisted by

either a journeyman or an apprentice electrician. Thejourneyman or apprentice electrician assists the electri-cian–welder by cutting, grinding, and finishing thebrackets before they are welded. Apprentice to journey-man ratios of 0:1, 0:2, 1:1, and 0:3 were observed.

(4) Pull cable — This task, observed seven times, involvespulling cables from one location (usually the powersource) to another (equipment). This task usually re-quires more than one crew member, and all categoriesof apprentices are highly involved in this task.

(5) Cut cable — Cutting cable, observed seven times, issometimes needed just before terminating to shorten thelength of the cable pulled. The apprentices are directlyinvolved in performing this task, under the supervisionof a journeyman.

(6) Terminate cable — This task, observed eight times, in-volves terminating (connecting) cables to differentpieces of electrical equipment such as transformers. Theapprentice involvement is usually under the supervisionof an experienced journeyman, because safety is a majorconcern when this task is performed. Apprentice to jour-neyman ratios of 0:2, 1:1, and 1:2 were observed forthis task. The 1:1 ratio showed promising results interms of cost-effectiveness.

The analysis of the different pipefitter and electriciantasks shows that the apprentices are involved in the majorityof standard tasks observed. In some cases, the use of appren-tices led to just as good or better productivity and increasedcost-effectiveness; however, due to the limited sample size,

© 2003 NRC Canada

400 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 7. Productivity of install cable tray tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.



more observations are required to draw more reliable con-clusions than can be generalized. Furthermore, since individ-ual tasks are performed by a subset of the crew, theproductivity achieved by a given ratio may be indirectly in-fluenced by the overall crew mix and the number of experi-enced journeymen in the crew. Nevertheless, these resultsare encouraging for the possibility of increasing the use ofapprentices while simultaneously increasing the cost-effectiveness of the work and providing the apprentices withvaluable training opportunities.

Work sampling resultsThe work sampling technique provides an overall view of

the performance of the crew during the work day and classi-fies the crew’s activities into three main categories of work:direct activity (productive), support activity (semi-productive), and delays (nonproductive). The activities thatconstitute each category of work used in this study are thosedeveloped by Fluor Daniel (1998). A total of 3176 worksampling observations were collected for the four pipefittercrews, and a total of 2199 work sampling observations werecollected for the four electrician crews. Each of these num-bers is above the minimum number of 384 observations for apopulation of 10 000 required to achieve a 95% level of con-fidence (Aft 2000). Work sampling analysis was performedfor the overall crews and by category of worker, as shown inFigs. 9 and 10, respectively, for the pipefitters and Figs. 11and 12, respectively, for the electricians. In all cases, the

level of activity of the apprentices was comparable to that ofthe journeymen. All categories of workers performed directactivities for much more than the standard minimum of 30%of the time. The first-year electrician apprentice’s perfor-mance of direct activities was very high (70%). As for sup-port activities, apprentices generated slightly higher valuesdue to the nature of their work, which involves assisting andsupporting the journeymen. All categories of workers sharedrelatively low and close values for delays. The fact that ap-prentices were involved in productive (direct) activities for alarge proportion of their time indicates that they are beingeffectively utilized in the tasks observed.

Findings from survey questionnairesAll crew members studied were asked to self-complete

questionnaires at the end of their observation period to ob-tain qualitative data on how to improve the on-the-job por-

© 2003 NRC Canada


Fig. 8. Unit labour cost of install cable tray tasks by ratio of apprentices to journeymen.

Fig. 9. Overall work sampling results for pipefitters.



tion of apprentice training. The following remarkssummarize the responses obtained from the four pipefittercrews and the four electrician crews.

Foreman and journeyman questionnaire• All eight foremen and 46 journeymen (out of 55) com-

pleted the questionnaire. All are aware of the Alberta Ap-prenticeship Training and Standards Record Book and itscorresponding Task List. The Record Book and Task Listmust be completed by the apprentice’s supervisor for eachperiod of apprenticeship. Only three of the foremen and10 of the journeymen use the Task List as a reference withthe apprentices that they supervise, however, because thetasks that the crews actually perform are often different inscope and methods than the ones listed. Some foremensuggested that a more workable task list be developed andbe available for their use, which would help them to sys-tematically shift the apprentices into different areas of thetrade.

• In general, the foremen are satisfied with their journey-men’s performance and their role in supervising and train-ing the apprentices in the crew.

• In general, the foremen and the journeymen are satisfiedwith the apprentices’ skills, performance, progress, andability to learn.

• Most of the journeymen are somewhat satisfied with theexposure of the apprentices to a variety of tasks; however,some recommended that more controlled and studied ex-posure of apprentices to tasks be made. In addition, manyof the foremen and journeymen emphasized the impor-

tance of more hands-on experience for apprentices,greater exposure to a variety of tasks, and the opportunityto work with different journeymen.

• The electrician foremen and journeymen recommendedthat apprentice electricians, especially those in the firstand second year, begin their on-the-job training in com-mercial, residential, and light industrial projects, wherethey can be exposed to a greater variety of tasks and learnabout safety practices before coming to the industrial sec-tor.

• The journeymen play a key role in teaching the appren-tices and providing them with more task-related experi-ence. Their willingness to mentor the apprentices istherefore significant to the apprentices’ on-the-job learn-ing experience.

Apprentice questionnaire• All 12 apprentices completed the questionnaire, and all

are aware of the Alberta Apprenticeship Training and

© 2003 NRC Canada

402 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 10. Work sampling of pipefitters by category of worker (values in parentheses are number of participants).

Fig. 11. Overall work sampling results for electricians.



Standards Record Book and Task List; however, only twoof them use the Task List as their reference.

• Most of the apprentices are satisfied with their journey-men’s technical and supervisory abilities.

• Most of the apprentices are satisfied with their on-the-jobtraining and the experience they gain from it. The maincomment that apprentices made was that they would likethe opportunity to work with a variety of journeymen on avariety of different tasks, and not have to do the same taskrepeatedly over a long period of time. They would alsolike to be given more responsibility so that they can learnhow to make their own choices and decisions.

Conclusions and lessons learned for futurestudies

The data collection methodology described in this paperproved to be very effective in obtaining the data required toassess how apprentices are being utilized in a given context.The data collected were used to quantify the impact of ap-prentices on the productivity and unit labour cost of thework being performed. The intent of the productivity analy-sis is, ultimately, to establish for each task the break-evenpoint at which the ratio of apprentices to journeymen is mostproductive and most cost-effective. Of course, the objectivesof the project must be taken into account when determiningthe most effective level of apprentice utilization, but at leastthis type of analysis can guide in the process. The qualitativedata collected from the survey questionnaires provided valu-able insight into methods of improving the apprentices’ on-

the-job training. The classification of tasks developed in thisstudy may be of use to apprenticeship boards in formalizingthe on-the-job portion of apprenticeship training. A spinoffof this methodology is that it provides construction compa-nies and the industry as a whole with a method of establish-ing productivity and unit labour cost benchmarks for thesignificant tasks in an industrial project.

The results of the data analysis indicated that apprenticesin the pipefitter and electrician crews observed were in-volved in the majority of industrial construction tasks, withthe exception of direct welding operations. The productivitycalculations showed that the apprentices were very produc-tive and cost-effective when performing certain tasks in theirtrade. In some cases, although the productivity was slightlylower with a larger proportion of apprentices, the unit labourcost of the task was also lower, indicating that it may bemore cost-effective to use apprentices on such tasks. In somecases, neither the productivity nor the labour cost was ad-versely affected by substituting apprentices for journeymen,which adds the advantage of providing training opportunitiesfor apprentices. The work sampling results further confirmedthat the apprentices were being effectively utilized on thetasks of their trade.

A number of improvements can be made to the data col-lection process for future studies. The most significant one isthe timing of the data collection to fit the period in whichthe crews studied are performing work that constitutes thesignificant aspects of their trade. In the case of the electri-cians, the time window of this study was not ideal. The pro-ject schedule had been delayed, and the electricians were

© 2003 NRC Canada


Fig. 12. Work sampling of electricians by category of worker (values in parentheses are number of participants; elect, electrician).



just commencing their portion of the work. As a result, therewas not enough opportunity to observe a sufficient repetitionof the standard tasks for that trade, with the exception of in-stalling cable tray. Furthermore, because of the early stageof the electrician’s work, there was not a great variety ofcrew ratios to observe, which made the comparison ofproductivities of different crew ratios difficult. To overcomethis problem in future studies, the productivity data collec-tion could be performed by task rather than by crew. For ex-ample, rather than tracking the work done by a crew, theresearchers could track all the “terminate cable” tasks per-formed on a given day. This approach would increase thefrequency with which similar tasks performed by differentcrew ratios were observed. This approach, however, wouldrequire coordination with all of the foremen or with the gen-eral foreman of the area of the project under study.

A second refinement to the data collection process is toexpand the data collected on individual tasks to include thesecondary factors that affect their productivity. Before thiscan be done, however, a standard classification of the tasksthat constitute the scope of work of the trade must be agreedupon, and the factors that affect their productivity (both pri-mary and secondary) must be defined in such a way thatthey are standard and uniform across projects. For example,the term “accessibility” must be quantified or qualified insuch a way that it will be used to mean the same thing indifferent projects. For future studies, it is highly recom-mended that an experienced journeyman from each tradestudied work closely with the researchers in establishing anappropriate classification of tasks and the factors that affecttheir productivity. By conducting similar studies over time, amore appropriate classification of tasks that constitute indi-vidual trades can be developed. By collecting substantialdata sets, the construction industry can develop usefulbenchmark values for expected productivity and unit labourcosts of these tasks under different conditions.

A third improvement is to expand the type of data col-lected to include safety and quality data, which were outsidethe scope of this study. Quality data are important, sincepoor quality results in rework, which effectively reduces theproductivity and raises the unit labour cost. In future studies,the amount of rework due to quality issues could be corre-lated with crew ratios to explore the impact on quality of in-creasing the number of apprentices performing a task.Similarly, safety statistics could be examined and correlatedwith crew ratios for different tasks. Safety is an importantconsideration in assigning apprentices to certain tasks.

This study can now be expanded to encompass additionaltrades and can be conducted on other industrial project sites.Projects at different stages of completion should be exam-ined over a longer period of time to ensure that a sufficientrepetition of tasks that encompass the full scope of work ofthe trade are observed under a variety of conditions. Thestudy should also be conducted over time to capture varia-tions that result from changing market conditions, whichhave a considerable effect on labour force supply and de-mand, and which consequently may affect productivity. Thedata collection process required to expand this study is sig-nificant and requires a large investment of manpower to col-lect and analyze the data. To collect such a large data setaccurately, some of the effort may need to be shifted to indi-

vidual organizations (i.e., contractors or owners) that may beable to capture such data as part of their existing data collec-tion practices.

Recommendations for best practices

The analysis shown in this paper is a first step towardsidentifying opportunities where the utilization of apprenticescan be increased without adversely affecting productivityand costs. The data that can be collected and the results ofsimilar studies are a first step towards identifying an indus-try Best Practice on the effective utilization of apprentices.By identifying how apprentices are currently being utilizedin industrial projects and their impact on project perfor-mance, strategies to increase their usage without adverselyaffecting performance can be developed. Increasing the ef-fective use of apprentices will yield not only immediate eco-nomic benefits for projects, but also long-term advantages.These advantages include better training of apprentices andrenewal of the workforce, which will ultimately benefit allparties involved in the construction industry.

A significant conclusion of this study is that an industryBest Practice on the effective utilization of apprenticesshould include a planned rotation of apprentices to help en-sure adequate and systematic exposure of apprentices to allof the significant aspects of their trade. Currently, the lack ofa formal structure for the on-the-job portion of apprentice-ship training means that apprentices become journeymenwho have widely varying degrees of knowledge and experi-ence in their trade. A standard approach for measuring andmonitoring on-the-job trade competencies would help pro-vide for more formal and uniform training of apprentices,which would lead to the development of journeymen withthe broadest possible skill sets. Another significant finding isthat a more workable standard Task List for each trade is re-quired, despite the numerous classifications that exist. Aworkable Task List would further help ensure that appren-tices receive adequate exposure to all aspects of their tradein a more formalized manner. The Task Lists in the appren-tice Record Books should be continuously upgraded throughinput from industry to capture new developments and tech-nological changes.

Integrating apprentices in industrial construction projectsmay prove to be productive and cost-effective, provided thatapprentices are given adequate instruction and supervisionand that they are aware of proper safety procedures to ac-count for the greater risks inherent in industrial projects.Foremen and journeymen play a key role in making the on-the-job portion of apprenticeship learning happen. A finalrecommendation for an industry Best Practice is to developstructured on-site mentoring programs for apprentices andinclude mentoring and coaching skills in the training of fore-men and journeymen.

Effectively utilizing apprentices in the industrial construc-tion sector will lead to cost reductions, a better trained andmotivated workforce, and ultimately long-term sustenance ofthe industry in the form of labour force renewal. This studyhas illustrated the types of data that are required to help indeveloping an industry Best Practice on the effective use ofapprentices in the industrial construction sector and hasmade some recommendations towards such a Best Practice.

© 2003 NRC Canada

404 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003



© 2003 NRC Canada


Acknowledgments

This study was conducted in close collaboration with theEffective Integration of Apprentices Sub-Committee of theWorkforce Development Coordinating Committee of theConstruction Owners Association of Alberta. Special ac-knowledgement is given to David Mercier, Chris McEwen,Mike Yorke, and Ron Cherlet. The most significant elementin the success of this study was the numerous tradespeoplewho participated and shared their valuable expertise with theresearchers. The following organizations provided fundingfor the pilot study and are gratefully acknowledged:Athabasca Oil Sands Downstream Project, Alberta Appren-ticeship and Industry Training, Construction Labour Rela-tions Alberta, Boilermakers Local 146 Apprenticeship Fund,Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 488 Education Fund, Iron-workers Local 720 Training Fund, Carpenters Local 1325Training Fund, Electricians Local 424 Training Fund, andOperating Engineers Local 955 Training Fund.

References

Aft, L.S. 2000. Work measurement and methods improvement.John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Apprenticeship and Industry Training Division. 1996. Apprentice-ship training and standards record book — electrician. Appren-ticeship and Industry Training Division, Ministry of Learning,Edmonton, Alta.

Apprenticeship and Industry Training Division. 1998. Apprentice-ship training and standards record book — steamfitter–pipefitter.

Apprenticeship and Industry Training Division, Ministry ofLearning, Edmonton, Alta.

Centre for Career Development Innovation. 1993. Career paths inthe trades — electrician. Centre for Career Development Innova-tion, Alberta Advanced Education and Career Development, Ap-prenticeship and Industry Training Division, Ministry ofLearning, Edmonton, Alta.

Dozzi, S.P., and AbouRizk, S.M. 1993. Productivity in construc-tion. Institute for Research in Construction, National ResearchCouncil of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Fluor Daniel. 1998. Manpower activity analysis categories. MAAprocedures, Section 7, Revision 05, September. Fluor Daniel,Calgary, Alta.

Human Resources Partnerships Directorate. 1996. Occupationalanalyses series — steamfitter–pipefitter. Standards, Planningand Analysis, Human Resources Partnerships Directorate, Hu-man Resources Development Canada, Hull, Que.

Human Resources Partnerships Directorate. 1997. Occupationalanalyses series — industrial electrician. Standards, Planning andAnalysis, Human Resources Partnerships Directorate, HumanResources Development Canada, Hull, Que.

Occupational and Career Information Branch. 1994. Occupationalanalyses series – construction electrician. Occupational Systemsand Standards, Occupational and Career Information Branch,Human Resources Development Canada, Hull, Que.

Robinson Fayek, A., Shaheen, A., and Oduba, A. 2002. A pilotstudy to examine the effective integration of apprentices into theindustrial construction sector. Presented to the Workforce Devel-opment Coordinating Committee, Construction Owners Associa-tion of Alberta, Construction Best Practices X Conference, 28–29 May 2002, Edmonton, Alta. Department of Civil and Envi-ronmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.



Documents

Results of a pilot study to examine the effective integration of apprentices into the industrial construction sector