TIME I$ MONEY:

Key Productivity findings in Alberta Construction

Projects!

Dr. Janaka Y. Ruwanpura, PQS

Director and Assistant Professor of Project Management Specialization

Associate Chair in Design EngineeringUniversity of Calgary

A Unique Research Project

• The Construction Productivity Improvement research project at the University of Calgary is the first in the Canadian construction industry to involve four competitive construction contractors with the support of three construction organizations to investigate common problems and to find solutions for improvement.

Successful projects do not

happen by chance !

Construction Research?

• Researchers and practitioners have added “TONS” of contributions to improve the construction project management

• Many of these problems are still bothering and yet to address.

• One such area is construction productivity

This is what we thought Two Years ago!

• Identifying and analysing the most critical factors influencing construction productivity will lead to the development of more efficient and cost effective methods and strategies to improve the productivity of future construction operations in Alberta.

What is missing?

• Research studies - false appearance of originality.

• Published data is out of date and of no relevance to a particular location or to a particular type of construction

• No monitoring to justify the findings• Many factors have changed over

time.• No follow-up work to find “GOOD”

solutions.

Objectives• To identify the most critical factors in terms of

Human, Management and External Factors that affect productivity and to analyze the results.

• Investigate the Top Factors (Based on survey and Stakeholders requests) to determine their individual and cumulative (combined) impact on construction productivity.

• Develop methods and tools to measure and improve construction productivity

• Develop Models to Predict construction productivity.

• Develop a set of practical guidelines for productivity improvement.

• Conduct an industry seminar on the construction productivity improvement.

• Design training material to improve construction productivity.

Team

Charles Lendzion/Ken Gibson, CRIC

Bill Flaig, Graham

Brian Hubert, Ledcor

Scott Thompson, Ellis Don

Bruce White, PCL

Dave Smith/John InkCCA/CCRB

Construction Productivity Research Project

University of Calgary Research Team

Dr. Janaka RuwanpuraPrincipal Investigator

Dr. George JergeasCo Investigator

Kasun HewageEldon Choy

Yangbo ZhouSushil Da Silva

Graduate Research Assistants

Adam HuangResearch Assistant

Construction Industry Steering Committee

NSERCBert van den Berg

First Phase

• A Survey – A larger sample from all four companies and analyze the results

Results of the Survey

Survey Participants

Job Title Count Average Experience

Superintendent 17 26.24

PM 16 11.88

Estimator 4 11.50

Foreman 3 24.67

Project Coordinator 3 6.33

Construction Manager 3 26.00

Senior PM 2 32.50

Engineer 1 10.00

Manager 1 27.00

Operation Manager 1 21.00

Most Important factors affecting Productivity – Survey Results

Order of Im

portance

Project Managers Opinions

Inadequate Communication is most significant factor for construction productivity

Superintendents Opinions

Worker Experience and Skills is most significant factor for construction productivity

Phase 2 – so far

• Identified Two key areas– Human Issues: Motivation, Performance

and communication– Situations that Impact Performance and

to find ways to avoid the non-productive situations

• Developed Methods and Concepts to Monitor and Measure Productivity

• Developed a Model to Predict Productivity considering the “real” situations

Progress: Monitoring and Interviews

• Contractor A: completed• Contractor B: completed• Contractor C: 95% completed• Contractor D: 40% completed.

Issues Investigated

• Worker Motivation and related issues (Kasun Hewage, Ph.D. student)– Motivation– Output– Worker skills, team sprit– Communication– Measured the working time,

non-working time, and output of the workers interviewed

Issues Investigated

• Interviewed Construction Management Professionals (Yangbo Zhou, M.Sc.) to identify issues related to:– Motivation– Performance– Job Satisfaction

Issues Investigated

• Situations that impact Productivity and Working Time (Eldon Choy, M.Sc. and Sushil Peres Da Silva, M.Sc. student)

– Identified the situations

– Measured the working time, non-working time, and output

– Identified the links between situations

– Developed a model to predict the individual/cumulative impact of situations on productivity (Eldon)

– Working on recommendations (Sushil)

Worker Motivation and Communication

Sample Results (1 to 7 scale)

StronglyDisagreed

1 2 3 4 5 6

Neutral

7

StronglyAgree

Top 5 motives for one company

• The respect you receive from the people you work with

• The chances you have to learn new things

• The tools and equipments you have to do your work

• The supervisor’s understanding of the quality and technical details of work you do

• The opportunities to develop your skills and abilities

Top 5 motives for another company

• The chances you have to learn new things

• The opportunities to develop your skills and abilities

• The job security

• The respect you receive from the people you work with

• The amount of freedom you have in your work

Graphical View

Working Time of the Interviewed Workers – A Sample from a Company

Working Time (Direct Tool Time) – A sample

Sample Comments

• About 80% percent of the interviewed workers in all construction sites mentioned lack of communication as a factor that affected their motivation to work.

• Lack of communication refers to inter-group communication and external communication with other groups and the managers.

Sample Comments• Workers were not aware of company

goals and targets: they were told only about daily work targets when, in fact, they would have liked to know the overall scope of the site activities and project.

• The interviewer spent a great deal of time listening to the workers’ concerns about communication.

• When the question “What could be improved in your team?” was asked, most of the time, the workers said “lack of communication.”

• Workers blamed management, believing they themselves were not responsible for the lack of productivity that was caused mainly by poor communication.

Various Situations that Impact Tool Time

• Identify the triggering situations for productivity loss

• Understand the behavior of situations and their relationships with productivity

• Examine the effectiveness of applying situation models in modeling construction operations

• Provide recommendations for productivity improvement

Data Collection

• Direct site observations– Background (Date, Weather, Area)– Type of Work (False work, Forming, Columns)– States of a Worker (Working, Non-working)– Output

21 categories for non-working time for Carpentry Work; 10 categories for Columns

Observation Categories of Non-Working Time for Carpenter Crew

Categories Description

Extra Breaks Representing late start and early finish. This category includes all the time which are extended non-working time before and after official breaks and lunchtime.

Idle Representing the non-working time that does not fall into any categories of this list.

Waiting Material Representing the non-working time because of materials waiting.

Move Material Representing the time in which the worker is moving materials from one location to another location, but the materials are not used.

Search Material Representing the time in which the worker is searching for or customizing materials for direct use.

Equipment Representing the time in which the worker is looking for, equipping, setting, or waiting for tools, equipment, or power supply.

Watching Representing the non-working time in which the worker is watching another worker performing work. Applies to more than one worker working together.

Precedents Representing the time in which the worker cannot perform work because the worker is waiting for slab work, columns work, rebar work, or when inspection work is being done by other crews.

Instructions Representing the non-working time in which the worker is waiting for instructions or being instructed by a foreman or supervisor.

Travel Representing the time in which the worker is traveling from a working area to another working area

Observation Categories of Non-Working Time for Carpenter Crew

Check Drawings Representing the time in which the worker is reading the drawings

Interruption Representing the time period in which the worker is directed by the foreman or supervisor to perform work that is not regarded as relevant work.

Socialize Socializing or chatting time.

Inspection Representing the time in which the worker is checking the alignment or firmness of fly forms and scaffolds. No direct output is produced.

Measure Representing the time in which the worker is measuring materials or drawing alignment lines

Safety Time relating to safety meetings or safety instructions given by the safety coordinator.

Leave Representing the time in which the worker leaves the working area without a valid reason.

Irrelevant Representing the time in which the worker is working on non-value added activities. Examples are cleaning or packing irrelevant materials. The difference between this category and Interruption is that this category does not involve a foreman’s or supervisor’s directions.

Discuss Representing the time in which the workers are discussing the drawings or construction plans.

Washroom Washroom time

Warm up Representing the time in which the worker is warming up at the heaters. No work is performed.

SituationsSituations False work Forming ColumnChange Area/ Traveling

Cold Weather  

Crowded Area

Instructions

Interruptions  

Lack of Materials  

Drawing Changes  

Precedent of Slab  

Precedent of Columns    

Precedent of Rebar    

Non-availability of Concrete    

Crane unavailable for Formwork    

Crane unavailable for Pouring    

Saturated Area  

Snowing  

Breakdown of Work HoursExtra Breaks

8.5%

WT56.6%

Idle6.5%

Watching1.0%

Precedents1.3%

Instructions2.0%

Travel0.7%

Check Drawings0.2%

Interruption1.0%Socialize

1.2%

Inspection3.2%

Measure0.6%

Safety0.5%

Leave4.5%

Irrelevant2.4%

Discuss0.2%

Washroom0.1%

Warmup1.0%

Equipment0.7%

Search Material0.8%

Move Mat.5.9%

Wait Mat.1.0%

Quantification of Situation

Crowded Area (False Work) - Magnitudes

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

Quarter

Mag

nitu

de (%

)Maximum is 88% of the total work hours

Quantification of Situation

Crowded Area (False Work) - Ra Graph

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ra

Mag

nitu

de (%

)

In 80% likelihood, it is 24%

Previous Models

• All the previous models predicted or made a relationship between a factor (or situation) and the productivity by ignoring the existence of the other situations

– Temperature vs. Productivity

– Overtime vs. Productivity

– Change Orders vs Productivity

• Is it possible? NO

New Situation Based Model

• Considers the existence of situations

• You can remove a situation or situations by allowing the existence of others and check the impact of the “removal of the factor” on productivity– Remove “crowded area”– Remove “Interruptions” and

“Lack of Materials”

Situations Influence Diagram

1. Change Area

4. Instructions

7. Drawing Changes

10. Saturated

Area

11. Snowing

8. Precedent

of Slab

5. Interruptions

2. Cold Weather

3. Crowded Area

6. Lack of Materials

9. Precedent of Column

Conceptual Framework

Productivity =Output

Work Hours

Productivity

Amount of Working

Time

Output

Situations

1)

2)

3)4)

Productivity

Conceptual Framework

1. Relationship between Situations and Working Time

Non-Working Time (NWT) = ST

2. Relationship between Situations and Output

Working Time (WT)[SM] = Output

3. Relationship between Working Time and Output

Efficiency or Production Rate

4. Relationship among SituationsStrength of Links

Application of Situation-based Simulation Model

Scenarios 

• All Situations (Benchmark)• Without “Change Area”• Without “Crowded Area”• Without “Instructions”• Without “Interruptions”• Without “Saturated Area”

Control Variables of the Scenarios

 

Setting A Setting B

Number of Floors 3 5Planned Output 400 1000Daily Work Hours 8 8# of Workers 4 12

Application of Situation-based Simulation Model

Setting A Setting BFalse Work % Change False Work % Change

All Situations 4.47 --- 3.88 ---Without Crowded Area 5.46 22% 5.05 30%Without Interruptions 5.69 27% 5.10 31%Without Saturated Area 5.31 19% 5.37 38%Without Change Area 3.80 -15% 3.73 -4%Without Instructions 3.62 -19% 3.57 -8%

Findings from Scenarios application

• Mitigation of “Change Area” and “Instructions” do not improve productivity, because of the counter-effects (Crowded Area and Interruptions)

• Mitigation of “Crowded Area”, “Interruptions”, and “Saturated Area”  can improve the productivity by about 20-25%.

Development and Application of Situation-based Simulation Model

Must Eliminate: “Crowded Area” “Interuptions” “Saturated Area”

Must be Allowed: “Change Area” “Instructions”

r

Development and Application of Situation-based Simulation ModelCan’t Eliminate:

“Coldness” “Snowing”

Not Significant: “Drawing Changes”

Breakdown of work hours

Watching0.9%

Interruption0.2%

Measure4.1%

Instructions1.3%

Travel0.3%Check Drawings

0.2%

Extra Breaks4.6%

Idle6.9% Wait Mat.

0.4%Move Mat.

6.0%Search Material

1.4% Equipment1.3%

Washroom0.3% Discuss

1.9%

Irrelevant1.1%

Leave1.1%

Inspection0.2%

Socialize3.7%

WT64.1%

Extra BreaksIdle

Wait Mat.Move Mat.Search Material

EquipmentWatching

InstructionsTravelCheck Drawings

InterruptionSocializeInspection

MeasureLeave

IrrelevantDiscussWashroom

WT

Breakdown of work hours Q1

Watching0.5%

Interruption0.0%

Measure4.4%

Instructions1.6%

Travel0.3%

Check Drawings0.1%

Extra Breaks6.7%

Idle6.2%

Wait Mat.0.4%

Move Mat.5.1%

Search Material1.2%

Equipment1.6%

Washroom0.2%

Discuss2.5%

Irrelevant1.0%

Leave0.4%

Inspection0.3%

Socialize3.3%

WT64.1%

Extra Breaks

Idle

Wait Mat.

Move Mat.

Search Material

Equipment

Watching

Instructions

Travel

Check Drawings

Interruption

Socialize

Inspection

Measure

Leave

Irrelevant

Discuss

Washroom

WT

Breakdown of work hours Q2

Socialize3.4%

Inspection0.2%

Leave1.2%Irrelevant

0.8%

Discuss2.0%Washroom

0.4%

Equipment1.0%

Search Material1.3%

Move Mat.5.1%

Wait Mat.0.3%

Idle6.6%Extra Breaks

4.7%

Check Drawings0.2%

Travel0.3%

Instructions1.1%

Measure3.9%

Interruption0.0%

Watching0.8%

WT66.7%

Extra Breaks

Idle

Wait Mat.

Move Mat.

Search Material

Equipment

Watching

Instructions

Travel

Check Drawings

Interruption

Socialize

Inspection

Measure

Leave

Irrelevant

Discuss

Washroom

WT

Breakdown of work hours Q3

Watching1.2%

Interruption0.5%

Measure4.3%

Instructions1.3%

Travel0.3%

Check Drawings0.0%

Extra Breaks2.7%

Idle7.9% Wait Mat.

0.6%

Move Mat.7.6%

Search Material1.7%

Equipment1.3%

Washroom0.2% Discuss

1.6%

Irrelevant1.1%

Leave1.7%

Inspection0.1%

Socialize4.0%

WT61.9%

Extra Breaks

Idle

Wait Mat.

Move Mat.

Search Material

Equipment

Watching

Instructions

Travel

Check Drawings

Interruption

Socialize

Inspection

Measure

Leave

Irrelevant

Discuss

Washroom

WT

Breakdown of work hours Q4

Socialize4.8%

Inspection0.5%

Leave0.4%

Irrelevant3.3%

Discuss1.1%

Washroom0.1%

Equipment1.6%

Search Material0.7%

Move Mat.5.5%

Wait Mat.1.1%

Idle5.4%

Extra Breaks7.0%

Check Drawings0.9%

Travel1.0%

Instructions1.0%

Measure3.6%

Interruption0.0%

Watching0.5%

WT61.5%

Extra Breaks

Idle

Wait Mat.

Move Mat.

Search Material

Equipment

Watching

Instructions

Travel

Check Drawings

Interruption

Socialize

Inspection

Measure

Leave

Irrelevant

Discuss

Washroom

WT

Breakdown of work hours

Rework7.0%

Socialize3.7%

Inspection0.2%

Leave1.1%Irrelevant

1.1%

Discuss1.9%

Washroom0.3%

Equipment1.3%

Search Material1.4%

Move Mat.6.0%

Wait Mat.0.4%

Idle6.9%Extra Breaks

4.6%

Check Drawings0.2%

Travel0.3%

Instructions1.3%

Measure4.1%

Interruption0.2%

Watching0.9%

WT57.2%

Extra BreaksIdleWait Mat.Move Mat.Search MaterialEquipmentWatchingInstructionsTravelCheck DrawingsInterruptionSocializeInspectionMeasureLeaveIrrelevantDiscussWashroomReworkWT

Breakdown of output per QuarterForming

Break down of Output/Hr - Forming

Q126%

Q227%

Q325%

Q422%

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Productivity (False Work)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Confidence Interval

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

(m2/

hr)

What Else?

• Similar Data collected for– Rebar Work on Slabs– Column Work

Recommendations: We are working on them now

• Common sense solutions• Minor modifications to on going site

operations• Out of the box

Sample Comments & Recommendations It was noted that 3.8% of the time, carpenters

were required to move to the lower level and manually move material up to their work area.

This also resulted in an increase in the category of “Idle time” and “Watching”.

This could be rectified by ensuring that the formwork and false work were moved up to the new level in advance.

Another option is to have sufficient quantity of formwork and false work material on site so that quantities of these materials do not result in the worker’s time being underutilized.

Sample Comments & Recommendations

When formwork and false work were available around their work area, it was not collected and stacked as per size as a result 2.6% of the carpenters time were used in measuring and searching for the right size of formwork/false work to use.

In the future, if the team removing the formwork and false work could stack the materials as per size, better productivity will be obtained from the carpenters.

Sample Comments & Recommendations It was also observed that the survey team

which provided the levels for the formwork and false work did not keep ahead of the carpenters.

This happened 30% of the time. On one occasion, the formwork which was built had to be removed and the false work readjusted and on the second instance, the slope given by the surveyor was erroneous. These resulted in rework.

One recommendation would be for the survey team to start a few hours earlier in the day so that their work does not delay the progress on site and vice versa the workers do not hamper their work.

Developing a Model

• Develop an analytical model for redistributing time saved based on the recommendations.

• This model will offer two scenarios for the increase in the output as a result.

– An optimistic and a pessimistic

On-site Testing of a few Recommendations

• Subject to acceptance by the general contractor a few of the recommendation will be tested to verify the increase in tool time

Motivation, Performance and Job Satisfaction of Construction Management Professionals

Top 10 Motivation Factors: Importance (7 point scale)

Motivation factor Importance

Safety on construction site 6.19

The team spirit of the people you work with 6.18

Opportunities to learn new knowledge and skills 6.09

Seeing good results from your work 6

Opportunities to develop your skills and abilities 5.96

The resources you have to do your work 5.89

Opportunities for challenging work 5.82

Opportunities to do the work that best utilizes your talents and abilities 5.7

Opportunities to do something that makes you feel good about yourself as a construction management person

5.7

Freedom and openness to talk directly to senior management 5.7

How important each motivation factor is in motivating them doing their jobs

Top 10 Motivation Factors: Satisfaction (7 point scale)

Motivation factor Satisfaction

Safety on construction site 5.98

Seeing good results from your work 5.89

Opportunities for challenging work 5.88

The amount of freedom you have in your work 5.82

Freedom and openness to talk directly to senior management 5.77

The team spirit of the people you work with 5.74

Opportunities to learn new knowledge and skills 5.72

Receiving respect from the people you work with 5.72

Opportunities to do something that makes you feel good about yourself as a construction management person

5.68

Opportunities to develop your skills and abilities 5.65

How satisfied they are of receiving each motivation factor while doing their jobs

What Else?

• Separate analysis based on– Age– Experience– Educational Background

Analysis• Analyzing the relationship between the

importance degree and satisfaction degree of each motivation factor, the researcher identified the motivation factor, which considerable CMPs perceive that it is important in motivating them doing their jobs, but they do not satisfy, and then the researcher conducted in-depth interviews to investigate the problems that lie behind the motivation factor.

Two motivation factors were identified as having potential problems

• Senior manager's positive feedback after successfully accomplishing the task

• Bonus the CMP’s received

Senior manager's positive feedback after successfully accomplishing your task • Field engineers

– “There were several times that my former supervisors made the work very dissatisfying so that I quitted my jobs. All I received was criticism, and when praise was due, I didn’t receive anything.”

– “I am working very hard without any good words from my boss, but when something goes wrong, even it is not my fault, he always yells at me. Yelling and blaming has no effect other than de-motivating us.”

– “ I don’t really care about money. If my boss would just say thank you, if he or she would just acknowledge that I exist. The only time I hear anything is when I screw up. I never hear when I do a good job.”

Five Strategies of Recommendations

• Invite employees’ involvement in setting up performance or productivity evaluation criteria;

• Adopt clear and fair performance or productivity evaluation criteria, which are widely understood and accepted by employees;

• Set up a committee to evaluate employees’ performance or productivity according to the criteria;

• Allocate bonuses, which have a clear and strong correlation with employees’ performance or productivity.

• Monitor the outcome at regular intervals to see if allocating bonuses have achieved the desired effect.

Future

• There are several other recommendations to share with individual companies

Conclusions• The Project provided many benefits

– Identified key issues

– Quantified impacts

– Will develop recommendations

• Excellent support from the collaborating companies

• Will issue “specific” reports to the collaborating companies

• Will issue a “generalized” report after analyzing the results of the 4 companies (by Dec. 2005)

Future• Win-Win situation for the companies and

the University• Planning to extend the “productivity”

research to study and analyze more issues in the next 2-5 years

• Will create a “Productivity” task force so that specific needs could be identified for future “research.”

• Will maintain QUALITY of research that will be beneficial to industry.

• Will develop an integrated PM framework for the benefit of the construction contractors.

Publications – 2005 • Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering

Special Issue in Construction (Aug. 05)– Situation Based Model and Case Study– Motivation, Performance, Satisfaction of

CMP.

• American Society of Civil Engineers – Construction Research Congress (San Diego, Apr. 05)– Situation Based Model

• Canadian Society for Civil Engineering – Annual Conference (Toronto, June 05)– Motivation, and Communication of

Workers