<%BANNER%>

Managing Subcontractor Productivity

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020300/00001

Material Information

Title: Managing Subcontractor Productivity obtaining exceptional performance without the ability to direct performance
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jennings, Courtney E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, managing, performance, productivity, subcontractors
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction MANAGING SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTIVITY: OBTAINING EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DIRECT PERFORMANCE By Courtney E. Jennings August 2007 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Construction Management The US construction industry of today is renowned for being an industry of low productivity. For this reason, there has been an increase in research seeking to identify and quantify the factors that affect construction productivity, and opportunities and methods to improve productivity. Contractors subcontract 80-90% of the work performed on a typical construction project to specialty contractors (subcontractors), and can often have 20-30 subcontractors working on one project (Hinze and Tracey 1994). Therefore, any attempt to improve construction productivity must give attention to the effect subcontracting has on productivity. This study sought to establish US contractors? perceptions of labor productivity factors as they relate to subcontracting and the actions contractors take to mitigate the impact of subcontracting on project performance. To do this a survey was developed and disseminated to a random selection of contractors listed on the AGC?s membership list and the ENR Top 400. Three hypotheses were developed, ? H1: Contractors will rank subcontractor management-related factors of productivity with the highest level of importance, ? H2: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will have aggressive provisions in their subcontracts to compel performance, and ? H3: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will also require their prospective subcontractors to demonstrate competency in management techniques proven in the literature to be advantageous to productivity. It was found that contractors do, in fact, feel that subcontractor management-related factors are of the highest importance to construction productivity. However, discrepancies found between contractors? perceptions of factors and their use of contractual provisions which stand to mitigate the impact of such factors, suggest that contractors' project performance could be improved by the implementation of contractual clauses that seek to compel subcontractors to utilize specific management techniques suggested in the literature and incentivize them to perform.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney E Jennings.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0020300:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020300/00001

Material Information

Title: Managing Subcontractor Productivity obtaining exceptional performance without the ability to direct performance
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jennings, Courtney E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, managing, performance, productivity, subcontractors
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction MANAGING SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTIVITY: OBTAINING EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DIRECT PERFORMANCE By Courtney E. Jennings August 2007 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Construction Management The US construction industry of today is renowned for being an industry of low productivity. For this reason, there has been an increase in research seeking to identify and quantify the factors that affect construction productivity, and opportunities and methods to improve productivity. Contractors subcontract 80-90% of the work performed on a typical construction project to specialty contractors (subcontractors), and can often have 20-30 subcontractors working on one project (Hinze and Tracey 1994). Therefore, any attempt to improve construction productivity must give attention to the effect subcontracting has on productivity. This study sought to establish US contractors? perceptions of labor productivity factors as they relate to subcontracting and the actions contractors take to mitigate the impact of subcontracting on project performance. To do this a survey was developed and disseminated to a random selection of contractors listed on the AGC?s membership list and the ENR Top 400. Three hypotheses were developed, ? H1: Contractors will rank subcontractor management-related factors of productivity with the highest level of importance, ? H2: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will have aggressive provisions in their subcontracts to compel performance, and ? H3: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will also require their prospective subcontractors to demonstrate competency in management techniques proven in the literature to be advantageous to productivity. It was found that contractors do, in fact, feel that subcontractor management-related factors are of the highest importance to construction productivity. However, discrepancies found between contractors? perceptions of factors and their use of contractual provisions which stand to mitigate the impact of such factors, suggest that contractors' project performance could be improved by the implementation of contractual clauses that seek to compel subcontractors to utilize specific management techniques suggested in the literature and incentivize them to perform.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney E Jennings.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0020300:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

MANAGING SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTI VITY: OBTAINING EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DIRECT PERFORMANCE By COURTNEY E. JENNINGS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Courtney E. Jennings 2

PAGE 3

To my grandparents and the rest of my family and friends 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this thesis would not ha ve been possible if not for the help and encouragement of a group of people. First and foremost, I thank my committee: doctors Issa, Hinze, and Obonyo. The encouragement and support of Dr. Raja Issa over the past two years has been invaluable to me. He has been a s upport to me through many trying times, both personal and academic. I thank my parents who instilled in me a tena cious spirit which has got ten me through life. Very different people, I seek to be the best of both of them. My siblings, Jared and Amelia, who are the closest siblings a person c ould have, for all the times they told their oldest sister, Im proud of you. And, I want to thank Lisa, my st ep-mother, and Fred, one of my grandfathers. I thank Grammy and Gramps who have been my gleaming example of everything that matters most to me. I thank my girls, Merideth, Cory, Patricia, Erin, Sari, and my sister Amelia, who have been pillars of support and a means to get away from Gainesville, if only by phone, to laugh, cry and share our lives. I thank Kay Jorgensenmy second momfor he r love and support thro ugh the last seven years and for her assistance during trying times. I thank Dr. Helen Washburn, Dr. Marianne Phillips, and the rest of the faculty and staff of Cottey College who gave me a wonderful foundation to begin my college career. And finally, I thank my roommate Julie, who sa t up with me long nights to complete this thesis. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11 The Nature of the US Construction Industry..........................................................................11 Subcontracting in the US Construction Industry....................................................................12 Research Objective............................................................................................................. ....13 2 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................1 4 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........14 Derivation of Anticipated Findings........................................................................................14 Research Design.....................................................................................................................15 Factors that Affect Productivity a nd Opportunities for Improvement............................15 The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship....................................................................16 Correlations between Subcontractor Management -Related Factors and the Nature of the Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship...............................................................................17 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................22 Construction Productivity.......................................................................................................22 Productivitys Effect on the Bottom Line.......................................................................22 Factors that Affect Productivity......................................................................................22 Disruptions...............................................................................................................24 Effects of change orders on productivity.................................................................25 Effects of overtime on productivity.........................................................................26 Effects of delivery methods on construction productivity.......................................26 Effects of motivation on construction productivity..................................................27 Quantitative Management and Measurement of Productivity.........................................27 The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship...........................................................................28 The Subcontract Award System......................................................................................29 The Contractual Relationship..........................................................................................30 Assigning Responsibility for Safety on the Jobsite Between Contractor and Subcontractor...............................................................................................................31 The Behavior Relationship..............................................................................................32 Partnering........................................................................................................................33 5

PAGE 6

Subcontracting and Productivity.............................................................................................35 Chasms Between Contractor and Subcontractor.............................................................35 Some Perceived Setbacks to Integrat ing Subcontractors into Productivity Improvement Strategies...............................................................................................36 Achieving a Collaborative Effort toward Productivity Improvement.............................37 Contractors recordkeeping......................................................................................38 Communication between contra ctor and subcontractor...........................................40 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS....................................................................................42 Productivity Factors................................................................................................................42 Subcontractor Management.............................................................................................43 Contractor Management..................................................................................................43 Crew-Related Factors......................................................................................................44 Industry-Related Factors.................................................................................................44 Opportunities for Productivity Improvement.........................................................................44 Correlations between Subcontractor Management -Related Factors and the Nature of the Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship...............................................................................45 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................54 Summary.................................................................................................................................54 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................55 Limitations Of Study And Recommendations........................................................................55 APPENDIX SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTIVITY SURVEY FOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS...................................................................................................................56 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................62 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Productivity fa ctors by category.......................................................................................... ...18 2-2 Opportunities to improve productivity...................................................................................19 2-3 Correlation of the survey to productivity factors....................................................................20 2-4 Required competency demonstrations....................................................................................21 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Perception of subcontractor pro ductivitys affect on contractor firm....................................46 4-2 Productivity factor categories............................................................................................ .....47 4-3 Subcontractor management-related factors............................................................................48 4-4 Contractor management-related factors..................................................................................49 4-5 Crew-related factors...................................................................................................... .........50 4-6 Industry-related factors...........................................................................................................51 4-7 Opportunities to improve subcontractor productivity............................................................52 4-8 Correlation between c ontract clauses and sub. mgmt-related factors....................................53 4-9 Correlation between competency demons trations and sub. mgmt-related factors.................53 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction MANAGING SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTI VITY: OBTAINING EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DIRECT PERFORMANCE By Courtney E. Jennings August 2007 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Construction Management The US construction industry of today is renowned for being an industry of low productivity. For this reason, there has been an increase in research seeking to identify and quantify the factors that aff ect construction productivity, a nd opportunities and methods to improve productivity. Contractors subcontract 80-90% of the work performed on a typical construction project to specialty contractor s (subcontractors), a nd can often have 20-30 subcontractors working on one project (Hinze an d Tracey 1994). Therefore, any attempt to improve construction productivity must give attention to the effect subcontracting has on productivity. This study sought to establish US contractors perceptions of labor productivity factors as they relate to subcontracting and the ac tions contractors take to mitigate the impact of subcontracting on project performance. To do this a survey was developed and disseminated to a random selection of contractors listed on the AGCs membership list and the ENR Top 400. Three hypotheses were developed, H1: Contractors will rank subcontractor mana gement-related factors of productivity with the highest level of importance, 9

PAGE 10

H2: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will have aggressive provisions in their subcontracts to compel performance, and H3: Contractors who rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will also require their prospective subcontractors to demonstrate competency in management t echniques proven in the literature to be advantageous to productivity. It was found that contractors do, in fact, f eel that subcontractor management-related factors are of the highest importance to constr uction productivity. However, discrepancies found between contractors perceptions of factors and their use of contra ctual provisions which stand to mitigate the impact of such factors, suggest th at contractors' project performance could be improved by the implementation of contractual clau ses that seek to compel subcontractors to utilize specific management techniques suggested in the literature a nd incentivize them to perform. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Nature of the US Construction Industry The US economy is divided into 12 industry supersectors by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These supe rsectors are grouped in to goods-producing or services-producing sectorsconstruction is one of four goods-produc ing sectors and the largest, accompanied by manufacturing, mining and natura l resources. In 2005, the US economy had approximately 131.6 million workers. According to the US Department of Labor Statistics, the goods-producing sectors, as a whole, accounted for 17.6% of the total workers (23.2 million) while the construction industry accounted for 31.3% of those wo rkers. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2005, the construction industry claimed 3.7% of the US Real GDP, which was $11,134.8 billion (in 2000 dollars). In short the US construction industry, with approximately 7.3 million employees and 444.7 billion real dollars produced, is an enormous industry. However, it is a highly institutiona lly fragmented industryaccounting for 5.52% of the total workers in the US, but 9.86% of th e business organizations in the US economy. In one study of industry productivity, a Fe deral Price Commission concluded that an industrys ability to increase produ ctivity is directly dependent on the degree to which it can set productivity standards The U.S. construction industry is widely regarded as one of the worst industries in the nation with re spect to productivity in creasesregularly increasing at a rate approximately one-third the national average (Adrian 2004). Construction involves labor-int ensive work; for most buildin g projects there is a one-toone ratio of labor to materials co st resulting in direct labor cost s of 35-40% of the total project costs (Adrian 2004). The improvement of labor productivity can obvious ly be seen as an effective means of improving pr oductivity, therefore th roughout this paper the term productivity 11

PAGE 12

will be used to refer to labor productivity. Gi ven the small-but-many firm environment of the construction industry, competition is fierce to de liver the lowest bid, and rising construction costs leave the improvement of project productiv ity as one of the most effective ways to compete. The reality is that most construction firms, due to lack of resources, know-how or short-term outlooks, do not actively measure productivity or the causes of low productivity, which leaves them ill-equipped to improve it. The obvious need for productivity improvement in the construction industry has led to many research endeavors that s eek to quantify the factors that affect labor productivity. Subcontracting in the US Construction Industry Historically, the construction industry consisted of master build ers, a business entity that was responsible for the design, management and c onstruction of a project from start to finish employing their own labor forces. With the industrial revolution, came a societal shift from manual labor to the mechanization of work pro cesses as new technologies were developed and adopted. In turn, construction projects b ecame larger and more complex giving way to specialized building firms (speci alty contractors or subcontr actors) that could increase profitability by maintaining a comparative advantage through sp ecialization and economies of scale thereby antiquating the master builder. As construction projects became more complex and shifted away from trade-base d building products toward tech nology-based products, a need was created to increase subc ontractor involvement (Humphreys et al. 2003). Today, more than ever, complex project s taking place in a geographically and institutionally dispersed global economy pres ent construction owners with the need to expeditiously ensure quality and cost-control. This has led to the development of delivery methods that can more easily meet such n eedsDesign-Build and Construction Management (CM). Design-Build and CM force the issue of collaboration between design and construction 12

PAGE 13

experts in the design and pre-c onstruction phases of the project, which fast-tracks the overall construction process and facilitates more cost-effective, constructible, pro-safety, quality building designs. Ultimately, regardless of the method employed by the construction owner, the majority of the actual construction work is subcon tracted to specialty contractors. Today it is common for a general contractor to subcontract 80-90% of the work on a building project utilizing 20-30 specialty contra ctors (subcontractors) on a sing le project (Hinze and Tracey 1994). Additionally, any one of the delivery methods used may result in the subcontracting of the entirety of the construction work. Research Objective Given the extent of subcontra cting in the constr uction industry, the labor force of a building project is at least once removed from the immediate control of the main contractor project management (PM) team; in fact the labo r force may be several times removed. It has been established that labor productivity should be a central concern of the PM team, but how does the contractor PM team cont rol a labor force over which they do not have direct control? Given productivity trends and subcontracting in the US construction industry, the purpose of this study was to establish US contractors perceptions of labor produ ctivity factors as they relate to subcontracting and the actions they ta ke to mitigate the impact of subcontracting on project performance. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY Introduction In recent years, there has been increased re search on construction pr oductivity; the factors that affect it and the methods used to measur e and improve productivity. While extensive in todays construction industry, th e practice of subcontracting has largely been overlooked as a factor with an effect on productivity. The primar y focus of this study was to update the work of Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) by making a distin ction between contractor and subcontractor management-related factors in exploring US contr actors perceptions of th e factors that affect construction productivity and the contractor-subc ontractor relationship. A survey was developed (See Appendix A) and reviewed by the Institutiona l Review Board office of the University of Florida. Once approved, the survey was dissemina ted to 450 contractors chosen at random from the AGC membership list of general cont ractors and 100 from the ENR Top 400 General Contractors, with no regard to the size of the firm. The survey was divided into four parts: contractors perceptions of factors that affect labor productivity, contractors perceptions of oppor tunities to improve subcontractor labor productivity, the contractor-sub contractor contractual relati onship, and the contractorsubcontractor behavior relationship. It was designed to obtain quantitative data necessary for statistical analysis. The survey was designed using concepts di scussed in the literature to statistically prove a relationshi p between contractors percepti ons of productivity factors and their actions to mitigate negative f actors and bolster positive factors. Derivation of Anticipated Findings The review of literature found seve ral factors that have been rese arched as to their relative importance to, and effect on, productivity. It also pointed out that the practice of subcontracting 14

PAGE 15

has become a way of life in todays construc tion industryciting that 80-90% of the work completed on a typical project is subcontracted (Hinze and Tracey 1994). The literature was consistent with regards to management and la bor-related factors being the factors with the greatest effect on productivity. Given that 80-90% of the work on a typical project is completed by labor employed and managed by a subcontracting firm, it would be reasonable to believe that any attempt to improve productivity must be heav ily rooted in the practice of subcontracting. Therefore, the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 1: Contractors will rank subc ontractor management-related factors of productivity with the highest level of importance. Hypothesis 2: Contractors w ho rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will have aggressive provisions in their subcontracts to compel performance. Hypothesis 3: Contractors that rank subcontractor management-related factors with a high level of importance will require their prospectiv e subcontractors to demonstrate competency in management techniques that ar e advantageous to productivity. Research Design The objectives of this research were to e xplore the relative leve l of importance that contractors put on subcontractor -related productivity f actors and the degree to which they utilize contractual clauses recommended in the literature to compel subcontractors to perform. Factors that Affect Productivity and Opportunities for Improvement First, survey questions could be answered with a yes or a no response, regarding the respondents overall opinion of the effects of subcontractor productivity on their firm. Second, respondents were asked to rate the level of importance various factors have on labor productivity and the level of the perceived benefit various st rategies have on improving productivity using a 10-point Likert scale. The factors were divide d into four major categories: industry-related, 15

PAGE 16

contractor management-related, subcontractor ma nagement-related and crew -related factors (see Table 2-1). The factors were taken from the literature; however, those defined as managementrelated factors in the literature were further stratified into contractor and subcontractor management-related factors to facilitate different iation of the two management teams effect on productivity. Third, using a 10-point Likert scale th e respondents were asked to rate the level of perceived potential a particular strategy had to improve subcontractor productivity (see Table 22). The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship Survey participants were asked to rate various contractual clauses ba sed on their frequency of inclusion in the subcontract using a 5-point Likert scale. A response of on the scale indicated they never use the clau se, while a response of indicat ed the contractors always use the clause. Contractual clauses were chosen for inclusion in th e survey based on the literature review. The survey inquired about clauses that are meant to transfer associated construction risks to the subcontractor ; require subcontractors to adhere to a certain level of formal planning, safety, and communication; and clauses that give incentive to subcontractors to perform. The survey was furthermore designed to explore the behavior relationship between contractors and subcontractors. Respondents were asked to use the 5-point Likert scale to rate how often their firm required certain competency demonstrations prior to signing a contract. A correlation table was developed to associate each of the clau ses with the factor it sought to mitigate, those highlighted were used to indicate the level of management required by subcontractors, and therefore, used in the correlations shown in Table 2-3. 16

PAGE 17

Correlations between Subcontractor Manageme nt-Related Factors and the Nature of the Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship The second hypothesis of this study was that there would be a correlation between contractors that perceived subc ontractor management-related factors as having a high level of effect on productivity and contractor s that took an aggressive appr oach with subcontractors in their subcontracts. A regressi on analysis was performed on s ubcontractor management-related factors and the clauses contained in the contract. To perform the regression analysis, the sum of the responses each contractor gave to subcontract or management-related factors was paired with the sum of the contractors responses to the cl auses in the contract re lated to subcontractor control. Those contract clause s included in the regression analysis are highlighted in Table 2-3. Hypothesis 3 stated that ther e would be a correlation be tween contractors that rank subcontractor-related factors with a high level of importance and those that require their prospective subcontractors to demonstrate compet ency in management techniques proven in the literature to be advantageous to productivity. Therefore, a second regression analysis was performed between subcontractor management -related factors and required competency demonstrations (Table 2-4). 17

PAGE 18

Table 2-1 Productivity factors by category Subcontractor Management-Related Factors Crew-Related Factors Subcontractor's Management Skills Education Scheduling Activity Training Resource Management Experience Safety Management Motivation Quality Control Morale Communication Tenure with Firm Contractor Management-Related Factors Industry-Related Factors Contractor's Management Skills Change Orders Management of Subcontractors Weather Scheduling Uniqueness Safety Management Subcontractor Integration Quality Control Size of Firms Communication Building Codes Economy R&D Interdependence of Activities IT Infrastructure (e.g. PM software, ability to communicate through multiple channels) 18

PAGE 19

Table 2-2 Opportunities to improve productivity Partnering Incentive programs Contractually compelled record keeping Labor motivation programs Training extended to subcontractor management Contractually compelled attendance of meetings Training extended to subcontractor labor Collaborative goal setting Contractually compelled safety programs 19

PAGE 20

Table 2-3 Correlation of the survey to productivity factors CLAUSES PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR Pay-if-paid Pay-when-paid Clauses that: Bind the subcontractor to the terms of the owner contractor contract. State the reduction of contractor retainage does not entitle the sub to a reduction in subcontractor retainage. State that interest accrued on c ontractor retainage does not entitle the sub to any interest accrued on subcontractor retainage. These clauses give indication of the distribution of risk between contractor and subcontractoran unfair distribution can result in an unwillingness to cooperate. Some "make it clear that the general contractor wants to maximize profits and that fair play is not part of the agreement" (Hinze and Tracey 1994). Require the subcontractor to: Provide detailed or resource-loaded schedules Commit to milestone dates Provide updated schedules as needed Management techniques, scheduling, sequencing, resource management Commit to attending project meetings Communication Commit to stipulated record keeping procedures (i.e. daily timecards, Work Planned for Tomorrow or Work Completed Today forms. Management techniques, scheduling, sequencing, resource management Maintain safety programs Safety Management Provide training as needed Motivation, activity training, education, experience, morale Pass-down a percentage of any monetary incentive payments made to the subcontractor to the labor force of the subcontractor Motivation, activity training, education, experience Incentive Clauses that: Provide monetary incentive to the subcontractor for: Early completion of the project Early completion of milestone dates Zero-injury completion of project 100% Attendance of project meetings On-time and regular completion of required record keeping procedures Motivation, Safety, Communication, Management Techniques, Scheduling, Resource Management 20

PAGE 21

Table 2-4 Required competency demonstrations Management skills: Knowledge of modern m anagement techniques: Scheduling: Ability to break down work into detailed work activities Set milestone dates Resource-loaded scheduling Cost control Short-Term Planning: Work Planned for Tomorrow form Work Completed Today form Accurate record keeping Resource management (labor, materials and equipment) Productivity Management Techniques: Productivity personnel Understanding of factors affecting Productivity Knowledge of productivity management techniques (i.e. methods of quantifying productivity) Commitment to productivity improvement Communication: Commitment to attend project meetings: Regularly scheduled reporting/ informational meetings Training meetings Problem solving/brains torming meetings (as necessary) Commitment to timely responsiveness 21

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Construction Productivity This section presents a review of current literature on the factors that affect construction productivityspecifically, as they relate to the practice of subcontracting in the US construction industry. There is no disagreement in the litera ture that building construction is a highly laborious process. The typical building construction pr oject may attribute 40%, or more, of its total costs to labor. For this reason, the term productivity is used to refer specifically to construction labor productivity throughout this paper. Productivitys Effect on the Bottom Line Adrian (2004) asserts the typical construction project incl udes about 40-50% nonproductive time, and about 2/3 of that time can be attributed to management and labor-related factors. In other words, theoretically, a firm c ould reduce its total costs on a typical project 2633% by decreasing nonproductive time, which could be attributed to management and the labor force by 66%. A typical million dollar buildi ng project could double its profits by improving labor productivity by only five percent (see Adri an, p. 88, 2004), or quadruple its profits if the project supervisor was able to eliminate the nonproductive time attributable to management (see Adrian, p. 89, 2004). Factors that Affect Productivity The factors that affect productiv ity fall into very different br oad categories. Researchers classify them differently but largely study the same factors. The factors that have an effect on productivity are many, including weather, design, change orders, management, worker training, resource management, etc., but only a few are di scussed below. Thomas and Napolitan (1995) developed a factor model to depict that the transfer of inputs to outputs as a function of the work 22

PAGE 23

method (see Thomas and Napolitan, p.291, 1995). Adrian (2004) classified them as: industryrelated, labor-related, and management-related factor s; he asserted that each of the categories contributes equally to nonproducti ve time on a construction projec t. Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) further stratified Adrians industry-related factors by classifying them as industry environment or external conditions. Industry environment includes such factors as weather, uniqueness of construction projects subcontractor integration, et c., while external conditions include the economy, IT, R&D, and scope changes. Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) sought to determine construction professionals perception s of the significance of various factors on construction productivitylimiting the factors to those heavily discusse d in the literature. It was determined that factors related to managemen t systems and strategies, including management skills, scheduling, material and equipment management and quality control, and manpower, including experience, activity training, education, motivati on and seniority, are the most important in project productivity. The combination of: shrinking profit margins in the construction industry; construction professionals perception that they have the ability to affect management and labor-related productivity factorsthe major ity influence on productivity; a nd the prospect that improved productivity can lead to increased profit margins, have led most research efforts in construction productivity to focus on the determination and quan tification of those partic ular factors with the goal of developing models to improve labor and management techniques. Research by Thomas and Raynar (1997), Thomas and Napolitan (1995), Thomas et al. (1999), and Christian and Hachey (1995) have sought to quantify the affect s of such labor productivity factors as overtime, change orders, materials delivery practices, and delay times. 23

PAGE 24

Disruptions Throughout the literature the term Disruption is used frequently and is defined by Thomas and Napolitan (1995), Thomas and Raynar (1997), Thomas and Zavrski (1999), Thomas (2000), and Adrian (2004) as a known ev ent that has an adverse affect on labor productivity, e.g. lack of materials or equipment, bad weather, congestion or accidents. Most of the productivity factors discusse d in the literature are actually found to cause disruptions (including rework); in turn, leading to pr oductivity losses. Thomas and Napolitan (1995) reported a productivity loss between 25-50% when a project expe riences disruptions. Thomas and Raynar (1997) found an efficiency loss of about 73% when disruptions are experienced. Thomas et al. (1995) established a project performance parameter they called the management disruption index (MDI), which is a m easure of the ability of site management to control the work environment or managements re sponsibility for disruptions. It is the ratio of the number of disruptions to total workhours ex pressed as a percentage and normalized to represent the number of disruptions per 100 workhours. They exclude weather disruptions from the index because weather is outside the control of management, and include sequencing, congestion, rework, and insufficient supervision, in formation, equipment, materials, and tools. The smaller the MDI the better control manageme nt has over the project Their study involved data from 19 international projects and found that on reason ably good projects (defined by a low frequency of disruptions), the average weekly labor performance is reduced by about 9 percent for every disrupted workday. For abnor mal projects, the cumulative labor performance can be affected by an average of 1:2.5. Individual projects can be affected by as much as 1:5. 24

PAGE 25

Effects of change orders on productivity Thomas and Napolitan (1995) collected data on three different constr uction projects over 128 weeks, excluding the early and startup phase s of the projects because of those phases relatively high level of change. Their work found a highly significant relationship between changes and the performance ratiothe ratio of actual productivity to a baseline productivity. The baseline productivity was measured as the average productivity seen on days that were absent change, disruptions, rewo rk and bad weather. They found a 30% average decrease in labor efficiency when there were changes to the scope of constructi onmore importantly, they saw four times as many days spent on rework and more than 2.33 times as many days with disruptions when changes were integrated into the work than when they were not. Change orders were classified by Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) as part of external conditions, which was perceive d by construction professionals in their study as the category with the least relative importance regarding productivityless than ha lf as important as management or manpower. However, it is interes ting to note that the pr oductivity loss reported in the study by Thomas and Napolitan (1995) was actually a consequence of increased disruptions and rework, which we re caused by change orders. Th ey further reported that the number one cause of disruptions was lack of materials and that accordingly the underlying cause of productivity loss related to change orders was actually related to materials management. Understanding the root cause of productivity losses because of change orders illuminates managements opportunity to improve productivit y. Adrian (2004) elaborated on the collateral effects that change orders can have on a construction project, e.g. congestion, concurrent operations, etc., which in turn cause further disruption (see Adrian, p.304, 2004). These will be discussed in later parts of this literature review. 25

PAGE 26

Effects of overtime on productivity In a study of the effects of overtime on pr oductivity by Thomas and Raynar (1997), it was stated that independent of fatigue, overtime in a nd of itself does not lead to productivity losses because if it did losses would be felt immediately, and constructi on professionals agree they are not. Their study found that the causes of overtime -related productivity losses could largely be reduced to those within the c ontrol of management. When the hours in a work week are increased by 50% all input resources must be doubled as welllabor and materials must be available 50% more often; equipment will be used 50% more; and the project staff must respond to 50% more questions (Thomas and Rayna r 1997). Their research actually concluded that the inability to provide resources at an accelerated rate is the main cause of productivity loss during prolonged scheduled ov ertimein other words, resource management. Disruptions caused by lack of resources are th e root cause of productivity lo sses associated with overtime. In a list of construction productivity facts Adrian (2004) stated that every hours productivity is adversely affected when a worker is required to wo rk more than eight hours in a day. Furthermore: When a worker is required to work five 10-hour days, the productivity of each hour is negatively affected by approximately 9%. Th e end result is that if a worker is paid double-time for the added 2 hours each day, the impact of the overtime (both the wage premium and inefficient productivity) result in a 30% decrease in cost-effective work every hour. A worker required to work seven 10-hour days will show an hourly decrease in productivity of approximately 40%. This, coupled with doubletime for overtime hours, may actually result in negative productivity relative to a 40hour work week. Effects of delivery methods on construction productivity Thomas et al. (1999) used a multiple regression analysis to compare the effects of different delivery methods on productivity. Three projec ts were studiedthe first had daily steel deliveries and the material was er ected directly off the truck, the second had daily deliveries and 26

PAGE 27

the steel was unloaded, sorted and then erected, a nd the third had three bulk deliveries where the steel was stored in any available space and so rted when it was erected. Double-handling and indiscriminate deliveries re sulted in a loss of productivity; specifically, 9% and 16% respectively. The three projects showed a 22% crew productivity loss related to material management practices and other i ssues as measured by the MDI. Effects of motivation on construction productivity Cox, Issa, and Frey (2006) developed a mode l to meet the motivational needs of labor forces, i.e. the subcontractors crew. They inve stigated the factors that affect motivation, which is widely accepted as a factor of productivity. The study concluded that: The supervisor should first create pos itive motivation based on confidence, which originates from worker competence and/or by the use of incentives. Next the supervisor should set goals in reference to quality of work and or safety performance and also the needs of the worker. Finall y, once goals are reached the worker should be rewarded with an incentive. Based on the analysis, money was suggested to be the incentive of choice. Quantitative Management and Measurement of Productivity Historical data should be maintained to more accurately estimate future workthe data can be formatted on a productivity (person-hours per unit installed) or unit-cost basis (price per unit installed). Unit-costs may reflect crews co mprised of different individual wages which are staged in an inflationary environment; for that matte r, it may be better to structure historical data on a productivity basis, which is less sensitive to change. Regardless of the type of historical data firm s choose to utilize they can collect it using accounting or scientific methods. Accounting methods are used more frequently than scientific methods because of the relative ease with which they can be developedaccounting methods simply compile as much data from timecards and work in place as possible making the resultant productivity measurements more accurate with ev ery new data set entered. There have been 27

PAGE 28

many scientific methods develope d to measure productivity, however they may seem tedious to the average construction firm. Scientific methods, heavily rooted in industr ial engineering methods, include the baseline productivity measures (Thomas and Zavrski 199 9), regression models the Method Productivity Delay Model (Adrian 2004), and motion studies. Re gardless of the method chosen, they involve significant observation and data collection of narrowly define d construction tasks. The observations (data) can then be used to identify causes of productivity lo sses, better construction methods, and better management techniques. Th ese productivity measurement methods may be extremely time consuming and the limited resources of the average construction firm may make the use of these methods impractical. The fragmented nature of the construction indus try combined with factors exclusive to the industry, i.e. the uniqueness of each building pr oject, the outdoor environment, the transient nature of workers, etc., have left the industry far behind its manufacturing counterpart in terms of blanket productivity improvements. The degree to which labor affects the total cost of a building project requires a project mana gement (PM) team to utiliz e management techniques that optimize labor productivity in e ffect, control labor workers. Most often the PM team is employed by a contracting firm that does not em ploy the actual labor workersthe direction of the labor is left to the subcontractor. The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship Today, subcontractors play a vital role in the construc tion industryon many projects, particularly building projects, it is common for 80-90% of th e work to be performed by subcontractors (Hinze and Tracey 1994). It may be common for 20 to 30 subcontractors to work together on one project, and those subcontractors will need to work synchronously towards a common goal but may or may not have ever work ed with each other in the past. With little 28

PAGE 29

known about the actual relationship between a c ontractor and subcontract or, Hinze and Tracey did an exploratory study in 1994 to better understand the relationship of the two entities as seen by the subcontractor. Their work was e xpanded upon by Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005), who had several findings particularly relevant to this study involving issues that may have a major effect on the level of cooperat ion, communication and co llaboration in a rela tionship between the contractor and subcontractor, a nd therefore labor productivity, su ch as bidding, payment, safety, productivity and partnering issues. The Subcontract Award System Hinze and Tracey (1994) found that the competiti ve nature of the low bid award may result in contentious practices by both parties su ch as bid shopping preand postaward, orbid peddling and bid chopping respectively, when the relationship between the two parties is first being formed. In a survey of owners, genera l contractors, and subc ontractors, Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) found that only 15.15%, 1.61%, and 3.03% of general contractors, subcontractors, and owners, resp ectively, believed that there wa s no need for improvement of bid award practices. Hinze and Tracey ( 1994) and Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) are in agreement that preaward bid shopping is a regu lar occurrence in the c onstruction industry. Hinze and Tracey (1994) found that subcontractors u tilize the practice of su bmitting their bids as late as possible or inflating thei r bids to general contractors to protect themselves from being underbid by subcontractors with insider informati on or being asked by the contractor to lower their bid post award, respectively. Disturbingly, over half of the subcontractor s surveyed by Hinze and Tracey (1994) felt they had no similar way to protect themselves from postaward bid shopping, and three-fourths of them stated that they knew at one time or another they had submitted the lowest bid and yet were not awarded the contract. According to t hose surveyed by Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005), 29

PAGE 30

owners and subcontractors believ e that general contra ctors employ postaward bid shopping with a frequency between sometimes and often, while general contractor s reported a frequency very close to never. This discrepancy may be due to the idea that subcontractors and owners will loose, while general contractors may gain when this practice is used. In fact, postaward bid shopping may result in an unqualified subcontractor being awarded the contract, consequently, postaward bid shopping may promote lower standa rds of work performance, reduce overall project quality, create an advers arial relationship between the pa rties, provoke legal disputes, foster unfair competition, be conducive to subcon tractor insolvencies, and reduce overall jobsite safety (Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005). Each of th ese possible consequences of postaward bid shopping fosters productivity losses Hinze and Tracey (1994) point to owners requiring subcontractor listings in bids from general contractors as a means to reducing or eliminating the practice. The distributio n of responses to the survey question, what can be done to improve general contractors selection practice of subcontractors? was shown on Arditi and Chotibhongs, p. 871 (2005), but the overwhelming majority of owners and subcontractors believe that owners should require subcontractor listing. The Contractual Relationship When a contract is formed between the ge neral contractor and subcontractor, it often includes provisions that shift as much risk as possible to the subc ontractor Pay-when-paid clauses seemed to be a universal example of th ese provisions. When the bid is awarded to a subcontractor, 46% of subcontractors indicated they were bound by the provisions of the ownercontractor contract, which is in corporated by reference in their subcontract, without being given the opportunity to review that contract. Some subcontractors reported clau ses in their contracts that made it clear that the genera l contractor wants to maximize prof its and that fair play is not part of the agreement (Hinze and Tracey 1994). 30

PAGE 31

While the practice of withholding payment fr om subcontractors until after the general contractors are paid by the owne r is common, there is disagreem ent between subcontractors and contractors as to the tim eliness of payment to the subcontract or. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) found significant difference between the percepti on of payment timeliness by subcontractors and general contractors% of subc ontractors indicated they receive d payment for their work at least 45 days after completion, while only 23% of general contractors agreed. Both studies found that the best ways to improve payment issues are that the owner shou ld pay the contractor promptly, subcontractors should not work with GCs who pay late, and subcontractors should negotiate payment terms prior to signing a contract (Hinze and Tracey 1994; Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005). Another option not discussed in these studies is to allo w the owner to pay the subcontractor directly t hus solving both this problem and that of potential liens. Assigning Responsibility for Safety on the Jobsite Between Contractor and Subcontractor The safety of a project has a direct impact on the productivity of a project because accidents can lead to slow-downs, closures and lower morale. Contractors generally review subcontractors safety policies a nd history before contracting with them, but the extent to which they weigh these policies precontract is undefined (Hinze and Tracey 1994; Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005). Differing percep tions of project safety responsibility could lead to unsafe projects as each party defers to the other to cr eate a safe working environment, leaving no party specifically tasked with hand ling this important aspect. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) found that while GCs believe subcontractors should have a sound safety program; subcontractors do not be lieve that GCs give consideration to subcontractor safety programs, presumably because the GC views safety as their own responsibility. The majority of subcontractors and contract ors surveyed did agree that subcontractor-provided on-the-job safety program s should be an effective means of reducing 31

PAGE 32

accident rates. Furthermore, nearly half of subc ontractors, and more than half of contractors, believe the responsibility for cr eating a safe project should be assigned to the subcontractors. The Behavior Relationship The behavior relationship between general c ontractor and subcontra ctor begins in the bidding stage of a project and continues through clos e-out; sometimes it is cultivated over multiple projects and years of business transactions. It is advantageous to the productivity of the project to have a highly collaborative and coope rative relationship between general contractor and subcontractor, Hsieh (1998) analyzed each part ys willingness to cooperate. In situations where both parties are willing to cooperat e towards productivity improvement, both are motivated by foreseeable gainsthis can be achieved through partnering agreements. If one party sees a potential gain while the other perceives no gain or loss, the party perceiving a gain can motivate the other with speculated gains such as work on future projects. In situations where one party perceives a potential gain while the other perceives a definite loss, the party perceiving gain must motivate the other with compensation schemes. Scenarios in which neither party perceives a gain are unlikely to work (Hsieh 1998). One of the most startling aspects of Hinze and Traceys (1994) research concerned the project involvement of subcont ractorsor lack thereof. Many subcontracts are awarded without any formal discussion ta king place between the contractor and the subcontractor, which could lead to potential conflict during the constructi on phase (Hinze and Tr acey 1994). While 86% of subcontractors indicated frequent or occasional involveme nt in planning and scheduling, during construction only 43% were in formed of when their services would be needed and the rest were left to monitor progress on their own. In fact, there seemed to be little communication or collaboration between contractor and subcontractor. The study concluded that subcontractors 32

PAGE 33

appear to be at a disadvantage wh en contracting with general cont ractorsleaving little room for effective labor control by the contractor PM team. Since subcontractors actually employ the labor force they are largely responsible for site productivity. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) found th at all parties agree wi th similar intensity that subcontractors should be familiar with m odern construction/production methods and modern management techniques, as well as play a role in accident reduction and worker motivation. Partnering According to the Construction Industry Instit ute (2006), partnering requires companies to cooperate to an unusually high degree to achieve separate yet compleme ntary objectives. The institute specifically defines partnering as a long-term commitment between two or more organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by maximizing the effectiveness of each participants resources. This requires changing traditional relati onships to a shared culture without rega rd to organizational boundaries. The relationship is based upon trust, dedication to common goals, and an understanding of each others individual expectations and values. Humphreys et al. (2003) concl uded that the adoption of pa rtnering into the construction industries of the USA, Australia and the UK can be attributed to the fact that relationships in these industries were commonly lack ing trust, respect and honesty between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Hsieh (1998) found that wit hin the scope of a contract, the more friction that exists between the parties, the lesser is the chance of success. Subcontractors being such an integral part of todays cons truction industry, partne ring between contractors and subcontractors can be seen as an opportunity to promote innovation and performance improvement amongst parties. Partnering relationships can be on a project or strategic basis, the latter being one of longer duration perhaps over several years or projects. In deed w ith little capital investment needed to start a subcontracting firm, a surge of subcontractors have entered the market without 33

PAGE 34

the capability to proficiently meet the needs of the contractor or ownerthis may further the argument for partnering relationships (Humphreys et al. 2003). Humphreys et al. (2003) also reported on a case study developed by a major constr uction firm in the UK to initiate partnering agreements with key subcontractors. The result s of that study were staggering, subcontractors (both successful and unsuccessful in partnering with the contr actor) reported knowingly reducing their bids by 10% in anticipati on of the improved working relations hip; it was also perceived that the relationship made it much easier to control time and cost performance levels and achieve higher quality levels given the close co-opera tion and openness/transparency that facilitated earlier anticipation and minimi zation of potential problems. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) inquired of contra ctors, subcontractors, and owners their perceptions of partnering re lationships (see Arditi and Chotibhongs, p. 874, 2005). Almost all respondents believed that partneri ng benefits everyone involved, ci ting that earli er involvement in the precontract phaseis the major benefit because it develops mutual understanding of the project, reduces constructability problems, and improves construction planning and project scheduling. Regardless, there was a signifi cant difference between the perceptions of subcontractors and contractors of how frequently they would charac terize their relationship with each other as partneringclose to sometimes versus close to often, respectively. This discrepancy may have been because the distri bution of costs associated with forming a partnering relationship are often bi ased towards the supplier while th e benefits are largely biased towards the contractor (Humphrey et al. 2003). Nonetheless, more than half of contractors and subcontractors believed that part nering leads to better construction management, in turn reducing the time and costs associ ated with a project. 34

PAGE 35

Subcontracting and Productivity Given the integral role that subcontractors pl ay in the US construction industry today, any attempt to improve productivity must take the pr actice of subcontracting into considerationto dismiss it as a significant fact or to productivity does a disser vice to productivity improvement strategies. The project perfor mance to include the project time, budget, quality, and safety is only as good as the weakest link[and] any one builders performance at a project typically affects the other contractors at the projecta ripple effect (Adrian 2004). Nevertheless, there has not been a lot of research attention devoted to the eff ect that subcontracting has on construction productivity. Hsieh (1998) reported that the fa ctors affecting productivity in Taiwan were the same as those reported in the US according to Thomas ( 1991) and Oglesby et al. (1989). He attributed managements responsibility to each of those fact ors, showing that subcontractors influence on construction productivity is considerable. Hs ieh further compiled the work of Arditi (1985); Koehn and Caplan (1987); and Koehn (1988) who were in agreement as to the areas that subcontractors could play a role in improving subcontracting. Chasms Between Contractor and Subcontractor While both contractors and subcontractors seek to maximize pr ofits, each has a different set of drivers and strategies to achieve that go al. Contractors are driven by competition from other contractors in the market. When competition is fierce cont ractors may lower the markup in a bid to increase their chance of winning the cont ractthis strategy puts greater pressure on cost control, may decrease attention to safe practices and increase construction risks. Subcontractors are driven by local factors such as the labor marketthey are require d to procure labor and materials in different localities in a timely fashio n; therefore, gathering information and meeting with prospective clients is a higher pr iority than site work (Hsieh 1998). 35

PAGE 36

When contractors are under pres sure to lower markup they wi ll in turn put pressure on subcontractors to lower costs and assume more c onstruction risks. This mechanism may create a chasm between contractor and subcontractor maki ng the subcontractor liabl e to try to escape responsibility rather than coopera te with the contractor. Furthe rmore, unfair distribution of the increased construction risks among the various subcontractors on a jobsite may create onsite conflict between them (Hsieh 1998). This trickle-down mechanism creates what closely resembles a win-loose situation between th e contractor and subc ontractor by lowering subcontractor profit margins while increasing their financial burde n. The adversarial relationship between contractor and subcontractor usually begins here. Without economic parity, subcontractors would not valu e work ethics, investment in human resources, upgrading managerial ability, and skills and te chnology advancement (Hsieh 1998). Some Perceived Setbacks to Integrating Subcontractors into Productivity Improvement Strategies Hsieh (1998) repeatedly stumbled upon argum ents against particular productivity improvement strategies for the areas described in Table 3-5 and other areas during interviews with contractors and subcontractors such as congestion, work method improvement, worker training, and housekeeping. Regarding congestion problemstimes when t oo many workers are onsite to have optimal productivityadvice given to the contractors s uperintendent to downsize the crew may be ignored because the contractor is not concerned with potential cost saving techniques because the work is already subcontracted out at a specified unit-price. It may also be ignored by the subcontractor because the subcontractor is unsure of the number of workers that will show up to work so they over-schedule to ensure enough work ers will be there to do the job (Hsieh 1998). 36

PAGE 37

Subcontractors may ignore work method improve ment strategies such as preplanning material usage or material and tools storage because that may require them to uphold a rigid sequencing schedule. The affects of such prep lanning has the potential to cut down on materials waste and double-hand ling (Hsieh 1998). Worker training can alleviate productivity problems such as the lack of motivation or morale, fabrication errors, lack of workmanship, crew interference, and accidents (Hsieh 1998). However, the contractor is likely hesitant to put their energies into training laborers because they are hired by the subcontractor a nd the contractor has no control over them and no loyalty from them. The subcontractor may be hesitant to train workers becaus e they are more interested in hiring already skilled laborers, an d/or because laborers are likely to ask for a pay increase after receiving trainingthat increase w ould be difficult to be offset in the short-run by productivity improvement. However, studies by Cox and Issa have indicated that a workers feeling of competency, fostered by worker training, is the first step to motivating a worker, which would obviously improve worker productivity. Housekeeping was mentioned repeatedly as one of the main causes of delays yet it is frequently under-managed because there is disa greement between contractors and subcontractors as to who is the responsible party for housekeepi ng. Furthermore, cleanup is often subcontracted out by the subcontractors, which leaves even less control and comm unication between those doing the cleaning and the contracto rs management team (Hsieh 1998). Achieving a Collaborative Effort toward Productivity Improvement The first step in achieving a collaborative, communicative, and cooperative relationship between contractor and subcontractor is to se lect the right subcontra ctor. Adrian (2004) recommends the following practi ces to achieve performance: Be more selective in hiring subcontractors 37

PAGE 38

Encourage the subcontractors to manage themselves Implement performance management procedures Implement accurate and timely accounting and reporting procedures Implement a team approach to project management Serve as an advisor and aid to the subcontractor According to Hsieh (1998), productivity im provement measures must be implemented under the contractual framework. If one or both parties are cognizant of the need for productivity improvement, provisions can be written into the contract ex ante. Contractual compulsion of both parties to play their role in productiv ity improvement is the best way to make sure both parties value improvement (Hsieh 199 8). Otherwise, contractors can implement strategies to motivate su bcontractors to perform ex post, when construction is in progress, to perform Contractors recordkeeping To further the selection of subcontractors beyond pre-qualification Ad rian (2004) suggests that the contractor design a subcontractor eval uation form. The contr actors superintendent should evaluate subcontractors performance dur ing and after each project using the formthe completed forms should be compiled into a database that rates a subcontractors performance for more effective selection of subcontractors on future projects. Subcont ractor selection should involve assessing their dedicati on to communication, collaborati on, and productivity awareness. The contractors superintendent must also k eep accurate daily reco rds of subcontractor productivity; serving the purpose of delineating who did what and when providing a basis for proving right from wrong in a dispute, and compili ng data for other reports such as a project status report (Adrian 2004). Cr eating an understanding with subcont ractors that they are being monitored, evaluated, and held accountable for their commitments promotes productivity. At a 38

PAGE 39

minimum, Adrian (2004) suggests recording th e following information on a daily basis about subcontractors: Number of workers Supervisors present Equipment present Equipment used Type of work performed Materials delivered Instructions given Instructions asked Construction method difficulties Productivity difficulties Safety issues Quality of work issues Conformance with contract administration requirements Attendance at meetings Compliance with scheduling requirements Required management techniques of the subcontractor A results oriented approach is often used by contractors to manage subcontractorsthe subcontractor contractually agrees to a particular result by a specified date. This approach leaves the contractor with little recourse in the even t that the subcontractor fails to produce until after the specified completion date has come and gone According to Adrian (2004), an approach that is more likely to achieve results is to enc ourage or force [contractuall y] the subcontractor to manage his own construction process using specified management techniques. According to Adrian (2004), formalized planning and scheduling improves productivity by setting out milestone dates, drawing attention to resources needed to do the work, and by providing a means of measuring and monitori ng performance (Adrian 2004). Consensus throughout the industry on this fact is evident given the widespr ead adoption by contractors of formal planning and scheduling software. Subcont ractors should be contractually compelled to 39

PAGE 40

break down their work into a detailed list of acti vities, set out milestone dates in addition to a completion date, and commit to input efforts in te rms of dedicated resources not just results. The contractor can require a minimum number of work activities in the schedule or set a maximum duration for any one activity. The purpos e is to force the s ubcontractor to think through the process, in turn, an ticipating resource conflicts or problems. Requiring milestone dates forces the subcontractor to progress incrementally throughout the duration of the contract instead of potentially procrastinating until it is t oo late and possibly creating a ripple effect with succeeding subcontractors work. Often subcontractors overextend themselves on multiple projects, input management forces the subcontract or to commit to a spec ified quantity of input resources, e.g. 14 carpenters per day for framing the first floor. The resource input the subcontractor commits to is a number they come up with based on their expected productivity and decidedly need for successful on-time completion. It is in no way a maximum number but a minimum number of resource inputs required to meet the completion date (Adrian 2004). Communication between contractor and subcontractor Dissemination of information on a construction jobsite is crucial to successful on-time completion of a project, as discussed earlier, especially during times of change. Positive and effective communication with subcontractors is therefore crucial. According to Adrian (2004), construction disputes and lawsuits that are part of the construc tion industry could be avoided if individuals or firms would simp ly communicate the problem, identify the cause of the problem, and remedy the situation. Adrian (2004) asserts that the following practic es should be used in communicating with subcontractors: Do not procrastinateproblems only get bi gger if they are not communicated and addressed. Try to use positive communicationsspend as much time commending subcontractors for their good efforts as you do implicating them for their poor efforts. 40

PAGE 41

Remember that effective communication enta ils both talking and LISTENINGask them for their ideas to solve problems. Try to create ideas and solutions that ar e a win-win situation for both partiesif subcontractors believe what they are being aske d to do only benefits th e contractor they are unlikely to align with the c ontractors recommendations. Maintain open communication with all su bcontractorsencourag e subcontractors to communicate their concerns and problems. When giving instructions, always try to expl ain why you are giving the instructions and the benefits to be gained if followed. Act as an advisornot just a director. Communicate success as well as failure. Understand your subcontractorsdifferent firms have different needs and knowledge. Consider new signage at job sites that comm unicates job status, successes, and recognition. Hsieh (1998) suggested treating subcontractor s as internal human resources, because regarding subcontractors as outsi ders prevents the contracting parties from forming a project team, or at least a coalition, a nd causes various productivity barriers. Furthermore, according to Hsieh (1998), the only differences in managing a subc ontractor bound by a contract and managing site employees of the general contractor lie in the duration of employment and pay basisif this concept becomes well unders tood, the general contractor would be expected to put more emphasis on the on-th e-job training, project safety systems, documentation and evaluation of work ethics and performance, and team buildingpositive feedback from subcontractors includes the provision of more skilled workers, a lower fre quency of worker switching fr om site to site, and, most importantly, higher commitment to the project. Hsieh (1998) did a study on the effects of subcontracting on construc tion productivity in Taiwan and this study seeks to conduct a si milar study in the US construction industry. 41

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Productivity Factors The surveys were designed to obtain quantitative data needed for statistical analysis. They were distributed by email to 550 general contractors listed on the AGCs member list and the ENR Top 400 and 14 were returned. This re sulted in approximately a 3.1% return rate. Contractors were asked two questions, which co uld be answered with Yes or No, to determine their overall perception of the effect subcontractor pr oductivity has on the contractor firm. When asked if they felt subcontractor productivity affected their bottom line, every single respondent said yes. When asked if the had a strategy to improve s ubcontractor productivity, 62% answered Yes and 38% answered No (Figure 4-1). The average ratings for all the factors within a given category are shown in Figure 4-2. The Subcontractor Management-Related Factors category received the highest rating with 7.2 out of 10. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is accepted. The f actors within each category were averaged to show the relative importance of each factor as perceived by the responding contractors (Figures 4-3 through 4-6). Productivity factors were broken into four categories: subc ontractor management-related factors, contractor management-related factors, crew-related factors, and industry-related factors. Examples of each of these were presented in the literature review. Subcontractor management-related factors were perceived by contra ctors in the US constr uction industry as the factors with the greatest e ffect on productivity with an average rating of 7.2 out of 10. Subcontractor management was followed, in or der of perceived importance, by contractor management, crew, and industryrelated factors (Figure 4-2). 42

PAGE 43

Subcontractor Management The factors included in the subcontractor management category were: the subcontractors management skills, scheduling, resource manageme nt, safety management, quality control, and communication. Figure 4-3 shows the relative importance of the subcontractor managementrelated factors. Subcontractor management-related factors we re perceived by res pondents as the factor category with the highest level of importanc e to productivity. Communication received the highest rating in both contractor and subcontractor management-rela ted factors. This should not be surprising, as communication is often cited in the literature as the cornerstone of any good relationship. Dissemination, or communication, of information is crucial to the successful completion of a project on-time (Adrian 2004). Contractor Management Contractor management-related factors were ranked a very close second to subcontractor management-related factors and include: c ontractor communication, management of subcontractors, contractor management skills scheduling, safety management and quality control. This is consistent with previous research findings when no distinction is made between contractor and subcontractor ma nagement. Figure 4-4 depicts the relative importance of the factors included in contractor management. The factors of contractor management and subcontractor management were similarly ranked within the category. Again, the contract ors communication is ranked with the highest level of importance in this category at 8.2, follo wed closely by management of subcontractors and contractor management ski lls at 7.8. Scheduling was rated at 6.8, safety management was rated at 5.7, and quality c ontrol was rated as 5.3. 43

PAGE 44

Crew-Related Factors The factors inquired of, under crew include: experience, motiva tion, morale, activity training, tenure with firm, and edu cation. Figure 4-5 shows the result s for crew-related factors. Experience was assessed by contr actors as the most important factor relating to the crew with an average rating of 8.1. Motivation and mo rale of the crew were rated second and third, with 7.4 and 7.1 ratings, respectively. Activ ity training was rated an average of 6.5. Industry-Related Factors Industry-related factors were based on the categorization of factors by Adrian (2004), and include those listed as industry environmen t and external conditions by Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003). These factors include : subcontractor in tegration, weather, interdependence of activities, ch ange orders, uniqueness, economy, IT infrastructure, size of firms, building codes, and research and developm ent. Figure 4-6 shows the level of importance each of these factors were give n by the contractors surveyed. Opportunities for Productivity Improvement The relative importance of each opportunity to improve productivity was computed following the same procedure used with the fact ors that affect productivity (Figure 4-7). Among opportunities for productivity improvement, colla borative goal setting received the highest mark with an average rating of 6.8 out of 10. Contractually compelled attendance of mee tings and contractually compelled safety programs were ranked as 6.6 and 6.3, respectivel y. Incentive programs and partnering were both considered to have a relative benefit of 5.7. Labor motivation programs received the lowest ranking of 4.6. 44

PAGE 45

Correlations between Subcontractor Manageme nt-Related Factors and the Nature of the Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship The second hypothesis of this study was that there would be a correlation between contractors that perceived subc ontractor management-related factors as having a high level of effect on productivity and contractor s that took an aggressive appr oach with subcontractors in their subcontracts. A regressi on analysis was performed; the resulting correlation coefficient was 0.1395 (Figure 4-8). A correlation coefficient is always between -1 and +1 and a coefficient close to zero represents no correlation while a valu e close to -1 or +1 represents a high level of negative or positive correlation. A two-tailed t test was run. Because the two-tailed t test value was computed to be 0.4880 which is less than the tabulated value of +/1.782 at a 90% confidence level, there is no si gnificant relationship. Hypothesis 2 of this study was rejected. A second regression analysis was performed to test Hypothesis 3 (Figure 4-9). The correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.4233. There appeared to be a stronger correlation than that seen between contract clauses a nd subcontractor manageme nt-related factors. A two-tailed t test was performed to measure the si gnificance of the correlation coefficient. The test value was 1.6185, which is less than the tabu lated value of +/1.782 at the 90% confidence interval and Hypothesis 3 of this study was rejected. 45

PAGE 46

Figure 4-1 Perception of s ubcontractor productivitys a ffect on contractor firm Does your firm have a strategy for improving subcontractor productivity? YES 62% NO 38% Do y ou feel that subcontractor productivit y affects your bottom line? YES 100% NO 0% 46

PAGE 47

Factor Categories7.2 6.9 6.3 4.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Industry-Related Factors Crew-Related Factors Contractor Management-Related Factors Subcontractor Management-Related FactorsCategoryAverage Rating of Respondent s Figure 4-2 Productivity factor categories 47

PAGE 48

Subcontractor Management-Related Factors8.4 8.3 7.7 7.0 6.4 5.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Safety Mgmt. Quality Control Resource Mgmt. Scheduling Sub's Mgmt. Skills CommunicationFactorAverage Rating of Respondent s Average = 7.2 Figure 4-3 Subcontractor ma nagement-related factors 48

PAGE 49

Contractor Management-Related Factors8.2 7.8 7.8 6.8 5.7 5.3 0 2 4 6 8 10Quality Control Safety Mgmt. Scheduling GC's Mgmt. Skills Mgmt. of Subcontractors CommunicationsFactorAverage Rating of Respondent s Average = 6.9 Figure 4-4 Contractor ma nagement-related factors 49

PAGE 50

Crew-Related Factors8.1 7.4 7.1 6.5 4.5 4.2 0 2 4 6 8 10Education Tenure with Firm Activity Training Morale Motivation ExperienceFactorAverage Rating of Respondent s Average = 6.3 Figure 4-5 Crew-related factors 50

PAGE 51

Industry-Related Factors6.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 2.6 2.3 5.7 5.8 3.8 3.8 0 2 4 6 8 10R&D Building Codes Size of Firms IT Infrastructure Economy Uniqueness CO's Interdependence of Activities Weather Sub IntegrationFactorAverage Rating of Respondents Average = 4.4 Figure 4-6 Industry-related factors 51

PAGE 52

Opportunities to Improve Productivity6.8 6.6 6.3 5.4 5.3 4.8 4.6 5.7 5.70 2 4 6 8 10Labor Motivation Programs Contractually Compelled Recordkeeping Training Extended to Subcontractor Labor Training Extended to Subcontractor Mgmt. Partnering Incentive Programs Contractually Compelled Safety Programs Contractually Compelled Attendance of Meetings Collaborative Goal SettingOpportunityAverage Rating of Respondent s Average = 5.7 Figure 4-7 Opportunities to im prove subcontractor productivity 52

PAGE 53

y = 0.0754x + 33.981 R2 = 0.01950 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 01 02 03 04 05 0 Sum of Sub. Mgmt-Related FactorsSum of Contract Clauses6 0 Figure 4-8 Correlation between contract clauses and sub. mgmt-related factors y = 0.7534x + 13.008 R2 = 0.17920 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 01 02 03 04 05 06 Sum of Sub. Mgmt-Related FactorsSum of Competency Demonstratio0 n Figure 4-9 Correlation between competency demonstrations and sub. mgmt-related factors 53

PAGE 54

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Contractors who responded to the survey una nimously agreed that subcontractors productivity affects their bottom line; yet onl y 62% reported having a strategy to improve subcontractor productivity. They indicated subc ontractor management-related factors were of the highest level of importance. Without making distinction betw een subcontractor and contractor management-related factors, the re sults are consistent with that of Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) who found that management and crew-related factors are perceived by contractors in the industry as ha ving the greatest effect on constr uction productivity. The results of this study found a divergence from contractors acknowledgement of subcontractor productivity as a major factor to overall project performance and their ac tions taken to mitigate the potential impact of poor subcontract or productivity on their own bottom line. Still 32% of contractors reported having no strategy at all to improve subcontractor productivity. The fact that both Hypothesiss 2 and 3, relating factor perception to action, were rejected leading to the conclusion that those c ontractors reporting they do have a strategy for improving subcontractor productivity may not being doing all they can or they may not be using the appropriate techniques as seen in the literature. Inconsistencies abound between contractors perceptions of the f actors that affect productivity and their actions. For instance, subcontractor safe ty management received the lowest relative importance with in the subcontractor management category, and the second lowest importance within the contractor management cate gory. Yet it is indisputab le that accidents can cause slow-downs, closures and lower mo raleall having a major impact on project performance (Arditi and Choti bhongs 2005). Respondents of this study ranked the importance of 54

PAGE 55

safety management factors with low regard, but ranked it with third highe st potential benefit to productivity improvement with an average ra ting of 6.308 out of 10. Arditi and Chotibhongs (2005) and Hinze and Tracey (1994) found that both contractors and subcontractors agree that safety is paramount on a jobsite. The literature presented that almost half of contractors and subcontractors agree that the res ponsibility of creating a safe pr oject should be put in the hands of the subcontractor (Arditi and Chotibhongs 2005). Conclusion Discrepancies found between contractors pe rceptions of factors and their use of contractual provisions which stand to mitigate the impact of such factors, suggest that contractors' project performance could be impr oved by the implementation of contractual clauses that seek to compel subcontract ors to utilize specifi c management techniques suggested in the literature and incentivize them to perform. Limitations Of Study And Recommendations This study was limited by the number of responses received. A sample must have at least twenty observations for the conclusi ve statistics of the sample to be considered reliable. Given that only 13 contractors responded to the survey, the statistics cr eated may not be indicative of the population. It was thought that the length of the survey made busy professionals adverse to participating. In the future, an online survey may facilitate a quicker response tim e and ensure greater participation. 55

PAGE 56

APPENDIX SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCTIVITY SU RVEY FOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS This survey seeks to gain insight into the perceptions of General Contra ctors regarding factors that affect subcontractor productivity. The goal of this study is to establish a common set of best practices used by high performance firms, as determined by profit margin exclusive of in-house pr oduction, throughout the industry. Part 1. Background Information Section 1-1. Respondents Information Job Title: ___________ Years with Current Company: _________ Years of Experience in Construction: ______ Number of projects currently supervised: ______ Section 1-2. Companys Information 1. Company Name:___________________ 2. Years in business:__________ 3. Estimated Annual Volume: 2004:__________ 2005: __________ 2006: __________ 4. Average size of project ($): ____________ 5. Annual profit margin ____________ 6. # of permanent employees in firm: Field (salary) Field (hourly) Home Office 7. Sector of Construction (as % of total business) Civil construction __________ Building construction __________ Residential construction __________ Industrial construction __________ Other __________ 8. Project Acquisition (% of total business) Competitive bid __________ Negotiated __________ Other __________________________ 9. Projects (% of total work) Self-performed _________ Subcontracted _________ Part 2. Subcontractor Productivity Section 2-1. Perception of Need to Improve Subcontrac tor Labor Productivity (Please circle your answer) 1. Do you feel that subcontractor productivity affects your bottom line? Yes / No 2. Does your company have a strategy for improving subcontractor productivity? Yes / No 3. Does your company believe there is a correl ation between the longevity of a subcontractor? relationship and subcontractor productivity? Yes / No Section 2-2. Factors that Affect Labor Productivity Please rate the level of importance each of the following factors has on productivity as it relates to subcontractors. (1-lowest; 10-highest) Industry-Related Factors: Change Orders Size of firms Interdependence of activities Weather Building codes Uniqueness Economy Subcontractor Integration R&D IT Infrastructure (i.e. PM software, ability to communicate through multiple channels) 56

PAGE 57

Contractor Management-Related Factors: General Contractors Management Skills Safety Management Management of Subcontractors Quality Control Scheduling Communication Subcontractor Management-Related Factors: Subcontractors Management Skills Safety Management Scheduling Quality Control Resource Management Communication Crew-Related Factors: Education Motivation Activity Training Morale Experience Tenure with Firm Section 2-3. Perception of Opportunities to Improve Subcontractor Labor Productivity 1. Please rate the following strategies as to th eir level of perceived benefit to subcontractor Productivity (1-lowest; 10-highest): Partnering Contractually compelled record keeping Incentive Programs Contractually compelled attendance of meetings Labor Motivation Programs Contractually compelled safety programs Training extended to subcontractor management Other: (Please Specify) Training extended to subcontractor labor Other: (Please Specify) Collaborative goal setting Other: (Please Specify) Part 3. Contractor-Subc ontractor Relationship Section 3-1. Contractual Relationship 1. Please rate the following clauses based on frequency of inclusion in your subcontract AND if they are never included please indicate how advantageous to subcontractor productivity you believe each would be using a scale from 1-10: Contract Provision Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Pay-if-paid Pay-when-paid Clauses that: Bind the subcontractor to the terms of the owner contractor contract State the reduction of contractor retainage does not entitle the sub to a reduction in subcontractor retainage State that interest accrued on contractor retainage does not entitle the sub to any intere st accrued on subcontractor retainage Require the subcontractor to: Provide detailed or resource-loaded schedules Commit to milestone dates 57

PAGE 58

Provide updated schedules as needed Commit to attending project meetings Commit to stipulated record keeping procedures (i.e. daily timecards, Work Planned for Tomorrow or Work Completed Today forms Maintain safety programs Provide training as needed Pass-down a percentage of any monetary incentive payments made to subcontractor to the labor force of the subcontractor Other: (Please Specify)___________________________ Incentive Clauses that: Provide monetary incentive to the subcontractor for: Early completion of the project Early completion of milestone dates Zero-injury completion of project 100% Attendance of project meetings On-time and regular completion of required recordkeeping procedures Other: (Please Specify) ____________________________ Section 3-2. Behavioral Relationship 1. Does your firm make further stipulations that any of the following competencies will have to be demonstrated prior to contract signing (Ple ase check the appropriate box)? Qualifications Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Management Skills: Knowledge of Modern Management Techniques: Scheduling: Ability to break down work into detailed work activities Set milestone dates Resource-loaded scheduling Cost Control Short-Term Planning: Work Planned for Tomorrow form Work Completed Today form Accurate Record Keeping Resource Management (labor, materials and equipment) Productivity Management Techniques: Productivity Personnel Understanding of factors affecting productivity Knowledge of Productivity Management techniques (i.e. methods of quantifying productivity) 58

PAGE 59

Commitment to productivity improvement Communication: Commitment to attend project meetings: Regularly scheduled reporting/informational meetings Training meetings Problem solving/brainstorming meetings (as necessary) Commitment to timely responsiveness Other: (Please Specify ____________________) 59

PAGE 60

LIST OF REFERENCES Adrian, J.J. (2004). Construction productivity: Me asurement and improvement, Stipes Publishing, Illinois. Arditi, D. (1985). Construction productivity improvement. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 111(1), 1-14. Arditi, D., and Chotibhongs, Ranon. (2005). Issues in subcontracting practice. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131(8), 866-876 Christian, J., and Hachey, D. (1995). Effects of delay times on productivity in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 121(1), 20-26. Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1991). In search of partnering excellence. Publication No. 17-1, Austin, Tex. Cox, F., Issa, R.R.A, and Frey, A. (2006). Pro posed subcontractor-based employee motivational model. J. Constr. Eng. Manage ., 132(2), 152-163. Hinze, J., and Tracey A. (1994). The contractor -subcontractor relationship: The subcontractors view. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 120(2), 274-287. Hsieh, T.Y. (1998). Impact of subcontracting on site productivity: lessons learned in Taiwan. J. Constr. Eng. Manage ., 124(2), 91-100. Humphreys, P., Matthews, J., Kumaraswamy, M. (2003). Pre-construction project partnering: from adversarial to coll aborative relationships. Supply Chain Mgmt ., 8(2), 166-178 Koehn, E. (1988). Variations in work improve ment potential for small/medium contractors. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 114(3), 505-509. Koehn, E., and Caplan, S.B. (1987). Work impr ovement data for small and medium size contractors. J. Constr. Eng. Manage ., 113(2), 327-339. Oglesby, H.C., Parker, H.W., and Howell, G.A. (1989). Productivity improvement in construction McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. Thomas, H.R. (1991). Labor productivity and work sampling: the bottom line. J. Constr. Eng. Manage ., 117(3), 423-444. Thomas, H.R. (2000). Schedule accelerati on, work flow, and labor productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(4), 261-267. Thomas, H.R., and Napolitan, C.L. (1995). Quantitative effects of construction changes on labor productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121(3), 290-296. Thomas, H.R., and Raynar, K.A. (1997). S cheduled overtime and labor productivity: quantitative analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 123(2), 181-188. 60

PAGE 61

Thomas, H.R., and Zavrski, I. (1999). Construc tion baseline productivity: theory and practice. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 125(5), 295-303. Thomas, H.R., Arnold, T.M., and Oloufa, A.A. (1995). Quantification of labor inefficiencies resulting from schedule compression and acceleration. Final Rep. to the Electrical Contracting Found., Inc., Pennsylvania Transp. Inst., Pe nnsylvania State Univ., University Park, Pa. Thomas, H.R., Riley, D.R., and Sanvido, V.E. (1999). Loss of labor productiv ity due to delivery methods and weather. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(1), 39-46. 61

PAGE 62

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Courtney Jennings was born in Atlanta, GA. She grew up in Charlotte, NC and moved to Florida for her final year of high school. She be gan her collegiate career at a womens college in Nevada, MO. She received her asso ciates of arts there, at Cottey College, and transferred to the University of Florida. While at the University of Florida she received her Bachelors of Science in Business Administration; Finance. She will be graduating with her Masters of Science in Building Construction in May 2007. 62