journal alberta

8/22/2019 Journal Alberta

1/16

Carpentry workers issues and efficiencies related

to construction productivity in commercial

construction projects in Alberta

Kasun N. Hewage and Janaka Y. Ruwanpura

Abstract: For decades, many researchers have reported the decline in construction productivity, but it is impossible to

generalize the productivity problems due to issues such as geographical differences, weather changes, skill level differ-

ences in the labour force, and workload demand. There are currently approximately 160 000 construction workers in

Alberta, and the value of ongoing and future projects in the oil and gas sector alone is over Can$200 billion. Because

of the high demand and necessity for a comprehensive research study for Alberta to improve construction productivity,

a 2 year study commenced with the collaboration of four eminent contractors to investigate human, management, and

external issues. Under human issues, 101 construction workers in the carpentry trade were observed, interviewed, and

surveyed by questionnaire. This paper discusses the research method, results, and recommendations of the productivity

research specific to the human issues. These recommendations were communicated to the contractors for improving the

human issues by developing and analyzing a new expectancy model considering construction workers effort and per-formance and the tool times observed to mitigate the reasons for non-tool time.

Key words: construction productivity, worker motivation, expectancy theory, tool time, construction workers.

Rsum : Les chercheurs ont fait tat, depuis plusieurs dcennies, de la baisse de productivit en construction. Cepen-

dant, les problmes de productivit ne peuvent pas tre gnraliss en raison des questions telles que les diffrences

gographiques, les changements de temprature, les diffrences dans les niveaux de comptence de la main-duvre,

les charges de travail, etc. LAlberta compte environ 160 000 travailleurs de la construction et des projets en dveloppe-

ment pour une valeur de 200 milliards de dollars. En raison de la forte demande et de la ncessit davoir une tude

de recherche complte pour que lAlberta puisse amliorer la productivit en construction, il a t recommand

dentreprendre, avec la collaboration de quatre grands entrepreneurs, une tude de deux ans afin dexaminer les ques-

tions humaines, externes et de gestion. Pour ce qui est des questions humaines, 101 charpentiers ont t observs, in-

terviews et ont eu rpondre un sondage. Cet article aborde la mthode de recherche, les rsultats et les

recommandations de la recherche sur la productivit spcifiques aux questions humaines. Ces recommandations ont t

communiques aux entrepreneurs afin damliorer les aspects humains en dveloppant et en analysant un nouveau mo-dle dattentes qui tient compte de leffort et du rendement des travailleurs de la construction, ainsi que des temps

rels de travail observs afin dattnuer les raisons des temps non consacrs au travail.

Mots cls : productivit en construction, motivation des travailleurs, thorie des attentes, temps de travail, travailleurs

de la construction.

[Traduit par la Rdaction] Hewage and Ruwanpura 1089

Introduction

Productivity improvement is one of the key focus areas inthe present construction industry in Alberta, as well as inNorth America. The decline in construction productivityacross North America since the mid-1970s has been reported

by many researchers, however, including Heale (1993). Theconstruction industry represents a substantial portion of theCanadian economy, and thus research and development inthis area have an important impact on the national economy.The latest statistics for major projects in Alberta show a

value of over Can$200 billion for ongoing and future pro-jects in the oil and gas sector alone (Alberta Economic De-velopment 2004). In Alberta only, there are approximately160 000 construction workers in construction projects atpresent (Canadian Construction Association 2004). Gen-erally, construction labour itself represents about 25% of thetotal project cost (The Business Roundtable 1989). There-fore, it is very important to find solutions for declining con-struction productivity in terms of labour issues to savebillions of dollars and make construction a professional andattractive business.

Productivity has many definitions, including performancefactors, production rate, and unit person hour rate. Generally

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33: 10751089 (2006) doi:10.1139/L06-050 2006 NRC Canada

1075

Received 11 October 2005. Revision accepted 6 March 2006.Published on the NRC Research Press Web site athttp://cjce.nrc.ca/ on 23 October 2006.

K.N. Hewage and J.Y. Ruwanpura.1 Department of CivilEngineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University ofCalgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4,Canada.

Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will bereceived by the Editor until 31 December 2006.

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


2/16

in construction, however, productivity is stated as an in-place value divided by inputs, such as work hours (Oglesbyet al. 1989). High productivity is the intensive and (or) effi-cient use of scarce resources converting input into output,which results in greater profit (Arditi 1985). Some argue thatproductivity can be achievedincreased by working harder,faster, or longer. In the real world, however, productivity

cannot be achieved by speed and harder work only withoutadopting better work practices (Banik 1999).

Some previous Canadian researchers, such as McTagueand Jergeas (2003) and Dozzi and AbouRizk (1993), statedthat the present rate of actual working time (tool time) of aconstruction worker is about 56%, which means that 44% ofthe workers time is spent on nonproductive activities. Dozziand AbouRizk have given many reasons for low productiv-ity, including the following: unavailability of the right mate-rials, tools, or equipment; poor relations between workersand management; poorly organized projects; breakdown incommunication; unfair work assignments; incompletedesignengineering work; lack of cooperation among differ-ent crafts; poor supervision; rework; no worker participation

in the decision-making process; and restrictive and burden-some procedures.

Almost all the previous researchers on construction pro-ductivity in Canada refer to other published documents,however, which are not Canadian and are outdated, to ana-lyze and make conclusions about productivity issues. Fur-ther, no root-level investigation has been conducted by manyof the Canadian researchers to determine actual worker con-cerns and issues. Most of the researchers seem comfortableusing the views of construction managers to find solutionsand totally neglect the views of construction workers and su-pervisors at lower operational levels.

Previous research studies also showed that there is a widediscrepancy between what employees consider as important

in their jobs and what their supervisors think is important toemployees. Liberda et al. (2003) conducted a pilot surveywith Alberta-based construction companies and stated thatthe views of workers in construction productivity are quitedifferent from those of the managers. Hence, identifying themost critical factors that impact construction productivity isa key issue. Although several studies have been conducted inthe past, there was no direct relation to construction contrac-tors or projects in Alberta and Canada.

The paper focuses on the research study conducted on hu-man issues related to improving construction productivity.Under the human issues research, individual worker perfor-mance and motivational factors were identified through ob-servations, interviews, and questionnaire surveys.

Observations were conducted with 101 workers to under-stand construction work practices and work time distribu-tions.

Background

For the last 70 years, researchers and academics havelooked at various research works related to humans andteamwork, but significantly less research has been done withconstruction workers. Human potential is boundless, but itrequires motivation to excel (Schrader 1972). The term mo-tivation has several definitions. According to Jenkins et al.

(1982), motivation is intangible: a hypothetical constructthat is used to explain human behaviour. Further, they statethat motivation has a direct impact on work performance andcan be positively influenced or managed by external factors,such as incentives and rewards.

Pioneering and extensive research regarding motivationwas conducted, especially during the 1970s (see, for exam-

ple, Borcherding 1976; Schrader 1972). Maloney andMcFillen (1987) conducted a comprehensive research studyin which they investigated the motivational patterns of con-struction labourers, focusing on the importance attached tovarious job-related factors and their satisfaction with eachfactor.

Motivational programs in the construction industry can begrouped into five main categories according to The BusinessRoundtable (1989): (i) goal setting, (ii) incentives, (iii) posi-tive reinforcement (i.e., recognition for a job), (iv) work par-ticipation, and (v) work facilitation.

The findings of Laufer and Borcherding (1981) indicatethat financial incentive programs for the construction labourforce not only are feasible, but also could materially raise

productivity, lower production costs, shorten constructiontime, improve the quality of management, and increase theearnings of the workers. Further, Borcherding and Oglesby(1974) previously concluded that the satisfaction of con-struction workers is inherent in the work itself. Their re-search concluded that the most important set of factorsincluded those relating to the intrinsic nature of the work,such as working like a craftsman and performing challeng-ing work. Overall satisfaction with the job was measured,and a multiple regression analysis revealed that satisfactionwith intrinsic factors makes the greatest contribution to gen-eral job satisfaction. These studies were conducted in sometime ago, however, and were limited mainly to Maslowsneed theory (Maslow 1959) and Herzbergs two-factor

theory (Herzberg et al. 1959). Although the approaches ofMaslow and Herzberg have a surface logic, are easy to un-derstand, and can be readily translated into practice, the re-search evidence shows definite limitations. There is verylittle research support for the theoretical basis and predict-ability of either model. Jenkins et al. (1982) recommend, in-stead, using the more accepted expectancy theory of workmotivation from which new guidelines for managing labourmotivation can be derived.

Teamwork is also an important aspect of construction pro-ductivity. Team dynamics refers to what makes a team workand how individuals influence the team as a whole. Under-standing and accepting individual differences in worker pref-erences can significantly improve the project performance

(Gordon and Smith 2001).

Research objectives

The first phase of the productivity study was conducted bya construction productivity research team with 53 profes-sionals in Alberta-based construction companies. The teamidentified 51 factors that affect productivity, of which 35 aremanagement-related factors. The 53 industry professionalsusing a questionnaire survey identified the most critical pro-ductivity factors from the 51 factors. The top five factors in-cluded changes in drawings and specifications, worker

2006 NRC Canada

1076 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006


3/16

experience and skills, worker motivation, worker attitudeand morale, and inadequate communication. By consideringthe results of the first phase, the research steering commit-tee, which consists of senior construction managers and uni-versity researchers, decided to perform extensive research inspecific areas of human, external, and management issuesthat affect construction productivity. The focus of the human

issues was limited to motivation and effective communica-tion, as they were identified as priority areas through thefirst phase of the research.

Therefore, the overall objective of the research project un-der human issues is to understand and investigate the humanissues to develop the best practices and tools for the con-struction industry to improve productivity. The following arethe defined sub-objectives: (i) identify the most critical fac-tors that affect construction productivity by surveying a largesample from each of the collaborating companies; (ii) iden-tify the most relevant motives and motivational patterns ofconstruction workers; (iii) determine the present worker effi-ciency in Alberta construction projects in terms of tool time;(iv) understand the opinions of workers in terms of motiva-

tion, work satisfaction, and teamwork to improve construc-tion productivity; (v) investigate the background and thefactors that contribute to worker skills and team spirit; and(vi) recommend practices, guidelines, and tools to improvemotivation and communication at construction sites.

The focus of this paper is to discuss worker motivationand productivity, which are under human issues. The re-searchers overcame the challenge of quantification of moti-vation by using the motivational expectancy theory ofVroom (1964) with other construction applicable theoriessuch as equity theory, Herzbergs hygiene theory, and rein-forcement theory. Construction carpenters, carpentry helpers,and foremen were selected as the research sample. Morethan 100 workers participated in this research, and all partic-

ipants were observed, interviewed, and surveyed by ques-tionnaire to collect the required data. The research activitiesspanned the period from January 2004 to May 2005.

Research methodology and focus

Four construction job sites were used as the primary datacollection source. The research focused on the constructionactivities of carpenters, carpentry foremen, and carpentryhelpers. The construction activities included formwork, falsework (the supporting structure for formwork such as jacksand props), and columns. Both unionized and open-shop la-bourers were included as research subjects, although it is notpossible to disclose the differentiation because of the ethicalrestrictions imposed on the research project. The requireddata were collected using interviews, questionnaires, and ob-servations during the winter season from January 2004 toMay 2005. All the observations (101) were conducted in theopen-site environment. The range in number of workersfrom all the companies is 2328, and 73% are open-shopworkers.

This part of the research focused on understanding the ef-ficiency and qualities of construction workers, such as teamspirit and motivation. Construction worker efficiency wasdetermined through observation by measuring direct work-

ing time (tool time) and non-working time and byidentifying the reasons for not working.

Interviews, questionnaire surveys, and direct observationswere used to collect data for the productivity research. Inter-views focused on worker motivation, team spirit, and back-ground information related to worker skills and experience.Further, workers were allowed to discuss concerns they had

related to the job site during the interview time. Question-naire surveys were conducted to identify construction work-ers motives and measure each workers level of motivationassociated with each motive. Observations were conductedmainly to understand the working patterns, time distributionsfor each activity, and efficiencies of construction workers.There are many work sampling and measurement techniquesto serve different purposes. For example, multi-minute mea-surement, which observed worker movements every 510 min, is suitable for repetitive and time-consuming opera-tions. The time study, which observes a worker continu-ously for a relatively short period of time, is suitable forobserving complex work operations with several activities(Failing et al. 1988). Because of the complex nature of car-

pentry work, researchers selected continuous time study andconducted a pilot study of 1 month to determine time dura-tion: 15, 30, 45, and 60 min time durations were tested, and30 min was selected because of the practical difficultiescaused by the movement of carpenters from one work areato another.

The following summarizes how the interviews, question-naire surveys, and observations were conducted:

Interviews Candidates (research subjects) were selectedon a random and voluntary basis. Supervisor advice and per-mission were also factors in the selection process. Each in-terview lasted for about 20 min and was conducted in aclosed room to protect the privacy of the worker. One hun-dred and one workers were interviewed in four participating

companies. An average of 25% of the total carpentryworkforce in each company participated in the research. Thedemographic information of individual companies is not in-cluded in the paper, however, because of the ethical and con-fidentiality agreements.

Questionnaire surveys Each research subject was is-sued a questionnaire after the interview and was allowed totake it home for completion and return it later. All 101 re-search subjects were given the questionnaire, and the re-sponse rate was about 45%.

Observations Each of the 101 workers was continu-ously observed twice: 30 min in a morning shift and 30 minin an afternoon shift to measure working time and other timespent on different activities such as looking for materials and

tools, instructions, and moving.The data triangulation method, which measures the same

variable with different techniques to verify its accuracy, wasused to improve the validity of the results. For example,worker motivation was measured and evaluated through in-terviews and questionnaire surveys.

Theoretical framework

As stated earlier, the theoretical framework of this re-search was mainly based on the motivational expectancy the-ory. Expectancy theory can be defined as follows: workers

2006 NRC Canada

Hewage and Ruwanpura 1077


4/16

motivation to produce could be predicted from the way theyperceive their performance as a path to attainment of theirgoals (Vroom 1964). In expectancy theory, motivation isdefined as a function of expectancy, instrumentality, and va-lence:

[1] motivation E P P O)= f V ( ) (

where E P is the effort to performance expectancy (EPexpectancy), P O is the performance to outcome expec-tancy (instrumentality or PO expectancy), and V is the va-lence.

Expectancy is the subjective probability that a personsaction will be followed by an outcome. Effort to perfor-mance expectancy (EP) is the belief that effort leads to a de-

2006 NRC Canada

1078 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 1. Expectancy theory model for measuring construction worker motivation.

Question Applicable theorya

Bonus or rewards ET, HT, RT

Amount of salary ET, EQT, RT

Friendliness and helpfulness of the coworkers ET, HT, MT, AT

Amount of freedom in your work ET, MT, AT

Chance for getting a promotion ET, RT, HT

Chances to learn new things ET, HT

Respect received from the coworkers and supervisors ET, MT, AT

Opportunity for challenging work ET, EQT, HTTools and equipment ET, EQT

Chances to accomplish something worthwhile ET, MT, RT, HT, AT

Chances to do the things which you do best and like most ET, RT, HT

Type of physical surroundings (washrooms, lunch rooms, etc.) ET, EQT, HT

Teamwork with ET, MT, EQT, AT

Supervisors understanding of the quality of technical details ET, EQT, HT

Supervisors direction and support ET, EQT, HT

Safety procedures at the site ET, MT, EQT, HT, AT

Chances to take part in decision making ET, MT, HT, AT

Opportunities to develop skills and abilities ET, HT

Job security ET, MT, EQT, HT, AT

Opportunity to work entire period of site before moving to a new one ET, EQT, RT

Seeing the ultimate results of work ET, MT, HT, AT

Supervisors positive feedback after successfully completing a task ET, MT, RT, HT, ATHolidays and free time (lunch and coffee breaks) during work ET, RT, HT, EQT

aAT, Alderfers theory; EQT, equity theory; ET, expectancy theory; HT, Herzbergs theory; MT, Maslows theory;RT, reinforcement theory.

Table 1. Selection of factors (motives) used in the questionnaire and the most applicable theories for

each selected factor.


5/16

sired performance level. In other words, workers tend toperform more if they believe in and feel confident abouttheir efforts. Performance to outcome expectancy (PO) is thebelief that performance will be followed by the desired out-come. Valence is the preference or appreciation of the out-comes or end results. There are two types of outcomes,namely extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic outcomes refers tothe outcomes that are received from someone else by appre-ciating performance (pay increase, promotion, qualityawards). Intrinsic outcomes are peoples own feelings about

their performance (self-actualization, satisfaction, more indi-vidual control). This research used only the expectancy the-ory for motivation quantification purposes and used othertheories to explain construction worker behaviour more real-istically.

Vrooms (1964) expectancy theory examines motivationfrom the perspective of why people choose to follow a par-ticular course of action. This theory would seem most appli-cable to construction work in which how motivatedemployees are depends on whether they want the reward onoffer for doing a good job and whether they believe more ef-fort will lead to that reward. Expectancy theory itself is not

sufficient to completely understand the motivational patternsof construction workers, however. Thus, the model pre-sented in Fig. 1 was developed by combining expectancytheory, needs theory (Maslow 1954), equity theory (Adam1963), and reinforcement theory (Skinner 1969).

People have several needs to be satisfied, and they are notmotivated by the same factors once these needs are achieved.The boxes to the left and right in Fig. 1 show Maslows needhierarchy, which discusses the steps of human needs.Maslows hierarchy of needs states that people must satisfyeach need in turn, starting with the first, which deals withthe most obvious needs for survival itself. Only when thelower order needs of physical and emotional well-being aresatisfied will people then be concerned with the higher orderneeds of influence and personal development. Conversely, ifthe things that satisfy lower order needs are swept away,people are no longer concerned about the maintenance oftheir higher order needs. There is an interesting extension ofMaslows theory called Alderfers ERG theory (Alderfer1969). Similar to Maslows five levels, ERG theory consistsof three levels, namely existence needs (E), relatednessneeds (R), and growth needs (G). Unlike Maslows theory,

2006 NRC Canada


Cluster Factors

Incentives Bonus and rewards

Amount of salary

Working team (work participation) Friendliness and helpfulness of coworkers

Respect received from the coworkers and supervisors

Team you work withWorking conditions (work facilitation) Amount of freedom in work

Chances to learn new things

Opportunity for challenging work

Tools and equipment

Type of physical surroundings

Safety procedures at site

Management and supervision (positive reinforcement) Chances for getting a promotion

Supervisors understanding of quality of technical details

Supervisors direction and support

Job security

Opportunities to work entire period at site before moving to a new one

Supervisors positive feedback after successfully completing a job

Holidays and free time

Intrinsic motives (goal setting) Chances to accomplish something worthwhileChances to do things which you like most and do best

Chances to take part in decision making

Opportunities to develop skills and abilities

Seeing the ultimate results of work

Table 2. Clusters of motivational factors.

Job category

No. of

subjects

Avg. no of years

of experience

Range

(years)

Foremen 13 22.8 9.040.0

Journeyman carpenters 58 16.5 5.031.0

Apprentice carpenters 15 3.2 0.85.0

Carpentry labourers 7 6.7 0.133.0General labourers 5 10.3 0.137.0

Surveyors 3 6.0 5.08.0

Table 3. Demographic information of research subjects.


6/16

ERG theory recognizes that the order of importance of needs

varies for each individual. ERG theory also emphasizes thatthe multiple levels of needs can be satisfied simultaneously.Further, ERG theory acknowledges that if higher level needsremain unfulfilled, the person may regress to lower levelneeds that appear easier to satisfy. As mentioned, Maslowsand Alderfers theories have not been used in this researchto quantify motivation because of the lack of empirical sup-port.

Adams equity theory (Adam 1963) explains the balancebetween what people put into a job and what they get out ofit. Adam calls these inputs and outputs. People formperceptions of inputs and outputs by comparing their own

situations with other reference points or examples in the

marketplace. They are also influenced by colleagues,friends, and partners in establishing these benchmarks.

Reinforcement theory (Skinner 1969) discusses the rein-forces for better performance. For example, hard workleads to a valued reward such as a paycheck, bonus, or pro-motion; if these rewards satisfy a need, the employee will bemotivated to continue with the hard work. In this case, re-ward is the reinforcer (Society for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, Inc. 2006).

The questionnaire given to workers also consideredHerzbergs theory (Herzberg et al. 1959). In his theory,Herzberg suggested that job satisfaction and job dissatisfac-

2006 NRC Canada

1080 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Category Definition

Avg.

(%)

Overall

range (%)

Foremens

range (%)

Carpenters

range (%)

Carpentry helpers

range (%)

Work (tool) time Direct effective working time 50.7 49.552.1 53.360.7 41.451.8 43.155.2

Looking for materials Time spent on searching, waiting,

or moving materials from

another place away from indi-viduals working area

14.6 12.520.4 12.019.1 11.120.9 12.223.7

Looking for tools Time spent on searching, waiting,

or moving tools from another

place away from individuals

working area

1.5 1.12.4 0.41.0 0.62.4 1.95.1

Socializing Socializing or chatting time on top

of the assigned breaks

8.6 6.910.1 3.410.2 8.510.9 6.77.9

Moving Moving around the site without

performing anything related to

the given work

7.8 4.810.1 4.813.8 4.39.9 3.08.1

Instructions Time spent on receiving or giving

instructions

2.8 2.64.5 Added to

tool time

(2.918.6)

2.03.9 1.05.5

Idle Time spent at construction sitewithout performing anything

related to the assigned job

9.3 8.310.6 0.58.4 8.611.6 6.6.10.5

Other Moving away from the working

observational area, staying near

heaters, or something not men-

tioned in all previous categories

4.7 4.06.5 0.99.6 2.65.4 2.810.8

Table 4. Definitions and values of working and non-working times.

Fig. 2. Overall working time distribution.


7/16

tion are caused by different and independent sets of factors.He found that when people are satisfied, they attribute theirsatisfaction to the work itself, while when people are dissat-

isfied with their jobs, they are concerned about the environ-ment in which they work. This means that job satisfaction iscaused by a set of factors related to the work itself, such asthe nature of the job, achievement in the work, possibilitiesof personal growth and recognition, and promotion opportu-nities. Hertzberg calls these factors motivators. In con-trast, job dissatisfaction is a result of conditions thatsurround the doing of the job, such as (physical) workingconditions, salary, company policies, job security, quality ofsupervision, and relations with others. Herzberg called thesefactors hygiene (or maintenance) factors. These are notan intrinsic part of a job: they refer to the environment andhave the function of preventing job dissatisfaction. The hy-giene factors must be continually maintained by manage-

ment because they are never completely satisfied (Manniseraet al. 2005).

Porter and Lawler (1968) developed a model based on ex-pectancy theory for motivation. Porter and Lawler did notinclude Maslows theory or reinforcement theory in theirmodel, but it is similar in other parts such as equity of re-wards and value of rewards to the proposed model ex-plained in the paper. Figure 1 was developed by combiningseveral theories and explains the construction workers pro-cess of motivation in a more realistic and construction ap-plicable manner; accordingly, the data analysis in thisresearch was based on the said model. The developed model

can be used as a motivation measurement tool for the con-struction workers.

Table 1 shows the selection of factors (motives) in a ques-tionnaire based on Maslows theory (MT), Alderfers theory(AT), expectancy theory (ET), reinforcement theory (RT),equity theory (EQT), and Herzbergs theory (HT). All thequestions were related to expectancy theory by asking aboutthe belief in effort to performance, performance to out-come, and appreciation of outcomes, which are shown inTable 1. Table 1 also shows the most applicable theories foreach selected factor because it is possible to relate any the-ory to most of the questions in Table 1. The factors pre-sented in Table 1 were selected through literature reviewsand informal interviews with construction workers. The fac-tors stated in Table 1 can be further classified into clusters asshown in Table 2. More weight had been given to manage-

ment and supervision and working conditions based on therecommendations of a productivity survey conducted byLiberda et al. (2003) and the construction productivity re-search group at the University of Calgary in 2003.

Results: construction worker efficiencies

and working time distributions

As mentioned earlier, 101 construction workers were in-terviewed, surveyed by questionnaire, and observed underthe human issues of productivity research. Table 3 shows thedemographic information of the research participants. Thecentral limit theorem in statistics indicates that obtaining

large samples (generally sample size > 30) from any popula-tion, the sample mean will follow an approximate normaldistribution (Kvanli et al. 2000). Further, according to thesample size calculations in Johnson and Bhattacharyya(1996), for a sample size of 101 with a 90% certainty in theerror of estimation and 15% standard deviation in workingtime (found in the pilot study and reconfirmed by overall re-sults), it is possible to achieve 2.45% error margin in work-ing time distributions. Hence, 101 samples are statisticallyvalid to draw conclusions in this instance.

Individual worker observations were conducted in themorning and afternoon shifts to identify working time distri-

2006 NRC Canada


Likert No. Description

1 Strongly disagree very low

2 Disagreelow

3 Somewhat disagree somewhat low

4 Neutral average

5 Somewhat agree somewhat high

6 Agreehigh

7 Strongly agree very high

Table 5. Description of the Likert scale.

Fig. 3. Cumulative density function of tool time of four construction companies (AD).


8/16

butions and efficiencies. Workers time spent for construc-tion activities was divided into two main categories, namelyworking and non-working time. The non-working time wasfurther divided into seven subcategories (Table 4). Table 4also shows the range and overall average working time dis-tribution of participating companies. The working time dis-tribution of different job categories is also presented inTable 4. The overall tool time is mainly governed by carpen-ters, since carpenters make up 73% of the sample. It is wellobserved that the working efficiency of foremen is signifi-

cantly higher than that of other carpenters and workers. Fur-ther, Fig. 2 was developed by considering the working timedistribution of all participating companies.

Overall effective working time (tool time) of all compa-nies is around 51%, which means 49% of the time is non-tool time; however, 49% of the non-tool time consists ofother supporting activities such as material handling and in-structions. It was observed at the majority of constructionsites that working time in the afternoon shifts is slightly(about 3%5%) less than that in the morning shifts. Al-though 27% of the workforce is unionized, a significant dif-ference was not observed between the tool time of unionizedworkers and that of open-shop workers where the differenceis less than 1%. Non-tool time of unionized and open-shop

workers was very similar except in two categories. The look-ing for material category was higher in open-shop workers,and socializing was higher in unionized workers, with a dif-ference of between 2% and 3%.

The largest portion of non-tool time in Fig. 2 is lookingfor materials (see the definition in Table 4). If the compa-nies could add at least 5% of the looking for materials orsearching time to effective work, it would make a significantdifference in the output. The times when workers were look-ing for materials led to other interruptions, such as stoppingat several other places, chatting, and smoking. On many oc-casions, it was observed that workers and foremen did not

plan for material requirements based on work progress orthe work targets of the day; as a result, workers had to dealwith the immediate demands of issues related to materials.

Construction workers spent about 9% of their workingtime socializing (Fig. 2). Idling was the third largest por-tion of non-working time. It is a common understanding thatworkers are unable to work continuously without a break;however, it was observed that senior workers tended tospend more time idling than younger workers. Temperaturealso affected idling time. For example, when the temperature

was below 10 C, workers spent less time idling and moretime moving out from the working area.The cumulative density function (CDF) graph in Fig. 3

represents the tool time of each company as a cumulativedistribution. For an example, 80% of the Y axis of companyA represents 39 on the X axis in the CDF. This means 80%of the time (80th percentile) the tool time is 39 min or lessfor a 1 h period for that particular company. Further, a left-skewed curve shows that all the workers are in the range ofrelatively less tool time, and vice versa. The lower and upperbands of CDF curves of four companies have significantvariation compared with the middle portion because of theworking pattern and style differences in different construc-tion companies.

Results: worker motivation

Worker motivational issues were investigated through in-terviews and questionnaire surveys. Interviews focused onidentifying variables that affect EP, PO, and valance, andquestionnaire surveys identified the motives of constructionworkers in prioritized order. Further, questionnaire surveysidentified EP, PO, and valence for each and every motive.All the questions in both interviews and questionnaire sur-veys were rated on a Likert scale of 17. Table 5 shows thedescriptions and ratings of the Likert scale used.

2006 NRC Canada

1082 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Factor Mean SD Mode Mode % Median

EP

Time frame availability 5.69 0.91 6 72 6

Past experience in similar type of work 4.37 2.16 7 23 5

Working conditions 5.53 0.82 6 60 6

Group feelings 5.12 0.98 6 41 5

PO

Past experience in similar type of work 4.37 2.16 7 23 5

Salary as compared to level of effort 4.68 1.41 6 36 5

Rewards allocation fairness 3.90 1.76 2 22 4

EP expectancy 5.68 0.87 6 73 6

Working conditions 5.53 0.82 6 60 6

Group feelings 5.12 0.98 6 41 5

Valence

Other sources of income 1.82 1.45 1 64 1

Need to earn more at the moment 4.71 1.81 6 42 6

Future benefits from rewards 3.74 1.81 2 27 4

Fairness of salary and rewards 4.76 1.56 6 45 5

Note: Means in bold indicate that the factor is rated as important.

Table 6. Results of the interviews for EP, PO, and valence.


9/16

EP expectancy by interviews

EP expectancy reflects the workers belief that effortleads to performance. Time frame availability, past experi-ence in a similar type of work, working conditions, andgroup feelings were identified as the variables that affect EPexpectancy. Table 6 summarizes the EP beliefs of the re-searched construction sites. The following are the specificcomments for each variable.

Time frame availability was not a concern for most ofthe interviewed workers. They were content with the mana-gerial decisions of targets. A few carpentry workers com-plained about continuous work loads, however, and movingall around the site for the work. Moreover, senior workers

were interested in getting involved in the decision-making

planning process to define targets for work tasks. This factorwas rated 6 out of 7 by 72% of the workers.

Average years of experience (related as past experiencein similar type of work) of an interviewed worker wasabout 15 years. During the observations, it was often notedthat most of the workers could perform their work with min-imum supervision. Only one work-related argumentissuewas observed during the observation period, and this dis-agreement was with a foreman.

Almost all the workers appreciated the working condi-tions in observed construction sites. Working conditions in-cluded the overall outside environment at the job site, such

2006 NRC Canada


Motivational level (cubic root) Valence

Cluster Factors Mean SD Mode Median Mean SD Mode Median

Incentives Bonus and rewards 4.59 1.25 4.16 4.63 4.56 1.82 6 5

Amount of salary 5.28 1.02 5.31 5.48 5.72 1.39 7 6

Working team (work

participation)

Friendliness and helpfulness

of coworkers

5.19 1.23 5.65 5.52 5.64 1.16 6 6

Respect receive from the

coworkers and supervisors

5.71 0.83 7.00 5.67 5.85 1.16 6 6

Team you work with 5.13 0.91 5.81 5.46 5.95 0.86 6 6

Working conditions (work

facilitation)

Amount of freedom in work 5.16 0.96 4.93 5.31 5.15 1.25 6 5

Chances to learn new things 5.78 0.84 5.65 5.67 6.00 1.05 7 6

Opportunity for challenging

work

5.13 0.87 5.24 5.24 5.82 1.02 6 6

Tools and equipment 5.69 0.86 5.31 5.94 6.10 0.94 7 6

Type of physical

surroundings

4.44 0.94 4.93 4.48 5.33 1.22 5 5

Safety procedures at site 5.12 1.09 5.81 5.24 6.26 0.91 7 7

Management and supervision

(positive reinforcement)

Chances for getting a

promotion

5.23 1.08 4.93 5.31 5.05 1.64 7 5

Supervisors understanding of

quality of technical details

5.56 0.83 5.65 5.65 5.85 0.99 6 6

Supervisors direction and

support

5.27 0.89 5.81 5.48 5.92 1.09 7 6

Job security 5.46 1.09 5.65 5.65 5.56 1.35 7 6

Opportunities to work entire

period at site before

moving to a new one

4.75 1.25 4.93 4.93 4.69 1.58 5 5

Supervisors positive feed-

back after successfully

completing a job

5.27 0.96 5.31 5.31 5.51 1.30 6 6

Holidays and free time 4.25 0.99 4.79 4.38 5.26 1.27 5 5

Intrinsic motives (goal

setting)

Chances to accomplish some-

thing worthwhile

5.31 0.99 5.65 5.59 5.74 0.99 5 6

Chances to do things which

you like most and do best

5.32 0.83 6.32 5.31 5.51 1.32 6 6

Chances to take part in deci-

sion making

5.07 1.05 4.58 5.31 5.26 1.16 6 6

Opportunities to develop

skills and abilities

5.60 0.86 6.00 5.65 5.74 1.07 6 6

Seeing the ultimate results of

work

5.55 0.94 6.32 5.65 5.67 0.98 6 6

Note: Means of the most important motives identified by the workers at all construction sites are given in bold.

Table 7. Motivational levels and valence by questionnaire surveys.


10/16

as weather, company management, safety at work, and thephysical facilities (e.g.,washrooms, lunchrooms). This factorwas rated 6 out of 7 by 60% of the workers.

Group feelings refers to the communication from otherworkers about the working conditions. As shown in Table 6,most of the workers were well informed by the other co-workers about good working conditions.

By considering ratings for all the factors that affect EP

(refer to the values in bold in Table 6), all the aforemen-tioned factors except past experience in similar type ofwork are rated as important on a benchmark of 5 on thescale of 1 to 7 in Table 3.

PO expectancy by interviews

PO expectancy is the belief that better performance leadsto more outcome or output. Past experience in similar typeof work, salary as compared to level of effort, rewardsallocation fairness, EP expectancy, working conditions,and group feelings are the factors that were identified un-der PO expectancy. The variables and their responses that af-fect PO expectancy of four companies are given in Table 6.

As mentioned earlier, Alberta has a highly experiencedworkforce and the past experience may have reinforced thebelief that better performance leads to a better outcome.

About 50% of the workers believed that they would re-ceive more salary for their work, especially the senior work-ers. Some young carpenters complained that they weregetting salaries similar to those of labourers. As a result, theworkers were not highly motivated. In general, there was noperformance-based rewards scheme at the sites and thusworkers were not motivated to perform extra tasks or moreefficiently. The only rewards they received were a fewsafety rewards. A fair and justifiable performance-based

rewards scheme would be a key factor for improving con-struction productivity.

EP expectancy itself has an impact on PO expectancy, thatis, the workers belief that more effort leads to better perfor-mance. Even though they believed in EP expectancy, theydid not have a reason to put more effort into their work be-cause they were not getting a salary based on performanceor work targets.

As mentioned under EP expectancy, workers were well in-formed by the other coworkers about good working condi-tions. By considering ratings for all the factors that affectPO (refer to the values in bold in Table 6), EP expectancy,working conditions, and group feelings are rated as impor-tant on a benchmark of 5 on the scale of 1 to 7 in Table 3.

Valence by interviewsValence indicates how much the workers value or appreci-

ate the outcomes or outputs of their performance and de-pends on other sources of income, need to earn more, beliefin future benefits from rewards, and belief in fairness of sal -ary and rewards. The variables and responses that affect va-lence of the four companies are given in Table 6.

Most of the construction workers did not have othersources of income (64% of the workers interviewed had noother income). Their only income was through the companyand construction work. This factor was a positive one forworker motivation on the site level, however. In this particu-lar case, a lower rating is more beneficial for the companyfrom the motivation point of view.

More than 70% of the workers in all observed siteswanted to earn more (need to earn more at the moment).Others were satisfied with their current income. The youngerworkers especially wanted to earn more, whereas seniorworkers were satisfied with their current income.

2006 NRC Canada

1084 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Motivational category

Activity Incentives Work participation Work facilitation

Looking for materials

and tools

Provide opportunities to workers to ex-

press their views and innovative meth-

ods about construction methods and

processes

It is possible to update an online data-

base about the materialstools avail-

abilities and locations and provide

access to site levelSocializing, idle, and

moving

Promote an on-site newsletter or bro-

chure to discuss issues related to

teamwork, non-tool time, inventions,

appreciations, etc.

Employ more lower level managers to

work with workers at site level

Instructions It is possible to conduct a discussion

time within the working team, at least

once in 2 weeks, to listen to each

others views of effective teamwork

and communication

Employ more lower level managers to

work with workers at site level

Table 8. Recommendations to improve on-site communication.


11/16

Workers were also questioned about their belief of gettingfuture benefits from rewards if they performed more atpresent. Interestingly, about 75% of the workers did not be-lieve that they would receive any future rewards or benefits.This lack of belief was mainly the result of there being noperformance-based rewards scheme. Workers did not see anyreason to perform or work more productively. Most of theworkers believed, however, that they were getting a fair sal-

ary from the company based on the present industry norms(fairness of salary and rewards).According to Table 6 (refer to the values in bold), the only

factor that is beneficial from the point of view of the compa-nies is the lower other sources of income of constructionworkers.

Prioritization of motivational level and

valence by questionnaire surveys

As mentioned previously, a questionnaire was issued toevery worker after the interview. Each worker was allowedto take the questionnaire home for completion and return itlater. The main focus of the questionnaire was to understandthe motives and motivational levels for each motive. Further,the workers were allowed to identify and rank any motivesother than those identified in the questionnaire. The overallresponse rate for the questionnaires was about 45%.

The individual motivational levels for each factor werecalculated using the expectancy theory model shown inFig. 1. Each question was rated on a Likert scale of 17. Themotivational level (ML) is in the range of 1343 (7 7 7,where EP, PO, and valence were rated on a Likert scale of17; for expectancy theory, ML = EP PO valence). Forexample, if a worker rates all EP, PO, and valence as 6, thenthe motivational level is 216; if all are 7, then the motiva-

tional level is 343; if all are 5, then the motivational level is125; etc. For comparison purposes, however, the cubic rootof the motivational levels was taken where the values werein the 7 point scale.

Table 7 shows the motivational levels at the constructionsites considering the present site conditions. Valence repre-sents the workers appreciationlikeliness for each motive,irrespective of the existing conditions at the present job site,

that is, how much they preferred a motive as a motivator, asshown in Table 7.

There are many common factors identified as the most im-portant by the workers at the four different constructionsites. Almost all the workers considered the respect they re-ceive from coworkers as more important than the averagelevel (which is 4 on a Likert scale of 17). Workers alwaysprefer to be respected by their supervisors, managers, andcoworkers. In addition, workers identified chances to learnnew things as another important motivational factor. Eventhe most experienced workers commented on the chancesto learn new things. Workers did not believe their perfor-mance might improve the type of physical surroundings,holidays and free time, and bonus and rewards, however.

The levels for the most important motives identified bythe workers at all construction sites are given in bold in Ta-ble 7. Safety procedures at site is one of the highly appre-ciated factors by construction workers, and most workerspreferred to learn new things in construction. Further, theyappreciated the factors that have a direct relationship withon-site work, such as tools and equipment and supervi-sors direction and support. Workers preferred to havebetter direction and support from foremen and supervisors.

Most of the managers assume that the financial incentivesare the main motives for construction workers, but only oneout of four sites rated salary as one of the priorities. That

2006 NRC Canada


Positive reinforcement Goal setting

Top managers such as project managers, field engineers, and pro-

ject coordinators should be more approachable for on-site

workers

Similar to theme in safety first zero accidents, companies

should convey a message to workers to achieve a systematic

standard in materials and tools placing

Training programs for managers and foremen about communica-

tion may improve the present status; it is possible to allow

managers to pursue technical communication and work site

communication courses in educational and technical institu-

tions from time to time

Workers should be continuously updated about working targets

and deadlines; work targets and achievements can be dis-

played on notice boards; these boards can be located in

lunch rooms, site offices, and other gathering areas

Implementing listening environment at the site could also

improve communication substantially

Weekly meetings with all the workers and explain at least weekly

targets of project; these meetings can also be used as conflict

and dispute resolution medium for both managers and workers;

furthermore, all important notices, safety instructions, new poli-

cies, common problems, etc. can be discussed in these

meetings; this approach will build close relationships and trust

between management and workers

Use of three-dimensional models and drawings in the display

areas of site is a great communication method; most inter-

viewees mentioned that they were not aware of the end

product of the project and would like to see the details of

construction at regular intervals

Top managers such as project managers, field engineers, and pro-

ject coordinators should be more approachable for on-site lead

workers

Allow workers to access more blueprints, specifications, and

other construction-related information when required


12/16

particular site employed a relatively young workforce in

which 65% had less than 10 years of experience. Interest-ingly, most of the workers rated Bonus and rewards asless important. However, they complained during the inter-views about the lack of performance-based reward schemes.It seems workers do not think they will ever get rewards andbonuses in construction because of the present conditions inconstruction. The workers rating of opportunities to workentire period on site before moving to a new one is rela-tively low compared with that of other motives.

By considering the views of all workers who participatedin the productivity research study, it is possible to summa-rize the following as the most important motives for

Albertan construction workers: (i) safety procedures at the

site, (ii) tools and equipment, (iii) chances to learn newthings, (iv) team you work with, (v) supervisors directionand support, (vi) respect received from the coworkers andsupervisors, (vii) supervisors understanding of quality oftechnical details, and (viii) opportunity for challenging work.

Further, workers believed their performance level has animpact on the following factors based on the present settingsat construction sites: (i) chances to learn new things, (ii) re-spect received from the coworkers and supervisors,(iii) better tools and equipment to work with, ( iv) opportuni-ties to develop skills and abilities, (v) supervisors under-standing of quality of technical details (having a qualified

2006 NRC Canada

1086 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Motivational category

Activity Incentives Work participation

Looking for materials and tools It is possible to identify material re-

quirements for individual teams at

least for a weekly schedule

Companies can employ some general

labourers to stock materials for a

nearby area in a proper order; at the

moment, workers move materials for

the instant demands

Socializing, idle, and moving Implementation of effective reward scheme may moti-

vate workers considerably; at present, all workers

get fixed wages regardless of their performance andproductivity level; usually, workers get motivated

due to rewards like company stickers, tool kits,

company jackets, and safety equipment; the

company should recognize the long-term benefits

due to these rewards

Workers tend to use working time as a

socializing time because of the lack of

social activities at construction sites;companies may have regular get-

togethers, and it may help to develop

more team spirit

Instructions Foremen and supervisors should be

strictly careful about the language

they use for instructions; manyworkers complained about disrespect-

ful behaviour of supervisors

Table 9. Recommendations for working conditions, supervision, and equipment and tools management.


13/16

supervisor), (vi) job security, (vii) chances to do things

which you like most and do best, and ( viii) chances to ac-complish something worthwhile.It was frequently noticed in the data analysis that workers

rated all the motives above 4 on the Likert scale of 17 inthe questionnaire surveys. This finding gives strong supportfor the validity of the 23 motives identified for constructionworkers through the literature review.

Recommendations to improve productivity

Many recommendations were suggested to the participat-ing companies based on the data analysis in the construction

productivity research study. Interestingly, some of the

recommendations had already been implemented at the ob-served sites, and companies were planning to implementmany more in their future construction projects. Under therecommendations of this paper, only the common recom-mendations that are applicable to all the companies arestated, although each company was given specific recom-mendations.

Recommendations presented in this paper cover the fol-lowing influential areas based on the research results: (i) on-site communication; and (ii) working environment, supervi-sion, and equipment and tools management. The recommen-dations in this paper are stated in matrix form to combine

2006 NRC Canada


Work facilitation Positive reinforcement Goal setting

Use of proper materials and tools inventory sys-

tem might minimize confusion; at present,

most site workers do not know the availability

and location of tools and materials; site staffcan use a simple computer program to update

material and tools availabilities on a daily ba-

sis; each foreman should have access to this

information

Employ more low-level managers such as

foremen and field coordinators in construc-

tion sites; it will solve many problems in

communication, materials, tools, and safety;utilization of foremen is not a considerable

extra cost for the companies; these person-

nel are also working like ordinary workers

but with additional responsibilities

Full work package can be divided

into manageable components

where handling and tracking is

manageable to the managers ofcompany; development of

weekly work packages and

planning for required materials

and tools is another suggestion

Paretos 80/20 rule can be used to store or stack

materials and equipments; the rule says 80% of

the time workers need 20% of the tools or

materials, and 20% of the time they need 80%

of the tools or materials; in general, the idea is

to identify priorities and requirements of tools

and equipment

The observed sites had many

delays due to problems in uti-

lizing tower cranes; major

equipment requirements such as

tower cranes could be sched-

uled in weekly work plans and

also in monthly plans

Most of the interviewed workers complained

about routine work styles; it is better to rotate

worker teams from time to time to differentactivities; this process will improve the skills

of workers and reduce the chances of feeling

bored; for example, occasionally a column

crew can be switched with a carpentry crew

working on slabs; however, this requires justi-

fication through research-based site

observations to make sure that productivity is

not affected due to learning curve

It is advisable to have more events to cele-

brate their successful accomplishments, as

workers believe that teamwork is successfor better achievements

Delegating responsibilities to the

lower level managers may

reduce much confusion anddelays; at the moment, all the

observed companies tend to

have control over all the site

activities

It is advisable to provide managerial training

courses for site-level managers such as

foremen

Companies should advice lower level managers

such as foremen not to compromise safety for

tight work schedules

Positive feedback is very important in any

type of construction activity; usually, man-

agers and supervisors play a watch-dogrole and identify only the defects in con-

struction; this approach demotivates

workers to be more productive and also

prevents innovation of new methods and

techniques

More worker involvement in

defining work targets and dead-

lines is a necessity

It is possible to delegate some of

foremen responsibilities to lead

workers, since most of the sites

have well-experienced construc-

tion workers


14/16

and focus both observations and questionnaire surveys.These matrices include clusters in the questionnaire surveys(Table 2) and non-tool time categories in the observations(Fig. 2).

On-site communicationMore than 40% of the interviewees from all construction

sites complained about the lack of communication. Somesaid they did not even know the type of work they were toperform for their next work shift. They all depended on in-structions from the foremen, and so sometimes ineffectivecommunication caused extensive delays and idle time.Workers were willing to know the entire work plan for thesite activities and project. The interviewer had to spend areasonable amount of time listening to the workers concernsabout communication. When the question What could beimproved in your team? was asked, the answer workersgave most often was lack of communication.

Construction managers have a great responsibility for im-proving the ineffective communication at construction sites.One of the previous researchers said that many managers

were brought up in the old school or through the trades,where authoritarian leadership was usually the rule (Oglesbyet al. 1989). The present workforce, however, does not ac-cept directions from the manager without knowing the basisor reason behind the decision. Workers blamed managementfor faulty communication and believed that they themselveswere not responsible for ineffective communication that ledto poor productivity and shorter tool time. The recommenda-tions to improve on-site communication are given in Table 8.

Working environment, supervision, and equipment andtools management

Ineffective management has been cited as the primarycause of poor productivity rather than an unmotivated and

unskilled workforce (Sanvido 1988). Lack of supervisionwas observed on many occasions at all construction sites.Most of the workers inefficiencies were observed to be theresult of poor supervision and decision-making. Further,most of the motivational factors related to management andsupervision are comparatively high in Table 7, which em-phasizes the need to have better supervision. Moreover, mostof the workers mentioned the lack of a performance-basedreward system in the company. They argued that there is noreason to perform more if higher performance is not recog-nized or rewarded.

One of the main factors contributing to high productivityis proper equipment and materials utilization. The utilizationwill be low if the equipment is not available, the wrong size,at the wrong place, not working, not suitable for the job, notoperating properly, and so on. More front-end planningshould be done to overcome these problems.

The workers are not responsible for the low productivitycaused by unavailability of materials and tools. The follow-ing recommendations are suggested to improve materials,equipment, and tool management. (The working time distri-bution pie chart in Fig. 2 shows that the workers spend about15% of their total working time looking for materials andtools.) Further, as shown in Table 7, almost all the workersat the participating construction sites rated tools and equip-ment as a highly appreciated motive. The recommendations

for working environment, supervision, and equipment andtools management are given in Table 9.

Conclusions

The research study presented in this paper allowed ananalysis that was based on monitoring construction work and

interviewing 101 construction workers from four major con-struction contractors work sites. Tool time was measuredthrough observation, and the same workers were interviewedto understand their concerns about work efficiency and moti-vation. According to the observed data for the 101 workers,the direct tool time of the same construction workers wasabout 51%. Workers spent a considerable amount of time in-volved in material movements, idling, and socializing.

This study found a new expectancy motivational modelfor construction workers. The model identified the factorsleading to three areas: effort to performance, performance tooutcome, and valence. The most highlighted factors in thisnew model for productivity improvement are time frameavailability, group feelings, working conditions, effort to

performance expectancy, and non-existence of other sourcesof income.

The main finding from the interviews was the inadequacyof communication. More than 40% of the interviewed work-ers at all the construction sites mentioned communication is-sues and named the site managers as responsible. Workerswere not satisfied with the available performance-based re-ward schemes at the construction sites. They questioned whythey should be motivated to perform better if all are gettingthe same rewards irrespective of their outputs.

Chances to learn new things and tools and equipmentwere prioritized in all construction sites as important mo-tives. It is interesting to observe that a workforce with an av-erage of 15 years experience is still motivated by learning

new things. The topmost rated motive for the constructionworkers is safety procedures at construction sites, but theworkers do not believe their level of performance has muchimpact on improvements in safety procedures. Generally, thesafety standards were excellent at the majority of the ob-served sites. Safety officers were performing their dutiesstrictly, and most of the workers appreciated their efforts.The only reward scheme mentioned by the workers wassafety rewards.

Recommendations to solve the identified problem areasgiven here are under the areas of communication, workingenvironment, supervision, and equipment and tools. The rec-ommendations include implementation of a performance-based rewards scheme, use of three-dimensional models anddrawings in display areas, communication-focused trainingprograms for managers, employing more lower level manag-ers such as foremen, implementation of a material trackingsystem, and so on.

This study provides a landmark for construction produc-tivity improvement research in Canada. The findings of theresearch in terms of efficiency, tool time, and what the re-lated human issues are will truly benefit not only the fourconstruction companies but also the Canadian constructionindustry and its benchmarking. Construction industry per-sonnel and the companies who participated in the study re-ceived the opportunity to learn from this research done

2006 NRC Canada

1088 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006


15/16

independently in the university environment. Companies hadthe opportunity to understand their work efficiency and hu-man and productivity issues so that they can improve theirwork practices. Each company was provided with a compar-ison of the same data from the other companies withoutnaming those companies. This comparison also allowed thecompanies to compare their performance with that of the

other contractors who participated in the study. It is hopedthat these new findings will truly affect how the constructioncompanies plan and manage future projects to improve theircompetitive advantage in the construction industry.

The following are limitations of this study:(1) The study allowed an analysis that was based on moni-

toring construction work and interviewing industry per-sonnel over a limited period and only for a specificconstruction trade. The results of the study cannot begeneralized to other trades because of the complex na-ture of the construction business and operations.

(2) Although tool time was measured accurately by moni-toring 101 workers, it was not possible to measure theoutput for many reasons. The workers scopes of work

were not consistent for measuring the output. Workersdid several work tasks of which it was not possible tomeasure the output, such as sawing, constructingformwork edges, holding and moving form boards, andnailing on formwork.

(3) Vroom (1964) expectancy theory was used in this re-search by focusing on construction on-site settings.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support and fundingfor this research project by Ellis Don, Graham, PCL, andLedcor companies, the Construction Research Institute ofCanada, the Canadian Construction Research Board, Calgary

Construction Association, and the Natural Sciences and En-gineering Research Council of Canada under CollaborativeResearch and Development Grant CRDPJ 299392-03.

References

Adam, J.S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 422436.

Alberta Economic Development. 2004. Alberta Canada web page[online]. Available from http://www.alberta-canada.com [accessed20 January 2005].

Alderfer, C.P. 1969. An empirical test of a new theory of humanneeds. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4:142175.

Arditi, D. 1985. Construction productivity improvement. ASCE Jour-nal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111: 114.

Banik, G.C. 1999. Construction productivity improvement. In Pro-ceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) 35thAnnual Conference, San Luis Obispo, Calif., 710 April 1999.

Edited by C. Berryman. Associated Schools of Construction(ASC), Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. pp. 165178.

Borcherding, J.D. 1976. Improving productivity in industrial con-struction. ASCE Journal of the Construction Division, 102(4):599614.

Borcherding, J.D., and Oglesby, C.H. 1974. Construction produc-tivity and job satisfaction. ASCE Journal of the Construction Di-vision, 100(3): 413431.

Canadian Construction Association. 2004. Canadian constructionindustry forecast, 20052009 [online]. Available fromhttp://www.cca-acc.com/factsheet/factsheet.html [accessed 19September 2005].

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

Failing, R.G., Janzen, J.L., and Blevins, L.D. 1988. Work measure-ment techniques. Journal of Accountancy, 165(4): 104.

Gordon, C., and Smith, A. 2001. Understanding psychological typeto improve project team performance. Journal of Management inEngineering, 17: 2433.

Heale, D.G. 1993. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the factorsaffecting productivity in Canadian construction projects. M.Eng.thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, N.L.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B.B. 1959. The motiva-tion to work. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Jenkins, J.R., Douglas, G., and Laufer, A. 1982. Improving con-struction productivity: the case for motivation. AACE Transac-tions, AACE International, Morgantown, W.Va.

Johnson, R.A., and Bhattacharyya, G.K. 1996. Statistics: principlesand methods. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Kvanli, A.H., Pavur, R.J., and Guyness, C.S. 2000. Introduction to

business statistics: a computer integrated data analysis approach.5th ed. South-Western College Publishing, Mason, Ohio.

Laufer, A., and Borcherding, J.D. 1981. Financial incentives toraise productivity. ASCE Journal of the Construction Division,107(4): 745756.

Liberda, M., Ruwanpura, J.Y., and Jergeas, G. 2003. Constructionproductivity improvement: a study of human, managerial andexternal factors. In Winds of Change: Integration and Innovationin Construction: Proceedings of the Construction Research Con-gress, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1921 March 2003. Edited by K.R.Molenaar and P.S. Chinowsky. ASCE, Reston, Va. CD-ROM.

Maloney, W.F., and McFillen, J.M. 1987. Motivational impact onwork crews. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement, 113: 208221.

Mannisera, M., Dusseldorp, E., and Anita, J. 2005. Componentstructure of job satisfaction based on Herzbergs theory. Depart-ment of Quantitative Methods, University of Brescia, Brescia,Italy.

Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. Harper & Row, NewYork.

McTague, B., and Jergeas, G. 2003. Productivity improvement onAlberta major construction projects [online]. Alberta EconomicDevelopment Board, Calgary, Alta. Available fromhttp://www.alberta-canada.com [accessed 7 February 2005].

Oglesby, C.H., Parker, H.W., and Howel, G.A. 1989. Productivityimprovement in construction, McGraw Hill, New York.

Porter, L.W., and Lawler, E.E. 1968. Managerial attitudes and per-formance. Dorsey Press, Homewood, Ill.

Sanvido, V.E. 1988. Conceptual construction process model. ASCE

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114:294311.

Schrader, C.R. 1972. Motivation of construction craftsmen. ASCEJournal of the Construction Division, 98: 257273.

Skinner, B.F. 1969. Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoreticalanalysis. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2006.Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.(SIOP), Bowling Green, Ohio. Available from http://siop.org/Instruct/Motivate/sld004.htm [accessed 2 August 2005].

The Business Roundtable. 1989. Construction labour motivation.Report A-2, The Business Roundtable, Washington, D.C.

Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and motivation. Wiley, New York.

2006 NRC Canada



16/16

journal alberta

Documents