ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (AAIT)

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
(CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT STREAM)

A Factor model to predict the construction labour productivity in building

Project: A Case study of Meles Zenawi leadership academy construction
project

A Thesis submitted to School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in

partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Master of Science in
Civil Engineering (Construction
Technology and Management)

By: Kwizera Arnaud

Advisor: Abraham Assefa (PhD)

March 2019, Addis Ababa

i
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (AAIT)
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
(CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT STREAM)

A Factor model to predict the construction labour productivity in building

Project: A Case study of Meles leadership academy construction project

By Kwizera Arnaud

March, 2019

Approved by Board of Examiners;

Dr. Abraham Assefa __________________ ________________

Advisor Signature Date

Dr. Yibeltal Zewdi __________________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dr. Asregedew kassa __________________ ________________

External Examiner Signature Date

____________________ __________________ ________________

Chairman Signature Date

ii
 Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to thank the almighty God for giving me the strength to
complete this thesis in situation of many unexpected challenges.

I wish to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Abraham Assefa for his

continued guidance, supervision, constant encouragement, and comments
throughout the course of this research. His dedication to helping me succeed is
deeply appreciated.

Special thanks to all friends and colleagues especially to Eng. BirhanGoshu for
his support and advices during the study.

I am also grateful to Managers at the YOTEK Construction Company,

especially to engineer Eng. Hailu Tesfaye, project manager at the Goro
construction site for providing me important information for this study.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their prayers, my sisters and
brother, and all of my family for their love, and support me to achieve my goals,
thanks.

iii
 Abstract
In the construction industry, labor productivity is a key variable in the profitability of a
construction project. The most challenging issue for planning a construction project is
predicting the construction labor productivity (CLP) because it is affected with many factors
that are objective and subjective ranging from internal to external. Based on review of the
literatures, several research on CLP have been done in the past; however, a deeper
understanding is still needed to control the construction labor productivity because
parameters (factors and practices) influencing construction labor productivity are multi-
faceted and project dependent. In an attempt to predict CLP in construction projects, this
research aims to identify, classify and quantify parameters (factors and practices) influencing
the CLP of concrete placement, Rebar and formwork using a case study at the construction of
the Meles Zenawi leadership academy situated at Goro by developing a multiple regression
model .In this paper, the effective factors that affect the CLP were taken from a large
literature review and 20 factors were classified into Management, Labor/human,
technological and external termed based on the findings . In total, 222 data points have been
collected for a period of two months on both daily and weekly basis. Multiple regression
models have been developed for each activity. The slab formwork, column formwork, lift
formwork and rebaring presented significant models with a coefficient of determination of
77.6%, 47.0%, 82.6% and 82.7%, respectively. In slab formwork activity, the study results
indicated that increased crew size and complexity of the task decrease the CLP. In column
formwork, the increase in level of interruption and disruption, crew size, working conditions
and temperature will tend to lower the CLP, while the increase in the skills of labor and will
increase the CLP. In lift formwork, the model shows that the increase in crew size, shortage
of materials will decrease the CLP, whereas the increase in the crew experience and skills
labor will increase it. For the rebaring activity the increase in skilled labor and clarity of
technical specifications will considerably increase the CLP. In the study, the improvement
strategies are also discussed.

Key words: Factors affecting the productivity construction labor productivity (CLP) multiple
regressions

iv
Contents
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of figures ..................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the study ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Construction productivity variables........................................................................................2
1.3. Statement of the problem ...................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research objectives ................................................................................................................4
1.4.1. General objectives .......................................................................................................... 4
1.4.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Summary of the research........................................................................................................ 4
1.6. Limitations...............................................................................................................................5
Chapter 2: Overview of the construction industry .................................................................................6
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................6
2.2. Ethiopian construction industry..............................................................................................7
2.3. Structure of Ethiopian construction industry ......................................................................... 9
b. Ethiopian labor and its characteristics..................................................................................10
2.4. Performance Constraints ......................................................................................................11
Chapter three: Literature review and research methodology..............................................................13
3.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................13
3.2. Review of CLP Models...........................................................................................................13
3.2.1. Factor model .................................................................................................................13
3.3. Factors and parameters affecting the CLP............................................................................18
3.3.1. Categories of CLP factors ..............................................................................................18
3.3.2. Overview of CLP’s factors..............................................................................................19
3.3.3. Cases studies in developing countries ..........................................................................22
3.4. Research methodology .........................................................................................................34
3.5. Identification of critical factors affecting productivity in building construction ..................36
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................39
4.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................39

v
 4.2. Project context report...........................................................................................................39
4.3. Description of data................................................................................................................39
a. Daily variables: ......................................................................................................................40
b. Weekly variables ...................................................................................................................41
4.4. Data analysis .........................................................................................................................42
4.4.1. Descriptive analysis.......................................................................................................42
3.3.2. Correlation and regression analysis ..............................................................................45
3.3.4. Validation of the model ................................................................................................51
1.1. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................54
Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A: Data collection sheet ........................................................................................................60
Productivity data sheet .....................................................................................................................61
Quantification of factors and parameters ........................................................................................63
Appendix B: factors and parameters affecting CLP versus CLP (scatter plots) .....................................64
Appendix C: Pearson correlation analysis for the slab, column, lift formwork and rebaring works ....71

vi
Table of figures
Figure 1: Growth and Percentage Distribution of Major Agricultural, Industrial and Service Sub-
sectors .....................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2: Industries contribution to GDP................................................................................................8
Figure 3: Average management score..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: the plot for temperature and humidity with the other factors kept constant ..........................14
Figure 5: Plot of factor model for crew size with the other factors kept constant ................................15
Figure 6: structure of artificial neural network (Halpin., 2005)............................................................17
Figure 7: crew size vs CLP for the slab formwork activity ..................................................................64
Figure 8: complexity of the task vs CLP for slab formwork.................................................................64
Figure 9:CLP versus the crew size for column formwork activity .......................................................65
Figure 10: level of interruption vs CLP for column formwork activity................................................65
Figure 11:Skills of labor vs CLP for formwork activity .......................................................................66
Figure 12: Working conditions vs CLP for column formwork.............................................................66
Figure 13: Temperature vs CLP for column formwork activity ...........................................................67
Figure 14: Skills of labor vs CLP for rebaring activity.........................................................................67
Figure 15: Clarity of technical specifications for rebaring works activity............................................68
Figure 16:crew size vs CLP for lift formwork activity .........................................................................68
Figure 17: shortage of materials vs CLP for lift formwork activity......................................................69
Figure 18: Crew experience vs CLP for lift formwork activity ............................................................70
Figure 19: Skills of labor VS CLP for lift formwork............................................................................70

vii
List of Abbreviations
CLP Construction Labor Productivity

r Pearson Correlation Factor

R square Coefficient of Determination

F F-test

Sig P-value

CBR Case Based Reasoning

UAE United Arab Emirates

PDP Predicted Daily Productivity

MWUD Ministry of Work and Urban Development

GDP Gross Domestic Product

NBE National Bank of Ethiopia

viii
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Construction industry is a significant contributor in the economic growth of a country. In
developed countries, the construction industry incorporates the GDP growth of 7-10%,
whereas in under developed countries the percentage is only 3-6 % (Sana and Muqeem 2012).
Construction industry is an important element in the economic growth of Ethiopia and it
constituting almost 6% of the country’s GDP of the country .In light of making the industry
profitable, many researchers have been working tirelessly to improve the efficiency of the
construction labor productivity which is a key indicator of both the performance of
construction industry and the success of a construction project. Labor is one of the most
crucial resources used to measure construction productivity constituting large portion of the
project cost. Construction labor productivity (CLP) affects the profitability of construction
companies. However, CLP are highly variable that are influenced by many factors which
makes it a major source of project risk (Tsehayae and Fayek 2014). In Ethiopia, contractors
typically use previous projects rates to predict production rates of future projects and do not
account different factors and parameters that affect project from place to place. (Muqueem
and Khamidi 2011) found that the use of previous projects production rates for estimation of
future projects requires a readjustment for each project and takes into account the various site
factors and conditions that influence the CLP for construction operations. In this research, a
list of multi-level factors and practices were identified through the literatures, ranked and
then a factor model to predict CLP will be developed by taking the influencing factors and
parameters as the independent variables.

Construction productivity models explain productivity variations by the factors included in

the model. The models are useful for construction planning, estimating, and scheduling. In
planning, productivity models of controllable factors (such as crew size or scheduled
overtime) are needed for maximizing labor productivity to achieve lower labor cost and
shorter project duration. In estimating, productivity models are used to predict labor costs;
while in scheduling, productivity models are needed to forecast activity durations.
Although productivity modeling is an important part of construction planning, estimating,
and scheduling, models developed so far are limited in explaining the variations of
productivity and much different from one place to another and are project dependent. Most of
models developed in the past used a single factor while neglecting the variations caused by

1
other factors. Additionally, Olabosipo et al (2011) indicated that “influencing factors are
rarely constant and may vary from country to country, from project to project, and even on
the same project depending on the circumstances, which subsequently affect productivity”. In
this research, the model will be developed based on a number of the factors and parameters
for accuracy in case of the construction project in Addis Ababa.

1.2. Construction productivity variables

The prediction of the value of CLP accurately in construction project is the basis for decision
making in planning, bidding, and control of the execution of the project. Extensive work has
been done by researchers in terms of identifying factors influencing the productivity of labor
on site such as weather, lack of equipment and material, labor skills, incompetent
supervision, incompetent drawing, poor communication, change orders, late payments. Also
many researchers have studied the relationship of these factors with productivity to evaluate
the impact of those factors. Some of the previous studies on construction labor productivity in
construction sector include:
Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) conducted a study to investigate labor productivity drivers
and productivity in the US construction sector. The study surveyed different projects (e.g.
contractor, consultant, owner etc.) and determined that the worker management skills and
manpower matters are the two core enhancement drivers.
Graham and Smith (2004) collected historical productivity data on the concrete supply and in
situ distribution for the reason of deriving a forecasting model by using Case Based
Reasoning (CBR) principles. Chan and Kaka (2007) studied the factors of construction
productivity in the United Kingdom by conducting a survey based on questionnaire aimed at
both blue collar workers and white-collar managers. Tsehayae and Fayek (2016) studied and
developed system model parameters by reviewing prior literatures. The data were collected
from the field at 11projects over a span of 29 months. Activity models based on the
relationship between construction labor productivity (CLP) and WSP (work sampling) were
created, and their validity was tested using regression analysis for eight activities in the
concreting, electrical and shutdown categories. The proposed system model was developed
for concreting activity using the key influencing parameters in conjunction with WSPs. The
results of the regression analysis indicate that WSPs, like direct work, are not significantly
correlated to CLP and fails to explain its variance. Evaluation of the system model approach
for the concreting activity showed improved CLP prediction as compared to existing
approaches.

2
Even though, several researches has been done in the past due to complex variability of CLP
influencing parameters and factors, increasing of complexity of construction projects and
challenges in collection of data, there is a need to investigate the CLP .

1.3. Statement of the problem

Productivity can be defined in many ways. In construction, productivity is usually taken to

mean labor productivity, that is, units of work placed or produced per man-hour. It is a ratio
of production output to what is required to produce it. The measure of productivity is defined
as a total output per one unit of a total input. According to (Hashem et al., 2000) the
following equation can clearly explain of the so called labor productivity:

Labor Productivity = …………….Equation 1

In construction productivity, the output is usually expressed in cost of labour or man-hours.
In Ethiopian construction industry, there is a lack of production rate standards for contractors
to use as a reference for purposes of construction cost estimation. CLP has a significant
impact on project costs, as on-site labour costs contribute between one third and one half of
overall project costs (Fayek 2011).Construction labour productivity is situated in an
environment that is more complex and unpredictable than the conversion process itself. The
identification of the CLP parameters is a priority in order to accurately model a CLP, as they
are made of various objective and subjective factors and practices (e.g., crew size, foreman
skill in planning, complexity of task, quality of drawings, weather condition etc.). The
parameters are also used to understand the cause and effect relation of the environment to the
efficiency of the conversion process, represented in terms of efficiency measures like CLP.
The major problem occurring in any construction project is the delays occurring during the
project, which consequently affect the cost and the overall profitability of the project. In a
way of making the construction projects more profitable, construction managers need to
implement new strategies to improve labour productivity and this can be done if they have a
clear understanding on the factors affecting the CLP and a model which helps them to now by
how much it impacts the CLP. Resolving this issue can help to improve the overall
performance of construction projects through the implementation of a model. In addition, it
provides an up-to --date concept of loss of productivity measurement for construction
productivity claims.

3
1.4. Research objectives

1.4.1. General objectives

The main objective of this thesis is to develop labour productivity improvement model for the
Ethiopian construction industry.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives associated with the CLP model development are:
 Identify influencing factors and parameters of the CLP on construction project
.
 Develop a local factor model to predict the CLP by using variables influencing
parameters.
 Establish Alternatives strategies for improvement of the CLP.

1.5. Summary of the research

In this research, firstly factors and parameters influencing the CLP were identified by
reviewing a number of literatures especially from developing countries of, the factors were
then classified into four main factors such as management, labor/human, technological and
external. Secondly, data was collected at Meles zenawi leadership academy for a period of 2
months, and each factor were quantified. Then, the CLP was calculated as a ratio of a daily
production of a given crew to the recorded duration of the considered activity.. In this
method, project site activities were monitored whereby the motivation, capacity to perform
the job, leadership of the foreman, complexity of the task and clarity of the specification were
quantified using likert scale.
The project management team was consulted to get reliable information on the crew
members. Then, the different data were used to develop trends that helped us to develop a
model for the study. The statistical data were used to analyze the positive or negative effect
of selected factors and parameters influencing the CLP. Then, the data were analyzed using
multiple regressions to model a crew level productivity subjected to a number of factors.
Lastly conclusions and recommendations for future research work related to CLP are
established.

4
1.6. Limitations
This research has several limitations. Model limitations are mostly related to the model’s
structure and parameter. Some of the limitations are listed as follows:

 In this study, there was a limited data because the project was supposed to be running
11 buildings at once but only four were under construction due to design change order
which made the contractor to wait for the new design.
 This research only investigates the factors that have the most literature available about
them. This limits the research from having various factors that may have severe
effects on labour productivity.
 There may be several factors that are not included in the factor model, but may have
potential to improve the productivity model for a task
 This study was crew based modeling , but the researcher was not allowed to
manipulate the crew size and composition or their working days to have enough data
which made some factors such as overtime , fatigue and crew composition factors
measurement non-significant.

5
Chapter 2: Overview of the construction industry
2.1. Introduction
The construction industry contributes significantly to socio-economic development and
creates employment opportunities in the country. However, there is a consensus on certain
common issues that plague the construction industry in developing countries. The
international studies have identified various best practices and recommendations for resolving
such issues.
The review shows that generally the contractors and the overall business environment in
developing countries is still at the development stage. Given the opportunity, they can
overcome their inadequacies, but they cannot change the work environment. The challenges
being faced by the industry in developing countries include insufficient education and
training (lack of HR), absence of commitment from the government, lack of long-term vision
and planning for the industry, ineffective budgetary procedures resulting in cost over-runs,
fluctuations in work load, defective contract documents, corrupt contracting procedures, lack
of protection against adverse physical conditions, payment related delays, problems of
bonding and insurance, lack of adequate financial resources, restrictions on imports, foreign
exchange constraints, unfair competition from state-owned contractors and consultants, non-
availability of equipment and spare parts and miscommunication of information which are the
key issues to boost the overall industry.
The construction industry, by nature, has many special problems and requirements
(Hillebrandt, P M, 2000) .The importance of taking measures to improve the performance of
the construction industry has now been recognized in several countries at various levels of
socio-economic development. Dedicated agencies have been formed in many countries to
administer the continuous improvement of the industry, although they have different
objectives, responsibilities and levels of authority. In the UK, the Construction Industry
Board is an industry initiative, whereas its counterpart institutions in developing countries are
government agencies. They include the Construction Industry Development Board of
Malaysia, the Institute of Construction Training and Development of Sri Lanka and the
National Construction Council of Tanzania (Miles and Neale, 1991).

6
2.2. Ethiopian construction industry
According to the fifth annual report on the Ethiopian Economy published in March 2007 by
the Ethiopian Economic Association, “unemployment challenges and prospects” being its
thematic issues. In the report, the Current State of The Construction Industry has been chosen
to be the thematic issue. In the report, the construction Industry has been identified as a
thematic issue owing to a variety of considerations: first, the issue is timely; second the
industry has been registering remarkable performance in recent years; and third, despite its
importance in the overall economy, it has not been assessed comprehensively to a level that
enables one to understand the industry and make policy recommendations ((AAE), 2007).
But clearly, the country has developed huge infrastructure and urban centre’s remarkable
building construction activities.
Recently, the Manufacturing sector increased by 17.4 percent and constituted about 25
percent of industrial output. Construction industry, on the other hand, contributed more than
half (70.9 percent) to industrial sector and expanded by 20.7 percent signifying the leading
role the construction sector plays in terms of roads, railways, dams and residential houses
expansion. (NBE (National bank of Ethiopia), 2016)

Figure 1: Growth and Percentage Distribution of Major Agricultural, Industrial and Service
Sub-sectors
Source: (NBE (National bank of Ethiopia), 2016)

7
From the supply side, the GDP growth in 2015/16 is explained by construction and the
services sectors. The construction sub-sector contributed 2.1 percentage points to growth,
while the manufacturing contribution relatively increased to 0.9 percentage points (world
Bank , 2016).

Figure 2: Industries contribution to GDP

Source: (World Bank , 2015)

However, According to (Tadesse Ayelew , 2016), Ethiopia is the second from the last
followed by Mozambique. This indicates that the management practice in Ethiopian
construction industry is even far behind from those poor performing developing countries in
Africa. He revealed that the level of construction project management practice in terms of
adapting general project management procedures, project management functions, tools &
techniques are unsatisfactory.

8
Figure 3: Average management score

Source: (M.Matters , 2014)

2.3. Structure of Ethiopian construction industry

The construction industry consists of various sectors. These are the building and residential
development sector, civil engineering sector, professional services sector and self-building
sector. The construction industry consists of deferent types and size of firms. These operate in
the deferent sub-markets characterizing the construction industry. Construction firms must be
registered and licensed in order to undertake any construction work in Ethiopia. The firms are
classified according to size, expertise and financial capability by the ministry of work and
urban development (MWUD). The self-building sector is characterized by an informal sector,
consisting of informal groups that supply materials and labor. These informal groups are not
licensed or registered. However, they employ a great number of people. The professional
services sector consists of architects, civil engineers, electrical engineers, sanitary engineers,
and mechanical engineers, quantity surveyors and surveyors who provided the design
expertise.

9
The services of these consultants are not utilized in the informal and self-build sectors. There
exists a great separation between the design consultants and the contractors.
This generates conflict in the construction process and results in project delays and cost
escalations due to claims. However, we will be focusing on the contractors operations and
merely their relations with the consultant in executing the work.
a. Contractors
According to Ministry of Works and Urban Development contractors in Ethiopia are
categorized into four major groups including:
 General Contractors,
 Building Contractors,
 Road Contractors, and
 Specialized Contractors.
As per the Ministry of Works and Urban Development a General Contractor is a contractor
that is allowed to engage in any types of construction contract works, a Building Contractor
only in building construction, a Road Contractor only in road construction, and A Specialized
Contractor in a special construction works other than those mentioned above such as water
works, airport field construction...etc .Based on the data acquired from the Addis Ababa
Bureau of Trade and Industry
Development the total licensed contractors in the city is 13, 557 as of June 2006. Out of the
total contracting firms about 60% or 8,140 are general contractors and about 38% or
5,189 are building contractors. The number of specialized contractor and road contractors is
insignificant contributing 1 % and 0.69% to the total number of contractors in the city
respectively. Note that the current number of registered contractors is yet to be published.

b. Ethiopian labor and its characteristics

According to the World Bank, a modest shift in labor from agriculture to services and
construction explains up to a quarter of Ethiopia’s per capita growth. Agricultural
employment declined from 80 to 77 percent between 2005 and 2013 but because agricultural
labor productivity was so low, this shift gave rise to static efficiency gains as relative labor
shares increased in construction and services where the average value added (salaries) of a
worker is up to five times higher (World Bank , 2015) .
Over the last few years there has been a dramatic change in the way construction activity is
being undertaken. This is not only in the form of new technology, but also in the way that
construction projects are procured and managed. A substantial part of the construction work

10
takes place in the informal sector of industry too. About 83% of the population lives in the
rural areas. The buildings and other small infrastructure facilities for this major part of the
population are constructed by the informal sector. The informal construction sector comprises
of unregulated and unprotected individuals engaged in economic activities that include the
supply of labour, materials and building components to the formal construction sector
directly in response to needs of clients. It also includes works carried out by individuals and
groups on a self-help basis without contracting.
In Ethiopia the sector has registered a remarkable growth, over the last 11 years there has
been increased investment on the development and expansion of various infrastructure
projects. Among the major developments construction of road infrastructure, real estate
developments, and condominium housing projects are some of the examples. More
specifically public infrastructure development projects by ministry of Education and Health
and road infrastructure projects accounts the significant portion of the investment outlay on
construction activities. Its contribution to the GDP at constant price has increased from Birr
2, 853,336,000 to Birr 8,185,747,000 at an average annual growth rate of 12.43%. Similarly
the percentage share of the construction sector to GDP at constant price has increased from
4.5% in 2000/01 to 5.8% by 2009/10.
This sector is made of subcontractors that supplies materials. In Ethiopian construction
industry, the recruitment of labor force is through the labor that has been working with the
contractors for several years and they can call each other until they get the needed number.

2.4. Performance Constraints

The inefficient and deteriorated state of the construction industry with poor performance has
detrimental effects to the development of the industry (Ministry of Urban Development and
construction , 2012). Weaknesses, problems and constraints hampering the performance and
development of the industry include:
 Low capacity and capability of the local contractors and consultants due to weak
resource base and inadequate experience.
 Inadequate and erratic work opportunities, inappropriate contract packaging of works
which favor foreign firms in donor funded projects, low public investment in
infrastructure projects and over dependence on donor funding.
 Inefficient and non - transparent procurement Systems Corruption and financial
mismanagement in public/private sectors.

11
 Lack of supportive institutional mechanisms in terms of financial credit facilities,
equipment for hire and professional development.
 Unfavorable donor conditions which tend to marginalize local construction
enterprises.
 Poor working environment, including low standards of safety and occupational
hazards on construction sites
 Weak and non-facilitative policies and regulatory framework.
 Low productivity and quality Low technological base.

12
Chapter three: Literature review and research methodology
3.1.Introduction
In the construction industry, the research on the productivity is complex and multifaceted;
therefore, different methods must be implemented to explore different perspectives for
measuring or predicting construction labor productivity. Research in construction labor
productivity has centered on the identification of factors that affect productivity, and
quantifying the impact of such factors on productivity. Construction labor productivity,
referred as output parameters (O), deals with the efficiency of labor crews converting inputs
(land, knowledge, information, energy, materials, etc.) to outputs (project products) and input
parameters (I) refers to a number of factors and practices (e.g. Crew size, crew composition,
co-operation among craftsperson, location of work scope, complexity of task, weather
condition, risk management practice, etc.), which either directly or indirectly influence
CLP(Tsehayae Abraham, 2016).In this chapter, as a result of various qualitative and
quantitative factors have been discovered, and various methods and limitations of the
previous studies for predicting construction labor productivity have been presented. The
literature is divided in two parts. The first part describes methods and models that have been
used for predicting construction labor productivity. The second part describes factors that
affect construction labor productivity.

3.2. Review of CLP Models

3.2.1. Factor model

The factor model consists of modeling the CLP by considering a number of parameters and
factors that can affect the productivity. Different techniques to model the productivity can be
used according to the data available. The factor model is a multivariate approach for
modeling of construction labor productivity. The model is constructed in such way that the
productivity is analyzed using statistical analysis by quantifying the effect of the identified
factors on the CLP. Using the regression analysis, data from thirteen projects were compiled
by (Sanders, S.R., and Thomas, R.H, 1993)to study factors affecting masonry productivity.
However, all of the data compiled were not used to develop the model. The database
including 465 samples were divided into two parts: Non disrupted or normal working days
and, disrupted or abnormal working days. Abnormal conditions were usually results of
disruptions such as congestion, lack of materials, and bad weather. Only normal working

13
days consisting of 286 samples were used to develop the factor model. The following model
was suggested:
PDP= + + + + + + + + … … … … … … … … … …Equation 2

Where PDP is the predict daily productivity, is a constant representing the standard
conditions, is the work type coefficient, is the physical element coefficient, is the
design detail coefficient , is the construction method coefficient , is the weather zone
coefficient , , and are the corresponding coefficient of the crew size terms and c is the
crew size. Plots of factor model for temperature, humidity and crew size factors were given
as a single factor model. To obtain the plot of factor model for temperature and humidity,
their levels were varied, while rest of the factors was kept constant at their standard condition
levels. The standard condition levels were defined by Sanders, and Thomas (1993). The plot
of factor model for the crew size was obtained in a similar way, but this time crew size level
was varied while the rest of the factors were kept constant at their standard condition levels.

Figure 4: the plot for temperature and humidity with the other factors kept constant

14
Figure 5: Plot of factor model for crew size with the other factors kept constant

Source: (Rifat Sonmez, 1996)

1. Regression analysis Model

In regression analysis, the CLP is modeled in such way that a graph is plotted by considering
a single factor to quantify it impact on the productivity. The method of regression requires
also the user to decide a priori on class of relationship to be used in modeling. Model fitting
for construction labor productivity data requires quantification of the effects of factors on
labor productivity and quantification of the interactions among the factors. In a multivariate
factor model for modeling labor intensive crew-level productivity, it was argued that
although factors affecting crew level productivity can lead to random or systematic,
controlled or uncontrolled disturbances, they can be individually isolated to quantify the
effects of each factor on ideal productivity (Thomas and Yiakoumis , 1987).
(Dunlop P.and smith , 2003) analyze productivity of concreting based on the data acquired
from a sample of 202 concreting activities at three construction sites of a wastewater
treatment facility in Scotland. The recorded data refer to the slabs, walls and columns, and the
mean productivity per element amounts to 13.6m3/h. A regression model was proposed for

15
predicting productivity of all elements: slabs, columns and walls. In Nigeria, the workforce
productivity was examined (h/m3) based on the sample of 26 concreting positions of
foundation walls, columns, slabs and beams, where concrete was transported using dumper
tracks. Such form of transport, although limited to foundation concreting works, is very
popular in this country because of the maneuverability of these vehicles and unloading
method, and it is implemented on 50 % of construction sites. An average amount of concrete
was 17.17 m3, and the achieved productivity amounted to 8.53m3/h (Olaoluwa, O.,
Adesanya, D.A.:, 2015) .

2. Neural network analysis Models

The neural network analysis has been used for decision making especially in the project
scheduling but it has been also in use to predict the productivity in construction. Artificial
neural networks consist of a large number of artificial neurons that are arranged into a
sequence of layers with random connections between the layers (Tsoukalas, L.H, and Uhrig,
R.E, 1997).
It can be arranged in different layers: input, hidden, and output. The hidden layer has no
connections to the outside world because they are connected only to the input and output
layers as shown in the fig.3 (Halpin., 2005). Neural network model developed has been able
to achieve the objectives of this paper..(Sana Muqeem et al., 2011)used the neural network to
model the production rate and values of concreting in columns have been calculated on site
by observing seven different types of building projects. Factors influencing these rates such
as weather, availability of material and equipment, location of project, site conditions and
number of workers which are subjective in nature, have been recorded on scale at sites. To
determine the individual effect and severity level of each factor severity indices have been
calculated, they found the model accurate with acceptable error

16
Figure 6: structure of artificial neural network (Halpin., 2005)

3. Adjustments Factors and repetitions model

Several studies in the past have been trying to quantify the factors affecting the construction
labor productivity; they are in fact the base of the new succeeding methods of the CLP
analysis. (Neil, J.M., and Knack, L.E, 1982) recommended use of adjustment factors to
quantify the effects of these factors. Adjustment factors are generally values between zero
and one, representing the effects of factors at various levels. The effect of a factor is reflected
by multiplying the average productivity rate with the adjustment factor of the corresponding
factor level. The factors were classified in terms of range as high, medium and low. However,
the adjustment factors method does not define a quantified methodology for productivity
prediction.
Coming to the repetition models, it was expected to improve the productivity by a number of
repetitions by which the crew will be more familiar and skilled with the task. Repetition may
also lead to improved equipment, crew, and material management, and development of more
efficient techniques. The effect of repetition on construction labor productivity was modeled
in several studies. These models are usually referred as learning curves. But this method
cannot predict the CLP as they are of different affects and project dependent. The learning
curve models developed by the Norwegian Building Research Institute and data of
44residential building activities were also included in the findings of the study.

17
 4. Fuzzy inference systems
Because CLP modeling is a complex problem with limited data availability, and deals with a
large number of subjective variables, CLP modeling is an exceptional target for another
artificial intelligence technique: inference systems. Two types of inference systems are
recognized: expert systems and fuzzy inference systems. While fuzzy inference systems are
based on fuzzy logic and if-then rules; expert systems are based on traditional two valued
logic systems (Tsehayae Abraham, 2016).In field of CLP prediction and estimation the fuzzy
logic is not widely used but there few successful research. For example , sources have
described predicting labor productivity using fuzzy expert systems (Oduba, A.O.,,
2002)estimating labor productivity using fuzzy set theory (Mao H., 1999)fuzzy logic to
estimate productivity by including both qualitative and quantitative factors (Halpin.,
2005)fuzzy expert systems to predict labor productivity of pipe rigging and welding(Fayek,
A.R., & Oduba,, 2005), and fuzzy experts systems for construction labor productivity
estimation (Muqeem, S., Bin Idrus, A., Khamidi, M. F., Siah, Y. K., & Saqib, M., 2012).

3.3. Factors and parameters affecting the CLP

3.3.1. Categories of CLP factors

In this study, the factors affecting the CLP are taken as independent variables and the CLP as
the dependent variables .However; the factors and parameters affecting the CLP are classified
into 4 groups of variables. Then, these productivity variables are labor/human, Management,
technological and external. These four main factors are critical to productivity improvement.
By modeling these variables that have a positive effect, and eliminating (or controlling)
variables that have a negative effect will improve productivity .These variables represent the
broad areas in which managers can take action to obtain better productivity (Heizer et al ,
1990)

a. Labor
The quality of labor is very important to improve productivity. Three traditional variables for
improved labor productivity have been (Heizer et al , 1990)
1. Basic education appropriate for an effective labor force;
2. Diet of the labor force;
3. Social overhead that makes labor available, such as transportation and sanitation.
In developing countries these three variables are very important however, in developed
nation; the critical variable is maintaining and enhancing the skill of labor.

18
 b. Capital
Human being is a tool using animals. Capital investment provides those tools. These tools can
range from desk computers to complex machinery and new airports (Heizer et al , 1990).
Production can often be accomplished with some trade-off between labor and capital. That is,
if we want to build a road we can do so with crews of thousands using shovels or we can
invest in earth moving equipment. The trade-off between capital and labor is continually in
flux (Heizer et al , 1990).

c. Management
Management is a factor of production and an economic resource. It is responsible for insuring
that labor and capital are effectively used to increase productivity. The arts and sciences of
management include improvements made by technology and knowledge. Such improvements
require a training and an education as well as dynamic organization (Heizer et al , 1990).

3.3.2. Overview of CLP’s factors

In construction industry, the labor productivity is one the most difficult to control while
managing a construction project. The input parameters are made up of several objective and
subjective factors and practices which range from internal to external environments. Much
research has been published about the factors that affect construction productivity. One of the
greatest challenges facing the construction industry is its ability to attract and retain qualified
and experienced workers. This is underscored by the fact that shortages of skilled workers
continue to decrease in the construction industry. It is then necessary to implement a model
through research in order to tackle this issue. In light of modeling the CLP, different factors
and parameters need to be identified, classified and then compare their impacts on the CLP.
Unfortunately, despite the large research in the area, a standardization of factors has not yet
been achieved due to complexity of the data collection and the variety of the project. As
highlighted earlier, there have been many efforts to identify and classify the factors that
influence construction productivity, with a few attempting to establish the relative importance
of the individual factors. The factors influencing construction labor productivity were
identified from various perspectives. (Hashem et al., 2000)identified the top ten factors
affecting the construction productivity in great Cairo through a structured survey
questionnaire in 41 construction projects classified in two categories : residential and non-
residential .(Brent G. Hicksona and Leighton A. Ellis b,, 2014) Investigated the factors
affecting the construction labor productivity in Trinidad and Tobago using 42 predefined

19
factors which were ranked by a help of questionnaire survey among the country’s contactors
association; the factors were classified into 4 categories: human/labor factors, management
factors, technological factors and external factors. The lack of labor supervision was ranked
first using the relative importance index.

Review of the literature indicated that there is no agreement among early researcher’s on the
factors affecting construction labor productivity. (Talhouni, 1990)cited delays, length of work
days and gang composition as important factors influencing labor productivity. (Whitehead,
R.C., 1990)argued that methods of working, buildability, bureaucratic constraints
(contractual, tendering), weather and climate conditions and variations in working hours are
among the important factors affecting productivity.(Hass, C.T., Borcherding, J.D., Allmon, E.
and Goodrum, P. M,, 1999)cited ineffective management as the primary cause of poor
productivity rather than an unmotivated and unskilled workforce. They argued that there is no
doubt that management effectiveness ultimately determines profitability in most cases.
(Allen, S. G,, 1985), stated that the main reason for poor productivity in the construction
industry is due to absences and the unavailability of skilled labor. In a survey by (Adrian,
1987)during the construction of a power plant, it was reported that labor selection methods,
skill shortages, unmotivated work force, delays and interruptions are among the main factors
affecting productivity in construction projects.(Radosavljevic, M., and Horner, M.W.,, 2002)
suggested that “labor intensive work, unique design, the number of factors affecting on-site
work and other variables make the construction industry unstable in its performance”. Here
the labor intensive nature of the industry was recognized among the main factors, which
suggest that more research focusing on improving labor productivity is required.(Mekides A.,
2016) In her thesis, she identified and ranked factors affecting the construction labor
productivity in Ethiopian industry where the shortage of materials and delays in decision
making were ranked first and second respectively.(Tsehayae Abraham, 2016)Identified 169
factors classified in four categories like activity level input, project level input, organization
level input, provincial level input, national level input and global level input; the data were
collected at 18 construction projects for a period of 29 months.

20
Table a: Summary of Studied CLP factors
Details of the study Key parameters
G.Allen(1985) Skilled labor, decline in the average number
Why construction industry is declining of employees per establishment, capital-labor
ratio, percent union, average years of
workers.
Hashem et al. (2012) length of work day, equipment
Factors affecting labor productivity in breakdown, lack of materials, lack of proper
building Project in Great Cairo equipments, lack of proper tools, inadequate
supervision skill, material type, large volume
of work, quality required, and work
complexity
Brent and Leighton (2013) the lack of labor supervision,
Factors Affecting the Construction labor unrealistic scheduling and expectation of
productivity in Trinidad and Tobago labor performance, shortage of experienced
labor, construction manager's lack of
leadership skills, skill set of laborers, delay in
responding to requests for information (RFI),
payment delay, communication problems
between site management and labor, rain and
late arrival, early quitting, and frequent
unscheduled breaks.
Tsehayea A.(2016) Categories: activity level input, project level
Developing and optimizing context specific input, organization level input, provincial
and Universal CLP models level input, national level input and global
level input.
Mekides A. (2016) Shortage of material, Delays in decisions
A study of factors affecting the labor making, Incomplete and Inaccurate drawings,
productivity on building construction project Lack of follow up the work progress,
in Addis Ababa Financial
difficulties of the owner/Payment delay
,Incomplete facilities (water & power supply,
and sanitary facilities, Inspection and

21
 Instruction delay, Lack of Motivation,
Frequent damage of equipments and Change
of work order/Variation

3.3.3. Cases studies in developing countries

Factors affecting the CLP can differ from a country to another, from a region to another.
Different Case studies were then investigated in order to get a deeper understanding of the
factors affecting labor productivity in different countries, and understand what might be the
reasons behind these factors. In this research, we focused on the factors affecting the CLP
mostly in developing countries as they have likely similar problems in their different
construction industry. In Kuwait, the research done by (jarkas, 2012)has shown that the top
ranked factors affecting labor are; clarity of technical specification, change orders during
execution, coordination level among various design disciplines, lack of labor supervision,
proportion of work subcontracted, and lack of construction management leadership. The
results obtained from this research demonstrate that the technological group was ranked first
with 70.69%. External factors were the least ranked group with 54.05%. In Turkmenistan,
(Durdyeu , Serdar and Mbachu , 2011) found that his top 6 factors are lack of local
experience labor, schedule pressure caused by government, working overtime, financial
weakness of the contractor, rework, and inadequate financial policies of the government. It
can be said that the top 6 factors in his research were different than the top ones ranked in
Kuwait. For example, rework in Kuwait was ranked 16 amongst 45 factors; while it was
ranked 5th amongst 20 factors in the study of (Durdyeu , Serdar and Mbachu , 2011)
Also lack of experienced labor was ranked 1st in Turkmenistan while only 22nd in Kuwait.
Similar research was done in Southern Regions of India by (Soham,Mistry and Rajiv,Bhatt,
2013)in the research “Critical factors affecting labor productivity in construction projects.
Misty used the same factors that were chosen by (jarkas, 2012) in his research done in
Kuwait, but he only chose to survey the top 27 factors affecting labor productivity in Kuwait.
The research targeted 152 contractors and received a total of 51 responses, which is 30% of
the required sample. The top ranked factors were payment delay, skill of labor, clarity of
technical specification, shortages of material, motivation of labor and construction method.
The Table below shows a comparison between the top 10 factors obtained from
(Soham,Mistry and Rajiv,Bhatt, 2013) and how they were ranked in the study of (jarkas,
2012)

22
From the table above; there is a difference in ranking between the same factors in Kuwait and
India. The researcher believes that the difference between South India and Kuwait in the
ranking of the factors could be due to the financial strength of the contractors in Kuwait.
Another reason is due to the high population of experienced and skill foreign laborers that
work in Kuwait; it is very difficult to have shortage of experienced labor. Other factors such
as payment delay are ranked very low due to the government policies that makes sure
laborers get paid on time.
In Iran, (Zakeri, Mahmood; Olomolaiye,O. Paul; Gary D., 2010)have shown a different
outcome than the one proposed by (jarkas, 2012)and (Durdyeu , Serdar and Mbachu ,
2011)Between the 10 factors surveyed, low level of pay was ranked as number 1. Some of the
top ranked factors were casual labor force, remote site and family problems, delay in
payment, discontinuity of work, and job opportunity.
Combinations of financial and material factors were ranked top factors in the research
undertaken in Malaysia by (Abdul Kadir et al., 2005)Material shortage at project site was
ranked 1st amongst the 50 factors surveyed. It is followed by non-payment (financial
problems) to suppliers, causing the stoppage of material delivery to site. They are then
followed by change order by consultants causing project delay, late issuance of construction
drawing by consultants, incapability of contractor’s site management to organize site
activities, and late issuance of progress payment by client to contractor.
Kuykendall (2007) has carried out research in the USA on the key factors affecting labor
productivity in the construction industry. He has chosen 12 factors, which were then
distributed to 200 contractors from the ENR (Engineering News Record) top 400.
The survey gives a brief description of each factor and the contractor is asked to assign a
weight to each of the factors based on his/her knowledge and past experience in the
construction industry. It was found that the top factors were management skills, followed by
schedule management, safety management, labor skills, labor motivation, and equipment
management. It can be seen that the top factors affecting labor productivity are mainly
management factors. In (Adamu K.J. et al , 2011)research “labor productivity constraints in
the Nigerian Construction Industry”, (Adamu K.J. et al , 2011) have shown that low wage
levels are detrimental to productivity and was ranked first followed by lack of material being
instrumental to productivity, instruction delay contributing to low production, and
absenteeism of gang members causing delay. These results are different than the ones found
by (Olabosipo et al, 2011)in their research about factors affecting the performance of labour
in Nigerian construction sites. (Olabosipo et al, 2011) showed that the top factors in his
23
research are lack of training and retraining, poor communication, inclement weather, unfair
wages, and lack of motivation. (Olabosipo et al, 2011) Factors show that training,
communication, and motivation are the main human factors that affect labour performance.
On the other hand, (Adamu K.J. et al , 2011) showed that lack of material and low wage were
the main factors constraining labour productivity in the Nigerian construction industry.
Although both of the research took place in Nigeria the results have shown different top
ranked factors. This can be due to the fact that each researcher targeted a different sample
with his questionnaire, with different factors.

Due to a high number of foreign labourers in UAE and Kuwait, the researcher assumed that
all research done would have found an almost similar result. This is due to hot weather,
approximately the same salary, same living conditions, same government laws and
regulations. The results found in (Ailabouni,, 2012)research “factors affecting employee
productivity in the UAE construction industry” has shown that the number 1 ranked factor
was proper work timing, giving a balance between work, recreation and time with family,
leadership skills of supervisors, salaries paid on time, technical training, reasonably well
paying job and safe, and job security. The research of (jarkas, 2012)has ranked leadership
skills of managers as 8th, skilled labour as 20th, while skilled labour was the 2nd in
(Ailabouni,, 2012)’s research. Payment delayed was ranked 3rd in UAE, while it came 29th
in Kuwait. Shortage of materials ranked 27th in Kuwait and 9th in the UAE.
In Gaza, (Enhassi et al, 2011)surveyed 83 contracting companies within the Gaza Strip, 33 of
which were first-class contractors, 37 second class contractors, and 13 third class contractors.
They received a total of 76 completed questionnaires showing that the top ranked factors
affecting labor productivity in building projects in Gaza were material shortages, lack of
labor experience, lack of labor surveillance, misunderstanding between labor and
superintendents, drawings and specification alteration during execution, and payment delay.
These were the top ranked factors among the 45 factors surveyed. Comparing the results with
other Arab and Middle Eastern countries (Kuwait and UAE), it was found that (Enhassi et al,
2011) has reached different top ranked factors than (Ailabouni,, 2012)and (jarkas, 2012).The
top two factors were material shortages and lack of labor experience, which were ranked 27th
and 22nd amongst the 45 factors that (jarkas, 2012)has surveyed and was at the bottom
towards the surveyed factors in the UAE. The sixth top ranked factor in Gaza was payment
delay, and that was a common factor in both UAE and Kuwait since it was ranked in the first
top 15 factors. This indicates there is a problem with payment delay in all three countries. It
24
can be concluded from the research done in Kuwait, UAE and Palestine that although the
three countries have a lot in common, such as traditions, culture, government funding and
support, foreign labors, weather, similar salaries, similar laws and regulations, there is still a
difference in the factors affecting labor in construction projects in each country.

(Alinaitwe et al , 2007) have conducted a research in Uganda of the “factors affecting the
productivity of building craftsmen”. The respondents (Alinaitwe et al , 2007)targeted were
required to use their experience to rate 36 factors which affect productivity with respect to
time, cost, and quality. Henry’s research is very important, as it shows that Sub-Sahara Africa
construction industry is labor intensive. They are exposed to wet and extremely hot weather
conditions and the working environment is hazardous. The research was done through
questionnaires given to project managers who are registered in the National Contractors
Association, and a response rate of 53% was received. The results show that the top ranked
factors according to cost, time and quality are incompetent supervisors, lack of skills of the
workers, rework, lack of tools/equipment, poor construction method, poor communication,
and stoppages because of work being rejected by consultants.

In Iran, (Ghoddousi et al, 2012)have found that the top rated factors are utilizing traditional
construction methods instead of modern technology, inexperienced site managers who cannot
handle challenges that arise in the field, lack of proper tools and equipment on-site, unskilled
operatives who cannot perform the task and incapability of site manager to train workers to
perform their jobs properly. These results were computed by surveying the 31 factors that
(Ghoddousi et al, 2012)have found based on literature review. They showed that the results
obtained indicate that the main problems identified in past research in Iran still have remained
the “predominant obstacles” in the path of increasing productivity. In conclusion the research
paper shows that lack of materials and tools are the two main groups that are declining
productivity, and suggest that contracting companies should provide material supply and
schedule for materials delivery for every project.
The results achieved from “Critical Factors Influencing Construction Productivity in
Thailand” done by (Makulsawatudom, 2004) agrees with the results obtained by (Olabosipo
et al, 2011)in Nigeria, (Ghoddousi et al, 2012) in Iran, and (Alinaitwe et al , 2007)in Uganda.
The top factors in Thailand were lack of material, incomplete drawings, incompetent
supervisors, lack of tools and equipment, absenteeism and poor communication.
(Makulsawatudom, 2004) have offered suggestions in order to improve productivity by
25
alleviating the effect of adverse factors. (Makulsawatudom, 2004) also suggested that
improving labor productivity will make organizations more profitable, and increasing its
chance of survival in the industry. These results are different from the ones obtained in New
Zealand by (Durdyeu , Serdar and Mbachu , 2011) He sent 250 initial invitations, and he
received only 37 responses (15% usable response rate). He targeted project managers,
consultants, contractors, and subcontractors who had at least 15 years experience in the
construction industry. 83% of the responses occupied high-ranking positions in their
respective organizations as directors, managers, or associate directors.
Rating the factors was, therefore, from highly experienced subjects who had the authority to
make important decisions about productivity in their respective organisations (Durdyeu ,
Serdar and Mbachu , 2011)argued that this added to quality and reliability of the feedback.
He found that the top ranked factors were level of skills and experience of workforce, rework,
and adequacy of method of construction, site conditions (access, sub-soil, and topography),
level of motivation commitment, supervision performance monitoring and control.
In Indonesia (Soekiman et, 2009)research targeted small, medium and large companies. The
authors wanted to see what factors related to labor productivity affect project schedule
performance. They had broken the factors into four different groups; supervision, material,
design, and equipment. After ranking all the factors in small, medium and large companies,
(Soekiman et, 2009) came up with the top 10 ranked factors in all companies (small, medium
and large). Some of the top ranked factors were lack of material, delay in arrival of materials,
unclear instruction to laborers, labor strikes, financial difficulties of the owner, and high
absenteeism of the laborers. (Mekides A., 2016)identified 53 factors that were selected by
taking in to consideration their weights given by the previous researchers. The fifty three
factors are summarized and categorized in to twelve groups according to their characteristic
in order to help the respondents to easily understand. The respondents were requested to rate
all the 53 factors with respect to their level of effect and frequency of occurrence.
The top ten factors rated by respondents with respect to their level of effect and frequency of
occurrence are ranked by calculating using relative importance index (RII) and the impact of
the two is also studies and discussed below. The top ten labor productivity influencing factors
rated by their level of effect and frequency of occurrence are; 1)Shortage of material,
2)Delays in decisions making, 3)Incomplete and Inaccurate drawings, 4) Lack of follow up
the work progress, 5) Financial difficulties of the owner/Payment delay , 6)Incomplete
facilities (water &power supply, and sanitary facilities), 7)Inspection and Instruction delay,

26
8)Lack of Motivation, 9)Frequent damage of equipments and 10)Change of work
order/Variation
The table below summarizes all the different case studies discussed in the literature review.
The main aim of the table is to show each researcher’s categorization of the factors, total
number of studied factors, response received, and the top ranked factors in each country.

27
Country Author/year Respondents Studied Groups divided in Top ranked factors affecting CLP
factors

Nigeria FagbenleOlasbosipo,Ogunde 80 12 Not divided into Lack of training and retraining,

Ayodeji,andOwolabiJames groups poor communication, inclement
(2011) weather, unfair wages, lack of
motivation, negative influencing
factors
New zeland SerdarDurdyeu,and 37 56 Project finance Rework, level of skill and
JasperMabachu  Workforce experience of the workforce,
(2011)  Technology adequacy of method of
 Project construction, buildability issues,
Characteristics coordination and supervision,

 Project ground and site

Management Conditions.

 Unforeseen
events
 Statutory
Compliance
 External
factors

28
India MistrySoham 51 27  Technological Payment delay, skill of labour,
AndBhatt Rajv  Human/labour clarity of technical specification,
(2013)  Management shortage of material, motivation

 external of labour, construction method,

and physical fatigue
Kuwait AbdulazizM.Jarkas 147 45  External Clarity of technical
AndCamilleG.Bitar  Technological specifications, extent of
(2012)  Human/labour variation/change order,

 Management coordination level among

various design disciplines, lack
of labour supervision, proportion
of work subcontracted, design
complexity level, and lack of
incentive scheme
UAE NabilAilabouni,KassimGidad 238 32  Environmental Proper work timing giving a
o,andNoel Painting(2012)  Organisation balance between work and time
Work Policies with family, leadership skills of
 Group/Team supervisors, salaries on time,
Dynamics technical qualified/educated for

 Personal factors trade, reasonable well paying

 Manpower job, and safe secured job

29
  Management
 Environment
Turkmenistan SerdarDurdyev,Syuhaida 124 23 Not divided into Lack of local experienced
Ismail,andNooh AbuBakar groups labour, schedule pressure caused
(2012) by government, working
overtime, financial weakness of
the
contractor, rework, and
inadequate financial policies of
the government
Afghanistan SebghatallahKarimi 16 68  External Security (crime, theft and
AndKassimGidodo(2010)  Procurement disorder), corruption, poor
 Manpower scheduling and coordination,

 Management construction method, low quality

 Design of raw materials, and payment

 Project related delay

 Materials
andtools
Indonesia A.Soekima,K.S.Pridadi,and 63 17  Supervision Lack of material, delay in arrival
Seomardi.B(2009)  Material of materials, unclear instruction
 Execution plan to labourers, labour strikes,

30
  Design financial difficulties of the
owner, and high absenteeism of
labourers.
Uganda Henry 73 36  Time Incompetent supervisors, lack of
MwanakiAlinaitwe,andJackso  Cost skills of the workers, rework,
n A.  Quality lack
Mwaka(2007) of tool/equipment, poor
construction method, and poor
communication
Gaza AdnanEnhassi,Sherif 83 45  Manpower Material shortages, lack of
Mohamed,andZaid Abu  Leadership labour
Mustafa(2007)  Motivation experience, lack of labour

 Time surveillance, misunderstanding

 Materials/tools between labour and

 Supervision superintendents, drawings and

 Project specifications alternation during

execution, and payment delay
 Safety
 Quality
 External factors

31
Malaysia M.R.AbdulKadir,W.P. Lee 100 50 Not divided into Material shortage at project site,
AndM.S.Jafar(2005) groups non-payment to suppliers
causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site, change order by
consultants causing project
delays, late
issuance of construction drawing
by consultants, and incapability
of contractor’s site management
to organize site activities
Thailand ArunMakulsawatu 34 23 Not divided into Lack of material, incomplete
DomandMargaret groups drawing, incompetent
Emsley(2004) supervisors,
lack of tool and equipment,
absenteeism, poor
communication,
and instruction time
Iran MuhmoodZakeri 172 13 Not divided into Lack of materials, weather and
AndPaul O.Olomolaiye(1996) groups site conditions, equipment
breakdown, lack of proper tools
and equipment, inspection delay,
and absenteeism

32
 Ethiopia Mekides A.(2016) 53 11  Design and Shortage of material, Delays in
specifications decisions making, Incomplete
 supervision and Inaccurate drawings, Lack
factors of follow up the work progress,
 Material related Financial difficulties of the
factors owner/Payment delay ,

 Equipment and Incomplete facilities (water

technology &power supply, and sanitary

factors facilities), Inspection and

 Labour related Instruction delay, Lack of

factors Motivation, Frequent damage of

 Health and equipments and Change of work

safety factors order/Variation

 project factors
 organization
/management
 Stake holders
factors
 External factors
 others
Table b: Summary of reviewed case studies

33
3.4. Research methodology
The factor model to predict the CLP in this study consists of the identification of factors
affecting the CLP and their quantification, descriptive analysis, correlation and regression
analysis of the data. In the identification of factors, an initial wide review papers from
developing countries was performed and the considered factors were those repeatedly
observed in different journals and articles. After the identification of the factors through
literature review an analysis was done by calculating a number of statistics including means
and standard deviations, and making several plots. The purpose of this stage was to identify
the factors that might have an effect on production rate. Results of previous construction
labor productivity studies were also used in combination with the data identification stage to
define the initial regression model that has all the factors that might have a significant effect
on the production rate for a task. The initial regression model for each task was a pure linear
regression model without any interaction and nonlinear terms.
In this study parsimonious models were considered for modeling. A parsimonious model can
be defined as a model that fits the data adequately without using any unnecessary parameters.
The principle of parsimony is important because in practice parsimonious models generally
produce better forecasts. (Pankratz, A., 1983)In the regression analysis stage the factors that
did not improve the model significantly were dropped. This was done by dropping one factor
at a time. T-statistic of the factor in the model, comparisons of closeness of fit, and prediction
performance of the models with and without the factor, were the criteria used to determine
the significance of the factor in the model.

34
35
3.5. Identification of critical factors affecting productivity in building
construction
From the above case studies , we concluded that the factors investigated from Ethiopia ,
India, Nigeria ,Turkmenistan, Indonesia, Uganda ,Gaza, Thailand ,and Iran have almost
similar factors affecting their CLP ; here we can mention the lack of skilled labors and the
shortage of materials . Based upon the Literature Review, this study extracts various factors
affecting labor productivity in construction from the previous research studies. Some similar
factors were merged together. Factors do not take into consideration any values, but it was
merely focused on the factors which were investigated in the developing countries of the
above case studies as matter of fact this study is about the factors affecting the building
construction project in Ethiopia. The following table shows various factors affecting labor
productivity in construction in extracted from previous studies in accordance to their
frequency.
Table c: Frequent factors from the case studies

Factors Frequency Groups

1. Level of interruption and disruption 3
2. Lack of leadership of the foreman 5
3. Crew composition 2
Management
4. Use of overtime 3
5. Crew size 3
6. Extra works/rework 3
7. Supervision of labor 4
8. Shortage of materials 8
9. Frequent damage of equipment 5
10. Payment delay of the owner 6
Labor/Human

11. Fatigue of the craftsperson 3

12. Skills of labor 4
13. Crew experience 2
14. Complexity of the tasks 2
Technological

15. Change of works order 3

16. Clarity of technical specifications 5
17. Working conditions 4
18. Inspection and instruction delay 7
19. Weather precipitations 3
external

20. Temperature 4

36
1. Level of interruption and disruption (F1): it refers to any event or reason that delays
the work which may disrupt the crew from performing the assigned work.
2. Lack of leadership of the foreman (F2): it is a measure of how the foreman cooperate
or the crew members
3. Crew composition (F3): it the ratio of the number of carpenters or mason to the number
of daily labor commonly called helpers.
4. Use of overtime(F4): it refers to the time added to the 8h hours that a craftsperson is
supposed to work per day .it has been observed that the productivity in use of overtime
has negative impact on the productivity .
5. Crew size (F5): The total size of the crew performing the actual task will have a direct
effect on the amount of output.
6. Extra works / rework (F6): Extra work involves duties performed on a project that were
beyond the original scope of the project. Extra work may indicate worse productivity
achievements due to time spent on other activities and lower worker morale
7. Supervision of labor (F7): The supervision of labor consists of measuring or quantifying
how the work is monitored within a particular crew.
8. Shortage of materials(F8) :it is the shortage or delay of material supply while executing
the work can be happen due to several reason
9. Frequent damage of equipment (F9) : damage of the equipment affects the construction
productivity as the crew won’t be able to perform their work which will result delays in
execution of the work before it get fixed or replaced
10. Payment delay of the owner (F10): Due poor financial problems and disagreement on
valuation of work, and the impact delayed payment is delay in project progress which
affects the schedule of work and leads to cost overrun and extension of time.
11. Fatigue of the craftsperson (F11): it refers to the fatigue of the crew members due to
long work hours (overtime), extended work periods which leads them to mental and
physical fatigue and this will lead to the low performance in the execution of the
following tasks.
12. Skills of labor(F12) :the skills of labor refers to the ability of a labor to perform a work
he is given in terms of time he takes to finish and the quality of the work he can deliver .
13. Crew experience (F13): it is the average years of experience the carpenters and daily
labor working at a particular activity, has in the construction industry.

37
14. Complexity of the task(F14): it the measure of how the task or activity is difficult , this
usually happen when the carpenter are not familiar with such kind of work or when the
drawings are not clear
15. Change of work order (F15): is the work added or cancelled to the original work agreed
in the contract due to design errors, modification of the design. it does affect in such way
that the change has to go through process of approval and agreement between the client
and the client
16. Clarity of the technical drawings and specifications (F16)): this usually happens when
the drawings are not clear to the structural engineer or when there is relevant information
which is missing on the drawings. This will require the engineers to consult the designers
or the consultants
17. Working conditions (F17):Refers to the level of noise: number of equipment creating
noise, level of intrusiveness of the created noise
18. Inspection and instruction delay (F18): construction is a complex task where each stage
of construction has to be approved by the superintendents, but sometimes there is a lack
of synchronization of tasks and decisions which affect the productivity.
19. Weather precipitation (F19): the weather can affect the construction labor productivity
in such a way that it will cause disruption during the execution of work. it depends on
how long it rained and what extent is the damage to the work

20. Temperature (F20): Refers to the recorded temperature at 1:00 PM of the work day.

38
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents and discusses the project context, data analysis, findings, interpretations
and presentation of the study in line with the research objective. Research objective is to
establish how much the identified factors affect the construction labor productivity. These
factors are level of interruption and disruption , lack of leadership of the foreman , crew
composition ,crew size, Shortage of materials, Skills of labor , crew experience , complexity
of tasks , clarity of technical specifications , working conditions , Inspection and instruction
delay , Weather precipitation , temperature .

The variables are divided into categories as weekly and daily variables and regression model
were developed for each.

4.2. Project context report

The project site Meles Zenawi leadership Foundation academy situated in the North East of
Addis Ababa at about 25 km in a place commonly called Goro (at the opposite site of ICT
Park). Meles Zenawi Leadership Academy was established for the realization of the
sustainability journey of Ethiopian Renaissance.. The academy was established to host and
train higher officials of the Federal republic of Ethiopia to lean with the ideas and directives
of the country. The project worth 1.39 billion birr .The Academy’s new offices will have nine
blocks with heights ranging from 7 storeys to 11 storeys with 3 blocks for VIP. The campus
will accommodate up to 4,000 students. The building will rest on four hectares of land. The
building is expected to be completed within three years. Till to date, it has been two years
since the construction started but it is still at its 6.81% of construction. According to the
project manager, issues of incompleteness of the design and lack communication between the
contractor and the consultant, most of the buildings have been revised .As result but the
consultant did not yet submitted the final drawings.

The contractor has mobilized a batch plant and equipments that would work fully to supply
for the nine blocks at once .However, due to the design change, blocks were delayed and the
plants as well as equipments deployed are not working to their full efficiency.

4.3. Description of data

The data used in this research were collected to analyze the variability of construction labor
productivity by considering 20 independent factors quantified and termed as follow:

39
a. Daily variables:
(F1) Level of interruption and disruption: the number of interruption or disruption per day

(F3) crew composition: the ratio of the carpenter or mason to daily labor or assistant labor in
a crew or team

(F5)Crew size: real number of crew member working at the considered activity

(F8) shortage of materials: average waiting time of materials per day per crew

(F12) skills of labor: it was measured by taking the average of years of experience times the
period of training per crew

(F14) complexity of the tasks : this was measure on a predetermined scale of 1-5 with 1
meaning many alternatives and well know ,2 as some alternatives and well known ,3 as few
alternatives and known ,4 as few alternatives and unknown ,5 as very few alternatives and
very unknown

(F16) clarity of technical specifications: it was measured on a predetermined scale of 1-5 with
1 as very poor clarity and very incomplete, 2 poor clarity and incomplete, 3 Fair clarity and
fairly complete, 4 Good clarity and complete, 5 very good clarity, very complete

(F17) working conditions: it was measured on a predetermined scale of 1-5 with 1. No noisy
equipment, very low intrusiveness, very normal voice level in conversation; 2. Few noisy
equipments, very low intrusiveness, normal voice level in conversation; 3. Some noisy
equipment, average intrusiveness, normal voice level in conversation; 4. many noisy
equipment, high intrusiveness, high voice level in conversation; 5. too many noisy
equipment, very high intrusiveness, very high voice level in conversation.

(F18) inspection and instruction delay: it is the real number of waiting time in minutes per
day of the supervisor to approve or check for the performed task.

(F19)Weather precipitation: the rainfall on daily basis in millimeter. Note that the researcher
was unable to collect data for this factor because it wasn’t raining during the data collection
period.

(F20) Temperature: real number in Celsius recorded on daily basis

40
 b. Weekly variables
(F2) lack of leadership of the foreman: the leadership skills of the foreman towards the labors
, it was categorized into 4 : Autocratic , democratic , participative , goal oriented and
situational

(F4) use of overtime: average real number of hours worked as over time in week time for a
single crew

(F6) Extra works/rework: Average hours worked over a work which was not scheduled

(F7) Supervision of labor: weekly evaluation of the labor supervision on a predetermined

scale of 1-5 with 1.Inadequate and very poor 2.Inadequate and poor 3.Adequate and fair 4.
Adequate and Good 5. Adequate and very good

(F9)Frequent damage of equipment: real number of occurrence in a week

(F10) Payment delay of the owner: number of days that the labor have been delayed to have
their monthly payment

(F11)Fatigue of the craftsperson: it is the ratio of the normal working hours per week (48hrs)
to the actual worked hours in a week.

The Data were collected in a period of two months from September 2018 to November 2018.
A total of nine activities were studied five from formwork activities (slab, column, beam,
stairs and lift), three form concreting (column, slab and shear wall) and bar placement. The
activities studied, description of the activities, and the number of total data instances used for
the factor model analysis is presented in the following table.

41
Activity Total data
Activity Activity description
category collected
slab ˣ formwork for floor 36
column ˣ formwork for column 72
formwork beam ˣ formwork for beams 20
lift formwork for lift 24
stairs ˣ formwork for lift 12
slab ˣ concrete placement for slab 16
concrete placement for
concreting wall ˣ wall 4
column ˣ concrete placement for column 18

placement of bars for different

rebaring rebar ˣ activities 24

Note : ˣ Denotes the activities considered to develop a model

Table d: Activities and number of data collected on each activity

However, the outliers analysis were conducted in IBM SPSS 24 statistical package at each
activities using the box plots and cases were removed to find a well correlated model

4.4. Data analysis

4.4.1. Descriptive analysis

In this section, the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of different factors and
CLP considered were computed in the model. The values in the table 4 represent the mean
and the standard deviation of each factor and CLP for its corresponding activity. For instance,
for the slab formwork activity, the mean is 4.5 and 1.2352 for the crew size factor and CLP
respectively with a standard deviation of 1.055 and 0.378 for the crew size and CLP
respectively.

42
Table e:Mean and standard deviation of the influencing factors and the CLP values for daily variables

Total
activity
data unit F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F20 CLP
1. slab 1.23528
formwork .94444 .8179 4.500 8.0556 4.4711 5.3750 1.94444 3.5278 2.66667 7.5278 18.6806 (.378172)
m.sq (.8926) (.30331) (1.0555) (5.1710) (2.0667) (1.9044) (1.0675) (.60880) (.79282) (5.1017) (.76667)

2. column .73529
1.33 .8174 5.18 10.52 4.4276 4.8455 2.17 2.75 3.08 10.31 19.0972 (.15117)
formwork
m.sq (.964) (.28416) (1.304) (4.755) (1.53128) (1.61549) (1.048) (.9000) (.765) (.765) (1.1886)

3. Beam .68885
.5500 .6695 4.3000 10.20 5.1775 5.5875 1.8000 3.4000 2.5000 8.2000 18.700 (.295249)
formwork
m.sq (.60481) (.27437) (1.03110) (3.39659) (1.59642) (1.57128) (.76777) (.75394) (.75915) (3.66649) (.73270)

4. stair 1.19810
formwork .5000 .7160 3.1000 12.0000 4.7200 5.0250 1.6000 3.60000 2.70000 5.60000 19.700 (.330379)
m.sq (.52705) (.30573) (1.28668) (4.26875) (1.87842) (1.99113) (.84327) (.69921) (.67495) (2.27058) (1.49443)

5.Lift .80258
formwork 1.0417 .8829 5.5833 9.4792 5.3167 6.0667 1.8750 3.6250 2.6250 6.2500 19.1667 (.182573)
m.sq (.90790) (.34015) (1.47196) (3.02698) (2.91266) (2.25931) (.67967) (1.01350) (.64690) (2.65805) (1.16718)

6. 23.95863
Rebaring .6250 .8221 4.7083 13.000 6.5588 7.3708 1.4167 3.5000 2.7083 11.0833 19.5000 (6.201640)
m.cube (.64690) (.32980) (1.3666) (4.66252) (2.19099) (1.91470) (.65386) (.65938) (.62409) (5.37237) (.97802)

7. column 1.46931
concreting 1.31 .3879 4.75 8.25 3.8547 4.2063 1.63 3.31 2.69 7.63 19.3125 (.68117)
m.cube (.873) (.13105) (1.438) (3.337) (1.1475) (1.83138) (.619) (.793) (.704) (3.284) (1.1954)
8.slab 1.76838
.75 1.0569 8.06 8.63 4.2594 4.8781 1.69 3.38 3.06 7.75 19.0625 (.36156)
concreting
m.cube (.683) (.58943) (5.131) (4.5000) (106383) (1.31947) (.479) (.500) (.680) (3.256) (.777190)
9. shear
wall .50 .6650 6.00 7.000 3.5150 4.6875 1.75 3.75 3.25 10.25 18.000 1.02050
concreting m.cube (.577) (.38682) (2.828) (1.826) (.46867) (.62500) (.5000) (.975) (.500) (6.185) (.000) (.112340)
Note: the values in the parentheses indicate the standard deviation

43
Table f: Mean and standard deviation of the influencing factors and the CLP values for weekly variables

Activity Total data unit F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F11 F15 CLP

1.slab
fowrmwork

2.500 2.9375 21.87 3.3750 .3750 .9413 .500 .9413

m.sq (.5345) (.67810) (24.775) (1.302) (.744) 00 (0) (0.01356) (.75593) (0.0135)

2.Stairs 1.5000 16.25 1.00 0.00000 .9450 2.0000 1.1093

formwork m.sq (1.00) 2.750 (.957) (7.675) 3.00 (.816) (2.000) (0.000) (.01915) (1.82574) (.27352)

3.Lift 2.50 3.3750 20.00 4.00 .8750 0.000 .9325 1.250 .7843
Formwork m.sq (.535) (1.50594) (29.88) (.92582) (1.125) (0.000) (.03012) (.88641) (.027)

4.column 3.000 1.000 3.25 1.000 0.000 .9150 .750 .7095

formwork m.sq (0.00) 4.25 (1.258) (.81650) (.95743) (.8165) (0.00) (.02517) 9.95743) (.01112)

5.Column 3.00 3.000 0.000 4.25 0.000 6.000 .9350 .2500 1.0595
concreting m.cub (0.000) (1.414) (0.000) (.5000) (0.000) (0.000) (.01915) (.5000) (.0675)

44
Considering the daily variables, the productivity was different for each type of formwork.
The mean construction labor productivity (CLP) for the slab formwork activity was 1.23 and
(.378) as the standard deviation. The column formwork has a mean of .735 and a standard
deviation of 0.151. The beam formwork activity scored a mean of 0.688 and a standard
deviation of 0.295. The staircase formwork activity has a mean of 1.19 and a standard
deviation of 0.33 .The lift formwork activity has scored a mean of .802 and a standard
deviation of 0.182.The bar placement activity has scored a mean of 23.59 and a standard
deviation of 6.201. In the concreting activity we had 2 types of works, the column concreting
with a mean 1.46 and a standard deviation of .681; the slab concreting which scored an mean
of 1.76 and standard deviation of .361 and shear wall concreting with a mean 1.020 and
standard deviation of 0.112.

In case of the weekly variables subjected to the CLP, we have slab formwork activity at a
mean of 0.944 which is a bit lower than the daily one since it encounters different crew size
and slab. The stairs formwork with a mean of 1.1093 and a standard deviation of 0.273 .The
lift formwork scored the mean of 0.784 and a standard deviation of 0.027. The column
formwork and concreting scored a mean of 0.7095 and 1.059 respectively and a standard
deviation of 0.112 and 0.0675 respectively .And the mean tells the height of the average
whereas the standard deviation tells us how spread out the heights around that average

3.3.2. Correlation and regression analysis

The correlations table displays Pearson correlation coefficients, significance values, and the
number of cases with non-missing values. The Pearson correlation coefficient is a measure of
strength of association between two variables. Pearson correlation coefficients assume the
data are normally distributed. The values of the correlation coefficient range from -1 to 1.
The sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship (positive or
negative).

However, the regression model was chosen taking into consideration to the availability of
data. The study hypothesized that the decrease or increase in CLP is determined by the level
of interruption and disruption , lack of leadership of the foreman , the crew composition , the
use of overtime , the crew size , the extra work or rework , supervision of labor , the shortage
of materials , frequent damage of equipment ,payment delay ,fatigue of craftsperson ,skills of
labor ,crew experience, complexity of the tasks , change of works order ,clarity of the
technical specifications , working conditions , inspection and instruction delay , weather

45
precipitations and temperature . But note that the period of data collection, the weather
precipitation was constant to zero .Then the following modified supply function was assumed
for multiple regression

/ =
+ F1+ F3+ F5+ F8+ F12+ F13+ F14+ F16+ F17+ F
18+ F19+ F20……………………………………………………………………………Equation 3

/ =
+ F2+ F4+ F6+ F7+ F9+ F10+ F11+ F15………………Equation 4
Where:

/ = the construction labor productivity which is the unit of work performed

per man.hours by considering the daily working time as 8h per person per day

/ = =the construction labor productivity CLP for a week averaged to daily

CLP
Is the y- intercept

- Regression coefficients

46
 Pearson correlation and regression analysis for daily variables : Factors vs CLP Model Summary ANOVA
Total R
activity R square F sig.
data unit F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F20 Adjusted
* ** ** ** **
-.355 -0.139 -.438 -.467 0.127 0.174 -.691 0.180 -0.105 -.470 0.136
1. slab formwork
m.sq 0.776 0.674 7.564 .000
b
N= 36 0.034 0.418 0.007 0.004 0.459 0.311 0.000 0.294 0.540 0.004 0.431
** ** **
2. column -.391 0.063 -0.228 -0.049 0.197 0.083 -0.062 .308 -.397 -0.080 -0.180
formwork N= 72 m.sq 0.470 0.372 4.828 .000
b
0.001 0.598 0.054 0.682 0.098 0.488 0.606 0.008 0.001 0.503 0.130

3. Beam column -0.398 0.170 -0.338 -0.168 0.116 0.182 -0.061 0.197 -0.019 -0.286 0.023
N= 20 m.sq Not significant
0.082 0.473 0.145 0.478 0.626 0.441 0.799 0.406 0.936 0.222 0.924
** * **
-0.105 0.617 -.878 -.741 0.532 0.551 -0.207 0.619 -0.021 -.888 0.340
4. stair formwork
m.sq Not significant
N=10 0.773 0.057 0.001 0.014 0.114 0.099 0.566 0.056 0.953 0.001 0.337
** *
-0.283 -0.129 -0.367 -.585 0.158 0.224 -.475 0.254 -0.189 -0.186 0.093
5.Lift formwork
m.sq 0.826 0.666 5.175 .004
b
N=24 0.180 0.548 0.078 0.003 0.462 0.293 0.019 0.232 0.375 0.385 0.665
** **
-0.329 0.234 -0.051 -0.050 .776 .718 0.017 0.328 -0.261 -0.124 -0.225
6. Rebaring N=
m.cube 0.827 0.669 5.228 .004
b
24 0.116 0.271 0.812 0.815 0.000 0.000 0.936 0.117 0.218 0.565 0.291
** *
7. column -0.452 0.341 0.128 -0.031 0.457 0.457 -0.481 0.116 0.288 -.709 -.546
concreting N= m.cube Not significant
0.079 0.196 0.637 0.910 0.075 0.075 0.060 0.669 0.279 0.002 0.029
16
-0.422 -0.140 0.085 -0.143 0.005 0.154 -0.181 0.029 -0.123 -0.284 -0.003
8.slab concreting
m.cube Not significant
N= 16 0.103 0.604 0.755 0.597 0.985 0.570 0.503 0.915 0.651 0.287 0.992
** a
9. shear wall 0.370 0.894 -0.778 -0.928 0.532 0.535 -0.875 .996 -0.448 -0.173 .
concreting N= 4 m.cube Not significant
0.630 0.106 0.222 0.072 0.468 0.465 0.125 0.004 0.552 0.827

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**
Table g: pearsoncorrelationa and regression analysis for the daily varibles
47
 Pearson correlation and regression analysis for weekly variables : Factors vs CLP
Model Summary ANOVA
Total R
Activity unit R Adjusted F sig.
data F2 F4 F6 F7 F9 F10 F11 F15 square
a
1.slab 0.348 -0.365 -0.375 0.279 -0.237 . 0.365 -0.499
fowrmwork m.sq Not significant
0.398 0.375 0.360 0.503 0.572 0.375 0.208
N=
* a *
2.Stairs 0.381 .987 0.542 0.430 -0.449 . -.987 -0.735
formwork m.sq not significant
0.619 0.013 0.458 0.570 0.551 0.013 0.265
N=
a
3.Lift 0.192 -0.334 0.086 0.278 0.079 . 0.334 0.514
Formwork m.sq Not significant
0.648 0.419 0.839 0.505 0.853 0.419 0.193
N=
a * a
4.column . 0.869 .954 -0.798 0.587 . -0.869 0.673
formwork m.sq 0.131 0.046 0.202 0.413 0.131 0.327
Not significant
N=
a a a a
5.Column . -0.279 . -0.350 . . 0.142 -0.350
concreting m.cub Not significant
0.721 0.650 0.858 0.650
N=

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a.cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant

48
According to the table 6 in the slab formwork activity, the Adjusted is called the
coefficient of determination and tells us how the Construction labor productivity varied with
the independent variables. The research findings indicated that there was a very strong
negative relationship between the independent and dependent variables with an adjusted R
square of 0.674 (67.4%). However, all the variables did not show a statistically significant
variability in CLP value, it was explained by the crew size (F5) and the complexity of the
work (F14). For the formwork activity, the adjusted was a bit lower at 0.372(37.2%)
with a negative relationship between the CLP and the influencing factors. However, the bar
placement activity have shown a positive relationship of the influencing factors and the CLP
with an adjusted of 0.669 (66.9%). Lastly, the lift formwork has an
adjusted of 0.66(66.6%) and was affected by the factors such as the crew size (F5),
shortage of materials (F8), crew experience (F13), skills of labor (F12)

By considering the daily factors, in the slab formwork activity F test has a significance level
of 0.000<0.05, which indicates we reject the null hypothesis that β1- β20=0. The Regression
sum of squares as a percentage of Total sums of squares ( ) shows that 77.6 % of the
variability of the CLP value is explained by the independent variables. In other activities like,
the column, lift formwork and bar replacement F test has a significance level of
0.000,0.00,0.004 and 0.004 respectively all of them inferior to 0.05 , which indicates we
reject the null hypothesis as well that β1- β20=0. The shows that 47%, 82.6% and
82.7% respectively of the variability of the CLP value is explained by the independent
variables

3.3.3. Factors affecting the labor productivity vs the CLP (units/mhrs)

The hypothesis was to see if the 20 factors from the literature can predict the CLP using the
data collected from nine activities shown in table 1 at the construction site of Meles zenawi
leadership academy. The general equation 1 and equation 2 for the multiple linear regressions
were used for each of the nine activities. Among the nine activities considering the daily and
weekly factors, only slab formwork, column formwork, bar placement and lift formwork
were statistically significant.

The independent variable weather precipitations recorded constant values over the period and
therefore could not be applied on the model to establish their effect on the CLP. The models
49
incorporate only the coefficients of the remaining variables of the level of significance which
produce p values less than 0.05.On elimination the variables with insignificant p- values from
the model, we have the following equations.
1. Slab formwork :
= 2.350-0.203 F5-0.193 F14

For the slab formwork model, the crew size has shown a negative impact on the CLP.
However, according to figure 7 the plot box of the mean and the crew size present a declining
line from 3 the minimum size of crew and 7 the maximum size of a crew . Then, it doesn’t
mean that keeping the crew size low will provide high value of CLP but the construction
manager should take a better decision according to the schedule or duration of the project. In
fact, the increase in the crew size can cause an increase in the production rate but not in the
CLP. The range for F5 (crew size) can be kept between 3 and 7.The complexity of the task in
the slab formwork can be justified by skills required in levelling and at the beams level since
both formwork slab and beam has to be erected at once

2. Column formwork :
= 1.49 – 0.052F1 – 0.03F5 +0.044F12 – 0.063F17 - 0.030F20

In the column formwork, the level of interruption and disruption was explained by a number
of interruptions during the execution of the activity. The skills of labor is well required in
column formwork than in the slab formwork where in figure 14 the cubic coefficient of
determination is about 63.5% , nevertheless according to table 4, the skills of labor presented
a mean of 4.42 which is less than 4.47 presented by the slab formwork . The working
condition and the temperature also slightly affect the to a range of [2-5] and [16-19]

3. Lift Formwork :
= 1.507- 0.095F5 – 0.042F8 + 0.139F12 + 0.136F13

The lift formwork has presented four factors, among which we have the shortage of materials
and the crew experience with a coefficient of determination of 37.0% and 21.1% as univaraite
factor on CLP (Appendix B)

4. Bar placement
= -13.085 + 4.175F12 + 5.060F16

50
The bar works are positively affected with the skills of labor and the clarity of technical
specification.

The crew size in figure 7, figure 9 and figure 16 in for the slab, column and lift formwork
respectively has show a negative association with the mean CLP. The skills of the labor with
the CLP plots in figure 11, figure 14 and figure 19 has also shown a positive association with
a coefficient of determination of 3.9 %, 63.5 % and 26.8 % for column formwork, rebaring
works and lift formworks activities respectively. However, the shortage of materials vs the
CLP for the lift formwork activity has shown a negative relationship with a coefficient of
determination of 37.0%.

3.3.4. Validation of the model

Model validity refers to stability and reasonableness of the regression coefficients, the
plausibility and usability of the regression function and ability to generalize inferences drawn
from the regression analysis. Validation is a useful and necessary part of the model building
process. A good fit of a model to the data set is not an only goal of model validation but also
its predictive accuracy of the model is how the model validates a new dataset. In this study,
the regression models are developed; normality of the residuals (predicted minus observed
values) has been verified using scatter plots of residuals so as to ensure the validity of the
developed modes. In addition to that, the bootstrapping technique has been used as an internal
validation method since we didn’t have many that to perform the external validation method
with training and testing data. The four models were validated. Bootstrapping replicates the
process of sample generation from an underlying population by drawing samples with
replacement from the original data set, of the same size as the original data set.

1. For the slab formwork

Table 8: Bootstrap model for slab formwork

Bootstrap
BCa 95%
Confidence Interval
Std. Sig. (2-
Model B Bias Error tailed) Lower Upper
(Constant) 2.350 -0.098 1.148 0.063 0.120 4.327

F5 -0.203 0.005 0.064 0.015 -0.376 -0.046

F14 -0.193 -0.016 0.084 0.031 -0.336 -0.085

51
The B value indicates the constant and the coefficient of statistical significant factors, the
standard error is between the lower and the upper bias corrected accelerated. And the bias of
each factor is negligible

2. Column formwork
Table 9:Bootstrap model for column formwork

Bootstrap for coefficients

Bootstrap
BCa 95%
Confidence Interval
Std. Sig. (2-
Model B Bias Error tailed) Lower Upper
(Constant) 1.469 -0.029 0.404 0.001 0.701 2.158

F1 -0.052 0.003 0.020 0.020 -0.097 -0.003

F5 -0.030 -0.004 0.016 0.072 -0.054 -0.013

F12 0.044 0.002 0.019 0.017 0.008 0.090

F17 -0.063 -0.001 0.022 0.008 -0.102 -0.024

F20 -0.030 0.002 0.014 0.042 -0.057 0.008

3. Lift formwork

Table 10: Bootstrap model for lift formwork

Bootstrap
BCa 95%
Confidence Interval
Std. Sig. (2-
Model B Bias Error tailed) Lower Upper
(Constant) 1.507 -.001 1.588 .214 -1.974 5.095

b b b b b
F5 -0.095 .010 .052 .121 -.242 .156
b b b b b
F8 -0.042 .001 .049 .300 -.149 .033
b b b b b
F12 0.139 .017 .107 .155 -.335 .163
b b b b b
F13 0.136 -.020 .103 .126 -.016 .224

52
 4. Rebaring

Table 11: Bootstrap model for rebaring

Bootstrap
BCa 95%
Confidence Interval
Std. Sig. (2-
Model B Bias Error tailed) Lower Upper
b b b b
(Constant) -13.085 -6.009 78.213 .764 - 117.663
b
180.169
b b b b b
F12 4.175 -.150 3.270 .191 -3.222 10.093
b b b b b
F13 5.060 -.590 5.607 .268 -6.559 16.473

53
 Chapter 4: conclusion and recommendations

1.1. Conclusion
The purpose of the study was to derive a model that can predict the construction labor
productivity of concreting, formwork, re-baring activities at the construction project of
Goro’s Meles Leadership academy by using the factors affecting the CLP as independent
variables and the CLP as dependent variables. The factors affecting the CLP are subjective
and objective at the same time which makes them complicated to quantify .However the CLP
is a very sensitive parameter to the profitability and success of a construction project;
controlling the CLP can be a way leading to the success of a project. The variability of the
CLP makes it one of the major sources of risks in construction it also made a racing arenas
for researchers to develop an adaptable and accurate model to control the productivity
.Through an extensive literature review, the researcher has categorized the factors into four
main factors which are Management, Labor/human, technological and External factors. The
main factors contain both objective and subjective according to their quantification method
with the subjective factors measured using a likert scale. The researcher sought to confirm
theoretical relationships between level of interruption and disruption , lack of leadership of
the foreman, crew composition, use overtime, crew size ,rework, supervision of labor ,
shortage of materials, frequent damage of equipment ,payment of the owner, fatigue of the
craftsperson ,skills of labor , crew experience ,complexity of the tasks ,change of works order
, clarity of the technical specifications ,working conditions, inspection and instruction delay ,
temperature and the weather precipitation which were constant throughout the data collection
period .All the parameters did not show a significant impact on the CLP and only the
significant one were considered using a stepwise modeling .

From the findings of the analysis above, the conclusion is that there are significant
relationship between the slab formwork productivity and the dependent variables crew size
and the complexity of the tasks. The column formwork has also shown a negative significant
relationship for level of interruption and disruption, the crew size, working conditions and
temperature and has shown a positive impact with the skills of labour on the productivity.
The lift formwork factor model presented a significant positive relationship with the crew
experience and skills of labour; in addition to that it also includes two negative factored
variables which are the crew size and the shortage of material. In the bar works , the
regression analysis generated a model with a negative constant which made the it to have to

54
strong positive variables which are the skills of labour and the clarity of technical
specifications .
The weather precipitation variable had a constant data values for the period of the study and
were therefore deemed to be of no use in the model. This variable was therefore exempted
from the model and analysis.

What are the implications of these results for the CLP? Given our finding that the increase in
crew size in slab, column and lift formwork activities has a negative impact on the CLP;
however it doesn’t implicate that using a limited number of labors in certain crew will give
significant result in productivity rather the construction manager should compromise or
balance with the schedule.

The modeling methodology of this research consists of three main points:

The first one was the identification and categorization of the factors affecting the construction
labor productivity which was done by reviewing the literature from the developing countries;
all factors were not considered however, the most frequent ones were considered.

The second one was the quantification of the factors and parameters influencing the CLP, the
measurement of the input is a research and few selected methods were used in this research.
The factors and parameters were either objective like crew size and crew composition or the
subjective like complexity of the task.

The third point was to analyze the impact of these influencing factors and parameters where
the models have been developed for each activity. However, in this research we only
considered the factors and parameters that have presented significant impact on the activities.
The variability of the CLP was tested using the scatter plots, correlations analysis and
multiple linear regressions to derive a function.

Recommendations
To improve the productivity at the construction sites , proper planning should be established
and followed by a strict monitoring of the activities .The model has shown that the clarity of
technical specifications can contribute a lot in the bar erection and placement . The current
study suggest that, holding other factors constant ; increasing the skills of labor and clarity of
technical specifications are associated with a great increase in the bar works productivity .
Thus, to improve the productivity and ensure success of a construction project, the
55
management and labor/human main factors should be the areas of focus. Further, the
construction managers should ensure the availability of materials, the proper communication
with the consultants since it has been noticed that the level of interruption and inspection and
instruction delay is highly due to the change works order.

Since the company has no proper program to train their workers, we find that most the labor
has little skills to perform their work. Construction industry especially the ministry of
construction should start encouraging the construction companies to have a program to train
their skilled labors. Training programs should include on the job initiatives targeting those
already working and help them with what they really need.

56
Bibliography
(AAE), E. E. (2007). THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ETHIOPIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY . ADDIS
ABABA .

Abdul Kadir et al. (2005). Factors affecting construction labour productivity for Malaysian residential
projects. Emerald , 42-54.

Adamu K.J. et al . (2011). Labour productivity constraints in the nigerian construction industry .
Journal Environmental Design and Management , 9-13.

Adrian, J. (1987). Construction Productivity Improvement. New york : Elsevier Science Publishing.

Ailabouni,. (2012). factors affecting the employee productivity in the UAE Construction Industry.
international journal of engineering and advanced technology , 33-46.

Aized H. Mir. (2007). DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT - A LITTERATURE

REVIEW . PAKISTAN : WORLD BANK -SASSD .

Alinaitwe et al . (2007). Factors affecting the productivity of building craftsmen-studies of Uganda.

journal of civil engineering and managment , 169-176.

Allen, S. G,. (1985). Why Construction Industry Productivity is declining. The review of economics and
statisitcs , 667-671.

Brent G. Hicksona and Leighton A. Ellis b,. (2014). Factors affecting Construction Labour Productivity
in Trinidad and Tobago. The Journal of the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and
Tobago , 4-11.

Dunlop P.and smith . (2003). Estimating key characteristics of the concrete delivery and placement
process using linear regression. civil engineering and environmental systems , 273-290.

Durdyeu , Serdar and Mbachu . (2011). On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction
industry: Key constraints and improvement measures. Australian journal of construction economics
and building , 18-33.

Enhassi et al. (2011). labor productivity measurement in building project . islamic University journal ,
103-119.

Fayek, A.R., & Oduba,. (2005). Predicting industrial construction labor productivity using fuzzy expert
systems. journal of construction engineering and managament , 938-941.

Ghoddousi et al. (2012). A survey of the factors affecting theproductivity of construction projects in
Iran. technological and economic development of economy , 99-116.

Halpin., T. M. (2005). Pile Construction Productivity Assessment. joural of construction engineering

and management .

Hashem et al. (2000). FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR PRODUCTIVITY INBUILDING PROJECT IN GREAT
CAIRO. cairo : Benha university .

57
Hass, C.T., Borcherding, J.D., Allmon, E. and Goodrum, P. M,. (1999). US construction productivity
trends. Austin : The university of Texas .

Heizer et al . (1990). Production and operations management "strategic and tactical decisions.
Prentice Hall . New jersey .

Hillebrandt, P M. (2000). Economic Theory and the Construction Industry. London : Macmillan.

jarkas, A. (2012). Factors affecting the labor productivity in Kuwait . journal of construction
engineering and management , 811-820.

M.Matters . (2014). Manufacturing report .

Makulsawatudom. (2004). critical factors influencing construction productivity in Thailand. journal of

KMITNB , 1-6.

Mao H. (1999). Estimating labor productivity using fuzzy set theory. Edmoton : Alberta University .

Mekides A. (2016). A STUDY ON FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR PRODUCTIVITY ON BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA. Addis Ababa.

Muqeem, S., Bin Idrus, A., Khamidi, M. F., Siah, Y. K., & Saqib, M. (2012). Application of Fuzzy expert
systems for construction labor productivity. international conference In Computer & Information
Science (ICCIS) (pp. 506-511). IEEE.

NBE (National bank of Ethiopia). (2016). Annual report . Addis ababa : National bank of Ethiopia .

Neil, J.M., and Knack, L.E. (1982). Predicting Productivity. American Association of cost engineers .

Oduba, A.O.,. (2002). Predicting industrial construction productivity using fuzzy expert system .
Edmoton : Alberta university .

Olabosipo et al. (2011). Factors affecting the performance of labour in Nigerian construction sites.
Meditterranean journal of social sciences , 251-257.

Olaoluwa, O., Adesanya, D.A.:. (2015). Productivity of Concrete Placement by dumpers in Nigeria .
international journal of engineering and research development , 15-28.

Pankratz, A. (1983). Forecasting with univariate Box-Jenkins models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York .

Radosavljevic, M., and Horner, M.W.,. (2002). The Evidence of Complex Variability in construction
labor productivity . construction management and economics , 3-12.

Rifat Sonmez. (1996). Construction labor productivity modeling with neural network and regrassion
analysis . Iowa State university .

Sana Muqeem et al. (2011). Prediction Modeling of Construction Labor Production Rates using
Artificial neural network. 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology.
singapore : IPCBEE .

58
Sanders, S.R., and Thomas, R.H. (1993). Masonary productivity forecasting model . journal of
construction engineering and management , 163-179.

Soekiman et. (2009). Factors relating to labour productivity affecting the project schedule
performance in indonesia. journal of construction engineering and management , 1-8.

Soham,Mistry and Rajiv,Bhatt. (2013). Critical factors affecting labour productivity in construction
projects:Case study of South Gujarat Region of India. international journal of engineering and
advanced technology , 583-591.

Tadesse Ayelew . (2016). Assessment on Performance and Challenges of Ethiopian construction

industry . Villeneuve d'Ascq: Questjournal .

Talhouni. (1990). Measurement and analysis of construction labor productivity. Dundee: University
of Dundee.

Thomas and Yiakoumis . (1987). Factor model to predict labor prductivity . construction engineering
and management , 623-639 .

Tsehayae Abraham. (2016). Developing and Optimizing Context-Specific and Universal Construction
Labour productivity models. University of Alberta .

Tsoukalas, L.H, and Uhrig, R.E. (1997). Fuzzy and neural network in engineering. new york : willey .

Whitehead, R.C. (1990). Factors Influencing Labour Productivity on Construction Sites. Dundee:
university of Dundee ,PhD thesis .

world Bank . (2016). 5TH ETHIOPIA ECONOMIC UPDATE. World Bank .

Zakeri, Mahmood; Olomolaiye,O. Paul; Gary D. (2010). A survey constraint on Iranian construction
operatives' productivity. construction economics and management , 417-426.

59
Appendix A: Data collection sheet

Addis Ababa University

School of Graduate Studies
Institute of Technology
Data collection sheet
For master thesis in construction management
A factor model for predicting construction labour
productivity in building
Project: A Case study of Meles leadership academy
construction project.
Researcher: Eng. Kwizera Arnaud
Supervised by: Dr. Abraham Asseffa

Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Civil engineering

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

60
 2019

Productivity data sheet

Block Activity Date :

Productivity code crew composition Man-hours

Crew crew
Location work work unit
Tag Activity code Task code size CRp DL Total man-hours
Time R Time OT

crew 1

crew 2

crew 3

crew 4

61
62
Quantification of factors and parameters

63
Appendix B: factors and parameters affecting CLP versus CLP (scatter
plots)

Figure 7: crew size vs CLP for the slab formwork activity

Figure 8: complexity of the task vs CLP for slab formwork

64
Figure 9: CLP versus the crew size for column formwork activity

Figure 10: level of interruption vs CLP for column formwork activity

65
Figure 11: Skills of labor vs CLP for formwork activity

Figure 12: Working conditions vs CLP for column formwork

66
Figure 13: Temperature vs CLP for column formwork activity

Figure 14: Skills of labor vs CLP for rebaring activity

67
Figure 15: Clarity of technical specifications for rebaring works activity

Figure 16:crew size vs CLP for lift formwork activity

68
Figure 17: shortage of materials vs CLP for lift formwork activity

69
Figure 18: Crew experience vs CLP for lift formwork activity

Figure 19: Skills of labor VS CLP for lift formwork

70
Appendix C: Pearson correlation analysis for the slab, column, lift formwork and rebaring works
Table l: The correlation analysis for the slab formwork activity
F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
1
F1
-0.100 1
F3 0.563
.394* 0.106 1
F5 0.017 0.537
.490** 0.239 0.194 1
F8 0.002 0.160 0.258
-0.214 -0.255 .412* -0.149 1
F12 0.211 0.133 0.012 0.386
-0.181 -0.311 .341* -0.152 .887** 1
F13 0.292 0.065 0.042 0.377 0.000
0.267 0.022 -0.051 0.311 -.410* -.460** 1
F14 0.116 0.898 0.769 0.065 0.013 0.005
-0.155 0.038 -0.067 -0.128 0.090 0.268 -.349* 1
F16 0.367 0.826 0.699 0.458 0.601 0.114 0.037
-0.229 .378* -.341* 0.151 -.527** -.506** 0.180 0.138 1
F17 0.180 0.023 0.042 0.379 0.001 0.002 0.293 0.422
-0.081 .449** -0.109 0.227 -0.257 -0.266 .525** -0.037 .370* 1
F18 0.638 0.006 0.528 0.182 0.130 0.117 0.001 0.830 0.026
0.036 0.156 0.221 -0.006 0.184 0.146 -0.319 0.035 -0.110 0.004 1
F19 0.835 0.365 0.196 0.971 0.283 0.397 0.058 0.840 0.524 0.981
-.355* -0.139 -.438** -.467** 0.127 0.174 -.691** 0.180 -0.105 -.470** 0.136 1
F20 0.034 0.418 0.007 0.004 0.459 0.311 0.000 0.294 0.540 0.004 0.431
The values in italic indicate the significant value.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*

71
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **
Table m: Correlation analysis for column formwork activity

F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20

1
F1
-0.062 1
F3 0.602
0.142 0.009 1
F5 0.234 0.941
.358** -0.209 -0.129 1
F8 0.002 0.078 0.280
0.119 -0.191 .255* 0.116 1
F12 0.321 0.108 0.031 0.334
0.076 -0.114 .238* -0.041 .843** 1
F13 0.523 0.338 0.044 0.730 0.000
.237* -0.070 -.311** 0.077 -0.139 -0.143 1
F14 0.045 0.559 0.008 0.521 0.246 0.232
-.390** -0.058 -0.117 -.249* -0.057 0.042 -0.209 1
F16 0.001 0.631 0.327 0.035 0.636 0.726 0.078
.248* -0.019 -0.072 -0.029 -0.172 -0.179 .439** -.256* 1
F17 0.035 0.871 0.549 0.811 0.149 0.132 0.000 0.030
0.098 0.042 -.368** 0.089 -.298* -.307** .461** -0.174 .325** 1
F18 0.415 0.725 0.001 0.457 0.011 0.009 0.000 0.143 0.005
-0.225 -0.116 -.293* -0.021 -.291* -0.097 0.066 0.115 0.037 0.142 1
F19 0.057 0.331 0.012 0.861 0.013 0.420 0.582 0.335 0.755 0.235
-.391** 0.063 -0.228 -0.049 0.197 0.083 -0.062 .308** -.397** -0.080 -0.180 1
F20 0.001 0.598 0.054 0.682 0.098 0.488 0.606 0.008 0.001 0.503 0.130
The values in italic indicate the significant value.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **
72
Table n: Correlation analysis for rebaring works activity

F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20

1
F1
-0.310 1
F3 0.140
-.523** .528** 1
F5 0.009 0.008
-0.144 -0.111 0.000 1
F8 0.502 0.607 1.000
-0.377 .460* 0.105 -0.082 1
F12 0.069 0.024 0.624 0.702
-0.299 .454* 0.010 -0.053 .958** 1
F13 0.156 0.026 0.963 0.806 0.000
-0.231 0.385 0.337 0.100 0.073 0.043 1
F14 0.277 0.063 0.108 0.643 0.735 0.841
0.153 0.081 -.507* -0.099 0.093 0.205 -0.303 1
F16 0.476 0.707 0.012 0.645 0.666 0.337 0.151
0.040 -0.261 0.100 .448* -0.206 -0.184 0.311 -0.158 1
F17 0.851 0.218 0.643 0.028 0.333 0.390 0.139 0.460
0.335 -0.171 0.098 -0.035 -0.345 -0.368 -0.072 -0.061 0.046 1
F18 0.110 0.424 0.648 0.872 0.099 0.077 0.737 0.776 0.829
-0.103 -0.237 0.016 0.238 -0.344 -0.286 .408* -0.067 0.392 -0.306 1
F19 0.632 0.266 0.940 0.262 0.099 0.176 0.048 0.754 0.058 0.146
-0.329 0.234 -0.051 -0.050 .776** .718** 0.017 0.328 -0.261 -0.124 -0.225 1
F20 0.116 0.271 0.812 0.815 0.000 0.000 0.936 0.117 0.218 0.565 0.291
The values in italic indicate the significant value.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **

73
Table o: correlation analysis for lift formwork activity
F1 F3 F5 F8 F12 F13 F14 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
1
F1
-0.257 1
F3 0.226
-.474* .531** 1
F5 0.019 0.008
.696** 0.075 -0.148 1
F8 0.000 0.728 0.489
-0.210 0.073 0.315 -.480* 1
F12 0.325 0.734 0.133 0.018
-0.179 0.046 0.351 -.424* .950** 1
F13 0.401 0.832 0.093 0.039 0.000
.502* 0.263 0.033 .696** -0.336 -0.285 1
F14 0.012 0.214 0.880 0.000 0.109 0.178
-.502* 0.050 0.211 -.534** .415* 0.385 -.513* 1
F16 0.012 0.817 0.322 0.007 0.044 0.064 0.010
.620** -0.335 -0.400 .507* -.523** -.428* 0.383 -.688** 1
F17 0.001 0.110 0.053 0.012 0.009 0.037 0.065 0.000
.482* 0.205 -0.261 .582** -.457* -.459* 0.283 -.480* 0.360 1
F18 0.017 0.337 0.218 0.003 0.025 0.024 0.181 0.018 0.084
-0.253 0.352 0.219 -0.104 0.163 0.129 -0.082 -0.129 -0.144 -0.070 1
F19 0.233 0.091 0.303 0.630 0.447 0.548 0.703 0.549 0.502 0.745
-0.283 -0.129 -0.367 -.585** 0.158 0.224 -.475* 0.254 -0.189 -0.186 0.093 1
F20 0.180 0.548 0.078 0.003 0.462 0.293 0.019 0.232 0.375 0.385 0.665
The values in italic indicate the significant value.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*

74
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **

75
76