IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p12132-d671223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity Metrics and Its Implementations in Construction Projects: A Case Study of Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Shan

    (School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410004, China)

  • Yu-Shan Li

    (School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410004, China)

  • Bon-Gang Hwang

    (Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore)

  • Jia-En Chua

    (Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore)

Abstract

Although some studies have used or developed different types of metrics to assess construction productivity in the existing literature, few of them investigated those metrics systematically and the differences between assessment results. This study examined the various types of metrics used in the assessment of the productivity of construction projects. First, a literature review was conducted first to identify prevailing productivity metrics at four levels, namely trade, project, company, and industry. Then, the questionnaire was developed and disseminated to 53 Singapore-based construction companies for data collection. Subsequently, non-parametric statistical tests were conducted to analyze the data collected by the questionnaire. Results showed that the top five metrics in terms of usage frequency and relative importance were “constructability score”, “buildable design score”, “square meter of built-up floor area per man-day”, “square meter per dollar”, and “output per worker.” In addition, results showed that differences existed in the assessment results when productivity metrics at different levels were used to conduct the same measurement. This is the first study to explore the most widely used metrics in productivity assessments of construction projects and investigate possible differences in assessment results. This study could help the authorities to review, evaluate, and modify the productivity metrics used in practice. Thus, this study is beneficial to the practice as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Shan & Yu-Shan Li & Bon-Gang Hwang & Jia-En Chua, 2021. "Productivity Metrics and Its Implementations in Construction Projects: A Case Study of Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12132-:d:671223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12132/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12132/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yongtao Tan & Chenyang Shuai & Liyin Shen & Lei Hou & Guomin Zhang, 2020. "A study of sustainable practices in the sustainability leadership of international contractors," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 697-710, July.
    2. Pramesh Krishnankutty & Bon-Gang Hwang & Carlos H. Caldas & Sriya Muralidharan & Daniel P. de Oliveira, 2019. "Assessing the Implementation of Best Productivity Practices in Maintenance Activities, Shutdowns, and Turnarounds of Petrochemical Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Bon-Gang Hwang & Yu-Shan Li & Ming Shan & Jia-En Chua, 2020. "Prioritizing Critical Management Strategies to Improving Construction Productivity: Empirical Research in Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Bon-Gang Hwang & Ming Shan & Helena Phua & Seokho Chi, 2017. "An Exploratory Analysis of Risks in Green Residential Building Construction Projects: The Case of Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, June.
    5. S. Taheri & G. Hesamian, 2013. "A generalization of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and its applications," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 457-470, May.
    6. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boglárka Anna Éliás & Attila Jámbor, 2021. "Food Security and COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the First-Year Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Cala, Anggie & Maturana-Córdoba, Aymer & Soto-Verjel, Joseph, 2023. "Exploring the pretreatments' influence on pressure reverse osmosis: PRISMA review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Susca, T. & Zanghirella, F. & Colasuonno, L. & Del Fatto, V., 2022. "Effect of green wall installation on urban heat island and building energy use: A climate-informed systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    4. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melissa D. McCradden & Lauren Oakden-Rayner , 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Gizéh Rangel-de Lázaro & Josep M. Duart, 2023. "You Can Handle, You Can Teach It: Systematic Review on the Use of Extended Reality and Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Online Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," Discussion Papers 971, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Ellen Busink & Dana Kendzia & Fatih Kircelli & Sophie Boeger & Jovana Petrovic & Helen Smethurst & Stephen Mitchell & Christian Apel, 2023. "A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapies, and consequences for decision-making in the end-stage renal disease treatment pathway," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 377-392, April.
    8. Wang, Nan & Wang, Julian & Feng, Yanxiao, 2022. "Systematic review: Acute thermal effects of artificial light in the daytime," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    9. Tania Mateos-Blanco & Encarnación Sánchez‐Lissen & Inés Gil‐Jaurena & Clara Romero‐Pérez, 2022. "Child‐Led Participation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 32-42.
    10. Elisa Mancinelli & Giulia Bassi & Silvia Gabrielli & Silvia Salcuni, 2022. "The Efficacy of Digital Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions in Supporting the Psychological Adjustment and Sleep Quality of Pregnant Women with Sub-Clinical Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Najihah Ahmad Latif & Fatini Nadhirah Mohd Nain & Nurul Hashimah Ahamed Hassain Malim & Rosni Abdullah & Muhammad Farid Abdul Rahim & Mohd Nasruddin Mohamad & Nurul Syafika Mohamad Fauzi, 2021. "Predicting Heritability of Oil Palm Breeding Using Phenotypic Traits and Machine Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    12. Bei, Eva & Morrison, Val & Zarzycki, Mikołaj & Vilchinsky, Noa, 2023. "Barriers, facilitators, and motives to provide distance care, and the consequences for distance caregivers: A mixed-methods systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    13. Jacinda K. Dariotis & Frances R. Chen & Ye Rang Park & Montana K. Nowak & Katherine M. French & Anisa M. Codamon, 2023. "Parentification Vulnerability, Reactivity, Resilience, and Thriving: A Mixed Methods Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(13), pages 1-66, June.
    14. Lippens, Louis & Vermeiren, Siel & Baert, Stijn, 2023. "The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    16. Henrique Oliveira & Víctor Moutinho, 2021. "Renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Economic Development Nexus: A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-28, July.
    17. Huihua Chen & Hujun Li & Yige Wang & Baoquan Cheng, 2020. "A Comprehensive Assessment Approach for Water-Soil Environmental Risk during Railway Construction in Ecological Fragile Region Based on AHP and MEA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Tatiana Tucunduva Philippi Cortese & Jairo Filho Sousa de Almeida & Giseli Quirino Batista & José Eduardo Storopoli & Aaron Liu & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2022. "Understanding Sustainable Energy in the Context of Smart Cities: A PRISMA Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-38, March.
    19. Emily Tang & Chelsea Jones & Lorraine Smith-MacDonald & Matthew R. G. Brown & Eric H. G. J. M. Vermetten & Suzette Brémault-Phillips, 2021. "Decreased Emotional Dysregulation Following Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation Therapy (3MDR): Identifying Possible Driving Factors in Remediation of Treatment-Resi," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-12, November.
    20. Barbara Duffek & Andreas B. Eisingerich & Omar Merlo, 2023. "Why so toxic? A framework for exploring customer toxicity," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 122-143, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12132-:d:671223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.