Journal of Management in Engineering.

Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;

posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Factors Influencing Construction Labor Productivity in Egypt

Khaled, Mahmoud El-Gohary *1 and Remon, Fayek Aziz 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
ip
*
Corresponding author
1 2
Senior Civil Engineer, MEng Lecturer (PhD), Structural Engineering Department,
30 El-Mamoon St., Moharem Bek, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University

d cr
Alexandria Alexandria
Egypt Egypt
Mob: +20 1006288925 Mob: +20 1223813937

te s
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Factors Influencing Construction Labor Productivity in Egypt

Abstract

Construction is a labor-intensive industry. Therefore, construction labor productivity is of critical importance to

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the profitability of most construction projects. Many construction industry sectors have been experiencing

t
chronic problems such as poor management, inferior working conditions and insufficient quality. Many

ip
researchers, in the literature, have identified these problems as factors that affect construction productivity and

d cr
will affect company’s performance and the overall economy of the country as well. This paper aims to identify,

investigate, and rank factors perceived to affect construction labor productivity in the Egyptian construction

te s
context with respect to their relative importance. To achieve this objective, we invited practitioners and experts

di nu
comprising a statistically representative sample to participate in a structured questionnaire survey. The

questionnaire comprised thirty productivity factors where we classified them under the following three primary
ye a
categories: (a) human/labor; (b) industrial; (c) management. The management category ranked first followed by
op M

labor category then industrial category. This study revealed that the subsequent five factors, ranked in

descending order, are the most significant in their effects on construction labor productivity in Egypt: (1) Labor
C ted

experience and skills; (2) Incentive programs; (3) Availability of the material and ease of handling; (4)

Leadership and competency of construction management; and (5) Competency of labor supervision. Industry
ot p

practitioners and researchers can use the main outcomes of this study in developing systems to enhance and

improve construction labor productivity in Egypt. Also, this paper can serve as a guide for contractors and
N ce

construction managers for effective management of construction labor forces hence help achieve a competitive
Ac

level of quality and a cost effective project.

Keywords: Construction, Labor Productivity, Factors, Management, Relative Importance Index (RII), Rank,

Improvement, Egypt.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Introduction
In most countries, experience and literature revealed that construction labor costs would account for 30%-60%

of the total project’s cost (Gomar, Haas and Mortan, 2002; and Hanna, Peterson and Lee, 2002). Therefore,

construction labor productivity is of critical importance to the profitability of most construction projects. Many

construction industry sectors have been experiencing chronic problems such as poor management, inferior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

working conditions and insufficient quality. Many researchers, in the literature, have identified these problems

t
as factors that affect the construction productivity and will affect a company’s performance and the overall

ip
economy of the country as well.

d cr
The performance of labor is affected by many factors and is usually linked to the performance of time, cost, and

te s
quality. Meanwhile identification and evaluating factors affecting construction labor productivity have been

di nu
done in the last decade; however, a deeper understanding is still needed to improve the labor productivity.

To achieve the income expected from any construction project in general, it is important to have a good
ye a
controlling hand on the productivity factors that contribute to the integrated production composition, like labor,
op M

equipment and cash flow ….etc. In Egypt, literature revealed that the second performance criteria, out of twelve,

by which construction managers would like their performance to be evaluated is "the efficient utilization of
C ted

resources" (Abdel-Razek, 1997). Also it showed that young site engineers working in contracting organizations

ranked the utilization of resources as the second out of twelve factors that affect the performance of construction
ot p

organizations in Egypt (Abdel-Razek, 1998, cited in Abdel-Razek, 2004, p.4).

N ce

Proper management of resources in construction projects can yield substantial savings in time and cost.

Therefore, the objective of this research is to identify and rank the relative importance of factors perceived by
Ac

contractors, engineering firms, and clients to affect construction labor productivity in Egypt. The outcomes can

be used by not only local, but international industry practitioners, who may be further interested in venturing

into potential mega scale projects, but possess no prior practical knowledge of the construction industry in

Egypt. The outcomes can help all practitioners develop a wider and deeper perspective of the factors influencing

the productivity of operatives, and provide guidance to project and construction managers for efficient

utilization of the labor force.

The predominant “traditional” construction project delivery method practiced in Egypt is “Design-Bid-Build”.

The nature of this method lets the contractors face with predetermined decisions regarding the design and

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

specifications criteria, on the one hand, and contractual conditions, on the other. The contractor must implement

this during the contract duration of the project, and hence would be, as “end-user”, in a better position to provide

an objective assessment of the effects of such products on the productivity of operatives. This method gives a

chance to the clients and engineering firms “consultants” to follow up the productivity and factors affecting it in

more precise detail especially in cases of delay and loss of productivity claims. This gives the importance and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the logic behind focusing on contractors’, engineering firms’, and clients’ perspectives in this study.

t
There is a fact that the labor forces, whether directly employed or subcontracted, are under the management and

ip
supervision of the contractor. In this research, based on this fact, we concentrated more on collecting data from

d cr
contractors. The direct supervisor, who is under daily interaction with laborers, can afford to render a reasonably

te s
more accurate judgment on the primary and most relevant factors influencing their efficiency.

di nu
The literature has identified several factors that we have explored in this study. A lack of stable metrics makes

it difficult to compare results of studies that investigate factors affecting productivity. This paper investigates
ye a
factors perceived to affect construction labor productivity in Egyptian construction sites with respect to
op M

identifying and ranking their relative importance. Building from the literature and with input from industry

experts, this research develops a schematic model of factors affecting construction labor productivity in Egypt
C ted

and explores them by using statistical methods. The following sections present literature review, research

methodology, results and discussion, and conclusions and recommendations.

ot p

Background and Literature Review

N ce

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

labor productivity, that is, units of work placed or produced per man-hour. The inverse of labor productivity,

man-hours per unit (unit rate), is also commonly used (Halligan et al., 1994, p.48). This is an Activity-Oriented

model of productivity often referred to as partial or single factor productivity.

The way in which productivity should be measured is profoundly influenced by the purpose for which the

results will be used. A popular concept in the USA, and increasingly in the UK, is the concept of earned hours.

It relies on the establishment of a set of standard outputs or “norms” for each unit operation. Thus, a number of

“earned” hours are associated with each unit of work completed. “Productivity” may then be defined as the ratio

of earned to actual hours. The problem with this concept is in establishing reliable “norms”, for setting

standards. It also depends on the method used to measure productivity, and on the extent to which account is

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

taken of all the factors which affect it.

Therefore, a statement like “construction productivity in the UK is 30% greater than that in Egypt” is

meaningless. Its truth depends on the definition of productivity and how it is measured. If, for example,

construction of office blocks in Cairo and London is compared, an indicator such as square meters of floor area

completed per week might be used. But how does this take account of differences in specification (quality),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design (build ability), building regulations, construction technology, available resources, and climate and so on?

t
(Horner and Talhouni, 1998).

ip
Some agencies use the Economic model in terms of dollars, since dollars are the only measure common to both

d cr
inputs and outputs. Equation (1) shows total factor productivity (TFP) which represents this type of model.

te s
Total output
TPF = (1)
Labor  Materials  Equipment  Energy  Capital

di nu
TPF is a ratio of dollars of output to dollars of input.

Project- Specific model is a more accurate definition that can be used for specific program planning and for
ye a
conceptual estimates on individual projects. Equation (2) shows this model.
op M

Output
Productivi ty = (2)
Labor  Equipment  Materials
This measure is a ratio of, for example, square meters of output to dollars of input (Thomas et al., 1990, p.706).
C ted

The complex nature of the construction process and the interaction of its activities make the single factor
ot p

productivity measure the popular option since effective control systems monitor each input separately. It focuses
N ce

on a selected factor, e.g., labor input, which makes the measurement process easy and controllable. Moreover,

reliable and accurate data can be obtained. On the other hand, the total factor productivity measure is difficult to
Ac

accurately measure and determine all the input resources utilized to achieve the output. Therefore, total factor

productivity measure is often impractical.

Figure 1 shows the open conversion system by Drewin that could be applied to most of construction operations.

This open conversion system, which is more close to Equation (1), models the construction process and the main

factors affecting its productivity. It gives examples of categorized factors that would affect the overall

construction productivity including labor and reflects the complex nature of the construction process as an open

conversion system. Also, it shows the flow of feed back information which enables a continual improvement of

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

the construction productivity. This can help practitioner understand the role of factors affecting construction

process, thus control and improve its productivity.

<Please insert Figure 1 here>

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1 shows a summary of previous studies in different countries on factors affecting construction labor

t
ip
productivity. It shows the total number of studied factors and the most effective top factors ranked in descending
order based on their importance.

d cr
te s
di nu <Please insert Table 1 here>
ye a
There is no consensus in the literature on the identification of factors which affect construction times of
op M

buildings, i.e. the length of time between a building being started and being completed. One reason for this is

that researchers have largely viewed the subject from diverse perspectives. Anyhow, poor productivity of
C ted

construction manpower is one of agreed factors that cause construction delay. Therefore, studying factors

affecting construction labor productivity is crucial to improve it and thus to help manage the construction to
ot p

achieve a competitive level of quality and a cost effective project in timely manner.
N ce

The classification of the factors that affect construction labor productivity into global main groups or categories

is helpful to better identify and manage such factors, thus to improve construction labor productivity and
Ac

construction times of buildings. Alwi (2003) classified the key factors influencing construction productivity in

Indonesia into the following three categories: (a) characteristics of contractors; (b) inadequate management

strategy; and (c) the organization’s focus. The characteristics of contractors include ownership type,

qualifications, accumulated experience, classifications, and the caliber of staff employed. Management strategy

refers to the tools and managerial approaches adopted to minimize waste and unproductive activities, hence

promoting lean, efficient, and cost effective operations. The organization’s focus relates to the client objectives

and motivation, project goal, and the active involvement of all construction personnel. Singh (2010) classified

factors affecting the productivity of construction operations of infrastructures and buildings in the United Arab

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Emirates into four categories: industry level factors; labor factors; site management factors; and external factors.

He studied the following overall ten factors with respect to their categories to help improve the productivity: (1)

priority of production in the industry; (2) production system design; (3) financial issues; (4) predictability of

demand; (5) skill and experience issues; (6) work schedule and crew mix; (7) training policy; (8) coordination

and supervision; (9) material and equipment quality; and (10) weather and statute. Therefore, the authors in this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

research proposed the following three primary categories for classifying the corresponding factors explored in

t
this research: (a) human/labor related factors; (b) industry related factors; and (c) management related factors.

ip
Research Methodology

d cr
This research is based on a survey designed to gather all necessary information in an effective way. The survey

te s
presents 30 productivity factors generated on the basis of related research works on construction productivity

di nu
(Sanders and Thomas, 1991; Lim and Alum, 1995; Makulsawatudom, Emsley, and Sinthawanarong, 2004;

Abdul Kadir et al., 2005; Enshassi et al., 2007; and Jarkas and Bitar, 2012) together with input, revision and
ye a
modifications by local experts. These factors were classified into the following three categories based on
op M

previous literature and as advised by local experts: human/labor related factors; industry related factors; and

management related factors. To consider the effect of the different levels of the participants’ experiences, the
C ted

results are grouped into three groups: “group 1” for respondents’ experience till 15 years; “group 2” for

respondents’ experience above 15 till 25 years; and “group 3” for respondents’ experience above 25 years.

Figure 2 depicts these groups.

ot p
N ce

<Please insert Figure 2 here>

Ac

The studied target population includes clients, consultants and contractors. On the national level, one recognized

way of categorizing construction companies is by the grade of the Egyptian Federation for Construction &

Building Contractors (EFCBC). Therefore, we selected contractors from those who hold valid membership of

the EFCBC. The main criteria for grading are related to the company’s capital; the total highest value of the

executed contracts within twelve months during the last five years; the value of the largest successfully executed

project during the last five years; the value of the income related to the work done in the official budget; the

duration of previous experience; and staffing (technical; financial; administrative; and lawful). The total number

of contracting companies in Egypt who have valid membership under the available seven grades for the

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

category of integrated building works is 19,779 as on 1st of March, 2012. For the purpose of this research, the

targeted contractors are those who represent the top four grades. The first grade comprises 232 firms, the second

grade 157 firms, the third grade 213 firms, and the fourth grade 681 firms with total of 1,283 firms. A

systematic random sample was selected to ensure a representative sample of all targeted contractors using

Equation (3) (Hogg and Tanis, 2009):

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
ip
Where: n, m, and N represent the sample size of the limited, unlimited, and available population, respectively.

d cr
On the other hand, m is estimated by Equation (4).

te s
di nu
Where: Z is the statistical value for the confidence level used, i.e., 2.575, 1.96, and 1.645, for 99%, 95%, and

90% confidence levels, respectively; P is the value of the population proportion which is being estimated; and ε
ye a
is the sampling error of the point estimate.
op M

Since the value of P is unknown, Sincich et al. (2002) suggested a conservative value of 0.50 to be used so that a

sample size that is at least as large as required be obtained. Using a 95% confidence level, i.e., 5% significance
C ted

level, the unlimited sample size of the population, m, is approximated as follows:

ot p
N ce

Accordingly, the total number “N” of considered classified contractors under the first, second, third and fourth

grades equals to 1,283.

Ac

The sample size is statistically determined as will be shown in “Sample Determination and Selection”. The

results have been achieved by continuous follow-up and close personal contact with all participants. The sample

was selected randomly from a combination of the contractors under the top four contractors’ grades to cover the

sample representing the total population of 1,283 contracting companies. As there is no accurate data regarding

the number of consultants/clients, 18 consulting and client firms are selected randomly and added to the

statistically determined sample size of contractors as will be shown later in “Sample Determination and

Selection”.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

For analyzing data, the Relative Importance Index (RII) technique was used. This index was computed for every

factor for each specific year of the participants’ experience by using Equation (5) (Lim and Alum, 1995;

Enshassi et al., 2007; and Jarkas and Bitar, 2012):

6 ( n 6 ) + 5(n5) + 4(n4) + 3(n3) + 2(n2) + n1

Relative Important Index (RII)k (%) = * 100 (5)
6 (n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 + n5 + n6)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where: RII (%)k, is the yearly experience percentage of the Relative Importance Index of each factor; which is

t
calculated separately for corresponding year (k) of experience of categorized respondents; k, is the number that

ip
represents the years of experience of categorized respondents (from first year of experience k=1 to last year of

d cr
experience k = K); and n1; n2; n3; n4; n5; and n6 are the numbers of respondents who selected: “0”, for no

effect; “1”, for very little effect;”2”, for little effect; “3”, for average effect; “4”, for high effect; and “5”, for

te s
di nu
very high effect respectively. Therefore, Equation (6) is used for computing the overall Relative Importance

Index (RII) for each factor of all respondents considering all years of experiences of the respondents together;

which is calculated as a weighted average of RIIk obtained from equation (5).

ye a
op M

k=K

䌥 ( k * RII k )
k =1
Overall RII (%) = k=K (6)
䌥k
C ted

k =1

Where: The overall RII (%), is the total weighted average percentage of the Relative Importance Index of each

factor; which is calculated based upon all years of experiences of the respondents together; k, is the number that
ot p

represents the years of experience of categorized respondents (from one year of experience; k = 1 to last year of
N ce

experience; k = K); and RIIk is the yearly experience percentage of the Relative Importance Index of each

factor; which is calculated separately for corresponding year (k) of experience of categorized respondents and
Ac

calculated by equation (5).

The category index was calculated by taking the average of the Relative Importance Index (RII) of the factors in

each category.

Questionnaire Design

The design philosophy of the questionnaire was based on the fact that they had to be simple, clear and

understandable for the respondents and at the same time they should be able to be interpreted well by the

researcher. The questionnaire has a definite advantage of requiring a smaller time to be responded and is more

accurate in the final outcome. Factors affecting the construction labor productivity were identified through the

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

literature based on previous research together with input, revision and modifications by local experts where a

total of 30 factors were identified. The participants were required to rate the factors in the way they affect

construction labor productivity considering time, cost and quality using their own experiences on building sites.

The questionnaire required the respondents to rank the factors affecting labor productivity on a scale with the

rating of “0” representing no effect; “1” very little effect; “2” little effect; “3” average effect; “4” high effect and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

“5” very high effect according to the degree of importance on construction labor productivity. The numbers

t
assigned to the agreement scale (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) do not indicate that the intervals between the scales are equal,

ip
nor do they indicate absolute quantities.

d cr
Pilot Study

We carried out a pilot study to ensure the clarity and relevance of the questionnaire to participants. The

te s
questionnaire was shown to two researchers in the same field. Based on their feedback, amendments were made.

di nu
The second phase of the pilot study was conducted on five building project managers among those who were not

going to participate in the final survey. Based on the feedback, minor amendments were again made to remove
ye a
any ambiguities and discrepancies. This pilot study was conducted to validate and improve the questionnaire, in
op M

terms of its format and layout, the wording of statements and the overall content. The draft questionnaire was

revised to include the suggestions of these participants. The questionnaire was validated through this process
C ted

which provided the authors with improvement opportunities before launching the main survey.

Sample Determination and Selection

The survey gathered data from practitioners of building contractors, consultants, and owners from as broad a
ot p

geographic area within Egypt as possible. The target population of contractors was 1,283 companies which were
N ce

the current members of the Egyptian Federation for Construction & Building Contractors (EFCBC) within first,

second, third, and fourth grades during conducting this research. The required representative sample size “n” of
Ac

the target population of contracting companies was determined using equation 3 as shown below:

Based on that, a total of 300 contracting companies in Egypt were surveyed as a sample representing the total

population of 1,283 contracting companies. The surveyed companies were only within the top four grades of the

Egyptian Federation for Construction & Building Contractors (EFCBC). The sample was selected randomly

from a combination of contractors under the top four contractors’ grades. We received, sometimes, more than

one completed questionnaire from each surveyed company representing different levels of experience but

10

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

including at least the input of one project manager. The total number of completed questionnaires obtained from

the surveyed contracting companies was 430. The total number of completed questionnaires obtained from the

surveyed consulting and client firms was 59 representing 18 consulting and client firms. Then, the overall

number of the completed questionnaires included in this study is 489 which comprises the statistical data sample

size that represents contractors, consultants, and clients.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Results and Discussion

t
ip
The perceived effect of each of the thirty factors explored on construction labor productivity in Egypt is

d cr
determined. The overall factors are classified under three major categories as follows: nine, under the “labor

category”; eleven, under the “industry category”; and ten, under the “management category”. The relative

te s
importance indices, rank within the corresponding category, and the overall ranks of the factors investigated are

di nu
presented, discussed, and compared to previous related research findings. The “category” importance indices

are, furthermore, quantified, and a comparison among their relevant importance is carried out. The results are
ye a
grouped into three groups: “group 1” for respondents’ experience till 15 years; “group 2” for respondents’
op M

experience above 15 till 25 years; and “group 3” for respondents’ experience above 25 years.

The Relative Importance Indices for the factors of each category in the three groups are calculated using
C ted

Equation 6. Then, the average is calculated for each category in the three groups. Figure 3 shows the results

obtained.
ot p

<Please insert Figure 3 here>

N ce

It is clear that the results of the three groups are almost consistent. The ranks of the three categories are the same
Ac

in the three groups where the categories ranked from top to bottom as management, labor/human, and industry.

Also, the ranks of the factors of each category are the same in the three groups with slight difference in the value

of the Relevant Importance Index (RII). This gives more confidence in the overall results obtained as there is a

consistency in the results regardless the level of the experience of the participants. Nevertheless, the overall RII

for all factors are calculated using Equation 6 which considers the level of experience.

Management Category
The relative importance indices and ranks of the ten factors classified under the management category are

shown in Table 2.

11

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

The surveyed contractors, consultants, and clients ranked “Incentive programs” factor as the most important

factor affecting labor productivity in this category, with a relative importance index of 91.87%. This top ranked

factor is further ranked second in its effect among all explored factors which indicates the significant impact of

this factor on the efficiency of construction labor productivity in Egypt. Horner, Talhouni, and Thomas (1989)

ranked it fifth among thirteen explored factors in the UK.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

<Please insert Table 2 here>

t
ip
This effect is related to the nature of the construction manpower in Egypt which, in its absolute majority,

d cr
comprises laborers that can be found from rural areas and villages coming to work in cities where the majority

of construction works. They basically share a common goal: “make and save as much as possible, then go back

te s
home”. Also, the majority of them work for low wages on a daily basis without any kind of insurance umbrella.

di nu
Thus, a monetary incentive scheme further promotes the objective of operatives and creates a high level of

motivation and satisfaction among them; as a result, higher efficiency is achieved on sites. The related influence
ye a
of this factor is in agreement with the findings reported by Enshassi et al. (2007) where the outcomes, of what
op M

they termed “lack of financial motivation system” ranked it second after “payment delay”, in comparison with

other six factors classified under a “motivation group”. Jarkas and Bitar (2012) found it as the third factor in
C ted

management group and seventh compared to all forty five surveyed factors.

The “Availability of the materials and their ease of handling” factor with a relative importance index of 90.34%
ot p

is ranked second within the management group, and third among all thirty explored factors. This factor is the top
N ce

ranked factor affecting construction labor productivity in Gaza Strip, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and

Singapore (Enshassi et al., 2007; Kaming et al., 1997; Makulsawatudom, Emsley, and Sinthawanarong, 2004;
Ac

Abdul Kadir et al., 2005; and Lim and Alum, 1995). The effect of this factor on the productivity of the

construction industry in Egypt can most probably be related to the following two reasons: (a) the financial

problems of local contractors, and thus liquidity problems or shortage of credit facilities which is a common

obstacle for material procurement; and (b) the delay in ordering the materials due to design/schedule changes or

client delay of payment.

The “Leadership and competency of construction management” factor with a relative importance index of

88.40% is ranked third within the management category, and fourth among all thirty explored factors.

Leadership is defined as being capable of setting the direction of a project or activity and encouraging and

12

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

guiding people towards that direction. Therefore, leadership is using one's own personal power to win the hearts

and minds of people to achieve a common purpose.

This effect substantiates the results obtained by Abdul Kadir et al. (2005) whose research placed the

“incapability of site management” factor in the fifth rank among fifty productivity factors recognized to affect

labor productivity in Malaysia. Also, it substantiates the results obtained by Jarkas and Bitar (2012) where this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

factor ranks fourth in management group and eighth in overall of forty five surveyed factors.

t
The “Competency of labor supervision” factor with a relative importance index of 87.43% ranked fourth in the

ip
management category, and fifth among all thirty explored factors which confirms the significant impact of this

d cr
factor on the construction labor productivity. Supervision is about telling people what to do and how to do it,

te s
leaving precious little space for them to use their own initiative.

di nu
Horner, Talhouni, and Thomas (1989) ranked it third among thirteen factors explored in the UK. Jarkas and

Bitar (2012) ranked it first in the management category, and fourth among all forty five surveyed factors. This
ye a
indicates that continuous supervision of labor is necessary to maximize the productivity. Lack of supervision
op M

may encourage operatives to engage in unproductive activities, take frequent unscheduled breaks, wait idly, or

even leave the job sites during working hours to attend to personal matters. Direct supervision of labor is

required to avoid faulty work that does not conform to contractual specifications, and thus minimizes the
C ted

expensive incidents of “rework” and the associated delays to the construction activities.

The “Planning, work flow and site congestion” factor with a relative importance index of 84.54% is ranked fifth
ot p

in the management category, and eighth among all thirty explored factors. Abdul Kadir et al. (2005) ranked it
N ce

twenty fourth among all fifty surveyed factors. Alinaitwe, Mwakali, and Hansson (2007) ranked it thirty among

all thirty six surveyed factors. Enshassi et al. (2007) ranked it second in the project category and twenty fourth
Ac

among all forty five surveyed factors. Jarkas and Bitar (2012) ranked it ninth in the management category, and

twenty fifth among all forty five surveyed factors.

Site congestion is usually attributed to inappropriate construction site arrangement and overcrowding of the

workers in some work places which could cause obstruction to achieve the desired productivity and quality as

well. The overcrowding of the workers usually results from inappropriate general planning of construction site

activities.

Liu, Ballard, and Ibbs (2011) concluded that labor productivity was found to be positively correlated with

Percent Plan Complete (PPC); a measure of work flow variation. The relationship between productivity and the

13

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

ratio of total task completion to planned tasks, weekly workload, weekly work output, and weekly work hours

was also studied, and no significant correlation was found. The results suggest that productivity is not improved

by completing as many tasks as possible regardless of the plan, nor from increasing workload, work output, or

the number of work hours expended. In contrast, productivity does improve when work flow is made more

predictable. The application of the modern concepts and systems such Last Planner System (LPS ®) can help
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

control and drive the management factors that affect construction labor productivity. These findings can help

t
project/construction managers focus on actual drivers of productivity. It can also help consulting companies

ip
pinpoint responsibility for productivity losses in claims.

d cr
With relative importance indices of 80.73%, 80.09%, 77.74%, 71.98%, and 69.08%, the “Clarity of instructions

te s
and information exchange”, “Surrounding events (revolutions, …)”, “Offered services to laborers (social

di nu
insurance, medical care, …)”, “Construction management type (individual, firms, …)”, and “Subcontractors'

management” factors, respectively, ranked sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth within the management
ye a
category. Furthermore, among all thirty investigated factors, they ranked tenth, eleventh, fifteenth, twenty
op M

seventh, and twenty ninth, respectively.

Although the category of management factors ranked higher than the categories of industry and labor factors,

most of the management factors cannot be predicted in advance specifically at the bidding phase. Therefore,
C ted

they cannot be used in developing forecasts and can only be controlled during the construction phase based on

the quality and efficiency of the project and construction management during the time of execution.
ot p

Labor/Human Category
N ce

The relative importance indices and ranks of the nine classified factors under the Labor/Human category are

shown in Table 3.
Ac

<Please insert Table 3 here>

The “Laborer experience and skill” factor ranked first in the management category and also first among all thirty

surveyed factors with relative importance index of 93.29%. Jarkas and Bitar (2012) ranked it second within the

labor/human category and twentieth among the forty five explored factors.

14

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

The findings substantiate the results obtained by Horner, Talhouni, and Thomas (1989) ranking the skill of labor

factor first in its importance to labor productivity among thirteen factors explored in the UK. This outcome is

further supported by Lim and Alum (1995); Alinaitwe, Mwakali, and Hansson (2007); and Enshassi et al. (2007)

whose works identified the skill and experience of operatives among the most significant factors impacting the

efficiency of the construction labor productivity.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Poorly trained and unskilled operatives are commonly characterized by low and faulty outputs coupled with

t
unjustifiably high inputs. In addition, their outputs are almost always rejected, either in whole or in part, by the

ip
inspection engineer, resulting in extensive and expensive rework, rectifications, or repairs. To the contrary,

d cr
experienced operatives possess sound intellectual abilities, practical solutions to encountered obstacles, and high

te s
technical and motor skills. All of which lead to higher productivity, lower cost of labor, and better quality of

di nu
finished outputs.

Only one major contracting company in Egypt, Arab Contractors Company, has its own system for training of
ye a
skilled laborers. The other contracting companies rely on the governmental technical education which is poor
op M

and not enough. Thus, the field of construction in Egypt regards “lack of skill and experience of labor” as a

major hurdle towards improving construction labor productivity and the quality of the work as well.
C ted

The “Labor operating system (daily wage, lump sum, ….etc.)” factor ranked second in this group and seventh in

overall with a relative importance index of 86.16%. The majority of laborers in Egypt work on the complete day
ot p

system. The quota system (lump sum) and extended day system are applied in a much less frequently. In
N ce

general, the quota system can be considered as a cost control system. Also, it can be considered as a system for

improving productivity and minimizing cost when data for productivity are available.
Ac

Quota or lump sum operating systems are used in the Egyptian context to determine the maximum labor

productivity for any activity in construction projects. The laborers are asked to perform a certain task and leave

the site whenever they finish it. This would act as an incentive for the laborers to finish early and leave site

early, thus demonstrate the maximum productivity they could. Therefore, the foremen/supervisors can determine

the maximum productivity of the laborers. This information could help to determine next activities’ duration.

For nontraditional jobs, a foreman applies the quota system at the beginning of work to ascertain the rate of

productivity. Then, he evaluates the first lump sum to assist him in determining the next lump sums. The quota

system improves worker ability since workers will attempt to upgrade their skill to reduce the effort needed to

15

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

achieve the same level of performance. Also, it develops the competitive spirit among crews which will result in

an improvement in the productivity.

The “Laborer age” factor ranked third within this group and thirteenth overall with a relative importance index

of 78.12%. Enshassi et al. (2007) ranked it sixth in the manpower category and thirty among all forty five

surveyed factors. Discussions with the respondents revealed that there is a unanimous agreement amongst
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

respondents that higher age impacts construction labor productivity negatively. They attributed that to the fact

t
that with higher age the cognitive and mental abilities, agility, and strength decrease. This is supported by

ip
Enshassi et al. (2007) as they stated “The increase of laborer age is negatively affect labor productivity as labor

d cr
speed, agility, and strength decline over time and contribute to a reduced productivity”. Nevertheless, the

te s
decreased cognitive abilities, agility, and strength of older workers can lead to lower productivity unless their

di nu
longer experience and higher levels of job knowledge outweighs these declines. This is should be understood in

conjunction with the context of workers. The respondents gave the relative importance of such factor as having
ye a
a considerable effect on construction labor productivity. This is based on the experience and the mental model
op M

of the respondents to verdict the significance of the productivity difference due to the difference in ages of

construction laborers in the Egyptian context.

C ted

With relative importance indices of 77.19%, 74.85%, 73.63%, 72.52%, 72.23%, and 71.95%, the “Effect of

labor availability – work capacity (Shortage)”, “Over time (till 4 hours after 8 hours/day)”, “Effect of labor

availability – work capacity (Excess)”, “Degree of the laborer education”, “Rest time(s) during the work day”,
ot p

and “Over time (more than 4 hours after 8 hours/day)” factors ranked fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and
N ce

ninth, respectively, within the labor/human category. Furthermore, among all thirty investigated factors, they

ranked sixteenth, eighteenth, twenty second, twenty fourth, twenty fifth, and twenty eighth, respectively.
Ac

The fact remains that if the availability of labor greatly exceeds the demand for it, an individual worker has a

tendency to give maximum effort so as to retain his job. Also, Lack in labor supply makes the foreman unable to

organize the levels of workers in the crew. This leads to using skilled workers in tasks where their skills are not

effectively utilized. It also may lead to using unskilled labors in place of skilled ones; both situations lead to

lowering craft productivity and increase the labor unit cost for accomplished units.

The labor productivity during overtime assignments is influenced by purpose and type of workmen, who work

four hours overtime after a normal eight hours day. These additional hours may be 100% effective if they are

16

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

assigned to an operation which is well planned. The experience suggests that a work week of six days, ten hours

day will approach the optimum.

Industry Category
The relative importance indices and ranks of the eleven classified factors under the Industry category are shown

in Table 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

<Please insert Table 4 here>

t
ip
The “Construction technology (construction method, and material)” factor ranked first in the industry category

d cr
and ranked sixth among all thirty surveyed factors with relative importance index of 86.64%. Enshassi et al.

(2007) ranked it first within the quality category (defined as efficiency of equipment) and sixteenth among all

te s
the forty five explored factors. Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011) found that the most significant factor related

di nu
to construction technology affecting the construction labor productivity is adequacy of method of construction.

This paper studied the construction technology from the point of view of construction method and material.
ye a
There is continual change and improvements occurring in traditional materials and construction techniques.
op M

Bricklaying provides a good example of such changes. Although literal placing of brick on brick has not

changed, masonry technology has changed a great deal. Motorized wheelbarrows and mortar mixers,
C ted

sophisticated scaffolding systems, and forklift trucks now assist the bricklayer. New epoxy mortars give

stronger adhesion between bricks. Mortar additives and cold-weather protection eliminate winter shutdowns.
ot p

The “Constructability (integrated design and construction)” factor ranked second in the industry category and
N ce

ranked ninth among all thirty surveyed factors with a relative importance index of 82.01%. Horner, Talhouni,

and Thomas (1989) ranked it second in its importance to labor productivity among thirteen explored factors in
Ac

the UK.

Constructability is commonly referred to as “Buildability” in Europe. It is defined by the Construction Industry

Institute (CII) as “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement,

and field operations to achieve overall project objectives” (CII, 1986).

The significant impact of this factor on labor productivity may be attributed, in whole or in part, to the

followings: (i) the lack of implementing Value Engineering system from the Designers to develop and review

design alternatives, related details, specifications, and tender documents; (ii) the possible negligence of local

17

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

designers in providing quality work and efficient professional services. The importance of applying the

constructability concept to the productivity of the construction process is confirmed by Horner, Talhouni, and

Thomas (1989); Zakeri et al. (1996); Kaming et al. (1997); Makulsawatudom, Emsley, and Sinthawanarong

(2004); Abdul Kadir et al. (2005); and Alinaitwe, Mwakali, and Hansson (2007).

With relative importance indices of 79.73%, 77.89%, 76.63%, 74.67%, 74.54%, 74.29%, 73.60%, 72.14% and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60.01%, the “Weather effect (temperature, humidity, ...)”, “Distance between the site and cities”, “Project

t
specifications”, “Project scale”, “Available quantity of the daily work (work load)”, “Work interruptions (design

ip
changes, ……etc.)”, “Work at heights”, “Total project duration (total work hours)” and “Type of the project

d cr
(industrial, residential, …etc.)” factors, respectively, ranked third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth,

te s
tenth, and eleventh, respectively, within the industry category. Furthermore, among all thirty investigated

di nu
factors, they ranked twelfth, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty first, twenty third, twenty

sixth, and thirtieth, respectively.

ye a
op M

Table 5 shows the average relative importance indices and the ranks of the three surveyed categories whereas

Table 6 shows the overall relative importance indices and the ranks of the thirty surveyed factors.
C ted

<Please insert Table 5 here>

ot p
N ce

<Please insert Table 6 here>

Ac

Conclusions and Recommendations

To improve construction labor productivity one must identify and recognize the influence of the main factors

affecting it. This research has identified and, based on the quantified relative importance indices, determined the

influence ranks of thirty factors affecting construction labor productivity in Egypt. We classified the explored

factors under the following three primary classifications: (1) human/labor related factors; (2) industry related

factors; and (3) management related factors. To study the effect of the participants’ experience on the obtained

results, we grouped the results under three additional groups based on the experience of the participants; i.e. till

15 years; above 15 till 25 years; and above 25 years. In this regard, we found the results consistent.

18

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

This study reveals the importance of management factors on construction labor productivity over the other two

categories; labor/human and industry. In spite of the importance of management factors, they are almost

unpredictable especially during the bidding phase.

The “Incentive programs” factor is found to be the most important factor in the management group. Its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

importance attributes to as the majority of the construction workers come from rural areas to cities and work for

t
low wages on a daily basis without any kind of insurance umbrella. Thus, a monetary incentive scheme further

ip
promotes the objective of operatives and creates a high level of motivation and satisfaction among them; as a

d cr
result, higher efficiency is achieved on sites. In the light of the findings it is recommended that incentive

programs should be a part of the Egyptian contractors’ policies and practices.

te s
di nu
Also, the findings revealed the high importance of the “Availability of the materials and their ease of handling”

factor. This requires that designer/engineer to prepare painstaking project documentation and contractor to
ye a
prepare a careful delivery plan for the required materials. Also, it reflects the need for proper and efficient
op M

selection of the location of materials storage. It is recommended that the Egyptian government is to enhance and

to encourage the accessibility to construction materials either through local availability or by direct imports.

This would improve the competitiveness among materials suppliers thus help local contractors to overcome their
C ted

financial and liquidity problems.

The most predictable and significant factor identified by the obtained results is “constructability (integrated
ot p

design and construction)” which relatively needs much more efforts and consideration in the Egyptian
N ce

construction industry. This confirms the significance of applying this concept to the construction industry, and

asserting the pivotal role of the relationship between designers/engineers and contractors in the process. The
Ac

findings, nevertheless, reveal a serious lack of cohesion between the two parties and their inability to see the

whole construction process through each other’s eyes. The constructability practices among the various

designers operating in Egypt reveal a lack of awareness on their part of the importance of this concept to the

productivity of the operation. In fact, more opportunities exist to significantly lower the total project cost by

focusing more attention on the design than on the construction phase. Although the designer’s fee typically

ranges between 2 to 5% of the project’s construction cost, decisions made during the design phase of a project

not only have a maximum impact on its construction cost, but would also dictate its viability, future

expenditures and durations. It would, furthermore, justify, from the designer’s perspective, the “cutting corner”

19

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

approach typically used in such circumstances, to both, quality and design time, in order to rationalize the

cost/benefit ratio of the contract.

Improving the constructability level of designs is certainly the first step in the right direction. This can be

accomplished by increasing the designers’ awareness of the significant impact of this concept on the

productivity of the construction process. This may, additionally, be augmented by encouraging procurement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

methods which allow the involvement of contractors during the design stage of projects, such as, the Design-

t
Build (DB), Design-Build-Operate-Transfer (DBOT), or Turnkey/Engineering, Procurement and Construction

ip
(EPC), and thus facilitate incorporating the construction experience at the early stage of the project development

d cr
process so that the desired benefits can be achieved during the construction phase. Perhaps, moreover, in view

te s
of the results obtained, policy makers would consider stipulating a formal Value Engineering assessment before

di nu
granting construction permits where minimum requirements of constructability must be satisfied before a permit

may be obtained.
ye a
The result of “Laborer experience and skill” factor is in agreement with the fact that the Egyptian construction
op M

industry suffers from the lack of trained and skilled workers. The investment in people is very valuable

especially in a country like Egypt with a relatively high population and an abundance of manpower. The
C ted

outcome of this research reveals the importance of developing construction labor skills and experience which

can enhance the construction industry and the overall economy as well. In this regard, the governmental policy

should encourage and pay more attention to the formal secondary technical education and apprentice programs.
ot p

Also, contractors should give strong assistance and support regarding the continual training of their craftsmen.
N ce

It is a common interest among contractors, consultants, employers, and policy makers in Egypt to improve the
Ac

productivity level of the construction sector. The outcomes of this study can assist in achieving this goal by

focusing and acting upon the most significant factors perceived to affect the efficiency of construction labor

productivity. The results will become worthwhile information in determining the major steps to improve the

labor productivity in the Egyptian construction industry, thus to improve the overall performance of project

completion time. Researchers and industry practitioners can use the outcome relative importance indices for the

studied factors in this research as part of further research in modeling the construction labor productivity using

any valid techniques; i.e., the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) technique. By using such techniques,

researchers and industry practitioners may use the outcome importance indices to quantify the weights of

affecting factors to obtain/predict relevant labor productivity rates. Also, the results could be used as a part of

20

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

further research in modeling the interaction relationship between the key factors affecting productivity to

improve construction labor productivity in the Egyptian construction industry.

References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abdel-Razek, H. Refaat (2004) “Productivity of Egyptian Temporary Labor in Excavation Work” Journal of the
Egyptian Society of Engineers, Vol. 43 (3), pp.3-8.

t
Abdel-Razek, Refaat H. (1997) "How Construction Managers Would Like Their Performance to Be Evaluated"

ip
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 123 (3), September, pp.208-213.
Abdul Kadir, M., R.; Lee, W., P.; Jaafar, M., S.; Sapuan, S., M.; and Ali, A., A., A. (2005) “Factors Affecting
Construction Labour Productivity For Malaysian Residential Projects” Journal of Structural Survey, Vol.

d cr
23 (1), pp.42-54.
Alinaitwe, Henry, Mwanaki; Mwakali, Jackson, A.; and Hansson, Bengt; (2007) “Factors Affecting the
Productivity of Building Craftsmen – Studies of Uganda” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,

te s
Vol. 13 (3), pp.169-176.
Alwi, Sugiharto (2003) “Factors Influencing Construction Productivity in the Indonesian Context” in

di nu
Proceedings of the 5th Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (EASTS) Conference, Vol. 4,
October, Fukuoka, Japan, pp.1557-1571.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1986) “Constructability: A primer”, Vol. 3 (1), Construction Industry
Institute (CII), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
ye a
Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011) “On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction industry: Key
constraints and improvement measures”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building,
op M

Vol. 11, (3), pp.18-33.

Enshassi, Adnan; Mohamed, Sherif; Abu Mustafa, Ziad; and Mayer, Peter, E. (2007) “Factors Affecting Labour
Productivity in Building Projects in the Gaza Strip” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol.
13, (4), pp. 245-254.
C ted

Gomar, Jorge, E.; Haas, Carl, T.; and Morton, David, P. (2002) “Assignment and Allocation Optimization of
Partially Multiskilled Workforce” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 128
(2), April, pp.103-109.
Halligan, David W.; Demsetz, Laura A.; Brown, James D.; and Pace, Clark B. (1994) “Action-Response Model
and Loss of Productivity in Construction” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
Vol. 120 (1), March, pp.47-64.
ot p

Hanna, A.S.; Peterson, P.; and Lee, M. (2002) “Benchmarking Productivity Indicators for Electrical/Mechanical
Projects” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 128 (4), August, pp.331-337.
N ce

Hogg, Robert, V.; and Tanis, Elliot, A. (2009) “Probability and Statistical Inference”, ISBN-13:
9780321584755, 8th Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Horner, R. M. W.; and Talhouni, B. T. (1998) “Effects of Accelerated Working, Delays and Disruption on
Ac

Labor Productivity” The Chartered Institute of Building, pp.1-37.

Horner, R., M., W.; Talhouni, B., T.; and Thomas, H., R. (1989) “Preliminary Results of Major Labour
Productivity Monitoring Programme” in Proceedings of the 3rd Yugoslavian Symposium on Construction
Management, Cavtat, pp.18-28.
Jarkas, Abdulaziz, M.; and Bitar, Camille, G. (2012) "Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in
Kuwait" Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 138 (7), July, pp.811-820.
Kaming, Peter, F.; Olomolaiye, Paul, O.; Holt, Gary, D.; and Harris, Frank, C. (1997) “Factors Influencing
Craftsmen’s Productivity in Indonesia” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 (1),
February, pp.21-30.
Lim, E., C.; and Alum, Jahidul (1995) “Construction Productivity: Issues Encountered by Contractors in
Singapore” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 (1), February, pp.51-58.
Liu, Min; Ballard, Glenn; and Ibbs, William (2011) “Work Flow Variation and Labor Productivity: Case Study”
Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 27 (4), October, pp.236-242.
Makulsawatudom, Arun; Emsley, Margaret; and Sinthawanarong, Kuldej (2004) “Critical Factors Influencing
Construction Productivity in Thailand” The Journal of King Mongkut’s University of Technology, North
Bangkok, Vol. 14 (3), pp. 1-6.
Sanders, Steve, R.; and Thomas, H., Randolph (1991) “Factors Affecting Masonry-Labor Productivity” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 117 (4), December, pp.626-644.

21

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Sincich, Terry, L.; Levine, David, M.; and Stephan, David (2002) “Practical Statistics by Example using
Microsoft® Excel and Minitab®”, ISBN-13: 9780130415219, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, USA.
Singh, Sarab, Pal (2010) “Factors Affecting the Productivity of Construction Operations in The United Arab
Emirates” thesis presented to the Heriot-Watt University, UK, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science.
Thomas, H. Randolph; Maloney, William F.; Horner, R. Malcolm W.; Smith, Gray R.; Handa, Vir K.; and
Sanders, Steve R. (1990) “Modeling Construction Labor Productivity”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 116 (4), December, pp.705-726.
Zakeri, Mahmood; Olomolaiye, Paul, O.; Holt, Gary, D.; and Harris, Frank, C. (1996) “A Survey of Constraints
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on Iranian Construction Operatives’ Productivity” Journal of Construction Management and Economics,

Vol. 14 (5), pp.417-426.

t
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

22

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Table 1 Literature Summary of the Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity

Total
Authors / Number of Major Factors Ranked in Descending Order Based on
Country
Year Studied their Importance Index
Factors

Skill of Labor; Buildability; Quality of supervision; Method

Horner; of working; Incentive scheme; Site layout; Complexity of
United
Talhouni; 13 construction information; Crew size and composition ;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Kingdom
and Thomas Length of working day; Availability of power tools;
(UK)
(1989) Absenteeism; Total number of operatives on site; and
Proportion of work subcontracted.

Difficulty in recruitment supervisors; Difficulty in

Lim and recruitment workers; High rate of labor turnover;
Singapore Alum 17 Absenteeism at worksite; Communication problems with
(1995) foreign workers; and Inclement weather that requires work
stoppage for one day or more.
Material shortage; Weather and site conditions; Equipment
Zakeri et al. 13
Iran breakdown; Drawing deficiencies/change orders; and Lack of
(1996)
proper tools and equipment.
Kaming et 11 Lack of materials; Rework; Absenteeism of operatives; Lack
Indonesia al. (1997) of suitable tools and Equipments; and Crew interference.
Makulsawat
Lack of material; Incomplete drawings; Incompetent
udom,
23 supervisors; Lack of tools and equipment; Absenteeism; Poor
Thailand Emsley, and
communication; Instruction time; Poor site layout; Inspection
Sinthawana
delay; and Rework.
rong (2004)
Material shortage at site; Non-payment to suppliers causing
Abdul the stoppage of material delivery to site; Change order by
Kadir et al. 50 consultants; Late issuance of construction drawings by
Malaysia
(2005) consultants; and Incapability of the contractors’ site
management to organize site activities.
Alinaitwe, Incompetent supervisors; Lack of skills among the workers;
Mwakali, Rework; Lack of tools/equipment; Poor construction
and 36 methods; Poor communication; Stoppages because of work
Uganda
Hansson being rejected by consultants; Political insecurity;
(2007) Tools/equipment breakdown; and Harsh weather conditions.
Material shortage; Lack of labor experience; Lack of labor
Enshassi et surveillance; Misunderstanding between labor and
Gaza Strip 45
al. (2007) superintendents; and Drawing and specification alteration
during execution.
Reworks, level of skill and experience of the workforce,
Durdyev
adequacy of method of construction, buildability issues,
New Zealand and Mbachu 56
inadequate supervision and coordination, statutory
(2011)
compliance, unforeseen events and wider external dynamics.
Clarity of technical specifications; The extent of
Jarkas and variation/change orders during execution; Coordination level
Kuwait 45
Bitar (2012) among various design disciplines; Lack of labor supervision;
and Proportion of work subcontracted.

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
23

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Table 2 RII and Ranking of Management Category’s Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in
Egypt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Overall Relative
Factors Rank
Importance Index (%)
Incentive programs 91.87% 1
Availability of the materials and their ease of handling 90.34% 2
Leadership and competency of construction management 88.40% 3
Competency of labor supervision 87.43% 4
Planning, work flow, and site congestion 84.54% 5
Clarity of instructions and information exchange 80.73% 6
Surrounding events (revolutions, …) 80.09% 7
Offered services to laborers (social insurance, medical care, …) 77.74% 8
Construction management type (individual, firms, …) 71.98% 9
Subcontractors' management 69.08% 10

Table 3 RII and Ranking of Labor/Human Category’s Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in
Egypt

Overall Relative
Factors Rank
Importance Index (%)
Laborer experience and skill 93.29% 1
Labor operating system (daily wage, lump sum, ….etc.) 86.16% 2
Laborer age 78.12% 3
Effect of labor availability – work capacity (Shortage) 77.19% 4
Over time (till 4 hours after 8 hours/day) 74.85% 5
Effect of labor availability – work capacity (Excess) 73.63% 6
Degree of the laborer education 72.52% 7
Rest time(s) during the work day 72.23% 8
Over time (more than 4 hours after 8 hours/day) 71.95% 9

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
24

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Table 4 RII and Ranking of Industry Category’s Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in Egypt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Overall Relative
Factors Rank
Importance Index (%)
Construction technology (construction method, and material) 86.64% 1
Constructability (integrated design and construction) 82.01% 2
Weather effect (temperature, humidity, ...) 79.73% 3
Distance between the site and cities 77.89% 4
Project specifications 76.63% 5
Project scale 74.67% 6
Available quantity of the daily work (work load) 74.54% 7
Work interruptions (design changes, ……etc.) 74.29% 8
Work at heights 73.60% 9
Total project duration (total work hours) 72.14% 10
Type of the project (industrial, residential, …etc.) 60.01% 11

Table 5 Overall Average of RII and Ranks of Construction Labor Productivity Categories in Egypt

Categories Average Relative Importance Index (%) Rank

Management 82.22% 1
Human/Labor 77.77% 2
Industry 75.65% 3

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
25

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;
posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 6 Overall RII and Ranking of Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in Egypt

Overall Relative
Factors Rank
Importance Index (%)
Laborer experience and skill 93.29% 1
Incentive programs 91.87% 2
Availability of the materials and their ease of handling 90.34% 3
Leadership and competency of construction management 88.40% 4
Competency of labor supervision 87.43% 5
Construction technology (construction method, and material) 86.64% 6
Labor operating system (daily wage, lump sum….etc.) 86.16% 7
Planning, work flow, and site congestion 84.54% 8
Constructability (integrated design and construction) 82.01% 9
Clarity of instructions and information exchange 80.73% 10
Surrounding events (revolutions …etc.) 80.09% 11
Weather effect (temperature, humidity, …..etc.) 79.73% 12
Laborer age 78.12% 13
Distance between the site and cities 77.89% 14
Offered services to laborers (social insurance, medical care, …) 77.74% 15
Effect of labor availability – work capacity (Shortage) 77.19% 16
Project specifications 76.63% 17
Over time (till 4 hours after 8 hours/day) 74.85% 18
Project scale 74.67% 19
Available quantity of the daily work (work load) 74.54% 20
Work interruptions (design changes, ……etc.) 74.29% 21
Effect of labor availability – work capacity (Excess) 73.63% 22
Work at heights 73.60% 23
Degree of the laborer education 72.52% 24
Rest time(s) during the work day 72.23% 25
Total project duration (total work hours) 72.14% 26
Construction management type (individual, firms, …) 71.98% 27
Over time (more than 4 hours after 8 hours/day) 71.95% 28
Subcontractors' management 69.08% 29
Type of the project (industrial, residential,…etc.) 60.01% 30

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
26

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 )LJXUH&DSWLRQ/LVW

Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;

posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Figure Captions List

- Figure 1 Drewin’s Open Construction Conversion System (Thomas et al., 1990, p.711, with permission

from ASCE)

- Figure 2 Sizes and Types of Participating Groups Based on Their Experiences

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

- Figure 3 RII Relevant to the Three Categories of Factors for the Three Participating Groups

t
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 )LJXUHSGI

Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;

posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Feed Back Feed Back

Output Factors
Input Factors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Internal Environment:
Labor Organizational Structure,
Products
Supervision, Management, Span of
and
Control, Work Rules, etc.
Capital Projects
Rework
Material Input Conversion Output
Mechanism Technology Mechanism
Energy
Disturbance Disturbance

Equipment Exogenous Factors such as:

Weather, Economic Conditions, Disturbance
Unions, Government Regulations,
Disturbance Public, etc.

Figure 1 Drewin’s Open Construction Conversion System (Thomas et al., 1990, p.711, with permission from ASCE)

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 )LJXUHSGI

Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;

posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

Group 1 (G1) Group 2 (G2) Group 3 (G3)

224 136 129
45.81% 27.81% 26.38%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(129)
(G3) 26.38%

Above 25 Years of
Experience (G1) (224) Group 1 (G1)
45.81%
Group 2 (G2)
(G2) (136) Till 15 Years of Group 3 (G3)
27.81% Experience

From 16 ~ 25 Years of
Experience

Figure 2 The Size and Type of Participating Groups

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.
 )LJXUHSGI

Journal of Management in Engineering. Submitted April 4, 2012; accepted January 4, 2013;

posted ahead of print January 7, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168

84.00% 83.14%
82.34%
82.00%
Relative Importance Index

Relative Importance Index 81.32%

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 04/23/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

80.00%
78.72% (RII) for Industry Related
77.99%
78.00% Factors
76.54%
76.22% 75.43% (RII) for Labor Related
75.99%
76.00% Factors

74.00% (RII) for Management

Related Factors
72.00%

70.00%
Group 1 (G1) Group 2 (G2) Group 3 (G3)

Figure 3 RII Relevant to The Three Categories of Factors For The Three Participating Groups

Group 1 (G1) Group 2 (G2) Group 3 (G3)

Accepted Manuscript
(RII) for Industry Relate 76.22% 75.99% 75.43%
(RII) for Labor Related F 78.72% 76.54% 77.99%
(RII) for Management R 83.14% 81.32% 82.34%

Not Copyedited

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Manage. Eng.