Global reports over the years indicate that productivity development in construction is poor if compared to other industries, even negative in some countries, calling for a change to increase productivity. However, the construction industry has a problem of defining, measuring and using productivity. Previous research suggest that productivity is a multifaceted term, which meaning depends on the purpose of addressing productivity, the context where one uses the term, the level of analysis (e.g. task, project or industry) or even the background of who addresses the term. The multifaceted meaning seems to have encouraged the development of multiple methods for measuring productivity in construction. The variety of understandings indicate that different aspects of productivity are accounted for by different people. Moreover, the construction productivity measures at different levels account for different things, and there is a lack of a clear connection between the levels of analysis. Subsequently, the multiple meanings and measures hamper how to understand construction productivity, what or how to measure and how to use the measures to improve overall productivity. This thesis furthers how housebuilding productivity can be understood by drawing on how the literature and on‐site housebuilding contractors address productivity concerning how it is defined, measured and used. An understanding of productivity that has a base in how productivity can be defined and measured, including how different performance measures can be applied to represent measures of productivity and then be used to improve productivity. The research questions of how productivity is understood, measured and used by Swedish housebuilding contractors are answered and synthesized to contribute with an enhanced understanding of construction productivity. Empirical data was collected through 17 semi‐structured interviews and four workshops. The interviews were held with practitioners ranging from site‐, to project‐, to business area managers from one small and four of Sweden’s largest contractors. The workshops were held with senior managers in charge of production development at the four large companies. Data was cross‐analyzed to identify commonalities and contrasting findings connected to how productivity is defined or understood to represent and include, how productivity is measured, and how productivity is used. The findings suggest that productivity in on‐site housebuilding production is about how efficiently the production system reaches its goal. That is, how efficiently the building is produced in conformance with the requirements to meet client values. Hence, productivity in housebuilding production integrates efficiency, effectiveness and many other factors that make the production system function better towards reaching its goal. Yet, what is included in, and thus what productivity represents, differs, caused by the choice of level of analysis (e.g. task, project or industry) and the length of the considered system or value chain (e.g. only production, or design, planning and production). The results also indicate that housebuilding productivity includes planning, measurement, control and reporting results. While separate direct productivity measures can be used in planning and for reporting results, many different indirect productivity measures are applied to enable for and control productivity during operations. These different measures represent different factors understood to influence productivity at different levels. However, the choice of measures vary, their use is unstructured and the measures usually stay undocumented. The results suggest that one measure of productivity is not enough to understand productivity of building production systems, it is rather through the combination of direct and indirect measures of productivity. Yet, there is a need to adopt a systems perspective to understand how to structure and connect the different measures from sub‐processes to processes and productivity, which this thesis suggests as a line of future research. Moreover, it is not enough to measure productivity to develop productivity. Systematic routines for measurements, review and action based on the measures must be developed and implemented.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:ltu-81370 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Jimenez, Alexander |
| Publisher | Luleå tekniska universitet, Industriellt och hållbart byggande |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | Licentiate thesis / Luleå University of Technology, 1402-1757 |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds