Comparative study of activity-based construction labor productivity in the united states and china

Zhigang Shen, Wayne Jensen, Charles Berryman, Yimin Zhu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This research compares construction labor productivity (CLP) of the United States with its Chinese counterpart at the activity level to evaluate productivity differences between the two countries from an operational perspective. Supplementing other comparative construction studies measuring productivity by output value per person, this research examined CLP-measured by physical quantity installed per labor hour-based upon published national average productivity data. Sampled activities included earthwork, concrete, masonry, structural steel, waterproofing, and interior finishes. Paired comparisons (United States-China) of these selected activities were then analyzed and evaluated. The source of the U.S. labor productivity data was RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, which was cross validated by data from the Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book. The source of Chinese labor productivity data was mainly the Beijing construction quota, which was cross validated by Chinese quotas from several other cities and provinces in China. In terms of hourly output, significant differences were observed in many operational categories. To test the hypothesis that the labor-equipment compositions of the Chinese construction crews contributed to the labor-productivity gaps, a labor intensive factor (LIF) was introduced to measure the intensity of labor usage in a construction activity. Statistical analysis indicated that modest to strong correlations exist between the productivity differences and LIFs of the sampled activities. Chinese CLP significantly lags behind its U.S. counterpart in equipment-intensive construction activities. Smaller CLP gaps or comparable CLPs between the two countries were observed for labor-intensive activities. According to these findings, construction equipment efficiency appears to be a major factor contributing to the productivity difference between the two countries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)116-124
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Management in Engineering
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

Productivity
Personnel
Comparative study
Labour productivity
China
Waterproofing
Construction equipment
Labor
Statistical methods
Concretes
Steel
Chemical analysis
Productivity gap
Factors

Keywords

  • China
  • Comparative studies
  • Comparison
  • Construction
  • Construction management
  • Labor
  • Labor productivity
  • Linear regression analysis
  • Productivity
  • Quantitative analysis
  • Regression analysis
  • United States

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Industrial relations
  • Engineering(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management Science and Operations Research

Cite this

Comparative study of activity-based construction labor productivity in the united states and china. / Shen, Zhigang; Jensen, Wayne; Berryman, Charles; Zhu, Yimin.

In: Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 2, 01.04.2011, p. 116-124.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ffe865471a7440e3a198236a5646087e,
title = "Comparative study of activity-based construction labor productivity in the united states and china",
abstract = "This research compares construction labor productivity (CLP) of the United States with its Chinese counterpart at the activity level to evaluate productivity differences between the two countries from an operational perspective. Supplementing other comparative construction studies measuring productivity by output value per person, this research examined CLP-measured by physical quantity installed per labor hour-based upon published national average productivity data. Sampled activities included earthwork, concrete, masonry, structural steel, waterproofing, and interior finishes. Paired comparisons (United States-China) of these selected activities were then analyzed and evaluated. The source of the U.S. labor productivity data was RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, which was cross validated by data from the Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book. The source of Chinese labor productivity data was mainly the Beijing construction quota, which was cross validated by Chinese quotas from several other cities and provinces in China. In terms of hourly output, significant differences were observed in many operational categories. To test the hypothesis that the labor-equipment compositions of the Chinese construction crews contributed to the labor-productivity gaps, a labor intensive factor (LIF) was introduced to measure the intensity of labor usage in a construction activity. Statistical analysis indicated that modest to strong correlations exist between the productivity differences and LIFs of the sampled activities. Chinese CLP significantly lags behind its U.S. counterpart in equipment-intensive construction activities. Smaller CLP gaps or comparable CLPs between the two countries were observed for labor-intensive activities. According to these findings, construction equipment efficiency appears to be a major factor contributing to the productivity difference between the two countries.",
keywords = "China, Comparative studies, Comparison, Construction, Construction management, Labor, Labor productivity, Linear regression analysis, Productivity, Quantitative analysis, Regression analysis, United States",
author = "Zhigang Shen and Wayne Jensen and Charles Berryman and Yimin Zhu",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "116--124",
journal = "Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE",
issn = "0742-597X",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative study of activity-based construction labor productivity in the united states and china

AU - Shen, Zhigang

AU - Jensen, Wayne

AU - Berryman, Charles

AU - Zhu, Yimin

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - This research compares construction labor productivity (CLP) of the United States with its Chinese counterpart at the activity level to evaluate productivity differences between the two countries from an operational perspective. Supplementing other comparative construction studies measuring productivity by output value per person, this research examined CLP-measured by physical quantity installed per labor hour-based upon published national average productivity data. Sampled activities included earthwork, concrete, masonry, structural steel, waterproofing, and interior finishes. Paired comparisons (United States-China) of these selected activities were then analyzed and evaluated. The source of the U.S. labor productivity data was RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, which was cross validated by data from the Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book. The source of Chinese labor productivity data was mainly the Beijing construction quota, which was cross validated by Chinese quotas from several other cities and provinces in China. In terms of hourly output, significant differences were observed in many operational categories. To test the hypothesis that the labor-equipment compositions of the Chinese construction crews contributed to the labor-productivity gaps, a labor intensive factor (LIF) was introduced to measure the intensity of labor usage in a construction activity. Statistical analysis indicated that modest to strong correlations exist between the productivity differences and LIFs of the sampled activities. Chinese CLP significantly lags behind its U.S. counterpart in equipment-intensive construction activities. Smaller CLP gaps or comparable CLPs between the two countries were observed for labor-intensive activities. According to these findings, construction equipment efficiency appears to be a major factor contributing to the productivity difference between the two countries.

AB - This research compares construction labor productivity (CLP) of the United States with its Chinese counterpart at the activity level to evaluate productivity differences between the two countries from an operational perspective. Supplementing other comparative construction studies measuring productivity by output value per person, this research examined CLP-measured by physical quantity installed per labor hour-based upon published national average productivity data. Sampled activities included earthwork, concrete, masonry, structural steel, waterproofing, and interior finishes. Paired comparisons (United States-China) of these selected activities were then analyzed and evaluated. The source of the U.S. labor productivity data was RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, which was cross validated by data from the Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book. The source of Chinese labor productivity data was mainly the Beijing construction quota, which was cross validated by Chinese quotas from several other cities and provinces in China. In terms of hourly output, significant differences were observed in many operational categories. To test the hypothesis that the labor-equipment compositions of the Chinese construction crews contributed to the labor-productivity gaps, a labor intensive factor (LIF) was introduced to measure the intensity of labor usage in a construction activity. Statistical analysis indicated that modest to strong correlations exist between the productivity differences and LIFs of the sampled activities. Chinese CLP significantly lags behind its U.S. counterpart in equipment-intensive construction activities. Smaller CLP gaps or comparable CLPs between the two countries were observed for labor-intensive activities. According to these findings, construction equipment efficiency appears to be a major factor contributing to the productivity difference between the two countries.

KW - China

KW - Comparative studies

KW - Comparison

KW - Construction

KW - Construction management

KW - Labor

KW - Labor productivity

KW - Linear regression analysis

KW - Productivity

KW - Quantitative analysis

KW - Regression analysis

KW - United States

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955408370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955408370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000037

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000037

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79955408370

VL - 27

SP - 116

EP - 124

JO - Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE

JF - Journal of Management in Engineering - ASCE

SN - 0742-597X

IS - 2

ER -