Abstract
The United States National Academies identified several recommendations for the construction industry in 2009 to improve industry performance. One of the key recommendations was the development of reliable productivity measures to improve the efficiency and support of developing new construction innovations. Difficulty in measuring real output in the industry is a challenge that has prevented reliable productivity metrics. An alternative approach would be to consistently measure activity productivity across multiple construction projects throughout the United States and develop an aggregate measure accordingly. However, activity measures are inconsistent across both construction projects and even projects within the same company. Identifying an industry standard code of accounting would be a critical first step towards improving industry performance. The authors collected code of accounts from six large construction firms to identify the impact that code structure has on the ability to accurately measure labor productivity on a current along with the ability to estimate it on future projects as well. This paper focuses on mechanical piping code structure and productivity comparisons to the widely used industry estimating manuals produced by RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data and Richardson’s Process Plan Construction Cost Estimating Standards (PPCES). The paper’s contribution to the overall body knowledge illustrates the significance and degree of the impact that piping and conduit code structures related to diameter size, material type, and installation location have on accurately measuring productivity rates. The methods can be applied to other trade activities to develop an industry-wide standard code structure.
Highlights
A reliable productivity metric for the US construction industry has remained elusive for decades
How do the differences in the code structures influence the ability to record actual labor productivity performance? Phase I did not include the actual productivity data associated with each master code of account structure; only the code structure itself was provided by the construction firm due to the proprietary nature of their actual productivity data
The regression analyses clearly show that differences in the code structure have a significant impact on the ability to accurately measure labor productivity unit rates with respect to piping and conduit construction activities
Summary
A reliable productivity metric for the US construction industry has remained elusive for decades. CSI 2004 Masterformat code for electrical conduit is 26.05.33.13, but no other codes are provided for different sizes of electrical conduit While this added detail is admittedly not needed for the organization of design data, it would be needed to accurately track the unit rates of installing a 1 inch versus a 6 inch diameter conduit system. The work described examines how the organization of standard code of accounts can influence the ability to both accurately report existing labor productivity performance as well as predict labor productivity performance on future construction projects as well. Utilizing the existing code structures, Phase II examines the sample of the existing accounting codes to accurately report labor productivity performance utilizing productivity data from both RS Means Building Construction Cost Data and Richardson’s Process Plant Construction Cost Estimating Standards. The labor unit rates from RSMeans and Richardson’s Process Plant Construction Cost Estimating Standards (PPCES) were used as the dependent productivity figures, which eliminates the reliance on confidential company data and differences in construction sector and business practices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
