",

CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
INSTITUTE
THE MANUAL OF CONSTRUCTION
i-PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT
, .i ,.
'AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The Pennsylvania State University
H. Randolph Thomas
Donald F. Kramer
\ ' I
-
\S ~
So","" D o m ~
May 1988
'..
; ,.
CHAPI'ER 3. a:::N:EP'IUAL DESIrn OF THE PRCJlXJ:TIVITY MEA.SUREMENI' SYSTEM
OF CCNTENI'S .
LIST OF FICJJRES
'0-'::
(
(
(
(
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
7
7
7
7
9
9
15
15
15
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
26
28
lX
'J i
vii i
:...
.. ?:...
{' ,'---
,f

"
.,
ii
Productivity
Purpose
Apptication
Definitions
Barriers to Monitoring
Organization of Manual
Use of Manual . . . .
Basis for System Developrrent
Project Characteristics
AsSLIIlptions . . , . . .
System Criteria , , , ...
Framework for Productivity Measurement
Reporting Requirements , . . , ,
Relationship to Other Accounting or Control Systems
Selection of Activities to Monitor
Developrrentof Productivity Codes
Units of Measure
Sunmary , .
Introduction . . . '.
Characteristics of Costing Systems . '
Usages .
Costing 'System to Support Cost Control
Costing Systems to Support Estilreting
productivity Control .
Track'cnly Important Activities
Simplify the Code of Accounts
Tailor the Level of Detail
Simplify Units of
Reduce the Amount of Data
'Sunmary . . . .', . , . , ,
P.ART I - ffil'MEWJRK Fa< PROax:TIVITY o:::NrROL
CHAPI'ER 2. ffil'MEWJRK Fa< PROax:TIVITY !"E'ISUREMENI' !'NO
EVAIIJATICN
PREFACE
CHAPI'ER 1. INI'ROax:TICN
LIST OF TABLE'S
q


"1





:;)j' ....'
;:::
l
ji\1
1:'\
fij

:::;
;:0:
;.- .
;:


PART .II - BASIC o:::NCPIS OF PROcu::I'IVITY MEASlJREMENr AND PERFORI-1AN::E
EVAUJATIaI .. 29
....
,
CHAPTER 4. OF QJANrITIES AND W)RJ<-HXJRS
Introduction . . . '.' .' . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simplicity: The Cornerstone of Effective Measurement
Preliminary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measuring the AnPunt of v.ork Completed .
Units Completed (Physical Measurement)
Percent Complete (Supervisor Opinion) Method
Level of Effort . . . . .
Incremental Milestone . . . . . . .
Start/Finish Percentages . . . . .
Selection of an Appropriate Method
Reporting v.ork-hours . . . . . . . .
Importance of Consistency . . .
Reporting Work-hours to Support Project Control
Reporting Forms . . . .
v.ork-hour Reporting
Quantity Reporting
Sunmary .
CHAPTER 5. REFCRTING PROr:u:::TIVITY
How Productivity Measurement Supports the Control Function
Productivity Calculations
Daily Productivity
Period Productivity .
t-bving Averages . . .
Cumulative Productivity
Reporting Format . . . . . .
Graphical Format
Tabular Format . . . .
Analysis of Work-hour and Quantity Rates
5unmary .
GlAPI'ER 6. PE::RFC::RMAN::E EVAUJATICN
Control Budget . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Planned to Actual
Performance Factors .
Numerical Comparisons
Graphical Analyses of the PF
Forecasting .....
Numerical Approach
Graphical Approach
Reliability of Estimates
Sunmary .....
iii
30
30
30
30
31
32
34
34
39
39
42
43
43
43
46
46
46
49
50
50
50
52
56
56
59
59
59
63
63
69
70
70
70
70
70
73
77
77
77
82
82
,ABlE Of CCNTENTS (Continued)
III - Af}JNOD CXN:EPI'S OF PROcu:.TIVITY ME'ASUREMENr AND
PE:RFa1MI\N:::E EVAWATIGl . . .. . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 7. ADVAOCED AND FC:m:CASTIN:; a:N::EPTS
Measuring Complex Construction Activities
Forecasting Using Standard Productivity Curves
Monitoring Progress Using Control.Accounts
The Earned Value Concept . . . . . . . . . . .
Use of Indices and Parameters . . . . . . . .
Indices Related to Labor Productivity and Costs
o o' Indices Related to Estimating Accuracy
Sumnary .
CHAPl'ER 8. PRoax:TIVITY AND SCHECULE PERFCRM.l\N:E
EstabliShing Planned Progress . . . . . . .
Indices Related to the Schedule . . . . . . .
Integrating Productivity and Schedule Performance
Monitoring Overall Project Performance
Use of Early and Late Start. Dates
S..... "'llTlary ... . . . . . . . .
PARr N - LESsalS LEARNED AND FIND:rn:;s
CHAPl'ER 9. CASE S'IUDIES
Contractor Profiles
Activity Descriptions
Experiences with IlTplenentation
Case Study Applications . . . .
Cvelopment of Labor Units for Estimating
Identification of Factors Affecting Productivity
Project Monitoring and Control
Sumnary . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPl'ER 10. CASE SIUDY FINOllCS AND CCN:::WSICNS
Findings Related to System Criteria
.Inexpensive .0
Simple
Flexibility
Accuracy .
Timely'
Support Performance Evaluation
Other findings Related to the Case Studies
Conclusions
iv
(
:03ge
'83
84
84
84
87
90-
95
95
97
(
98
99
099
102
107
107
113
113
116
117
117
119
119
122
(
122
130
139
150
151
151
.. 151
151
151
152
152
152
152
153
155
(
APPENDIX A: PROa.crIVITY MEASUREMENI' fiDES FCR INCUSI'RIAL
o:::N5TRlJ:TICN PROJECTS . . .. .
157
APPENDIX B: PRCJCU::TIVITY MEASURE1'lENr CDDES FCR CCM'1ERCIAL
CCNSTRlX:TICN PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . ., 163
v
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Costing System to SuH"Ort Cost Conuol . . . . . . . .
2. Cost l\ccount Coding Structure for Cost Control . . . .
3. Cost l\ccounting Systan to SUH"Ort Estilrating Function
4 Cost l\ccount Coding SLyucture for Estimating . . . . .
5. Cedes for Productivity foEasurarent . . . . . . . . . .
6. Productivity Data Collection and Analysis Pr=ess
7. Relationship of the Procluctivity foEaSurarent Systan to Other
Control and l\ccounting Systans . .'. . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Structure of Pnx:Iuctivity foEasu:Carent Codes for Industrial
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 stnicture of Pnx:Iuctivity foEasurerent COdes for eamereial
Construction . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .
10. Daily. Quantity Report .
11. Implication of Not using Rules of Credit, Structural
Steel Erection (Account 05121) . . . . . . . . .
12. Large Equiprent Installation--Increrental Milestone
13. Distribution of Work-hours for Piping Activities .
14 Exarrq:Jle of Foreran' s Daily T.irre Sheet . . . . . .
15. Data Collection Form for Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121)
16. Unit Procluctivity for Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121)
17. Unit Productivity for Pipe Erection (Account 1732) .
18. Unit Procluctivity for Cable Pulling (Account 1830) .
19 Unit am M:Jving Average Pnx:Iuctivity for the First 12 Days of
Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121) .'
20. CUm.1lative Pl:o::luctivity for Structural Steel Erection
(Account 05Ul) ..................
21. CUm.1lative Pnx:Iuctivity for Cable Pulling (Account 1830)
22. CUm.1lative Pnx:Iuctivity for I..arge-ElQre Pipe Erection
(Account 1732) ........
23 Pipe Erection Work-hours (Account 1732)
24 Pipe Erection OJantities (Account 1732)
25. CUm.1lative Quantity Curves for Three Steel Erection Projects
(l\c!=Ount 05121) ....... . . . .
26. CUm.1lative Quantities for the Subtasks in Structural Steel
EreCtion (Account 05121) .'. . . . . . . . .
27. Plot of Typical Cumulative Performance Factors for Many
Industrial Construction Activities ...........
28. CUm.1lative Perforrrance Factors for I..arge-Eore Pipe Erection
(Account 1732) ........ '..........
29. CUm.1lative Performance Factors for Cable Pulling (Account 1830)
30. ProductiVity Forecast for Pipe Erection (l\ccount 1732) .
31. Productivity Forecast for Structural Steel (Account 05121)
32 Productivity Forecast for Cable Pulling (Account 1830) ..
33. standard Pnx:Iuctivity Performance Curve for Pipe Erection
(l\ccount 1735) .
34 Canparison of Actual and Expected Performance Factors for
Pipe Erection (Account 1735) ..............
35. Illustration of Earned Work-hours for Piping Control Account
36 Planned Manning level, Structural Steel Erection
(l\ccount 05121) ................
37 Standard Pnx:Iuctivity Performance Curve for Structural Steel
Erection (Accourt. 05121) .
8
10
13
14
16
22
23
25
27
36
38
41
45
47
48
53
54
55
57
60
61
62
65
66
67
68
74
75
76
79
80
81
86
89
91
100
101
(
(
(
(
....
::;;.
\
,
" ,
~ T Of fIGURES (Continued)
38. Planned Progress Curve Eor Structural Steel Erection
(I'ccount 05121) . . , , , , , . . . . . . . . .
39. Planned Progress for Small-Bore Piping (I'ccount 1735)
40. SChedule Performance Index Versus Performance Factor ,
41. Project Perforrrance for Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121)
42. Project Perfonrance for Small-Bore Pipe Erection (Account 1735)
43. Progress Chart Based on Earned Value Concepts . . .
44. Progress Report Showing Status as of the Eighth Month "
45. Progress Curve Showing Early and Late Start Envelope .
46. Daily Productivity for Installation of Fiberglass Duct,
Supermarket Project ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47. Crnparison of CuITulative Productivity for Spiral, Fiberglass"
and Round C\.Ict . . . . . . .'. . . .
48. v.k:lrk-hours Required Per Floor to Install Anrored Electrical
cable, SiX-Story Motel Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49. v.k:lrk-hours ReqUired Per Floor to Install Victaulic Risers
for Chilled Water System, Office Renqvation,Project
50. v.k:lrk Location for Atmored Cable Activity, SiX-Story Motel
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51. Daily Productivity for Installation of Anrored Cable, Six-
Story Motel Proje::t .
52. Daily Productivity for Erection of Precast Exterior Panels,
32-Story Office Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53. Typical Lightpole BaSe Detail, IndustrialiManufacturing Facility
54. Daily Productivity for Installation of Lightpole Bases
(Contract A), IndustrialiManufacturing Facility , ....
55. CuITulative Q.1anti ties for Installation of Lightp:>ie Bases
(Contract A), IndustrialiManufacturing Facility . " . . .
56. Typical Underground Conduit Detail, Industrial;Manufacturing
Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' .
57. Crnpat ison of CUlTUlative Productivity for Installation of
Underground Conduit, Industrial/Manufacturing Facility .
58. Productivity Forecast for Erection of Precast, Exterior
Panels, 32-Story Office Tower . . . . . . . . . . . .
59. CuITulative Percent Carplete for Underground Conduit and
Lightpole Bases (Contract A), IndustrialiManufacturing Facility
60. CuITulative Performance Factor Curves for Underground Conduit
and Lightpole Base Activities (Contract A), Industrial/
Manufacturing Facility . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . .
61. CuITulative' Performance Factor Curve for Arnored Cable
Installation, Six-Story Motel Project . . . . . . . .
104
106
108
109
110
11.1
114
115
125
126
129
131
132
135
136
137
138
140
141
142
143
147
148
.'
149
,-i5T Of TABLES
1. List of Major Activity Accounts for the Model Plant Petrochemical
Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
2. Detailed Subdivision for Aboveground Nonracked Piping Activities
3. COrTqJar ison of Various Methods of QJanti ty M=asurement . . . . ...
4. Example Rules of Credit .....................
5. Suggested Methods of QJantity M=asurement for Selected Items' . .
6. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Uses of the Forms of.productivity
Calculations . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. .Moving Average Calculations .for Structural Steel Erection
(Fiejure19) .
B. Typical Weekly Productivity Summary for Small-Bore Pipe
(AccoUnt 173S) .
9. Example of an Initial Control Budget
10, Example Performance Evaluation Report
11. Example Forecast Report .
12. QJantities. for the Erection of a 520-Ton Absorber Tower
13. Productivity Report for Small-Bore Pipe (Ao::ount 1735) Showing
Revised QJantity Estimates. . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
14 .. Calculation of Percent COrTqJlete Using Earned Work-hours,
Example 1 .......................
15. Calculation of Percent COrTqJlete Using Earned Work-hours,
Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16. Typical Earned Work-hour Report .
17. Planned Progress Calculations for Structural Steel Erection
(AccoUnt 05121) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
lB. Planned Progress Calculations for Small-Bore "lpe (Ao::ount 173S)
19. Definition of Terms in Figures 43 and 44
20. Contractor Profiles . . . . . . .
21. Summary of Case Study Activities
22. Rules of Credit Used in the Case Studies
23. Work-hours for the Installation of Anrored Cable, SiX-Story
Motel Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24. QJantities for Anrored Cable Installation, Day 12
2S. Earned Value Calculations for Underground Conduit and Lightpole
Bases, Industrial/M3.nufacturing Facility .
viii
(
II
12
33
40
44
Sl
S8
64
71

85
88
93
94
96
103
IDS
112
118
120
124
128
13t
145
(
~ ,'" ..
PREFACE
In 1968, representatives fran a numt.er of major U.S. corporations JO.Lned
to fODll the Construction Rowldtable. The catalyst that led to the creation of
this group was their corr:ern over the increased cost of construction. The
inflation rate was rising to record levels, and there had been a ooticable
decline in construction productivity.
Construction Users Anti-Inflation Roundtable, later l<:rlo;.m as the Business
Roun:ltable, was foI:lll9d in 1972 to pronate discussions'and .action on a wide
range of p.!blic issues affecting major corforations. The Construction
Roundtable was absor:becl by this organization. Oller the years, the Row1dtable
has teen concerned with the quality, efficiercy, productivity, and
effectiveness of the construction industry. In particular, the Roundtable's
Construction Irdustry Cost Effectiveness (CICE) Project, conceived irl 1977,
looked at specific problan are,3S in the construction industry.
The CICE Project produced 23 detailed repcrts. One of these was Report
A-I titled, ~ i n g Productivity in Construction." This study found that
there is 00 canron definition of construction productivity. Even when
definitions are consistent, approaches to rreasuring input and outp..It vary so
greatly that valid ccrnparisons e ~ .projects are aJIrost ilnfossible..
Furthenrore, there is a need for better rreasurerrent approaches that apply rrore
specifically to the YIOrk at the task level. The report recognized the -
iltp:>rtance of productivity neasurenent for detenni.ni.ng trends and levels of
prcx:luctivity and for evaluating torrective actions and/= inactions.
The Construction Industry Institute (ClI) was founded in 1983 in re5jXlnse
to reccmrendations made by the CICE Project. The secOnd en task force that
was organized was 83-2, Productivity Measurarents. This Task Force sought to
address Il'dJlj' of the recarrrendations made by the CICE A-I repcrt. A pilot
study was conducted by The PermsylVania State University to define the rrore
ccrnron ways that labor productivity was rreasu:red and .to detenni.ne the
feasibility of a standardized appxoach to productiVity rreasw:arent. Based on
this study,. the following definition was adopted:
ProductiVity - The YIOrk-hours required per unit of work. Productivity is
the ilJpJ.t divided by the output and is calculated for a finite tine interval.
It is ccmronly called the unit rate. .
A second study was cannissioned by. the Task Force. to develop a .
standardized appro<lch to neasuring construction labor productivity at the task
level. 'Ibis v=:k, which was also done by The Pennsylvania State University,
resulted. in the preparation of this p=edures manual. The manual provides
general xecalliendations and rretllocls based on specific, quantitative data.
The objective of this manual is to describe a task-level labor
productivity rreasw:errent and perfonnance evaluation systan that carl be used by
o..mers, contractors, and subcontractors wh::J presently do not have a formalized
effort. The p=edures are applicable to irdustrial and ccmrercial projects
that exceed several million dollars and to maintenance activities. The
B1lJ?hasis is on inexp2nsive and accurate rreasurarents that can be made in a
ix
'.)
,....:
'.
;;:"
(

timely lTKlnr.er. This ls llSCe::ld ll'/ llTpJrtant on srrailer scope -ir.er'?

task durations lTKly lase cniy several months or less. Only selected
labor-intensive tasks are monitored, and reporting can be .done by a foreman
supervisor.
An earlier finding of the Task Force was that lTKlny contractors do not
rreasute labor productivity, and those who do, often do not do so in a way that
effectively supports project control. Many.reasons are given for not
rreasuring productivity. One of the more cCl!t1TlQnly cited ones relates to the
cixTplexity and cost associated with cost control systems. Many contractors
carinot afford the overhead expense inherent with these costing systems. The
productivity rreasurement system described in this manual is independent from a
cost control system. It is easy to understand, inexpensive to apply, and
accurately reflects what actually occurs on the job site. The system readily
accOlTlOCldates the tailoring of concepts to one's own special needs. A
contractor does have to alter his mode of operation to fit the system,
rather the system should be modified to fit the contractor's operation. TtY
system can be applied manually or it can be corrputerized. "-
Themanual provides an introduction to productivity measurement concepts.
Basic and advanced techniques are presented. Nurrerous exarrples and
illustrations are provided spthe reader can easily follow how to perform
the calculations. Various tables and graphs. are given to guide the user in
. developing clear and concise .forlTKlts for presenting data.
The experiences of three contractors in applying the techniques are
docun'ented. The concepts were found to be readily understood. The
flexibility of the system was recognized as a highly desirable attribute.
Being able to start with a limited scope of application allowed the
contractors to gain confidence with the technique before expanding to more
corrplex activities. The system was readily tailored to each contractor's mode
.of operation. The technique was also fOUJ:ld to provide tirrely and accurate
results. The system was inexpensive to ilTplement. Exanples of data frcm case
studies are given to show how productivity measurement can be used to
understand the factors that affect productivity, to monitor and control
iJrportant activities, and to develop labor units for estimating. The (
experiences of these contractors. illustrates the need to be able. to
the results obtained and to react accordingly.
83-2 Productivity Measurements Task Force,
Subcommittee on Standard Productivity
Measurements Manual
H.. Randolph Thanas, The Pennsylvania
State University, Principal Author
Bruce A. Frost, Fru-COn Construction
Corp., Subcommittee Chairman
Karl H. Brauer, Brown &Root USA, Inc.,
Task Force ChairlTKln
Warren G. Hawes, MK-Ferguson Co.
Socrates M. Kiritsis, Foster Wheeler
World Service Corp.
Michael P. Taylor, Dow Chemical USA
Robert C. Volkman, The Proctor &
Gamble Co., Past Task Force Chairman.
(
o
CHAPTER 1
[NIROcu::TICN
Productivity is one of the most frequently discussed topics in the
construction industry. The reason is that productivity translates directly
into costs and ultimately into contractor profits made or lost on the job. In
most projects, productivity is the most difficult cost component to estimate.
It is also the most difficult one to.control 17, 14, 171. Indeed,
productivity can be affected by many things, both major and minor. Serre
factors are within the control of the contractor, and others are not. In some
cases, the contractor may be unaware that adverse factors are present.
Considering the importance of construction productivity to project cost
and schedule control, one would expect to find a large body of well-codified
knowledge describing how to recognize productivity problems and offering
known, remedies. In reality, little such information
exists on what affects productivity and, more importantly, by how lTUch 1l3]_
The range of opinions on factors is extensive. Serre blame global issues such
as the economy, union politics, or governrrent regulations. others argue that
the work ethic is the problem. However, a growing majority of those closely
associated with the construction industry look to the project itself for the
factors affecting productivity. They focus on the way in which projects are
planned, organized, and managed. Fortunately, the implication is that most of
the factors affecting productivity can be identified and controlled to a large
degree. Ole thing seems relatively certain: Before it can be improved,
productivity lTUSt be measured lUI.
The objective of this manual is to describe an approach to construction
productiVity measurement that can be used by general and specialty contractors
and owners on small- to commercial and industrial projects.
Performance evaluation, which is an extension of productivity measurement, is
also discussed. The concepts are equally applicable to contractors and owners
who do not have a productivity measurement system or who need a simple,
inexpensive measurement approach. The approach emphasizes measurement for
selected labor-intensive construction activities at the crew level. The
importont factors considered in developing include the size and
duration of project; the value of measuring a few activities instead of the
total effort; the relationship to other control systems that mayor may not be
used; the need for little or no additional staff or overhead expense; the need
for easy-to-understand, timely, and accurate information; and, last, the needs
of the user.
A1'PLICATICN
The approach described in this manual is not restricted to any particular
project size or type. Appropriate areas of application have been identified
on commercial and industrial. projects alike. Certain activities on highway
projects and maintenance or outage work on process, petrochemical, and power
1
2
(
(
, Performance Evaluation - This process involves the comparison oE the
actual progress and'productivity to the control.budget. It includes the
(
In this manual, the following terms and definitions are used:
Account A record or identification scheme used to'categorize
information about a speciEic work item or activity, an acccunt represents a
discrete part or category of the work to be performed. For, exarrple, an'
account may contain the work-hours used in the erection of forrnwork for
elevated slabs.
DEFINITIa-lS
.'t"-
''': 'Eamed Value This technique is used for calculating the pel:'cent
of a control account. It uses a weighted average approach 'in which
the weight assigned to each individual account in the contl:'ol account is based .
on the initial \oK)l:'k-hcUr estimate for the account carpared to the sum of the
initiall.estimated \oK)rk-hours for all accounts included in the control account
[51. iJ..p'tJJJ ,
Forecasting - The process oE projecting the total work-hours required to
complete an account or activity is called Eorecasting (31.
Control Budget - The base estimate of work-hours, quantities, and
productivity for an activitY or acccunt, the control budget is used for
comparative purposes to evaluate performance. (
Control Account - A control account consists of a grouping. of related
accounts or activities where each account has a unque degree of difficulty or
level of effort required. Fol:' exarrple, the accounts fol:' wall, colLDTl'l, and
slab formwork may be grouped into a single control account titled formwork.
This manual is unique in that it is a comprehensive guide to
construction productivity. It offers an en\:ouraging and appealing approach to
the measurement task by stating Erom the outset that productivity measurement
is simple, effective, and can be done Eor little overhead expense. The
contractor who implerrents the procedures presented in this manual will de'Jelop
almost immediately an increased awareness and sensitivity to productivity
issues.' By following up with corrective action on the problems that surEace,
a contractor may easily save 10, percent or more on the labor cost of the major
construction activities that impact total project cost and schedule.
pL3r.tS :.3n .:S':.i'"'.G ::,",.cse techniq..les. Tt:e tecrniques -:an ='=:
equally '..;ei: r:o luriip sun, or cost reimbursable contracts ::f:
be used by owners, ':oncraccors, and specialty contractors.

u-
:
1;:
t:
i!:
f
t

It.
\::

f:

,',

\'\\
:::::
:::;:
il..
f\
i:\,

",
!(\;
n
%:
N.
'd.;
t?
Ii":
f.->
I
ti[

:.;.....

::'::,
,;".;.

'..
compar ison 0f quant:.:":" rates and work-houL COn5Lm1pt1.Qn
forecasting is a part 2[ performance evaluation,
Performance Factor C A measure of construction efficiency, it is
planned productivity divided by the actual productivity. This ratio is
sorreti..rres called a Pf 'lalue or a rate ratio. A ratio greater than 1.0
signifies better-than-planned performance.
Productivity - The work-hcurs required per unit of work, productivity is
the input divided by the output and is calculated for a finite time interval.
It is cOlTlOClnly called the unit rate [17J.
Productivity Measurerrent - This process of quantifying the work-hours and
quantities associated with an activity or account provides the measurements
used in productivity calculations and performance evaluations [7).
BARRIERS 'ID M::.NI'ICRIN::; PROa.q.'IVITY
Many contractors do not measure or monitor construction productivity.
The most ccmron reasons for not doing so are
- I've never monitored productivity before.
-. I don't know how to measure productivity.
Productivity control is a part of a cost system, which is toe.
corrplicated to understand and too expensive :0 implement.
- Productivity cannot be controlled.
- Productivity measurement will not tell me sc"ething about my project
that I don't already know.
The first two reasons cited are really a reflection of past practices
where productivity measurerrent was not an absolute necessity. Keen
corrpetition for projects, high inflation rates, increased project complexity,
and greater exposure to unforeseen risks have changed this situation.
Productivity measurement has emerged as an inexpensive way to control one of
the more important contractor risks, specifically the craft work-hours.
Historically, the most widely publicized productivity measurement systems
have emerged from the heavy industrial and power plant construction sectors of
the industry. Here, productivity control has always been treated as a subset
of the Cbst control system. Understandably, many.contractors have been .
discouraged by the apparent complexity and the prohibitive expense of
operatinga large, complex cost control system. Until now, the prevailing
attitude seerrs to have been that productivity measurement must be tied to
these types of systems {11. In reality, however, the two functions of .
productivity control and cost control can be separated, and, in doing so, .
productivity measurement and control can be made simple, inexpensive,
effective, and timely. This manual is the first known comprehensive document
that recognizes the two functions as separable.
3
(
(
The 13st ...JO rreasurerrer.t. can te
.together. A growing body of knowiedge says that productivity can be
controlled [41. This assertion is supported by the conclusion that
ethic, labor unionS, and poOrly workers are not the primary rest
causes of productivity Studies have consistently shown that
problens result from the "ay projects are designed, organized, planned, and
managed, and that these exist whether the project is large or
small, commercial or industrial, or.union or merit shop [4, 141. ,The
following are a few of the more commonly .reoccurring causes of poor
productivity that are within the exclusive control of the contractor:
- Crews are too large, especially at the beginning and end of an
activity.
- Stockpile and storage areas are poorly organized.
Materials are inadequately marked or not sorted for easy retrieval.
Delays result from waiting for tools and equiprrent. (
- Housekeeping practices are poor.
Inability to maintain continuity or momentum results because crews are
reassigned.to different work or locations.
Work of one crew interferes with that of another.
Sequencing and control of the work are poor.
- Material deliveries are untimely.
This list could easily be expanded, but the irTp:>rtant point is that many of
these causes exist to varying degrees on all construction projects.
If these causes occur repeatedly, why aren't they Actually,
many of them are subtle and appear gradually. they may never be
noticed, they are still there. Often, bythe time 3 problem is noticed, the
damage has already been done. In many other cases, corrective action is
perceived to cost more than it would save.
What then is the role of productivity measurement and performance
evaluations? They should provide early warning signals, long before the
problem is obvioUs. They Should answer the question: How serious is the (
problem? They should be the basis for measuring the economic ilTpact of
alternatives and should provide an easy means for quantifying the results.
CRGl\NIZATIal OF THE MAl'UAL
This manual is organized into four main parts. The first part, which
includes Chapters 2 and 3, describes the framework for productivity
measurerrent. Chapter 2 explains the basic concepts of cost control, cost
aCcounting, and produCtivity control. Chapter 3 defines the system criteria
. and then develops the frarrework for productivity measurement and control.
. Productivity accounts are presented, and the relationship to other accounting
. and control systens is described. .
Part II of the manual explains the basic concepts of productivity
measurement, reporting, and evaluation. Chapter 4 describes how to measure
work-hours and quantities. Five methods of quantity measurement are described.
Chapter 5 shows four types of productivity calculations and graphically
illustrates each. The advantages of tabular and graphical output are
4
,
...'
': '". ' .... ~
cescr ited, ':hapter': e C ~ :.:::eS ;:-er formance e'Jaluatiort, i Shieh is t:.r.e precess
of comparing the produc:.l'fit,/ calculations with the project estimate.
Analytical and graphical forecasting techniques are illustrated.
More advanced conceots are addressed in Part III. Rules of credit,for
complex tasks and the earned value' technique for control accounts 'are covered
in Chapter 7. The technique of forecasting using. standard productivity curves
is also detailed. Chapter 8 addresses concepts that integrate productivity
and schedule parameters.
Part IV presents several case studies and sLllTnl8rizes the .results.
Chapter 9 describes case studies of three contractors involved primarily in
ccmnercial and light industrial construction. Their long-range objectives in
measuring productivity are described along with lessons learned during the
implementation process. The'case studies illustrate how productivity can be
.. ' . used to understand.the factors that .affect productivity, to monitor and
control important activities, .and to develop labor units for estimating.
Chapter 10 summarizes the case study findings and conclusions.
USE OF THE MAMJAL
The manual explains concepts in a general way, which means the techniques
can be applied regardless of the type of control system already in-place,
nature of the work, sophistication of the contractor, and so forth.' Part I
explains the framework for productivity measurement, and readers' who have an
understanding of productivity control using a cost control system may wish to
begin directly with Chapter 3. For the inexperienced user, Chapters 2 and 3
describe the context in which measurements are made, These two chapters will
ease apprehensions that a contractor must implement a cost.control system to
use the teG:hniques; no significant changes in current modes of operation are
required. An inexperienced user should first concentrate on the basic
concepts in Part II. As one becorres familiar with these, the first step
beyond manual tracking will probably be to computerize the precess, which can
be done relatively easily on a spreadsheet program such as LOTUS 1-2-3 or on
an integrated system like F'Rl\MEW2.RK II or SYMPH:Nf. After mastering the basic
concepts on several projects, the contractor may be.ready to try some of the
advanced concepts in Part III. The experienced user may want to review Part
II before proceeding to Part III, or may feel'comfortable about implementing
some of the advanced concepts fran the outset .. All readers will find the case
studies in Part IV to be valuable, as they describe some specifics about
implementation and details of lessons learned. The' examples illustrate a wide
range of applications.
5
(
An outgrowth of defense systems acquisitions and large, cost-reimbursa
construction projects such as for nuclear power plants, refineries, and coa
gasification facilities was the development of sophisticated cost control
systems. These systems are characterized by the breakdown of project .
expenditures according to a code of accounts. .Each account can be rronitore
for excessive costs, and these can be traced to the source, e.g., labor,
construction equipment, construction materials, permanent plant equipment,
etc. [lli.
Cost control systems have also been used to rronitor labor productivity.
But whether they are the rrost effective way of rronitorlng productivity is
questionable. This section of the manual will develop the framework around
which productivity can be rronitored in a siIlple and timely manner . Chapter V
shows that the =st control system can be used for two purposes, and
the system is used affects the level of detail. The rrost detailed U-
needed for control purposes The .code of account. structure is designed to
isolate problem areas. With this system, all project.activities.are trackee
in considerable detail, there is a feedback lOOP, and a support staff is
needed. The second form of the costing =del is used only for a=unting
purposes. This siIlple system, which supports the need to develop histor ical
estimating data, concentrates on accumulating costs at the end of the projec
Many contractors use this type of =del because it is easy to understand and
inexpensive to carry out. Unfortunately, the need for =ntrolling
productivity is not always satisfied by either form of the cost control syst
The rationale for siIlplifying the cost control system is then developed. Ir
Chapter 3, the cr i terla for a productivity rreasure.'Tlent and control system ;
presented. Using these .criteria, the code of accounts for a petrochemical
facility and general commercial construction are revised to be consistent wi
productivity control needs. A fraITlE!l..:>rk is developed in which productivity
control operates separately from the cost.control system.
(
(
6
..
.'
t
.:I
. I
.c I
. '
':::-'APTIR 2
f1W.1E.w::RK FeR PROcu:.TIVITY ME!\STJREMENI'
AND pEJm::RMAN::::E EVAUJATICN
A successful project is generally to be one that meets certain
technical Objectives, is completed on or ahead of schedule, within the owner's
or contractor's budget, and results .in a reasonable profit for .the contractor.
To ensure success, an effective pcoject control system must be inplernented to
provide managers and superintendents with timely and accurate feedback on the
:consumption of resources. Historically, this has meant the inplementation of
a cost control system. Prior to the developmentuf the productivity
measurernent system presented in Chapter 3, it is worthwhile to review the
differences in detail and usages of costing systems.
Q1AR.ACI'ERrsrrcs OF a:srm::; SYSTEMS
Usages
Costing systems 'Ire designed to track and account for project costs. The
reasons for doing so are two-fold. First, the tracking of cost supports the
est:.nating function 'by providing historical information in a form usable for
determining probable costs on future projects. Second, the tracking function
can be used during construction to control project costs .. Tracking highlights
activities or areas that deviate significantly from so
that corrective action can be taken. How the system will be used generally
establishes the level of and degree of sophistication [lll.
Costing System to Support Cost Control
The ITOre detailed and sophisticated systems. are used to rronitor and
control costs during construction. While these systems also sUpp::lt't the
estimating of future projects, the requirement for considerable detail and
sophistication arises to satisfy three essential needs related' to the control
function: . 1) to develop comparisons to project estimates during construction,
2) to provide timely feedback, and 3) to isolate particular problem areas
where cost deviations are significant. Figure 1 shows the overall cost
control process. DJring construction, the contractor must a=ount for costs
and work-hours and measure progress. CaTparisons to the control budget are
made periodically, andcorrective action is taken when required.
The framework for cost control is a standard code of accounts which
defines how costs will be categorized. Since costs and wark-hours are used to
estimate future work, they must 'be consistently charged to each account from
project to project-[lOI. Thus, code of accounts are typically
and the a=unts used for each proJect are unlquely selected fran,,'UJe standard
codes. The teem "standard" should not be misinterpreted, as there are no
standards of practice. In reality, ITOSt contractors develop their own
standard codes that are uniquely tailored to their own mode of operation.
7
BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED COSTS
US I NG THE STANDARD CODE OF ACCOUNTS
.
DO SOME TAKE I
WORK CORRECTIVE
ACTION
I

jJ

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT
FOR FOR
MEASURE
COSTS WORKHOURS
PROGRESS
SUMMARI ZE ACTUAL COSTS VS;
PROGRESS AND COMPARE TO BUDGET
IDENTIFY ACCOUNTS
WITH MAJOR VARIANCE
ACCUMULATE COST AT
PROJECT COMPLETION
t
INCLUDE IN HISTORICAL . ESTIMATING
DATA BASE IF APPROPRIATE
Figure 1. Costing Systan to support Cost Control
3
(
(
(
(
':! "
,)
i
The hierarchical nacure)[ ':"st is illustrated in figure 2, '"hich '\
5ha.HS an, example of a code strucwre tor a grass reats petrcchemical facilit'l i
[6). Because the emphasis is on isolating problem areas, the cost indicators
allow for the charging of expenditures to more narrowly defined areas such ,as
direct costs, indirect ,costs, subcontract costs, or home office costs. A
four-digit area code also helps to isolate problems. The activity codes are
the primary labor accounts that describe the unique features of the project. I
The four-digit activity code is divided into three levels of detail. The
first two digits define major activities or'types of work and are illustrated
in Table 1. Table 2 shows the detailed subdivision of account 17xx, which is
aboveground nonracked piping. The case classification code is use to further
divide the costs into direct labor, construction materials, construction
equipment, and so forth. In a comprehensive cost control system, numerous
cost classification codes are used.
Costing Systems to Support Estimating
The costing systems used only to support the estimating function are less
sophisticated and not as detailed as those required for cost 'control.
figure 3 illustrates the reason. As can be seen, there are no to
project estimates, no variance analyses, and no feedback leap. The main
emphasis is on a=unulating costs at the end of the job, 'so tirreliness is not
an issue, and minimal or no support staff is needed. Also, quantities or
progress are often not rreasured but rather are sUI1TT'C\rized at project
These data may be extracted frem the project estimate or contract
d=urrents.
The code of accounts need not be as detailed as that required for cost
control for two reasons. First, it is not necessary to civide the project'
into areas since the code of accounts is not being L!sed to isolate problem
areas. Second, a contractor would prefer to have certain components of work
grouped into a single account. An example would be piping plus related
scaffolding and material handling. Groupings that include similar work plus
the manual direct and indirect support effort facilitate the need to develop
accurate estimates in a relatively short period of tirre.
The net result is that only part of the code of accounts shown in
Figure 2 is needed. The applicable portion is shown in Figure 4, where the
16-digit code used for cost control has been reduced to 10 digits. The number
of possible entries for the cost classification part of the code would be
greatly reduced, from 50 or more to probably four or five. The number of cost
indicators would probably be reduced as well.
PROax:TIVITY CDIIROL
Historically, productivity measurement and control have been done almost
exclusively as a subset of the larger, more detailed cost control systems.
The literature abounds with articles and advertisements that show how to
monitor costs and productivity using the cost control system [3, 5, 15, 191.
Ironically, the fact that these two control systems are typically viewed
as one is probably a main reason why many contractors do not measure
productivity. To these contractors, cost control systems are too large and
9
xxxx-x-xxxx-xxxx-xxx
-- IL__ COST CLASSIFICATION
ACTIVITY (see Tables I and 2)'
L- GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
COST ,INDICATORS
L- PROJECT NUMBER
Project ,Number Identifies the Project. (4 digits)
Cost Indicators (Summary Indicators) Cne-digit numbers that represent brqad
general categories such as direct labor, indirect costs, subcontract costs, or
hare office costs. (1 digit)
Area Designation is reserved for project numbers which relate to a
geographical 'area, process unit, and so forth. (4 digits)
Activity That part of the code of accounts used to describe a physical item
of ,Y.Qrk or Y.Qrk task to be perfomed. Exarrple activities include piping,
duct, backfill, roofing, and so forth; Activities are the primary labor
accounts. (4 digits)
Cost Classification Used to categorize the origin of project costs in tenns
of craft labor, indirect labor, construction equipnent, construction
materials, permanent material, permanent plant equiprtent, and so forth.
(3 digits) ,
Figure 2. Cost Account Coding Structure for Cost Control [6J
( GJyt ({
10
(
(
(
(
.:-. :
Table 1.
Account Nurber
02XX
03)0{
04XX
07XX
08XX

15)0{
16)0{
17XX
18)0{
19)0{
20)0{
2lXX
23XX
24XX
4XXX
Lise 9f Major Activity Accounts for the
Model Plant Petrochemical facility [61
['escr iDt ion
Site Preparation/Demolition/Salvage/Removal for
Relocation .
Site Improvements
Underground Electrical
Underground Piping
Piling
Concrete and Excavation
Structural Steel
Building Construction (Petroleum and Chemical
Projects)
Aboveground (Racked OJtside Overhead) Piping
Aboveground Nonracked Piping
Aboveground Electrical
rnstrUIlel1tation
Insulation
Painting
Paving
M3jor Equiprent
II
12
(
(
LUITPSum
LU!Tp Sum
LUITP Sum
Lump Sum
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet (
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
Linear Feet
LUITP Sum
(
Lump Sum
Unit oE M=asure
Cet3lcea Subdi;ision Ear Atoveground
Nonracked Piping Activities [61
Spool Erection and Field Run pipe
Spool erection - carbon steel and alloy
2 in. and under Linear Feet
Spool erection - carbon steel and alloy
2 1/2 to 12 in.
Spool erection - carbon steel and alloy
14 in. and abOve
Spool erection - other than carbon
steel and alloy
Field run pipe - 2 in. and under
Field run pipe - above 2 in.
Hangers and supports.
Testing x-ray, cleaning and pickling
and stress relieving
Sketching and material takeoff
Piping materials
Scaffolding
Spool Fabrication
Spool Eabrication - carbon steel
2 in. and under
Spool fabrication - carbon steel
.2 1/2 to 12 in. .
Spool Eabrication - carbon steel
14 in. and above
Spool Eabrication - alloy 2 in.
and under
Spool fabrication - alloy 2 1/2
to 12 in.
Spool fabrication - alloy 14 in.
and above
Spool fabrication - other than carbon
steel and alloy
Hanger and support fabrication
Material for 3boveground nonracked
piping
Prefab pipe outside shops
AIDJEGRCUND N:::NRAO<ED PIPrn;
Descriocion
Table 2.
1735
1736
1737
1738
1734
1795
1796
1797
1733
1728
1732
1731
173X
1726
1727
1725
1724
1723
17ll
172X
1721
1722
170X
17XX
Account Nlnrber
(
'--
BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED
COSTS US I NG THE STANDARD
CODE JF ACCOUNTS
I
DO SOME WORK

---

ACCOUNT FOR ACCOUNT FOR
COSTS- 'M)RKHOURS
I
I
ACCUMULATE COST AT
PROJECT COMPLETION
DETERMINE QUANTITIES FROM
PROJECT ESTIMATE OR
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
INCLUDE IN HISTORICAL ESTIMATING
DATA BASE IF APPROPRIATE
Figure 3.
Cost Accounting System to Support
Estimating FUnction
13
PROJECT NUMBER
,Y,
(
(
ACTI VI TY (see Tables I and 2)
COST CLASS I F I CATION
14
Cost Account Codirig Structure for EstiJnating Figure 4.
Cost Classification Used to categorize the of project costs in terms
of craft labor, indirect labor, construction equipment, construction
materials, pennanent ll'aterial, pennanent plant equipment, and so forth.
(l digit)
(
'----------- COST INDICATORS
Cenotes the unused p:>r-tion of the cost cede
Activity That part of the code of accounts' used to describe a physical item
of ""'rk or ""'rk task to be performed. Exanple activities include piping,
duct, backfill, roofing, and so forth. Activities are the primary labor
accounts. (4 digits)
Project Number Identifies the Project. (4 digits)
Cost Indicators (St.mnary Indicators) CX1e--Oigit numbers that represent broad
general categories such as direct labor, indirect,costs, subcontract costs, or
home office costs. (1 digit)
xxxx- x-
, , .
"
".
U
If Co yt e.-...U r c;.-
. " rr
'1.->->::1- ........ LA l
canplicatsd, require a 3Up;:or: 5t.2.I: dedicated to rreasuring and quantiCJ'ing
site activities, and result in an intolerable overhead expense [5 J
Alternatively, these contracLOrs rely on the lTUlch simpler accounting-type
systallS such as the Ore shawn in Figures 3 and 4. Ho.iever, these provide
little in the way of control.
Fortunately, productivity rreasurarent can te greatly simplifie:l while
still providing control. If canparisons are to te IT'dde with the project
estiJM.te, then prcductivity com.rol lTUlSt originate fran the sane ccxie of
accOllilts as 0Ces the cost con=l syst6Tl. Thereafter , productivity
rreasurarent and control can i:e done separately fran the cost control syst6Tl.
This separation allClO'S the freedan necessary to tailor the system to perfonn a
specific furct.ion. The result is a systen that is simple, t.iirely, and
The re:nainder of the chapter develops this corcept through an
explanation of the desired gcals rieeded to achieve the cost-effectiveness of
the syst6Tl.
i Track Only 1J+tpJrtant Activities
It is reccgnize:l that, on any given project, rrost of the work-hours are
consurred by a SJM.1l number of activities. If one controls these activities,
he essentially controls nest of the project p=ople resources. The p:roblen
i.rlhe=1t with cost control syst6TlS is that they are designect to track all
project exp=nditures. This means that the contractor needs to ITEaSlire the
outp.lt over the total project i:efore he can extract infonnation al::out the
activities that are truly important. Additional overhead staff are often
needed to operate the systen and to interpret the results. Understandably,
contractors who are not accustcrred to rrea.suring productivity are not eager to
cOllilt light fixtures, d=rs, ladders, handrails, valves, pipe hangers, and the
thousands of other minor itens that lTUlSt i:e installed. 3y tracking
prcductivity separately, the contractor can choose to nonitor only those
activities that he feels are important.
Simplify the Code of Accounts
To rrany contractors, code of account structures like the one illustrated
in Figure 2 are overly canplex. They require detailed narratives of what to
include in each account, and considerable i:.iJre rray i:e needed to reconcile
errors resulting fran costs t:eing chaIged to the wrong account. When tracking
is done separately fran the cost control syst6Tl, field personnelnee:l to deal
only with the four-digit labor accounts as shown in Figure 5.
Tailor the Level of retail
The level of detail in the code of accounts is typically established on
the basis of costs and does not always fully suFP"rt the productivity control
needs . 'I'M:> examples illustrate this pJint. The cost of 6-inch-diarreter
stainless steel pipe is different han that of 2 112-inch-dianeter carton
steel pipe. In the cost control systen, these ccmio::iities are tracked
separately. BUt, fran the productivity rreasu.rarent viewpoint, the = nay i:e
nearly identical. Furthemore, a crew may install several types of pipe in a
single day, thus requiring that the quantities and Io.Urk-hours be repJrted by
type. Thus, the costing systan places an addeO b.rrden On a rep::>rting systan
that contains rrore infonnation than may i:e required for productivity control.
15
16
Figure 5. Codes for Productivity Measurerrent
-;-',
....:;
j
c
(
Activity That part of the code of a=ounts used to describe ;, phy5ica1 it"",
of work or work task to be perfomecl. Ex2lIrple activities i.n::1ude piping,
duct, b c k f ~ l l roofing, and so forth. Activities are the primary labor
accounts and are thus the productivity codes. (4 digits)
(
(
.....
'._-
, '
In the the '.T.iC :::csc jifference of structural steel for '
comrerclal rrultistory and suuccural sLeel for warehouse-type buildings <My be /
sufficiently minor to allow the t'"", to be included in the same cost account, "
Ha...ever, the uni t work-hours for erection may be very different, In th,is /
case, productivity control requires a level of detail not available in the
costing system. As illustrated in these two cost control and
productivity measurement sometimes require different levels of detail.
Separate tracking allows the fleXibility to meet the'particular needs at hand.
Simplify Units of Measure
The units of measure are established by a cost engineer or estimator for
his own particular need. Structural steel is purchased by the ton, so the
measurement of installed quantities is also by the ton. A foreman or
superintendent can easily determine how many pIeces of structural steel have
been erected and bolted, but to convert these pieces to tons requires
.. ' considerable time to study the drawings and to make calculations. Likewise,
an estimator determines the nUlT'ber of pipe hangers on the basis of so many
hangers per linear foot of pipe. field personnel may know how many hangers
were installed,but, without measuring or studying the isometric drawing,
they will not readily know 'the footage. Thus, the units of measure used to
support estimating or cost control can sometimes place added burdens on field
personnel by requiring excessive measurement and quantification of the work.
Reduce the Amcunt of Data,
Cost control systems handle sizeable amounts of data. The output
is typically in the form of summary statistics or numerical data.
field supervisors who would normally make use of produccivity data have
limited time or enthusiasm for studying the numbers to make infeeences about
the progress of their work. Geaphical analyses enhance the abilIty to quickly
interpeet information, but, in some cost conteol .. the main emphasis Is
on generating numerical data, not graphs. The timeliness of feedback is
another concern. Consequently, some cost-<:onteol systems provide information
to field peesonnel in a form that is difficult to inteepeet, and which may
arrive too late to be of value.
This chapter has shawn that the level of detail in a costing system is
eelated to how the system is used. Many small- and medium-sized conteactors
want to =llect only historical estiJrating data. Their systems are slnple and
can be used with miniJral oveehead expense. a system used fOe cost
control pucposes is fae moee complex and expensive to opeeate.
Most conteactoes associate peoductivity with cost conteol,
but peoductivity can be monitoeed and conteolled sepaeately feom the cost
control system, and this means of measurement is recCJlTl'rended. Cost-<:onteol
systems track everything; productivity conteol monitoes only a ,few items
controlling the work. The level of detail needed for productivity control is
not always the same as fOe cost control. The units of measure are established
by cost engineers and estimators, and these often place unnecessaey demands on
field personnel for measudng and quantifying their woek. The feedback in
17
/
cost control systems is SCrrECLTI2S E1 ::ce form of numer ical data, whereas iT'dfl'!
field personnel having mliumal experJ.ence with rreasuring productivity prefer'
graphical output.
l8
(
(
c
(
'.
' ..
0: .
./
':J1APTER J
<XN:EPTUAL DESICN OF THE PROcu:.TIVITY
MEASUREMENI' SYSTEM
The productivity measurement and performance evaluation system developed
herein is for 1) small- and medium-sized contractors who do not routinely
measure. productivity and 2) larger, more sophisticated contractors who are
constructing projects for which the project budget prevents the use of a
detailed and expensive cost control system. Projects can be m m e ~ i l or
inqustrial, or other types which include labor-intensive activities.
Maintenance and outage-type work are also ideally suited for the productivity
measurement system.
. I BASIS FCR SYSTEM DEMIDFMENr
Project Characteristics
0'1 most cCllTTTJircial projects, the overhead expenses must be kept to a
minimum. The same situation.prevails in the heavy industrialsector of tDe
industry. The mega projects of the 1970s are no longer being built, and
shorter and smaller projects place special demands on cost-control systems
such as the one described in Chapter 2. The structure of the code of a=ounts
makes it difficult to reduce project overhead by simply reducing the scope of
the cost control system. While the support staff can be tr imne<l, the need for
some support will always exist. Activity durations today are shorter th;m
they have been in the past. Drportant controlling acL:ities sanetirres last
only 30-60 days. If effective control is to be exercised, feedback IlUSt occur
quickly. Even a two-.....eek reporting cycle (most project" function on a monthly
reporting cycle) provides reporting probably too infrequently.
The need to reduce overhead rreans that quantity tracking IlUSt be provided
by those who are responsible for doing the work. Lower level supervisors are
neither accustared to working with intricate cost codes like the one shown in
Figure 2; nor are they anxious to spend the tirre necessary to perform anything
more than elementary rreasurerrents. Unfortunately, these are the elerrents
needed to drive .the cost control system.
AssUl1pt ions
The design of the productivity rreasurement system must consider the
essential features of cost control systeTG as described in Chapter 2 and
relate these to the environment in which it IlUSt function. Therefore, the
following assumptions are presented as the basis for developing the
productivity rreasurement system.
1. The prc:xtivity rreasurement system must be structured around the
code of accounts if cOlTpar isons to the project estiffi3te are to be
made. However, the tracking and feedback can be done separately from
the costing system.
19
. SYSI'EM aUTERIA
.. ..:
(
20
1. Inexpensive - The system should be easy to '..mplerrent, require
little overhead to operate, and have the capability to
be manually driven.
2. Sirrple - The data requirements should be minimal. Reporting should
be done by forerren using easy-tO-COlTprehend units of
measure; output should make liberal use of graphics.
3. Flexibility - The system should be easily tailored to the operation:il:
needs and objectives of the contractor.. Rigid, (
inflexible systems, which require the contractor,
instead, to adjust his node of operation to the system,
are undesirable.
4. Accurate - The output must reflect what actually occurs at the site.
The level of detail should help to isolate prOblem areas.
5. Ti.Jrely - Feedback nust be given quickly so that corrective action car
be taken on short-duration activities. End-<lf-the-day
feedback is possible, if desirable, and summaries can be
produced weekly. Otherwise, feedback can be provided at a
frequency consistent with the scope and magnitude of the
project.
(
2. A contractor's 0t 3CCOunts establishes the basis Eor deciding
which activities to monitor. IE the codes are too broad to support
effective monitoring, the system can still function as a
system. However, cOlTpar isons to project estimates may not be
possible.
3. Systems presently used by contractors to track or control costs are,
unaffected by the productivity measurement system.
4. The contractor is not required to install a cost control system in
order to measure and control productivity.
5. The productivity me.asurerrent system can operate independently. frem .
the estimating or . schedule control system. Productivity measurement
can yield worthwhile results, even if one does not have a work-hour,
quantity, or schedule estimate. HCNleVer, cannot be ,
. evaluated without these estimates.
6. CI'1ly direct labor accounts are of interest. The rrost cost-effective
approach to productivity control is to concentrate on the
labor-intensive activities. Such activities are a small
of the total number of actiVities, yet they have the greatest eft(
on the project. \....
7. The focus 'of the measureirent effort is at the crew level.
8. The system is' irrplerrentable at the job site and can be done manually.
However, a microcomputer, if available, will facilitate this task .
The assumptions listed provide guidance for developing the productiVity
measurerrent system. The system should satisfy the following criteria:
f
,"
::..
,'.'
;
6. Support Evaluation - Labor comparisons to the project
estimate should be possible. This
includes comparisons to the
estimated work-hours, quantities,
unit rate, and planned duration for
labor-intensive activities.
The above criteria have been used in developingCthe productivity
measurement system that is described throughout the remainder of this manual.
Reporting Requirements
The reporting system relies upon the input of t'M:l data items: narrely,
work-hours and quantities (progress) for selected labor-intensive activities.
The data collection and analysis process is shown in Figure 6.
The foreman, on a daily basis, records the work-hours. spent by a crew in
performing the particular task in question and the quantities installed or
progress made. by the crew that day. 'Generally, the reporting of work-hours
done for payroll purposes, so productivity rreasurarent irrpOses no new
work-hour reporting requirement. The only possible change in reporting
work-hours may be to report separately those work-hours spent on the activity
being monitored.
The reporting of quantities, or progress, is not coutinely done by many
contractors. ficJl,ever, the kn0041edge of hOo4 nuch work been done is a
fundamental requirement for monitoring and control .. The quantity reporting
scherre developed herein, and described in detail in Chapter 4, is simple, is
done for only a small number of labor-intensive activities, is characterized
by easy-to-use units of rreasure, and can be easily and quickly summarized by
the foreman at the end of the day.
As shown in Figure 6, productivity calculations are made using the
reported work-hours and quantities. These calculations can be done manually,
but the rrost eff icient approach is to use q microcomputer. Input can be done
by a clerk or tirrekeeper. Because the amount of data input is miniscule, the
entire entry and analysis pr=ess involves minimal effort and tiJre. feedback
should be alJrost instantaneous, and conputer prograrrrrers, systems operators,
quanti ty surveyors, or data entry personnel are unnecessary.
Relationship to Other Accounting or Control Systems
Productivity rreasurement is designed to be a stand-alone system that is
implemented entirely at the job site. Nevertheless, it is related to several
other control and accounting systems. As shown in Figure 7, the productivity
measurement system utilizes information available from other systems but does
not provide feedback to these systems.
The selection of activities to monitor should be made according to the
breakdown of project activities established by the costing system. The
reason for this is quite simple--work-hour reporting will be done this way for
21
(
.'

SELECTED ACTIVITY
IN PROGRESS
,.
;,

REPORT REPORT
DAILY WORKHOURS DAILY QUANTITIES
(
I I
,.
PRODUCTIVITY
CALCULATIONS
...
,
,ANALYSIS
I
PERFORMANCE FORECAST OF
OF TRENDS EVALUATION TOTAL WORKHOURS
(
Figure 6. Productivity Data Collection and
Analysis Process
(
22
}
QUANTITY
REPORTS
PRODUCTIVITY
MEASUREMENT
SYSTEM
PRODUCT I VI TY
CALCUL AT IONS
SELECTED
LABOR ACTIVITIES
PERFOR.MANCE EVALUATION
ANALYSIS OF TRENDS
AND FORECAST I NG
DAILY TIME
SHEETS

CHARGEDI
WORKHOURS QUANTITIES,
COST CONTROL lUND:. RATd FO'!-
SYSTEM fSaECTEO ACTIVITIES
PROOUCTIVITY MEASURE"r>IENT CODES
- - -'- - - - - - - - - - --
I
I
'DuRATIONS-FOR SELECTED-ACTIVITIES - - - - - - - - - --l
PROJECT
PAYROLL a
ACCOUNTING
ell"
0'"

III


I
+
,.>ROJECT
CODE OF
ACCOUNTS
SCHEDULE
CONTROL
SYSTEM
I
I
BUDGETED WORKHOURS I
PROJECT COSTS
L
' I
ESTIMATE UNIT RATES l I
'--_-,--_---I(ALL ACTIVITIES) I
I
: I
I I
I I
:j I I
f'l --i
!!!. I::! I I
I I
I I I
I

N
W
Figure 7. Relationship of the Productivity System
to Other Control and Acyounting Systems

c
24
(
,'
(
Figure 5 shows how a 16--<:ligit cost code used for the construction of
petr=hemical facilities can be reduced to four digits. The four--<:ligit
activity code is ideally suited for productivity control. This four--<:ligit
productivity code defines three levels of detail. The broadest level,
represented by the first two digits, denotes major construction activities
such as aboveground electrical, aboveground nanracked piping, and so forth.
Table 1 provides a complete listing of the 17 major activities. The third and
fourth digits further subdivide each major. activity. Figure 8 illustrates the
Often, activities to rronitor can be selected on :he basis of experience.
An alternative approach is to calculate the total project work-hours and to
divide this sum by the number of line items or accounts. This calculation
yields the average work-hours per line item. Those items or accounts for
which the estimated work-hours are greater than this average can be designated
as labor-intensive. This method usually results in less than one--fourth of
the line items or accounts being significant .. This list can be further
mxlified at the prerogative of the manager. (
Developrent of Productivity Codes
The project code of accounts is structured to support the Cost control or
accounting function. Ho\o.ever, productiVity control is CClTFaratively silrple
and ll'Ore narrow in scope. Thus, productivity measurement codes are silrpler
than traditional cast cedes. Productivity code structures for industrial and
commercial construction are discussed below.
Selection of Activities to Monitor
The activities that should be rronitored are the ones which affect the .
success of the project. To maintain sinl'licity and minimize project overhead,
only those activities that affect the success of the project should be
tracked,. those that are labor-intensive. The labor-intensive activities tend
to have the longest durations and therefore are critical from the schedule
point of view. .
bothpayroll and Productivity measurement then can
rely on the same work-haur data that is provided for these other purposes.
Also, consistency is necessary if comparisons to the project estimate are
needed. Where cost-accounting and rronitoring systems are already in place, a
definition already exists of the items included in each account, and dual
reporting would merely increase the confusion and amount of paperwork.
Data fran the cost-accouncing and control system are used to prepare
project estimates. Several important pieces of data fran the estimate can be
used to enhance the productivity measurement system. These items are the
estimateeJ total work-hours and quantities. The estimated unit rate can also
be calCulated. These parameters provide irrportant baselines for carparing
current performance.
Although schedule control is generally viewed as separate fran cost or
.productivity control, productivity and quantity in:tallation rates are an
integral part of predicting completion dates. Therefore, if available, the
planned completion date or estimated duration can be used to evaluate
pe
rfo
r1J'o?f1Ce'
: I
. ,
LSUBFEATURE LEVEL
I Conduit
'----'--Ft::ATURE LEVEL
2 Electrical Raceways
I
/
'-----MAJOR ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION LEVEL,
18 Aboveground Electrical
figure B. Structure of Productivity t1:asurerre"t Codes for
Industrial Construction
25
26
Units of Measure
(
'. '
'"
(
piece, level, or tons
each
linear feet
linear feet
linear feet, each, or square
feet of contact area
Pt"oduetivity Measut"ement
Alternative Units of Measure
ton
linear feet
ton
ton
square feet of
contact area
Cost Control Item of oot"k
Structut"al Steel
Pipe Hangers
I-lWC D.Jct
Sheet Piling
Colum Formwork
The units of rreasure should be siJTple and easy to apply and should not
burden field pet"sonnel with unnecessary ot" time--consuming measurements.
Convenient counting schemes are desirable, and the units of measure rrust be
selected so that the results are accurate.
Obviously, the units in the costing system matet"ials at"e
purchased, whereas, in the productivity system, they should relate to how
components are installed. Units can vary ft"om.project to project.
(
In most instances, the sarre units used in the costing system can be used
in the productivity measut"ement system. However, there are exceptions. The
following pat"tial list shows saTE of thea=ounts where the units of measure
may be different:
productivity code for the erection of aboveground conduit. A fifth digit inot
shown) can be added at the user's discretion to further define the conduit by
size or type.
The structure of an example productivity measurement code for commercial
construction is sho.-in in Figure 9 to be a fi ve-digi t code. The code number
represents structural formwork for concrete columns. The code structure is
based upon the Master Format published by the Construction specifications
Institute (CSI) [121. The rrajor activity or function level is denoted by the
first digits. Among the major activities are conct"ete, masonry, metals,
mechanical, and electt"ical work. The remaining three levels fut"ther subdivide
the major activities by size and of wot"k.
Once the code stt"uctut"ehas been established, it is necessary to develop
the vat"ious pt"oject accounts, which is accomplished by examining the complete
code of accoimtsand identifying likely labOt"-intensive activities. The
non-Iabor-intensive a=ounts and othet"s involving incidental wot"k can be
deleted. The t"anaining accounts fom pt"oductivity measut"ement codes. .(
Representative codes at"e listed in Appendices A and B for industt"ial and
comret"cial constt"uction, respectively. The total numbet" of a=ounts has been
reduced by a factot" of more than four or five.
03" 3 ()'
T TYPE
I Slab on Grade
2 Elevated Slab
3 Columns
4 Footers
7 Beams
LEVEL
I Structura I
FEATURE LEVEL
I Formwork
L.---------MAJOR ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION LEVEL
03 Concrete
Figure 9. Stcucture of Productivity Measurerrent Codes for
Commercial Construction
27
(
This chapter has presented the framework for the productivity measuremen;
system that satisfies five criteria determined by, the characteristics of the '
project and the field supervisors who rust rely upon the system. ere'-' Level
reporting is required on a daily basis, and only labor-intensive activities
are IT'Onitored. The productivity measurement codes originate from the code of
a=ounts designed for cost controL purposes, but the number of accounts is
greatly reduced by eliminating non-Labor-intensive codes. In sare instances,
the units of measure have been changed to IT'Ore closely reflect how components:
are installed. Because the measurement system is not needed to
provide feedback to other control systems, it'is flexible and can be tailored
to suit particular project needs. .
c
(
(
28
..,......
PART II - ::'>SIC c:N:EFI'S OF PROIXX:TIVITY MEA5lJREMNI'
.AND ~ EVALUATICN
Productivity measurement and performance evaluation are two separate
functions. Productivity rreasurerrent involves the collection of information
about various activities. Specifically, production and the correspcnding
work-hours over a given period of tirre are assigned to their respective
activities or accounts, and these data can be examined to determine if
productivity is improving or declining.
Performance evaluation, on the other hand, involves a comparative
analysis. w::.rk-hours, quantities, arid productivity are evaluated against the
planned values used in the original project estimate... Activity durations can
be projected and ccnpared with the planned or required carpletiOl1 dates of the
activities.
Part II of this manual introduces the s i m p i ~ ~ i concepts of productivit.y
measurement and performance evaluation. Chapter 4 escribes five simple
concepts of rreasuring quantities and provides gui elines for selecting an.
appropriate rreasurement rrethod. The tracking of work-hours is also addressed.
Chapter 5 shows how prOductivity can be reported. various calculations and
fonnats are given, and their' interpretations are illustrated. Principles of
performance evaluation are given in Chapter 6, which also explains how td
develop work-hour and productivity forecasts.
29
PRELIM:lNAAY o::NSIDrnATIGlS
30
':HAPTER 4
(
(
Not all productivity codes are needed to establish effective project
control; only the codes important to the particular project should be used,
While no conclusive rules can be established, consideration should be given
activities that are labor-intensive, last long enough for corrective action
be taken, and are interrelated with other activities. If available, a CPM
schedule can be used to Ldentify actLvities with little or no float time.
When designing a productivity control system for a specific project, tw
preliminary considerations must be made: the selection of the activities th,
will be monitored and the level of detail in reporting.
MEASUREMENT Of ';;UANrITIES AND w::RK-fUJRS
Simplicity and effectiveness may at first seem to involve trade-offs,
but, in reality, the two features support each other. When concepts are
simple, they are readily understood. If a technique is simple, and therefor'
readily understood, it will be easy to use, and its acceptance and applicati.
in a variety of situations will be more likely. This simplicity encourages'
users to tailor the technique to their particular needs, resulting in
effective rreasurerrent.
(
Throughout this manual, simplicity has been integrated into the
conceptual design of the system. The most advancerrent toward
simplicity is the separation of the productivity mEosurement system from the
cost control system, making pbssible a substantial in the number
complexity of cost accounts and the use of simple c"d convenient units of
rreasure. These principles were described in Chapter 3 and were used to
develop the productivity codes in Appendices A and B.
Freedom from the costing system also me= that rronitoring can be done,
the job site without a need for support personnel. Feedback can be obtay oj
daily rather than weekly or rronthly. The conciSeness of the data rreans .C-
it can be readily digested by the project superintendent or foreman. Each 0
these aspects is illustrated throughout the remaining chapters in this manua
SIMPLICITY: THE OF tiEELTIVE MEASUREMENI'
The tracking of work-hours alone is inadequate as a nonitoririg or contr'
rreasure because work-hours must: De evaluated in the context of the arrount of
completed physical work. It fellows that effective project monitoring
requires the rreasurerrent of both the ,quantities and the work-h0';lrs needed to
install these quantities [2,13, 15. 161. The first part of thiS two-part
chapter describes the basic principles of quantity measurerrerit (surveying),'
and the last part, addresses the measurement bf work-hours. .
Activities should be secected aitet considering the scope, complexitj,
duration of the work.
The level of detail relates to the scope of work for a particular
activity and can vary from project to project. Three illustrations of
labor-intensive activities are given below. The first involves pipe sJX'Ol
erection and field run pipe on a process facility, and the second activity is
structural steel an oifice building. The last activity is cable
pulling on a refinery project. . The following leveis of detail selected from
Appendices A and B are possible:
1. Pipe spool .erection on a process plant
17XX
1730
1732
1735
AECNEGRQlND N:l'IHACKED PIPIN::;
Spool Erection and Field Run Pipe
SJX'Ol Erection, 2 1/2 to 12 in.
Field Run, 2 in. and under
2. Structural steel erection on an office building
05XXX
05100
05120
121
122
METALS
Structural Framing
Structural Steel
Multi.story Type
Warehouse Type
3. Cable pUlling on a refinery project
18lO<
1830
1831
1832
Wire and Cable Installation
Wire and Cable in Conduit
Wire and Cable in Tray
As can be seen, several leyels of detail can be used for each activity. The
choice is a matter of selecting the lowest level of detail that is consistent
with the needed level of control over th", ;,ark. Obvioosly, not all activities
will be rronitored at. the sarre level of detail. Each of the three activities
listed above will be used to illustrate measurement concepts in subsequent
discussions. .
MEASURIN::; THE PMXJNr OF w::ru< CXMPLETED
How the amount of workcompleted :is determined for a particular activity
depends upon the nature of the work and the particular control needs of the
project. The principal methods available for measuring quantities are
31
(
Each of these methods in detail in subsequent paragraphs, and
exarrple,s illustrate the type of work for which each rrethod is best suited.
Units Completed (Physical Measurement)
The 'silT{llest method of rreasuring output is to ==tually rreasure or count
the units of work completed. For exarrple, one can ;::nysically measure how manj
feet of cable, cubic yards of excavation, inches of weld, square feet of
concrete block wali, or number of plLU11bing fixtures '"hich have been completed
In a typical commercial or industrial facility, there are numerous items or
activities for which this silT{lle but effective method can be applied.
Several criteria exist for the proper application of the units compl( j
method. These are s\.llTlT\arized in Table 3. The scope of the work l11JSt be ".
well defined and relatively straightforward so that the nurr:ber of output unit
and their status can be quickly ascertained. The units completed Irethod is
best applied wher:e the Io.Ork. does 110t. include a mix of subtasks or where, if i
does include a mix, these subtasks are few in nurr:ber and can be accomplished
in a relatively short titre frarre.
For EXaIll'le, , cable pulling is measured in terms of linear feet of cabl;"
pulled. The scope of work is well defined, and the quanti ties installed can'
be quickly determined from the pull ticket or pulling schedule. Cable pullir
's straightforward because the work does not involve subtasks.
1.
Units completed - ':uantity surveys or physical measurement of work
ltems are involved in this method, which is best
suited Eor situations where items can be easily and
quickly measured. or counted, like cubic yards 0f
excavation or nurr:ber of ceiling .tiles in place.
Percent complete '- A subjective evaluation is made by the or
supervisor.
Level of' effort - This method relies. on predetermined rules to give
appropriate credit for' partially completed work thai
rust evolve through several stages. For example,
thestages of formwork are erection, alignment,
tightening, stripping, and cleaning. This' method L'
often used for bulk cCllTTTOClity items. .,>
Incremental milestones - This variation of the level of effort method
is used where specific milestones can be
identified, but quantities of output caClQ"".
be easily rreasured.. An exaIll'le
is for equiprrent installation, alignment,' an
testing.
Start/finish percentages In this method, another variation of the'"
level of effort rrethod, the only milestone
or phases are starting and finishing.
(
32
The placement of concrete for a slab on is a task which involves
subtasks of placing, vibrating, and finishing. Although three.subtasks
involved, all are measured against cubic yards of concrete in place sinCE
5.
3.
4.
2.
the
are
Table 3. C::rrpar is:n of Varirus M=t:hxls of Q.antity
.-----.-_. --
g:llrg
periOO of tirre
M=th:rl a:-iteria A...-vantac;es Disaclvantac;es
lhi ts Q:nplet'rl v.ell--cetire::l s::q::e M:st c:Etaile::l ard a:xurate
O::st of data colle::t len
OJtpJt c'el:ermire::l D::es rot rely en sb-
qJicklYby COJr1tirg or je=tive cpinims or
elerEntary rreth evaluatims
Relatively fBoi SJbtasks Clairred Oltp.rt: can be
5rort d.Jraticn for readily verifie::l :
=tpletirg eoch Lrlit
. ... of a-ilD.Jt
,
5irgle craft or
-
-
Relatively mimr taS<s jrca1t O:nplets 5iJ1ple
can be very ir=lrate
- (5..p=rvis::>r. lokELe reas:nably Ine>q:e-si ve am mislExdirg
cpinien) axurats estirretes can Q.1ick
l:erra:E
Q"eatsr .c'etail ard cb-
.-
l.eI.<=l of Effort l>ctivities irMJlvirg MJre irMJlve:l thcc\
0Jerlawirg SJbtasks je=tivity than sirrply sirrply estirretirg tre
5UJtaS<s nust be estirretirg h:w nu:n wxk p=t:"CEl1t carplete
rreasurable or tt"eir was d:re ird less exp;reive
statLS easily c'efire::l tren co.ntirg or rreasurirg
Best Slite::l wh=re th=re tt"e t..nits =tplete::l
is a latg= nurtEr of
similar =It,wity It:l3T5
ard the w:>rk will be en
for an ext.a-rl2d
Ir=erental
MilestTe
Best Slite::l wtere th=re
are ally a few itaTs
e3ch abtaS< is
diffiOOt to ITEeSlre,
ird the w:>rk rray last
for <:rl ext.a-rl2d periad
Easy to LEe
5iJ1ple to url=rstarrl
I.crg p:ria:E rray elap;e
before en interns::liate
milest:cre is rea:::tEd
Start,IFWS1
Ferantages
l>ctivity 1b:l<s inter- ,SiJlple
rrediats milestcn=s
l>ctivitieS or itaTs of
w::Jrk sh:>..tl.d be of
stnrt d.Jra tim
Wxks best for a larg=
ruTi:er of i taTs
be i.ra=..trate,
e;p;cially if &.ere are
few i taTs of if &.e
activity d.tt'a"tim is
lergthy
33
, ,
34
Percent CClTplete (Supervisor CpinionJ Method
10,
;.. ' "
;....
...
(
Level of Effort
(
TO illustrate the level of effortrrethod, the follOwing example is
considered in which a contractor must install 1,708 small-bore pipe.hangers.
The following list of subtasks involved shO\olS the relative level of effort
required for each.' The relative level of effort, or weighted completion
status, is defined as rules of credit.
A control system requlnng the physical measurement of numerous items of
work would too burdensare and costly. Q1e .way to simplify the rreasurement
process is to assign a predetermined percent'complete.to a task onthe basis
of the corrpletion of various subtasks. The percentage' is based upon the
relative work-hours required to complete.each subtask.
It is Worth noting that pipe fabrication can use this rrethod of
measuring output bei::ause there is comronality !among many items. Since the
fabrication shop is responsible for a relatively narrow scope of work (bulk
quantity items), the breadth of the reporting 'system can be reduced without
significant increases in manpower or cost requirements.
A simple subjective approach'is to ask the supecvisor's opinion of the
percentage of the taskwhich is completed. It is for relatively minor
tasks, usually of short duration, where developrrent Jf a more complicated
intermediate milestone or level of effort formula is not justified. Painting,
dewatering, architectural trimming, and landscaping ,are candidates for this
approach.
( ,
the three are executed simultaneously. The units completed.rrethcxl can be
applied to concrete placement beCause the quantity is readily measurable.
Another criterion for using the units corrpleted rrethod is that the t iJre
needed to perform the corrpleted installation of an individual unit of output
should be relatively shert, say aday or less.' Trench excavation and the
hanging of doors would qualify, whereas the testing of a piping system or the
installation and alignrrent of equiprrent probably would not. Also, work
involving multiple crafts is often not well suited to the units completed
rrethod beCause it can seldom be corrpleted in a, day.
The primary advantage of the units completed rrethod is that, when
properly applied, it is toe most accurate anditherefore .reliable rrethod
available.. It is a 'relatively objective rrethOd beCause it does not require a
subjective opinion to determine what has been corrpleted. A third advantageyf
this rrethod is that:an audit of the reported production is easily
The main problem with the units completed rrethod is the cost of data -
collection when the rrethod is improperly ppplied.
SUbtask
Fabricate
Install
Preservice iJ1sI;ection
Total task
L'n.i. t of

each
each
each
each
Rules of
Credit
0.40
0.50
Q.JQ .
l.00

,til,
,-
I

If, at sore point in tinE, 366 hange-rs have been fabricated, 185 installed,
an:! 41 i.nspect.ed, then the cumulative number of hangers crnpleted is
calculated as fo11=:
Cumulative Quantity (each) = 366 (0.40) + 185 (0.50) + 41 (0.10) (1)
= 243.0
The subtasks are selected so that the status can be easily dete.Dni.ned by the .
foreran, an:! 00 credit is given until the subtask is finished. The rules of
credit rara.in the sane for all {tens of ;;ark within a given categJJ:Y or
accOlli1t. In this example, they;;auld be the sane for all srrall-rore hangers,
i.rresj::ective of the type or size of hanger.
In another example, a contractor installs llOdular fornw:>rk for a
reinforced corcrete basarent wall. First, the outside fonn is erected,
braced, and aligned. The inside fonn is erected next. Thereafter, the =
foDTlS are braced, shcred, and plumbed as a unit. After the coocrete
placment, the foDTlS are stripped, cleaned, and oiled.. Example rules of
credit for this task are given bel=:
Unit of
Subtask Measure
Erect initial wall fonn ft
2
Erect second wall fonn ft
2
Final bracing and plumbing ft
2
Strip and clean ft
2
Total task . ft2
Rules of
Credit
0.90
0.70
0.10
0.10
'.' The crew canoot take full credit for the ;;ark until after the fo= have teen
raroved and cleaned. Notice that the sum of the rules does not add to l.00.
This is because the first = subtasks are applied to only half the total waLl
area.
A sare.lhat llDre detailed example involves the ere::tion of
iscnetrics. Figure 10 shows the daily quantity report in which the foranan
reports the status of four isaretrics. The rules of credit for pipe erection
are presented bele"",,
35
Status of WOrk: List quantity and check appropriate column 1, 2, or 3.
(1) Erected - Count pipe erected in place but not bolted/welded cOlTpletely.
(2) End Connections CClTPlete - Count pipe end connections cOlTpleted bolted/we,lded in
place.
(3) 'Trimmed and Complete - Count pipe cOlTpleted and ready for test.
I I
ITotal Q.lantitJ
\ Cunulative I
I
Q.lantity
to be Pipe Installed
Isometric Status of Work Installed Size to Date
Drawinq Account 1 2 I 3 (ft) (in. ) (ft)
Spool
\
A-267-30 1732 X 20 10 20
Spool
I
A-267-32 1732 X X 36 3 36
'Field Run
I I
I 0-:'27-43 1735 X
I
231 ,1/2 200
Field Run I
I
0-527-43 1735 X X 231 1/2 147
Field Run
I I
0-819-02 1735 X X X 10 i-1/2 10
I I
I I
':uantity Report
...;;'-'Pipe Erectcion 163X and 173X
(
(
,. ".
;(' \?:.
... l, . .

(
1 of
Ei609
2-0007
Page:
Project:
Off ice Code:
Daily OJantity Report
'. <.
36
Figure 10.
Smith
'.
, .... :..
foreman:
Date:
.... _. - -
f
L
,
,
'Jnit of Rules of
Subtask
t'easure Credit
Erected
ft 0.30
Connections cO!Tl'lete
ft 0.50
Tri.mned
ft 0.20
Total task ft 1.00
figure 10 shows that, for isometric drawing #A-267-30, the entire 20 feet have
been erected. The end connections on isaretric #A-267-32 have been cOlTl"leted
for the entire 36 feet. The last isometric, 0-819-02, has been entirely
finished. However, for the third isometric (drawing 200 of 231
feet have been erected, but only 147 feet of the system have the connections
cClTl'letely bolted. The cumulati'Je footage is calculated as:
' ......
Cumulative Quantity = 20 (0.30) + 36 (0.30 + 0.50)
147 (0.50) + 10 (0.30 + 0.50
=178.3 feet '
+ 200 (0.30) +
+ 0.20)
(2)
In the above examples, the qUantities for each of the subtasks are
counted the sarre way. This will not always be the case, as is illustrated by
the following distribution of effort for the erection of a multistory
structural steel building:
Subtask
Erecting
Bolting (bolt-up)
PlurrtJing
Tightening (torque bolts)
Total task
Unit of M=asur",
individual
individual pi'=Ce5
pieces grouped by tier
pieces grouped by tier
piece
Rules of
Credit
0.50
0.25
0.15
0.10
1.00
In thisexanple, output -is rreasured by the mmtJer'of pieces, i.e., beams
and colurms. Incidental pieces like gusset plates, tie rods, etc., are not
counted. PlurrlJing is done by tier, and as each tier is carpleted, the cre" is
credited for 15 percent of the pieces associated with that particular tier.
Likewise, tightening of high-strength bolts is tracked according to the pieces
per tier. '
Irrportance of Rules of Credit - Rules of credit are used to specify the
installation status of. many commodity items or components. The rules
recognize partially cO!Tl'leted work and provide 'an accurate cOlTl"letion status
without the added expense of detailed physical rreasurerrents. To illustrate
the influence of rules of credit on the accuracy of output rreasurerrents,
the situation represented in Figure 11 shows the cumulative work-hours per
piece of structural steel as a function of tirre. The task involved the
structural steel erection of a six-story building. As can be seen, when rules
of credit are not applied, the manager receives an overly optimistic view of
the work. In this particular project, the last eight work days were devoted
exclusively to pll..UTlbing and tightening. C\'1ce all of the steel was erected,
the activity took almost 50 percent more tirre to finish, and the work-hours
37
Figure 11. of Not Using Rules of Cre::lit,
St:ru::tura1. Steel Erecti= (Account 05121)
---WITHOUT RULES OF CREDIT
-WITH RULES OF CREDIT
".
,..
(
(
c.
c
30 20
DAY
RULES OF CREDI T
STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION
ERECTING 50%
BOLTING 25%
PLUMBING 15%
TIGHTENING 10%
10
38
"
,
,

,
I
,,'
,
,
",
,
,
,.J
,
I
,._.
,
,
o
200
40
60
800
lJ.J
>

....l
::::>
:E
::::>
u
(J)
lJ.J
l-
I-
Z
<t
::::>
"
......
(J).
lJ.J
U
lJ.J
Cl.
'.
I
--------- -
per piece increased by about 40 percent. It should be obvious that, for sane
items, progress and productivity cannot be accurately measured without the
application of rules of ccedit.
Fortunately, rules of credit are not Table 4 shoWs example
rules for various carrrcdity .items. In general, no rrore than three to five
subtasks should be considered. Each contractor develops a unique set of
rules, which can remain unchanged from project to proJect.
Criteria - The levelof effort method should be used when the manner in
which credit is awarded for partially work can lead to mIsleading
interpretations of progress, productivity, and performance. From the previous
examples, it should be readily apparent that the level of effort method is
best suited for those activities that involve a.number of overlapping
subtasks. These subtasks may include rrore than one craft, bot, ,obviously,
each subtask must be measurable. As illustrated by the structural steel
example, measurerent concepts can be sirrplified. To be used effectively, the
status of subtasks must be easy to determine: e.g., a valve has be<o-n
accepted; a cable, terminated; or a piece of pipe, aligned. Finally, the
level of effort method is well suited for tasks where there is a large number
of similar ccmrodity items and for tasks that may be in progress for an
extended period of time.
Advantaoes and Disadvantages - The principle advantage of the level of
effort method is that it allows one to obtain greater objectivity and accuracy
than by merely estimating the percent complete, yet it is not as detailed
(and, time-consuming and costly) as the units completed method.
The :"din disadvantage is that it can increase the. complexity of the repcrting
system for some items. .
Incremental Milestone
The incremental milestone method of measurement is a variation of the
level of effort method and is 'characterized by the identification of a series
of intermediate milestones. A predetermined percent complete is associated
with each milestone, as is illustrated in Figure 12, which sho./s the sequence
of installation of a major vessel in a power plant. This method can be used
when only a few items must be considered or when the subtasks are difficult to
measure and the task will take an extended period of time to ccmplete. In
Figure 12, the subtasks are sequential rather than concurrent.
Start/Finish Percentages
This method is applicable to tasks which lack readily definable
intermediate milestones or for which the effort in terms of work-hours
required is very difficult to estimate. It is best suited to short-<:luration
tasks like valve installations. With the start/finish method, one arbitrarily
assigns a percent complete to the start of a task. Zero is often used, but it
can be 20 percent or even 50 percent. When the iten is complete, 100 percent
is credited. No interinediate percentages are used because subtasks
cannot be identified.
Millwright or mechanical work is sometimes rronitored in this way. for
example, alignment of a major fan and rrotor may take from a few hours to a few
39
- - -- ,- -
(
Task or lhit 0E
<:;arm:di ty
t'Easure
Rules of Crs:ii t CE9::ripticn
M9::h3ni.cal
15% set Q1 or near 1cx:atien in
E'J:I.liprEnt
45% irEta11e::l
b.lil<ii.rg
Eolte::l, 1o.eld3:l, or release:!
for gralt
.40% acr:epte::l Q: a:x:epte::l after final
ali9"JT81t ard =tplete
h:d<t.p
Pipe Sp:ol or spool 60% erEcte::l In pla::e to rcu;j1 lire
Field Rt.n Pipe or ard gra:le with f i t-q>
fret lL>:J5 at all """lds
30% ...eld3:ll All Eield Io.elds/rolte::l
( bolted =tpleted ard a::o=pted
10% acr:epted Tested ard a::o=pte::l by
Q:
E1e::trical ea::h 70% termi.rated Terrninati<ns=tplete::l cable
Terminatien en both ends ard
a::.r::Epte::l by Q:
30% acr:epted Tested ard a::o=pte::l by
Q:
HIil'C D.J::t fret 40% erecta:l In pla::e en pernara1t
reroecs
40% =ncte::l
All large9 =. e:te::l
and seale::l
20% a::.r::Epted Te5tirg ard bal2n::irg
=tp1eted; installaticn
a::.r::Epted by Q:
Pipe Harr:Jer 40% fabric:ated Shake:>.lt; sh:>p OC field
(Srall-B:>ce) assatbly
(
50% installe::l At:t:a:::tBJ to 9.HX'rt am
=tpletely SEO.lCaJ \:0
pipe
10% acr:epted kI:Epte::l by Q:
M=::ruy 70% bled<
Pl.ilcarEnt of =crete sq.JaCe
(Fo...rt:Btim wall, fret of p1acarEnt rras::nry lllits
Reinforca:l, wall 20% graltirg Pl.acarEnt of reinfoCCElTBlt
Gralted) ard grOJtirg
10% pargirg Pargirg of the altsid: ..,11
Stru:tural Steel piECES 50% ere::ticn Eearre am colLJ1T'S in place
(EDlted 25% boltirg All bolts irEta11aJ in joints
Cc:rre=tia-s ) an::! xx I s:;ticns
15% plUTbin:J Each door or tier plurt:e::l ard
allgred
10% tightalirg Final tightenin:J of bolts with
of bolts
iJrl:xlct wren:h
(
40
------:--
"
a
w
...J
W
...J
<t


-
en
en
z

<t
CJ)
a
...J
a
a
<t
w
W
w
z
a

>
z
Cl::
w
a.
w
(!:) w

w
u

-
en
u
w
W
...J
Z
W U
a::
en
<t
<t
SZ SZ
?
SZ
Y
S(
i i i
i i
0%
50%
1000k
Figure 12. Large Equiprent Installation-Incremental Milestone
41
(
weeks, depending upon :he s8mplexity. All one knows for certain is when
\o.Ork starts and when it is finished.
Other exarrples include iiushing and cleaning, testing, and majo,
operations. To effectively use this method, the activities or items of worK
should be of relatively short duration. Also, a large number of items Will
tend to reduce the inaccu,acies apparent in the approach.
Project complexity and scope are important considerations in selecting a
method. en small projects, or larger ones where the item in question is
relatively minor, there is little justification for establishing
I measures based on the level of effort method. Thus, instrument raceways ,might
be tracked by the percent complete method on a small job, whereas, on a larger
one, the level of effort method may be used. If, on the smaller job, the rW15
are straight and not particularly complex, for example, if clip supports are
used, then the units complete method can be easily applied.
(
-.
42
Selection of an Appropriate Method
The selection of an appropriate method of measurement is relatively
sirrple. For instance, the increrrental milestone and the. start/finish
percentages rrethods ace applied in situations whe,e' the subtasks ace difficult
to define or measure. Equipment installation, alignrrent, and testing were ',:
ci ted as exarJllles of tasks for which these methods can be applied. Many items
that need to be monitored for control purposes can be tracked rrore accurately
using other methods. ThUS, 'there are three primary methods remaining f,em
which to choose: the units completed, level of effo,t, and percent eatplet:(
methods. ..
In developing a measurement system, the overriding concern is that the
system \ooD,ks for the manager, and not that the manager works for the system.
In selecting a method, fou, criter-ia should be considered: Sirrpiicity, degree
of control needed, project complexity, and pr-oject scope. The sirrplest rrethod
that will provide the le'!el of detail necessary to control the work should
always be selected. It _s important that quantity measurements and,
ultimately, productivity calculations ,eflect what actually occurs on the
project. The installation and calibration of inst,uments, hanging of doors,
and electrical terminations can be a=omplished little effort by sinpl"
counting the units completed. en the other hand, Lt \ooDuld be foolish to
measure the square footage of painted surface to determine progress.
Estimating the percent complete of painting provides equally useful
information with much less effort. .
The civil and bulk commodity items are usually labor-intensive and must
be closely monitored. Typically, these items require a significant number of
\o.Ork-hours, involve the completion of several or rrore subtasks, utilize (
multiple crafts, and include subcommodities of varying complexity., For "
exarJllle, an underground gravity flow piping system contains pipe, catch
basins, manholes, and valve boxes. Also, an aboveground nonracked piping
system contains several sizes of pipeS, valves, and hangers. Actual
measurernent \ooO.Jld be irrpractical and a simple estimation of the percent
complete would probably be inaccurate. .Therefore, the level of effort rrethod
is appropriate for many of the more imPortant. items.
;,
,',
:.'
. ,

::>

<.
L
f
The rreasurem=nt and units of l1Easure for the activities
identified earlier are
1732
1735
05121
1830
spool erection, 2 1/2 to 12 in. (lin ft)
field run pipe, 2 in. and under (lin ft)
multistory structural steel erection (piece)
wire and cable in conduit and tray (lin ft)
le;/el of ef fort
level of ef fort
level of effort
units cOfTPlete
or start/finish
percentages
for pipe and steel erection, the level of effort I1Ethod is chosen because each
involves several easy-to-define subtasks. Several days may elapse before a
pipe isanetric is finished. The bolt tigh'tening on structural steel may not
=eur until.the end of the task. Conversely, in cable pulling, each pull.can
normally be completed in a single shift. The routing of cable from the
raceway to the termination or device will be through short conduit runs that
are already in place. The tracking of progress by subtasks is not I.Qrth the
effort. The unit of measure, linear feet, can be obtained from the pull
ticket. If the pulls are long and it is likely that many Pulls will be
incomplete at the end of a shift, then the start/finish percentages I1Ethod is
suitable. If the conduit is not installed and the cable ITUst be coiled until
later, then another approach, .for instance, the incremental milestone method,
can be used.
Table 5 sumnar izes suggested rrethods of rreasurerrent for select<;d
commercial and industrial work.
Importance of Consistency
The reporting of work-hours is sinpler than the l1Easurement of quantities.
All that is needed is to assure that the I.Qrk-hours are properly ass=iated
with the work that is being performed. 01 a single project, the SallE coding
systen and level of detail used to record quantities must be applied to the
charging of I.Qrk-hours as well. For instance, if quantities of pipe are
differentiated by size, then the work-hours must be tracked in the same way.
Thorough understanding of the productivity codes is essential. If comparisons
are to be made from one project to another or if the data are to be
incoqx>rated into the historical data file, then consistency is a "",st. While
the level of detail may vary from project to project, the definitions and
contents of the codes must be the SallE.
Reporting Work-hours to SuppOrt Project Control
The total work-hours needed to construct a particular component can be
divided seven categories, Figure 13 illustrates this concept for the
spool erection and installation of field run pipe. While this work normallj
is thought of as being mainly part of the pipefitter craft, the figure shows
that other workers also contribute to piping activities. In some cost systems
used primarily for estimating purposes, all of the work-hours represented in
43
Table 5. Suggested "12':10005 of Quantity for selected I ':Em5 _
(
fixture cable pulling
pir:e hangers terminations
underground piping lighting fixtures
shop fabrication underground elec-
of bulk commodity trical _
items instrumentation "_
insulation
(
(
start-up and
testing
instrumentation
control panels
transformers
cable tray
conduit
lighting systems(
control wiring -
Electrical
flush, clean, and
tests of systelT'S
short duration
millwright
alignrrent
valve installation
equipment
installations
corrplex fNAC
systems
piping isometrics
fNN: duct
plumbing systems
piping
Mechanical
structural steel
concrete formwork
major concrete

masonry systems
44
darolition
salvage
major rigging
or:erations
short duration
activities
cabinet and
millwork

backfill
architectural trim
landscaping and
seeding
flooting
scaffolding
sr:ecial finishes
masonry
excavation
concrete
site


roofing
siding
Genera lICi vil
Start/Finish
Percentages
Incremental
MiLestone
Level of
Effort
Percent
Carplete
of
Units
Corrpleted
PIPING
WORK-HOUR
ACTIVITIES
DISTR IBUTION
"
.... -"
I \
fX'$i$s'$I$&j
: - . ~ ' ~
I I
llIiIll!IIlIlIl!IlIIlI
WAREHOUSING
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
WELDER QUALIFICATION
SCAFFOLDI NG
HANGERS
ERECTION
TESTING
9%
2'%
1%
13%
12%
55%
8"I"
Figure 13, Distribution of Work-hours for Piping Activities
45
46
QJanti ty Reporting
'..
-"
(
Work-hour Reporting
Because the layout of structural steel is unique from project to projec
a generic data collection form cannot be developed. However, all that is
needed is a convenient way for the foreman to report when a piece has been
erected, bolted, or tightened and when a floor has been plumbed. A graphica
layout such as the one shown in Figure 15 is desirable. The foreman silTply
(
C;;Uantity reporting for spool erection and field run pipe can be done on
form such as the one shown in Figure 10. This generic form can be used for
racked and nonracked pipe. All that is required of the foreman is to record
the total quantity and pipe size, as given on the isometric drawing, and to
report the completion status and linear footage. To minimize the chance for
mistakes, the completion status is described on the form.
The reporting of work-hours is straightforward because one can gener p11:
rely on the existing payroll reporting system. Figure 14 exerrplifies a
typical reporting form. In this case, the crew work-hours were charged to
four productivity codes. The only change to existing forns that may be need
is a provision of space for recording the productivity code.
(
The quantity reporting for cable pulling (account 1830) is very
straightforward because only the linear footage of the pull and whether the
pull is finished need to be reported. These data can easily be denoted OD t
payroll form, as shown in Figure 14. A total of 19 hours ",as .charged to ( ,
pUlling (a=ount 1830). Of the two pulls made, the first was conpleted
5), as denoted by the foreman, but the second was not. Therefore, the crew
credited with having pulled 175 linear feet, which is the length of the firs
pUll.
Many contractors are not accustomed to collecting quantity information,
so new foms ITl.lSt be developed. Quantity reportinc forms should be s ilTl' ' "-
easy to understand and ensure a=uracy of the provided. Th,
activities discussed throughout this chapter serve to illustrate the range 0
possibilities for reporting foms.
figure 13 are charged :0 the same account. This approach supports efficient
and accurate estimating. However, for productivity monitoring, the
interested mainly in the Io.Ork-hours required for actual erection. [nde<. .
productivity codes presented in Appendices A and B have been intentionally
simplified to track only installation work-hours.
Figure 14 shows a foreman's daily time sheet designed to efficiently
record this inEonMtion. An example is shown for a nine-man electrician cre
Io.Orking a lO-hour day. This form shows that the crew worked 19 hours on
pulling cable (account 1830), 12 hours on power hookups and terminations
(account .1861), 33 hours on control hookups and terminations (account 1862 ).,
and '16 hours on conduit 1account 1821}.
I
I
LABOR
)
...
-.I

U
FOREMAN

P-
I. L1s1 BadgB Numbo..

u
."
a
In Numetlcal Older
,..,
.;

'" "
2
'"
u

.;
2. Wille In "Wo,k
0 .u


a

.G
."
,... 0
Doaellpllon" columns
DATE:
') 10 BD
"
.-< >
'.
,..,

In order. 00 nol aklp

ii
--0 .0 ...,
u '" .
"'''
.-i
N

columns.
u 0

.s
EIl.lClr!clan
w

"
'"
.,;
'"

CRAFT:
0

" '"
J. Make sute duc,lpllon
P-

,..,

.,..,
e
hoUls equal- tolal
G
IBAGGE NO.

,.., "

a
""

, ,.
0 a
.'"
.", .,.., _H .oH
" -,..,
houn walked.
FOREMAN
C] C, 0(1< ('.r-
J
000
""15 ; -
...

.... H
171
"
0
... Fill In Slati &
." 1 "',..,
.,,..,
",'" '"
01
." '"
SIGNAtuRE
" "
0
"
Slop Time.
.c.
e,; e,; n
"" . e'"
":c.
-0
SUPT:
00'"
" .15
"
0
" "
5. Stun Your Cald.
.H H .... a 00 a
SIGNA wnE
... .., ... .., ... ,..,
0""
... ,.., "'UN 0""
b:)U
AU
5:00
....
1--. .....
START:
STOP:

ANY INJUlllES TOUAY"
0
If so, t XI'l AIU 8f.lOw
Z

0 N
IN REIo4AAt<S.
z
N N 0
CLASS HOURS WORKED

M N
'"
M
,.,
.._.----_.. .. -
0
'" '"
'" '" '"
'"
'" "'
REMARKS
BADGE
DEscfUPTtOH AEO. 0.1. TOTAl tl
H H
-
H
NAME
Sl"nl
HO.
I.'
<
SIAlEO lAIE, lNJUAU. fIe I
2.
I- e-- --- --
--
_.. _...
._----
-
--_... -
15 G. Flsher
S 10 .-.lJL
..
__10_
----- --
---
._- -_.
16
".
Is S 10

..
10
f-- -----
--
-ill __ .1. lIarkel"
SF 10 10
..
2 2
1 I -l...
_1_.
--'-
__1-
---!.li_. _
C. Uroaks S 10
.-.lJL
..
_5_
I---.L.
_2_
-- - -- ----
--
-._0
41B
U. llavLs
S 10 10
.. 10
--
-_.--_.
------ --
-- --
-
5)) It. I.ul.les S 0 0
.. -
- - - - -
- . Absent ( I'crsullD.l)
--
-- --"
61" H. BilIley
S -1.0..
"'

n .-L
-- -
-_.
.__.
660 -S.......J:aw:k.----
II-I Jll.
--
---lJ.L : .-L
---
---
----l-
--
-l- ....
bbl J. Pierce S -.-liL
,
------L
I---'--
JJL _
1-
..
-- --'
'--
I-
-- --
------..
..
.------ --I-
-- --

..
--

---- --
. .. -._._._. '._-
..
----- ---
--- --
------_. - .. _._"' - ...
..
I-- --- -- -- -- ---'
--
-- ---
-_._--_.... ..- .- .

.- ... --
TOTAL HOURS
.BO BO

12
'2
B' IB 1 1
) 9
._.. -.'---
----
Figure 14. Exarrple of Foreman's Daily Time Sheet
(
(
Erection - __
Bolting 0
Tightening X
Plumbing rV'V
48
Floor:
Data Collection Fonn for St.ructural Steel
Erection (AcCOLmt 05121)
Date:
Figure 15.
8
@) 0
E
cr
25'-0" .
!
25' -0"
25'-0"
26'-0" ..
I
A
,
,
,

I
'r"
I
.
0f- t'

.
...
.I.
r
r
["1 r
p

-
.
II-

....
.

,
-.
r
"
, '

04-
t.

I ,.
r"

l-
I
(
. . .

-l-

...
o
,
<D
C\I
o
I
<D
C\I
,.
::;
'....
marks the erected pieces ~ c'ircles the joints that' have been oolted or
tightened. The possibility ,of mistakes is greatly reduced because the form
can be completed quickly and easily.
This chapter has presented five methods of measuring progress. The
primary methods are the units ccmpleted, percent complete, and the level of
effort. Exanples of when each method can be used were cited. The measurement
of work-hours was also discussed, and a sanple time sheet was given.
49
"
Productivity is defined as the work-hours per unit of work. Several
different calculations can be made depending upon the time frarre that the data
Le., whether productivity is reported daily, over some other
penod of tirre, or cumulatively to date. The advantages, disadvantages, and
uses of each approach, summarized in Table 6, are described below.
For smaller to medium-sized projects, the need to analyze variations and
short-term trends in a tirrely manner is very inportant. If the proper method
of measurement has been selected, then daily variations in productivity should
be the result of the factors affecting productivity, and not the result of the
type of data collection pr=edure. Besides the inportance of choosing the
best data collection method for the project, careful records must be kept
because sl.oppy data collection only complicates the interpretation pr=ess.
(
(
50
PROJ::UCI'IVITY CALC!.JIATIQIS
The goals of analysis and interpretation are simple. One aspect
involves relating changes in productivity to events cc conditions. The
consequences of bad weather, unusual congestion, higr. absenteeism, and other
obvious factors can be readily appreciated by most managers, but few can
describe the effects in quantitative terms. Also, less obvious factors can
sanetimes be isolated through productivity measurement. The resulting .
knowledge of cause/effect relationships helps the manager to formulate (
strategies for when to work, where to assign crews, and so forth. An analysis"
of short-term trends can sometimes highlight problems that are not easily
recognizable by using conventional summary data. Therefore, productivity
analyses help to answer the question: Are we getting better or worse, and
why?





11;\jj:

'/l"



'N,
The essential elemencs Ear productivity were provided in the
previous chapter. Producci'fit'l is generally reported in two forms:.
i::,: productivity for the repornng period and cumulative productivity to date.
The length of the reporting period 'Jaries as a function of the size,
complexity, and duration of che work. Typical reporting periods are daily,
weekly, biweekly, monthly, or cumulatlvely, and generally, the larger and more
*\1' complex the reporting sYS1:Em, cne l.onger the reportlng period. The results,
can be displayed in tabular or graphlcal form, can be used to analyze
period variations and short-term trends. This chapter illustrates the various
calculations and presentation formats and describes their value within a (
productivity measurement system.






M\i



',',.'.
:i;";
11:!:;'

:::::;;


.-'
:",
;;
.,....
Table 6. Advantaqes, Disadvantages, arid Uses of the
f':JrTIts of s>r'Xluctivity Calculations
Approach
Daily
PeLied
M:lving
Average
Cumulative
Advantages
Immediate feedback
Provides an order of
magni tude to a
particular problem
Supports the identi-
fication of causes
Fewer calculations
SlJlTTT1ar ies ' needed only
pedodically
Fluctuations in the
'data, not as great
as with daily
calculations
Daily feedback
Information not
'grossly distorted
by one unusually
good or bad day
M:lre closely relates
to cost and profit-
ability since total
values are used
Disadvantages
Wide variations possible
which are difficult to
explain
Calculations done daily
Lack of timeliness of
'feedback
Daily variations hidden
Limited number of data
points on which to base
conclusions regarding
trends
Fails to support the
identification of c u ~
Calculations ~ r e
tedious
As 'MJrk-hours and
quantity increase, the
slope changes very
slowly and by small
increrents
Uses
Draws attention
to problems
that. occurred
that day
Facilitates the
developnent of
strategies to
prevent
cecccurrence
SlJlTTT1aries for
upper-level
managers
Can be, useful 1n
establishing
short-term
goals
Analysis of
short-term
trends
Forecasting
probable out-
COllE
critiquing
overall
progress
I
I
(
( 3)
(
(
(
Tre role of daily prcxluctivity data is to focus attention ani create
awareness and sensitivity. Later in this chapter, it will be sh:rwn other
data can be used in conjW1ction with daily productivity to help isolate other
productivity problE!rlS.
52
Dail
"--'-. . . 19
Y nc.uuctl.Vl.ty = 175
(Code 1830)
= 0.109 ...::Jrk-hours/lin ft
Much infonnation can be gained by studying the daily productivity of a
crew. SCIre causes of prcduetivity decline can be readily identified, whereas
others are ItOre subtle and :require further investigation. To illustrate the
usefulness of-daily pro::iuetivity statistics, three are given using
the activities in Chapter 4.
16 shOw'S a plot of the daily prcductiVl.ty of an
i.rorn;orker crew erecting structural steel on a sUe-story office l::uilding. sUe
days areof particular interest, narrely, clays 4, 12, 15, 18, 21, ani 24. The
poor pro::iuctivity on days 15 and 18 can be explained by cold
20'P and 12'F, respectively. On day 'I, the weather was bad, ani the crew was
sent hale after having ...::JrkEd for a1:xJut 3 hours. With this kn:>wledge, the
mmager could better decide whether to 'lark or send the crew h:ne on
subsequent clays. Day 12 is ItOre difficult to explain. The was
27'F, but the real problan may have been in the coordination of the =rk arrong
the four subtasks. Much of the effort was spmt for plumbing, ani feM pieces
of steel -= erected. On days 21 and 24, =h of the =rk involved bolting.
Pipe Erection - The daily productivity of a pipe erection CreM installing
sUe-in::h-&.arreter pipe spools (account 1732) is sh:rwn in Figure 17. The CreM
was ...::Jrking a 58-l-Dur/-el< schedule. During the first nine days, the daily
crew productivity ...::Jrsened at a steady rate. Thereafter, e=atic variations
are observed. .Given this infonnation, a foreran or superintendent sh:Juld
i.rnrestigate the causes. Perhaps =rk assignrrents or interferen:es with other
crews are the problE!rlS.
cable Pulling - The analysis of .cable pulling (account 1830) is similar
to that of pipe erection. As can be seen in Figure 18, steady in::reases in
unit rates occurred after day 118 ..
Daily Work-hours
Daily Pl::cductivity =
DailyQ.Jantity
Both w:>rk-hours and qu=tities must be chaIged to the sane account. In Figure
14, as an the electrician Cr:eN IooUrkEd 80 total =rk-h:lurs on that
day, but only 19 of these -=charged to cable pulling. They cc:rnplete:i one
pull of 175 feet. In this instance; the daily p:roductivity for cable pulling
is calculated only for cc:rnplete:i =rk as
Daily Prcductivity
Tre daily pro::iuctivity or the unit rate is defined simply as



E,:
r:

I

iji:::
:::;:,
.

'.""."""."'.".
r ...... "'X.
". ,
}
"
~
~
Difficulties in Plumbing Coordination
o Bad Weather
D. Boltlng Only
8
w
o
w 6
0-
0::
W
0-
C/) 4
0::
:::>
o
::I:
::.::
0:::
o 2-h
~
lJl
'"
l.
30 25
20
15
DAY
10 5
o
0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
.
figure 16. Unit Productivity for StrucLural SLeel Erection
(J\CCOUIiL 05121)
O-Oh....,....-r-
4
-r-"1r-T"""'T""""T
S
"""'T""".,..-r-r
12
-""-'-"-,Srr-""-""""-2b
(
(
(
(
DAY
54
Unit Productivity for Pipe Erection (A=ount 1732)
2
6
s
12
Figure 17.
a::
oct
UJ
Z
-
..J
ffi
a.
en
a::
::::l
o
:I:

a::
o
3l:

.j .
.
.-'
0.5
8
u..
0::
0.4
<t
w
Z
-I
0::
O.
w
a.
(J)
0::
::::l
0.2
0
::r:
:=::
0::
0
:5
0.1

-I
<t
a
0
1
......
132
142
S2
102
112 122
DAY
Figure 18. Unit Productivity for cable Pulling (Ac=unt 1830)
55
56
Per iod .Producti'Ii c'l
tobving Averages
(4
(
The value of the moving average is the early recognition of short-term
trends. These are often difficult to recognize using daily productivity data
because it is subject to considerable variability. l'bving averages darrpen tt
variability, as is shown in Figure 19 which is the first 12 days of the
structural steel erection example previously discussed.
The data used in calculating the moving average in Figure 19 are
summarized in Table 7. By using a five-day moving average, it can be seen
that the short-term assessment is that productivity shows early signs of
becoming worse. While the upward trend in the last six days is small, it
deserves careful monitoring. This trend is not necessarily evident from
studying the daily productivity data alone.
Moving-average calculations are a compromise daily and perir
calculations. A time frame, n, is selected, and xluctivity over that .
is calculated using Equation 4. As the data for day are collected,
they are added to the existing data, and the data :,om the oldest or least
current day are deleted. Thus, the calculation al'"ays includes the data from
the previous n days. The advantage over the simple period approach is that,
because a new value is calculated each day, short-term trends can be
identified. The value of n is often selected to cover a work ....eel< (n = 5t' --,
that productivity from each day of the wec-k is always included.
(
The limitations of peeiod summaries are two-fold. First, if the dur[_J
of an activity is short, then period productivity calculations do not provide
adequate time for problem evaluation and corrective action. Also, there are
too fEW data points to provide confidence in reaching conclusions. Period
summaries are more appropriate for longer duration activities. Second, perio
calculations tend to hide the effects of various factors on productiVity. Fo
instance, the erratic character of the data in Figure 17 after day nine
probably would not appear in weekly summaries.
Period productivity
because of their summary
as a report card and can
a goal may be to impeove
with the peevious week.
calculating productivit! for a given period of time is similar t::>
calculating daily productivity, Typical reporting periods are
biweekly, and rronthly. COly the charged and the quantities
installed during the period are Period productivity is calc;ulate
as fall"",,:
.od od t 'Nark-hours Charged Dur ing the Per icx:l
Perl Pr uc lVlty =
QJanti ties Installed Dur ing the Per icx:l
data are useful for upper- and managers
nature. For lower-level managers, the data can
help in establishing -short-term targets; for example
peoductivity the next week by 10 percent cOfT1[Jared
'. .....
')
4

.......... 5-DAY MO\IINGAVERAGE

I
... __ DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
w
u
3 w
n
-
0-
"
I

, I
w
, I
,
0-
,,
,
U1
, I
,
I
..., (f)
2
\ A-Jr/\
"
,
0:: II'
=>
., I
0
I
::.::
0::
0

30
25 20
15
DAY
10
5
o-i Iii I I i I j. i I I I I i I I Iii I I I I I I Iii I I
o
Figure 19. Unit and M::lving Average Procluctivity for the First
12 Days of Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121)
;;
,'.'
,I:
<"



i,::



F

,x
(.:

r"
{'
{

t1





.


',','
?f,::
f::;

h

ri
',,'.
iii!:
::;:::



(
Table 7 Average Calculations for Structura 1
Steel Erection (Figure 19)
Work-hour Q-Jantity
Product
Unit Total Unit Total Unit
r
Day Work-hours (Last 5 days I Q-Jantities (Last 5 days) Productivity
Ave,
(1) ( 2) (3) (4 ) (5)
(I
1 38 38 L8.5 18.5 2.027 2, (
2 40 78 30.6
41. 9
1.307
1.1
3 56 134 39.1 88.2 1.432

4 20 154 6.0
94.2
1.333 ,1. (
5 56 210 53.3
147.5 1.051 1./
6 56 228 35.5
164.5 1.578
1.:
7 56 244 27.8
161. 7 2.014

8 40 228 28.5
151.1 1.404
( !
9 54 262 48.3 193.4 1.118 - ......
10 46 252 21.6 161. 7 2.130 1.'
11 41 237 47.1
173.3 0.870 1.:
12
53 234 19.6
165.1 2.704
1.,
(
(
58
Cumulative Procucti':lc'/
Cumulative productivity is a compilation of all of the work-hours charged
to an account divided by che total quantities installed to date. It (s
calculated using the fo11Q\o1ing equation:
Cumul t
. n od t' . t Total Work-hours Charged
a lve ~ r uc I'll y =
Total Quantities Charged
to an Account
to an Account
(5 )
The primary use of cumulative productiVity calculations is to assess how
the work is progressing on the whole and to predict the' final productivity
rate upon completion of the activity, Comparisons against the budgeted
work-hours can be made in order to evaluate potential profitability, figures
20 through 22 shQ\ol the cumulative productivity for the three exarrple
activities. The cumulative productivity curve for structural steel in figure
20 sl1ow5 that, after the initial startup phase, the CUlTlUlative productivity
hovered at; just under 1.5 work-hours per piece until the last eight days.
Thereafter, the cumulative productivity declined by approximately 20 percent.
Figures 21 and 22 clearly show steady losses in productivity for both cable
pulling and pipe erection.
As the work progresses, the number of work-hours and quantities will
become increasingly larger. Beyond, for- exarrple, ten r-eporting per-iods
(days), even large changes in daily product1vity will have a small effect.on
the cumulative productivity calculation. Therefore, cumulative product1
v
1ty
calculations are of limited use in detecting daily variations or short-term
trends.
The advantages of reporting productivity data in either graphical or
tabular form are described below.
Gr-aphical Format
Graphical representations of productivity data are highly desirable
because large amounts of data can be quickly absorbed and understood..Graphs
are especially desirable for foremen and superintendents because the v ~ s u
image allows them to evaluate trends and make predictions without the need to
manipulate data. Graphs also create an element of confidence. Because they
can be easily and quickly comprehended, graphs support the criteria of
silrplicity, accuracy, and timeliness as outlined in Chapter 3.
Graphical formats are especially suited for situations .mere updates to
the data are done on a daily basis. These include daily and cumulative
productivity and m:Jving average calculations. A number of exarrples were .
presented earlier in this chapter. Graphs are also well suited for ccmpanng
or reconciling two parameters, for exarrple productivity versus schedule
considerations (see Chapter 8).
59
Figure 21. Curru1ative Productivity for Cable Pulling
(!'cCount 1830)
61
(
(
(
(
20
DAY
62
cumulative Productivity for Larqe-Bore
Pi,:e Erection (Account 1732)
Fisure 22.
0.8-t-
1
--+---''--'1
o 4 8 12 16
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
. I. I
5
e
0::
c:x:
W
z
::J
0::
W
c..
en
0::
::J
o
J:
::.:::
0::
o

One limitation of :s :r.at, if scales are improperly selected, ::

is more difficult to put into proper Graphs are not well
suited to the presentation of summary data.
Tabular Format
Tables of data are 'Jseful Eor summary statistics because there is little
interpretation required reiative the order of magnitude. Summary data on a
weo-kly basis for a crew small-bore pipe' (account 1735) are given in
Table 8. Summary data in Eerm support the development of rules of thumb.
for exarrple, one can suppose that io: nas been determined that the crew should
be able to install 450 lir.ear Eeet of small-bore pipe per week. It can be
see-n that, after a slow scarc, the crew was able to maintain this pace through
week. 15. This is follcwed by six .weeks of below-par production. Weeks 15
through 17 are particular Iv revealing. The da.ta show reduced wOrk-hours and
output, but, at the same time; productivity decreased. This situation
suggests that the problem is related more to the nature of the work than to
the number of craftsmen assigned to the work. Over the last six weeks, the
work-hours increased significantly. The. weekly output increased,
but it did so at the of significant work-hour. increases.
ANALYSIS OF vrn!\-H'.X!R AND QJ!>NrITY RATES
So far, this chapter has concentrated on studying the different forms of
productivity calculations. It follows, however, that, as suggested in
Table 8; added insight can be gained by individually reviewing the work-hour
and quantity trends and relating them to trends.
Figures 23 and 24 show cumulative and daily and quantities,
respectively, for the small-bore pipe erection acti':i.ty described at the
beginning of the chapter (account 1735). In figure 22, the productivity
steadily worsened throughout the activity duration. In Figure 23, both the
cumulative and daily curves show that, through werkday 15, the number of
work-hours assigned to the werk was very consistent. Relative to the
quant,ities",. figure 24 sho.-ls a different picture. Four distinct phases are
seen; eaG:h 'with successively lower daily output. Only phase 4 can be
asSCiated'with the number of craftsmen assigned to the work.
The study of quantities helps to develop a sensitivity that can be
applied to many projects. For exarrple, figure 25 shows. the Cl.IDJlative
quantity curves for three similar steel erection projects. Project Ahas been
developed throughout this chapter. Project B proceeded satisfactorily until a
change in methods on day 13 forced the crew to integrate its werk with that of
another. On Project C, the fact that steel deliveries occurred very slowly
fran the beginning is clearly reflected.
Where the level of effort method of measurement is used, it is often
possible to review quantities installed for each subtask. figure 26
illustrates the usefulness of this type of analysis. The figure showsthe'
cumulative pieces of steel that have been erected, bolted, plUlT'bed, and
tightened. The completion rates should be reviewed concurrently with the unit
and cumulative productivity curves, shown in Figures 16 and 20, respectively.
In Figure 26, the relationship between plumbing and bolting is of particular
&3
(
Table 8.
Productivity Summary for
small-Bore PiPe (Account 1735)
Q..1antit'f
Work-hours Product i'l i ty
Weekly
Cumulative Weekly. Cum..Jlati/,
Week lin ft lin ft Weekly CumJlative work-hours!
Installed
Installed Work-hours Work-hours lin ft lin Et
(1) 12 )
(3)
(4) (5) (6 )
1 351 351 460 460 1.31 .1. 31
2 350 701 500 960 1.43 1. 37
3 232 933 440 1,400 1.90 1.50
4 587 1,520 500 1,900 0.85
1.f
5 438 1,958 450 2,350 1.03
1..
6 453 2,411 350 2,700 0.77 1.12
7 532 2,943 390 3,090 0.73 1.05
8 557 3,500 515 3,605 0.92 1.03
9 500 4,000 315 3,920
0,63 0,98
10 453 4,453 310 4,230 0.68
0,95
11 450 4,903 330 4,560 0.73 0.93
12 532 5,435 440 5,000 0.83 0,92
13 326 5,761 300 5,300 0.92 0,92
14 467 6,228 430 5,730 0.92 0.92
15 449 6,677 480 6,210 1.07 0,93
16 334 7,011 310 0.93
O. r
17 255 7,266 310 6,'';0 1.22 O.
18 418 7,684 470 7,2':0 1.12 0,95
19 377 8,061 570 7,8"70 1.51 0.98
20 243 8,304 600 8,470 2,47 1.02
21 262 8,566 610 9,080 2.33 1.06
22 513 9,079 725 9,805 1.41 1.08
23 521 9,600 645 10,450
1.

Gt ,=
.
..
UP)......

CoI'1
(
64
/ )
._.
20
16
12
8
4
..----'--
-=J ...-- . ...-- .........-------
o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iii
o
40
800
_ CUMULATIVE WORl<HOURS
2000-1 --- DAILY WORI<HOURS
240
(J)
n: 1500
:J
o
:r:
120
o

'" Ul
DAY
Vlgure 23. Pipe E:rection (ACcount J732)
1200
----
... ...." ,
....., ."..........,
--' ,----_.-... -.'" "-..--- ,
"'--
_ CUMULATIVE QUANTITY
--- UNIT QUANTITY
200
1000
800
(f)
w
-
I-
'"
-
600-=1
2
'"
l- I _ PHASE I
I PHASE 3
I _ PHASE 4
z
<l
:J
40
0
a
4
8
DAY
12
16
20
figure 24. Pipe Erection Quantities (Account 1732)

r\
:"
.. )
---- ---
'-: ..

8
(J)
w
CJ
W
Q.

A-
-
60
.--'
(J)
./'"

w
I PROJECT B
-
,J
-

z
40
,
<t
I'

c
I'
.. -PROJECT C
..'"
w
I
"
>
..
2
,

-'

I
"
I
"
..J
-"
,-
.......-

,-
-'
CJ
0
0 10 20 30
40
DAY
Figure 25. Cumulative Q.Jantity CUrves for Three Steel
ELection Projects (Account 05121)
67

$,:::;:

I

fji









!l!!;


r,l:""




f:'i:!
I
j'i:!':',



(
80
ERECT
(J)
------BOLT
LLJ
(
f-
_._- PLUMB
'.
-
60
--TIGHTEN
f-
Z
<l:

0
LLJ
400
>
-

-J

:E 200

0 (
0 5 10 15 20 25
DAY
Figure 26. CurnJlative Q..1antities for the Subtasks in
Structural Steel Erection (Account 05121)
(
66
" .I
interest. The Eour-day plumbing from day 15 through day 18
ultimately the Doltlng operatlon. The result oE thls breakdown In
coordination of the work is a loss oE productivity, as shown by both figures
16 and 20.
This chapter has demonstrated Eour important ,methods of calculating
productivity. These ca],c..Ilations can be done apart from any.knowledge of
budgeted IoQrk-hours, total quantities, or schedule considerations. Tabular
and'graphical formats were illustrated. The use 'of work-hour and quantity
rates in'conjunction with 'productivity curves to detect some of the of
productivity losses was demonstrated. ' Each graphical and tabular '
illustration showed how the information contained therein' could provide
insight to the manager relative to productivity. The errphasis throughout the
chapter has been on creating awareness and sensitivity.
69
<XMPARIsal OF PI.iIN'lED TO ACIUAL PRocu::rIVITY
I
w
!i;)'it

..





..::



I





;1,.,,:.:;:


(
CHAPTIR 6
Tho:; analysis of daily productivity variations and short-term trends is
very uSeful, but Lt represents only a part of the overall control process. To
strengthen percepttons about productivity problems and to provide insight into
potential profitability, it is necessary to compare current productivity with
the estimated or planned rates [91. The process of making comparisons between
actual and estimated productivity "is called performance evaluation [181. As
illustrated in Figure 7, the needed information fOr comparative purposes
includes the estimated work-hours, quantities, and productivity (unit rate)
frem the project estimate and the planned duration or required completion date
frcrn the project schedule. This chapter describes. several ways of cClTparing
work-hours, quantities, and productivity using performance factors. (.
Forecasting techniques are also discussed.
The' control budget is the baseline against which comparisons are made.
For productivity control, a control budget is established for each activity
which consists of the total estimated work-hours, total quantities to be
installed based on thequantity takeoff, and the estimated productivity upon
completion. If no estimate for the activity is available, then the project
manager can use realistic target values. Table 9 shows the control budget for
the pipe erection, structural steel, and cable ,ng activities presented ir' 1
Chapter 4. .
---
Performance Factors
The simplest form of performance evaluation is to cClTpare the actual and (
planned productivity values. This is done using a perforniance factor, .which
is a rreasure of construction efficiency. The performance factor (PFJ is
calculated as follows:
Performance Factor (PF) =Planned or Estimated Unit Rate (6)
Actual Unit Rate
A performance factor greater than unity indicates better-than-estimated
performance. Inprovenents in productivity are reflected by smaller
productivity values or reductions in the unit rate and larger or increasing PF
values.
Numerical Comparisons
Typical numerical comparisons are made on a period and cumulative basis.
Table 10 shows an example of a performance evaluation report in which actual
work-hours, quantities, and unit rates are compared to the control budget.
The period calculations are a summary of the previous five days.
70
(
; -
J ~ l ::x2!rDie of an Initial ("nero
Activity
C'escr iption Acccunt
EStf-lh'l ted
units Work-hours
W
QJantities
to be Installed
( 2J
PLanned
flni to Rate
(31
Aboveground Nonracked 1732
Piping, Spool. Erection,
2 V2 to 12 in.
Aboveground Nonracked ~ 7 3 5
piping, field Run, 2 in.
and Under
-
Structural Steel 05121
Erection, Multistory
Type
lin ft
lin ft
r
ieces
1,350
10,200
963
1,0
10,000
642
1.27
1.02
1.50
,
. ,
Wire and Cable Pulling
in Conduit and Tray
1830 lin ft
71
6,228
,
, ,
'nDle 10. E>mple Ferfumn:e B.a1u3tim R;p:rt
ferfa:mrre
A:m..nt !ctivity lhits cL Wxk-tnJrs Q.a1titifs
B.J::!J2ta:l
flctcc 'll:Xal
MB9.re Il.D3=t !ledal 'Ib !rl::e1t ~ !Erial 'Ib !rl::e1t lhit fete !erial 'Ib R:ra:B5tB:1
rate rate rate Wxk-lu.Jrs
(1) (2) (3) (4) :- . (5) (6) (7) (B) (9) (10) (ill (12)
1732 Pipirg Unft 1,E 65B @135. ([ai3) 197
B6
1.27 0.38 0.64
~
1735 Pipirg Un ft 1O,m 4:0 2,E 23 1O,lXXl 43B 1 ~ Xl 1.02 0.9':) 0.85 12,CXJ2
CEm St:ru=bJral pi.e:e 963 2Jl -;2 81 642 159 517 Bl 1.50 I. ()o1 0.99 971
StEel.
JB)) Gble Unft 6,2Jl
7))
1,aiD 17 69,Xl2 9,612 14,327 21 0.09 .1.19 [,22 5,04)
-J
N
Cblum (4) =Cblum (3) t Cblum (1) x 100
Cblum (B) =Cblum (7) t Cblum (5) x 100
Cblum (1D) =Cblum (9) t fCblum (2) t Cblum (6) I
Cblum (il) =Cblum (9) t (Cblum (3) t Cblum (7) )
Cblum (12) =Cblum (3) x Cblum (5) t Cblum (7)
.. -
I
:::D ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~
'-.
- ~
,
,-----
". .'"
c . ~ ._.-... ,.
also
The
rate,
;
'
. ,
,;; .
, .
In this example, iarge-bore piping work (account 1732) is proceeded
very ineffectively. Progress during the previous week especialiy poor.
Eighty-six percent of the quantities had been installed, but there a
significant overrun in work-hours. The small-bore piping (account.1735)
projected to overrun. Steel erection proceeded as had been planned.
cable pulling productivity about 20 percent better than the budgeted
but only 21 percent of cable had been pulled,
Column (8) of Table 10 shows the percentage of budgeted quanti ties tha t
were installed. This is true representation of the percent complete of an
activity. It has b'2<>...n cbser'led that some contractors use the percentage of
work-hours as a measure of percent complete. For this approach to be correct,
the budgeted unit rate and the quantity takeoff ITUst be accurate, and the
actual unit rate ITUst equal the budgeted unit rate. The large-bore piping
activity in Table 10 illustrates the danger in relying on the consumed
work-hours for this purpose.
'Graphical Analyses of the Pf
It is often helpful to review a graphical plot of the to-date'performance
factors. figure 27 a graphical plot of cumulative performance factors
is typical for many industrial construction activities. At the outset,
performance is usually worse than expected because the crews are not yet
familiar the work, because of overstaffing in anticipation of an
accelerated pace of work, or for other reasons. Before long, performance
improves and is actually better than planned, This may remain until
near end of the activity, congestion and difficulties the final
completion of systems cause productivity to decline. The shape of the curve
is important because it represents an expectation. The shape varies the
type of wor.'( and the level of detail used in track ,_,g the work,
Figure 28 the cumulative performance factors for the first 13 days
of the large-bore piping activity and can be ccnpared Figure 27.
Essentially, from the beginning, the work performed at below-par
performance, and the trend continued to In this instance, the unit
rate probably underestimated, since planned performance never achieved.
Because the PFs did not stabilize, below-par producti"ity may also be a
problem. -
r-igure 29, which gives the cumulative PF values for cable pulling,
instability that is the oppOsite of the piping activity, f-!o"oever, the PF
trended toward a PF of 1.0, so the activity may have proceeded as planned.
Although a degree of instability is expected at the outset, the PF values
should eventually stabilize. If not,. changes in methods or requirements,
increasingly difficult work, or increased congestion are among the possible
causes. Dramatic or sharp changes in PF values may result for a variety of
reasons, but these should be relatively easy to identify.
73
",
tJ.::-i
'.
,'.,.,
"
(
(
(
(
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT' COMPLETE
74
Figure 27. Plot of Typical CUmulative Performance Factors
for Many Industrial Construction Activities
10 ------------------- .
;,.> /
-'
I
/
NLOrer ical Approach
A second dimension of performance evaluation is forecasting the total
work-hours used in completing an activity. The ability to forecast is
valuable for projecting variances and assessing cost impacts. The
simplest method of forecasting is to divide the to-date work-hours by the
per-cent complete of the activity. The following can be used:
Work-hour- forecast at Total Estimated QJantites
= 'Mxk-hours to Date x - (71
Activity Completion QJantities to Date
Column 12 in Table 10 shows the work-hour-s forecasts using this equation.
Sometimes it is helpful to have additional information related to forecasts.
Table 11 shows a sample forecast report that provides relative and actual
variances.
Graphical Approach
The numerical approach to forecasting.using Equation 7 assumes that the
productivity will remain constant until the activity is completed. This
approach is subject to err-or if the cumulative productivity changes
appreciably. A simpler and often more accurate approach is to manually
for-ecast using graphs.
Graphical forecasts can combine to-date trends, knowledge of what lies
ahead, and intuition of a manager who has had similec experiences on other
projects. Also, the manager must under-stand what r.=5 occurred on the 'activity
until that point in time. To forecast using graphs, a learning curve plot is
needed. A. learning curve is simply the cUmulative x unit) productivity. on
they-axis plotted against the cumulative quantities on the x-axis. figures
30 through 32 illustrate productivity for-ecasts for large-bore pipe erection,
structural steel, and cable pulling, respectively. As can be seen, some
subjectivity is involved. These productivity forecasts can be compared with
those in Table 10 and with the actual productivity at completion as follows:
Calculated Graphical
forecast forecast
A.ctivity Unit (Table 10) (Figures 30-32) Actual
,-
large-bore pipe >.ork-hours! V19 2.25 2.23
erection lin ft
structural steel work-hours! 1.51 1.41 1.73
cable pulling
piece
work-hours! 0.074 0.088 0.103
lin ft
77
tool.e ..!...j,.. E.xarrp1e forecast Repxt
Work-hours
Percent
Account Activity Budgeted To Date forecast Overrun Variance
C'lmp1et
(ll ( 21
(3) (4) 15) (6)
1732 Piping 1,350 1,824 2,1l4 764 1.57
86
05121 Structural 963 782 971 8 1.01
81
Steel
1830 Cable 6,228 1,060 5,000 -1,208 0,81
21
Colurm (4)
=
Colurm (3) - Co1urm (1)
(
Colurm (5)
=
Column (3) Colurm (ll
78
@

m:i


...-
I
k:
1:::;:';

I
:
!ii"'"
.'..

f.'t




..;,
fJl

ti#i

ltf,i
f

I
(
(
(
3.00
>-
I-
FORECAST:
2.25 WH/LF
2.25
I-
",'"
U
::l
a
0
a:
0-
\.50
UJ
u.
:>
..J
-
8
."-'.
I-
<t
...J
::l
0.75

IJJ
::l

u
::!
t;
IJJ
0
0
300
600
900
\2.00
\500
CUMULATIVE
QUANTITIES
(Ll NEAR
FOOT)
Figure 30. productivity forecast for Pipe Erection
(Account 1732)
79
(
2.00
>-
\
(
>
i=
1.75
u
:::l
0
FORECAST: 1.41 WH/ PC
0
a:
0-
W
1.5
>
-
.... --.......
<t
..J
:::l
:!i
1.25
:::l
W<n
U
1-0
~ a
i=
(\J
(
<n
q- ,
lIJ
<D
1.00
0 2 400
600 800 1000
CUMULATIVE
QUANTITIES (PIECES)
Figure 31. Productivity Forecast for Structural Steel
(Account 05121)
80
_.,
"

,,' ..
.175
lL..
...J
C\l
>-

f- .15
>
ll:I
f-
w

.125

a::
CJ'l
0-
W
w
FORECAST:
0.088
>
.10
f-

...J .------
::J
--.... - .
-- ."".-
::J
.07
..,
u

14,000 28,000 42,000

CUMULATIVE QUANTITI ES
56,000 70,000 84,000
(LINEAR FOOT)
c
,.;-;-
.\.
Figure 32.
Productivity Forecast for Cable Pulling
(Account 1830)
81

RELIABILITY OF ESTIMATES
82
, .
. ,
is assumed that the work-hours for .a given activity are
Some of the possible explanations for the overrun are
To illustrate, it
projected to overrun.
listed below.
This chapter has illustrated simple analytical and graphical techniques
for cO!Tt'arlng actual performance to the control budget and for making .
work-:-hour forecasts. Minimal information is required, and the output is in a
conclse and easy-to-understand form.
(
, .
- A. low quantity estimate may be offset by better-than-budgeted
productivity. (
-' Worse-than-budgeted productivity may be compensated for by fewer .
quantities than budgeted.
- The total quantity of work may have been underestimated, requiring rrore
labor and material than budgeted.
- 'The estimated work-hours per unit of work may have been unrealistically
low.
~ r e w productivity may have been lower than what should reasonably be
expected for a var iety of reasons.
Next, it .is assumed that the projected work-hours ocr another activity are
expected to be right on target. This dces not necessarily mean that
everything was correct. In fact, either of the following could be the
situation:
(
Thus, productivity control is much rrore than simp11 watching for negative
total variances withm and arrong activities or a=ounts. The status of an
account is the compcsite status of a number of parts, and each of those parts
should be watched, even if productivity appears favorable.
In preparing the project estimate, managers and estimators make the best
use of available data. Unfortunately, the time available for preparing the
estimate is usually limited, and the inforrnationmay be incolTt'lete. As a
result, quantity takecffs may be in error, or, in some cases, a work task may
be completely overlooked. Productivity data is subject to wide variation, so
the assumptions made in the estimating phase will seldom exactly coincide with
reality. Accordingly, the estimate should not be considered a d=ument
without fault, and, when variances develop during the control phase of a
project, analysis of results should always consider estimating errors as a
possible reason. (
This comparison shows ~ a t che graphical forecast can be more accurate than
the analytical ones. The projected work-hours to caTl'lete can be readi ly
calculated frem the productivity forecast.
f::
......
c.
. <.:
e.<\RI II: - ADVN:c:J) c:::N::EPl'S OF ?ROcu:::r:V:rt HEASUREME:-fi:
,<\NO eEF.FORl'lAN::E EVALUATIa<
(
.,'
:'
, ',!
"
. "'"
"
,',
....
Chapters 4 through 6 covered the basic concepts that must be mast:ered en
order to effectively measure productivity. Persons who have previous
experience with cost-control syst:erns will be familiar with most of these,
However, there is much more to be gained from productivity measurement and
performance evaluation than can be provided by the basic concepts. Therefore,
Part III presents advanced concepts that can be applied by the more
experienced user,
Cumulative productivity changes as activities progress. Chapter 7 begins
with a presentation of standard productivity performance curves and shows how
they can be used to ilTl'rove the accuracy of work-hour forecasts. Comparison
of the shape of an actual cumulative pecformance curve to the shape of the
standard curve is also useful. The earned value concept, a method for
calculating the percent cO!Tl'lete of a control account, is described. The
chapter concludes by describing five indices that may suggest the cause of (
productivity problems.
Chapter 8 shows how productivity'data and schedule information can be
integrated, The emphasis is on graphical presentations and indices that
permit a very quick assessment of overall performance.
(
83
",:
r:
"
L.
; '.
}
f ,

l
I
CHAPTER 7
Chapters 4 through 6 presented the basic concepts of productivity
measurement, analysis, and forecasting which can be effectively applied to
many construction activities. situations occasionally arise where
the effectiveness of the basic techniques can be improved. This chapter
details several modifications and extensions that will allow one to measure
ccmplex construction activities and to more accurately forecast the'total
work-hours using standard productivity curves. The earned' value technique for
rrcnitoring control accounts is also described.
Chapter 4 described how the level of effort method could be used to
measure the quantities (progress) for activities involving subtasks. The
method is particularly well suited to measuring bulk conm:>dity items.
HQ'"IEver, the level of effort rrethod can also be used to monitor
one-of,..a-kind items, as is illustrated by the exanple for the erection of an
absorber tower on a process plant.
For this work, it is estimated that 520 tons of structural steel are
involved. Table 12 shows the status of the work at an early stage of
completion. Different units of measure are used the various subtasks.
Several items, such as shakeout, plumb, and'punchl:3t, are associated with the
entire absorber tower and cannot be conveniently r,=cated to a particular tier
or bay. These subtasks are measured on the basis c,: percent ccxt;>lete. Girts
and sag rods are measured according to the number of bays finished. The
columns, beams, braces, and connections are rreasured by the piece. The
overall progress of the erection operation is determined by multiplying the
percent ccxt;>lete of each subtask by the respective rule of credit. The table
shows that the work is 15.6 percent ccmplete. The equivalent tonnage erected
is 15.6 percent of the 520 tons, or 80.5 tons.
A characteristic problem with construction productivity is that it is
continually changing. This variability can result in significant analysis and
forecasting inaCcuracies when using the linear approach defined by Equation 7
in Chapter 6. The need to develop accurate forecasts is particularly acute
during the early stages of an activity.
To overcome the problem of variations in cumulative unit rates, some
contractors have developed standard productivity performance curves for key
comrodity items. The curves reflect the contractor's expectations, on the
basis of his experience, of how productivity performance should change during
the.installation process. An example of a standard productivity performance
curve for small-bore pipe installation (account 1735) is shown in Figure 33.
84

" .... .:.;.> '.-. -,0>:. \.0>. ,.1
-,., , <)
..
-.,
Table 12. QJantities for the Erection of a 520-Ton Absorber Tower
Relative Total Equivalent
lhits of Rules of Total QJantity Percent Percei1t Equivalent Tons
Subtask r-easure Credit QJantity to Date CoTplete CoTplete Tons to Date
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Run foundation bolts FA 0.02 200 200 100.0 2.0 10.4 LO.4
Shim % 0.02 100 100 100.0 2.0 10.4 LO.4
Shakeout % 0.05 100 100 100.0 5.0 26.0 26.0
ColUlll1S FA 0.06 84 74 88.1 5.] ]1. 2 27.5
Beans FA 0.10 859 52.0
Cross braces FA O.ll 837 57.2
Girts & sag rods BAY 0.20 ]8 104.1
Plurrb & align % 0.09 100 5 5.0 0.5 46.8 2.3
Connections FA 0.30 2977 74 2.5 ,0.8 156.0 3.9
<Xl
Punchlist % 0.05 100 26.0
U1
'IDI'AL CLNlROL TCN 1.00 520 15.6 520.0 80.5
CoIlJlTl1 (4) =Colurm (3) .,. Colurm (2) x 100
CoILlllJ1 (5) =Colurm (4) x Colurm (1)
CoILlllJ1 (6) =Colunn (1) x total estimated qUdllLJly, Le., in this case, 520 tons
Column (7) =CoIUllll (4) x Colurm (6) .,. 100

"..-.. r-...
----
"= ,._ .. ..k k
Figure 33: Standard Productivity Perforrrance CUrve
far Pipe Erection (Aca:lUnt 1735)
86
1.3
-.
,
-'--
. <
...'
a::
0
I-
1.2
u
it
, .
UJ
1.1
I :
U
,.
Z
<l:
I ' :E
:,""
a::
I

1.0
a::
I
UJ
r
a.
1:,'
..
0.9
IJJ
>
t:(
oJ
0.8
:::>
:E
:::>
u
0.7
;
a 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT COMPLETE
....;
Sometimes it is useful to compare actual performance to the standard
productivity perfonnance curve. A comparison of the actual performance factor
(PF) values in Table 13, column 10 with values in Figure 33 is shown in Figure
34. In this comparison, the crew never performed as well as expected for
extended periods of time, even though the performance factor was greater than (.
1.0 for half of the time. Thus, where unit rates are known to vary
appreciably, the perfonnance factor should always be conpared with the
standard prOductivity performance curve. .
(
(9) ( rForecast J= x x r
LWork-hours RateJ [' Factor::J L
=1.20 (0.93) (10,000) =11,160 work-hours
Many times it is advantageous to rronitor construction progress by
grouping similar activities into a single larger category called a control
account .. For exanple, small-bore (account 1735) and large-bore (account 1732)
piping can be combined into an aboveground nonracked piping control account
(account 1730). Similarly, wall forms (account 03118), column forms (account
03113), beam forms (account 03117), and elevated slab forms (account 03112)
can be ccmbined into one category, the structural formwork control account
(account 03110).
87
(
The use of the standard productivity performance curve is illustrated by
the small-bore piping (account 1735) exarrple shown in Table 10. The
installation is 20 percent cOllplete. Frcm the performance evaluation report
(Table 10), the to-date productivity is calculated as:
This forecast is 842 work-hours less than the 12,002 work-hours calculated in
Table 10. The resUlting forecast unit rate at cOllpletion is 1.12
work-hours/lin ft.
The standard productivity performance curve can be applied also when
quantity estimates are revised. This situation is cemonstrated in Table 13,
which is a typical productivity report for a pipe-fitter crew installing
small-bore pipe. The work-hour forecast in columr. 5 is calculated using
Equation 9.
To-date productivity - 2,350 (81
(account 1735) - 1,958
=1.20 work-hours/lin ft
This compares to the budgeted unit rate at completion of 1.02 work-hours/lin
ft, which would. indicate an 18 percent overrun. However, from. the standard
productivity perfonnance curve (Figure 33), it is expected that the unit rate
should be higher at 20 percent cOllplete than it will be at completion. To
calculate the forecasted work-hours using the standard curve, the data from
Table 10 are substituted into the following equation to yield forecast
work-hours.
..',
1
r" -

;.: of
Table 13. Praktivity foe sm11-tbre Pi{:e (I'aD.!1t 1735) Ivised Q.mtity EStinates
.,..
Q-altity W:>rl<...h:urs Prc:dJ::tivi ty
Ini tial B.J:Ig;!t: 10,000 lireac Initial a.xg,t: lD, 200
feet (ll) ..,rl<-trurs
Initial a..d;}et: L02 \ooOrl<-trurs/lireac feet
(>.tv'lfl
\<e2k
Takeoff
II
(1)
Installed
Unulative
II
(2)
%
CbTp1.
(J)
w:>rl<-toJrs WXk-1=c %
D<perJ:B:I Fbce:::ast CbTp1.
(4) (5) (6)
kb.Jal
Wll
(7)
f)q::e::ta:I
fEcformn:e
Fa::tor
(8)
h:b.Ja1
Fbre::ast ferfoOT'l'n:E
WI fllctDc
19) (10)
'"
'"
1
2
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

21
22
23
10,000
9,800
9,600
9,600
]51
"XlI
933

1,958
2,411
2,943
],500
4,000
4,453
4,903
5,435
5,761
6,2213
6,677
7,01l
7,266
7,684
8,061
8,304
8,566
9,079
9,600
3.5
7.0
9.5
15.5

24.6
](J.O
35.7
40.8
45.4
51.1
56.6
60.0
64.9
69.6
73.0
75.7
80.0
84.0
86.5
89.2
94.6
100.0
460
960
1,400
1,900
2,]50
2,"XlO
3,090
],605

4,230
4,560
5,000
5,300
5,730
6,210

6,830
7,300
7,8"Xl
8,4"Xl
9,080
9,805
10,450
10,500
1l,5OO
12,642
1l,740
10,976
10,682
10,290
10,388
10,290
10,094
9,888
9,984
9,984
lO,176
IU/ L72
10,272
lD,368
lD,464
10,560
lD,848
1l,136
1l,040
10,450
4.4
8.3
1l.1
17.2
21.4
25.3
30.0
34.7
38.1
41.9
46.1
50.1
53.1
56.3
60.5
63.5
65.9
69.8
74.5
78.1
81.5
88.8
100.0
1.31
1.37
1.50
1.25

1.12
1.05
1.03
0.98
0.95
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.98
1.02
1.06
1.08
1.09
0.80
0.81
0.86
0.90
0.93
0.97
1.00
1.03
1.07
1.08
1.11
1.13
1.13
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.12
1.11
1.09
1.06
1.00
1.05
1.15
1.29
1.13
\.12
1.09
1.05
1.06
1.05
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.04
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.13
1.16
1.15
1.09
0.78
0.74
0.68
0.82
0.85
0.9J
0.97
0.99
1.04
1.07
1.10
1.11
1.11
l.ll
1.JO
1.10
1.09
1.07
1.04
1.00
0.%
0.94
0.91
ClJJum (J)
ClJlum (5)
ClJlum (6)
ClJlum (8)
ClJlum 19)
= ClJlum (2) f ClJlum (1) K 100
= ClJlum (1) K ClJlum (9)
= ClJlum (4) f ClJlum (5)
cetermined fran st<rdard praktivity perfornen:e 0JIVe
= ClJJum (7) K ClJlum (8)
(10)' 1.'2 ('1)
l'l)' (4-); p.)

,
:'.'
(
;,A
;:11
":":





,.'<j'"




,':1




(
(
100
80
60
COMPLETE
......-"",--"",--
-
,
\
\
PERFORMANCE
---ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
40
PERCENT
20
"...
/
I
I
I
//
I
1
\ I
\1
'I
o
Figure 34. Cat1pll"ison of Actual and Expecte:l perfonnance Factors
for Pipe Erection (Account 1735)
0.7
-.3,,_-3>
1.1
1.2
IJJ
>
I-
<t
...J
::>
:E
::>
u
0::
a
I-
u

IJJ
U
Z
<t
:E
0::
a
ll..
0::
IJJ
a..
r '
i ,
(
-- -- ----
90
floor Area (Control Account)
( 10) x Current cpantity
Estimate
Initial Estimated
unit Rate
=
Total Earnable
Work-hours
(each !'a:ount)
Figure 35 illustrates the concept using the data from Table 9 for small-
and large-bore pipe. Using the initial estimate, the maxi.m.mt work-hours that
can" be earned in catpleting the "piping control account is 11,550."
The use of =ntrol ac=unts often makes it easier to" evaluate progress
because a single broad-scope account is studied rather than a collection of
several a=unts. However, the difficulty in using this approach
arises because the effort required for each of the various narrow-seope
accounts is not the same. For instance, in Table 9, the budgeted quantities,
work-hours, and unit rates for small- and large-bore pipe differ greatly.
For tl}is reason, the narrow-scope accounts cannot be combined without
appropriate adjustments. Fortunately, the earned ':alue concept can be used to
eliminate this problem in order to facilitate the ::mbination of narrow-scope
a=unts to form a single control account.
TIE _C f[{ ,t;)
COI1Flete of a control a=unt. It is a weighted-average technique in which
each account is assigned a weight that accounts for the degree of difficulty
of that part of the work and the estimated quantities to be installed. With
the earned value concept, each a=ount is assigned a fixed amount of resources
that can be earnect. The resources earned can be either work-hours or dollars,
since these are the only two types of resources to which the many units of
measure in a project (cubic yards, linear feet, each, etc.) can be converted.
If the resources are work-hours, then the total work-hours that can be earned
are calculated" as follows: "
As can be seen, a contractor can readily adapt the productiVity
measurement to fit his CfWrl special needs.
05121 Structural steel erection
05210 Web joist
05300 decking
03312 Concrete elevated slabs
In the above exanple, the relationship between the control account and
the individual activities is defined by the framework of the productivity
cocle!l or the code of accounts. fortunately, the measurement concepts
developed here do not require such a Cl"JOrOUS formulation. In fact, the
control ao:ount need not be a recognizable code selected from the code of
accounts. for instance, a ccmrercial contractor may be interested pr imar ily
in the timely construction of floor space so that other trades can begin
erecting partitions, fixtures, etc. The floor area control account may be
defined as follows:

i,',

",;
.. )
'
,1 "
f I (.5
'12
....
..
." "." .... .",-,".
'_ .".'-', -: ,-C',
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 35. Illustration of Earned Work-hours for
Piping Control Account
ACCOUNT / WORI<HOUR EQUIVALENTS
-
}-
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
SMALL-BORE WORKHOURS LARGE-BORE WORKHOURS PIPE WORKHOURS
,-
PIPE TO BE PIPE TO BE CONTROL TO BE
ACCOUNT EARNED ACCOUNT EARNED ACCOUNT EARNED,
I
(1735) 10,200 ( 1732) 1,350
(1730)
CONTROL
ACCOUNT
( ...,.)
8-) (11'1
-
11,550
f-
-
o
8
10
I-
z
w
6
u
a:::
Li.J
'"
a.. 4
I--
2
-',
'"
.'"
__'
,
;.'
As the work is accomplished, work-hours in each account are earned at
unit rate specified in this initial control estimate. The quantities
installed are CXlI1vertecl to earned IoOrk-hours by using Equation 11, and the
of the earned work-hours earned work-hours for the control
account. 'l1le following eguat10ns are used to determine these values:
the
sum
Earned Value /' .
(Work-hours) = L Initial Estimated
for the Uni t Rate
Control Account
x Quantities Installed\
to Date )
(11)
(12)
'.
Percent Cooplete
of the Control = Earned Work-hours to Date x 100
Account 7(rnitial Estimated CUrrent QJantity'1
Rate x Estimate ')
Prior to the start of an a=unt, nothing is earned; when it is complete, '100
F',,,":ent of the work-hours has been earned. No llPre than 100 percent can ever
be earned. The percentage of the work-hours earned also represents the
percent cooplete of the control account
.:
. '-;:..
.:::-'- .-:
.'- -:'
T:-;-:"
- -
-:}iZ:.'
.., .

<"""': ...
:;;;..;::.:.::::;
(:;lm
Table 14. Calculation of Percent CCtt{llete Using
It, . Earned WOrk-lxJurs, Exanple 1
I (SritA...Ut I.a-r. Ci> P",{
\'Y"""J,u- / Earned
Account Initial lhit OJrrent CUantity Total WOrk-lxJurs CUantities WOrk-lxJurs Percent
Rate Estimate Estimate to be Earned to Date to Date eatplete
(1) (2) 0) (4) (5) (6)
1732
1735
1.27
1.02
1,063
10,000
1,350
10,200
-' 197
701
250
715
18.5
7.0
'"
...
1730 11,550 I 956
(contraIl W
0
CollJIIll(3) = CoIUllll (1) x CoILllTl (2l7'-:it..,j) "._.m - --.-
CoIUllll (5l = CoILllTl (1) X CoILllTl (4)
CoIUlTll (6) = CoILllTl (5) + CoILllTl (3) x 100
8.4

,--....
.'--'" /'.
.. . . =."
> ...:....
:;.
..J', _:



em
Table 15. calculation of Percent Carplete Using
Earned Work-OOurs, EKanple 2
I';:count Initial U1it Cllrrent QJanti ty
Rate Estimate Est imate
(l) . (2)
'Ibtal WJrk-OOurs
to be Earned
(3 )
QJantities
to Date
(4)
Earned
Work-OOurs
to Date
(5)
Percent
Carplete
(6 )
1732
1735
1730
(control)
1.27
1.02
1,063 1,350 957
9,600 9,792 4,903
'-- 11 d...., <.J r>ry..,. "" /1J.t
r .-f<,.,.,...
1,215
5,001
6,216
90.0
51.1
55.8
IQ
...
Colunn (3) = Colum (II x Colum (2)
Colum (5) =Colum (l) x Colum (4)
Colunn (6) = Colum (5) t Co1um (3) x 100
....-<"''''''';=,==_"'''''"''.__'''''''''''=>
Total Crew Total Labor
v.eek Hours Worked Costs
I,
1 45 $ 6,603.08
,
i 42 6,018.80
3 38 6,152.58
Total 125 $18,774.46
(
Labor cost can be affected by the crew corrposition and size. The
corrposite wage index (CWIl relates the budgeted composite labor wage rates for
t.he crew to the actual wage rates. It is based on ~ total crew costs in the
following way:
(
(14)
95
=Earned Work-hours to Dat.e for the Control Account (13)
Actual Work-hours to Date for the Control Account
Corrposite Wage Index (CWIl = Budgeted Crew Ccs: Per Hour
Actual Crew Ccs':5 Per Hour
The index is affected by the crew size and conposition and by individual wage
rates. It is also affected by shift differential and overtime pay, but it is
not affected by the n<mt>er of hours worked per day or week. For exarrple, work
was planned using an eight-person crew, with an average wage rate per
craftsperson of $17.92 per hour, which equals a budgeted hourly crew cost per (
hour of $143.36. For this exarrple, the following cost and work-hour sUlllllary .
is determ.i.ned for the first three weeks of work:
Performance Factor
for a Control Account
The performance factor for the control a=unt is independent of the budgeted (
quantities or forecasted unit rates. It is dependent only upon what was .
installed, the work-hours charged t.o do the work, and the initial unit rate
t.hat was expected to have been achieved. When the PF is greater than l.O, .
more work-hours have been earned than have actually been charged. Table 16
presents a typical earned work-hour report.
Indices Related to Labor Product.ivit.y and Costs
Performance factors ror an activity or account were desCribed in
Chapter 6. This concept. can be extended to control accounts using the earned
value concept. It is def ined as follows:
USE OF INDICES AND PARAMEIERS
productivity and performance infonration can be sUJ?plerrerited with indices
and parameters that facilitate quick rev1ew of an act1v1ty, account, or
control a=t. Such indices relate the magnitude of a reported value. t.o an
established reference value of the same item. When they are used, a par
performance of 1.0 is recorrtrended, with an index greater than 1.0 meaning
better-than-par and an index lower than 1.0 meaning below-par performance.
: .. ',
;.
..
, .
:::':';'..
"-.
-.-".
. -.f;;.)._
'.:";; E-:
::]:.{:;:}: .:mJ
nhle 1. 'I)pk:al Earre:l WXk-InI Rrt
Io:o.J1t
Initial
U1i.t Rate
EStinBte
(])
'lbta1
Gcre1t w:rl<--1nr.3
Q.mtity. In l:.e
EStinBtE Earre:l
(2) (3)
Q.D1tities
In CatE
(4)
Jlctlal
w:rl<--tnR:s
In CatE
(5)
Earre:l
w:rl<--1nr.3
In CatE
(6)
femnt
O:nplete
(7)
R:!rfWiEi ce
lli:tcc
(8)
EStinBtirg QBtity
wia're lli:tcc
(9)
\D
'"
1732 1.27 1,0i3 1,B> <:157 1,'387 1,2l5 9J.0 O.lID
In; 1.02 9,flll 9,792 4,9J3 4,560 5, all 51.1 LID 0.042
'1.1 P:lu
17)) 1l,142 6,157 6,21 :6.8 1.0l 0.037
(m1lrol)
--_ .._-_.- ------
(blum (3) ; Cblum (1) x Cblum (2)
(blum (6) ; Cblum (1) x Cblum (4)
(blum (7) ; (blum (6) +Cblum (3) x 100
(blum (8) =Cblum (6) +Cblum (5)
__ __
et>viously. the accuracy of a quantity estimate can have considerable
influence on the IoQrk-hours required to complete the IoQrk. An inaccurate
estimate can actually hinder the analysis of other indices and parameters.
The estimating quantity variance factor (EJJJF) is intended to catalogue
variances between the actual and estimated quantity of work. It is calculated ('
as follcws:
97
The cOlTpOSite wage index l(.WI) can then be calculated by using Equation (14):
(
(
,
(15 )
518,774.46
125
= 5150.20
Actual Crew Cost Per Hour = Total Labor Costs
Total Crew Hours \o,brked
FJJJF = Initial Estimated Quantity - Revised Estimate Q.lantity (17)
Revised Q.lantity Estimate
A positive EJJJF indicates that fewer quantities will be installed than were
initially estimated. A negative EJJJF rreans that the initial quantity es\:imate
was law.
Labor Budget
Perfonnance Index = Performance Factor x Composite Wage Index (16)
(LBPIl
Indices Related to Estimating Accuracy
=0.95
(
(.WI) =143.36
150.20
This index gives a clearer picture of labor cost toonds.
"
An index of less than 1. 0 reflects the colT'bined influence of overtime pay,
crew size and carposition, individual wages,' and the average crew size. The
index is also affected by absenteeism.
A labor budget perfonnance index, which canbines the perfornance factor
and the COllpOsite wage index, is sometilres calculated:
The actual crew cost per hour can be calculated as follcws:
.,-,:
, .
C.'
l.:';
~
t ::
98
HB)
FJJJF for Control Account =
L (EQJF x Total Earned Work-hours)
SlM1ARY
Total Earned I'.brk-hours for Control Account
Typical estimating quantity variance factors are shown in Table 16.
A variance factor for a control account can be calculated also in the
following way:
r ..
t,..:
\...r
C'
''':;.
This chapter has descr ibed how advanced cOrlcepts can be used to i"t'rove
the accuracy of analysis and forecasting techniques. Con;:>lex construction
activities can be I1'Onitored using the level of effort rrethod. If different
units of measure are used for the various subtasks, then the estimated
quantities oust be used. Standard productivity curves allow one to rely on
prior kncrwledge of how productivity varies in order to inprove forecasts.
Performance factors can also be con;:>ared to standard curves. QJanti ty
estimates are needed in order to use standard prodlk.--tivity curves. The earned
value concept has been described as a technique for calculating the percent
~ complete of a control account. Several indices have been presented which can
'." ~ ~ help in isolating the cause of productivity problems.
satisfaetoIy productivity perfonnance am schedule perfcmnance cb riot
always 0::= Productivity can be good, rot the "",rk may be
behin:i scl-edule. Likewise, schedules are often rret at the expense of
significant productivity losses. Thus, to have a rore c:anplete picture of
project perfoDllaOCe, productivity and schedule perfOIIllilllCE' rrust be viewed
together. This chapter illustraces heM these =aspects can be integrated.
The type of sched,,1 ing sys= used is i=elevant. It can be in the fonn of a
bar chart, a CPM schedule, a required activity canpletion date, or siIrply an
allocation of. a certain number of "",rking days.
(
(
(
642 pieces
963
1.50 =rk-hcw:s/pie::e
estiJnated quantities
estiInated =rk-hcurs
estiJnated unit rate
99
To canplete the steel erection, the plan is to ::>u eight hours a day, five
days per "'Elek, using a max.imIJm crew size. of eight. Five will be
hired for thefiJ:st w=ek to perfonn shakeout and to erect the first and se:::ond
floor columns. Three nore crew nanbers will be hired beginning the second
"'Elek, bringing the crew to the required size. Wb2n the progress of the ::>rk
reaches 85 percent, which roughly coin::ides with the canpletion of the
erection subtask, the crew will be re:luced to four ironworkers and will remlln
at four until the "",rk is canpleted. The planned manning level is shown in
Figure 36, and Figure 37 shows the standaLd productivity perfcmnanc:e CULVe for
structural steel e..'"eCtion.
Planned progress curves can be drawn subjectiv"21y or they can be
developed fJ:an a standaLd productiVity perfo:onance ::.JIVe such as the one shown
in Figure 33. The following example illustrates h= they can be developed
using a standard productivity perforroance CULVe.
The ==1 OOdget data for structural steel erection can be detennined
f=m Table 9:
The progress of an activity is rreasured on the basis of the percentage of (
the total quantities that have been installed. To evaluate schedule
perfcmnanc:e, a plarmed pLOgLesS CULVe is needed which shoNs the schsdiiI.ed
cumulative percentage of the quantities installed veLSUS tirre. The sillplest
progress =vA assumes that the SallE number of quantities will be installed
each day or "'Elek. This assumption yields a straight line c:uzve fJ:an 0 to 100
percent, with the project finishing at the required tirre. Throughout this
manual, cumulative unit rate curves have been shown to be typically
nonlinear. Therefm:A, one WOUld expect the planned, progress CULVe also to be
nonlinear.

.:.:
.,
'."
....
....:
.,;.
:.':
;.
. :;
:;{
:. ::
100 90
80
30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT COMPLETE
Planned M:!Ming Level, structural Steel Erection
(/>CCOUrlt 05121)
20
10
Figure 36.
o
8-
7-
-
6-
..
...
4-
3-
2-
I-
I
T
T
I
I
-1
1 T
I
UJ
N
en
'-,-
"".'."
,- .;
: .'
100
standard Productivity Perfonnance Curve for
structural Steel Erection (Acrotmt 05121)
100 80 60
COMPLETE
101
40
PERCENT
20
Figure 37.
o
I . I
O.
0.8
1.2
lJ.J
>
I-

...J
::J

::J
t)
....

;: ....
:. "
:.:.:
:.'\
,- "
..
!.;...
.' ' ,,'
r.-
r::
t
',,
: .;
INDICES RE:Ll\!'ED 'IO 'l1IE SCIlEDULE
= 38.93 pieces
= 18.67 pieces
(19)
Actual Q.Jantities to Date '
102
, Schedule PerfOIJtal1Ce Index (SFI) =
Scheduled (;Ilantities to Date
Percent caq:>lete = x 100
= 2.9 percent
'lbe follCMing day, the expected perfo=ance factor is 0.73, which yields:
Cumulative Second Da D..1tput = 80 IQ.731
Y 1.50
One, of the simplest fonns of schedule evaluation is to canpare w.lat was
actually done with was planned. 'lhis evaluation can 00 represented by, a
schedule perfODtanCe index. The index is calculated as shown:
Percent eatplete = x 100
= 6.1 percent
for subsequent days is calculated by re;:eating the procedure until
all estiInated quantities are installed. Tabl,e 17 sunmarizes the calculations
for this example, and Figuxe 38 shows the planned pmgre5s curve as a
functian of ,the pen:entage of tine. The curve has ::he characteristic S-shape.
For instance, when 20 percent of the tine has elapsed, one Would expe::t that
14 percent of the work w:>uld 00 done. At the 80 percent milestone, abcut 90
percent of the =rk should 00 carpleted. As can 00 seen in Table 17, the
projecte:l duration is 19 >Orking days.
A secon:l exanple is for the srrall-bore piping (account 1735).
'lbe standaI:1i p:roductivity perfoIll>3l'lCe curve shown in Figure 33 is used. The
c:unulative percent canplete calculations are shown in Table 18 and Figure 39.
As in the Previous example, expe::ted flLcgcess is less at the beginning and end
of the activity. The slCMest flLcgcess shown in Figure 39 occurs during the
first 25 percent of tinE.
At the cutset, the factor is expecte:I to 00 considerably 0010.' (
par. FJ:an Figure 37, the PF value is 0.70. 'Ire output and pen:ent
e:atplete for the fi.J:st day can 00 calculated:
40 10.70)
Cullulative Fi.J:st Day CUtpUt = 1. 50
,.
t'
, '
{ .
i:

r
.:
".',

--- -- ----
Table 17. planned Progress Calculations for Structural
Steel Erection (Account 05121)
;;
;-.
(:i
,.
1':
I.
,
;.'.'

;.'
(
Estimate: 642 pieces
963 work-OOUJ:s
1.50 'NOrk-OOUJ:s/piece
103
AsSlJllll1:ions : B Cr&.l rranbers
B-hour 'NOrkday
5 days per week
(
100 80 40 60
PERCENT TIME
20
Planned Progress CUrve for Structural Steel
Erection (I'ccount 05121)
o
Figure 38.
10
8
llJ

llJ
(
it

(,)

Z
llJ
(,)
It:
llJ
0-
2
I.
c
104
(
1 200 200 0.70 1.46 137.25 1.4
2 400 600 0.73 1.40 429.41 4.3
3 400 1,000 0.77 1.32 754.90 7.5
4 400 1,400 0.82 1.24 1,125.49' 11.3
5 480 1,880 0.86 1.19 1,585.10 15.9
6 480 2,360 0.90 1.13 2,082.35 20.8
7 480 2,840 0.94 1.09 2,617.25 26.2
8 480 3,320 0.97 1.05 3,157.25 31.6
9 480 3,800 1.00 1.02 3,725.49 37.3
10 480 4,280 1.04 0.98 4,363.92 43.6
11 480 4,760 1.07 0.95 4,993.33 49.9
12 480 5,240 1.10 0.9:; 0,650.98 56.5
13 480 5,720 1.12 0.91 5,280.78 62.8
14 480 6,200 1.14 0.89 5,929.41 69.3
15 480 6,680 1.15 0.89 7,531.37 75.3
16 480 7,160 1.14 0.89 8,162.40 81.6
17 480 7,640 1.13 0.90 8,463.92 84.6
18 480 8,120 1.11 0.92 8,836.47 88.4
19 480 8,600 1.09 0.94 9,190.20 91.9
20 480 9,080 1.07 0.95 9,525:10 95.3
21 480 9,560 1.04 0.98 9,747.45 97.5
22 320 9,880 1.02 1.00 9,880.00 98.8
23 320 10,200 1.01 1.01 10,100.00 100.0
(
Column (5) = Estimated Unit Rate + Column (4)
Column (6) = Column (3) x Column (4) + Estimated Unit Rate
Column (7) = [Column (6) + Estimated Quantity] x 100
Cunu1.ative
Percent
Carplete
(7)
Cumulative
Daily Outp..tt
(6)
AsSUlIptions: 12 crew nanbers
8-h:Jur workday
5 days per week
Expected
Cumulative
Unit Rate
(5)
Expected
Cunu1.ative
Perfonnance
Factor
(Figure 33)
(4 )
105
Table 18. Planned ProgreSs Calculations for
Small-Bore Pipe (1\ccount 1735)
Cunu1.ative

( 3)
weekly

(2)
Estimate: 10,000 lin ft
10,200 work-hours
1.02 work-hours/lin ft
DaY
( 1)
-
C
'I,>,

P'



P::
i:'
U



.', ";,
i:,{l
L:;:

....
'.',"
i:':.
i

,:;:."
,.:-:
,
,::::
"..'
'..
Figure 39. Planned Progress for Small-Bore Piping
(Account 1735)
1
~
d
,
1
,
,
m
I
,,'
I . : : ~
,
W
[,
. ~
IT:
~ > : :
I::, ~
tt
8
L1J
I-
f..::
L1J
;.: ..
"
-oJ
l ~
Q.
:E
6
0
C
u
," . ~
....'
I-
Z
L1J
U
et:
L1J
Q.
c
:'
.,
:.::-
20
,
L
o 20
40 60
PERCENT TI ME
106
60 100
(20)
Earned WOrk-hours to Date
SCheduled WOrk-hours to Date
greater than 1.0 indicates that the work is ahead of schedule.
behind schedule if the index is less than 1.0.
SChedule Perfornance Index (SPI) =
for a Control Account
Thus far, the concepts described have been applied to the evaluation of
activities or control accounts. Yet, these concepts can be extended for .the
monitoring of the performance of the overall project or a portion thereof. In
doing so, it is unnecessary to monitor all project activities.
Figure 42 shows a similar curve for the small-bore p ~ p ~ n g operation.
While the prcgress was ahead of schedule for the first three weeks,
productivity was considerably worse than planned by the end of the period.
This was followed by a seven-week period in which the work remained ahead of
schedule and productivity performance steadily iJrproved. After week 10, both (
schedule and productivity levels deteriorated.
~ h e following exarrple illustrates the perfonmance monitoring of a total
project. While the work may involve thousands of activities, only a few
accounts have been isolated as being the controlling or significant itEll5 of
work. These items can be carbined into a relatively small number of control
accounts, shown by Figure 43 in bar chart format. The colLllTC1S in .. 3Ure 43
are explained by Table 19. Control of these nine control accounts should
result in the control of the overall project.
Figure 41 shows the schedule and productivity performance history for the
structural steel operation. For this exarrple, the work began ahead of
schedule, and productivity was better than plaJ"J1ed. However, beginning with
day 7, there was a steady and pronounced deterioration in the schedule.
productivity remained at the planned level through dc': 17. Thereafter,a
continued loss in productivity occurred.
(
(
,
Productivity and schedule performance are closely related, and it is
advantageOus to study the two simultaneously. For an activity, this can be
easily done graphically by plotting the performance factor (Equation 6)
against the schedule performance index (Equation 19). For a control account,
Equations 13 and 20 are used. C
Figure 40 shows how to interpret the results. Data points in the first
quadrant indicate that both productivity and schedule performance are better
than planned. If both are worse than planned, then the data point will be in
the third quadrant. Figure 40 includes possible reasons why a data point will
fall in a particular quadrant.
An SPI
The work is
Similarly, the schedule performance index for a control account can be
expressed as
r.).
i',:
i
;.
i
:
."
....'
'" ~
~
c ,"
i
'---
---- -----
Figure 40. SChedule Performance Index Versus Performance Fi>Ctor
5.0 4.0
-3D
Savings in workhouvs
Overly optimistic schedule
Fewer quantities thon estimated
Very favorable working conditions
BEHIND SCHEDULE, BETrt:.R
THAN PLANNED PRODUCTIVITY
Possible wootMer delays
Undermonning of the work
Later than planned start
Overly optimistic schedulo
AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, BETTER
THAN ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY
2.0
.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.5 0.0
SCHEDULE
PERFORMANCE INDEX
(SPI)
.0
BEHIND SCHEDULE.
LOWER THAN PLANNED
PRODUCTIVITY
AHEAD OF SCHEDULE,
WORSE THAN PLANNED
PRODUCTIVITY
Many possible cou;es
Including
- Inaccurate estimates
Later than planned. start
Difficult and disorganized
work, etc.
Earlier than planned start
Poor productivity offset
by fewer than planned
quantities
'Ovwmanning
Low productivity estimates
L:
,-",
;-
.....
, -
::-.;;;
::
,,;.
: ',"
. .;
108
, c. ". ,',

k::,:)d:J

1.4
x
1.30 w
0
z
-
j
W
DAY 7
0
1.20
z
<l
:E
J
START Of
0':
ACTIVITY
0
11- 1./0
0':
I-'
w

0
Q.
COMPLETION
'"
0
1.00
w
.J

0
1
'--
17 w
:I:
0.9 0
(J)
1.20
1./0
FACTOR
0.90 1.00
PERFORMANCE
0.80-1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.80

Figure 41. Project Performance for Structural Steel Erection
,.---.., (1\CCOUl1 t 05121) ,.---..,
r--.
..... ..... .. . __ _
.;. ....,
,:


1.5
x
w
1.4 0
z
-
w
u
1.3 z
oCt
::E
a::
0
IL..
1.2--rWEEK 3
a::
w
0-
0
to"'
1.1 J
/ r
START Of
to"'
c
/ ACTIVITY
0
W
:x:
I..... I
u

"ACTIVITY COMPLETION
(J)
0.9-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
PERFORMANCE FACTOR
Figure 42. Project Performance for Small-Bore Pipe Erection
(Account 1735)
.__
:..:
'.:
U1
(
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, .
Table 19. Definition of Terms in Figures 43 and 44
Earned Value Work-hours - Indicates the estimated work-hours required to
carplete this control account. This number remains unchanged unless the
quantities are revised.
Relative Weight. - Defines the relative value of this control account
carpared to the total construction effort for this project. It is
determined on the basis of the distribution of earned work-hours.
Percent Complete - Indicates the physical measurement of work completed in
the specific control account.
Earned Work-hours to Date - Defines the work-hour that should have been
spent for the equivalent work progress. It is determined by nultiplying
the quantities installed times the budgeted unit rate.
Actual Work-hours Expended - Indicates the actual work-hours expended to
date. It is usually obtained fran the time sheet.
Performance Factor - Indicates the relative productivity as compared to
the preestablished budget (1.0 being the budgeted productivity). Anything
less than 1.0 indicates the expenditure of more work-hours to accomplish
equivalent units of work than originally budgeted.
SChedule Performance Index - A CQ<parison of actual earned work-hours to
the planned earned work-hours. An index greater than 1. 0 indicates that
the work is aho...ad of schedule.
112
(
(
(
(
t .'
Figure 43 shows the planned m:mthly progress for each o n t ~ o account.
Column 1 contains the maximum earned wOrk-hours: ThIS column WIll change only'
if the quantities are revised. The relative weIght ill column 2 indicates the
degree of difficulty of each control account relatIve to the total. Because
these weights are determined by the earned work-hours and the percent cOOl'lete
calculations are determined by rules of credit and earned work-hours in"
individual accounts, an accurate assessment of percent cOOl'lete should be
p:lSsible.
Figure 44 provides aprogress schedule prepared at the end of the eighth
month. It shows late comoletion of the earthwurk, foundatIon, structural
steel .. and equipment setting subtasks. The piping ,and electrical work are
sha./n to be, ahead of schedule. This progress is reflected by' the schedule
performance index (SPII, which, when an activity is completed, becomes 1.0.
The SPI cannot be calculated for an activity that begins early, as is the case
for the electrical work. Overall, the work in this exanple is ahead of
schedule (SPI =1.05) because of the influence .:Jf the piping and electrical
work, which have the largest relative weights'. Using the earned work-hours,
the percent complete can be calculated as 30.3 percent. If the actual
work-hours were used, the percent cOlTplete would be 32 percent, or about 6
percent higher than the actual amount. productivity is better than planned on
the earthwork, structural steel, and piping. However, overall productivity is
lower than planned, since the actual work-hours are more than the earned
work-hours.
USE OF EARLY lIND lATE STARr DATES
If the scheduling system used provides early 3nd late start times, these
times can be combined graphically with quantity and progress information to
produce =,"OOity curves. An exanple is sha.-m in =- igure 45 for SIlI!lll-bore
pipe on a power plant project. The planned progress based on early and late
start dates yieldS an envelope in which actual progress 'must fall if the
project schedule is to be maintained. As can be seen in Figure 45, schedule
slippage occurred, and a recovery plan was successfully initiated. The
SIlI!lll-bore pipe is currently progressing according to the late-start schedule.
This chapter has described how schedule and productivity performance can
be viewed simJltaneously to better understand how the job is progressing. To
access actual progress, there mist be a plan. A planned progress curve was
developed using a standard productivity curve and a variable manning level.
This was also used to determine the activity duration. Overall monitoring of
an activity or control account was done graphically. The performance factor
was plotted against a schedule performance index. The concepts of earned
value were then used to show how the progress and productivity of a total
project effort can be monitored.
113
:'.:'
'.:"
,
,,.--
f:

h:;:':O
PlliUIS , "UHTIVlT,
I[PDI'III
::___ _ .. _ .... i.
:: "'lJEt: I ' II i CII E I Ul [ II Earned I: 1 D I" I E I DIll I II I: PF lunds Ii
Ii CUSI:JlO I:: ::--b1u.L-:: I: I:
I: :: I D 1 MS II II:.. nmcm I I ACIUI.I. lPerfor-: Seh. t: DIllS Ii
II Coarrol I: tlISi :: :: IttI5 :IIIAOlltWlU: hrDcd:.1IIIS :unehrf. I: I:
:1 .letouDt :: tlIi :: I 11 I 11 4 : 5 I , I 1 : I I , : 10: II: n: 13: HI 15: W 11: III: 11:: 1 I _ lUPlWiJ Ihttllr ,lDdu II 1 : , :, 112 n
:: . -:1- ....a ... ..-......,..._l' ...._ .... o:aa::__ I:
:: I II 11 " tl " ICO
1515::l5'D"n100
.. I'
M 15 " " IN "
I:
:1
"II
::
::
I:
II
I: "
..
"
::
"
1:
::
ILll:
11.17:
"
"
::
::
::
:i
::
"
::
:: I I
1.00 ::0.911 0.89:
:: I I
" 1
(1) II
" 0.98 :l1.1I11.l0:
I: : I
0.94 ;i
1.49 "
(6)
1.09
1. II
0.B3
I.
0.71 U.92 1I
0.75 2,000
II.IICO
1I
,
*
(4) I (5)
'I- I ',000
2S,'" I
I. D,Ooo
II:WO


"
"
"
II
II
II
"II lSI
II
:n II ,n
"
11 l: un
"
11 I:
"
11) 1 (2) " ()
1 II
:1 IO,DOG
II
II
"
II
II
::
I 17l II n
11
:!n ii
I:
II
II lS,IlM
II
I: I
II 10,000 I 101
n I
"
;; ",oto : UI :: 151
5 15 M n to t1
E

E I
III
Il
1 It 2t 1:1 51) iO '0 n 100
lJ It
"
.. tf n
,.
15 'S C 100
II If
1/ S l:1D
II I
IJ Ii ::
II II
II I I:
II II
II I II
II II
II I II
II II
I: II
II ::
II
t: "
II
:: I Jl
:: II
II
III
II
:1 s
:l a :
II :
11 S.:
II :
II " I
::
"
::
"
"
"
"
"
:r
1
1
,
"
::
II
"
"
"
II
"
n
::
II
"
"
"
"
"
II flllUlIlMS
"
"
"

:: EU:DIIll!I:
:: SJJL[T.a. mn
I: UllJPIDT srnIali
"
"
"
:1
"
I: lUtnJUl
::
::
II 'I'J.
"
....
....
...
IIISIUTHlII ::
II S I:
n "
40 75 100 IJ
U ii ::
" :::: .. II
:: It n:l
:: .. ... _""..__
n ::
" :r
-
--..
li
:1
::
"
II
u ..
__ ... "",_"" .....""' .... ,: =- =:;; -= ""'_"'Gc:o...
"
"
II
"
"
I:
::
to B 1;0
E I
! \I " '" 4-l 54 1i a. If1 n 100
:1
" II
II I ::
II " ::
:1 5 I: 1
1 ,"""",,,=====-===:=:1' I:
I:
,
It Ulllll!lli
:: IDlIL CWTI'JlD/II
II
::
Figure Report ShOwing Status as Eighth MJnth

,

.'
"
., ....
".-.:."
'.' .. ...: .......
. :;;:: -.x:;","

...
,
:..,"':
r"..-;-:-""""",
;':1 raJ,
100.0,
--- ",,-""
",,""
......
...-
90.4-1
/ ...... -
......

BO.8
.
,-
w
"f/
....
1L2

Q.
::liE
61.
",/
0
u
,"/
....
52.0
z
,.1-
SMALL-BORE PIPE
w
V
u
42.4
BASED ON EARLY START
I-'
0::
I
I-' W
=--";"--BASED ON LATE START IJ1 Q.
32.
/ ----BASED ON ACTUALS
/
23.2
13.6
4.0 , I f r I ... I A I I I I Ilo I I 1'\ I IU I n. I I I I u I A I u I I I I A I I n. I ... I (j
1983 1!HI4
JAN.. fEB. lIAR. APR. YAY JUN. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. fEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN.
ACT. MONn.
3L. 15s<l 1<,1 1111 'llR 5'n B''7
13=
111'
bot: 104- 14k'
'I.u. '\71
SCHEU. MONTH
4l?o
,"""'
'140
Igs.:;
SliD
1"0 I .., ""
1100
(,50
4.fD UJo 140
I, UJ flo IlA 100 100 :90
ACT. CUM.
'5f12.. 11141 I'hl. 1..1Zo 3Ql IUH. 5c63 S?J.i3 b/<k 1411
Ro""
III i:3 'in\ U'111m
SCHED. CUM.
/07,0
'Obo 35'
IAH.
51.50 "0'0
(,'110 '14']( 87bo191a:
1joW
'1140 'f36<. 946c
'f.6o
....,w,,<.
m
L:l
, .:.
,---'!-
I:.
::.
l
: ."
, ,.'
PARI N - LESSCNS LEARNED AND FINDINGS
Chapters 9 and 10 cover the case studies. The goal of the case studies
was to te:5t the basic concepts presented in Part II and report any needed
rrodificatiCll1l!5. None were found to be necessary. Mother goal was to describe
experiences with inl'lerenting the rreasurement system. Generally, these
experiences were positive.
In Chapter 9, profiles of the three contractors are presented, anq the 13
activities that were studied are described. The diverse backgrounds and
interests of the oontractors and the range of conditions and project types
encountered in the case study activities adds to the credibility of the
results. The chapter docurrents exanples of haw productivity measurelTEnt can
be used to develop 'labor units for estimating, to understand factors that
affect productivity, and to lTO!litor and control iJrl'ortant activities. These
examples show the versatility of productivity measurement. Several situations
are shown where labor units for estimating can be developed. In these
situations, summarizing work-hours and quantities at project completion would
have been inappropriate. For another activity, work-oo-.lrs rather than
quantities were reoorded for each subtask. In other exarrples, the effect of
various disruptions on productivity are sha-m. The disruptions documented
include quality problerrs, drawing errors, bad weather, crew reassignments,
breakdCMnS, and several others. The case study data are, also used
to forecast the work-hours and workdays needed to complete several activities.
Earned value calculations are used on another activity to show that there were
difficulties in maintaining rromenturn. factor curves were used to
isolate activities with the greatest opportunity f0c im?rovemant and ,to
ccmpare actual productivity to expectations.
The case study findings are st.mnarized in 10. These are
organized a=rding to the six system criteria staced in Chapter 3. Other
relevant findings are' also presented.
116
,
!