Scholarly Research Excellence

Digital Open Science Index

Commenced in January 2007 Frequency: Monthly Edition: International Publications Count: 29130


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
10005999
The Appraisal of Construction Sites Productivity: In Kendall’s Concordance
Abstract:
For the dearth of reliable cardinal numerical data, the linked phenomena in productivity indices such as operational costs and company turnovers, etc. could not be investigated. This would not give us insight to the root of productivity problems at unique sites. So, ordinal ranking by professionals who were most directly involved with construction sites was applied for Kendall’s concordance. Responses gathered from independent architects, builders/engineers, and quantity surveyors were herein analyzed. They were responses based on factors that affect sites productivity, and these factors were categorized as head office factors, resource management effectiveness factors, motivational factors, and training/skill development factors. It was found that productivity is low and has to be improved in order to facilitate Nigerian efforts in bridging its infrastructure deficit. The significance of this work is underlined with the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance of 0.78, while remedial measures must be emphasized to stimulate better productivity. Further detailed study can be undertaken by using Fuzzy logic analysis on wider Delphi survey.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

References:

[1] ILO, International Labour Organization, Practical Hand Book, 1987.
[2] J. Prokopenko ‘Production Management Hand Book, 1987, pp. 312.
[3] A. A. Okwa, ‘Improving Productivity in the Nigerian Construction Industry, a Management Approach, MSc. Thesis 1981, Department of Building, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
[4] G. Winch, ‘Bench Marking on Site Productivity in France and the UK, a Caliber Approach. Construction Management and Economics, 19: 577-590 (2001).
[5] B. Carr, ‘Bench Marking On-site Productivity in France and the UK, Calibre Approach. Construction Management and Economics, 19: 577-590, (2001).
[6] E.R. Levitt, ‘Defining and Measuring Productivity in Construction. Proceeding of the Spring Conference of the American Society of Engineers, (4), 1982.
[7] R. W. Fense, ‘An Analysis of the Meaning of Productivity, Productivity Measurement Review (9), 1985
[8] M. Kendall, “The Problem of M Rankings”, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10(3); 275-287, (1939).

Vol:12 No:12 2018Vol:12 No:11 2018Vol:12 No:10 2018Vol:12 No:09 2018Vol:12 No:08 2018Vol:12 No:07 2018Vol:12 No:06 2018Vol:12 No:05 2018Vol:12 No:04 2018Vol:12 No:03 2018Vol:12 No:02 2018Vol:12 No:01 2018
Vol:11 No:12 2017Vol:11 No:11 2017Vol:11 No:10 2017Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007