International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.

195204, 1999 # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0263-7863/98 $19.00 + 0.00

PII: S0263-7863(98)00025-8

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: an international investigation

D G Proverbs*, G D Holt and P O Olomolaiye
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, UK

Results of a model based survey of contractors' planning engineers in France, Germany and the UK, indicates signicant divergence in proposed labour management and hence, modern construction practices. For an identical in situ concrete building, French contractors planned to deploy the smallest site management team and labour workforce; which was mainly skilled and directly employed. Their operatives were allocated longer ocial periods of relaxation and required to work fewer hours. German contractors, while using more managerial sta than French rms, intended to employ the largest workforce, this being predominantly skilled and also directly employed. Working a maximum of ve days each week, German rms planned longer working hours, which when considered on a weekly basis were in excess of what is considered (optimally) productive. UK practice included the utilisation of additional managerial sta (compared to France and Germany), combined with subcontract, mainly semi-skilled labour. Planned weekly working schedules were in excess of those elsewhere, and consequently, were also counter-productive. It is hypothesised that if the most eective of these diering international labour utilisation practices could be identied, recommendations for `European best practice' could be proered. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Keywords: Planning, in situ concrete construction, labour utilisation, Europe, contractors

Introduction
The introduction of the Single European Market in January, 1993 marked the end of trade barriers, a relaxation of customs regulations, and enabled free movement within the European Union. This heralded two signicant consequences for European contractors. First, it meant that they could tender for construction work located anywhere on the continent, and compete with indigenous and perhaps other `foreign' rms on an `equal' basis. Second, it meant that indigenous contractors could expect to face greater competition for domestic projects from like-minded foreign contractors looking to secure continental work.1 Recent statistics estimate construction investment in the European sector at some 690 billion ECU, representing approximately 12% of GDP.2 Employing more than 7% of Europe's work force, the sector is the largest industrial employer in the continent and represents enormous potential opportunities for those contractors able to successfully compete with `foreign' competition. In a construction context, this competi*To whom correspondence should be addressed.

tive aspect has created a need for comparative international productivity rates to be established. While investigations comparing the productivity of international construction industries have been conducted in the past,35 there exists a dearth of research into the performance of contractors internationally. Hence, where contractors from dierent nations are competing for the same work, it is unclear as to which are most likely to be successful. This assuming that contractors of a particular nationality are superior in terms of cost and productivity performance. In seeking to resolve this uncertainty, a study funded by the EPSRC, has investigated European construction (site) productivity. Utilising a new technique, the aim of the study is to contrast the performance and practices of UK, French and German contractors. Previous research has indicated those contractors most likely to lead the way in a pan-European construction market.6 8 This paper provides further evidence in that respect and reports solely on a very specic aspect of the broader study. That is the management of construction labour. The analysis presented herein reports on the following distinct aspects of this subject: . site managerial personnel levels 195

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

. operatives' working hours . duration of working week . operative type (i.e. skill levels and direct or subcontract). For this purpose, labour is dened as the on-site workforce employed by contractors, and deemed to include all levels from senior (site) management to operatives. Therefore, the scope of the paper includes a comparison of (on-site) managerial provision, and describes international dierences that exist in this regard. In terms of construction performance, the work force and management team share a strong and positive relationship.9 With the increasing complexity of modern construction projects, demand for ecient and competent managers in the industry grows. A manager must be able to organise not only technologies but also human resources. Managers are responsible for selecting, obtaining, distributing, organising, and putting to use all of those resources that are necessary to pursue and achieve an organisation's objectives. Not least of these resources will be the employees (including subcontractors) of the organisation. Hence, because of their intrinsic relationship and interaction, an evaluation of labour utilisation merits consideration of both managers and operatives. Findings indicate that preferred construction practices, specically labour utilisation, between French, German and UK contractors, are disparate. Although inferences drawn in this respect cannot purport to be `denitive' (due mainly to limitations of sample stratication and size), they nevertheless provide a rm indication. It is further acknowledged that construction practices are not necessarily the same in any one country.10 Nevertheless, the ndings presented are based on information provided by key European construction players, and so represent a valid and informed overview of construction practices (for high rise concrete construction) in each country. In sum, the principal objective of this paper is to indicate `international practices' in terms of `labour' utilisation, amongst European construction contractors. From this, subsequent implications for the European contracting industry as a whole are ascertained. Albeit conducted in a European context, the methodology employed is suciently robust to facilitate wider application and, will therefore be of interest to an international audience. The research is based on a survey of contractors' planning engineers. First therefore, the importance of construction method planning is outlined. Eective construction planning requires complete understanding of each particular project; only then can detailed methods and resource requirements (plant, labour and materials) be established; enabling the works to be carried out safely, economically and to the quality required, to meet client requirements. Acko11 dened planning as a decision making process, performed prior to action, which endeavours to develop eective methods of achieving construction designs. It was rated by Arditi12 as the highest inuencing factor for achieving construction productivity improvement. Scheduling and controlling at the expense of method and action planning has been highlighted as a major deciency in construction planning practices.13 Within 196

the denition of planning, the selection of plant and methods tends to be regarded as the key item. Labour requirements, by contrast, are often seen as not nearly so important. This derives from a lack of knowledge and appreciation of the `true cost' of labour, which has been dened as: `the cost to the employer of having an operative on the books, having paid all legally laid down contributions for which the employee has no responsibility'.14 By carrying out an accurate comparison with plant operating costs, it becomes clear that plant can be relatively inexpensive compared to labour. Some contracting rms may not employ any direct labour at all (although new tax law changes in the UK may impact such practices). In these circumstances, senior management may argue that all problems related to labour are subcontractors' concern. However, unless, in the planning stage, a proper assessment of the required (subcontract) labour force has been made, site management cannot assess and monitor the eciency of subcontractors when the project commences. Where the labour force is directly employed, competent assessment of output (productivity and quality) is crucial to cost eective working in a highly competitive environment. As labour typically represents approximately 35% of total construction costs, an important responsibility of the construction planner is to determine necessary requirements, (management supervisory and manual levels) for each project. Judicious planning of labour resources can contribute towards controlling project costs, improving quality and optimising construction output. This paper analyses those labour strategies planned by contractors from each of the three countries, in order to highlight modern construction practice, and provide evidence of commonality or disparity in this regard.

Research methodology
To facilitate a (desk-based) comparison of international contractors, a model building and structured questionnaire were designed. A detailed account of the research instruments may be found in Proverbs et al.15 The model building was designed as a seven storey, in situ concrete framed structure, incorporating solid atslabs and regular grid layout (refer to Appendix 1). These instruments were distributed to French, German and UK contractors' planning engineers who were to assume that the model was a potentially `live' project, located in their own country. Part of the questionnaire (presented in Appendix 2) concerned the utilisation of labour resources and required respondents to indicate various planned strategies including the type and number of supervisors and operatives, working times and break times. Although somewhat qualitative, the methodology sought to facilitate greater insight into inter-country practices and preferences, and was designed to provide as much freedom, and therefore choice, as possible to respondents. For example no mention of external requirements, such as safety and quality levels, extent of union involvement etc. was mentioned. Nor were socio-economic and contractual/procurement impacts explained, since these would also have inhibited the response.

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

The research survey

Table 1 provides information concerning the contractor population of each country. Here similarities exist, with all three nations being dominated by small companies (less than 50 employees), and also having a few extremely large rms (more than 200 employees). The number of contractors in each country varies, with France and the UK having substantially more smaller rms than in Germany. To ensure response validity, contractors were chosen for survey inclusion based on their size and expertise (minimum turnover of 10 million and experienced in in situ concrete construction). National contractor organisations in France and Germany provided co-operation and assistance in this regard. In the UK, questionnaires were distributed amongst the top 40 contractors as listed in the Building Journal16 and 110 other companies selected from the Register of British Industry and Commerce.17 From this total of 150 rms, positive responses were received from 31 contractors; representing a 21% response rate. The same (but translated) documentation was distributed to 75 contractors in France, chosen with the assistance of Syndicat National du Beton Arme, des Techniques Industrialisees et de l'Entreprise Generale, from their list of members.18 Completed questionnaires were received from 14 contractors (19% response). Similarly, translated questionnaires were dispatched to 55 German contractors, identied with the assistance of the major contractors federation in Germany, Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V., and yielded 10 (18%) positive responses. The international nature of the research, and the exaggerated diculties in securing participation from foreign companies, (i.e., French and German planning engineers are even less likely to respond to an investigation which originates from another country), meant that the response from continental contractors was always likely to be low. However, the research team considered the enthusiastic response to provide a representative sample of contractors, sucient in size, experience and resources to undertake such a project represented by the model. Table 2 provides an indication of the size and diversity (in terms of annual turnover) of the participating companies.

Table 2 Annual turnover of participating rms Number and percentage of contractors Annual turnover (sterling) 50 million >50 450 million >450 million Totals U.K. No. 8 14 9 31 % 25.8 45.2 29.0 100 France No. 5 5 4 14 % 35.7 35.7 28.6 100 Germany No. 1 2 7 10 % 10.0 20.0 70.0 100

reported,8, 19, 20 and summarised.21 Investigations of cost issues therefore, are generally ignored herein. Limitations of the survey data Diculties in data interpretation (which a convenience survey of this type may create) are acknowledged. That is, a disparate number of responses from each country may not fully reect the size and complexity of respective construction industries. Nevertheless, it is widely recognised that any exercise in international comparative analysis cannot be based on scientic sampling because of the complex interactions of political and socio-economic factors. Aggregate responses from each country should therefore be viewed as `snap shots'.22, 23 To address and minimise this weakness of convenience surveys, contractors were identied and selected for survey inclusion based on their capability, experience and size. They were provided with exactly the same research information, and their response therefore, gives an indication of their nation's construction industry practices. The greater number of UK contractors included in the sample might have inuence on the range and deviation of the UK response. Nevertheless, in statistical terms, the size of the survey has little bearing on the degree of disparity found in the sample, since there could conceivably be a convergence of data about the mean, rather than a wider distribution from it. It is also recognised that inferences drawn are based on one sector of construction operations (that of in situ concrete work), and any conclusions about the construction industry of a country based on these operations alone, might be biased. However, concrete work is an important and fundamental part of modern construction practice; common internationally, it can provide a meaningful indication of national practices. Analysis one: site managerial personnel Planners were required to indicate the number of managers and supervisors likely to be employed on site during construction of the model building. Such sta were dened as personnel not carrying out any physical work, excluding chargehands and gangers and based permanently on site (i.e., excluding visiting senior managers). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the total number of site managerial sta, as indicated by the planning engineers from each country. Also indicated is the aggregated response for all three countries (labelled `Europe'), this providing a `snapshot' of continental practice. Results indicate a minimum number of two managers/supervisors to be deployed on site by all contractors, although there the similarity ends. UK respondents planned to employ the greatest number of 197

Analysis of the survey data

The following analysis is based on the aggregate response to the questionnaire survey, i.e., 31 responses from UK, 14 from French and 10 from German contractors. The focus of analysis is on the utilisation of labour resources. Detailed investigations of comparative international construction labour costs for each of the main concrete operations have previously been
Table 1 Contractor population in each country Number of contractors No. of employees 50 >50200 >200 Totals U.K. 193 540 765 352 194 657 France 275 400 1400 193 276 993 Germany 55 274 3310 120 58 704

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

Table 3 Number of site managerial personnel Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. of respondents 31 14 10 55 Mean number of supervisors 5 3 4 4 Standard deviation 1.44 1.28 1.43 1.54 Minimum number of supervisors 2 2 2 2 Maximum number of supervisors 8 5 6 8

Table 4 Daily working times Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. of respondents 31 14 10 55 Mean working time 9 h 26 min 9 h 8 min 10 h 9 min 9 h 29 min Standard deviation 0.58 0.31 0.97 0.69 Minimum working time 8h 8 h 30 min 8 h 30 min 8h Maximum working time 10 h 30 min 9 h 30 min 12 h 12 h

managers, with an average of ve and a maximum of eight. French contractors intended to assign the fewest; only three managers on average, up to a maximum of ve. The policy of German contractors falls somewhat midway between UK and French practice. Here, four managers is the mean, but their maximum (six) is similar to the French response. For `Europe', the average number of managers is four. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicates that dierences between the countries are signicant (F statistic = 6.945, P value = 0.002). Albeit the diering size sub-samples (i.e. each country) may not completely satisfy the prerequisites of ANOVA (homogeneity and equal variance), the particularly signicant `P-value' indicates the result is robust. Whilst ANOVA conrms that dierences exist, in order to conrm their location, Tukey's Honestly Signicant Dierence (HSD) post-hoc test24 was subsequently applied. Consequently, the mean number of managers intended by French contractors was shown to be signicantly dierent to that of UK contractors. There was no signicant dierence found between the numbers indicated by French and German, or German and UK contractors. Analysis two: daily working times and break times Table 4 and Table 5 display descriptive statistics for working times per day (start to nish time) and allocated ocial break times per day. Daily working times are disparate, with UK times being marginally longer than French (by 18 min), and German times longer than the UK (by 43 min). The average daily working time in `Europe' on construction sites is 9 h 29 min. Working time in Germany can vary by as much as three and a half hours per day. Standard deviations are low especially for French contractors, indicating lesser variance in working hours between companies. There is signicant dierence
Table 5 Ocial daily breaks Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. of respondents 31 13 10 55 Mean allowance for breaks 53 min 1 h 8 min 1 h 4 min 59 min

between the three nations (F statistic = 8.097, Pvalue = 0.001); with Tukey's HSD test identifying that German times are signicantly dierent to both French and UK times. Break times (refer Table 5) represent allowances for ocial breaks (relaxation allowance) throughout the normal working day. Based on mean values, UK workers can expect the shortest relaxation allowance, whilst French workers can anticipate the longest. The extremes are identical for UK and French construction workers, but on average, French rms allow 1 h, 8 min for relaxation; an additional 15 min. German rms provide similar break allowances to French rms (4 min dierence based on means), although in certain cases they can be longer (based on extreme values). In `Europe' daily break allowances equate to approximately 1 h. The variance in break times between countries is signicant (F statistic = 4.325, Pvalue = 0.018), indicating that French workers are permitted longer breaks. Post-hoc ANOVA tests conrm signicant dierence between French and UK break times alone. Analysis three: working days per week and total working hours Respondents were required to indicate the number of days per week that would normally be worked throughout the duration of the project. This also enabled the total number of working (productive) hours per week to be calculated. Table 6 and Table 7 present these ndings. On average, UK contractors planned to work 5.4 days per week, indicating the intention of many contractors to work a sixth day. All French and German contractors intended to work no more than ve days each week (a marked contrast to the UK response). Again this divergence was positively tested for signicance (F statistic = 9.634, P-value = 0.00). Post-hoc

Standard deviation 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.29

Minimum allowance for breaks 30 30 45 30 min min min min

Maximum allowance for breaks 1 1 1 1 h h h h 30 30 50 50 min min min min

198

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

Table 6 Working days per week Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. of respondents 31 13 10 55 Mean No. of days per week 5.4 5 5 5.2 Standard deviation 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.34 Minimum No. of days Maximum No. of days per week per week 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 6

Table 7 Total weekly working hours (less allocated breaks) Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. of respondents 31 13 10 55 Mean weekly working hours 45 h 52 min 40 h 4 min 45 h 28 min 44 h 19 min Standard deviation 5.22 0.84 5.14 5.10 Minimum weekly working hours 35 38 38 38 h h h h Maximum weekly working hours 55 43 55 55 h h h h

tests conrmed that UK contractors worked signicantly more days than both German and French rms. The average working week for `Europe' equated to 5.2 days. In view of working more days per week and having the shortest allowance for breaks, it was not surprising to discover that UK contractors had the most gruelling weekly schedule (refer Table 7). Hence a European directive concerning restrictions on maximum permitted working hours (such as that recently rejected by the former UK Conservative government) are likely to have considerable impact on UK contractors. Nevertheless, working times of German contractors were comparable (45 h 28 min, a dierence of just 24 min). This in contrast to French times which were substantially shorter at just over 40 h. In `Europe' the average is over 44 h, considerably longer than in France. It is also clear that French construction workers have a more stable working programme (standard deviation 0.84) and work signicantly fewer hours than those in Germany or the UK (F statistic = 5.586, P-value = 0.006). Analysis four: operative employment and utilisation The questionnaire contained a section on the deployment of: unskilled (dened as being on low wage, having no trade skills and used solely for mundane activities); semi-skilled (dened as being on moderate wage, having some experience and/or being part/semi qualied for a particular trade); and skilled (dened as being on high wage, suitably experienced and/or qualied, and competent at all operations of that trade) operatives, engaged in concreting, formwork and reinforcing operations during the construction of the insitu concrete frame. Table 8 provides a comparison of their utilisation (mean values) as indicated by respondents, including a combined `European' perspective.
Table 8 Operative deployment No. of respondents Country U.K. France Germany "Europe' No. 4 3 2 3 % 14.29 13.04 5.26 10.71 Semi-skilled operatives No. 13 7 15 12 % 46.43 30.44 39.47 42.86

Upon initial inspection the results appear to be similar, but closer analysis reveals distinctive dierences. German contractors plan to employ the highest number of operatives (38 in total), followed by UK (28 in total) and then French rms (23 in total). The dominant type of operative employed in Germany (55%) and France (56%) are fully skilled workers, whilst in the UK, semi-skilled operatives are prevalent (46%). Perhaps importantly, the contribution of skilled workers to the UK labour-force was only 39%, this being 16 and 17% less than for German and French rms respectively. The balance of operatives also indicates dissimilarities. The UK ratio of unskilled, semiskilled and skilled workers is 1:3.3:2.8, while German and French combinations give 1:7.5:11, and 1:2.3:4.3, respectively. The labour force of German and French contractors is dominated by skilled workers, while the UK workforce is predominantly semi-skilled. The German balance is highly skewed away from unskilled labour with only 5% of their operatives classied the latter. For `Europe', the ratio of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled is 1:4:4.5, indicating the dominance of skilled and semi-skilled labour requirements in this form of construction. A useful indicator of supervision levels is provided by the relationship of operatives to supervisors (span of control). UK contractors deploy on average 1 supervisor for every 6 workers, the French 1 supervisor for every 8 workers, and German rms 1 supervisor for every 10 workers. Evidently, contractors in the UK are inclined to employ a higher number of supervisors compared to French and German rms. Contractors in Germany deploy the fewest number of supervisors per operative, however, they are also likely to have the greatest number of workers engaged. Contractors were also asked to indicate the form of employment (i.e. subcontract, direct or a combination of both) of those operatives involved during the construction of the concrete frame. Of the UK response,

Skilled operatives No. 11 13 21 13 % 39.29 56.52 55.26 46.43

Total number of operatives No. 28 23 38 28 % 100 100 100 100

199

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

26% employed their workers directly, and 74% used subcontract employment; of the French contractors, 93% used direct and 7% subcontracted; and of the German contractors 10% used subcontract, and 90% chose a combination of direct and subcontract labour to full their requirements. It was evident that the vast majority of German respondents who indicated this combination, used direct labour for formwork and concrete placing operations, and subcontract labour for reinforcement work, i.e. direct labour employment dominated. The statistics reveal an unmistakable distinction between the countries. The French/German response of greater use of direct employees infers that such are empowered to be responsible for their own work processesthis is conrmed by a larger French/German supervisor span of control. The common UK practice preferred by almost three quarters of respondents was to employ subcontract labour. Conversely, the emphatic preference of French contractors was to utilise directly employed labour, whilst in Germany a combined strategy was dominant, although here directly employed labour was in greater evidence. An important change to UK tax laws in April 1997 (introduced after this survey was conducted), has resulted in an increase in the number of directly employed operatives, with gures expected to rise by 20% in the next year.25 Findings reported in this paper are based on UK contractor's employment statistics prior to such policy being introduced.

structure, their roles could be enhanced with greater personal responsibility for projects. This could lead to a reduction in managerial and supervisory levels on site, with simultaneous improvement in management motivation levels, and the industry-wide benet of considerable cost savings. Notwithstanding this, UK contractors tend to employ a larger proportion of semi-skilled workers than do French and German rms (who employ more skilled workers), and hence for the former there may be a need to employ a greater level of supervision. Furthermore, the common practice in the UK to employ subcontract labour could also impact supervision requirements. Clearly, before it is possible to suggest which supervisory practice (i.e. UK, German or French) is to be preferred, a wider appreciation of the industry, and the factors which impact such strategies is needed.

Working schedules Generally it was found that construction workers in the UK, worked longer hours each week (due in the main to working a sixth day), and had less time allocated for ocial breaks. In the UK and Germany, actual working time per week was in excess of 45 h (mean value), while in France, there is a statutory regulation which imposes a limit on working time (French attitudes are also more `militant'; none of the responding companies planned to work more than 43 h per week). Unlike UK rms, who in the main work some or all of Saturday, German and French rms planned to work just 5 days each week. However, on a daily basis, German companies intended to work the longest hours (over 10 h), the sum total of which was comparable to a UK working week. The harmful eects that excessive working schedules can have on construction productivity have been well researched and documented.28 Work schedules that extend beyond 40 h per week reduce labour productivity and create excessive ination of construction labour costs, without material benet to the completion schedule.29 Thomas30 in his review of construction literature on the subject, reported that a 12% reduction in eciency can be expected for every 10 h of overtime worked. Indeed, one investigation reported that an extension of working time from 40 to 60 h per week over a period of 6 weeks, resulted in the project being no further advanced than had a 40 h week been adhered to.31 Evidence provided in the survey suggests the working schedules of UK and German contractors may be excessive, and could impact production performance. French contractors achieve higher levels of productivity and eciency21 through an acceptable national standard working time, which when deductions for break allowances are considered, result in an average of 40 h, based on a 5 day weekly schedule. Whilst UK and German workers regularly endure gruelling weekly schedules, the French appear to benet from a far shorter week, allowing operatives greater recovery time and a more relaxed working culture. Further research in this area is needed, but perhaps this practice could provide fruitful rewards in enhancing production performance in other countries.

Discussion
Aimed at identifying best practices in the area of labour utilisation, signicant dierences between UK, French and German operations have been presented. Now follows a discussion of these results. Site management UK contractors assigned the highest number of site based managers/supervisors for the model project, some 40 and 20% higher than those in France and Germany respectively. The Business Round Table4 reported that the number of managerial and supervisory levels employed on continental sites was far less than on a typical UK site. Over stang at the work place can result in serious cost implications and provide increased opportunities for unnecessary worker interference. Thomas et al.23 identied over stang as being a disruptive condition that can impair construction productivity; as Horner and Talhouni26 reported in their studies concerning variability in bricklayers' productivity. The motivation of UK site supervisors may not be what it should due to constraints in work involvement and career development. Proverbs et al.27 discovered that supervisor morale and motivation levels can impact the productivity of construction rms. Current UK managerial practices may need to be re-evaluated, and a quality, not quantity, oriented approach would seem to be the way forward. In Europe, and particularly in France, an engineering education is considered intellectually prestigious and a foundation for a variety of careers. By adopting the continental strategy of providing site management with a broader educational 200

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

Workforce characteristics The characteristics of the workforce also provided signicant levels of discordance. Findings indicated that UK practice was to employ a predominantly subcontract, semi-skilled labour force. French and German contractors preferred to utilise directly employed workers with the emphasis on skilled persons. French companies planned to employ the smallest workforce, whilst German rms had the largest, although on average just 5% of the German workforce were unskilled operatives. Rainbird32 described the causes of widespread skills shortages in the UK construction industry, and Briscoe33 reported how the inability to obtain sucient labour contributed to contract delays. Rainbird cited `the institutionalisation of self employment' and the subsequent labour force fragmentation as being at the root of skill shortages in the UK. This `externalisation of labour force' strategy results in rms abnegating responsibility for operative training. UK operatives expect tighter supervision, (as reected in the managerial numbers reported earlier), and are likely to be semi-skilled, rather than in France and Germany where they are skilled. Subcontracting culture in France is similar to that of the UK, but due to French law structures (subcontractors may bring an action directly against the client in the event of the main contractor not honouring payment), it is not widely used.34 In contrast, French rms are pursuing new labour strategies, based on `internalisation', and aimed at developing a multi-skilled and autonomous labour force.35 Research has found that direct labour within construction can be empowered to take full responsibility for their own processes.36 This seems to be the situation in France, where generally workers are expected to demonstrate the ability to organise, oversee and to control the construction process. The benets from such labour strategies appear to facilitate the utilisation of a smaller, but more accomplished work force, demanding less supervision, and which succeed in out-performing UK and German companies. In Germany, the construction labour situation is giving cause for alarm. About a quarter of skilled operatives are over 50 years old and it is estimated that by the turn of the century, about two thirds of the present labour force will have reached, or have passed retirement age.37 Nevertheless the major employers' associations have introduced new vocational training policies aimed at enhancing recruitment of apprentices, and attempted to upgrade further training schemes to facilitate ecient utilisation of ever more expensive equipment.38 The major strength of the German construction industry is the quality of the work it produces, which is reliant upon the employment of predominantly skilled operatives as demonstrated herein. The current employment practices of UK rms manifests skills shortages and inadequate training. A model similar to the French system could provide the basis for `European best practice' recommendations.

Conclusions
This paper has presented an investigation of international construction practice in terms of labour utilisation for a model in situ concrete high rise building. Findings have demonstrated disparity between French, German and UK practices, and that this new research process can successfully be used in studies aimed at comparing international construction. The comparison of construction practices is onerous and problematical since like-for-like building projects do not exist. Further diculties are encountered with international comparisons, which the methodology utilised here has endeavoured to overcome. Planned construction practices, indicated by labour utilisation, provides an informative assessment. The ecient utilisation of resources has a positive impact on performance and productivity. Results presented have highlighted distinctions between French, German and UK practices in the following areas of labour utilisation: . . . . . . . . site managerial personnel; daily working times; break times (relaxation allowances); working days per week; total working hours; skill levels of workers; size of workforce; modes of employment.

Hence further research is recommended, aimed at identifying the most eective of these international solutions. Results could provide a source of best practice recommendations for contractors competing in the European construction industry.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for funding this research. Also numerous contractors and planning engineers for their generous co-operation and contributions.

References
1. Builder, The, Bouygues wins rst big UK contract. Building, 1997, 14 March, 9, London. 2. European Construction Industry Federation, Annual Report, Brussels, 1996. 3. d'Arcy, J., The Shame and the Sham. In Contract Journal, 1993 12, 1213. 4. Business Round Table, The, Controlling the Upwards Spiral: Construction Performance and Cost in the UK and Mainland Europe, The Business Round Table Limited, London, 1994. 5. Department of the Environment, The, Digest of Data for the Construction Industry (Second Edition). Government Statistical Service, London, 1995. 6. Proverbs, D., Olomolaiye, P. and Harris, F., Planned construction times and labour utilisationa comparison of UK and French contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1996, 3(3), 219232. 7. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., Productivity rates and construction methods for high-rise concrete construction: a comparative evaluation of U.K., German and French contractors. Construction Management and Economics, 1997, in press. 8. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., A comparative evaluation of concrete placing productivity rates, amongst French, German and U.K. construction contractors.

201

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1997, in press. Tam, C. M. and Harris, F., Model for assessing building contractors' project performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1996, 3(3), 187203. Proverbs, D., Olomolaiye, P. and Harris, F., An evaluation of transportation systems for high-rise concrete construction. Building and Environment, 1996, 31(4), 363374. Acko, R. L., A Concept of Corporate Planning. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970. Arditi, D., Construction productivity improvement. Journal of the Construction Division, 1985, ASCE 111, 114. Laufer, A. and Tucker, R. L., Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical examination of focus, role and process Construction Management and Economics, 1987, 5, 243 266. Illingworth, J.R., Construction Methods and Planning, E and FN Spon, London, 1993. Proverbs, D. G., Holt G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., Factors inuencing the choice of concrete supply methods. Building Research and Information, 1997c, 25(3), 176184. Builder, ABI Top 40. Building, 1994, 18 March, p. 18, CCLIX (12), The Builder Group, London. Kompass, Register of British Industry and Commerce, 1994, Kompass Published Ltd, East Grinstead. S.E.R.P., Syndicat National du Beton Arme, des Techniques Industrialisees et de l'Entrepise Generale (SNBATI), 1994, Paris, France. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., A comparative evaluation of planning engineers' formwork productivity rates in European construction. Building and Environment, 1997, in press. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., A comparative evaluation of reinforcement xing productivity rates, amongst European construction contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1997, under review. Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., European construction contractors: a productivity appraisal of in situ concrete operations. Construction Management and Economics, 1997, in press. Business Round Table, The, British Construction in Pursuit of Excellence, The Business Round Table Limited, London, 1994. Thomas, H. R., Handa, V. K. and Horner, R. M. W., Productivity similarities among masonry crews in seven countries. Building Economics and Construction Management, 1990, 6, 543553. Kinnear, P. R. and Gray, C. D., SPSS for Windows Made Simple, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, 1995. Builder Group, The, Direct Labour to Jump 20%. Building, 1997, 28, 7. Horner, R. M. W. and Talhouni, B. T., Causes of variability in bricklayers productivity. Building Economics and Construction Management, 1990, 6, 238250. Proverbs, D., Olomolaiye, P. and Harris, F., Organisational productivitya case study of materials management in U.K. construction rms. CIOB Technical Information Service Paper, 1995, No. 44. Kaming, P., Holt, G. D., Kometa, S. T. and Olomolaiye, P., Severity diagnosis of productivity problemsa reliability analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 1997, in press. Business Round Table, The, Scheduled Overtime Eect on Construction Projects. Construction Industry Cost Eectiveness Report C-2, New York, 1991. Thomas, H. R., Eects of scheduled overtime on labour productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1992, 118(1), 6076. Kaming, P., Olomolaiye, P., Holt, G. D. and Harris, F. C., Factors inuencing time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Construction Management and Economics, 1997, in press. Rainbird, H., Labour force fragmentation and skills supply in the British construction industry. In Restructring a Traditional Industry, eds. Rainbird, H. and Syben, G. Berg, Oxford, 201 222, 1991. 33. Briscoe, G., Skill shortages in the construction sector. International Journal of Manpower, 1990, 11(2/3), 2328. 34. Borrie, D., Procurement in France, Construction Papers, No. 49, pp. 18, The Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot, 1995. 35. Bobro, J., New competences within the French construction industry: their deterimnants and the stategies of rms. In Restructring a Traditional Industry, eds. Rainbird, H. and Syben, G. Berg, Oxford, 223240, 1991. 36. Nesan, L. J., Holt, G. D. and Olomolaiye, P. O., Eective empowerment activities for construction: initiatives from manufacturing. Proceedings of the CIB Working Commission Number 55, International Symposium on Building Economics, 1996, Zagreb, 6979. 37. Biggs, W. D., Betts, M. and Cottle, M. J., The West German Construction Industry-A Guide for UK Professionals, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, 1990. 38. Streeck, W. and Hilbert, J., Organised interests and vocational training in the West German construction industry. In Restructring a Traditional Industry, eds. Rainbird, H. and Syben, G. Berg, Oxford, 241260, 1991.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

David G Proverbs is a Lecturer within the School of Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Wolverhampton. He worked as a site manager for a building contractor before joining academia as a research assistant in 1994. He is currently working on a Ph.D. aimed at comparing the performance of French, German and UK contractors.

21.

22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

Gary D Holt is a Senior Research Fellow within the School of Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Wolverhampton. He has many years project management experience; particularly within the UK housing sector. Has published widely as a result of his construction management research interests. A Chartered Builder, he holds a rst in Building Management and a Ph.D in Construction Management.

28. 29. 30. 31.

Paul O. Olomolaiye is Associate Dean of the School of Engineering and Built Environment at the University of Wolverhampton. He worked in various capacities as project manager and estimator before conducting extensive research in construction worker productivity for his Ph.D.

32.

202

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

Appendix 1

203

The management of labour on high rise construction projects: D. G. Proverbs et al.

204