Variable Labor Productivity Unit Rate: Evaluation by

Professionals
Ubiraci Espinelli Lemes de Souza
Associate Prof. of Dept. of Construction, University of So Paulo
(email: ubiraci.souza@poli.usp.br)
Fernanda Fernandes Marchiori
PhD student of Dept. of Construction, University of So Paulo
(email: fernanda.marchiori@poli.usp.br)
Luis Otvio Cocito de Arajo
PhD student of Dept.of Construction, University of So Paulo
(email: luis.otavio@poli.usp.br)

Abstract
To forecast labor productivity indexes is a very important task to be performed, by the
construction managers, in order to compose reliable building construction budgets and
schedules. To do so, the main information sources have been the estimating manuals. These
type of manuals are normally available in several countries, both developed and developing
ones. The data, in such manuals, usually represent mean values for regional contractors
performance. Although very easy to use, this approach, in the opinion of the authors, cannot be
considered appropriate to the present context of Construction; the very competitive environment
demands more accurate indexes to support managersdecisions.
Some recently developed researches, in Brazil, demonstrate the importance of considering a
range of values to represent labor productivity unit rates instead of adopting a mean value for a
broad scope of situations. The choice of a value from the proposed range would be based on the
jobs features.
Keywords: Labor productivity, productivity forecast, formwork, estimating manuals.

1. Introduction
The construction companies seldom measure the real productivity in their sites. So it is a current
practice in Brazil to utilize productivity indexes gathered from estimating manuals to make
budgets and schedules (Figure 1 shows the steps of a traditional budgeting process). These
budgets and schedules are based on the physical resources consumption, which is composed by
the labor, material and equipment consumption. This paper focus on labor consumption forecast
for formwork job. Labor is the physical resource more difficult to manage and which demand
have the highest variability. On the other hand, formwork is a labor-intensive task and often
represents an event in the critical step of the project [1].

194

Product to
build

Design

Quantity
survey

Price

Final cost

Deterministics productivity indexes

Figure 1: Traditional budgeting process

Two of the more important Brazilian estimating manuals, TCPO 2000 [2] and SBC [3], consider
deterministic productivity indexes, as showed by the example in the Table 1.
Table 1: Productivity values formwork job taken from the main Brazilian estimating manuals
for
Unit Rate
(UR)

TCPO 2000

SBC
For slabs

For beams

For columns

Carpenter

For whole
formwork job
1,35 Mh/m

0,928 Wh/m

1,268 Wh/m

1,361 Wh/m

Helper

1,35 Wh/m

1,443 Wh/m

1,773 Wh/m

1,907 Wh/m

*Wh/m - Workhour per square meter of formwork

Authors as [4], do not indicate deterministic values on productivity forecasting. [5] emphasize
that the simplicity on using deterministic approaches can be associate to a lost of precision on
predicted productivities. [6] say that the costumers are not satisfied with the manuals values
once they do not expose the job contend and context involved.
The high variability on productivity figures find representative of Brazilian building sites - that
can reach 100%, according [7] e [8] - associated with the habit of using deterministic values and
with an environment highly competitive generate a big insecurity on construction companies to
forecast production costs. So, this paper intends to explore ideas linked to improve productivity
forecasts to help the decision makers in the construction companies.

2. New Approaches to Forecast Productivity in Use in

Brazil
The new approaches to forecast productivity discussed in this paper are based in the models
prescribed on the literature (mainly on the Factors Model [9]) and on a productivity data base
that have been collected since 1996 by the researches of the Department of Construction of
University of So Paulo. The researches have been working on several different ways to of
organizing productivity data to help the forecasting process. This paper discusses two of them:
parametric equations developed by means of regression analysis and productivity range values
associated to a list of factors that influence them.

195

The use of parametric equations was presented on [1]. Other research, as [11], added confidence
to the statistical analysis. This paper deals with more recent parametric equations, as showed in
2.1 and productivity ranges on 2.2.

2.1 Parametric Equations

The unit rate for column, beam, slab and stair can be calculated by the following expression:

bUR forecast - column

bURcolumn = 1.885 + 0.131BLE (4.67SAR + 0.274BPL + 0.11TIE + 0.27LTI ) + STRcolumn (1)

Where:
UR = Productivity Unit Rate
bUR = Baseline for the skilled team
BLE = 0 when column leveling is based on each panel leveling; and =1 when column leveling is
based on template leveling;
SAR: median cross-section area (in m2);
BPL = 1 when column plumbing is based on studs plumbing; and =0 when column plumbing is
based on whole panel plumbing;
TIE = 0 for removable ties; and = 1 for incorporated ties;
LTI = 1 for predominantly external ties; = 0 for predominantly internal ties;
STRcolumn = part of bUR referring to the column forms stripping. The proposed values for
STR vary as showed by Table 2. One should choose higher whenever expects more
difficulties in stripping the panels.
Table 2STRcolum values variation range.
Minimum (wh/m2)
0.13

Median (wh/m2)
0.14

Maximum (wh/m2)
0.30

bUR forecast - beam

The unit rate can be calculated by the following expression:

bURbeam = 2.43 0.558 BL + 0.267TU + STRbeam

(2)

Where:
BL = median beams length;
TU = 0 for when no tie is used; and = 1 for ties utilization;
STRbeam = part of bUR referring to disassemble beam forms. The proposed values for STR
vary as showed by Table 2. One should choose higher whenever expects more difficulties in
stripping the panels. The proposed values for STRvary as showed by Table 3. One should
choose higher whenever expects more difficulties in stripping the panels.
Table 3STRbeamvalues variation range.
Minimum (wh/m2)
0.10

Median (wh/m2)
1.18

Maximum (wh/m2)
2.60

bUR forecast - slab

Floor structures with close slabs and beams raise difficulties in pulling down the formwork,
inducing poor productivities (higher URs). Table 4 presents some bUR values for slab

196

formwork in conventional structures, where slabs rely on beams, and in plain slab structures,
where slabs rely directly on columns.
Table 4 bURslab values variation range.
Floors
Conventional
structure (slabs
with beams)
Plain slab

bURslab (wh/m2)
Minimum
0.40
Maximum
0.96
Median
0.69
Median
0.33

bUR forecast stairs

bURstairs forecast can be based on the Table 5 information.
Table 5 bURstair values variation range.
bURstair (wh/m2)
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Median

Stairs formwork
During the floor production
After the floor production

1.78
2.64
1.93
1.00

bUR forecast whole structure

The bURwhole structure is calculated by the expression 3:
bUR =

(bUR column xAcolumn + bUR beam xAbeam + bUR slab xAslab + bUR stair xAstair )
Acolumn + Abeam + Aslab + Astair

(3)

Where:
bUR= baseline for the skilled team
A= area (m2 of structure).

2.2 Productivity Range

Labor productivity figures are presented by mean of a ruler, having the minimum and
maximum values of the database at the extremes and the medium value pointed out in the
between. The rulercomes with the indication of the factors driving the expected rate towards
right (unfavorable ones) or left (favorable ones), as shows the Figure 2.

J minimum

K median

Favorable factors,
better productivity

L maximum
Unfavorable factors,
worst productivity

Expected labor
unit rate

Figure 2: Concept of variable productivity range, Fonte: SOUZA et al.(2003)

197

In the Figures from 3 to 6 are presented labor productivity indexes range to carpenters of
formwork job. The job envolves 4 tasks: column formwork (Figure 3), beam formwork (Figure
4), slab formwork (Figure 5) and stair formwork (Figure 6).
0,52 Wh/m

1,80 Wh/m

0,94 Wh/m

UR column
Wh / mof structure

Column leveling is based on each panel leveling

Column leveling is based on the template leveling

Column plumbing is based on studs plumbing

Column plumbing is based on the whole panel plumbing

Big column cross-section area

Small column cross-section area

Removable ties

Incorporated ties

External ties

Internal ties

Figure 3: Range of URcolumn

0,73 Wh/m

2,60 Wh/m

1,18 Wh/m

UR beam
Wh / mof structure

Simple structure geometry

Complex structure geometry

Big beam length

Small beam length

No tie is used

Is tie used

Figure 4: Range of URbeam

0,33 Wh/m

0,69 Wh/m

0,96 Wh/m

UR slab
Wh / mof structure

Plain slab

Slab with beams

Big slab areas

Small slab areas

Figure 5: Range of URslab

1,00 Wh/m

2,64 Wh/m

1,93 Wh/m

The stair form is independent of others

structure components

UR stair
Wh / mof structure

The stair form is done together of others

structure components form

Figure 6: Range of URstair

Observe on Figure 3 that the median value is 80% superior to minimum and the maximum value
is about 90% superior that median; this demonstrates the fault that we can do when the median
value is chosen in situations in which one of the extremes were expected.
Any value within the range is accepted as possible value for productivity, although the
expectations for the best or worst results involve other subjective factors.

198

In order to know the UR for all structure formwork, it should be done using the Equation 3. It
will be necessary to chose on ranges what productivity better adequate to your build (minimum,
median or maximum) and to know the dates of quantity extracted from projects.

3. Evaluating the Applicability of New Forecasting

Approaches
The new approaches were tested following the steps of Figure 7.

Evaluating applicability of the

new forecasting approaches

Manager opinions based

on theoreticians examples

Chosen approach

Application of both
approaches to a real
case study

The two approaches results

analysis

Evaluation for a
case study

Construction Manager
opinion based on real case
study

Final analysis

Figure 7: Methodology used to test the applicability of new forecasting approaches.

The test of applicability of two forecast approaches were has two ways:
a) First step - the approaches were submitted to construction managers to see what of them
they feel more promising. These professionals were participating of a course about
productivity concepts. They appreciate both approaches because they can have more
dominion above the forecasts. Although they can apply the equations, they choose the
ranges because they feel more comfortable on using it. After that, the ranges were presented
to a construction manager that have never been in contact with productivity concepts or
forecast. It was observed that he not feel secure as well in relation to factors relevancy as to
analyze the productivity separately per components (column, beam, slab and stair). The
manager have the feeling about total productivity that is necessary to get per type floor, this
is due the labor contract model, which considers a fixed price per floor.

199

b) Second step the authors did a forecast to a real build (that one in which the manager was
questioned in the first step) utilizing as the range as the equation.
Productivity Range Forecast
It was chosen the follow values for the productivity:
- URcolumn: 0,94 Wh/m (median value)
- URbeam: 0,73Wh/m (minimum value)
- URslab: 0,69 Wh/m (median value)
- URstair: 2,64 Wh/m (maximum value)
The build had more favorable factors than unfavorable, however, to get more security on
forecast, the median was chosen to column and slab. Only in the case of stair that the worst
situation was chosen to be coherent with the factor, that was unfavorable. Based in these values
and on survey of project quantities, applied on Equation 3, it were obtained the productivity
forecast (0,80 Wh/m).
Parametric Equation Forecast
It was given heights to the characteristics of build as indicated on 2.1 heading. The heights are
presented on 3rd column on Table 6. Utilizing these heights into the Equations 1 and 2 plus the
values chosen on Table 4 and 5, referent to structure components, it were obtained the results
for column, beam slab and stair, which are presented on column 4th. These values were applied
on Equation 3 to get the total productivity for whole structure, whose the result is presented on
7th column. The 5th column present the values chosen in the productivity range approach. The
Table 6 shows yet, the Brazilian estimating manuals (SBC e TCPO 2000) values, on columns 6,
9 and 10.
In order to know the real productivity involved on formwork job in the floor, it were collected
the quantity of hours worked for de formwork crew, which were composed only by carpenters
(583 Wh/type floor; UR = 0,84 Wh/m). This value is presented on 11th column on Table 6.

200

Table 6Productivity dates for the real build.

Structure
component

Build
characteristics

Forecasted UR for the

structure components
(Wh/m)
Equation

Column
(200,5 m)

Beam
(153,3 m)

BLE

SAR

0,12

BPL

TIE

LTI

STR
BL
TU
STR

0,14
3.81
0
0,10

1,16

Range SBC Equation Range

0,94

0,73

1,27

Laje
(328,5 m)

0,69
(mediana)

0,69

0,93

Escada
(9 m)

1,93
(mediana)

2,64

0,93

nd

rd

th

th

SBC

Tcpo
2000

Real UR
(Wh/m)

1,36

0,40

st

Forecasted total UR
(Wh/m)

6th

0,79

0,80

1,13

1,35

0,84

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

Observes, therefore, that the forecasted productivity values obtained as for the equation as for
the range (about 0,80 Wh/m) got a great forecast, because they are near to the real productivity
(0,84 Wh/m) reached by the crew on the site building, while the estimate manual values are
more distant to real productivity.

4. Final Considerations
The research with construction manager opinions not shows resistance on using of range. On the
other hand, the position of construction manager interviewed presented critical, probably
justified by the lost of training or sensitization about the subject and due to a form of labor
contraction.
In the results analysis, although of, theoretically, the range presents a minor precision on
forecast, because is a simplification on equations, it provides to a bigger easiness of application
and the value gotten in this in case were satisfactory due to be near to the really it happened in
the site build. On the other hand, the range eliminates some cited problems related to the
traditional position (only presenting the average value).
Recently, one of the most important Brazilian estimating manuals included, beyond the
traditional approach, the alternative approach of productivity ranges. The responsible believes
that it can provide a better understanding for both, construction managers and designers, about
the factors that influence productivity labor.

201

Once providing better understanding of labor productivity, the authors believe the productivity
range approachcan help improving cost and schedule forecasting in the Construction Industry.

Acknowledgements
The authors want to acknowledge the construction managers from So Paulo Construction
Companies that are participating of productivity courses promoted by Department of
Construction of University of So Paulo. In special way, the company Tarjab Ltda., that allowed
visits in its site building to perform this research.
The authors want also to acknowledge the institutions CAPES and FAPESP, which have always
been supporting our efforts to develop construction research.

References
[1] Araujo, L.O.C.; Souza, U.E.L.; Freire, T.M. Development of a formwork labor productivity
forecast model for the Brazilian building construction. Proceedings of 10th International
Symposium CIB W65, Cincinnati, 2002.
[2] TCPO 2000: Tabelas de Composies de Preos Para Oramentos. 11 Ed. Editora Pini.
1999.
[3] SBC (2005). Informativo
http://www.construbid.com.br

SBC.

Avaliable

online

for

subscribers

at:

[4] Isidore, L.J.; Back, E. Multiple Simulation Analysis for probabilistic Cost and Schedule
Integration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE. V.128, n. 3, p 21119, 2002.
[5] Souza, U.E.L.; Almeida, F.M.; Silva, L.R. O conceito de produtividade varivel aplicado aos
manuais de oramentao. In: 3 Simpsio Brasileiro de Gesto e Economia da Construo.
Editor: UFSCar, 16-19 de Setembro de 2003, So Carlos, SP, 2003.
[6] Andrade, A.C.; Souza, U.E.L.; Librais, C.F.; Paliari, J.C. Subsdios para o processo de
oramentao de revestimentos cermicos. In: 2 Simpsio Brasileiro de Gesto da Qualidade e
Organizao do Trabalho no Ambiente Construdo, Fortaleza, CE, 2001.
[7] Arajo, L.O.C. Mtodo para a previso e controle da produtividade da mo-de-obra na
execuo de frmas, armao, concretagem e alvenaria. 2000. 385 p. Dissertao (Mestrado em
Engenharia) - Escola Politcnica, Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, 2000.
[8] Freire, T.M.F. Produo de estruturas de concreto armado moldadas in loco, para
edificaes: caracterizao das principais tecnologias e formas de gesto adotadas em So

202

Paulo. 2001. 325p. Dissertao (Mestrado em Engenharia) - Escola Politcnica, Universidade de

So Paulo, So Paulo, 2001.
[9] Thomas, H.R.; Yakoumis, I. Factor Model of Construction Productivity. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE. V.113, n. 4, p 623-39, 1987.
[10] Souza, U.E.L. de. Metodologia para o estudo da produtividade da mo-de-obra no servio
de frmas para estruturas de concreto armado, 1996. 280p. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia
Civil) Escola Politcnica, Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, 1996.
[11] Souza, U.E.L. de. Mtodo para a previso da produtividade da mo-de-obra e do consumo
unitrio de materiais para os servios de frmas, armao, concretagem, alvenaria,
revestimentos com argamassa, contrapiso, revestimentos com gesso e revestimentos cermicos.
2001. 357p. Tese de Livre docncia - Escola Politcnica, Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo,
2001.

203