Construction Equipment Management Practices for

Improving Labor Productivity in Multistory

Building Construction Projects
Argaw Tarekegn Gurmu 1 and Ajibade Ayodeji Aibinu 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Construction project productivity can be enhanced by the implementation of good management practices. The purposes of this
research are to identify construction equipment management practices that have the potential to improve productivity in multistory building
projects, develop a tool for measuring such practices, and on that basis, build a logistic regression model for predicting the probability of
exceeding a baseline productivity factor when the levels of implementation of equipment management practices are known. The research
adopted a two-phase exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. During Phase I, in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 experts
who have been involved in the delivery of multistory building projects. The qualitative data were analyzed, and construction equipment
management practices that have the potential to improve productivity were identified. In Phase II, data were collected from 39 principal
contractors on 39 projects using questionnaires. The quantitative data were analyzed to prioritize the practices identified in Phase I, and on
that basis, a scoring tool for measuring the practices was developed; a logistic regression model was also developed for predicting the
probability of exceeding baseline productivity factor using a sigmoid graph when the score of the practices is known. Construction equipment
maintenance, construction equipment procurement plans, and construction equipment productivity analysis are identified as the three
construction equipment management practices that could improve productivity in multistory building projects. Contractors can use the
probability-based predictive model to assess the risk of low productivity for specific levels of implementations of construction equipment
management practices. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by developing a construction equipment management practices
measuring, planning, monitoring, and evaluating tool in the context of multistory building projects. Also, the logistic regression model can be
used to test whether a certain level of implementation of a construction equipment management practice might be associated with higher or
lower productivity compared to the baseline. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001384. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Productivity; Construction equipment management practices; Logistic regression; Building projects; Australia; Labor
and personnel issues.

Introduction
In Australia, the construction industry provided 8.29% of the
annual gross value added in the year 2015, making it a significant
contributor to the economy (ABS 2016a). Despite its significance,
the industry’s productivity growth is low. According to a report
by Australia’s Productivity Commission (2015), in the year
2013–2014, the labor productivity growth for the total economy
was 1.4%, whereas labor productivity growth in the construction
industry was −1.0%. The report also indicated that multifactor pro-
ductivity in construction industry declined, but only marginally.
Thus, the labor productivity growth rate was low when compared
with mutifactor productivity. Multifactor productivity is measured
as output per unit of combined inputs of labor and capital, whereas
labor productivity is measured as output per unit of labor input
in terms of hours worked (Productivity Commission 2013). Im-
provements in project-level productivity can enhance industry-level
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning,
Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia (corresponding
author). E-mail: argtar1982@gmail.com
2
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Univ.
of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 19, 2016; approved
on May 3, 2017; published online on August 14, 2017. Discussion period
open until January 14, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
productivity because the outputs and inputs used for computing
industry-level productivity are obtained from projects. In most con-
struction productivity studies conducted at the project level, the
terms productivity and labor productivity are used interchangeably.
El-Gohary and Aziz (2013) explained that in construction, produc-
tivity usually refers to labor productivity. In this research, the term
productivity refers to the labor productivity at the construction-
project level.
Australia’s Productivity Commission (2013) suggested that
the use of advanced technology and changes in the management
practices could improve productivity. However, a study conducted
by Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD) (2001) indicated that technological change does not nec-
essarily translate into productivity growth. Rojas and Aramvareekul
(2003) concluded that enhancing productivity in construction proj-
ects is a management issue, and the use of new technologies may be
helpful but insufficient. Hence, this research focuses on manage-
ment practices that could improve productivity in multistory build-
ing projects. Construction management practices that have the
potential to improve productivity could be categorized into con-
struction materials management practices, preconstruction-phase
management practices, management practices related to construc-
tion methods, construction equipment and tools management prac-
tices, human resources management practices, and safety and
health practices (Table 1). In this research, construction equip-
ment and tools management practices are investigated because
most multistory building construction systems in Victoria State,

© ASCE 04017081-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 Table 1. Categories of Construction Management Practices That Have the Potential to Improve Productivity in Construction Projects
Category
Construction materials
management practices
Construction equipment and
tools management practices
Preconstruction-phase
management practices
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Elements
Procurement plans for materials, long-lead materials identification, procurement team for materials, materials
status database, postreceipt preservation and maintenance, on-site materials tracking technology, materials
delivery schedule, material inspection process, and materials inspection team (Arditi 1985; Arditi and Mochtar
1996; Jergeas 2009; Nasir et al. 2010; Nasir 2013; Caldas et al. 2014).
Construction equipment procurement plan, construction equipment maintenance, construction equipment
productivity analysis, tools tracking technologies, tools management strategy, and tools maintenance
(Crespo Márquez and Sánchez Herguedas 2004; Wireman 2005; Goodrum et al. 2006).
Short interval plan, dedicated planner, construction work packages, well-defined scope of works, contract types,
use of software in planning work packages, model development, buildability review, utilities alignment, and

regulatory requirements (Thomas et al. 2001; Liao 2008; Nasir 2013; CII 2013a, b; Caldas et al. 2014).
Management practices related Integrated schedule, work schedule strategies, schedule control, dynamic site layout plan, machinery
to construction methods positioning strategy, site security plan, traffic control plan, project start-up plan, project completion plan, and
innovations and new technologies (Tommelein and Zouein 1993; Arditi and Mochtar 1996; Attalla 1997;
Hanna et al. 2008; Kerzner 2010; Nasir et al. 2015; Gurmu et al. 2016a).
Human resource Financial incentive programs, nonfinancial incentive programs, career development, social activities,
management practices employees training, crew composition, stability of organizational structure, clear delegation of responsibility,
exit interviews, skill assessment and evaluation, and retention plan for experienced personnel (Luthans 2000;
Kazaz and Ulubeyli 2007; Fagbenle et al. 2004; Hewage et al. 2011; Tabassi et al. 2012; CII 2013a).
Safety and health Safety and health policy, safety and health plan, safe work method statement, hazards analysis, safety and health
practices training, toolbox safety meetings, housekeeping, and drugs and alcohol testing programs (Sawacha et al. 1999;
Jergeas 2009; Hinze and Wilson 2000; CII 2013b; Gurmu et al. 2016b).

Australia, consist of prefabricated elements that need construction
machinery for their placement, and lack of good equipment man-
agement practice can significantly influence productivity. Dai et al.
(2009) found that unavailability of a crane, forklifts, person lifts
(hoists), consumables, and tools are critical factors reducing the
productivity of craftspeople.
Previous studies identified the best practices that could improve
productivity in infrastructure and industrial projects. However, it is
possible that none of these practices are appropriate for improving
productivity in multistory building projects. Also, management
practices and their effectiveness would depend on the context such
as differences in the resources supply chain within the local market,
local regulatory requirements, and project type (Bloom and Van
Reenen 2010). Thus, management practices for improving produc-
tivity might vary across project types and from country to country.
They may also vary across different local construction markets. For
instance, the use of a control system for tool delay is found to be
one of the management practices that could enhance productivity in
industrial projects, but the practice is not applicable to infrastruc-
ture projects (Caldas et al. 2014). Similarly, a construction equip-
ment utility requirement has been identified as a practice that could
improve productivity in infrastructure projects, but not industrial
projects (Nasir et al. 2015). Thus, projects types are not homo-
geneous when considering equipment management practices that
have the potential to enhance productivity. This study departs from
and extends existing research in the area by focusing on multistory
building projects in Victoria State, which is the second largest con-
struction market in Australia (ABS 2016b). There has been little or
no research conducted on what the practices might be in the context
of multistory building projects in Australia. Therefore, an investi-
gation of construction equipment management practices that are
applicable to multistory building projects, is essential.
Measuring management practices can help project managers to
know if their practices are adequate or inadequate. It can also help
them determine whether the level of implementation of such prac-
tices is low or high so that improvement actions can be imple-
mented to potentially enhance productivity. Previous researchers
have developed techniques to measure equipment and tools man-
agement practices in the context of industrial and infrastructure
construction projects (CII 2013a, b; Nasir 2013). However, these
measurements cannot be applied to building projects because
the practices for multistory building projects could be different,
and the relative weight assigned to each practice would be different
as well.
Implementation of higher levels of construction equipment man-
agement practices can help to increase the probability of achieving
higher levels of productivity, whereas the implementation of lower
level of the practices decreases the probability of attaining higher
levels of productivity. This probability can be estimated using a
logistic regression model. Although previous studies have devel-
oped tools for measuring construction equipment and tools man-
agement practices for industrial and infrastructure projects, these
existing tools do not integrate a probability function when assess-
ing productivity levels based on the known level of implementation
of the practices. Thus, users of existing scoring tools have no means
of assessing the probability of exceeding a baseline productivity
factor based on a score of construction equipment and tools man-
agement practices. Knowing the probability of achieving higher
productivity levels can help project managers to plan for the
implementation of appropriate practices on a proposed building
project. For instance, if the chance of having a productivity that
exceeds the baseline productivity is low, then the project manager
can make the decision to increase the level of implementation of
these practices to increase the chances of having an associated
higher level of productivity. Accordingly, the objectives of this
study are to
• Identify construction equipment and tools management prac-
tices that have the potential to improve productivity in multis-
tory building projects in the context of Victoria, Australia;
• Develop a scoring tool for measuring the level of implementa-
tion of construction equipment and tools management prac-
tices; and
• Develop a logistic regression model that can be used to predict
the probability of exceeding the baseline productivity factor

© ASCE 04017081-2 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 based on a score of the construction equipment and tools man-
agement practices.
Significance of the Study
To date, there is no tool that is used to measure, plan, monitor,
and evaluate the construction equipment management practices
that have the potential to enhance labor productivity in multistory
building construction projects. During the preconstruction phase, a
scoring tool in conjunction with a prediction tool would help con-
tractors to plan appropriate equipment management practices to
achieve the desired level of labor productivity. The prediction tool
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
indicates the chance of exceeding a baseline productivity. If the
chance of achieving productivity above the baseline is low using
a certain equipment management practice score, then the project
manager can make a decision to implement appropriate practices
to increase the project’s score and potentially increase labor
productivity.
During the construction phase, the scoring tool can be used to
monitor whether the planned practices are adequately implemented
or not. If not, corrective actions will be taken to reduce the loss
of productivity related to equipment management. Numerous re-
searchers have reported the loss of labor productivity because
of equipment unavailability and breakage during the construction
phase (Hughes and Thorpe 2014; Ghoddousi and Hosseini 2012;
Dai et al. 2009; Makulsawatudom et al. 2004). Thus, development
of the scoring tool can help to reduce such losses of productivity
and their consequences, such as project delays and additional costs.
Hence, developing a technique to monitor implementation of these
practices is essential.
During the project completion phase, the scoring tool can be
used to evaluate whether the implemented practices are associated
with high or low labor productivity. If the productivity is low,
lessons can be learned from the completed project and appropriate
practices can be planned for a new project.
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
Productivity in Multistory Building Projects
In Australia, construction projects can be broadly classified into
two groups: engineering and building. This research will focus
on productivity improvement in building construction projects be-
cause a significant level of activity occurs in this sector. In June
2016, the values of works done in the Australian building and
engineering sectors were 54 and 46%, respectively (ABS 2016b).
Building construction projects can be classified based on the
number of storys. According to Australia’s Australian Government
(2006), a multistory building has a rise in storys greater than three.
This research investigates productivity improvement in multistory
building construction projects because their construction processes
are more complex given the involvement of complex engineering
services. The South Australian Department for Communities and
Social Inclusion (2016) apartment design guidelines state that
apartments having 2–4 storys are simple to construct, whereas
towers over 4 storys have a more complex design and construction
system.
In Victoria State, Australia, multistory building construction
projects are managed by a single principal contractor that employs
several subcontractors. The principal contractor is a person con-
ducting a business that commissions the subcontractors’ work and
is authorized to manage, control, and coordinate construction
work at the workplace (Australian Government 2011), whereas a
© ASCE 04017081-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
subcontractor is a person conducting a business that enters into
a contract with a principal contractor to undertake specified con-
struction work. Principal contractors were contacted during Phase
II of this research because they are responsible for the delivery of
multistory building construction projects. For the sake of brevity,
the term building project is used to refer to a multistory building
construction project.
Project-Level versus Activity-Level Management
Practices
Construction management practices that could improve productiv-
ity at the project level can also enhance productivity at an activity
level. However, practices that could improve the productivity of an
activity might not necessarily enhance the productivity of a build-
ing project. For instance, locating cranes in the most appropriate
location for the construction of many work packages can improve
the productivity of a project or group of activities such as concrete,
façade, and structural steel works. However, positioning a crane in
the most suitable position for only one activity could enhance the
productivity of that activity, for instance, façade work, but might
not improve the productivity of other groups of activities or a
project. Similarly, procurement of a crane by considering the maxi-
mum weight to be lifted in a single work package can affect the
productivity of other work packages because these work packages
might have the heaviest materials, which the procured crane could
not lift. Thus, focusing on activity-level management practices
might not increase overall project productivity.Therefore, this re-
search focuses on productivity improvement at the project level.
Construction Equipment and Tools Management
Practices Influencing Productivity in Construction
Projects
Based on a review of previous studies, a preliminary framework of
the construction equipment and tools management practices that
have the potential to improve productivity in building projects was
developed (Fig. 1). The framework will be modified based on the
findings of Phase I of the study in which the relevant independent
variables (construction equipment and tools management practices
that could improve productivity in multistory building projects in
Victoria, Australia) are identified. The proposed preliminary frame-
work is shown in Fig. 1.
According to Prasertrungruang and Hadikusumo (2007), a good
equipment acquisition strategy is one of the success factors in con-
struction projects. Similarly, procurement procedures and plans are
found to be the best practices that have the potential to improve
productivity in industrial projects (Caldas et al. 2014). Construction
equipment procurement planning might also be one of the practices
that could improve productivity in multistory building projects in
the context of Victoria, Australia, because these practice might help
to reduce the stoppage of the building works resulting from con-
struction equipment shortages in the state. This assumption was
explored using in-depth interviews.
Preventive maintenance could reduce loss of productivity by
minimizing the rate of construction equipment breakage. Wireman
(2005) described that equipment maintenance has the potential to
increase contractors’ profitability by increasing the availability of
equipment and reducing the number of unexpected breakdowns.
According to the Wireman (2005), preventive maintenance
activities such as a lubrication program, routine inspections, and
adjustments should be conducted to avoid potential problems by
addressing them before they happen. Arditi and Mochtar (1996)
identified maintenance of construction equipment as one of the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Construction Equipment
Procurement Plan
Construction Equipment
Productivity Analysis
Construction Equipment Construction
Maintenance Equipment and Tools
Management Practices
Tools Management
Strategy
Tools Tracking
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technologies
Tools Maintenance
Fig. 1. Preliminary conceptual framework of the study
potential areas where productivity gains could be obtained. For
multistory building projects in Victoria, equipment such as cranes
and hoists might need preventive maintenance because their stop-
page could affect activities on a critical path whose delay could
affect projects’ progress, and implementation of this practice could
improve productivity. The assumption that equipment maintenance
could enhance productivity in multistory building projects will be
verified during Phase I of the study.
Construction equipment productivity analysis is considered one
of the best practices that could improve productivity in infrastruc-
ture projects (Nasir et al. 2015). Analyzing performances of various
equipment and choosing the most suitable construction equipment
for a certain building project could help principal contractors to
reduce unnecessary costs and increase productivity. The signifi-
cance of equipment productivity analysis for improving productiv-
ity in multistory building projects will be explored by this study.
The use of tracking technologies such as bar codes and radio
frequency identification (RFID) could also have important applica-
tions in tools management. The technology could be used to iden-
tify the location of tools, the date the item was checked out, and
the person who took the tool. Goodrum et al. (2006) explained the
significance of tool availability for productivity improvement and
developed a tool-tracking and inventory system capable of storing
operation and maintenance data using RFID tags. Because multi-
story building projects might involve various tools, tracking tech-
nology could be important to enhance productivity.
Site tool and consumables management strategies are recom-
mended as potential area for productivity improvement in industrial
projects (Caldas et al. 2014). Finally, conducting onsite tool main-
tenance by carrying out prior activities, such as identifying which
tools need maintenance, when they should be repaired, and as-
signing qualified personnel, is a best practice that could enhance
productivity in infrastructure projects (Nasir 2013). Tool manage-
ment systems could also be important for multistory building
projects because the damage or loss of tools might influence their
productivity, and this suggestion will also be explored.
Research Methodology
This study uses an exploratory sequential mixed-methods research
design involving a combination of qualitative and quantitative
data in two phases. In exploratory sequential mixed methods, the
researcher first begins by exploring with qualitative data, and then
© ASCE 04017081-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
Multistory Building
Construction Projects’
Productivity
uses the findings in a second quantitative phase. The qualitative
phase may be used to build an instrument that best fits the sample
under study, identify appropriate instruments to use in the follow-
up quantitative phase, or specify variables that need to go into a
follow-up quantitative study (Creswell 2013). In this research, the
exploratory sequential mixed methods are used because construc-
tion equipment and tools management practices identified by pre-
vious studies might not be applicable to the Victorian construction
industry, and there could be other practices that are specific to local
industry. Thus, an exploratory study was conducted first by collect-
ing and analyzing qualitative data obtained from interviews during
the first phase. The preliminary conceptual framework developed
based on the literature review was modified on the basis of the
qualitative data and practices that have the potential to enhance
labor productivity in multistory building projects in Victoria State,
Australia. Furthermore, the instrument used to measure construc-
tion equipment and tools management practices was verified in
Phase I. To develop the scoring tool and probability-based predic-
tive model, quantitative data were collected and analyzed during
Phase II of the research.
Data Collection and Analysis Techniques
Data Collection: Phase I
Objective 1 of the study is to identify construction equipment and
tools management practices that have the potential to improve pro-
ductivity in multistory building projects in the context of Victoria,
Australia. In order to address this objective, data relating to equip-
ment and tool management practices were collected in Phase I
using interviews. Nineteen professionals who have experience in
delivering multistory building projects in Victoria were inter-
viewed. They have 5–40 years work experience and have been
working as general manager, construction manager, project man-
ager, project coordinator, project engineer, site engineer, contract
administrator, supervisor, and/or cost manager. The experts were
selected based on their experience in working for subcontractors
and principal contractors that are involved in the construction of
multistory building projects in Victoria State, Australia. A snow-
balling technique was used to select the participants for the inter-
views. In this technique, some experienced building construction
experts were contacted first, and the researcher asked them to
nominate other experienced professionals to participate in the
interviews.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 The semistructured interview questions consisted of lists of
equipment and tool management practices that have the potential
to improve productivity in construction projects. For each proposed
practice, questions included
• Does this practice exist?
• How is it practiced by local contractors?
• Does this practice improve productivity in multistory building
construction projects?
• What other practices enhance productivity in multistory build-
ing construction projects? and
• How do you measure productivity in multistory building
projects?
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
each practice. Similar iterative procedures were used for all the in-
terview results. Similarities among the successive summaries were
observed to find the saturation point. After analyzing the outcome
of the 15th interview, similar explanations for the construction
equipment and tools management practices that have the potential
to improve productivity in multistory building projects were ob-
served. Although the saturation point was reached at the 15th inter-
viewee, more interviews were conducted until the 19th participant
for the sake of validating the saturation point. Finally, the output
of the first phase was used as input to the second phase, which en-
tailed quantitative data collection and analysis. The construction
equipment management practices that were described as suitable

Each interview lasted for an average of 1.5 h. The interviews
were conducted until the data analysis reached a saturation point.
Saturation refers to the point where similar reasons for accepting or
rejecting a particular practice were given by the participants.
Analysis of the qualitative data was conducted in three concur-
rent steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion (Rose et al.
2015). Data reduction is a form of analysis that sharpens, sorts,
focuses, discards, and organizes data in a way that final conclusions
can be drawn (Miles et al. 1994). Writing summaries, coding, and
making clusters are common methods used in a data-reduction pro-
cess. The latter two methods are more suitable when the research
is entirely inductive in nature. In this study, writing summaries
was used as a technique to reduce the transcribed interviews.
The reduced data were displayed using matrices, graphs, charts,
and networks. In this research, a matrix technique was used because
it is suitable to display response summaries in matrix boxes. Once
the data were displayed, the conclusion was drawn by either notic-
ing the patterns of similarities and differences among categories
and/or processes, clustering, making contrasts and comparisons,
and noting relations among concepts (Rose et al. 2015).
During the analysis, the audiotaped interviews were first tran-
scribed, and a matrix was prepared in Excel spreadsheet to match
the responses of an expert and the construction equipment and tools
management practices (Table 2). A summary of each interview re-
sult was written in a matrix box, and a conclusion was drawn for
to improve productivity in multistory building projects by the par-
ticipants were included in the list for the industrywide survey.
Furthermore, the instrument used to measure the identified practi-
ces was verified.
Data Collection: Phase II
In Phase II, data were collected to address the following Objectives
2 and 3 of the study:
• Develop a scoring tool for measuring the level of imple-
mentation of construction equipment and tools management
practices; and
• Develop a logistic regression model that can be used to predict
the probability of exceeding the baseline productivity factor
based on a score of the construction equipment and tools man-
agement practices.
Quantitative data were collected using a self-administered inter-
view questionnaire survey. Respondents were asked the questions
face-to-face and requested to write down their answers (Fowler and
Cosenza 2009). This approach can increase the response rate, and
in this study, it allowed the researchers to clarify issues during the
interview survey.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part,
respondents were asked to provide information on a specific multi-
story building project that they completed within last 5 years
(2011–2016). The information includeed project cost and project

Table 2. Summary of the Interview Results

Management practice
Construction equipment
procurement plan
Construction equipment
productivity analysis
Construction equipment
maintenance
Tools management strategy
Tools tracking technologies
Tools maintenance
Summary of interviews Conclusion
“In high-rise building projects, the crane is the major equipment that influences productivity. Applicable
Sometimes, there are too many construction projects in city and cranes might not be available
for a particular job. Thus, procurement of the equipment should be planned ahead of the
commencement of a project to reduce delay, and the practice is essential to improve
productivity.”
“Slow-speed hoist cost less money but it takes longer time and high-speed hoist lifts materials Applicable
quickly and saves construction time. For high-rise building, it is recommended to use two
high-speed hoists side by side to increase productivity. The time the crane took to place
concrete panels or other items is recorded to analyze its productivity.Thus, the practice is
essential.”
“Principal contractors should ensure that equipment is calibrated, inspected and maintained. Applicable
Induction should be conducted when new equipment is delivered to the building site. If there
is no maintenance record, the equipment might not be used for the project. Therefore,
equipment maintenance is important for productivity improvement.”
“As most of the works which involve tools are done by subcontractors, tools management Not applicable
strategy is not important for productivity improvement from principal contractors’
perspective.”
“The practice is not essential to increase the productivity of building projects as the tools used Not applicable
by the principal contractors are minimal.”
“The lifespan of tool is monitored and corrective action could be taken, but the practice is not Not applicable
important for productivity improvement.”

© ASCE 04017081-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 time among other things. In the second part, the respondents were
asked to rate the relative importance of construction equipment and
tools management practices identified during Phase I. A response
scale of 1–5 was used in order to achieve optimum reliability and
validity (Jamieson 2004; Lozano et al. 2008). In the rating, 1 = not
important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = very
important, and 5 = extremely important. In the third part, the re-
spondents were asked to choose the level of implementation of each
practice on the multistory building projects they nominated in the
first part of the questionnaire. The levels of implementation of these
practices were measured on the basis of a survey instrument devel-
oped as part of Phase I of the study. In developing the measurement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
instrument, an existing instrument developed by the Construction
Industry Institute (CII 2013b) was used as a starting point.
On that basis, a new tool was developed and validated through
interviews with local experts during Phase I of the study (the
validated instrument is given in Table S1).
Before choosing the sample multistory building projects for
Phase II of this research, a list and addresses of contractors were
obtained from the registry of Victoria’s Department of Treasury and
Finance (2015). The Department maintains a list of contractors that
are prequalified to provide different construction activities. They
have been assessed against a range of management, technical,
and financial prequalification criteria to ensure they meet the high
standards required of government suppliers. According to the De-
partment’s requirements, firms applying for prequalification must
demonstrate that they have the management capability, qualifica-
tions, expertise, experience, and technical and financial capacity
to deliver construction projects successfully. All the 39 principal
contractors on the list having experience in constructing multistory
building projects were selected. Multistory building projects that
have been delivered by these contractors were identified from their
companies’ websites. The questionnaires were distributed to these
contractors. The persons directly responsible for the construction of
a multistory building project within these companies were con-
tacted and were the respondents. They were construction directors,
operation managers, construction managers, project managers,
project coordinators, and/or site managers. The letters explaining
the objectives of the research and benefits of participating in the
research were sent to the respondents via email and in person.
Researchers then sent follow-up emails and phone calls requesting
participation and setting a suitable time and places for the inter-
views. The results of the study can be generalized because the sam-
ple size of 39 represents all potential principal contractors that have
the capability to execute multistory building projects. Moreover,
the suitability of the survey data was checked using various tests
such as Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
and events per variable (EPV), and acceptable results were found
(see “Logistic Regression Model Building” section for EPV). Thus,
the sample size is adequate to enable a valid conclusion to be
drawn.
Qualitative Data Analysis, Findings, and Discussion
Construction Equipment and Tools Management
Practices That Could Enhance Productivity in
Multistory Building Projects
Construction equipment procurement plans, construction equip-
ment productivity analysis, and construction equipment mainte-
nance are found to be the three construction equipment
management practices that have the potential to improve produc-
tivity in multistory building projects (Table 2).
© ASCE 04017081-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
The interview results reveal that preparing plans for either
leasing or hiring of construction equipment has a positive impact
on productivity. Some of the interview participants explained that
cranes and hoists are the most critical equipment in building proj-
ects, and lack of proper procurement procedures could negatively
influence productivity. Other interviewees explained that the sub-
contractor involved in structure works provides the crane, and the
principal contractor negotiates on how the crane is used by other
subcontractors. Moreover, principal contractors can also identify
any equipment required for execution of a particular task and in-
clude in the subcontract an agreement so that the subcontractor is
responsible for hiring it.
According to the interviews, the productivity of a crane is an-
alyzed by considering its speed in lifting materials and the source of
power. For instance, because an electric crane does not make noise,
contractors can start their works early in the morning without dis-
turbing neighbors. However, if it is a diesel crane, they could not
start early because the crane’s engine is noisy. The principal con-
tractor should start work as per the permission provided to them by
the city council. Cranes that have a fast speed and are capable of
lifting the maximum weight to be lifted at a particular building
project are preferred. For a mobile crane, weather conditions are
also considered. The contractor needs to look at weather forecasts
before bringing the crane to the site or signing an agreement with
the crane hiring company.
In analyzing the hoists’ productivity, the number of stories of
the building and floor area are considered. Interview participants
explained that for a high-rise building taller than 30 stories, it is
recommended to use two high-speed hoists side by side rather than
use two low-speed hoists. A low-speed hoist costs less than high-
speed one, but it takes longer time and affects productivity. The
time required to transport materials from ground to the desired
working level is recorded and analyzed to choose the most suit-
able hoist. Some respondents added that for small jobs up to three
stories, the choice of speed does not make any difference in pro-
ductivity. However, for multistory buildings, the choice of appro-
priate hoist or lift could make a major difference.
Construction equipment maintenance is found to be one of
the practices that could improve productivity in building projects.
According to some participants, a crane is commonly serviced
every 2 weeks, and a hoist is serviced once a week. When subcon-
tractors are responsible for hiring construction equipment, they are
required to provide evidence regarding maintenance of construction
equipment to the principal contractors. Other respondents added
that inspecting and maintaining crane is fundamental because lift-
ing construction materials is a risky task. If materials fall while lift-
ing because unsafe cranes were used, the contractor is responsible
for the damages to nearby properties or persons. The respondents
also described the regulatory requirement that must be fulfilled re-
garding the frequency of maintenance and what items should be
inspected regularly. Based on the findings of Phase I, the six inde-
pendent variables in the preliminary conceptual framework were
reduced to three independent variables. The validated framework
is shown in Fig. 2.
Quantitative Data Analysis, Findings, and
Discussion
Part I of the questionnaire was analyzed to compute the produc-
tivity factors for the 39 building projects nominated by the 39 par-
ticipating contractors. A construction project’s productivity can be
expressed in either absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms,
the units of measure for both output and input are shown in the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Construction Equipment
Procurement Plan
Construction Equipment
Productivity Analysis
Construction Equipment
Maintenance
Fig. 2. Validated conceptual framework
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
productivity value. The relative measure, or productivity factor
(PF), refers to the ratio of the actual to planned productivity. In this
study, the actual productivity was computed using a building proj-
ect value as output and actual project completion time as input, and
the planned productivity was calculated using a building project
value as output and planned project completion time as input
(the data for computing PF are given in Table S2). For instance,
the project start date for one of the projects coded R2 was
June 1, 2011; its planned completion date was March 1, 2014;
its actual completion date was August 1, 2014; and its project
cost was AU$100 million. Thus, the planned duration (input) =
(March 1,2014)–(June 1,2011) = 1,004 days; actual input =
(August 1,2014)–(June 1,2011) = 1,157 days; actual productiv-
ity = (AU$100 million)/(1,157 days) = AU$0.086 million=day;
planned productivity = (AU$100 million)/(1,000 days) =
AU$0.099 million=day; accordingly, PF ¼ 0.086=0.099 ¼ 0.87.
Productivity factors of the other projects were computed using a
similar procedure.
According to Alby (1994), a productivity factor is a useful
measure to compare the productivity of different construction proj-
ects. Nasir (2013) concluded that the use of productivity factor as a
metric to measure productivity is more beneficial than adopting an
absolute measure. According to that study, the weighted average
project productivities can be computed because PF is independent
of units of measurement. Caldas et al. (2014) validated the use of
PF to measure productivity in industrial projects. In this research,
PF was used because it is suitable to compare productivities of vari-
ous multistory building projects.The mean PF of the projects is
0.95, the minimum PF ¼ 0.59, and the maximum PF ¼ 1.14.
Part II of the questionnaire was analyzed to assign weights to the
construction equipment management practices identified in the in-
terviews and to rank them accordingly. A relative importance index
(RII) and mean value can be used for ranking purpose. According
to Lam et al. (2007), both methods produce similar rankings, but
the RII method is used to derive relative indices within the range of
0–1, which makes the relative comparisons of different variables
easy. Holt (1997) explained that many researchers in construction
management prefer RII because the relative comparison of varia-
bles whose indices are less than or equal to 1 is easier to perceive.
Doloi (2012) stated that the mean and standard deviations are not
reliable statistics for assessing the overall ranking of the attributes
and used the relative importance weights as input for factor and
regression analyses. This research adopted the RII technique be-
cause it is suitable for ranking purposes and recommended for in-
ferential statistical analyses. The following equation was used for
RII computation (El-Gohary and Aziz 2013):
5ðn5 Þ þ 4ðn4 Þ þ 3ðn3 Þ þ 2ðn2 Þ þ n1
RII ¼ ð1Þ
5ðn1 þ n2 þ n3 þ n4 þ n5 Þ
The number of respondents who selected 1 for “not important,”
2 for “slightly important,” 3 for “somewhat important,” 4 for “very
© ASCE 04017081-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
Construction Multi-story Building
Equipment and Tools Construction Projects’
Management Practices Productivity
important,” and 5 for “extremely important” regarding practices to
improve productivity in multistory building projects are shown as
n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , and n5 , respectively.
Relative Importance of the Practices
The finding of this study confirmed that not all construction equip-
ment and tools management practices that are identified for infra-
structure and industrial projects are suitable for building projects.
Moreover, the priorities of these practices are different. Site tools
management strategy, tool tracking systems, and on-site tools main-
tenance are the three practices that are common to infrastructure
and industrial projects (CII 2013a, b). However, it is found that
these tools management systems are not suitable for building
projects. This could be a result of the contracting system in the
Victorian building industry, in which principal contractors engage
numerous subcontractors that bring their own tools, which are not
usually stored on the building sites. Hampson and Brandon (2004)
explained that most large construction companies in Australia
employ small firms that deploy necessary tools and equipment for
the execution of subcontracted tasks. According to the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2013), 78% of the building construction
works are carried out by small and medium firms.
Using the RII technique, the weights for the construction equip-
ment procurement plan, construction equipment productivity anal-
ysis, and construction equipment maintenance are 0.69, 0.61, and
0.79, respectively. Accordingly, construction equipment mainte-
nance is ranked first. This could be attributed to local regula-
tory requirements that oblige contractors to carry out construction
equipment inspection and maintenance. According to Clause 253
of the Australian Government (2011), any person conducting a
business involving the management or control of plant must ensure
that maintenance, inspection, and testing of the crane is carried out
by a competent person. Failure to carry out such tasks is an offense
against the regulation and result in a financial penalty of AU
$18,000 (US$14,000). Construction works could also be sus-
pended if accidents occur.
The construction equipment procurement plan and construc-
tion equipment productivity analysis are ranked second and third,
respectively. The finding of the study suggests that contractors in-
volved in multistory building construction in Victoria, Australia,
focus on selecting and hiring the major construction equipment
such as cranes and hoists to reduce the loss of productivity resulting
from equipment unavailability. An analysis was also conducted to
check if there are significant differences among the weights of
the three practices. Because the data are not normally distributed,
a Friedman test was conducted, and the result shows p < 0.001.
Accordingly, there is a significant difference among the weights
assigned to the practices. However, because the Friedman test
does not indicate which variable is significantly different from
another, a Wilcoxon test was carried out. Pairwise comparisons
using Wilcoxon’s test indicate p ¼ 0.007 < 0.05 for construction
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 3. Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients
Variable Spearman’s rho PF CEMP CEPP CEPA
Construction equipment management practices Coefficient 0.366a — — —
Significance 0.022 — — —
Construction equipment procurement plan Coefficient 0.435b 0.908b — —
Significance 0.006 <0.001 — —
Construction equipment productivity analysis Coefficient 0.330a 0.859b 0.772b —
Significance 0.040 <0.001 <0.001 —
Construction equipment maintenance Coefficient 0.162 0.685b 0.424b 0.419b
Significance 0.324 <0.001 0.007 0.008
Note: CEMP = construction equipment management practices; CEPA = construction equipment productivity analysis; CEPP = construction equipment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

procurement plan; PF = productivity factor; sample size = 39.

a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

equipment procurement plan and construction equipment produc-
tivity analysis; p ¼ 0.031 < 0.05 for construction equipment
procurement plan and construction equipment maintenance; and
p ¼ 0.001 < 0.05 for construction equipment productivity analysis
and construction equipment maintenance. All the three possible
combinations are statistically significant, which show that the
weights of the practices are different from each other.
Scoring Tool for the Practices
To measure the levels of implementation of the practices quantita-
tively, a scoring tool was developed and validated. The weight com-
puted for each practice was used to develop the scoring tool. The
data collected from building projects were transformed into equiv-
alent scores using the scoring tool. The weight is proportionally
distributed among five levels of each practice. For instance, the
weight for construction equipment procurement plan is 0.69 and
the proportions are Level A ¼ 0; Level B ¼ 1=5 × ð0.69Þ ¼ 0.14;
Level C ¼ 2=5 × ð0.69Þ ¼ 0.28; Level D ¼ 3=5ð0.69Þ ¼ 0.41;
Level E ¼ 4=5 × ð0.69Þ ¼ 0.55; and Level F ¼ 0.69. Similarly, the
weight proportions for other practices are computed and the scoring
tool is developed (presented in the Appendix). Using the scoring
tool, the project scores are computed based on respondents’ se-
lected level of implementation for each practice on the nominated
39 projects. For instance, Respondent 1 picked Level B for con-
struction equipment procurement plan, Level B for construction
productivity analysis, and Level C for construction equipment
maintenance, and the equivalent total score of construction equip-
ment management practice for that particular project is 0.14 þ
0.12 þ 0.32 ¼ 0.58. Similarly, 117 scores (39 projects × 3 scores=
project) were computed.
Validity and Reliability Test for the Scoring Tool
To validate the scoring tool, mean, mode, and median scores were
computed to choose a baseline score for grouping the projects. If
data are not highly skewed, the mean is the best measure of central
tendency (Lurd and Lurd 2013). The skewness ¼ 0.157, standard
error ¼ 0.378, and Z ¼ ð0.157=0.378Þ ¼ 0.41 < 1.96 are ob-
tained. According to Kim (2013), if the Z-score for skewness is
less than 1.96, the distribution could be considered normal. Thus,
the mean score of 0.93 is used as a baseline for classification.
Projects with scores below the mean value are classified under
Group 1 (low-score), and those having scores greater than the base-
line are classified under Group 2 (high-score). A Mann-Whitney
U-test was conducted because the grouped data do not fulfill the
assumptions of parametric tests, and a p-value of 0.009 was
obtained, which indicates that there is a significant difference be-
tween the two groups. The finding implies that building projects
with higher levels of implementation of construction equipment
management practices have also higher productivity. Therefore, the
scoring tool is valid. The mean PF for Group 1 and Group 2 is 1.01
and 0.90, respectively.
The internal consistency of the scoring tool was checked by
running a reliability test using SPSS version 24.0 before conducting
correlation and logistic regression analyses. Cronbach’s alpha (α) is
the most popular reliability statistic to determine the consistency of
items in a survey instrument; the recommended acceptable mini-
mum value of α is 0.70 (Santos 1999). In this research, a Cronbach
alpha value of 0.74 was found, which indicates that the scoring tool
is reliable.
Correlation and Linear Regression Analyses
Correlation analysis was conducted to investigate the association
between productivity and the construction equipment management
practices, and the results are given in Table 3. Accordingly, all con-
struction equipment management practices are positively correlated
with productivity, which confirms the findings of Phase I of this
research. However, the correlation between the level of implemen-
tation of the construction equipment management practices and
productivity performance might not necessarily be a cause-effect
relationship. Construction equipment procurement plans and con-
struction equipment productivity analysis have statistically signifi-
cant associations with productivity.
To investigate the proportion of variance in the productivity
factor explained by the construction equipment management prac-
tices, bivariate linear regression analysis was conducted, and the
results are presented in Tables 4–6. Accordingly, a R2 of 0.144
was found, with a p-value of 0.017 implying significant relation-
ship, which means that 14.4% of the total variance in productivity
factor can be explained by construction equipment management
practices, with the remaining variance explained by other factors
beyond the scope of this study, such as materials management
Table 4. Linear Regression Model Summary
Parameter Value
R 0.38
R2 0.144
Adjusted R2 0.121
Standard error of the estimate 0.134

© ASCE 04017081-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 Table 5. ANOVA two data sets (26 points), and (2) a validation data set (13 points).
Sum of Mean A threefold cross-validation technique was used as it is less biased
Model squares df square F-value Significance than the sample splitting method (Abou-Assaleh et al. 2004).
Events per variables (EPVs) were computed using mean-PF ¼
Regression 0.112 1 0.112 6.227 0.017
Residual 0.665 37 0.018 — — 0.95, mean-PF þ 5% × ðmean-PFÞ ¼ 1.00, mean-PF − 5% ×
Total 0.777 38 — — — ðmean-PFÞ ¼ 0.90, mean-PF þ 10% × ðmean-PFÞ ¼ 1.05, and
mean-PF − 10% × mean-PF ¼ 0.86 as baseline productivity fac-
Note: df = degrees of freedom.
tors. Logistic regression analysis was conducted using model-
building data sets, and the results are presented in Table 7.
Accordingly, the result obtained using PF ¼ 0.90 as a cut-off value
to transform projects’ productivity factor data into binary equiva-
Table 6. Coefficients lent was found to be statistically significant with better predictive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Unstandardized accuracy and EPV ¼ 26 > 10. Thus, cut-off PF ¼ 0.90 was chosen
coefficients and Data Sets 2 and 3 were used in the logistic regression analysis.
Standard Standardized
The rule of thumb for sample size for logistic regression analysis
Model B error coefficients t-statistic Significance states that the number of EPVs should be greater than 10 (Peduzzi
et al. 1996). Some authors argue that the minimum of 10 events
Constant 0.847 0.047 — 18.007 —
per predictor is conservative (Bowerman and Murphree 2014).
Construction 0.112 0.045 0.380 2.495 0.017
equipment
In this research, there were 26 projects with productivity factors
management greater than baseline PF ¼ 0.90 (positive events), and there is
practices one predictor.
Some results of the logistic regression analysis are provided
Note: B = parameter estimate.
in Tables 8–12. For the sake of brevity, not all the outputs are pre-
sented in this paper. The model’s Omnibus test indicates signifi-
cance value of 0.02 < 0.05; a Hosmer and Lemeshow test shows
a p-value of 0.72 > 0.05, indicating the strength of the model.
practices, advances in technology, and government regulations, Furthermore, the model variable’s p-value ¼ 0.04 < 0.05 and the
among others. constant’s p-value ¼ 0.03 < 0.05, which indicate that the model is
good. The model in Block 0 during the analysis indicates a predic-
tive capacity of 69.20%, whereas the final model has a predictive
Logistic Regression Model Building capacity of 76.9%. Thus, the selected model is better. The ExpðBÞ
Logistic regression analysis was conducted to address Objective 3 for construction equipment management practices is 9.9, which in-
of the study, which is to develop a logistic regression model that can dicates that for a one-unit increase in score, the odds of exceeding
be used to predict the probability of exceeding the baseline produc- the productivity factor of 0.90 increases by a factor of 9.9. Finally,
tivity factor based on a score of the construction equipment and to check the reliability of the logistic regression model, bootstrap-
tools management practices. ping using 1,000 samples was conducted and statistically signifi-
Before conducting the logistic regression analysis, the 39 data cant results were found (p ¼ 0.03 < 0.05). This implies that the
points were divided into (1) a model building data set containing model is reliable.

Table 7. Validation and Model Building Data Set Selection

Trial 3: Model building
Trial 1: Validation data set Trial 2: Model building data set (1-13 data points),
(1-13 data points), model building data set (1-13 data points), model building data set
data set (14-26 data points), validation data set (14-26 data points), (14-26 data points), and
Cut-off productivity Criteria for and model building and model building dataset validation data set
factors (PF) selection data set (27-39 data points) (27-39 data points) (27-39 data points)
Cut-off PF1 ¼ 0.86 Prediction accuracy 80.8 80.8 76.9
Significance 0.12 0.46 0.38
EPV 31 — —
Cut-off PF2 ¼ 0.90 Prediction accuracy 76.9 65.4 65.4
Significance 0.04 0.79 0.51
EPV 26 — —
Cut-off PF3 ¼ 0.95 Prediction accuracy 73.1 61.5 57.7
Significance 0.13 0.57 0.55
EPV 23 — —
Cut-off PF4 ¼ 1.00 Prediction accuracy 61.5 65.4 61.5
Significance 0.09 0.26 0.41
EPV 21 — —
Cut-off PF5 ¼ 1.05 Prediction accuracy 61.5 76.9 65.4
Significance 0.03 0.19 0.04
EPV 12 — —

© ASCE 04017081-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 1.10
Table 8. Omnibus Test for Model Coefficients 1.05
Step Chi-square df Significance 1.00
0.95
Step 5.44 1 0.02 0.90

Probability of Exceeding PF=0.90

Block 5.44 1 0.02 0.85
0.80
Model 5.44 1 0.02
0.75
Note: df = degrees of freedom. 0.70
0.65
0.60
Table 9. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test 0.55
0.50
Parameter Value 0.45
0.40
Chi-square 3.7 0.35
df 6 0.30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Significance 0.72 0.25

0.20
Note: df = degrees of freedom. 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Table 10. Classification Table 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
Description Binary equivalent Value Construction Equipment Management Practices Score

Observed PF 0 8 Fig. 3. Probability plot of construction equipment management

1 18 practices
Predicted PF 0 3
1 17
Percent correct 0 37.5
1 94.4
Overall percent 76.9 their projects’ CE score using the scoring tool and read the prob-
ability from the graph. For instance, if a project manager computes
the construction equipment management practice score of 0.30,
Table 11. Equation Variables then the probability of exceeding PF ¼ 0.90 is 43%. Thus, the ac-
Step 1 B SE Wald df Significance ExpðBÞ tual productivity could be less than the planned productivity, and
Construction equipment 2.29 1.15 3.98 1 0.04 9.90
the possibility of occurrence of project delay is high. However, the
management practices project manager can make other trials by increasing the level of the
Constant −0.98 0.93 1.12 1 0.03 0.38 practices to maximize the chance of completing the project early.
Thus, the scoring tool and model help the project team to make
Note: df = degrees of freedom; SE = standard error.
necessary decisions regarding which level of each practice to im-
plement during the actual construction phase so that the productiv-
ity of the building project could be enhanced.
By using the coefficient and constant in Table 6, the model’s
equation is constructed as follows: Model Validation
 
Pi To validate the logistic regression model, probabilities of validation
LogðOddsÞ ¼ LogitðPi Þ ¼ Ln ¼ 2.29CEi − 0.98 ð2Þ data sets were computed. Productivity factors were predicted as
1 − Pi
binary values (1,0) and compared with the actual productivity fac-
where Pi = probability of exceeding PF ¼ 0.90 for an ith proj- tors. In addition, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve
ect; and CEi (construction equipment) = score of construction was drawn and compared with the reference line; the area under the
equipment management practices for an ith project. For the sake ROC curve (AUC) was also computed. Accordingly, approximately
computing probabilities easily, this equation can be simplified 85% of the PFs were correctly predicted, indicating the strength of
the model. The ROC curve was drawn and the curve of the graph is
e2.29CEi −0.98 greater than the reference line, indicating that the model offers good
Pi ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ e2.29CEi −0.98 predictive abilities (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the area under the curve is
computed to be 0.85, which is greater than the minimum acceptable
By using the model’s equation, probabilities are computed and value of 0.5. According to Hanley and McNeil (1982), if the graph
the sigmoid graph is drawn as shown in Fig. 3. Users can compute is close to the left top boundary, the ROC curve is acceptable;

Table 12. Bootstrap for Variables in the Equation

95% confidence
interval
Step 1 B Bias SE Significance Lower Upper
Construction equipment management practices 2.29 3.83 42.40 0.03 0.26 13.62
Constant −0.98 −2.06 23.91 0.03 −7.14 −1.08
Note: SE = standard error.

© ASCE 04017081-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 multistory building projects. However, because practices could
vary from country to country, validation is required to adapt to
any local context.

Appendix. Scoring Tool for Construction Equipment

Management Practices

Level Description Weight

Procurement plan for construction equipment
Level A A procurement plan for construction equipment is not 0
applicable for this building project.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Level B Construction equipment procurement plan is not 0.14

prepared for this building project.
Level C Construction equipment procurement strategies such 0.28
as hiring or leasing are prepared for this building
project.
Level D Continuation of Level C and there is a procedure for 0.41
identifying reputation of potential equipment
suppliers
Level E Continuation of Level D, plus the plan identifies 0.55
necessary equipment and onsite resources to support
delivery.
Fig. 4. ROC curve for validation data sets
Level F Continuation of Level E and construction equipment 0.69
schedule is integrated with other project schedules.
Construction equipment productivity analysis
AUC ≤ 0.5 implies no accuracy and AUC ¼ 1 indicates perfect Level A Construction equipment is not used on this building 0
accuracy. project.
Level B Construction equipment is used but requirements and 0.12
usage are not planned and tracked.
Level C Construction equipment requirements are planned 0.24
Conclusion and tracked but they are not tied to a schedule. Usage
is tracked against budget only.
A scoring tool to be used to measure, plan, monitor, and evaluate Level D Continuations of Level C and regular meeting is 0.37
construction equipment management practices that have the po- conducted to assess the requirement of construction
tential to improve labor productivity in multistory building con- equipment.
struction projects has been developed. The tool is applicable to all Level E Continuation of Level D, and construction equipment 0.49
equipment used in the construction of multistory building proj- resource curves are drawn and resources are leveled.
ects. However, for the sake of brevity, the discussion in this paper Level F Continuation of Level E and equipment schedule is 0.61
focused on crane use. Multistory building projects with a con- adjusted based on the audit report that shows
struction equipment management score below 0.93 are classified equipment downtime and other information.
as low scores, and the associated labor productivity would also be Construction equipment maintenance
low. Construction equipment maintenance, construction equip- Level A Construction equipment maintenance is not 0
ment procurement plans, and construction equipment productiv- applicable for this building project.
ity analysis are the three most important construction equipment Level B Construction equipment maintenance is not planned 0.16
management practices that could enhance productivity in multi- for this building project.
story building projects. A model that integrated probability, pro- Level C Construction equipment is logged in simplified 0.32
ductivity factor, and the score of the practices was also developed. spreadsheet and maintenance is carried out by
operator request.
Future researchers can conduct an investigation to develop a new
Level D Continuation of Level C and equipment maintenance 0.47
scoring tool for multistory building projects in other contexts record is linked to individual construction equipment,
based on the finding of this research. Moreover, investigation and maintenance is centrally scheduled and
of the costs associated with each level of implementation of administered.
construction equipment management practices needs further Level E Continuation of Level D and a computer program is 0.63
study. used to record and administer equipment maintenance
This study has practical implications for contractors in Australia information such as required and accomplished
and other countries. Contractors involved in the delivery of multi- maintenance logs and usage logs.
story building projects in Victoria State, Australia, can implement Level F Continuation of Level E and maintenance schedule is 0.79
the identified construction equipment management practices to im- electronically updated and maintenance due notices
are automatically issued to concerned parties.
prove productivity in their projects. They can also score the imple-
mentation levels of the practices and use the logistic regression
model to predict the probability of exceeding the baseline produc-
tivity factor. Based on the predicted probability, contractors can
implement corrective actions to increase the chance of achieving Data Availability Statement
a higher level of productivity compared to the baseline. Contrac-
tors in other countries can also implement the higher levels Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
of the identified practices to enhance the productivity of their corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s

© ASCE 04017081-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081

 data sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263.
Supplemental Data
Tables S1 and S2 are available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abou-Assaleh, T., Cercone, N., Keselj, V., and Sweidan, R. (2004).
“N-gram-based detection of new malicious code.” Proc., 28th Annual
Int. Computer Software and Applications Conf., COMPSAC 2004,
IEEE, New York, 41–42.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2013). “Private sector construction
industry, Australia, 2011–12.” Canberra, Australia.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2016a). “Australian national
accounts: National income, expenditure and product.” Canberra,
Australia.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2016b). “Construction work done,
Australia, preliminary, June 2016.” Canberra, Australia.
Alby, V. (1994). “Productivity: Measurement and management.” AACE Int.
Trans., 38(4), 1–7.
Arditi, D. (1985). “Construction productivity improvement.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1985)111:1(1), 1–14.
Arditi, D., and Mochtar, K. (1996). “Productivity improvement in the
Indonesian construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 14(1),
13–24.
Attalla, M. M. (1997). “Project control techniques: Reconstruction of
occupied buildings.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Canada.
Australian Government. (2006). “Building regulations.” Canberra,
Australia.
Australian Government. (2011). “Work health and safety regulations.”
Canberra, Australia.
Bloom, N., and Van Reenen, J. (2010). “Why do management practices
differ across firms and countries?” J. Econ. Perspect., 24(1), 203–224.
Bowerman, B., and Murphree, E. (2014). Regression analysis: Unified con-
cepts, practical applications, and computer implementation, Business
Expert Press, New York.
Caldas, C. H., Kim, J.-Y., Haas, C. T., Goodrum, P. M., and Zhang, D.
(2014). “Method to assess the level of implementation of productivity
practices on industrial projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000919, 04014061.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (2013a). “Best productivity practices
implementation index for industrial projects.” IR252-3d, Austin, TX.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (2013b). “Best productivity practices
implementation index for infrastructure projects.” IR252-4d, Austin,
TX.
Crespo Márquez, A., and Sánchez Herguedas, A. (2004). “Learning about
failure root causes through maintenance records analysis.” J. Qual.
Maint. Eng., 10(4), 254–262.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches, SAGE Publications, London.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P. M., and Maloney, W. F. (2009). “Construction craft
workers’ perceptions of the factors affecting their productivity.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3
(217), 217–226.
Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. (2016). “Apartment
design.” 〈https://www.dcsi.sa.gov.au/services/housing-sa/housing-design
-guidelines〉 (Sep. 21, 2016).
Department of Treasury and Finance. (2015). “Construction supplier
register.” 〈http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au〉 (Sep. 30, 2015).
Doloi, H. (2012). “Cost overruns and failure in project management:
Understanding the roles of key stakeholders in construction projects.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000621,
267–279.
© ASCE 04017081-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
El-Gohary, K. M., and Aziz, R. F. (2013). “Factors influencing construction
labor productivity in Egypt.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000168, 1–9.
Fagbenle, O. I., Adeyemi, A. Y., and Adesanya, D. A. (2004). “The impact
of non-financial incentives on bricklayers’ productivity in Nigeria.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 22(9), 899–911.
Fowler, F. J., Jr., and Cosenza, C. (2009). “Design and evaluation of survey
questions.” The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 375–412.
Ghoddousi, P., and Hosseini, M. R. (2012). “A survey of the factors affect-
ing the productivity of construction projects in Iran.” Technol. Econ.
Dev. Econ., 18(1), 99–116.
Goodrum, P. M., McLaren, M. A., and Durfee, A. (2006). “The application
of active radio frequency identification technology for tool tracking on
construction job sites.” Autom. Constr., 15(3), 292–302.
Gurmu, A. T., Aibinu, A. A., and Chan, T. K. (2016a). “A study of best
management practices for enhancing productivity in building projects:
Construction methods perspectives.” Constr. Econ. Build., 16(3), 1–19.
Gurmu, A. T., Aibinu, A. A., and Chan, T. K. (2016b). “Construction
management practices influencing productivity in building projects.”
Proc., 5th World Construction Symp., Ceylon Institute of Builders,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, 122–132.
Hampson, K. D., and Brandon, P. (2004). Construction 2020-A vision for
Australia’s property and construction industry, CRC Construction
Innovation, Brisbane, Australia.
Hanley, J. A., and McNeil, B. J. (1982). “The meaning and use of the
area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.” Radiology,
143(1), 29–36.
Hanna, A. S., Chang, C.-K., Sullivan, K. T., and Lackney, J. A. (2008).
“Impact of shift work on labor productivity for labor intensive contrac-
tor.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:
3(197), 197–204.
Hewage, K. N., Gannoruwa, A., and Ruwanpura, J. Y. (2011). “Current
status of factors leading to team performance of on-site construction
professionals in Alberta building construction projects.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 38(6), 679–689.
Hinze, J., and Wilson, G. (2000). “Moving toward a zero injury objective.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:5(399),
399–403.
Holt, G. (1997). “Note: Construction research questionnaires and attitude
measurement: Relative index or mean?” J. Constr. Procurement, 3(2),
88–96.
Hughes, R., and Thorpe, D. (2014). “A review of enabling factors in con-
struction industry productivity in an Australian environment.” Constr.
Innovation Inf. Process Manage., 14(2), 210–228.
Jamieson, S. (2004). “Likert scales: How to (ab) use them.” Med. Educ.,
38(12), 1217–1218.
Jergeas, G. (2009). “Improving construction productivity on Alberta
oil and gas capital projects.” Rep., Univ. of Calgary, AB,
Canada.
Kazaz, A., and Ulubeyli, S. (2007). “Drivers of productivity among con-
struction workers: A study in a developing country.” Build. Environ.,
42(5), 2132–2140.
Kerzner, H. (2010). Project management-best practices: Achieving global
excellence, Wiley, New York.
Kim, H.-Y. (2013). “Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing
normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis.” Restor. Dent.
Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54.
Lam, P. T., Wong, F. K., and Wong, F. W. (2007). “Building features and
site-specific factors affecting buildability in Hong Kong.” J. Eng. Des.
Technol., 5(2), 129–147.
Liao, P.-C. (2008). Influence factors of engineering productivity and their
impact on project performance, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., and Muñiz, J. (2008). “Effect of the
number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating
scales.” Methodology, 4(2), 73–79.
Lurd, A., and Lurd, M. (2013). “Measures of central tendency.” 〈https://
statistics.laerd.com〉 (Jun. 13, 2016).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Luthans, K. (2000). “Recognition: A powerful, but often overlooked, lead-
ership tool to improve employee performance.” J. Leadersh. Organiza-
tional Stud., 7(1), 31–39.
Makulsawatudom, A., Emsley, M., and Sinthawanarong, K. (2004).
“Critical factors influencing construction productivity in Thailand.”
J. KMITNB, 14(3), 1–6.
Miles, M. B. H., Miles, A. M. M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quali-
tative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, SAGE Publications,
London.
Nasir, H. (2013). “Best productivity practices implementation index
(BPPII) for infrastructure projects.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Nasir, H., Haas, C. T., Caldas, C. H., and Goodrum, P. M. (2015). “An
integrated productivity-practices implementation index for planning
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 08/15/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the execution of infrastructure projects.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 10.1061
/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000275, 04015022.
Nasir, H., Haas, C. T., Young, D. A., Razavi, S. N., Caldas, C., and Goodrum,
P. (2010). “An implementation model for automated construction
materials tracking and locating.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 37(4), 588–599.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
(2001). “Measuring productivity: Measurement of aggregate and
industry level productivity growth.” Paris.
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., and Feinstein, A. R.
(1996). “A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic
regression analysis.” J. Clin. Epidemiol., 49(12), 1373–1379.
Prasertrungruang, T., and Hadikusumo, B. (2007). “Heavy equipment
management practices and problems in Thai highway contractors.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 14(3), 228–241.
© ASCE 04017081-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(10): 04017081
Productivity Commission. (2013). “Productivity update.” Canberra,
Australia.
Productivity Commission. (2015). “Productivity update.” Canberra,
Australia.
Rojas, E. M., and Aramvareekul, P. (2003). “Labor productivity drivers and
opportunities in the construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:2(78), 78–82.
Rose, S., Spinks, N., and Canhoto, A. I. (2015). Management research:
Applying the principles, Routledge, New York.
Santos, J. R. A. (1999). “Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the
reliability of scales.” J. Extension, 37(2), 1–5.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., and Fong, D. (1999). “Factors affecting safety
performance on construction sites.” Int. J. Project Manage., 17(5),
309–315.
SPSS version 24.0 [Computer software]. IBM, Armonk, NY.
Tabassi, A. A., Ramli, M., and Bakar, A. H. A. (2012). “Effects of training
and motivation practices on teamwork improvement and task efficiency:
The case of construction firms.” Int. J. Project Manage., 30(2),
213–224.
Thomas, S. R., Macken, C. L., and Lee, S.-H. (2001). “Impacts of design/
information technology on building and industrial projects.” Rep. No.
NIST GCR 01-828, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Tommelein, I., and Zouein, P. (1993). “Interactive dynamic layout plan-
ning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)
119:2(266), 266–287.
Wireman, T. (2005). Developing performance indicators for managing
maintenance, Industrial Press, New York.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.