Predicting Construction Labor Productivity Based on

Implementation Levels of Human Resource

Management Practices
Argaw Tarekegn Gurmu, Ph.D. 1; and Citra S. Ongkowijoyo, Ph.D. 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The prediction of the odds of achieving higher or lower productivity as compared to some baseline productivity is one of the
important steps to consider while analyzing labor productivity in construction projects. The objective of this research is to build a logistic
regression model that can be used to estimate the productivity of building projects based on the levels of planning or implementation of human
resource management practices. Quantitative data were collected from 39 contractors who worked on multistory building projects completed
between 2011 and 2016. Correlation analysis was carried out and the associations between productivity, human resource management (HRM)
practices, company profiles, and project characteristics were investigated. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to develop the
probability-based labor productivity prediction model. Project delay is found to be negatively correlated with HRM practices, whereas com-
pany size is positively associated with HRM practices. A scoring tool to measure the levels of HRM practice implementation on building
projects was developed. On that basis, a logistic regression model of HRM practices and productivity was built. This study contributes to the
body of knowledge by proposing a tool that can be used to assess the odds of having high productivity based on the implementation levels of
HRM practices on a certain building project. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001775. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction labor productivity; Building project; Human resource management practices.

Introduction The level of implementation of construction management prac-

The construction industry in most countries accounts for the high-
est share of employment. In the context of Australia, the analysis of
data obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) showed
that, in November 2018, more than 1.1 million workers were in-
volved in construction activities (ABS 2019). The construction in-
dustry comprised about 9.1% of the total workforce in Australia,
and it is exceeded by only two other sectors, health care and social
assistance (13.2%) and retail trade (10.2%), in terms of the size of
the labor force (ABS 2019). Besides the number of workers, the
construction industry has higher wage rates since various allow-
ances are added to the base rate. For instance, the Australian Fair
Work Ombudsman allows the inclusion of an industry allowance,
tool and employee protection allowance, underground allowance,
and others in payments to workers involved in construction projects
(Fair Work Ombudsman 2019). Hence, the labor cost in construc-
tion projects is high. In addition, project delays due to the loss of
productivity can lead to extra labor costs. Nonetheless, proper man-
agement of human resources could save unnecessary expenses
that arise as a result of a low level of productivity. Hence, it is es-
sential to investigate the best human resource management (HRM)
practices for managing construction workers and enhancing labor
productivity in construction projects.
1
Lecturer in Construction Management, School of Architecture and
Built Environment, Deakin Univ., Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0750-4191.
Email: argaw.gurmu@deakin.edu.au
2
Associate Research Fellow, School of Architecture and Built Environ-
ment, Deakin Univ., Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 21, 2019; approved
on July 30, 2019; published online on December 26, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until May 26, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
tices varies from company to company, and a lower level of prac-
tices is associated with lower productivity (Gurmu et al. 2016).
Thus, to increase labor productivity, it is important to implement
a higher level of HRM practices. Hence, a tool that can be used to
assess whether the implementation level of HRM practices is low or
high has paramount significance. Furthermore, predicting the pro-
ductivity associated with a certain level of implementation of HRM
practices is vital. For instance, if the productivity value that is pre-
dicted based on the implementation levels of HRM practices is low,
a construction project manager will take necessary remedial ac-
tions. HRM practice scoring/measuring tools for industrial and in-
frastructure construction projects were developed in North America
(CII 2013a, b). However, since construction projects have their own
uniqueness, it was found that these tools cannot directly be used for
building projects in Australia because of differences in project lo-
cations, scopes, and the relative importance of the practices (Gurmu
and Aibinu 2017).
Additionally, a model that can be used to predict the productiv-
ity associated with a certain level of implementation of HRM prac-
tices has not been developed by researchers. Thus, the users of
existing scoring tools do not have a comprehensive model that can
be used to predict the productivity level of their projects based on
the measured values of HRM practices. Earlier studies affirmed that
logistic regression analysis has various advantages, which include
its capability to develop a model that can integrate probability, pro-
ductivity, and construction management practices (Gurmu 2018).
While predicting the productivity of building projects based on
the level of implementation of HRM practices is crucial, this issue
has gained little attention in research.
Previous researchers developed construction labor produc-
tivity prediction methods, such as a polynomial regression
model (Srinavin and Mohamed 2003), a linear/multiple regres-
sion model (Zhao et al. 2009; Thomas and Završki 1999), expert
systems (Fayek and Oduba 2005), and artificial intelligence

© ASCE 04019115-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 (El-Gohary et al. 2017; Lu et al. 2000). However, previous studies
did not measure the HRM practices quantitatively and, on that ba-
sis, did not develop a probability-based model for predicting con-
struction labor productivity. In the real world, the achievement of
an estimated level of labor productivity is uncertain because labor
productivity is affected by many factors that might not be consid-
ered in existing models. Thus, it is essential to associate estimated
productivity with probability.
Following the previously mentioned knowledge gap, this re-
search aims to develop and validate a logistic regression model that
can be used for predicting the labor productivity factor (PF) based
on a score of HRM practices. In this paper, productivity refers to
labor productivity at a project level and is defined as the ratio of
output to input (Hasan et al. 2018). The output is the cost of a build-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing project in Australian dollars (AUD), and the input is the time
spent in completing the project. The PF is the ratio of actual pro-
ductivity to planned productivity (Nasir et al. 2015).
Literature Review
Review of the relevant literature shows that financial incentive pro-
grams, nonfinancial incentive programs, career development plans,
social activities, employee training, crew composition, stability of
organizational structure, clear delegation of responsibilities, exit in-
terviews, and skill assessment are some of the HRM practices that
could enhance productivity in construction projects. These practi-
ces are briefly elaborated in subsequent subsections.
Financial and Nonfinancial Incentive Programs
Previous studies confirmed that there is a positive correlation be-
tween reward system and employee performance and satisfaction.
Ling et al. (2018) found that the provision of transport and mobile
phone allowances led to the satisfaction of project managers. Sim-
ilarly, Lim and Ling (2012) revealed that contractors’ professionals
who were given transport, meal, and mobile phone allowances,
dental benefits, and overtime pay had higher job satisfaction.
According to Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007), factors that increase
employee motivation include incentive remuneration, equal pay-
ment for workers performing similar tasks, and the adequacy of
payments.
On the other hand, Durdyev and Mbachu (2018) concluded
that lack of financial incentives is one of the factors that influence
labor productivity in residential projects in Cambodia. Ohueri et al.
(2018) mentioned that financial incentives are one of the most
significant motivation strategies that can positively influence con-
struction workers’ productivity. Similarly, Ghodrati et al. (2018)
revealed that management strategies, such as communication and
incentive programs, have a strong positive relationship with labor
productivity. Furthermore, Phua (2012) compared HRM practices
in Australian and Hong Kong construction firms and found that
Australian construction workers preferred individual-based remu-
neration compared to Hong Kong workers. Albattah et al. (2016)
confirmed that extrinsic rewards, such as wages, family-friendly
benefits, and job security, were among the top preferences for
US construction workers during the period 2008–2014. Nonethe-
less, dissimilar pay scales for workers performing comparable jobs
on the same project can negatively influence their productivity.
According to Chih et al. (2016), workers who perceived organiza-
tional injustice, such as unequal payments, can experience psycho-
logical strain, which can lead to a reduced commitment to the
organization.
The availability of nonfinancial incentives for construction
workers is also one of the essential HRM practices that can enhance
© ASCE 04019115-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115
labor productivity (Gurmu and Aibinu 2018). Hiyassat et al. (2016)
found that besides financial rewards, moral incentives such as ver-
bal encouragement can increase worker productivity. Fagbenle et al.
(2004) compared the performances of construction projects that
used nonfinancial incentives and those that did not. The study re-
vealed that the productive time of bricklayers who received non-
financial incentives improved significantly.
As discussed in several previous studies on the effects of finan-
cial and nonfinancial incentives on construction workers, financial
and nonfinancial incentive schemes that include better payment
systems, appreciation, and job recognition have the potential to
boost the morale of construction workers, which can ultimately
lead to enhanced productivity.
Career Development Plan and Social Activities
HRM practices such as social activities and career development
plans can play a significant role in motivating and building team
spirit among construction workers. According to Hewage et al.
(2011), construction productivity may not be improved by only
working hard and fast. The authors suggested that the social skills
of workers should also be developed. Further, Kazaz and Ulubeyli
(2007) stated that social activity is one of the sociopsychological
factors that affect labor productivity. Promotion opportunities
also have been found to be the most important motivating factor
enhancing labor productivity as perceived by Iranian CEOs
(Ghoddousi et al. 2015). Similarly, Doloi (2007) suggested that
the prospect of promotion and social status are some of the impor-
tant human resource–related project attributes influencing labor
productivity.
Additionaly, Kim et al. (2015) identified social factors influ-
encing productivity that include social security insurance, par-
ticipation in decision making, company policy, social recognition,
social life opportunities, job autonomy, self-development oppor-
tunities, social status, cultural differences, and job discretion. Ac-
cordingly, a well-organized human resource development program
is an important strategy for the success of firms since human
capital plays a significant role in construction projects (Tabassi
et al. 2012).
Employee Training
Providing appropriate training for employees can help to enhance
their skills, which will subsequently increase their performance. A
study conducted by Wang et al. (2010) showed that training for
craftsmen increased labor productivity by 5%, reduced turnover
by 10%, and decreased absenteeism by 2.5%. Allmon et al. (2000)
suggested that training employees to be multiskilled has the poten-
tial to increase labor productivity in construction. Importantly,
activity-oriented training is found to be one of the practices that
can drive labor productivity in construction projects (Rojas and
Aramvareekul 2003). Further, Rojas and Aramvareekul (2003) rec-
ommended that construction workers attend site-specific training or
induction before commencing any activity on a site.
Similarly, Jergeas (2009) proposed that investment for training
apprentices and site supervisors is important for enhancing the pro-
ductivity performance of construction projects. This study is also
supported by the recommendation made by Srour et al. (2017) that
investing in the workforce through training could help to increase
employee retention and reduce absenteeism. Therefore, training is
an essential practice as it reduces construction errors or reworks and
helps construction workers to perform their tasks to the required
quality standard.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Crew Composition, Stability of Organizational
Structure, and Clear Delegation of Responsibilities
The composition of the construction crew, maintaining the stability
of the organizational structure of a project, and delegation of
responsibilities are some of the HRM practices that affect labor pro-
ductivity. According to Liberda et al. (2003), team spirit and crew
composition are some of the essential HRM practices influencing
labor productivity in construction projects. Maintaining the stabil-
ity of organizational structure was found to be the best practice for
enhancing labor productivity in industrial projects (Caldas et al.
2014). In addition, CII (2013b) suggested that keeping the organi-
zational structure stable, reducing the turnover of key professionals,
planning for unusual staff changes, and preparing a contract docu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ment that restricts the frequent replacement of key personnel are
some of the important HRM practices.
Nasir (2013) found that clear delegation of the responsibilities
of construction workers is the best practice to increase labor pro-
ductivity in infrastructure construction projects. Hence, the forma-
tion of crews having appropriate skill levels of various trades such
as concrete, masonry, and plastering, maintaining the stability of
the organizational structure of a project, and clarifying the roles
and responsibilities of the construction workers can help to improve
the labor productivity of building projects.
Exit Interviews, Skill Assessment, and Plan for
Retaining Experienced Personnel
Exit interviews and skill assessment are some of the practices that
could improve productivity in construction projects (Gurmu and
Aibinu 2018). Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2007) found that sociopsycho-
logical factors influencing labor productivity include activities such
as carrying out interviews and understanding the problems of em-
ployees. Further, CII (2013b) concluded that skill assessment and
evaluation as well as exit interviews are the best HRM practices
that could enhance the productivity of infrastructure projects. In
addition, taking corrective actions based on construction workers’
performance reviews can also affect the productivity of workers
(Dai et al. 2009).
Nasir (2013) concluded that assessing construction workers’
skills and checking their previous qualifications and experience be-
fore commencing construction activities can assist project manag-
ers in forming good crews. Moreover, Hong et al. (2012) identified
employee retention strategies such as the preparation of suitable
employee appraisal systems, training and development, compensa-
tion, and empowerment. Kakar et al. (2015) found that there is a
positive correlation between employee empowerment, compensa-
tion, training and development, and retention. The study showed
that the existence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards can increase
employee retention. Hence, the retention of experienced employees
can help a contractor retain knowledge and skills obtained from a
particular construction project. As a result, the contractor’s com-
petitiveness could increase.
Construction Labor Productivity Estimating Methods
Various modeling techniques have been proposed to estimate labor
productivity based on influencing factors. These techniques include
regression analysis, expert systems, and artificial intelligence
(Yi and Chan 2014).
Srinavin and Mohamed (2003) developed a polynomial regres-
sion model for estimating productivity for painting, bricklaying,
and excavation under different thermal environments. The model
considered the nature of the construction task from light activity
to heavy physical work and clothing ensembles. Zhao et al. (2009)
© ASCE 04019115-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115
proposed a multiple linear regression model for predicting produc-
tivity in hot and humid environments. The factors considered in the
model were heat tolerance time, work time, and thermal environ-
ment parameter.
Fayek and Oduba (2005) built a fuzzy expert model to estimate
labor productivity in rigging pipe and welding pipe activities.
Poveda and Fayek (2009) showed how fuzzy logic and fuzzy expert
systems could be used to predict and evaluate the performance of
construction trade foremen. The authors suggested that the model
could assist in measuring the effectiveness of a foreman, monitor
improvements in that effectiveness over time, and identify areas
where training might be required. Tsehayae and Fayek (2016)
also developed and optimized a context-specific fuzzy inference
system–based construction labor productivity model.
Ezeldin and Sharara (2006) developed neural networks for
predicting the productivity rates of form assembly, steel fixing,
and concrete pouring activities in developing countries. Similarly,
Heravi and Eslamdoost (2015) proposed an artificial neural network
(ANN) model for measuring and predicting construction labor pro-
ductivity on the installation of concrete foundations of gas, steam,
and combined cycle power plant projects in Iran. El-Gohary et al.
(2017) introduced a practical and standardized engineering ap-
proach to control, predict, and then improve construction labor
productivity. The authors used an ANN to quantify and map the
relationship between construction labor productivity and the rel-
evant influencing factors. According to Yi and Chan (2014) ANNs
can be considered strong prediction modeling techniques that have
dynamic learning mechanisms with effective recognition capabil-
ities to predict production rates under any specific conditions.
Research Methodology
Survey data can be collected using mail, telephone, the Internet,
personal interview, or group administration, and the survey can
be self-administered, or an interviewer can ask questions and record
the answers (Fowler and Cosenza 2009). In this research, the quan-
titative data were collected using an interview questionnaire survey
whereby the survey was self-administered. The respondents were
asked questions face to face and requested to write their answers.
The approach can increase the response rate, and in this study, it
helped to clarify the respondents’ questions.
Data regarding productivity and HRM practices were collected
from contractors on 39 multistory building projects in the Victorian
state of Australia using questionnaires. A list of prequalified con-
tractors was obtained from the Victorian Government Department
of Treasury and Finance, and the multistory buildings were selected
from the websites of the contractors (Department of Treasury and
Finance 2016). To be included on the list, contractors were assessed
against a range of criteria, including managerial, technical, and
financial capacities. Thus, according to the department’s require-
ments, firms applying for prequalification must demonstrate that
they have the management capability, qualifications, expertise, ex-
perience, and technical and financial capacity to deliver construc-
tion projects successfully.
The questionnaire has two parts. In the first part, project- and
company-specific data, such as project cost, completion times, and
companies’ annual turnover, were collected. Based on the gathered
data, the PF of the particular building projects were computed using
Eq. (1). Here, PF is the ratio of the actual productivity to planned
productivity (Gurmu and Aibinu 2017). The PF is used since it is
a useful measure for comparing the productivity of construction
projects having various characteristics (Nasir 2013; McDonald and
Zack 2004):
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 ðactual productivityÞ
PF ¼
ðplanned productivityÞ
ðproject costÞ=ðactual project durationÞ
¼ ð1Þ
ðproject costÞ=ðplanned project durationÞ
In the preceding equation, it is assumed that the planned project
duration is accurately estimated by construction project managers
or planners. Furthermore, the data were collected from building
projects with fixed-price contracts, and there is no significant varia-
tion between the actual and planned project costs.
In the second part of the questionnaire, data related to the im-
plementation levels of HRM practices were collected using un-
weighted scoring tools. The unweighted HRM scoring tools for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
building projects (this study) were prepared based on the existing
tools for engineering projects (CII 2013a). After analyzing the data
and determining the weights of the levels of implementations of the
practices, the unweighted scoring tools was converted to the
weighted scoring tool (refer Table 3 in “Findings and Discussion”
section).
To determine the weights, data regarding the relative importance
of each practice was collected on a scale of 1–5. The relative im-
portance index (RII) of the practices was then computed using the
following equation (El-Gohary and Aziz 2013)
5ðn5 Þ þ 4ðn4 Þ þ 3ðn3 Þ þ 2ðn2 Þ þ n1
RII ¼ ð2Þ
5ðn5 þ n4 þ n3 þ n2 þ n1 Þ
where n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , and n5 represent the number of respondents
who rated the importance of each HRM practice for improving pro-
ductivity as not important, slightly important, somewhat important,
very important, and extremely important, respectively.
Before running the logistic regression analysis for developing a
model, the suitability of the data was checked by computing the
number of events per variable (EPV). The rule of thumb for the
sample size for logistic regression analysis states that EPV should
be greater than 10 (Peduzzi et al. 1996). In this research, the number
of positive events refers to the number of projects having produc-
tivity factors exceeding the baseline PF; the predictor is the HRM
practices (one variable); an EPVof 10 is used to develop the logistic
regression models. The suitability of the survey data was checked
using an EPV test, and acceptable results were found. That is, all
EPV values are greater than 10 (see Tables 4 and 5 in the “Findings
and Discussion” section for the EPV values). Thus, the sample size
is adequate to enable a valid conclusion.
Further, the three measurements of central tendency (mean,
mode, and median) of the projects’ productivity factors and Z-score
for the skewness of the productivity factors’ data (skewness/
standard error) were computed, and the baseline PF was fixed (Lurd
and Lurd 2013; Kim 2013). To determine the baseline PFs that
satisfy the requirements of logistic regression models, the EPVs
were calculated using various PF values: (1) mean PF, (2) mean
PF þ 5% × mean PF, (3) mean PF − 5% × mean PF, (4) mean
PF þ 10% × mean PF, and (5) mean PF − 10% × mean PF. After
fixing the cut-off (baseline) productivity factors, the data sets were
divided into model building and validation. Random numbers using
Microsoft Excel was assigned to each data point so that the data
could be randomly distributed. Based on the random numbers, the
data were sorted in ascending order before being split into two.
In regression analysis, random sample splitting and K-fold
cross-validation techniques are applied to divide the data into
model building and validation data sets (Steyerberg et al. 2001).
In this research, threefold and fourfold cross-validation techniques
were used because they produce less bias as compared to the
sample splitting method (Abou-Assaleh et al. 2014). Alternative
© ASCE 04019115-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115
models using the threefold and fourfold cross-validation techniques
were developed and compared before the final model was selected.
The selection criteria include the overall prediction accuracy and
statistical significance of the variable in the model. Fig. 1 shows
the flow chart for the process used in the logistic regression model
development and validation.
To validate the logistic regression model, the probabilities of
validation data sets were computed; the PFs of the projects, which
were used as validation data sets, were predicted as binary values
(1, 0) and compared with the actual PF; the receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn and compared with the
reference lines; and area under the ROC curves were computed.
According to Hanley and McNeil (1982), the area under curve
(AUC) is interpreted as “acceptable” if the graph is close to the
left top boundary, while an AUC of 0.5 and less implies less ac-
curacy, and 1 indicates perfect accuracy.
To check the reliability of the logistic regression model, a boot-
strapping method using 1,000 samples was used. The reason for
choosing 1,000 or more samples in the simulation process is that
the method provides more accurate output in bootstrapping
(Willems and Van Aelst 2005). Finally, sigmoid graphs were drawn
by computing the probabilities of exceeding the baseline PF using
the validated model’s equation.
Findings and Discussion
In this section, the findings of the correlation analyses of produc-
tivity and HRM practices, the weights of the HRM practices, and
the logistic regression analysis are presented and discussed.
Relationships among HRM Practices, Labor
Productivity, and Project Characteristics and Company
Profiles
As shown in Table 1, productivity and HRM practices are posi-
tively associated (rs ¼ 0.36, p ¼ 0.02 < 0.05), and the relationship
is statistically significant, which indicates that increasing the levels
of implementation of HRM practices can improve labor productiv-
ity on building projects. Among the 11 HRM practices, the stability
of organizational structure has the highest correlation coefficient
(rs ¼ 0.47, p ¼ 0.003 < 0.05). This finding shows that project
managers who maintain the stability of their organizational struc-
tures can achieve a higher level of labor productivity than project
managers who do not have a stable project environment. On the
basis of the results shown in Table 1, it can also be confirmed that
all of the HRM practices are interrelated.
The results of the correlation analysis for project delay, project
cost, and HRM practices are presented in Table 2. As shown,
project delay is negatively correlated with HRM practices (rs ¼
−0.30, p ¼ 0.06), which implies that the increment in the imple-
mentation levels of HRM practices can reduce delays in building
construction projects. On the other hand, project costs and HRM
practices are positively associated (rs ¼ 0.51, p ¼ 0.001), which
indicates that projects having a larger scope could also have higher
levels of implementation of HRM practices, and among the 11
practices, “stability of organizational structure” has the highest
correlation coefficient (rs ¼ 0.42, p ¼ 0.01).
In contrast, the annual turnover of construction companies is
found to be very weakly correlated with HRM practices (rs ¼
0.10, p ¼ 0.65). This indicates that construction companies might
not change their HRM practices based on the number of projects
they carry out. Also, company experience is moderately associated
with HRM practices (rs ¼ 0.32, p ¼ 0.05). Similarly, the relation-
ship between company size and HRM practices is significant and
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of logistic regression model.

has moderate strength (rs ¼ 0.32, p ¼ 0.045). This implies that
larger companies, which have many employees to manage, imple-
ment higher levels of HRM practices and smaller companies adopt
lower levels. Among the 11 HRM practices, the stability of organi-
zational structure has a stronger association with company size
(rs ¼ 0.38, p ¼ 0.02).
Weights of HRM Practices
The weights of HRM practices are presented as follows: clear
delegation of responsibility = 0.836, stability of organizational
structure = 0.815, crew composition = 0.769, retention plan for
experienced personnel = 0.764, skill assessment and evaluation =
0.738, career development plan = 0.708, financial incentive
programs = 0.672, social activities = 0.672, nonfinancial incentive
programs = 0.651, and exit interviews = 0.574. The weight of each
practice is then proportionally distributed among the five levels of
implementations using Eq. (3) (Gurmu 2018), and the weighted
scoring tools indicated in Table 3 are prepared. For instance, for
the practice crew composition, RII ¼ 0.769, Level 0 ¼ 0; N ¼ 0,
Level 1 ¼ 0 þ 0.769=5 ¼ 0.154; N ¼ 1, Level 2 ¼ Level 1 þ
0.154 ¼ 0.308; N ¼ 2, Level 3 ¼ Level 2 þ 0.154 ¼ 0.461; N ¼ 3,
Level 4 ¼ Level 3 þ 0.154 ¼ 0.615; N ¼ 4, and Level 5 ¼
Level 4 þ 0.154 ¼ 0.769
LevelðN þ 1Þ ¼ Level N þ RII=5 ð3Þ
where N ranges from 0 to 4; Level 0 = 0; and RII denotes the weight
of a practice.
Logistic Regression Model of HRM Practices and
Productivity
The results of the logistic regression analyses using threefold and
fourfold cross-validation techniques are presented in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively. Among the 15 models in the threefold cross validation,
5 are chosen based on their predictive accuracy and statistical sig-
nificance for further analysis.
The model with the highest predictive accuracy (T) is obtained
by analyzing the data sets named 21 and 31 (Table 4) and using a
cut-off PF value of 0.85. The second model (U) is developed using
the same data sets as that of Model T but using PF ¼ 0.90 as the
cut-off value. The third (V), fourth (W), and fifth (X) models are
built using data sets similar to that of Model T but using cut-off PF
values of 0.95, 1.00, and 1.05, respectively (Table 4). While run-
ning the logistic regression analyses, projects having PFs greater
than or equal to the cut-off PF were assigned a binary number
of 1, and projects having PFs of less than the cut-off PF value were
assigned a binary number of 0.

© ASCE 04019115-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 Table 1. Spearman correlation coefficients for productivity and HRM practices
Variable Parameter PF HRM CC SA ET CD NFIP FIP SoA SOS CDR RPEP EI
PF Coefficient (rs ) 1.000 — — — — — — — — — — — —
Significance — — — — — — — — — — — — —
HRM Coefficient (rs ) 0.364* 1.000 — — — — — — — — — — —
Significance 0.023 — — — — — — — — — — — —
CC Coefficient (rs ) 0.190 0.724** 1.000 — — — — — — — — — —
Significance 0.246 0.000 — — — — — — — — — — —
SA Coefficient (rs ) 0.208 0.659** 0.630** 1.000 — — — — — — — — —
Significance 0.205 0.000 0.000 — — — — — — — — — —
ET Coefficient (rs ) 0.237 0.509** 0.587** 0.399* 1.000 — — — — — — — —
Significance 0.147 0.001 0.000 0.012 — — — — — — — — —
CD Coefficient (rs ) 0.218 0.685** 0.433** 0.487** 0.273 1.000 — — — — — — —
Significance 0.182 0.000 0.006 0.002 0.093 — — — — — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NFIP Coefficient (rs ) 0.056 0.534** 0.371* 0.320* 0.134 0.338* 1.000 — — — — — —
Significance 0.736 0.000 0.020 0.047 0.414 0.035 — — — — — — —
FIP Coefficient (rs ) 0.243 0.710** 0.506** 0.525** 0.307 0.566** 0.573** 1.000 — — — — —
Significance 0.135 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.057 0.000 0.000 — — — — — —
SoA Coefficient (rs ) 0.367* 0.558** 0.290 0.276 0.167 0.528** 0.486** 0.493** 1.000 — — — —
Significance 0.022 0.000 0.073 0.089 0.310 0.001 0.002 0.001 — — — — —
SOS Coefficient (rs ) 0.466** 0.679** 0.314 0.352* 0.420** 0.275 0.140 0.263 0.369* 1.000 — — —
Significance 0.003 0.000 0.051 0.028 0.008 0.090 0.394 0.106 0.021 — — — —
CDR Coefficient (rs ) 0.277 0.584** 0.459** 0.347* 0.214 0.334* 0.018 0.174 0.048 0.491** 1.000 — —
Significance 0.087 0.000 0.003 0.031 0.190 0.038 0.912 0.290 0.770 0.001 — — —
RPEP Coefficient (rs ) 0.199 0.612** 0.246 0.136 0.242 0.323* 0.208 0.308 0.334* 0.569** 0.424** 1.000 —
Significance 0.224 0.000 0.131 0.410 0.138 0.045 0.205 0.056 0.038 0.000 0.007 — —
EI Coefficient (rs ) 0.260 0.672** 0.332* 0.145 0.301 0.522** 0.384* 0.376* 0.430** 0.476** 0.431** 0.452** 1.000
Significance 0.110 0.000 0.039 0.380 0.063 0.001 0.016 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.004 —
Note: PF = productivity factor; HRM = human resource management practices; CC = crew composition; SA = skill assessment and evaluation; ET = employee
training; CD = career development; NFIP = nonfinancial incentive programs; FIP = financial incentive programs; SoA = social activity; SOS = stability of
organizational structure; CDR = clear delegation of responsibility; RPEP = retention plan for experienced personnel; and EI = exit interview. Correlation is
significant at * p > 0.05, Correlation is significant at ** p > 0.01.

Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients for project delay, project cost, and HRM practices
Variable Parameter HRM CC SA ET CD NFIP FIP SoA SOS CDR RPEP EI
Project delay Coefficient −0.30 −0.08 −0.10 −0.21 −0.14 −0.08 −0.18 −0.41* −0.47** −0.20 −0.20 −0.26
Significance 0.06 0.62 0.54 0.21 0.40 0.64 0.27 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.11
Project cost Coefficient 0.50** 0.29 0.41* 0.19 0.31 0.35* 0.38* 0.40* 0.42** 0.24 0.23 0.41**
Significance 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.25 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01
Annual turnover Coefficient 0.10 −0.06 0.10 −0.14 0.33 0.02 −0.12 0.02 0.26 0.35 −0.38 0.39
Significance 0.65 0.79 0.65 0.51 0.11 0.92 0.56 0.93 0.20 0.09 0.06 0.05
Company experience Coefficient 0.32 0.14 0.28 −0.02 0.09 0.32* 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.18 0.27 0.24
Significance 0.05 0.40 0.09 0.90 0.60 0.05 0.11 0.77 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.15
Company size Coefficient 0.32* 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.38* 0.28 0.29 0.25
Significance 0.05 0.83 0.28 0.98 0.17 0.08 0.09 0.23 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.12
Note: HRM = human resource management practices; CC = crew composition; SA = skill assessment and evaluation; ET = employee training; CD = career
development; NFIP = nonfinancial incentive programs; FIP = financial incentive program; SoA = social activity; SOS = stability of organizational structure;
CDR = clear delegation of responsibility; RPEP = retention plan for experienced personnel; and EI = exit interviews; Correlation is significant at * p > 0.05;
Correlation is significant at ** p > 0.01.

The 20 models analyzed using fourfold cross validation are
shown in Table 5. Among them, the one that is statistically signifi-
cant and has better predictive capability (72.4%), Model Y, is
chosen for further analysis.
Finally, six models (T, U, V, W, X, and Y) are compared to select
the best HRM practices and productivity model (Table 6). To
choose the most appropriate model among the six, the ROC is
drawn, and the AUC for each model is computed using SPSS-24.
On the basis of the results indicated in Table 6, Model T has the
highest predictive capability (84.6%) and AUC (0.96), but its
constant is insignificant (p ¼ 0.18 > 0.05). Thus, Model T cannot
be the best model. Models V, W, and X have low prediction accu-
racies compared to Model U (Table 6); as a result, they were not
selected as the best models. Model Y has an insignificant constant
and AUC.
Model U has good predictive capability (80.8%); its coeffi-
cient of independent variable (β) is statistically significant (p ¼
0.02 < 0.05), its AUC is greater than 0.5, and its p-values for both
the variable and constant are statistically significant. Therefore,
Model U is selected as the best model. The cut-off PF of 0.90
and Data Sets 21 and 31 were used in logistic regression analysis,
and Data Set 11 was retained for validation purposes. The results of
the logistic regression analysis of the selected model (Model U) are
provided in Fig. 2.
As shown in Fig. 2, in the Classification Table of Block 0
(scenario without variable), the true negative percentage is 0%,

© ASCE 04019115-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 Table 3. Weighted scoring tools for HRM practices
Level Description Weight
1. Crew composition
Level 0 Crew formation/composition is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 Crew composition is not addressed in this project. 0.154
Level 2 Crew formation is addressed after the commencement of the construction of the building project. 0.308
Level 3 Crew formation is addressed before the commencement of construction works; experience and knowledge of employees, job 0.462
requirements, and location are considered.
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus the performance of the crew is assessed after the completion of each task and corrective measures are taken 0.615
accordingly to improve productivity.
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus the crew formation and its performance is assessed regularly on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, and 0.769
necessary changes are made.
2. Skill assessment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Level 0 Skill assessment is not applicable to this project. 0.000

Level 1 Skill assessment is not addressed. 0.148
Level 2 Skill assessment is addressed after the beginning of the construction of this project. 0.295
Level 3 Skill assessment is addressed before the beginning of construction work; previous experience, skill, and knowledge of workers are 0.443
considered.
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus the assessment is made again after completion of each task, and adjustments are made accordingly to 0.591
improve productivity.
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus the assessment is performed regularly on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, and necessary changes are 0.738
made and monitored.
3. Employee training
Level 0 Employee training is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 Employee training is not addressed. 0.150
Level 2 Employee training is addressed on the job site after the beginning of the project. 0.299
Level 3 Employee training is provided to employees when they begin working for the company, and if needed extra training will occur on the 0.449
job site.
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus worker is certified to work in or supervise specific trade. Before each project, new training in the trade will 0.599
take place if necessary.
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus a worker takes part in training for new technologies that are introduced in that trade annually and 0.749
biannually.
4. Career development
Level 0 Career development is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 Career development is not addressed in this project. 0.142
Level 2 The organization does not have a formal career development plan for employees, but management will discuss future plans with them. 0.283
Level 3 The organization has a formal career development plan for employees, but it only addresses short-term career development. 0.425
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus it addresses long-term career development and options. 0.566
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus it addresses expected employee performance and how the performance will affect employee career 0.708
development.
5. Nonfinancial incentive programs
Level 0 Nonfinancial incentive/recognition programs are not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 Nonfinancial incentive programs are not addressed in this project. 0.130
Level 2 The organization has informal recognition programs that will recognize employees occasionally, but not in a formal manner. 0.261
Level 3 The organization has a formal recognition program that provides recognition on a long-term basis. 0.391
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus it recognizes workers on a regular basis for both positive safety results and good safety behavior. 0.521
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus rewards are given on both a short-term and long-term basis, and employees are recognized by the 0.651
organization’s upper management.
6. Financial incentive programs
Level 0 Financial incentive program is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 Financial incentive program is not addressed. 0.134
Level 2 The organization has an informal incentive program that will recognize employees occasionally, but not in a formal manner. 0.269
Level 3 The organization has a formal incentive program that provides incentives on a long-term basis. 0.403
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus it provides a monetary bonus for employees based on their performance. 0.537
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus rewards are given on both a short-term and long-term basis, and they are recognized by the organization’s 0.672
upper management.
7. Social activities
Level 0 Social activities for employees are not applicable. 0.000
Level 1 Social activities for employees are not addressed. 0.134
Level 2 The organization does not formally plan social activities for employees, and there is only one annual organization-wide social activity. 0.269
Level 3 The organization formally plans a social activity once or twice a year, which project managers will attend, along with an annual 0.403
organization-wide social activity.
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus several times throughout the year, which project managers will attend, along with an annual organization- 0.537
wide social activity.
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus monthly events, which project managers will attend and upper management, including the president, will 0.672
attend on a quarterly basis, along with an annual organization-wide social activity.

© ASCE 04019115-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 Table 3. (Continued.)
Level Description Weight
8. Stability of organizational structure
Level 0 Maintaining the stability of the organizational structure is not important. 0.000
Level 1 No plans to manage change of key people in contract. 0.163
Level 2 Key professionals are named or define in the contract. 0.326
Level 3 Continuation of Level 2, plus key professionals cannot be changed without notice and prior approval. 0.489
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus there are preapproved designated successors. 0.652
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus contract specifies all professionals of subcontractor and principal contractor teams, along with possible 0.815
successors and right of approval by the other party.
9. Clear delegation of responsibility
Level 0 Clear delegation of responsibility is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 There is simple and centralized delegation of responsibility. 0.167
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Level 2 There is simple and very formal delegation of responsibility. 0.334

Level 3 There is a stable project environment and more formal delegation of responsibility. 0.502
Level 4 The delegation of responsibility is formal, but differing between technical, administrative, and so forth. 0.669
Level 5 There is a formal delegation of authority that is clearly defined for all involved parties. The plan is reviewed periodically and evolves 0.836
when necessary.
10. Retention plan for experienced personnel
Level 0 Retention plan for experienced personnel is not applicable to this building project. 0.000
Level 1 A retention plan is not addressed. 0.153
Level 2 Each project manager is responsible for the retention of his workers. 0.306
Level 3 Incentives such as employee training and others are available but not required. Junior staff have higher pay and preferred hiring status on 0.458
the next project for the same employer.
Level 4 Continuation of Level 3, plus employee training is required for junior staff. The employer makes available a list of opportunities for the 0.611
next project.
Level 5 Continuation of Level 4, plus testing and certification on the site lead to pay increases. Employer meets with individual worker and 0.764
offers job(s) at new project site(s) as per requirements.
11. Exit interviews
Level 0 Exit interview is not applicable. 0.000
Level 1 No exit interview. 0.115
Level 2 There is an exit interview for key personnel only. 0.230
Level 3 Random exit interviews as time allows. 0.345
Level 4 Formal exit interview for all personnel. 0.459
Level 5 Formal exit interview for all personnel and feedback to management about lessons learned and how to improve retention when 0.574
applicable.

Table 4. Alternative HRM practices and productivity models using the true positive percentage is 100%, and overall model accuracy is
threefold cross-validation technique 69.2%. The variable in the equation is insignificant (p ¼ 0.06 >
Baseline 0.05), and the variable not in the equation is significant (p ¼
productivity factor Selection criterion Trial 1a Trial 2b Trial 3c 0.02 < 0.05). The variable not in the equation in Block 0 refers
Cut-off PF1 ¼ 0.85 Predictive accuracy 84.6T 80.8 76.9
to the independent variable or HRM practices. Thus, the model that
Significance of β 0.04 0.25 0.89 incorporates the independent variable or the model in Block 1 is
EPV 31 31 31 more significant than the model in Block 0.
Cut-off PF2 ¼ 0.90 Predictive accuracy 80.8U 65.4 65.4 In Block 1 (scenario with variables), the chi-squared (11.2) of
Significance of β 0.02 0.55 0.87 the omnibus test is statistically significant at a 5% level of signifi-
EPV 26 26 26 cance (p ¼ 0.001 < 0.05), which shows that the model in Block 1
Cut-off PF3 ¼ 0.95 Predictive accuracy 76.9V 61.5 53.8 is better than the null model (model in Block 0). The p-value of
Significance of β 0.02 0.23 0.67 the chi-squared (3.28) of Hosmer and Lemeshow test of goodness
EPV 23 23 23 is greater than the rejection percentage of the null hypothesis
Cut-off PF4 ¼ 1.00 Predictive accuracy 73.1W 61.5 61.5
(p ¼ 0.86 > 0.05). Consequently, the null hypothesis, which states
Significance of β 0.03 0.12 0.24
EPV 21 21 21
that HRM practices and the productivity model are good in fitting
Cut-off PF5 ¼ 1.05 Predictive accuracy 73.1X 76.9 76.9 the data, is accepted.
Significance of β 0.04 0.25 0.17 Lastly, using the coefficients presented in Fig. 2, the equation
EPV 12 12 12 for the logistic regression model of productivity and HRM practices
is constructed as follows:
Note: β = parameter estimate; superscripts T, U, V, W, and X represent the
best model in threefold cross validation.  
Pi
a
Validation data set (1–13 data points), model building data set (14–26 data logðOddsÞ ¼ logitðPi Þ ¼ Ln ¼ 1.5HRMTSi -5.68
points), and model building data set (27–39 data points). 1-Pi
b
Model building data set (1–13 data points), validation data set (14–26 data
points), and model building data set (27–39 data points). where Pi = probability of exceeding PF ¼ 0.90 for ith project; and
c
Model building data set (1–13 data points), model building data set (14–26 HRMTSi = HRM practices total score for ith project. The preced-
data points), and validation data set (27–39 data points). ing equation can be simplified as indicated in Eq. (4)

© ASCE 04019115-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 Table 5. Alternative HRM practices and productivity models using fourfold cross-validation technique
Baseline productivity factor Selection criteria Trial 4a Trial 5b Trial 6c Trial 7d
Cut-off PF1 ¼ 0.85 Predictive accuracy 86.2 89.7 72.4 80.0
Significance of β 0.07 0.09 0.31 0.86
EPV 31 31 31 31
Cut-off PF2 ¼ 0.90 Predictive accuracy 72.4Y 79.3 58.6 70.0
Significance of β 0.03 0.20 0.35 0.83
EPV 26 26 26 26
Cut-off PF3 ¼ 0.95 Predictive accuracy 69.0 69.0 69.0 56.7
Significance of β 0.03 0.09 0.17 0.55
EPV 23 23 23 23
Cut-off PF4 ¼ 1.00 Predictive accuracy 65.5 69.0 58.6 70.0
Significance of β 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.18
EPV 21 21 21 21
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cut-off PF5 ¼ 1.05 Predictive accuracy 75.9 58.6 82.8 60.0

Significance of β 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.13
EPV 12 12 12 12
Note: β = parameter estimate; the superscript Y represents the best model in fourfold cross validation.
a
Validation data set (1–10 data points), model building data set (11–20 data points), model building data set (21–30 data points), and model building data set
(31–39 data points).
b
Model building data set (1–10 data points), validation data set (11–20 data points), model building data set (21–30 data points), and model building data set
(31–39 data points).
c
Model building data set (1–10 data points), model building data set (11–20 data points), validation data set (21–30 data points), and model building data set
(31–39 data points).
d
Model building data set (1–10 data points), model building data set (11–20 data points), model building data set (21–30 data points), and validation data set
(31–39 data points).

Table 6. Comparison of selected logistic regression models of HRM practices and productivity
Model’s Overall Model Significance of Significance Constant Significance Model’s data Validation
code accuracy (%) AUC model’s AUC Variable’s β of β (β o ) of β o Cut-off PF set code data set
T 84.6 0.96 0.001 0.99 0.04 −2.657 0.18 0.85 21 þ 31 11(3-fold)
U 80.8 0.90 0.001 1.50 0.02 −5.677 0.04 0.90 21 þ 31 11(3-fold)
V 76.9 0.84 0.002 1.34 0.02 −5.616 0.03 0.95 21 þ 31 11(3-fold)
W 73.1 0.83 0.003 0.92 0.03 −5.060 0.03 1.00 21 þ 31 11(3-fold)
X 73.1 0.83 0.013 1.12 0.04 −4.745 0.04 1.05 21 þ 31 11(3-fold)
Y 72.4 0.66 0.180 0.95 0.03 −3.611 0.07 0.90 24 þ 34 þ 44 14(4-fold)

e1.5HRMTSi -5.68 of HRM practices (HRMTS). The HRMTS is computed using the
Pi ¼ ð4Þ weighted scoring tools (Table 3).
1 þ e1.5HRMTSi -5.68

The reliability test (bootstrapping) results for the HRM practices
and productivity model is also presented in Fig. 2. The coefficient
(1.50) and the constant (−5.68) obtained after bootstrapping
using 1,000 samples were found to be similar to the model’s co-
efficient (1.50) and constant (−5.68). Moreover, the bootstrapped
coefficient and constant were found to be statistically significant
(p ¼ 0.01 < 0.05). This confirms that the model in Block 1 is
reliable.
To validate the logistic regression model, the probability of
exceeding PF ¼ 0.90 for the validation data Set 11 (Table 4)
was predicted using the model’s equation [Eq. (4)]; the ROC curve
was drawn as shown in Fig. 3 and interpreted with respect to the
reference line; and the AUC was computed. For a logistic regres-
sion to be valid, the value of AUC should be greater than 0.5, and
the graph should be above the diagonal line (Hanley and McNeil
1982). Accordingly, the ROC curve is greater than the reference
line, indicating that the model is good at prediction. Further, the
AUC is calculated to be 0.67, which is higher than the minimum
acceptable value of 0.5. Thus, the model is valid.
Using Eq. (4), the probabilities of exceeding PF ¼ 0.90 were
computed and the sigmoid graph indicated in Fig. 4 was plotted
so that users can see the probability that corresponds to a total score
Practical Application of Logistic Regression Model of
HRM Practices and Productivity
The weighted scoring tools of HRM practices (Table 3) and the
logistic regression model [Eq. (4)] can assist a contractor’s project
manager to plan appropriate HRM practices that can be imple-
mented on a certain building construction project. The project
manager can make the necessary decisions to improve project
productivity after assessing the risk of low productivity using the
scoring tool and the model.
The application of the scoring tool and the logistic regression
model is illustrated as follow. Suppose a project manager plans
to implement Level 2 for all 11 HRM practices, as shown in Table 7.
Based on the project manager’s plan, the total score of human
resource management practices (HRMTS) is computed to be 3.18
(Table 7).
Alternatively, the project manager can use the following equa-
tion to compute the total score of the HRM practices:
HRMTS ¼ CCS þ SAS þ ETS þ CDS þ NFIPS þ FIPS
þ SOAS þ SOSS þ CDRS þ RPEPS þ EIS ð5Þ

© ASCE 04019115-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 Classification Table
Predicted
PF Percentage Correct
O b s e rv e d 0 1
0 0 8 0.0
PF
Step 0 1 0 18 100.0
Overall Percentage 69.2
The cut value is 0.50
Variables in the Equation
Step 0 B S. E Wald df significance E x p( B )
Constant 0.811 0.425 3.642 1 0.056 2.25
Variables not in the Equation
Score df significance
Step 0 HRM Practices 9.353 1 .002
Overall Statistics 9.353 1 .002
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Omnibus Test for Model Coefficients

Chi-square df significance
Step 1 Step 11.210 1 0. 0 0 1
Block 11.210 1 0.001
Model 11.21 0 1 0.001
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step 1 Chi-square df s i gn i fi ca n ce
3.278 7 0.858
Classification Table
Predicted
PF Percentage Correct
Observed 0 1
Step 1 PF 0 4 4 50 .0
1 1 17 9 4.4
Overall Percentage 80.8
The cut value is 0.50
Variables in the Equation
β SE Wald df significance Exp(B)
Step 1 HRM Practices 1.504 .656 5.256 1 .022 4.500
Constant -5.677 2.817 4.062 1 .044 .003
Bootstrap
95% Confidence Interval
β Bias SE significance Lower Upper
Step 1 HRM Practices 1.504 1.676 18.708 0.006 0.779 5.982
Constant -5.677 -6.702 76.568 0.013 -21.42 -2.374
Note: β = parameter estimate; df = degree of freedom; SE = standard error

Fig. 2. Outputs of logistic regression analysis of HRM practices.

where HRMTS = human resource management practices total

score; CCS = crew composition score; SAS = skill assessment and
evaluation score; ETS = employee training score; CDS = career
development score; NFIPS = nonfinancial incentive programs
score; FIPS = financial incentive programs score; SOAS = social
activities score; SOSS = stability of organizational structure score;
CDRS = clear delegation of responsibility score; RPEPS = retention
plan for experienced personnel score; and EIS = exit interview
score.
Using a HRMTS of 3.18 (Table 7), the corresponding probability
of exceeding PF = 0.90 can be read from the sigmoid graph of
the HRM practices (Fig. 5). Accordingly, the probability value is
approximately 26% (Fig. 5). This indicates that the actual produc-
tivity of a particular project could be less than the planned produc-
tivity. In other words, the actual productivity could be low, and the
risk of occurring project delay is high. Thus, the project manager
should plan to implement higher levels of HRM practices and read
the probability from the graph until the desired level of productivity
Fig. 3. ROC curve for validating HRM practices and productivity
is achieved. Following the preceding discussion, it can be con-
model.
cluded that the model can assist the project manager in planning

© ASCE 04019115-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Demonstration of use of sigmoid graph of HRM practices.

For models based on expert systems, the rules obtained from

Fig. 4. Probability plot of HRM practices.
suitable HRM practices to implement on a given building construc-
tion project.
The advantages of using the model developed in this research
compared to existing models are as follows. According to Yi and
Chan (2014), multiple and polynomial regression analyses are
generally limited by the number of influencing factors that can
be included and by their ability to measure the combined effect
of influencing factors. For example, Zayed and Halpin (2005) de-
veloped a regression model for the prediction of pile construction
productivity based on a few factors. The model proposed by the
authors is composed of two independent variables (factors), auger
height and pile depth. Similarly, Jang et al. (2011) used four
variables: work characteristic, work technique, work management
component, and worker component. However, this study adopted
a scoring technique in which each of the 11 HRM practices
(independent variables) are scored, aggregated, and used in the
prediction of labor productivity.
experts are affected by personal prejudices and attitudes because
of the complex nature of productivity estimation (Yi and Chan
2014). For instance, Fayek and Oduba (2005) developed fuzzy ex-
pert rules based on the opinions of four experts. On the other hand,
the scoring tool proposed in this research helps to reduce the sub-
jectivity of the inputs to the logistic regression model. The descrip-
tions for each level of implementation of the HRM practices are
provided so that the users of the tool can objectively choose the
types of practices.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis carried out in this research, it is found that
clear delegation of responsibility, the stability of organizational
structure, and crew composition are the three most important HRM
practices for enhancing labor productivity in building construction
projects. Following the correlation analysis, it is also indicated that
project delay is negatively correlated with HRM practices, which
implies that the increment in the level of implementation of HRM
practices could decrease the occurrence of delays in building

Table 7. Illustration for application of HRM practices scoring tool

Implementation levels
HRM practices Description Level Score
Crew composition Crew composition is addressed after commencement of construction of building project 2 0.31
Skill assessment and evaluation Skill assessment is addressed on job site after beginning of project 2 0.30
Employee training Employee training will be addressed on job site after beginning of project 2 0.30
Career development Organization has informal recognition programs to recognize employees, but management 2 0.28
discusses future plans with them informally
Nonfinancial incentive programs Organization has informal recognition programs to recognize employees occasionally, but not 2 0.26
in a formal manner
Financial incentive programs Organization has informal incentive program to provide incentives occasionally, but not in a 2 0.27
formal manner
Social activities Organization does not formally plan social activities for employees, and there is only an 2 0.27
annual organization-wide social activity
Stability of organizational structure Key professionals are named or defined in contract 2 0.33
Clear delegation of responsibility There is simple and very formal delegation of responsibility 2 0.33
Retention plan for experienced personnel Each project manager is responsible for retention of his/her workers 2 0.31
Exit interviews Exit interview is held for key personnel only 2 0.23
Total score 3.18

© ASCE 04019115-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115

 projects. On the other hand, the relationship between company size
and HRM practices is positive and significant. This shows that the
levels of implementation of HRM practices increase as a company
gets larger. Meanwhile, the project cost is found to be strongly as-
sociated with HRM practices. Finally, company experience and
project turnover are positively correlated with HRM practices.
During the project-planning phase, the weighted scoring tool
and the logistic regression model can be used to plan appropriate
HRM practices that could be implemented on a certain multistory
building project. Importantly, the model can be used when the
project manager wants to determine whether the HRM practices
adopted on a certain project are associated with high or low pro-
ductivity compared to the baseline productivity factor. Based on the
predicted probability of exceeding the baseline productivity factor,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the contractor’s project manager can then implement corrective ac-
tions that could increase the likelihood of achieving a higher level
of productivity compared to the baseline.
The findings of this study can also provide useful information
for international contractors who want to carry out construction
works in Australia. Moreover, since the relative importance and
type of HRM practices, which could enhance productivity in build-
ing and engineering projects, could differ, it is suggested that
future researchers should identify and prioritize those practices that
are appropriate for increasing productivity in infrastructure and
industrial (engineering) construction projects, particularly in the
Australian context. Researchers can use the findings of this study
for comparison purposes. They can use a similar methodology to
develop logistic regression models for predicting the probability
of achieving a desired level of productivity in infrastructure and
industrial projects. Future research could also be conducted by
collecting data from unionized and nonunionized projects and
analyze the types of HRM practices to be implemented to enhance
productivity in the two categories of projects. Furthermore, sepa-
rate probability-based regression models can be developed for
unionized and nonunionized projects since the labor productivity
for unionized and nonunionized projects could be different.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed in this study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data-sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001263.
References
Abou-Assaleh, T., N. Cercone, V. Keselj, and R. Sweidan. 2014. “N-gram-
based detection of new malicious code.” In Proc., 28th Annual Int.
Computer Software and Applications Conf., COMPSAC 2004, 41–42.
New York: IEEE.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2019. Labour force, Australia,
detailed. Catalogue No. 6291.0.55.001. Canberra, Australia: ABS.
Albattah, M., Y. Shan, P. M. Goodrum, and T. R. Taylor. 2016. “Relation-
ships between cycles of economic expansion in construction and craft
workers’ job satisfaction and preferences.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 44 (1):
29–36.
Allmon, E., C. T. Haas, J. D. Borcherding, and P. M. Goodrum. 2000.
“U.S. construction labor productivity trends, 1970–1998.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 126 (2): 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2000)126:2(97).
Caldas, C. H., J.-Y. Kim, C. T. Haas, P. M. Goodrum, and D. Zhang. 2014.
“Method to assess the level of implementation of productivity practices
on industrial projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (1): 04014061.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000919.
© ASCE 04019115-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115
Chih, Y.-Y., K. Kiazad, D. Cheng, A. Capezio, and S. L. D. Restubog.
2016. “Does organizational justice matter? Implications for construc-
tion workers’ organizational commitment.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (2):
04016043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000490.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). 2013a. Best productivity practices
implementation index for industrial projects. Construction Industry
Institute Implementation Resource 252-3d. Austin, TX: CII.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). 2013b. Best productivity practices im-
plementation index for infrastructure projects. Construction Industry
Institute Implementation Resource 252-4d. Austin, TX: CII.
Dai, J., P. M. Goodrum, and W. F. Maloney. 2009. “Construction
craft workers’ perceptions of the factors affecting their productivity.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (3): 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:3(217).
Department of Treasury and Finance. 2016. “Construction supplier regis-
ter.” Accessed July 27, 2016. http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au.
Doloi, H. 2007. “Twinning motivation, productivity and management
strategy in construction projects.” Eng. Manage. J. 19 (3): 30–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2007.11431738.
Durdyev, S., and J. Mbachu. 2018. “Key constraints to labour productivity
in residential building projects: Evidence from Cambodia.” Int. J.
Constr. Manage. 18 (5): 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599
.2017.1326301.
El-Gohary, K. M., and R. F. Aziz. 2013. “Factors influencing construction
labor productivity in Egypt.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (1): 1–9. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168.
El-Gohary, K. M., R. F. Aziz, and H. A. Abdel-Khalek. 2017. “Engineering
approach using ANN to improve and predict construction labor produc-
tivity under different influences.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (8):
04017045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001340.
Ezeldin, A. S., and L. M. Sharara. 2006. “Neural networks for estimating
the productivity of concreting activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
132 (6): 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)
132:6(650).
Fagbenle, O. I., A. Y. Adeyemi, and D. A. Adesanya. 2004. “The impact of
non-financial incentives on bricklayers' productivity in Nigeria.”
Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (9): 899–911.
Fair Work Ombudsman. 2019. “Building and construction general on-site
award 2010.” Accessed January 24, 2019. http://awardviewer.fwo.gov
.au/award/show/MA000020#P84_2825.
Fayek, A. R., and A. Oduba. 2005. “Predicting industrial construction labor
productivity using fuzzy expert systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
131 (8): 938–941. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)
131:8(938).
Fowler, F. J., Jr., and C. Cosenza. 2009. “Design and evaluation of survey
questions.” In The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods,
375–412. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ghoddousi, P., O. Poorafshar, N. Chileshe, and M. R. Hosseini. 2015.
“Labour productivity in Iranian construction projects: Perceptions of
chief executive officers.” Int. J. Productivity Perform. Manage. 64 (6):
811–830. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0169.
Ghodrati, N., T. Wing Yiu, S. Wilkinson, and M. Shahbazpour. 2018.
“Role of management strategies in improving labor productivity in
general construction projects in New Zealand: Managerial perspective.”
J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6): 04018035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000641.
Gurmu, A. T. 2018. “Tools for measuring construction materials manage-
ment practices and predicting labor productivity in multistory building
projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (2): 04018139. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001611.
Gurmu, A. T., and A. A. Aibinu. 2017. “Construction equipment manage-
ment practices for improving labor productivity in multistory building
construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (10): 04017081.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001384.
Gurmu, A. T., and A. A. Aibinu. 2018. “Survey of management practices
enhancing labor productivity in multi-storey building construction
projects.” Int. J. Productivity Perform. Manage. 67 (4): 717–735.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2017-0032.
Gurmu, A. T., A. A. Aibinu, and C. Toong Khuan. 2016. “A study of best
management practices for enhancing productivity in building projects:
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Construction methods perspectives.” Constr. Econ. Build. 16 (3): 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v16i3.4882.
Hanley, J. A., and B. J. McNeil. 1982. “The meaning and use of the area
under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.” Radiology
143 (1): 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747.
Hasan, A., B. Baroudi, A. Elmualim, and R. Rameezdeen. 2018. “Factors
affecting construction productivity: A 30 year systematic review.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 25 (7): 916–937. https://doi.org/10.1108
/ECAM-02-2017-0035.
Heravi, G., and E. Eslamdoost. 2015. “Applying artificial neural networks
for measuring and predicting construction-labor productivity.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 141 (10): 04015032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001006.
Hewage, K. N., A. Gannoruwa, and J. Y. Ruwanpura. 2011. “Current status
of factors leading to team performance of on-site construction profes-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Waterloo on 12/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sionals in Alberta building construction projects.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.
38 (6): 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1139/l11-038.
Hiyassat, M. A., M. A. Hiyari, and G. J. Sweis. 2016. “Factors affecting
construction labour productivity: A case study of Jordan.” Int. J. Constr.
Manage. 16 (2): 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016
.1142266.
Hong, E. N. C., L. Z. Hao, R. Kumar, C. Ramendran, and V. Kadiresan.
2012. “An effectiveness of human resource management practices on
employee retention in institute of higher learning: A regression analy-
sis.” Int. J. Bus. Res. Manage. 3 (2): 60–79.
Jang, H., K. Kim, J. Kim, and J. Kim. 2011. “Labour productivity model for
reinforced concrete construction projects.” Constr. Innovation 11 (1):
92–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171111104655.
Jergeas, G. 2009. Improving construction productivity on Alberta oil and
gas capital projects. Calgary, AB, Canada: Univ. of Calgary.
Kakar, P., A. Raziq, and F. Khan. 2015. “Impact of human resource man-
agement practices on employee retention: A case of banking sector in
Quetta Baluchistan.” J. Manage. Info 4 (3): 5–11. https://doi.org/10
.31580/jmi.v5i1.24.
Kazaz, A., and S. Ulubeyli. 2007. “Drivers of productivity among construc-
tion workers: A study in a developing country.” Build. Environ. 42 (5):
2132–2140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.020.
Kim, H.-Y. 2013. “Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing
normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis.” Restor. Dent.
Endodontics 38 (1): 52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52.
Kim, S., J.-D. Kim, Y. Shin, and G.-H. Kim. 2015. “Cultural differences in
motivation factors influencing the management of foreign laborers in
the Korean construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage. 33 (7):
1534–1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.002.
Liberda, M., J. Ruwanpura, and G. Jergeas. 2003. “Construction pro-
ductivity improvement: A study of human, management and external
issues.” In Proc., Construction Research Congress. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Lim, L. J. W., and F. Y. Y. Ling. 2012. “Human resource practices of
contractors that lead to job satisfaction of professional staff.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 19 (1): 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1108
/09699981211192599.
Ling, F. Y. Y., Y. Ning, Y. H. Chang, and Z. Zhang. 2018. “Human resource
management practices to improve project managers’ job satisfaction.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 25 (5): 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1108
/ECAM-02-2017-0030.
Lu, M., S. Abourizk, and U. H. Hermann. 2000. “Estimating labor
productivity using probability inference neural network.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 14 (4): 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
(2000)14:4(241).
Lurd, A., and M. Lurd. 2013. “Measures of central tendency.” Accessed
June 13, 2016. https://statistics.laerd.com.
McDonald, D. F., and J. G. Zack. 2004. Estimating lost labor productivity
in construction claims. Morgantown, WV: Association for the Advance-
ment of Cost Engineering International.
Nasir, H. 2013. “Best productivity practices implementation index (BPPII)
for infrastructure projects.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo.
© ASCE 04019115-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(3): 04019115
Nasir, H., C. T. Haas, C. H. Caldas, and P. M. Goodrum. 2015. “An
integrated productivity-practices implementation index for planning
the execution of infrastructure projects.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 22 (2):
04015022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000275.
Ohueri, C. C., W. I. Enegbuma, N. H. Wong, K. K. Kuok, and R. Kenley.
2018. “Labour productivity motivation framework for Iskandar
Malaysia.” Built Environ. Project Asset Manage. 8 (3): 293–304.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-09-2017-0070.
Peduzzi, P., J. Concato, E. Kemper, T. R. Holford, and A. R. Feinstein.
1996. “A simulation study of the number of events per variable in
logistic regression analysis.” J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49 (12): 1373–1379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3.
Phua, F. T. T. 2012. “Do national cultural differences affect the nature and
characteristics of HRM practices? Evidence from Australian and Hong
Kong construction firms on remuneration and job autonomy.” Constr.
Manage. Econ. 30 (7): 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
.2012.682074.
Poveda, C. A., and A. R. Fayek. 2009. “Predicting and evaluating construc-
tion trades foremen performance: Fuzzy logic approach.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 135 (9): 920–929. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000061.
Rojas, E. M., and P. Aramvareekul. 2003. “Labor productivity drivers
and opportunities in the construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng. 19 (2):
78–82. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:2(78).
Srinavin, K., and S. Mohamed. 2003. “Thermal environment and construc-
tion workers’ productivity: Some evidence from Thailand.” Build.
Environ. 38 (2): 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)
00067-7.
Srour, F. J., I. Srour, and M. G. Lattouf. 2017. “A survey of absenteeism on
construction sites.” Int. J. Manpower 38 (4): 533–547. https://doi.org/10
.1108/IJM-08-2015-0135.
Steyerberg, E. W., F. E. Harrell, G. J. Borsboom, M. Eijkemans,
Y. Vergouwe, and J. D. F. Habbema. 2001. “Internal validation of
predictive models: Efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression
analysis.” J. Clin. Epidemiol. 54 (8): 774–781. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0895-4356(01)00341-9.
Tabassi, A. A., M. Ramli, and A. H. A. Bakar. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.009.
Thomas, H. R., and I. Završki. 1999. “Construction baseline productivity:
Theory and practice.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 125 (5): 295–303.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:5(295).
Tsehayae, A., and A. R. Fayek. 2016. “Developing and optimizing context-
specific fuzzy inference system-based construction labor productivity
models.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (7): 04016017. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001127.
Wang, Y., P. M. Goodrum, C. Haas, R. Glover, and S. Vazari. 2010. “Analy-
sis of the benefits and costs of construction craft training in the United
States based on expert perceptions and industry data.” Constr. Manage.
Econ. 28 (12): 1269–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010
.524238.
Willems, G., and S. Van Aelst. 2005. “Fast and robust bootstrap for LTS.”
Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48 (4): 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.csda.2004.03.018.
Yi, W., and A. P. C. Chan. 2014. “Critical review of labor productivity re-
search in construction journals.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (2): 214–225.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000194.
Zayed, T. M., and D. W. Halpin. 2005. “Productivity and cost regression
models for pile construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (7): 779–789.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:7(779).
Zhao, J., N. Zhu, and S. Lu. 2009. “Productivity model in hot and humid
environment based on heat tolerance time analysis.” Build. Environ.
44 (11): 2202–2207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.01.003.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.