sustainability
Article
Productivity Metrics and Its Implementations in Construction
Projects: A Case Study of Singapore
Ming Shan 1 , Yu-Shan Li 1 , Bon-Gang Hwang 2, * and Jia-En Chua 2






Citation: Shan, M.; Li, Y.-S.; Hwang,
B.-G.; Chua, J.-E. Productivity Metrics
and Its Implementations in
Construction Projects: A Case Study
of Singapore. Sustainability 2021, 13,
12132. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132112132
Academic Editor: Sunkuk Kim
Received: 30 August 2021
Accepted: 31 October 2021
Published: 3 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112132
1 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410004, China; ming.shan@csu.edu.cn (M.S.);
1209150108@csu.edu.cn (Y.-S.L.)
2 Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566, Singapore;
chuajiaen95@gmail.com
* Correspondence: bdghbg@nus.edu.sg
Abstract: Although some studies have used or developed different types of metrics to assess con-
struction productivity in the existing literature, few of them investigated those metrics systematically
and the differences between assessment results. This study examined the various types of metrics
used in the assessment of the productivity of construction projects. First, a literature review was
conducted first to identify prevailing productivity metrics at four levels, namely trade, project, com-
pany, and industry. Then, the questionnaire was developed and disseminated to 53 Singapore-based
construction companies for data collection. Subsequently, non-parametric statistical tests were con-
ducted to analyze the data collected by the questionnaire. Results showed that the top five metrics in
terms of usage frequency and relative importance were “constructability score”, “buildable design
score”, “square meter of built-up floor area per man-day”, “square meter per dollar”, and “output
per worker.” In addition, results showed that differences existed in the assessment results when
productivity metrics at different levels were used to conduct the same measurement. This is the first
study to explore the most widely used metrics in productivity assessments of construction projects
and investigate possible differences in assessment results. This study could help the authorities to
review, evaluate, and modify the productivity metrics used in practice. Thus, this study is beneficial
to the practice as well.
Keywords: productivity; metrics; construction projects
1. Introduction
The construction industry is widely reported to have a relatively low productivity level,
especially when comparing with other industrial sectors such as mining, manufacturing,
and oil and gas [1]. This is mainly because the construction industry is labor-intensive
and is deeply affected by various internal and external factors including social culture,
environmental and legal constraints, inappropriate management actions, extreme weather,
excessive overtime, and transportation conditions [2–5].
Productivity must be assessed before it can be improved. The assessment of produc-
tivity cannot be carried out without appropriate metrics. In the current literature, several
researchers have used different metrics to assess productivity. For example, Shehata and
El-Gohary [6] used capital productivity, output per worker, and output per work hour as
indicators to assess construction labor productivity. Vogl and Abdel-Wahab [7] suggested
using total factor productivity, output per worker, and output per work hour to measure the
construction productivity performance at the industry level. Ayele and Fayek [8] developed
a framework to measure the total productivity of construction projects, which consists of
metrics at three levels: activity, project, and industry, and proposed a metric for measuring
the total productivity of construction projects, which considers all resources used, including
labor, material, capital, energy, construction project indirect cost, and owner cost. Huang
et al. [9] stated that productivity can be measured at three levels: task, project, and industry,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 2 of 19

according to the nature of the construction process. Although different metrics have been
proposed to measure construction productivity, there are few systematic studies investigat-
ing how those productivity metrics are used in practice. Furthermore, a report of Singapore
indicated that the framework for measuring productivity is patchy [10]. As a result, this
study is determined to bridge the knowledge gap by answering the following questions.
1. What metrics are used to measure construction productivity in Singapore?
2. Are those metrics frequently used in practice?
3. Will there be any significant differences in productivity measurement results when
different metrics are used to measure the same project?
The research efforts described in the paper were carried out in the context of Singapore.
Singapore is an island country featured in tiny size but developed economy. The population
of the country is limited making the country has no choice but to seek for a higher produc-
tivity. To improve construction productivity in Singapore, the governmental department
Building Construction Authority (BCA) has announced several initiatives in recent years.
For example, BCA launched the 2nd Construction Productivity Roadmap in 2015 which
encourages using advanced technologies such as Building Information Modelling (BIM),
Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), and 3D printing to improve
construction productivity [11,12]. In addition to the efforts made by the government, the
academia has also carried out a series of research attempting to improve the construction
productivity in Singapore. Ofori [13] investigated the barriers to achieving high construc-
tion productivity in Singapore. Ofori [14] examined the initiatives that would enable
contractors in Singapore to improve the level of construction productivity. Lin et al. [15]
proposed a framework for developing a productivity and safety monitoring system using
Building Information Modelling. Hwang et al. [16] identified the critical factors affecting
the productivity of green building construction projects in Singapore. Hwang et al. [17]
identified and prioritized the critical management strategies that can help improve pro-
ductivity in the construction industry of Singapore. Although great efforts are made both
by the practice and academia, the productivity of Singapore’s construction industry is
still low [18,19]. Hence, it is imperative to review and evaluate the practices conducted
for improving construction productivity in Singapore. Moreover, according to the World
Population Review [20]. Singapore is the second most productive country in Asia, which
merely ranks behind Japan. A lot of countries, particularly for the emerging economies in
Asia, are following the practice of Singapore for seeking productivity enhancement. For
example, China chosen Singapore as its model and privileged partner [21]. Vietnam is
learning from Singapore’s experiences in preparing for a productive workforce targeting
the Industrial Revolution 4.0 [22]. India is investigating the model of Singapore trying to
secure its tremendous growth and economic success [23]. Thus, research findings generated
in Singapore would be useful, informative, and generalizable to the emerging economies
worldwide. Therefore, Singapore is a good context to carry out the piece of the research.
Although some studies in the existing literature have used or developed differ-
ent types of metrics to assess construction productivity, few of them investigated the
implementation of these metrics. This study revealed the implementation of different
productivity metrics in Singapore by checking the usage frequency, relative importance,
and possible differences in the assessment results of various productivity metrics. Thus,
this study can contribute to the current body of knowledge on productivity. Meanwhile,
this study can help achieve further productivity growth in the industry by enhancing the
government and the construction companies’ understandings of productivity metrics and
updating the corresponding rules and policies. Therefore, this study is also beneficial for
the industry. Moreover, this study can be replicated in other countries, which will allow
government and construction industry managers to understand how local productivity
metrics are implemented in real projects. Therefore, it is believed that this study can make
contribution to the global construction community.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 3 of 19

2. Background
2.1. Productivity
Generally, there are two types of productivity, namely single factor productivity, and
multi-factor or total-factor productivity. Single factor productivity, which includes labor
productivity and capital productivity, relates to just one input factor, while multi-factor or
total-factor productivity takes into account all the inputs [7]. Labor productivity is a single-
factor productivity often expressed as output per worker or output per hour worked [6,7,10].
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) [24] attempted to propose definitions of produc-
tivity for consistency, where productivity refers to “work-hours performed per units of
work completed”, and “the ratio of planned productivity to actual productivity” refers
to productivity index. Another single-factor productivity is capital productivity. Capital
productivity can be defined as a percentage return on capital invested [25]. Li and Liu [26]
stated that it can provide an overall capital utilization level of the construction industry.
Multi-factor productivity considers the contribution of both labor and capital as inputs [10].
Total factor productivity (TFP) takes into account a combination of inputs with adjustments
for technological progress [27]. Carson and Abbott [28] also stated that Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA) is a linear programming technique that computes the ratio of total inputs
employed to total output produced for each unit to estimate organizational efficiency.

2.2. Construction Productivity in Singapore

Construction is a mainstay of Singapore’s economy. It accounts for 3–6% of Singa-
pore’s gross domestic product (GDP) and takes up an estimated 12% of the total workforce
in the country. According to Bowen [29], the vitality of one country’s economy is best
indicated by its productivity performance. Therefore, improving the productivity level of
the construction industry is important, critical, and imperative to the national development
of Singapore. BCA has launched a series of initiatives in the past years to improve the
construction productivity of Singapore. For example, in 2013 BCA initiated the Balcony
Bonus Gross Floor Area Scheme which rewards developers who work closely with archi-
tects, engineers, and contractors towards higher construction productivity [30]. In addition,
BCA operates a Certified Construction Productivity Professional Scheme which grants
registered contractors additional bonus points for project bidding [31]. However, in the
current construction industry of Singapore, there is a lack of systematic research on produc-
tivity metrics, making the industry companies unable to interpret their productivity level
accurately, thereby leading to poor management and hindering the further improvement
of the industry productivity.

2.3. Metrics Used to Measure Productivity in Construction Projects

The research team carried out a comprehensive literature review to identify the metrics
that are used for construction productivity assessment. The identification of productiv-
ity metrics refers to the “PRISMA” guidelines [32]. Ten journal articles and two official
reports that particularly addressed construction productivity metrics were identified. After
examining the results of the literature review, the research team found that the prevail-
ing productivity metrics can be grouped at four levels, namely, trade level, project level,
company level, and industry level. Table 1 summarized the specific metrics used at four
different levels.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 4 of 19

Table 1. Productivity metrics used in the construction sector of Singapore at different levels.

Levels Metrics Code References

Total factor productivity P1 [7] [27]
Multi-factor
P2 [10] [33]
productivity
Output per worker P3 [6] [7] [25] [27] [33] [34] [35]
Output per work hour P4 [6] [7] [25] [33] [34]
Value-added per worker P5 [10] [33]
Industry Value-added per
P6 [10]
hour worked
Square meter per
P7 [10]
man day
Growth Accounting
P8 [28]
Approach
Data envelopment
P9 [26] [28]
analysis
Output per worker P10 [6] [7] [25] [27] [33] [34] [35]
Output per work hour P11 [6] [7] [25] [33] [34]
Value-added per worker P12 [10] [33]
Company
Value-added per
P13 [10] [33]
hour worked
Capital productivity P14 [25] [26]
Square meter per dollar P15 [6] [10]
Square meter of built-up
P16 [10]
floor area per man-day
Project Value-added per worker P17 [10]
Output per person-hour
P18 [10]
on key trades
Constructability Score P19 [10]
Buildable Design Score P20 [10]
Workhours
expended/quantity P21 [24]
installed
Formwork area per
P22 [34] [36]
manhour
Amount of rebar/prefab
P23 [36]
mesh per manhour
Volume of concrete
P24 [36]
per manhour
Area of drywall
P25 [36]
per manhour
Painted area
P26 [36]
per manhour
Trade
Number of doors
P27 [36]
installed per manhour
Wall tiled area
P28 [36]
per manhour
Floor tiled area
P29 [36]
per manhour
Suspended ceiling
P30 [36]
per manhour
Length of ducting
P31 [36]
per manhour
Length of electrical
P32 [34] [36]
conduit per manhour
Length of water pipe
P33 [36]
per manhour
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 5 of 19

At the trade level, productivity metrics involving measuring the output units for
activities carried out at construction sites. Shehata and El-Gohary [6] mentioned that
activity-oriented models are commonly adopted by contractors to measure productivity at
construction sites. CII [24] suggested using work hours expended over quantity installed
to measure activities’ productivity on site. BCA [36] published a guidebook that sets out
the best practices to measure productivity for 12 key trades which are commonly found
in most construction projects. The 12 key trades include formwork installation, concrete
placement, reinforcement placing and fixing, drywall installation, timber door installation,
painting, wall tiling, air-con ducting installation, suspended ceiling installation, floor
tiling, electrical conduit installation, and water pipe installation. A study by Singapore
Contractors Association Ltd. (SCAL) also stated that construction firms used trade-level
labor productivity that can be expressed as either unit of output per dollar, per work-hour,
or per man-day to monitor site activity [10]. Therefore, when measuring productivity at
construction sites, it can be measured by the work hours expended over quantity installed.
At the project level, metrics such as square meters of built-up floor area per man-day
or square meters per dollar are used as a composite measure of labor productivity [10].
In addition, “output per person-hour on key trades”, “total revenue per month”, “square
meters per man-day”, “value-added per work” and “constructability scores”, are also
metrics that can be used to assess project productivity [10]. Shehata and El-Gohary [6]
also used square feet per dollar as a form to assess project productivity. However, due to
the unique nature of the construction projects, measuring productivity at the project level
poses limitations for benchmarking of data as construction items are non-identical [10].
Therefore, when measuring productivity at the project level, it is important not only to
consider quantitative metrics but also to adapt qualitative metrics in the light of the actual
situation of the project to obtain appropriate results.
At the company level, metrics such as “gross output per worker” and “square meters
per man-day” are used to assess productivity [10]. In addition, value-added productivity
is also used in some instances in the context of Singapore. For example, value-added
per worker or value-added per hour worked are used and are estimated from progress
payments or renovation bank loans and data from Housing Development Board and Urban
Redevelopment Authority or production volume [10]. Subsequently, using price indices
to deflate nominal value to get the real value-added. However, the challenges facing by
the metric involves the difficulties in understanding the concept of value-added and in
obtaining accurate figure due to project complexity [10]. Therefore, if productivity is to be
measured within a certain period, metrics of company level can be used, but it will lack
accuracy when considering long-term productivity.
At the industry level, productivity metrics include labor productivity, multifactor
productivity, total factor productivity as well as estimations using cost or production
function such as the growth accounting approach or data envelopment analysis. Issues
with metrics at the industry level are the measurement to use for output or value-added,
and what measurements should be used use for labor input. Additionally, problems in
finding appropriate deflators for data adjustments happen due to affected output and
inputs data by business cycles [10]. Despite productivity metrics at the industry level have
many advantages in theory compared with other levels, the value of inputs and outputs
cannot be measured only by quantitative metrics in practice. Therefore, errors due to
uncertainties should also be considered.

3. Methods
This study adopted data collection methods, including literature review, pilot inter-
views, and questionnaire. The data analysis includes frequency and importance analysis,
alignment analysis, and difference analysis.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 6 of 19

3.1. Data Collection

3.1.1. Literature Review
Literature review is an effective way for researchers to learn some specific areas [37].
To identify the productivity metrics used by the current construction industry, this study
conducted a literature review. The search scope of the literature expands vastly, covering
the relevant books, journal articles, government reports, authoritative documents, and
information on websites.

3.1.2. Pilot Interview

Pilot interview with experienced industry expert is widely used in the construction
engineering and management research to verify whether the information retrieved from
the literature review is reasonable [38,39]. Therefore, this study carried out pilot interviews
with three experts from the construction industry of Singapore, to verify the productivity
metrics identified in the literature review, checking their applicability to the context of the
country. The list of productivity metrics retrieved from the literature review was then used
in a focus group meeting with three experts to check the applicability of the metrics to the
Singapore industry. All three experts have at least 14 years of experience in the construction
industry and at least 8 years of experience in assessing construction productivity. These
experts are experienced enough to provide views and opinions that are correct and reliable.
The experts did not add any new metrics but modified the descriptions of some metrics
and provided suggestions in the discussion section. Table 2 presents the profiles of the
post-interviewees.

Table 2. Profiles of post-interviewees.

Years of Experience in Years of Experience in Assessing

Interviewee Designation Occupation
Construction Industry Construction Productivity
A Contractor Project Manager 27 15
B Consultant Senior Consultant 41 18
C Contractor Senior Site Manager 14 8

3.1.3. Development of Questionnaire

Questionnaire is a widely used method for obtaining the opinions of industry pro-
fessionals in construction engineering and management research [40]. This study used
questionnaires to gather industry professionals’ perceptions of productivity metrics. The
questionnaire was developed based on the results of literature review and was composed
of three sections. The first section recorded the respondent’s profile including the desig-
nation, years of experience in construction industry, and years of experience in assessing
construction productivity. The second section asked the respondents to assess the identified
metrics in terms of their usage in frequency and relative importance, using two different
five-point rating scales, namely, 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always,
and 1 = not important at all, 2 = low important, 3 = moderate, 4 = important, 5 = extremely
important. The third section of the questionnaire requested the respondents to assess
the productivity of one project they have participated in, based on the identified metrics.
During the assessment, another five-point rating scale, namely, 1 = very poor, 2 = poor,
3 = moderate, 4 = good, and 5 = very good, were used. A sample of the questionnaire has
been attached as Appendix A.
The sampling frame of the questionnaire covered 4168 contractors and licensed
builders registered under the BCA Directory [41]. Referring to a frequently used sam-
ple rate of 10% [42], 416 contractors were randomly selected from the BCA Directory as
potential respondents of the questionnaire, which was distributed via email, phone calls,
and in person. A total of 53 responses were received, yielding a low response rate of 12.7%,
but for the survey research of Singapore’s construction industry, this response rate is accept-
able [43,44]. Such a low response rate is understandable, because construction industry is
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 7 of 19

always full of stress and challenges, and that construction professionals within a pressured
and dynamic work environment are unlikely to respond in the same way as members of
the public receiving questionnaires in their own homes or others who may work in more
stable work environments (e.g., office workers in large organizations) [45]. The data set was
checked for outliers, and the result showed that the data of the 53 responses were all valid.
The respondents had different types of designations, such as contractors, consultants, own-
ers, and government agency personnel. Among the respondents, approximately 90% had
at least five years of working experience in the construction industry and approximately
50% had at least five years of experience in assessing construction productivity. These
proportions indicated that the questionnaire respondents were experienced in the field and
that data collected were reliable. Table 3 presents the profiles of the survey respondents.

Table 3. Profiles of survey respondents.

Respondent Profiles Categorization Number of Respondents Percentage

Contractor 22 41.51%
Consultant 14 26.42%
Type of designation
Owner 8 15.09%
Government Agencies 9 16.98%
1–2 0 0.00%
2–3 1 1.89%
Years of Experience
3–4 2 3.77%
in Construction
4–5 4 7.55%
Industry
5–10 16 30.19%
>10 30 56.60%
1–2 3 5.66%
Years of Experience 2–3 6 11.32%
in Assessing 3–4 8 15.09%
Construction 4–5 13 24.53%
Productivity 5–10 13 24.53%
>10 10 18.87%

3.2. Data Analysis Methods

Statistical tests were conducted to analyze the data collected by the questionnaire.
Although the sample size of this study (i.e., 53) was not large, statistical analysis could still
be performed because the central limit theorem holds true as long as the sample size is no
less than 30 [46,47]. Two types of tests are widely used for statistical analysis, parametric
statistical tests and non-parametric statistical tests [48]. For parametric statistical tests, they
have a specific requirement which is data to be analyzed must fall in normal distribution,
while non-parametric statistical tests have no such constraint [49]. Based on the experience
of general questionnaire survey research in the construction industry, this study uses
non-parametric statistical tests to analyze the data. All tests were conducted with the aid
of SPSS Statistics 26.0.

3.2.1. Identification of the Most Frequently Used and Most Important Metrics
One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the identification of the metrics
that are most frequently used and most important. One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test
is a non-parametric statistical method, which checks whether the median of the sample
data is different from a test value [50,51]. According to [52], the null hypothesis of the test
is that the median of the sample data is statistically same as the test value. If the p-value
generated by the test is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is supported. By contrast,
a p-value less than 0.05 indicates the median of the sample data is statistically different
from the test value. For this study, “4” was selected as the test value, which means the
metric is frequently used and important according to the five-point Likert scale. Thus, by
conducting the One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test using the test value of 4, the metrics
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 8 of 19

that are most frequently used and most important could be revealed. One sample Wilcoxon
signed-rank test used the data from the second part of the questionnaire to analyze the
frequency and importance. In addition, the mean generated for each productivity metric
is evaluated as well, with top five productivity metrics for both level of frequency and
importance identified for discussions.

3.2.2. Investigation of Stakeholders’ Alignment on the Various Metrics

As the respondents of the questionnaire are from different institutions such as con-
tractors, consultants, owners, and government agencies, it is necessary to carry out an
inter-group comparison checking whether the respondents opine differently in sense of
their institutions. Kruskal–Wallis test is a rank-based non-parametric statistical test method
checking the potential differences among two or more different groups [53–55]. This study
used the Kruskal–Wallis test rather than the one-way ANOVA test because the studied
groups in Table 3 were of non-equal sample size and almost all metrics have their Levene’s
values ranging from 0.013 to 4.967 for frequency, from 0.057 to 6.074 for importance, and
from 0.019 to 3.524 for performance (significant at p < 0.05) [56,57]. The null hypothesis is
that there are no differences in the median between groups. A significance level (α) of 0.05
is used to assess the hypothesis. A p-value lesser than 0.05 rejects the null hypothesis and
concludes that there is a difference in the median between the groups. On the other hand, if
the p-value is more than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted indicating a consensus in the
median between the groups. Kruskal–Wallis test used the data from the second part and
third part of the questionnaire to analyze the scoring of frequency, importance of metrics
and productivity performance by respondents from different groups.
To further evaluate the results of differences between two groups (e.g., between
contractors and consultants, contractors and owners), Mann–Whitney U test was conducted,
it is also a non-parametric test [58]. The Kruskal–Wallis test conducted in the previous
step only identified a difference between subgroups for the productivity metrics and
does not tell which specific groups are significantly different. Hence, a more extensive
analysis to understand which specific groups were statistically significant different from
each other. Use the Mann–Whitney U test for post hoc analysis, Bonferroni adjustment
should be considered to adjust the significance level to control for Type 1 errors [59]. The
null hypothesis is that there are no differences between two groups. A p-value lesser than
adjusted significance level rejects the null hypothesis and concludes that there is a difference
between two groups. Mann–Whitney U test used the same data as Kruskal–Wallis test
for analysis.

3.2.3. Investigation of Differences on Assessments at Different Levels

To check whether there are significant differences in results when different metrics
are used to assess the same project, the Friedman test was conducted. The Friedman test
is suitable for two-way rank analysis of variance in the randomized block design [60].
It is similar to the Kruskal–Wallis test, but takes into account the influence of different
groups [61]. In this step, according to the results of the Kruskal–Wallis test, the data set
was divided into different blocks to minimize the difference between the groups. This step
aims to reduce the error caused by the influence of the blocks to effectively distinguish
whether there is a significant difference in results when different metrics are used to
assess the same project. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the
four levels of metrics when assessing the same project. A p-value lesser than 0.05 rejects
the null hypothesis and concludes that there is a significant difference between the four
levels of metrics. The Friedman test uses the data in the third part of the questionnaire.
The test item is the rank of productivity performance. To determine which level has the
highest and lowest productivity performance, the average performance score of each level
(i.e., industry, company, project, and trade) was calculated for every group of respondents
(i.e., designation or years of experience in industry or years of experience in assessing
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 9 of 19

productivity), and the ranking of the scores of the four levels for different groups were
presented, then SPSS was used for significant difference analysis.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Statistical Test Results of Productivity Metrics
This study mainly uses four non-parametric statistical test methods to analyze the data,
one sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was adopted to check whether the identified pro-
ductivity metrics are frequently used in practice, as well as whether they are of importance
to the practice; Kruskal–Wallis test was used to carry out inter-group comparison; Mann–
Whitney U test was used for post hoc analysis between two groups; and Friedman test
was suitable for checking the significant difference in results achieved by different metrics
upon one project. Table 4 presents respondents’ assessments of productivity metrics (usage
in frequency and relative importance) as well as the relevant results of statistical analyses.

Table 4. Assessments of productivity metrics in sense of usage in frequency and relative importance.

p-Values of Kruskal–Wallis Test

p-Value of Wilcoxon
Code Mean Signed-Rank Test Years of Experience in
Years of Experience in
Designations Assessing Construction
Construction Industry
Productivity

Frequency Importance Frequency Importance Frequency Importance Frequency Importance Frequency Importance

P1 3.40 3.72 0.000 1 0.005 1 0.410 0.106 0.544 0.177 0.578 0.611
P2 3.51 3.72 0.002 1 0.004 1 0.190 0.084 0.358 0.636 0.149 0.229
P3 3.60 3.58 0.011 1 0.002 1 0.158 0.136 0.756 0.380 0.636 0.878
P4 3.38 3.32 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.372 0.134 0.271 0.125 0.456 0.887
P5 3.32 3.43 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.671 0.085 0.890 0.326 0.343 0.707
P6 2.96 3.19 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.273 0.052 0.557 0.127 0.573 0.938
P7 3.45 3.68 0.004 1 0.015 1 0.010 2 0.021 2 0.073 0.151 0.717 0.404
P8 2.74 3.17 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.434 0.607 0.340 0.104 0.776 0.369
P9 2.75 3.09 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.737 0.277 0.230 0.116 0.496 0.150
P10 3.74 3.74 0.055 0.048 1 0.152 0.003 2 0.700 0.375 0.305 0.169
P11 3.26 3.38 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.390 0.084 0.684 0.085 0.344 0.565
P12 3.36 3.53 0.000 1 0.001 1 0.626 0.121 0.271 0.098 0.464 0.817
P13 3.00 3.23 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.317 0.594 0.557 0.058 0.318 0.714
P14 3.47 3.62 0.001 1 0.006 1 0.695 0.576 0.839 0.217 0.789 0.633
P15 3.77 3.87 0.226 0.247 0.098 0.068 0.987 0.602 0.208 0.385
P16 3.79 3.91 0.239 0.404 0.240 0.107 0.546 0.906 0.353 0.144
P17 3.26 3.51 0.000 1 0.215 0.773 0.576 0.150 0.140 0.998
P18 3.42 3.49 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.683 0.076 0.760 0.090 0.887 0.453
P19 3.96 4.11 0.955 0.325 0.007 2 0.030 2 0.179 0.066 0.865 0.479
P20 3.92 4.09 0.585 0.407 0.019 2 0.016 2 0.112 0.118 0.916 0.552

P21 3.49 3.53 0.003 1 0.001 1 0.144 0.082 0.949 0.413 0.244 0.189
P22 3.38 3.47 0.001 1 0.000 1 0.391 0.287 0.541 0.462 0.240 0.141
P23 3.42 3.49 0.002 1 0.000 1 0.120 0.314 0.503 0.364 0.235 0.142
P24 3.42 3.45 0.001 1 0.000 1 0.170 0.208 0.863 0.622 0.281 0.102
P25 3.30 3.43 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.067 0.183 0.300 0.477 0.440 0.381
P26 3.40 3.51 0.001 1 0.000 1 0.339 0.158 0.689 0.570 0.204 0.155
P27 3.34 3.50 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.300 0.374 0.542 0.675 0.110 0.110
P28 3.36 3.47 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.290 0.317 0.772 0.576 0.101 0.096
P29 3.32 3.49 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.570 0.229 0.579 0.524 0.057 0.121
P30 3.34 3.49 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.206 0.229 0.646 0.524 0.079 0.121
P31 3.25 3.42 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.117 0.166 0.674 0.577 0.056 0.063
P32 3.25 3.43 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.117 0.179 0.674 0.628 0.056 0.064
P33 3.25 3.43 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.117 0.179 0.674 0.628 0.056 0.064

1 The one sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was significant at the level of 0.05, suggesting the respondents’ assessment was statistically
different from the test value of 4. 2 The Kruskal–Wallis test was significant at the level of 0.05, suggesting the respondents’ assessment was
statistically different due to different backgrounds of the respondents.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 10 of 19

4.1.1. The Most Frequently Used and Most Important Metrics

According to the one sample Wilcoxon-signed rank test results in Table 4, assessments
of most productivity metrics were statistically lower than the test value 4, except for P10,
P15, P16, P19, and P20. Such results indicate that, although many metrics are proposed
by the authorities to assess productivity, only several of them are frequently used and
considered important by the practice.

4.1.2. Stakeholders’ Alignment on the Various Metrics

As for inter-group comparison based on the second part of the questionnaire, the
Kruskal–Wallis test results show that all respondents shared unanimous opinions on
frequency and importance regardless of their years of experience in the construction
industry and in assessing construction productivity, but there are differences between
designation groups. To determine which two designation groups have a statistically
significant difference, the Mann–Whitney U test was conducted for metrics P7, P19, and P20
in the frequency section, and P7, P10, P19, and P20 in the importance section. According to
Bonferroni adjustment, adjusted significance level α0 = α/m = 0.05/6 = 0.00833 [62]. Results
indicated that there is a difference between the designations with government agencies, as
presented in Table 5. The values in bold show a statistically significant difference.

Table 5. Mann–Whitney U test between designations—frequency and importance.

Contractor– Contractor– Contractor Consultant– Consultant Owner–

Code
Consultant Owner –Government Owner –Government Government
Frequency
P7 0.752 0.665 0.007 3 0.803 0.003 3 0.001 3
P19 0.405 0.401 0.001 3 0.941 0.006 3 0.009
P20 0.351 0.352 0.003 3 0.941 0.019 0.025
Importance
P7 0.273 0.843 0.008 3 0.362 0.030 0.006 3
P10 0.026 0.027 0.089 0.004 3 0.014 0.526
P19 0.054 0.584 0.010 0.260 0.238 0.057
P20 0.031 0.482 0.006 3 0.260 0.238 0.057
3The Mann–Whitney U test was significant at the level of 0.00833, suggesting the respondents’ assessment was statistically different due to
different designations of the respondents.

As for inter-group comparison based on the third part of the questionnaire, Table 6
lists the differences in productivity performance among different groups of respondents.
The Kruskal–Wallis test results show that although respondents of different designations
and years of experience in the construction industry shared unanimous opinions on produc-
tivity performance, according to the different years of experience in assessing construction
productivity, the respondents’ perspective on metrics are inconsistent, especially the trade
level (P21–P33). To determine which two specific groups are statistically different, the
Mann–Whitney U test was conducted as the results presented in Table 7. Adjusted sig-
nificance level α0 = α/m = 0.05/3 = 0.0167. Results observed a difference in the group of
more than 10 years of experience in assessing construction productivity. Respondents in
subgroup “>10 years” indicated a perception of trade level productivity metrics having a
better productivity performance compared to the two other groups.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 11 of 19

Table 6. Inter-group comparison of productivity performance.

p-Values of Kruskal–Wallis Test

Code
Years of Experience in Years of Experience in Assessing
Designations
Construction Industry Construction Productivity
P1 0.648 0.262 0.969
P2 0.856 0.139 0.647
P3 0.540 0.522 0.895
P4 0.190 0.276 0.290
P5 0.461 0.941 0.112
P6 0.190 0.104 0.717
P7 0.227 0.868 0.369
P8 0.432 0.550 0.920
P9 0.709 0.311 0.741
P10 0.314 0.510 0.101
P11 0.115 0.993 0.177
P12 0.444 0.545 0.259
P13 0.977 0.950 0.917
P14 0.799 0.683 0.189
P15 0.053 0.240 0.028 2
P16 0.761 0.669 0.107
P17 0.130 0.908 0.284
P18 0.116 0.674 0.233
P19 0.093 0.655 0.264
P20 0.061 0.524 0.185
P21 0.477 0.867 0.009 2
P22 0.685 0.719 0.004 2
P23 0.731 0.762 0.004 2
P24 0.585 0.767 0.003 2
P25 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P26 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P27 0.568 0.872 0.002 2
P28 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P29 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P30 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P31 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P32 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
P33 0.757 0.756 0.002 2
2 The Kruskal–Wallis test was significant at the level of 0.05, suggesting the respondents’ assessment was
statistically different due to different backgrounds of the respondents.

Table 7. Mann–Whitney U test between years of experience in assessing construction productiv-

ity performance.

Code <5 Years–5–10 Years <5 Years–>10 Years 5–10 Years–>10 Years
P15 0.069 0.016 3 0.696
P21 0.244 0.008 3 0.007 3
P22 0.219 0.005 3 0.003 3
P23 0.151 0.005 3 0.003 3
P24 0.239 0.003 3 0.003 3
P25 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P26 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P27 0.307 0.002 3 0.003 3
P28 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P29 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P30 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P31 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P32 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
P33 0.388 0.001 3 0.003 3
3 The Mann–Whitney U test was significant at the level of 0.0167, suggesting the respondents’ assessment was
statistically different due to different designations of the respondents.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 12 of 19

4.1.3. Differences on Assessments at Different Levels

The results were affected by the subjective judgments of the respondents, thus it may
fail to accurately reflect the actual situation. It is suitable to use the Friedman test method
for comparison. Table 8 shows the average scores and corresponding ranks of productivity
metrics performance, based on different levels as well as the different designations of
respondents. The result of Friedman test reported p = 0.017, which was less than 0.05. The
null hypothesis was rejected and concludes that there are significant differences when
using different levels of productivity metrics to assess the same projects.

Table 8. Average scores and ranks of productivity performance.

Industry Company Project Trade

Respondent
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Contractor 3.25 1 3.26 2 3.42 3 3.57 4
Consultant 3.13 1 3.47 2 3.60 3 3.73 4
Owner 3.19 2 3.00 1 4.0 4 3.38 3
Government Agencies 2.98 1 3.24 2 3.5 3 3.56 4
Σ Rank 5 7 13 15
Significant p = 0.017

4.2. Discussion
Recalling the three research questions raised in the introduction section, first, 33 pre-
vailing metrics for construction productivity measurement in Singapore were obtained
through literature review and pilot interview. Then based on the second part of the ques-
tionnaire and statistical analysis, explored the usage in frequency and relative importance
of different productivity metrics, and determined the top five productivity metrics in usage
frequency and importance. Stakeholders’ alignment on the various metrics reflects the
main reasons for the differences. Finally, based on the third part of the questionnaire and
statistical analysis, reported that there are significant differences when using different
levels of productivity metrics to assess the same projects.

4.2.1. Top Five Productivity Metrics in Usage Frequency and Importance

In terms of usage frequency, the one sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test in Table 4
showed that the p-values of P10, P15, P16, P19, and P20 are greater than 0.05, suggesting
respondents’ assessments of these metrics are statistically same as the test value of 4. In
addition, as presented in Table 4, none of the identified metrics received a mean value
greater than 4; according to the rating scale adopted by the questionnaire, it means that
P10, P15, P16, P19, and P20 are the only productivity metrics that are frequently used in
productivity assessment. In terms of relative importance, as shown in Table 4, the p-values
of P15, P16, P19, and P20 generated by one sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test are greater
than 0.05, indicating respondents’ assessments of these four metrics are statistically equal to
the test value of 4. Furthermore, none of the identified metrics received a mean value higher
than 4 except P19 and P 20; according to the rating scale adopted by the questionnaire, it
means that P15, P16, P19, and P20 are the only productivity metrics that are considered
important by the practice. Due to the word limit, only P10, P15, P16, P19, and P20 are
discussed in this paper.
As shown in Table 4, P19 “Constructability Score” and P20 “Buildable Design Score”
received the top two highest assessments both in usage frequency and relative importance.
As the results of the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Mann–Whitney U test, the government
pays more attention to the Constructability Score and the Buildable Design Scores. The
Constructability Score in Singapore is an index that measures contractors regarding their
adoption level of labor-efficient construction methods and construction processes, such as
system formwork and climbable scaffolding [63]. The score can reflect the productivity lev-
els of contractors and it has become a mandatory requirement of BCA in tender evaluation
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 13 of 19

to improve construction productivity. The Buildable Design Score is an index measuring

the potential impact of a building design on labor usage. It facilitates the adoption of less
labor-intensive construction methods and promotes greater use of prefabricated, modular,
and standardized building components to improve site productivity [63]. It has been
required by the government that any projects with a gross floor area of 2000 m2 and above
must comply with a minimum Buildable Design Score [63]. Additionally, the expert opined
that these two scores are important to benchmark contractors’ involvement on values for
the project, as well as the client’s involvement and consultant’s value-added performance.
Therefore, ignoring the productivity increase brought about by new construction technolo-
gies may lead to an underestimation of actual productivity, at the same time, appropriate
productivity metrics should be identified according to the state of the art of construction in
a region.
P16 “square meter of built-up floor area per man-day” ranked third both in usage
frequency and relative importance. This metric reflects how productive the work conducted
by one worker is. This metric is important because it is crucial to know how much work
is completed on site so as to decide manpower requirements or if any adjustments are
required to be made. A study conducted by SCAL [10] also revealed that square meter per
man-day is one of the leading methods of assessing productivity by construction companies
in Singapore. The survey respondents are also of the perception that “square meter of
built-up floor area per man-day” is frequently adopted in the local construction industry.
The metric provides an easy yardstick for the measurement of physical site productivity.
P15 “square meter per dollar” received the fourth highest assessment both in usage
frequency and relative importance. The metric checks how much work is done on account
of the amount of money spent. It investigates profitability which is governed by how
productive per area of works. The expert commented that this metric can be used as
a benchmark on the cost-effectiveness of a project, and it has been widely used by the
construction industry of Singapore. The importance of financial consideration is underline
in productivity assessment in the study by SCAL [10], the cost implications in this metric
measurement are imperative to the productivity assessment. Especially in international
projects, “square meter per dollar” is used as an important metric to measure project cost
and productivity assessment [64].
P10 “output per worker” at a company level (P10) ranked fifth in usage frequency
and relative importance. The metric was identified as a common measure of productivity
by numerous studies, associating labor productivity as outputs to labor inputs [7,25]. It
aids in measuring the competency of workers, which is a good yardstick to measure the
productivity of the workers. Additionally, the metric allows review of workers’ involve-
ment and cost-effectiveness of workers’ output so that changes can be made for future
implementations. On the other hand, workers are directly engaged by contractors, which
is good for contractors to keep track of productivity data, as opined by experts. Thereby
“output per worker” will be more realistic for implementation as it is based on practicability,
especially for projects that require many workers.

4.2.2. Differences on Assessments at Different Levels

As shown in Table 8, there are differences in productivity measurement results when
different metrics are used to measure the same project. Therefore, it cannot consider only
one certain level when assessing productivity. According to the results of the Kruskal–
Wallis test and the Mann–Whitney U test, the respondents with more than 10 years of
experience in assessing construction productivity indicated a perception of trade level
having a higher productivity performance. The reason may be that metrics of trade level
are the basis for productivity measurement, they are relatively easy and straightforward
for use [10]. Then, the Singapore government concluded almost all trade level productivity
metrics in the builders’ guide of BCA a long time ago, thus, when the project is planned or
implemented, metrics may have been incorporated into the schedule to respond to the need
for high productivity. Finally, trade level productivity metrics are related to the individual
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 14 of 19

performance of each trade, and workers will meet higher index requirements to obtain
more rewards. Therefore, the trade level is not only easy to measure, but more importantly,
rules based on metrics are also easy to implement. So, it is suitable for measuring the
productivity of on site, and it also facilitates the government and managers to develop
effective incentive policies.
Although the productivity performance evaluated by trade level productivity metrics
is higher, stakeholders prefer to consider project level and company level productivity
metrics in terms of frequency and importance. By contrast, productivity metrics at the
project, company, and industry levels involves are more complex as they involve all the
trades and require more details to be taken into consideration. Industry level productivity
metrics are persuasive in theory but have initial investment and derived values that are
difficult to measure in practice. It is also further supported by experts that trade level is the
base of the productivity measurement, as project level is built upon the multiple trades, and
company level is built upon projects and the industry level is up to the results of different
companies. Consequently, it is important to measure productivity from a holistic view
and select appropriate metrics or develop new metrics to measure productivity according
to the actual situation of project, such as the character of project, site conditions, human
resources, and local regime.

4.3. The Implications of Study

This study has practical implications because it revealed the implementation status of
the different productivity metrics in the real world, provides evidence for finding effective
management strategies which could help the authorities and the industry update their
rules and policies accordingly. The research results also suggest that the authorities and
industry practitioners adjust the productivity assessment system in the light of the actual
situation, instead of selecting the only commonly used productivity metrics. A holistic
assessment of productivity covering different aspects needs to be carried out if they want
to gain objective and reliable information regarding the status quo of the productivity in
their construction industry.
Apart from being beneficial to the practice, this study contributes to the current body
of knowledge of productivity research. Although various types of metrics are used to assess
productivity currently, limited research was carried out to investigate their usage in practice.
This is the first study that presents a methodological approach to investigates the various
productivity metrics used in the construction industry, by checking its usage frequency,
relative importance, and possible differences in assessment results. The results indicate that
the benchmarking of the productivity metrics system needs to be improved and exploring
productivity metrics more friendly for assessment will be a research direction that can
be considered for future research. Although this research is based on Singapore, other
countries, particularly those emerging economies in Asia could use the methodological
approach presented in this study to examine the productivity metrics used in their industry
and carry out modification if needed.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study investigated the different metrics that were used to measure productivity
in the construction industry of Singapore. It first conducted the literature review of the
productivity metrics and categorized the metrics at four different levels, namely trade,
project, company, and industry. Subsequently, the frequency and importance levels of
various productivity metrics were assessed. Results showed that the top five productivity
metrics used in the construction of Singapore were “constructability score”, “buildable
design score”, “square meter of built-up floor area per man-day”, “square meter per dollar”,
and “output per worker.” Results also showed that differences existed when metrics at
different levels were used to conduct the same measurement, and that results generated by
the metrics at the trade level are relatively higher than those from the project, company,
and industry levels. The findings from this study can help government authorities review,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 15 of 19

evaluate, and modify the productivity metrics used by the practice, which would further
help achieve the sustainable development of the industry.
Although the objectives of the study were achieved, there are limitations. First, this
study collected perception-based data from experts in the industry, which may cause the
issue of subjectivity. Second, the sample size of the questionnaire is relatively small and
thus, caution should be warranted when the results are interpreted. Lastly, this study was
conducted in the context of Singapore and the results may have applicability issue when
applying to other countries.
Future studies could develop productivity assessment benchmarking systems and
integrates the overview of project to implement productivity measurements. In addition,
how to measure productivity accurately and efficiently in an era of information technology
development will be an important task for industry research and policy development.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S. and B.-G.H.; methodology, M.S., J.-E.C. and Y.-S.L.;
validation, M.S. and Y.-S.L.; formal analysis, Y.-S.L.; investigation, J.-E.C.; resources, B.-G.H.; data
curation, J.-E.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-S.L. and J.-E.C.; writing—review and editing,
M.S. and B.-G.H.; visualization, Y.-S.L.; supervision, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Some or all of the data that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Additional data that support the
findings of this study, including the survey template and raw survey results, are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: Sincere thanks go to the industry experts who have participated into the survey
carried out in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Main Survey Questionnaires

Appendix A.1. Respondents’ Profile
Please indicate your designation by ticking 3 below.
[ ] Consultant [ ] Contractor [ ] Owner [ ] Government Agencies [ ] Others (please specify):
Please indicate your years of experience in the construction industry:
Please indicate your years of experience in assessing productivity in your organization:
Please indicate the years of experience of your company/organization in the construc-
tion industry:
Please indicate the years of experience in assessing productivity in your organization:

Appendix A.2. Frequency and Importance of Construction Productivity Metrics

This section assesses the productivity metrics identified from literature reviews. Please
tick 3 the productivity metrics that your company/organization have adopted to measure
productivity (You may tick more than one).
Following which, the general perception of the frequency and importance is assessed.
Please rate the frequency and importance of ALL metrics with a scale of 1 to 5: (Kindly
mark an X in the boxes below.)
Frequency: 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always
Importance: 1- Not important at all, 2- Low important, 3- Moderate, 4- Important,
5- Extremely important
For your information:
The following metrics are extracted from literature reviews:
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 16 of 19

Single factor productivity includes output per one input, or in some instances value-
added form.
Multi-factor productivity is defined as output per the contributions of both labor and
capital as inputs.
Total-factor productivity takes into account combination of inputs (capital, labor and
materials) with adjustment for technological progress (shift factor).
Growth Accounting Approach is estimations of cost functions, by estimating produc-
tivity over time by estimating production function.
Data Envelopment Analysis is a nonparametric method to determine efficiency of
decision making unit (DMU) by the projection of input and output variables in geomet-
ric figures.

Table A1. Frequency and Importance of Construction Productivity Metrics.

Frequency (Answer for ALL Metrics) Importance (Answer for ALL Metrics)
Please Tick 3 if
Levels Metrics 1- Not 5-
the Metric Is Used 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 2- Low 3- 4-
Important Extremely
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Important Moderate Important
at All Important

Total Factor Productivity

Multi-Factor Productivity
Output per worker
Output per work hour
Industry Value-added per worker
Value-added per hour worked
Square metre per man day
Growth Accounting Approach
Data Envelopment Analysis

Output per worker

Output per work hour
Company Value-added per worker
Value-added per hour worked
Capital Productivity

Square metre per dollar

Square metre of built-up floor area per
man-day
Project Value-added per worker
Output per person-hour on key trades
Constructability Score
Buildable Design Score

Work-Hours expended/Quantity Installed

Formwork Area per manhour
Amount of rebar/prefab mesh per manhour
Volume of concrete per manhour
Area of Drywall per manhour
Painted Area per manhour
Trade Number of doors installed per manhour
Wall tiled area per manhour
Floor tiled area per manhour
Suspended ceiling per manhour
Length of ducting per manhour
Length of electrical conduit per manhour
Length of water pipe per manhour

Appendix A.3. Productivity Performance of Projects by Metrics

This section assesses the productivity performance of projects by metrics. You may
encounter different outcomes when using different productivity metrics to measure the
same project. Based on your experience in the past three to five years projects, please
indicate your perception of the productivity performance under different productivity
metrics by marking an X in the boxes below, using a scale of 1 to 5 for ALL the metrics (if
the measured productivity outcome is good or poor):
Performance: 1- Very Poor, 2- Poor, 3- Moderate, 4- Good, 5- Very Good
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 17 of 19

Table A2. Productivity Performance of Projects by Metrics.

Performance by Metrics
Levels Metrics 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Very Good
Total Factor Productivity
Multi-Factor Productivity
Output per worker
Output per work hour
Industry Value-added per worker
Value-added per hour worked
Square metre per man day
Growth Accounting Approach
Data Envelopment Analysis
Output per worker
Output per work hour
Company Value-added per worker
Value-added per hour worked
Capital Productivity
Square metre per dollar
Square metre of built-up floor
area per man-day
Value-added per worker
Project
Output per person-hour on
key trades
Constructability Score
Buildable Design Score
Work-Hours
expended/Quantity Installed
Formwork Area per manhour
Amount of rebar/prefab mesh
per manhour
Volume of concrete per manhour
Area of Drywall per manhour
Painted Area per manhour
Trade Number of doors installed
per manhour
Wall tiled area per manhour
Floor tiled area per manhour
Suspended ceiling per manhour
Length of ducting per manhour
Length of electrical conduit
per manhour
Length of water pipe
per manhour

References
1. Hasan, A.; Baroudi, B.; Elmualim, A.; Rameezdeen, R. Factors affecting construction productivity: A 30 year systematic review.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 916–937. [CrossRef]
2. Caldas, C.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Haas, C.T.; Goodrum, P.M.; Zhang, D. Method to Assess the Level of Implementation of Productivity
Practices on Industrial Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 9. [CrossRef]
3. Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Kandymov, N. Structural Equation Model of the Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 11. [CrossRef]
4. Ghodrati, N.; Wing Yiu, T.; Wilkinson, S.; Shahbazpour, M. Role of Management Strategies in Improving Labor Productivity in
General Construction Projects in New Zealand: Managerial Perspective. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34. [CrossRef]
5. Tan, Y.T.; Shuai, C.Y.; Shen, L.Y.; Hou, L.; Zhang, G.M. A study of sustainable practices in the sustainability leadership of
international contractors. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 697–710. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 18 of 19

6. Shehata, M.E.; El-Gohary, K.M. Towards improving construction labor productivity and projects’ performance. Alex. Eng. J. 2011,
50, 321–330. [CrossRef]
7. Vogl, B.; Abdel-Wahab, M. Measuring the construction industry’s productivity performance: Critique of international productivity
comparisons at industry level. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141. [CrossRef]
8. Ayele, S.; Fayek, A.R. A framework for total productivity measurement of industrial construction projects. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2019,
46, 195–206. [CrossRef]
9. Huang, A.L.; Chapman, R.E.; Butry, D.T. Metrics and Tools for Measuring Construction Productivity: Technical and Empirical
Considerations, Special Publication 1101; U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology: Washington,
DC, USA, 2009. Available online: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication1101.pdf (accessed on 7
July 2021).
10. SCAL. Construction Productivity in Singapore: Effective Measurement to Facilitate Improvement; The Singapore Contractors Association
Ltd.: Singapore, 2017.
11. Building Construction Authority (BCA). The Second Construction Productivity Roadmap 14. 2015. Available online: https:
//www.bca.gov.sg/emailsender/BuildSmart-062015/microsite/others/bca-newsletter.pdf. (accessed on 17 May 2021).
12. Liu, S.Y.; Qian, S.Z. Towards sustainability-oriented decision making: Model development and its validation via a comparative
case study on building construction methods. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 860–872. [CrossRef]
13. Ofori, G.; Zhang, Z.; Ling, F.Y.Y. Key barriers to increase construction productivity: The Singapore case. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
2020, 1–12. [CrossRef]
14. Ofori, G.; Zhang, Z.; Ling, F.Y.Y. Initiatives that enable Singapore contractors to improve construction productivity. Built Environ.
Proj. Asset Manag. 2021. [CrossRef]
15. Teo Ai Lin, E.; Ofori, G.; Tjandra, I.; Kim, H. Framework for productivity and safety enhancement system using BIM in Singapore.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 1350–1371. [CrossRef]
16. Hwang, B.-G.; Zhu, L.; Ming, J.T.T. Factors Affecting Productivity in Green Building Construction Projects: The Case of Singapore.
J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33. [CrossRef]
17. Hwang, B.-G.; Li, Y.-S.; Shan, M.; Chua, J.-E. Prioritizing Critical Management Strategies to Improving Construction Productivity:
Empirical Research in Singapore. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9349. [CrossRef]
18. Krishnankutty, P.; Hwang, B.G.; Caldas, C.H.; Muralidharan, S.; De Oliveira, D.P. Assessing the Implementation of Best
Productivity Practices in Maintenance Activities, Shutdowns, and Turnarounds of Petrochemical Plants. Sustainability 2019, 11,
1239. [CrossRef]
19. Shang, G.; Pheng, L.S.; Hui, W.J. Drivers and barriers for multiskilling workers in the Singapore construction industry. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 289–304. [CrossRef]
20. World Population Review. Most Productive Countries 2021. 2021. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/
country-rankings/most-productive-countries. (accessed on 26 October 2021).
21. Curien, R. Singapore, a model for (sustainable?) urban development in China. An overview of 20 years of Sino-Singaporean
cooperation. China Perspect. 2017, 2017, 25–35. [CrossRef]
22. Quyen, N.T.H. An analysis of the Singaporean preparation for the future workforce and recommendations for Vietnam. VNU J.
Foreign Stud. 2019, 35. [CrossRef]
23. Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking in the 21st Century. Small Economy but Big Lessons: What India and Hungary Can
Learn from Outward Looking Model of Singapore? Available online: http://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/sites/default/files/18_Kumari_
Bharti.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2021).
24. Construction Industry Institute (CII). Craft Productivity Program Phase I. In Research Summary 252-1; The University of Texas at
Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 2009.
25. Lowe, J.G. The measurement of productivity in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1987, 5, 101–113. [CrossRef]
26. Li, Y.; Liu, C. Construction capital productivity measurement using a data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2011, 11,
49–61. [CrossRef]
27. Crawford, P.; Vogl, B. Measuring productivity in the construction industry. Build. Res. Informat. 2006, 34, 208–219. [CrossRef]
28. Carson, C.; Abbott, M. A review of productivity analysis of the New Zealand construction industry. Australas. J. Constr. Econ.
Build. 2012, 12, 1–15. [CrossRef]
29. Bowen, W. The prospects for productivity in Rukeyser. In Working Smarter, 2nd ed.; Ruckeyser, W.S., Fortune Magazine Editors,
Eds.; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 1–18.
30. Building Construction Authority (BCA). Balcony Bonus GFA Scheme. 2020. Available online: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/
productivity/other-incentives-scheme/balcony-bonus-gfa-scheme. (accessed on 17 May 2021).
31. Building Construction Authority (BCA). Qualification for CCPP. 2019. Available online: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/
productivity/bca-certified-construction-productivity-professional-scheme/qualification-for-ccpp. (accessed on 9 June 2021).
32. Page, M.J.; Mckenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. OECD. Measuring Productivity. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. Available
online: http://www.oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/2352458.pdf. (accessed on 12 May 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12132 19 of 19

34. Dozzi, S.P.; Abourizk, S.M. Productivity in Construction; Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council: Ottawa,
ON, Canada, 1993.
35. De Valence, G.; Abbott, M. A review of the theory and measurement techniques of productivity in the construction industry. In
Measuring Construction: Prices, Output and Productivity; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 205–221.
36. Building Construction Authority (BCA). Builders’ Guide on Measuring Productivity—A Guide to Help Builders Measure Produc-
tivity of Various Trades. 2012. Available online: https://www.bca.gov.sg/Productivity/others/builders_guide_productivity.pdf
(accessed on 6 June 2021).
37. Zhao, X.B. A scientometric review of global BIM research: Analysis and visualization. Autom. Constr. 2017, 80, 37–47. [CrossRef]
38. Hwang, B.-G.; Shan, M.; Phua, H.; Chi, S. An Exploratory Analysis of Risks in Green Residential Building Construction Projects:
The Case of Singapore. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1116. [CrossRef]
39. Li, A.S.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Low, S.P.; Ofori, G. Strategies for Foreign Construction-Related Consultancy Firms to Improve Performance
in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 6. [CrossRef]
40. Hwang, B.-G.; Zhao, X.; Yang, K.W. Effect of BIM on Rework in Construction Projects in Singapore: Status Quo, Magnitude,
Impact, and Strategies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145. [CrossRef]
41. Building Construction Authority (BCA). BCA Directory of Registered Contractors & Licensed Builders. 2020. Available online:
https://www.bca.gov.sg/BCADirectory/ (accessed on 14 April 2020).
42. Sommer, A.; Steland, A. Multistage acceptance sampling under nonparametric dependent sampling designs. J. Stat. Plan Inference
2019, 199, 89–113. [CrossRef]
43. Hartono, B.; Sulistyo, S.R.; Chai, K.H.; Indarti, N. Knowledge Management Maturity and Performance in a Project Environment:
Moderating Roles of Firm Size and Project Complexity. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35. [CrossRef]
44. Liao, L.; Teo, E.a.L. Managing critical drivers for building information modelling implementation in the Singapore construction
industry: An organizational change perspective. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 240–256. [CrossRef]
45. Root, D.; Blismas, N.G. Increasing questionnaire responses from industry: Practices surrounding the use of postal questionnaires.
In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, Brighton, UK, 3–5 September 2003; Greenwood, D.J., Ed.; Association of
Researchers in Construction Management: Reading, UK, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 623–631.
46. Ott, R.L.; Longnecker, M.T. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA,
USA, 2015.
47. Zhao, X.; Singhaputtangkul, N. Effects of firm characteristics on enterprise risk management: Case study of Chinese construction
firms operating in Singapore. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32. [CrossRef]
48. Kim, T.K. T test as a parametric statistic. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2015, 68, 540–546. [CrossRef]
49. Minchin Jr, R.E.; Corona, F.; Lucas, E.D.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, J.; Walters, R.C. Chinese Organizations’ Actions, Attitudes, and
Motivations When Faced with Counterfeit Items in Their Construction Supply Chains. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.
2017, 9. [CrossRef]
50. Conover, W.J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 350–357.
51. Thas, O.; Rayner, J.; Best, D. Tests for symmetry based on the one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank statistic. Commun. Stat. Simul.
Comput. 2005, 34, 957–973. [CrossRef]
52. Taheri, S.; Hesamian, G. A generalization of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and its applications. Stat. Pap. 2013, 54, 457–470.
[CrossRef]
53. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [CrossRef]
54. Rajendran, S.; Gambatese, J.A.; Behm, M.G. Impact of green building design and construction on worker safety and health. J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1058–1066. [CrossRef]
55. Tixier, A.J.-P.; Hallowell, M.R.; Albert, A.; Van Boven, L.; Kleiner, B.M. Psychological antecedents of risk-taking behavior in
construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140. [CrossRef]
56. Howell, D.C. Statistical Methods for Psychology; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 324–325.
57. Levene, H. Robust tests for equality of variances. Contrib. Probab. Statistics. Essays Honor. Harold Hotell. 1960, 2, 278–292.
58. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann Stat.
1947, 18, 50–60. [CrossRef]
59. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge Academic: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
60. Friedman, M. The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
1937, 32, 675–701. [CrossRef]
61. Sheldon, M.R.; Fillyaw, M.J.; Thompson, W.D. The use and interpretation of the Friedman test in the analysis of ordinal-scale data
in repeated measures designs. Physiother. Res. Int. 1996, 1, 221–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Chen, S.-Y.; Feng, Z.; Yi, X. A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, 1725–1729.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Building Construction Authority (BCA). Building Control (Buildability and Productivity) Regulations. 2020. Available on-
line: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/productivity/buildability-buildable-design-and-constructability/building-control-
regulations (accessed on 2 August 2021).
64. Townsend, T. International Construction Market Survey 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.turnerandtownsend.com/
en/perspectives/international-construction-market-survey-2019/ (accessed on 29 March 2021).