CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY OF DESIGN

AND ENGINEERING

By H. Randolph Thomas,1 Member, ASCE, Q. Coco Korte,2

Victor E. Sanvido,3 Member, ASCE, and M. Kevin Parfitt,4 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a conceptual model for measuring the productivity of design professionals
during the contract document phase. Unlike traditional cost accounting methods that rely on careful delineation
of time into numerous cost codes, the proposed system relies on the measurement of design output. Rules of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

credit and conversion factors are initially developed for unique classes of projects. The paper explains how these
parameters are developed. Thereafter, these parameters are used and no further development is necessary. The
remaining input to the system involves the tracking of construction documents as drafts are developed, reviewed,
revised, and approved. The system is simple and easy to use. An example of an actual middle school project is
used to illustrate the calculations. It is shown that the measured productivity actually models the design perfor-
mance as various events disrupted the design effort. Workhour forecasts and time of completion estimates are
also illustrated.

INTRODUCTION
Productivity is an important issue in any organization, al-
though it has received limited attention in architectural and
engineering organizations. However, where projects are ‘‘fast-
tracked’’ and the schedule is tight, the need to assure satisfac-
tory productivity assumes greater importance. Unfortunately,
there is no reliable, cost-effective method for measuring pro-
ductivity in design organizations. The traditional workplace
analysis tools, such as cost accounting systems, are not suit-
able (Higgins and Dice 1984). The lack of quantitative infor-
mation is often cited as a serious deficiency.
The objective of this paper is to describe a conceptual model
for measuring the productivity of architectural and engineering
firms. The model differs from others in that the principal focus
herein is on measuring the products of the design process
rather than the delineation of workhours according to a code
of cost accounts. The scope of this paper is limited to a single
type of project that is an average-size school building. The
paper focuses on the output and input data during the construc-
tion document phase. The data source is four medium-size
architectural/engineering firms. The model is illustrated using
actual data from the design of a school project.
BACKGROUND
Architecture Design Phases
According to AIA Document B141 (AIA 1987), design pro-
fessional services occur in five phases. The first is the sche-
matic design phase. In this phase, the architect develops sche-
matic designs and drawings that illustrate the scale and
relationship of the project components. The second phase is
the design development phase. The output of this phase is
design documents and drawings that indicate and describe the
1
Prof., Pennsylvania Transp. Inst., Penn State Univ., 203 Transp. Res.
Build., University Park, PA 16802.
2
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., 212 Sackett Build., University
Park, PA.
3
Prof., Dept. of Arch. Engrg., Penn State Univ., 103 Engrg. Unit A,
University Park, PA.
4
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Arch. Engrg., Penn State Univ., 103 Engrg.
Unit A, University Park, PA.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 1999. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 3, 1997. This paper is part of the
Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 1999.
䉷ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/99/0001-0001 – 0007/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page.
Paper No. 16551.
size and character of the project. The third phase is the con-
struction document phase. The output of this phase consists of
drawings and specifications that detail construction require-
ments of the project. The fourth phase is the bidding or ne-
gotiation phase. In this phase, the architect helps the owner
obtain bids or negotiate proposals and assists with awarding
and preparing construction contracts. The last phase is the con-
struction or contract administration phase where the design
professional oversees the project on behalf of the owner. In
this research, the focus is only on the construction document
phase.
Construction Documents
The output of a design firm in the construction documents
phase is the construction contract documents, that is, drawings,
specifications, contract conditions, contract forms, and bidding
requirements (Huff 1987). Later, there may be other docu-
ments such as addenda and contract modifications needed to
modify the contract.
Productivity
The most common measure of labor productivity is the unit
rate. The unit rate is defined as:
Input (Workhours)
Productivity (Unit Rate) = (1)
Output (Units)
the input is the time spent on the preparation of the contract
documents and includes all the activities within the construc-
tion document phase. The output is the number of drawings,
specifications, etc. The productivity or unit rate for drawings
is workhour per sheet (wh/sh). The unit rate for the specifi-
cations is workhour per section (wh/sec). The unit rate for the
contract conditions, contract forms, and bidding requirements
is workhour per each (wh/each).
LITERATURE REVIEW
There has been limited research into the productivity of de-
sign firms. Most of this research has focused on white-collar
performance improvement. The research activities can be
aligned into four groups — cost accounting systems, use of sur-
rogate variables, focus on workhour input, and schedule mile-
stones.
Emphasis on Cost Accounting Systems
Most design companies have cost accounting systems that
are similar in structure to those used by construction compa-
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 1

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

 nies. Each week, employees of the design professional report
the time spent on a specific project according to a breakdown
of predefined project activities or cost codes. The accounting
department then generates the workhours and effort spent
against the budgeted workhours for each account and then cal-
culates the percentage complete based on the total workhour
budget. From these reports, managers can also see how well
the project is progressing. These systems focus on the input
or the workhours required to produce the contract documents
(output). Typically, these systems do not track project output.
Emphasis on Surrogate Variables
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
organization is doing and has done in the past,’’ it is not fea-
sible to measure productivity directly by using this system.
The system that Armentrout described focuses mainly on
schedule milestones, which are time and input based.
DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN FIRMS
The size of the design firm may also affect productivity.
Four architectural/engineering firms were studied during this
research. The characteristics of the four firms are listed in Ta-
ble 1. As can be seen, the four firms are very similar in size.

The four design firms were selected because they were gen-
erally similar in size, and they were all involved in the design
White developed a productivity measurement model (White of middle school projects. Design Firm 4 was used for the
and Austin 1989) that uses weighted values to apply to work case study whereas the other three were used to evaluate the
tasks. It is a workload forecasting model developed for larger variability of practices between firms.
organizations. The productivity model involves five steps: (1)
Select the factors that drive the workload; (2) weight the fac-
tors according to their relative importance as workload drivers; DEFINE REFERENCE PROJECT
(3) combine the weighted factors into a model; (4) collect data
to establish the overall model; and (5) validate the model. The size and scope of a school project varies according to
The model is basically used to estimate the number of work- the number of students, the location, and type. Different types
hours needed to complete a large project or program. The tech- require different facilities. Normally, an elementary school re-
nique does not identify problems with individual departments quires less square footage of auditorium space than a middle
or subgroups. The model is too broad for a specific project. school, even if they have the same number of students. An
elementary school will typically use the auditorium or gym-
nasium as the cafeteria. Middle schools often have one midsize
Emphasis on Workhour Input gymnasium and use the auditorium as the cafeteria. A high
According to Eldin (1991), researchers have focused more school often requires a separate cafeteria and auditorium.
of their attention on the management of a project during the Some high schools have bigger gymnasiums; some may even
construction phase, rather than on the design phase. One rea- have two. It is important to define clearly an ‘‘average-size
son is that the cost of the engineering phase is much less than school project,’’ because the design effort differs with the size
the cost of the construction phase. Regardless of the actual and scope. The conceptual model is presented for an average
dollar amounts, however, the output of the design phase is the middle school.
major source of income for architectural, architectural/engi- Based on the Department of Education of Pennsylvania, Re-
neering, and engineering firms. Therefore, the management ap- port #30 (1995), the average new middle school has 1,113
proach used during the engineering phase may determine the students and an area consisting of 12,611 m2 (135,698 ft2).
gains and losses for the firm. Eldin developed a system using The 1995 construction cost was about $13,000,000. The cost
the project work breakdown structure. In his article, Eldin ad- was $1,030/m2 ($95.74/ft2), and the cost per student was about
dressed in detail the development of a control budget, a project $11,772. This size project was selected for further study.
schedule, and a progress measurement procedure. The system Each of the four design firms was asked to provide specific
is based on a traditional cost-accounting system used by con- data for a middle school project similar to the one described
struction firms. The work breakdown-based system focuses on earlier. Based on these data, the reference project was selected
the input, which is the workhours. Yet in design firms, the as one having an area consisting of 11,152 m2 (120,000 ft2)
workhours are very difficult to track because the architects and and 1,000 students. It is a two-story building, with a 994 m2
engineers may spend much of their time on indirect production (10,700 ft2) gymnasium and a 1,000 seat auditorium that can
tasks. In addition, architectural and engineering time is often be used as a cafeteria. The 1995 construction cost is $1,076/
very fractured making accurate recording of time difficult. m2 ($100/ft2). The data for the reference project are summa-
Thompson (1988) described the design and implementation rized in Table 2.
of a performance measurement system applied to engineer de-
sign activities. The first component in the system is a daily TABLE 1. Characteristics of Four A/E Firms
time sheet to be completed by each engineer showing what Prepare
the engineer did with his/her time. The engineer indicates the Firm engineering Person doing Use Number of
percentage of time spent in different areas, such as nondesign number drawings drafting CAD employees
items. The second system component is to establish a goal of (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
having at least 40% of each engineer’s time spent on direct 1 Yes Draftsman Yes 20
production tasks. Thompson’s system is conceptual and, like 2 Yes Architect No 23
Eldin’s, the focus is on the input workhours, not the output. 3 No Draftsman Yes 16
4 Yes Architect/engineer Yes 40
Emphasis on Schedule Milestones
Armentrout (1986) described a commitment management TABLE 2. Reference Middle School Project
system to measure performance in an engineering firm. The Construction
system is based on the principle that management attention at Number cost
all levels is directed toward ensuring that commitments are Area of stu- Gymnasium [dollars/m2
met. A commitment is a pledge or promise to the client to [m2 (ft2)] dents [m2 (ft2) Other facilities Stories (dollars/ft2)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
provide a deliverable product or to accomplish a project mile-
stone by a specified date. Although the commitment manage- 11,152 1,000 994 1,000 seat audi- 2 1,076
(120,000) (10,700) torium (100)
ment system gives an overall understanding of ‘‘how well the
2 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

 PARAMETERS FOR MEASURING OUTPUT
Define Design Output
The output of a design firm is the construction documents
that includes the drawings, specifications, bidding require-
ments, contract forms, and contract conditions (Huff 1987).
Each design firm provided a recent project that was similar to
the reference project, and the actual output for these projects
was documented as summarized in Table 3. The output for
Firm 3 is limited to the architectural documents because the
engineering drawings are done by outside consulting firms.
Output from Firm 1 was not available. As can be seen from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
marks, yen, and pounds can be exchanged for an equivalent
amount (or value) of pounds or another currency such as dol-
lars.
The first step is to define a standard drawing or specification
division. In theory, the choice of a standard is irrelevant. In
practice, it is usually selected as an output document that oc-
curs frequently. In this formulation, the unit rate (workhour
per sheet) for the architectural detail drawings is used as the
standard. Conversion factors for the other outputs are calcu-
lated using
Conversion Factorij

Table 3, the outputs are very similar. The most notable excep-
Unit Rate for the Document in Questionij
tions are the architectural wall section and civil drawings for =
Firm 3. Unit Rate for Architectural Detail Drawings (2)

Develop Conversion Factors
The first step in developing the conceptual model is to com-
pute conversion factors. It is known that the various outputs
in Table 3 require different labor resources. For example, a
mechanical drawing will require more workhours than a
plumbing drawing, and these will require more workhours
than a landscape drawing. Differences such as these exist for
all outputs included in the study. These differences are ac-
counted for by using conversion factors. The logic of conver-
sion factors is explained elsewhere (Thomas and Napolitan
1995; Thomas and Raynar 1997).
In practice, conversion factors show how much more or less
difficult a drawing is to produce compared to another drawing
(Sanders and Thomas 1990). The theory behind conversion
factors is that of earned value. Conversion factors are analo-
gous to monetary exchange rates. For example, a mix of
TABLE 3. Average Output for Reference Project
where i = the contract document number; and j = design firm
number. Once conversion factor values have been calculated
for all firms, the values can be evaluated and a final conversion
factor can be estimated.
The unit rates for each contract document type were pro-
vided by each design firm. These are summarized in Table 4.
The conversion factors using (2) for each firm are summarized
in Table 5. As can be seen, there is general consistency for the
conversion factors between firms even though the unit rates
vary widely. However, differences occur because of unique
company practices, like the number of details per drawing and
the use of CAD. For instance, Firm 4 normally finishes most
of the architecture plan drawings in the design development
phase. Thus, in the construction document phase, only ⬃30%
of the architecture plan work remains. Therefore, the architec-
tural plan unit rate of 25 wh/sh (Table 4) is comparatively low.
Also, Firm 2 does not use CAD, which explains the much
higher number of workhour per sheet for all categories. Thus,

Unit of TABLE 4. Average Unit Rates (workhours per document) for

Contract document measure Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 Reference Project
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Contract document Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4
Drawings (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Architectural plan sh 10 10 6
Drawings
Architectural detail sh 7 10 12
Architectural plan 59 115 57 25
Architectural elevation sh 3 5 4 Architectural detail 66 127 60 50
Architectural wall section sh 5 20 5
Architectural elevation 56 110 45 40
Interior sh 4 4 10
Architectural wall section 64 123 60 60
Structural sh 15 — 8
Interior 64 125 40 40
Electrical sh 20 — 8 Structural 64 — — 50
Plumbing sh 16 — 12 Electrical 42 — — 40
Mechanical sh 11 — 8 Plumbing 20 — — 45
Civil sh 10 20 8
Mechanical 56 — — 45
Landscape sh 5 3 2 Civil 80 130 60 55
Specification section
Landscape 24 80 60 35
Division 1 sec 27 26 24
Specification section
Division 2 sec 20 22 27
Division 1 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 3 sec 3 3 3 Division 2 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 4 sec 4 3 3
Division 3 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 5 sec 3 4 4 Division 4 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 6 sec 2 1 1
Division 5 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 7 sec 12 11 12
Division 6 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 8 sec 8 8 8
Division 7 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 9 sec 8 7 6
Division 8 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 10 sec 5 4 4
Division 9 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 11 sec 3 2 6
Division 10 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 12 sec — — —
Division 11 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 13 sec — — —
Division 12 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 14 sec 1 2 2
Division 13 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 15 sec 26 25 25
Division 14 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Division 16 sec 28 29 32
Division 15 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Other
Division 16 0.7 4.3 3.75 3.5
Contract conditions each 1 1 1
Other
Contract form each 1 1 1
Contract conditions 2 10 8 10
Bid instructions/proposal each 1 1 1 Contract form 1 5 3 4
Note: sh = sheet; sec = section. Bid instructions/proposal 1 5 3 4

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 3

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

 TABLE 5. Summary of Conversion Factors milestone is the combination of the second review and revi-
Contract document Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firm 4 sion, and it is called review and revision. The third milestone
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) is reached when the drawing is sent to the quality control (QC)
team for review. The last milestone is the combination of the
Drawings
Architectural plan 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.50
QC review, final revision, and approval. It is called final ap-
Architectural detail 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 proval. The last milestone is reached when the drawing is fi-
Architectural elevation 0.85 0.87 0.75 0.80 nally approved and stamped.
Architectural wall section 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.20 The research found that the rules of credit are different for
Interior 0.97 0.98 0.67 0.80 different types of drawings and documents because different
Structural 0.97 — — 1.00 types of documents require different effort (input) to produce.
Electrical 0.64 — — 0.80
Plumbing 0.30 — — 0.90
For example, the structural engineer may spend more time up
front on calculations, so that the time spent on the first draft
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mechanical 0.85 — — 0.90

Civil 1.21 1.02 1.00 1.10 is more than the time needed to advance the architectural
Landscape 0.36 0.63 1.00 0.70 drawings to the first milestone. The research also found that
Specification section there was sufficient consistency between firms to define uni-
Division 1 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 form rules of credit. The rules are expressed in Table 6. These
Division 2 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Division 3 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
rules are an average of all four firms. Like conversion factors,
Division 4 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 the rules of credit are developed at the beginning of system
Division 5 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 development and are used thereafter for all similar projects.
Division 6 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Division 7 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Illustrative Example
Division 8 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Division 9 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
To illustrate the use of the information in Tables 5 and 6 to
Division 10 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Division 11 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 calculate the credited quantity of output for each contract doc-
Division 12 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 ument type, suppose during a given week a design team pro-
Division 13 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 duces the output shown in Table 7 for the reference project.
Division 14 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 Each category of design output is multiplied by the appropriate
Division 15 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 rule of credit in Table 6. The sum of the outputs in each cat-
Division 16 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
egory yields the credited quantities shown in the last column
Other
Contract conditions 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.20 in Table 7. In this example, the team is credited for producing
Contract form 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 2.05 architectural plans and 1.20 architectural detail drawings.
Bid instructions/proposal 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 The team also produced 3.00 structural and 2.20 electrical
drawings.
from this analysis, it is concluded that conversion factors
Equivalent Quantities
should be uniquely developed for each firm.
Conversion factors are developed uniquely for classes of If the conceptual system went no further than Table 7, each
projects. These factors are used thereafter for each project in team member would need to divide his/her time according to
the class. Thus, conversion factors need to be developed only the contract documents listed in Table 7. This is normally a
once for each class of similar projects. burdensome task for the team to do accurately because usually
there are many other nonoutput-related categories to which
Rules of Credit time can also be charged. In the conceptual system, the outputs
In this research, the units of output are sheets for drawings, TABLE 6. Rules of Credit
sections for specifications, and each for the other contract doc-
uments. The simplest method of measuring output is to mea- Review
sure or count the units of work completed (Thomas and Kra- Contract First Second and Final
mer 1987). However, for design work, there are procedures document draft draft revision approval Total
requiring multiple stages of development, review, revision, and (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
approval. It may take longer than the typical reporting time of Architectural
1 week for designers to produce one unit of output. Thus, at plan 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.10 1.00
the end of a reporting period, there may be a number of par- Architectural de-
tially completed documents for which some credit is appro- tail 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.10 1.00
Architectural ele-
priate. Fortunately, this problem can be handled by applying vation 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.10 1.00
rules of credit to the output. Rules of credit recognize partially Architectural
completed work and provide an accurate completion status wall section 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.10 1.00
without the added expense of detailed physical measurements. Interior 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.10 1.00
Rules of credit require the definition of incremental mile- Structural 0.45 0.20 0.25 0.10 1.00
stones describing the completion of specific subtasks and Electrical 0.30 0.35 0.25 0.10 1.00
Plumbing 0.50 0.15 0.25 0.10 1.00
weighted values or predetermined percentages for achieving Mechanical 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.10 1.00
each milestone. Through interviews with the four design firms, Civil 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.10 1.00
these milestones and weighted values were defined. In each Landscape 0.15 0.50 0.25 0.10 1.00
firm, documents pass through four phases. The initial mile- Specifications
stone is the first draft. The first milestone is reached when the and other doc-
first draft is forwarded to the project manager for review. The uments 0.45 0.20 0.25 0.10 1.00
second milestone is the combination of first review and detail Note: Milestone description — First draft complete and forwarded for
draft, and it is called second draft. The second milestone is review; initial review and second draft completed, forwarded for review;
second review and revision complete, forwarded for QC review; and QC
reached when the second draft of the same drawing is pre- review and revisions complete, approved, and stamped.
sented to the project manager for the second review. The third
4 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

 TABLE 7. Weekly Design Output (Credited Quantities) Sum- from Table 4. The exception is Firm 2, which does not use
mary CAD (Table 1). However, it should be obvious that the con-
Review Credited version factors used in the productivity model should be spe-
Contract First Second and Final quanti- cific to a particular firm.
document draft draft revision approval ties
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) CASE STUDY
Architectural
plan 1 2 3 2 2.05 To illustrate the conceptual system, a case study project de-
Architectural de- signed by Firm 4 was studied. The project was an $8,000,000
tail 2 1 1 1 1.20 addition to a combination school and was not one of the original
Architectural ele- projects used in the earlier model development. The project
vation — — — — — added 4,460 m2 (48,000 ft2) new classroom and office space to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Architectural
wall section — — — — —
the middle school, a 883 m2 (9,500 ft2) renovation, and a 697
Interior — — — — — m2 (7,500 ft2) cafeteria for the existing 20,120 m2 (216,500 ft2)
Structural 4 3 2 1 3.00 high school, and a 6,040 m2 (65,000 ft2) alteration to the ele-
Electrical 3 3 1 — 2.20 mentary school building. The estimated design outputs and
Plumbing — — — — — workhours are given in Table 9. The estimated outputs were
Mechanical — — — — —
Civil — — — — —
TABLE 8. Weekly Equivalent Quantity Summary
Landscape — — — — —
Specifications Credited Conver- Equivalent
and other doc- Document category quantity sion factor quantities
uments — — — — —
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Note: Milestone description — First draft complete and forwarded for
Architectural plan 2.05 0.50 1.03
review; initial review and second draft completed, forwarded for review;
Architectural detail 1.20 1.00 1.20
second review and revision complete, forwarded for QC review; and QC
Structural 3.00 1.00 3.00
review and revisions complete, approved, and stamped.
Electrical 2.20 0.80 1.76
Total architectural detail draw-
ings (equivalent) — — 6.99
of each document type are related to a standard output (ar-
chitectural detail drawings), and equivalent outputs are cal-
culated using the following equation: TABLE 9. Estimated Contract Documents and Unit Rates for
Case Study Project — Firm 4
Equivalent Quantities
Contract Estimated Estimated Estimated Conver- Equivalent
= Credited Quantities ⫻ Conversion Factor (3) document output unit rate workhours sion factor quantity
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
This calculation is illustrated in Table 8 using the conversion Drawings
factors from Table 5 for Firm 4. The varied outputs of the Architectural
design team are equivalent to having produced 6.99 architec- plan 6 25 150.0 0.50 3.00
Architectural de-
tural detail drawings.
tail 12 50 600.0 1.00 12.00
Architectural ele-
DAILY TIME SHEETS vation 4 40 160.0 0.80 3.20
Architectural
The advantage of measuring output as expressed in Tables wall section 5 60 300.0 1.20 6.00
7 and 8 can now become evident in the way the conceptual Interior 10 40 400.0 0.80 8.00
Structural 8 50 400.0 1.00 8.00
model accounts for the inputs (workhours) in (1). Historically, Electrical 8 40 320.0 0.80 6.40
it is difficult to accurately record design team workhours ac- Plumbing 12 45 540.0 0.90 10.80
cording to the document categories in Table 7. The problem Mechanical 8 45 360.0 0.90 7.20
is compounded by the addition of cost codes covering client Civil 8 35 280.0 1.10 8.80
Landscape 2 35 70.0 0.70 1.40
meetings and other activities not related directly to document Specification sec-
production. In this conceptual model, the only parameter that tion
is used is the total team workhours assigned to the project Division 1 24 3.5 84.0 0.07 1.68
during the reporting period. This number includes the hours Division 2 7 3.5 24.5 0.07 0.49
Division 3 1 3.5 3.5 0.07 0.07
devoted to producing the output in Table 7 plus any ancillary Division 4 3 3.5 10.5 0.07 0.21
hours. One advantage of this model is that the status of the Division 5 5 3.5 17.5 0.07 0.35
output in Table 7 can be verified, and the total workhours is Division 6 1 3.5 3.5 0.07 0.07
known to be accurate because it can be collected from payroll Division 7 11 3.5 38.5 0.07 0.77
information. Division 8 7 3.5 24.5 0.07 0.49
Division 9 7 3.5 24.5 0.07 0.49
Division 10 11 3.5 38.5 0.07 0.77
CALCULATE PRODUCTIVITY Division 11 1 3.5 3.5 0.07 0.07
Division 12 3 3.5 10.5 0.07 0.21
Eq. (1) can now be applied to calculate the productivity of Division 13 0 3.5 0.0 0.07 0.00
the design team. If it is assumed that the team spent 530 wk Division 14 2 3.5 7.0 0.07 0.14
Division 15 25 3.5 87.5 0.07 1.75
during the same time frame in which the output in Table 8 Division 16 32 3.5 112.0 0.07 2.24
was produced, then the weekly design team productivity is Other
Contract condi-
530 tions 1 10 10.0 0.20 0.20
Productivity = = 75.9 wk/sh (4) Contract form 1 4 4.0 0.08 0.08
6.99
Bid instructions/
proposal 1 4 4.0 0.08 0.08
The productivity of 75.9 wh/sh is comparable to the unit rate Total — — 4,088.0 — 84.96
for architectural detail drawings for three of the four firms
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 5

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

 provided by Firm 4. The estimated workhours were calculated
using the unit rates for Firm 4 in Table 4. The conversion factors
specific to Firm 4 (Table 5) were used to compute the total
equivalent output of 84.96 architectural detail drawings.
Weekly Productivity
The construction documents phase began on May 2 and was
estimated to last 15 weeks. The weekly output and productivity
of the design team are summarized in Table 10. Fig. 1 shows
the weekly productivity of the team. It can be seen that there
was a somewhat slow start the first 2 weeks. The first week
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
quite well at this stage of completion. However, Weeks 6 and
7 were not good weeks because the team had to divert its at-
tention to other matters. Performance was impaired despite an
increase in the number of workhours charged to the project.
This is also reflected in Fig. 1. Week 8 returned to normal.
Because the values and trends in Fig. 1 reflect actual occur-
rences and performance, it is concluded that the conceptual sys-
tem satisfactorily modeled the productivity and the effect of the
significant problems affecting the design team without the need
to report workhours by detailed cost codes.

Cumulative Productivity and Workhour Forecast

consisted of only 2 workdays, and there was no output. There-
after, the productivity was relatively consistent for 3 weeks.
Some coordination problems occurred during Week 4 requiring
limited rework for the architectural group. However, the con-
ceptual system models the productivity during this time frame
despite the variations in output and stages of completion. Gen-
erally, there were few problems reported, and Fig. 1 shows this
to be the case. The data show that the team consistently per-
formed at 25–30 wh/architectural detail sheet compared to the
estimate of 50 wh/sh in Table 4. The design team performed
Fig. 2 shows the cumulative productivity of the team. Or-
dinarily, one could forecast from this curve that the final pro-
ductivity of the team would be ⬃30 wh/sh. However, this
forecast will be valid only if the work content of the output
remains the same. In discussions with the design firm, the
project managers indicated that the design effort normally
slows appreciably as the work nears completion. The consen-
sus of the project managers from the four firms is expressed
graphically in Fig. 3.

FIG. 1. Weekly Productivity in Terms of Architectural Detail FIG. 2. Cumulative Productivity in Terms of Architectural De-
Drawings tail Drawings

TABLE 10. Weekly Output of Design Team in Equivalent Architectural Detail Drawings — Firm 4
Contract Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
documents ending 5/3 ending 5/10 ending 5/17 ending 5/24 ending 5/31 ending 6/7 ending 6/14 ending 6/21
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Architectural plan — 1.20 — — — — — 1.28
Architectural detail — 0.40 — — 2.00 — — 5.40
Architectural eleva-
tion — — 0.80 — — — — 1.80
Architectural section — — 1.00 — — — — 2.25
Interior — — — — 2.00 — — 4.50
Structural — — 3.60 — — — — 1.60
Electrical — 1.20 — 1.20 — — — 1.90
Plumbing — — — 6.00 — — — 0.90
Mechanical — — 3.20 — — — — 1.10
Civil — — 1.40 1.40 — — — 2.40
Landscape — — — — 0.30 — — 1.00
Specification — — — — — 4.41 1.96 —
Other — — — — — 0.16 0.07 —
Equivalent architec-
tural detail 0 1.96 9.68 7.90 3.81 4.57 2.03 24.13
Cumulative architec-
tural detail 0 1.96 11.64 19.54 23.35 27.92 29.95 54.08
Workhours 80.0 173.5 149.1 202.0 88.0 250.5 284.8 416.0
Cumulative work-
hours 80.0 253.5 402.6 604.6 692.6 943.1 1,227.9 1,643.9
Weekly productivity
(wh/sh) — 88.5 15.4 25.6 23.1 54.8 140.3 17.2
Cumulative produc-
tivity (wh/sh) — 129.3 34.6 30.9 29.66 33.8 41.0 30.4

6 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999

J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The City College of New York - CUNY on 12/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 3. PF Curve for Architectural Detail Drawings
FIG. 4. Graphical Illustration of PF Forecast
To forecast the workhours at completion using Fig. 3, it is
necessary to calculate the performance factor (PF) at the end
of Week 8, which is defined as
Estimated Unit Rate at Completion
PF =
Actual Unit Rate at the End of Week i
where i = week when the forecast is made. The estimated unit
rate at completion is 50.0 wh/sh (Table 4), and the actual unit
rate at the end of Week 8 is 30.4 (Table 10). Using (4), these
values yield a PF = 50.0/30.4 = 1.64 that indicates that the
performance to date is much better than the estimated unit rate.
However, since 8 weeks have elapsed, from Fig. 3, the PF
should be 1.50 meaning that performance is not as good as
the 1.64 value would indicate. To forecast the productivity at
completion, the difference, ⌬ between the actual PF and the
predicted PF, is calculated as ⌬ = 1.64 ⫺ 1.50 = 0.14. If the
performance progresses as normally expected, then the PF at
completion should be 1.00 ⫹ 0.14 = 1.14. This concept is
illustrated graphically in Fig. 4. The forecasted unit rate at
completion can be forecasted to be unit ratef = 50.0/1.14 =
43.9 wh/sh. From Table 9, the total equivalent quantities is
84.96, which when multiplied by the forecasted unit rate gives
a workhour forecast of 3,730. This represents a 358-workhour
underrun. There are 2,086 workhours remaining or ⬃52 man-
weeks or 5 weeks for a 10 person design team.
Percent Complete and Completion Date
The percent complete of the project can be readily calcu-
lated using the data already presented. From Table 9, there is
a total of 84.96 equivalent architectural detail drawings. From
Table 10, a total of 54.08 equivalent drawings have been com-
J. Archit. Eng., 1999, 5(1): 1-7
FIG. 5. Graphical Forecast of Percent Complete
pleted. This leads to an estimate of 64% complete. Note that
if the percentage of the budgeted workhours are used to cal-
culate the percent complete, then the estimate would be only
40%. This example clearly illustrates the erroneous possibili-
ties if the estimate is not based on quantities of output.
The completion date can be predicted using Fig. 5. The
figure includes both an optimistic and realistic projection.
Clearly, barring unforeseen problems, the work should be
complete within the projected 15-week schedule.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a conceptual model for measuring
the productivity of a design firm. It is based on recognized
cost engineering principles but does not follow a traditional
cost accounting format. The system does not rely on the de-
lineation of workhours into various cost codes as is the normal
practice in design firms. Rather, this model relies on the mea-
surement of output documents and the conversion of these
outputs to a standard document type. Using this approach, the
total workhours can be used to calculate the productivity for
the standard document. Various performance parameters can
then be calculated to measure performance, forecast resource
(5) requirements, and predict completion dates. The system is sim-
ple and easy to understand.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
AIA. (1987). ‘‘Standard form of agreement between owner and archi-
tect.’’ AIA Document B141, American Institute of Architects, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Armentrout, D. R. (1986). ‘‘Engineering productivity management and per-
formance measurement.’’ J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 2(3), 141 – 147.
Eldin, N. N. (1991). ‘‘Management of engineering/design phase.’’ J.
Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 117(1), 163 – 175.
Higgins, B. K., and Dice, C. M. (1984). ‘‘Quantifying white-collar func-
tion.’’ Nat. Productivity Rev., Summer.
Huff, E. S. (1987). ‘‘Standardization of construction documents.’’ J.
Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 3(3), 232 – 238.
Sanders, S. R., and Thomas, H. R. (1990). ‘‘Masonry conversion factors.’’
Masonry Soc. J., 9(1), 95 – 104.
Thomas, H. R., and Kramer, D. F. (1987). ‘‘The manual of construction
productivity measurement and performance evaluation.’’ Source Doc-
ument 35, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Tex., 186.
Thomas, H. R., and Napolitan, C. L. (1995). ‘‘Quantitative effects of
construction changes on labor productivity.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and
Mgmt., ASCE, 121(3), 290 – 296.
Thomas, H. R., and Raynar, K. A. (1995). ‘‘Scheduled overtime and labor
productivity: A quantitative analysis.’’ J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt.,
ASCE, 123(2), 181 – 188.
Thompson, R. L. (1988). ‘‘Design and implementation of a performance
measurement system in the civil engineering design section: A case
study,’’ MS thesis, School of Systems and Logistics of the Air Force
Institute of Technology, Air Force University.
White, C. R., and Austin, J. S. (1989). ‘‘Productivity measurement: Untan-
gling the white-collar web.’’ J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 5(4), 371 – 378.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1999 / 7