An Integrated Framework for Worker Planning and Supervision in Construction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Construction is a highly labour-intensive industry; therefore, the planning of worker crews is vital to achieving quality, cost, schedule and productivity targets. However, current construction practices do not initiate worker planning during the early stages of construction, nor do they pay attention to the full life cycle of the project. These pitfalls lead to worker demotivation and performance and productivity losses. Comprehensive worker performance measurement evaluation criteria the Construction Worker Performance Index (CWPI) was developed. A pilot study was carried out to test the applicability and validity of the conceptual framework. After conducting an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis, relative weights for the technical skills assessment framework of Borcherding et al. (2001) were refined; and, the technical skills assessment framework was expanded by adding more sub-attributes to make it suitable for assessing construction workers of Alberta, Canada. The CWPI worker performance measurement formula was finalized using two rounds of surveys based on Delphi survey principles. A worker grading scheme was developed that classifies workers beyond current conventional worker planning, which is based only on skill levels. A cohesion measurement framework was developed based the guidelines provided Carron et al. (1985) and Widmeyer et al. (1985). By integrating different aspects related to worker planning, an overall worker planning framework was created to cover the full life cycle of a construction project. The applicability of the developed framework was field-tested on a construction site in Alberta, Canada. The CWPI and cohesion values of 114 construction workers were measured and documented. Nine construction worker crews (further divided in to twenty sub-groups) were observed, and the structures of the worker crews were studied. Characteristics of high and low performing worker crews were identified, and relationships between factors were investigated. Management level perspective about the developed framework was obtained through a survey conducted among 28 building industry practitioners. Relationships among the factors of the framework were investigated using a correlation analysis. A regression analysis was conducted to determine the causality between input factors and the cohesion level of worker crews. Finally, the limitations of the research were identified, and recommendations for future research were provided.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».