Labour Output On Painting
Labour Output On Painting
Labour Output On Painting
INTRODUCTION
A building is one of mans basic requirements
after food and can be used to determine the
development of any nation. Research has shown
that the cost of building a house is high and
principally depends on cost of labour and
materials (Maloni, 1983, Oloko, 1985, Omange,
2000 ; Udegbe, 1997).
The effect of labour cost on building projects
though important, has not been singularly treated
because of scarce literature on labour dynamics.
Adeyemi and Alli (2000) believe that the primary
purpose of cost analysis is to optimize the clients
expenditure in order to have good value for
money.
Reducing the cost of building construction
requires indept studies of the actual cost of labour
and comparing it with results from other similar
studies. Cost reduction in building construction
must take cognisance of factors like labour
welfare, tactics and interplay, relationship with
sub ordinates, skills acquired coupled with
educational qualification and the overall
importance of labour force in construction.
Different workers have different variables
affecting their levels of productivity. The most
prevalent includes the following; Level of
education / training, Method of work, Direction
of flow of work, Personal health / hygiene,
Motivational factors, Type of tools, Machine,
Equipment and Materials employed, Character
traits and Inter-personal skills, Work-load to be
executed. Expected quality of work, Location of
180
MIKE I. UDEGBE
The above results gave rise to the undermentioned hypotheses in line with the outlined
objectives of study.
Hypothesis I: Understanding labour tactics
and interplay cannot affect labour cost of
construction.
This hypothesis was tested using the chisquare, given that the frequency counts were
occurring in two or more mutually exclusive
categories of data. The result of the x2 is presented
in table 1.
Since the calculated value of chi square of
19.6 , is grater than the chi square table value of
df = 2 at .05 level of significance which is 5.99, the
null hypothesis is hereby rejected.
This shows that deliberate actions of labour
force by using delay tactics and wastage of
materials increases cost of construction, slow
down pace of work and affects overall daily output
of labour.
Hypothesis II: Labour force does not play
any significant role in construction.
The hypothesis was also tested using the chisquare. The result of the hypotheses test is
presented in table 2.
Since the calculated chi-square value of 11.77
is greater than the chi-square table value of df = 3
at 5% level of significance, which is 7.815, the
null hypothesis is rejected. This shows that
without the use or influence of labour force on
any site, progress on site will be minimal and the
eventual total cost of a building will be high.
Hypothesis III: Relationship with subordinates cannot affect Labour output/production.
The calculated value of chi-square on table 3
gives 8.66 which is greater than the chi-square
table value of df = 2 at 5% level of significance
which is 5.99. With this result, the null hypothesis
is rejected. This result explains the suggestion
that subordinates good public relationship with
Table 1: Test of attitudes and tactics to work
Option
oi frequency e i o i -e i (oi ei)2 (oi ei)2/ei
Positive
Negative
Neutral
13
2
-
5
5
5
Total
15
15
8
-3
-5
64
9
25
12.8
1.8
5
98
19.6
18
4.5
5.5
4.5
0.5
4.5 - 1.5
4.5 - 4.5
18
30.25
0.25
2.25
20.25
6.72
0.05
0.5
4.5
11.77
7
2
9
3
3
3
4
-1
-3
16
1
9
181
5.33
0.33
3.0
8.66
Table 4: Observed labour force working time, idle time and overall daily input for Edo state
Day
Monday
Labour type
Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
Tuesday
Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
Wednesday Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
Thursday Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
Friday
Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
Saturday
Skilled labour
Unskilled labour
8.00am
8.00am
8.00am
7.40am
8.00am
8.00am
7.50am
7.50am
8.30am
8.30am
8.15am
8.15am
8.30am
8.05am
8.05am
7.45am
8.30am
8.25am
8.15am
7.55am
9.00am
8.30am
8.35am
8.25am
Effective work
duration
morning
hours
8.30am- 12.05noon
8.05am- 12.30noon
8.05am- 12.30noon
7.45am- 12.30noon
8.30am- 12.15noon
8.25am- 12.15noon
8.15am- 1.00noon
7.55am- 1.00noon
9.00am- 12.05noon
8.35am- 12.05noon
8.35am- 12.10noon
8.25am- 12.10noon
Break
time
182
MIKE I. UDEGBE
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Uromi
Ekpoma
Abudu
Igueben
Auchi
Ubiaja
Benin-city
Afuze
Agenebode
Ehor
Fugar
Idogbo
Igarra
Iguobazuwa
Irrua
Okada
Sabogida-ora
Uselu
120
118
116
117
118
116
116
126
118
120
118
116
118
120
120
118
118
118
118
117.4
116.4
118
117.6
116.8
116
120
118
118
116
114
116
118
118
116
118
118
118
117
116.5
118
117.6
116.9
117.6
118
118
116
116
114
116
116
116
116
116
116
117.6
118.2
117.6
118
117.5
117
117.6
118
118
116
116
116
114
114
114
114
108
108
94.08
94
93.5
94.08
94.1
94
94.4
95
95
94
93
94
94
95
95
94
94
96
94
94.4
94.08
94
93.8
94
94.4
94
94
94
93
94
93
94
94
94
94
95
94.5
94.08
94.08
94.3
94.08
93.7
94.08
94
93
93
93
94
95
94
94
93
94
94
1998
24
23.52
22.8
23.5
23.5
22.7
23.52
25
25
23
25
24
24
24
25
23
23
24
1999
2000
average
23.52
23
23.2
23.5
23.6
23.8
23.52
24
23
23
24
23
22
23
24
23
24
24
24
24.4
23
24
23
22.5
23
22
23
23
24
23
22
23
24
23
24
23
82.77
82.42
81.716
82.438
82.278
81.74
71.572
83.6
82.5
82.1
81.8
81.2
81.4
82.1
82.4
81.4
81.3
81.6
140
UROMI
120
EKPOMA
100
ABUDU
80
IGUEBEN
60
40
20
Average 118.3889 117.5556 116.6444 115.5278 94.28667 93.98222 93.87889 23.86333 23.39667 23.21667 81.463
of total
Source: Researchers Field Work, April 2000.
140
AUCHI
120
AUCHI
100
UBIAJA
UBIAJA
BENIN-CITY
BENIN-CITY
80
AFUZE
AFUZE
60
40
20
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YEAR
YEAR
140
120
AGENEBODE
EHOR
100
FUGAR
IDOGBO
80
IGARRA
60
40
20
0
140
120
IGUOBAZUWA
100
IRRUA
OKADA
80
SABOGIDA-ORA
USELU
60
40
20
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YEAR
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YEAR
183
No of
sites visited
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
Avg measured
time in hrs
Avg area
covered in m 2
3
3
1 5 /6
2
2 3 /4
3
2 1 /2
2 1 /2
3
3
2
2
21 /2
2
2 1 /2
2 1 /2
2 3 /4
1 3 /4
44
45
43
45
40
44
40
46
42
40
40
42
44
39
43
42
42
40
Normalise avg
measured time
Normalised avg
output in no.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
59
50
94
90
59
59
64
74
56
54
80
84
71
78
69
68
61
92
184
Maloney, W.F. 1983.Productivity Improvement: The
Influence of Labour. Journal of Contractor
Engineering and Management, 18: 2-18
Olufemi, F. 1983. Industrial Productivity in Nigeria.
Seminar Proceedings at NISER Conference, Ibadan,
Nigeria.
MIKE I. UDEGBE
Omange, G.N. 2000. Local Construction Materials for
Low Cost Housing in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Jolly
Amin Press,.
Udegbe, M.I. 1997. Labour Force Utilization in
Construction. Seminar Paper Delivered in NBRRI
Lagos, Nigeria.